Page 1 of 4 [ 63 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Dec 2012, 10:06 am

Go back about 55 million years and you will see some REAL global warming.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

ruveyn



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

22 Dec 2012, 10:49 am

May I bluntly ask your personal opinion? I do not want to make an assumption based on your comment.

Is global warming simply part of a cycle which has persisted over geologic time scales OR is it anthropogenic?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Dec 2012, 11:25 am

Bingo. That is THE question (for which I do not have a sure fire answer). We have no guarantee that taking an Oath of Poverty and going back to being hunter-gatherers will stop the current warming trend. No guarantees at all. And with positive feedback mechanisms accelerating and amplifying the warming trend it may already be too late. Your grandchildren and mine should plan on moving inland as the oceans rise.

Please see the following article:

Scientific American Nov. 2012 p 50: Global Warming: Faster than expected? by John Carey

ruveyn



Last edited by ruveyn on 22 Dec 2012, 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ianorlin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 756

22 Dec 2012, 12:35 pm

Thing is carbon dioxide prevents infrared radiation from escaping into space. You can measure this and is why infrared telescopes have to be launched into orbit.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Dec 2012, 1:43 pm

ianorlin wrote:
Thing is carbon dioxide prevents infrared radiation from escaping into space. You can measure this and is why infrared telescopes have to be launched into orbit.


Does carbon dioxide cause warming or does warming release lots of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gasses"

ruveyn



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

22 Dec 2012, 1:49 pm

That humanity throuh his tools release a lot of CO2 and other greenhouses gaz is simply undeniable and a fact. Unless you think that much combustion would not release anything.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


ianorlin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 756

22 Dec 2012, 2:19 pm

Tollorin wrote:
That humanity throuh his tools release a lot of CO2 and other greenhouses gaz is simply undeniable and a fact. Unless you think that much combustion would not release anything.
Yes you can measure carbon dioxide from combustion tihs is basic high school chemistry.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Dec 2012, 2:42 pm

Tollorin wrote:
That humanity throuh his tools release a lot of CO2 and other greenhouses gaz is simply undeniable and a fact. Unless you think that much combustion would not release anything.


Would going back to the stone age and becoming hunter-gatherers again reverse matters? Long before humans there was global warming AND global freezing. We are being urged by the Luddites and the eco-phreaks and the governments to become poor and humble. Which is nifty except that 95 percent of us will die if we do that. '

ruveyn



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

ianorlin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 756

22 Dec 2012, 3:37 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Tollorin wrote:
That humanity throuh his tools release a lot of CO2 and other greenhouses gaz is simply undeniable and a fact. Unless you think that much combustion would not release anything.


Would going back to the stone age and becoming hunter-gatherers again reverse matters? Long before humans there was global warming AND global freezing. We are being urged by the Luddites and the eco-phreaks and the governments to become poor and humble. Which is nifty except that 95 percent of us will die if we do that. '

ruveyn
Why not just reduce world populatoin that will reduce it and cause less damage. Also more population means other bad things like more traffic. So am I not an environmentalist?



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

22 Dec 2012, 5:54 pm

http://worldview3.50webs.com/6temp.chart.n.co2.jpg
Source: his CV and Pub. record~~~~ http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm http://www.scotese.com/scotesepubs.htm

Rising CO2 levels?
Increasing global temperatures?

Always question.
The only meaningful thinking is critical thinking.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Dec 2012, 10:51 pm

ianorlin wrote:
]Why not just reduce world populatoin that will reduce it and cause less damage. Also more population means other bad things like more traffic. So am I not an environmentalist?


What would you recommend to ensure a population reduction short of bloody murder or genocide?

Population will fall if the net birth-rate declines and that will happen when more people die than are being born or it becomes to expensive to hatch and raise kids.

ruveyn



Declension
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,807

22 Dec 2012, 11:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:
We are being urged by the Luddites and the eco-phreaks and the governments to become poor and humble.


There are "Luddites" on both sides of the fence. Anthropogenic climate change is a strange and abstract thing to believe in, and the evidence for it is indirect and requires mathematical analysis. A certain type of Luddite will reject it simply for that reason.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Dec 2012, 10:43 am

Declension wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
We are being urged by the Luddites and the eco-phreaks and the governments to become poor and humble.


There are "Luddites" on both sides of the fence. Anthropogenic climate change is a strange and abstract thing to believe in, and the evidence for it is indirect and requires mathematical analysis. A certain type of Luddite will reject it simply for that reason.


Unseen causes are difficult to comprehend correctly. For starters one must have a -theory- which is well tested and corroborated.

Unfortunately "climate science" is based on no such theory. Climate is an emergent property of weather which itself is the result of chaotic dynamics, which is notably intractable to mathematical methodology. Hence "climate science" is based more on -models- (the result of fitting curves to data) than it is on solid physics. The problem with -model- is that there are just too many variable parameters at work and one will end up was a hodge podge like Ptolemaic cosmology filled with epicycles and deferents and crystal spheres. That was what astronomy was like before Copernicus and Kepler led to Newtonian gravity based theory of accounting for the motion of celestial bodies.

Weather and climate are currently in a pre-Keplerian, pre-Newtonian state (so to speak).

I think of myself as a rational skeptic rather than a Luddite and I am underwhelmed by the current "scientific" consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Please recall that at one time (and not that long ago) almost ALL physicists believed in aether (it does not exist) and almost NO physicists believed in atoms (they do exist, ask any survivor from Hiroshima).

ruveyn



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

23 Dec 2012, 4:13 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Declension wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
We are being urged by the Luddites and the eco-phreaks and the governments to become poor and humble.


There are "Luddites" on both sides of the fence. Anthropogenic climate change is a strange and abstract thing to believe in, and the evidence for it is indirect and requires mathematical analysis. A certain type of Luddite will reject it simply for that reason.


Unseen causes are difficult to comprehend correctly. For starters one must have a -theory- which is well tested and corroborated.

Unfortunately "climate science" is based on no such theory. Climate is an emergent property of weather which itself is the result of chaotic dynamics, which is notably intractable to mathematical methodology. Hence "climate science" is based more on -models- (the result of fitting curves to data) than it is on solid physics. The problem with -model- is that there are just too many variable parameters at work and one will end up was a hodge podge like Ptolemaic cosmology filled with epicycles and deferents and crystal spheres. That was what astronomy was like before Copernicus and Kepler led to Newtonian gravity based theory of accounting for the motion of celestial bodies.

Weather and climate are currently in a pre-Keplerian, pre-Newtonian state (so to speak).

I think of myself as a rational skeptic rather than a Luddite and I am underwhelmed by the current "scientific" consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Please recall that at one time (and not that long ago) almost ALL physicists believed in aether (it does not exist) and almost NO physicists believed in atoms (they do exist, ask any survivor from Hiroshima).

ruveyn


Well said.

Do you think that Science/Math(s)/Supercomputers will ever attain a precise predictive understanding of weather?
or are there simply too many variables?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Dec 2012, 10:52 pm

slave wrote:

Do you think that Science/Math(s)/Supercomputers will ever attain a precise predictive understanding of weather?
or are there simply too many variables?


Not really. To deal with chaotic systems one would need infinite precision which is clearly impossible for a real physical computer. We will have to be happy qualitative descriptions of where strange attractors and strange repelors are.

Just to give you a really clear idea of the problem, take a look at the behavior of a well lubricated triple pendulum sometime. The system is completely deterministic but there is no math that will predict the behavior more than a few seconds out given a someone approximate or indeterminate initial position. Two initial position can -look- extremely similar (or even the same) yet the behavior of the triple pendulum will be very different in the two cases.

I seriously doubt we will be able to predict weather much more than ten days out, no matter how powerful our computers are.

ruveyn

ruveyn