Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
inconvenient truth- errors? 34
- Thread starter davefitz
- Start date
electricpete
Electrical
LCruiser said:
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
Step #1: We don't know how much of "global warming" is natural, how much is black carbon on e.g. snow, how much is due to change in clouds from changes in land use decreasing transpiration. Do you think that statement is incorrect?
Step #2: We know that CO2 is the base of the food chain. Do you think that statement is incorrect?
We need to establish which one of those two statements you disagree with.
Otherwise, IF the effects listed in step #1 are large enough, the benefits of CO2 emissions are a net positive.
You will maybe now notice (since your emotionalism has apparently not allowed you to see it before) that I said IF. The fact you deny the possibility based on some irrational comfort level with model outputs (remember GIGO?) would mean you think it's irrelevant. Oh, you *do* think it's irrelevant.
I, however, am not prepared to accept dogma based on ineffectual models when so many lives are at stake.
Step #2: We know that CO2 is the base of the food chain. Do you think that statement is incorrect?
We need to establish which one of those two statements you disagree with.
Otherwise, IF the effects listed in step #1 are large enough, the benefits of CO2 emissions are a net positive.
You will maybe now notice (since your emotionalism has apparently not allowed you to see it before) that I said IF. The fact you deny the possibility based on some irrational comfort level with model outputs (remember GIGO?) would mean you think it's irrelevant. Oh, you *do* think it's irrelevant.
I, however, am not prepared to accept dogma based on ineffectual models when so many lives are at stake.
A little analogy, if I may, that involves the difference between geotechnical engineers and geologists (told from a humorous point of view).
Geotechnical engineers can do 10 borings on a 1 acre site and concede that there are still many unknowns about how the soils will respond to new building loads. In contrast, a geologist can do 10 borings across northern Michigan and tell you everything you'd want to know about how the land was formed! BTW, I need to be a little bit of both in my practice...
But, it seems that there are those that want to be "geologists" only when discussing global warming. They take extremely limited bits of information and extrapolate it to the point where they're blaming mankind for the change in the climate.
To me, this is irrational when you use common sense. The earth has been polluting itself, and has been attacked by the rest of the universe, for billions of years.
There have been innumerable volcanoes. Entire continents have drifted thousands of miles apart. The magnetic poles have reversed back and forth probably hundreds of times. Giant meteors have struck the earth causing blackouts of the sun for extended periods. There have been solar variations in the sun that caused who-knows-what to happen (the sun is a dynamic place too). The equator has been cold and Michigan has actually been warm at points in the distant past. There have been hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, mudslides, avalanches, wildfires, and every other type of natural disaster, all of which would dwarf anything that's happened in the last couple thousand of years.
All of this before man ever set foot on earth.
Geotechnical engineers can do 10 borings on a 1 acre site and concede that there are still many unknowns about how the soils will respond to new building loads. In contrast, a geologist can do 10 borings across northern Michigan and tell you everything you'd want to know about how the land was formed! BTW, I need to be a little bit of both in my practice...
But, it seems that there are those that want to be "geologists" only when discussing global warming. They take extremely limited bits of information and extrapolate it to the point where they're blaming mankind for the change in the climate.
To me, this is irrational when you use common sense. The earth has been polluting itself, and has been attacked by the rest of the universe, for billions of years.
There have been innumerable volcanoes. Entire continents have drifted thousands of miles apart. The magnetic poles have reversed back and forth probably hundreds of times. Giant meteors have struck the earth causing blackouts of the sun for extended periods. There have been solar variations in the sun that caused who-knows-what to happen (the sun is a dynamic place too). The equator has been cold and Michigan has actually been warm at points in the distant past. There have been hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, mudslides, avalanches, wildfires, and every other type of natural disaster, all of which would dwarf anything that's happened in the last couple thousand of years.
All of this before man ever set foot on earth.
electricpete
Electrical
We've been hit by catastrophic meteors etc before, so anything mankind can do which is not as bad as a meteor is not worth worrying about? I don't quite see that logic.
LCruiser: I specifically identified your statement "it may be we're barking up the wrong tree, and the overall effect of CO2 is beneficial" I identified that this conflicts with widely accepted scientific findings and asks for a source. Your response dwells on the semantics of "may" without providing any referebce. I guess I could say that superintelligent 3-eyed monkeys from the Congo MAY rise up and take over the world and put mankind in slavery within the next 20 years. Apparently you would think such a claim is relevant because it MAY happen. I happen to think it requires some explanation as to the source. Otherwise, it's just a lot of hot air.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
LCruiser: I specifically identified your statement "it may be we're barking up the wrong tree, and the overall effect of CO2 is beneficial" I identified that this conflicts with widely accepted scientific findings and asks for a source. Your response dwells on the semantics of "may" without providing any referebce. I guess I could say that superintelligent 3-eyed monkeys from the Congo MAY rise up and take over the world and put mankind in slavery within the next 20 years. Apparently you would think such a claim is relevant because it MAY happen. I happen to think it requires some explanation as to the source. Otherwise, it's just a lot of hot air.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
Since you won't identify what you think is wrong, do you not agree with either statement? The situation is not that I have to prove some qualitative statements wrong. I wholeheartedly agree, as I've said before, that increasing CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. What I don't agree with is how much it affects it, or if it's even a first order forcing. Just because A causes B doesn't mean the effect is measurable. There is consensus that CO2 effects a greenhouse effect. There is not consensus that it is the sole cause.
Here's a reference for you:
Here's a reference for you:
electricpete
Electrical
Where does it suggest that the overall effect of CO2 is beneficial?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
electricpete
Electrical
Correction:
Where does it suggest that the overall effect of CO2 may be beneficial?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
Where does it suggest that the overall effect of CO2 may be beneficial?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
It doesn't. That's beyond the scope of the study.
For that, here is this which I gave you before:
But if you're not able to use a little more logic I'm afraid we won't be continuing this discussion.
For that, here is this which I gave you before:
But if you're not able to use a little more logic I'm afraid we won't be continuing this discussion.
Studies using special field experiments show the actual benefit from rising CO2 to world staples, such as corn, rice, sorghum, soybeans and wheat, they say.
By the other side because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will increase global mean temperature
By the other side because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels will increase global mean temperature
electricpete
Electrical
The first paragpraph on the linked site:
Is there any followup statement saying that the temperature record at a single location during this time period is statistically meaningless for the global climate? Nope. Do these guys have an agenda? What do you think?
Is there some reason that I am missing that we should place any faith in the information from this site? I don't see any organizational affiliation that I recognize. I suspect this is a paid political action group but I am willing to be proven wrong. Once again, being listed within google does not meet my standard for a credible source for a subject usch as this where there is so much disinformation published. If you can't come up with any credible souces or any reason to trust the sources you have identified I don't see any point in continuing the discussion either.
respectfully,
electripete
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
Is there any followup statement saying that the temperature record at a single location during this time period is statistically meaningless for the global climate? Nope. Do these guys have an agenda? What do you think?
Is there some reason that I am missing that we should place any faith in the information from this site? I don't see any organizational affiliation that I recognize. I suspect this is a paid political action group but I am willing to be proven wrong. Once again, being listed within google does not meet my standard for a credible source for a subject usch as this where there is so much disinformation published. If you can't come up with any credible souces or any reason to trust the sources you have identified I don't see any point in continuing the discussion either.
respectfully,
electripete
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
But first, how much (especially the "and so on" group...) have they donated to them? I think you will find it to be an insultingly low amount over the years. What does it work out to per day for how many people? Hardly on the scale of what the Oil for Food guys "donate" to climate alarmists supporting *their* position. Many of them get their entire paycheck that way.
-
1
- #116
moltenmetal
Chemical
It's "situational science", dudes! Don't you get it?!
Journalists are taught that there are always two sides to every story. And they deserve an airing- even if one side isn't supported by the facts, observations and consensus of the scientific community, and is discredited by the funding they receive from vested interests! For every hundred million or so people who understand that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, there's at least one person who is dead sure the Earth is as flat as Christopher Columbus's head in that Bugs Bunny cartoon! Surely these folks deserve equal time!
(Ironic isn't it- these people, who believe that every scientist since Ptolemy has been a liar, are using the promote their bizarre ideology!)
Whether global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions or not is basically irrelevant. There are enough other proven harmful effects, both environmental and political/social/economic, to warrant significant action and expenditure on the part of everyone in the developed world toward weaning ourselves from our fossil fuel addiction. The mere suggestion that human greenhouse gas emissions have a finite probability of causing irreversible and potentially catastrophic consequences to the Earth's climate that we all depend on- that too should be sufficient reason.
We in the developed nations have a responsibility to do what we can. But nothing short of a miracle will stop India, China and the rest of the developing world from developing along the cheapest, most fossil-fuel addicted lines, using the cheapest and dirtiest fossil fuel available- coal. They'll do it the same way that we in the West "developed". Don't worry- they won't bother with gasification, CO2 sequestration or co-generation unless somebody puts some money in it for them. This will happen, pretty much regardless what the rest of us do! And it's doubtful that you could provide every family in China and India with the car and a refrigerator that most North Americans take for granted without humanity drowning in the resulting filth. Global warming will be the least of our worries at that point!
Journalists are taught that there are always two sides to every story. And they deserve an airing- even if one side isn't supported by the facts, observations and consensus of the scientific community, and is discredited by the funding they receive from vested interests! For every hundred million or so people who understand that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, there's at least one person who is dead sure the Earth is as flat as Christopher Columbus's head in that Bugs Bunny cartoon! Surely these folks deserve equal time!
(Ironic isn't it- these people, who believe that every scientist since Ptolemy has been a liar, are using the promote their bizarre ideology!)
Whether global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions or not is basically irrelevant. There are enough other proven harmful effects, both environmental and political/social/economic, to warrant significant action and expenditure on the part of everyone in the developed world toward weaning ourselves from our fossil fuel addiction. The mere suggestion that human greenhouse gas emissions have a finite probability of causing irreversible and potentially catastrophic consequences to the Earth's climate that we all depend on- that too should be sufficient reason.
We in the developed nations have a responsibility to do what we can. But nothing short of a miracle will stop India, China and the rest of the developing world from developing along the cheapest, most fossil-fuel addicted lines, using the cheapest and dirtiest fossil fuel available- coal. They'll do it the same way that we in the West "developed". Don't worry- they won't bother with gasification, CO2 sequestration or co-generation unless somebody puts some money in it for them. This will happen, pretty much regardless what the rest of us do! And it's doubtful that you could provide every family in China and India with the car and a refrigerator that most North Americans take for granted without humanity drowning in the resulting filth. Global warming will be the least of our worries at that point!
They sure don't say it here:
- Status
