Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on January 11, 2009, 12:09:03 PM
-
revisited...........
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0
now the claim is we are going into a 100,000 year ice age :rofl
-
And if you have body piercings....
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/5026/2/
-
Well, if it happens, it happens. It seems that even if we did take care of our planet, that we'd still end up getting annihilated by something (Satan/Third World War/Planet Nibiru/Plagues/Ice Age/Polar Ice Caps melting/Communists nuking the planet out of the universe/etc).
Every couple of years, there's a new big scare, like remember all the fuss over Y2K? How about June 6th, 2006 (666)?
Like religion, I'll believe it when I see it.
-
Climate change so far in the last decades sais...warming. Ocean temp mostly the same. Shifting habitats of living creatures, be it fish or mosquitos goes for warming. Some areas warm very much, some cool, but this is the total.
From non atmospheric sources it should have been cooling quite a bit.
Let's wait and...see :devil
-
During history every cold period in climate has lead to famine, wars and mass deaths of population. Warm is good. Fight the next ice age by performing loads of Google searches (0.2g carbon print per search).
-
Was watching an interesting doco on the Ring of Fire (no not that ring...) volcanic activity last night. In the past 100 years pacific volcanic activity has been up 300% , this based on sulphuric acid content in antartic ice. So volcanoes are spewing out 3 x more co2 and supluric acid than ever before - wonder how this figures into the global warming scam.
-
Today's global climate science is turning out to be like medieval anatomy and physiology. We'd better grow colonies off this rock before it turns to crap faster than we can save it or get off of it.
-
Oh, no, not the Volcanoe joke again.
Firstly, mankind cannot influence volcanic activity.
Second, Volcanoes also emit global cooling gases, such as sulphur compounds. The biggest eruptions have caused vast cooling.
Thirdly, Volcanic CO2 sums to about 1% of human emissions.
Here:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
"Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. "
-
Whatever happened to algore? Now that the world's scientists are more than ten to one against his "man-made global warming" predictions, his people really need his leadership to rally the troops. He's let all of you down.
-
Don't care if he's silent or not, climate is still changing.
Galileo was made to eat his words once by the way :devil
-
See Rule #14
-
If you watched Gores Inconvenient truth, and looked closely at the data.
All the info they got from the ice cores, etc all pointed at one thing that happened again and again.
Spike in CO2 and temp levels, followed by an incredibly rapid plunge into an ice age.
Both the highest High's, and the lowest lows were all right next to each other, inside of 50 years of time.
Coincidence? I think not.
Only the scientists conclusions they drew from the data was questionable.
The data however points the way. Follow the evidence.
Right now I'd LOVE to see some global warming up here in North Dakota. :)
-
All the info they got from the ice cores, etc all pointed at one thing that happened again and again.
Actually, all of those ice core samples were tainted evidence. They were intentionally tainted by the scientists to help get the answer they wanted to see. Funny how that works.
-
All the info they got from the ice cores, etc all pointed at one thing that happened again and again.
Spike in CO2 and temp levels, followed by an incredibly rapid plunge into an ice age.
Both the highest High's, and the lowest lows were all right next to each other, inside of 50 years of time.
qft :aok
the climate is doing just whats its always done. we will see increasing global temps, it will be followed by a plunge into the next ice age. my guess within 50-100 years. :uhoh
-
See Rule #14
Go back to high school. Or start from scratch. The text may be a bit bluffing but the info is there.
For simplicity:
Volcanoes (all of them): 200 million tonnes.
Global fossil fuel emissions: 26.8 BILLION TONNES.
Text:
"Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes"
And you think the topic should be banned? Inputs like that one should. Or is ignorance such a bliss?
-
(http://imagecloset.com/14/b27647291dc1c855d859d65a5609c409/ManBearPig.jpg)
-
More on the Volcanoe babble:
Wiki:
"The greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is emitted from volcanoes, although volcanic emissions account for less than 1% of the annual global total.[3] Some volcanic gases including sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen sulfide and hydrogen fluoride react with other atmospheric particles to form aerosols"
This one comes from the Royal society. http://royalsociety.org/
Now on the other gases....and their effect:
(From this one again..http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html)
"Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don't produce CO2 at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles"
Global cooling (through reflection and dimming) are the main impact of volcanic eruptions. Hence there were great coolings due to big erupions, and on the N-Hemisphere in places, we're right in the middle of one now.
Good example of cooling in the N-Hemisphere is from Iceland in 1783+ as well as global dimming due to enormously quick eruptions in the Pacific/Indonesia some while back.
Anyway, none of this matters, for the next step of a proper climate change denialist would be to discard he effect of CO2
-
See Rule #14
-
6 degrees in 20.000 years. That is...slow.
-
Oh, BTW, I LIVE close to a highly active Volcanoe, which I have seen go off a few times. I use my head and eyes, and yet she is dwarved by any normal metropolis. And the eruption is maybe one month every 10 years or so.
Again, this has been measured, and Volcanoes seem to rank as 1 to a 100 against human activity.
That is now, and the combination of emission gases is as they are now. Volcanoes are different, and both their exhaust, ash and magma differ around the world and between today and the far past.
Good point though, lots of CO2 linked with 6 degrees of warming. :D
Our warming is happening very much faster though.
-
So why aren't you making big bucks with an undisputable case for AGW? The gordian knot is just begging for someone so certain of what the problem and solution are, exactly.
-
Is there money in it?
And is there a solution?
Oh, I have it, but I'm afraid there's not a lot of money in it. See, we're going to add to earths co2 untill we run out of carbon. So, the PPm's are going to be at a wild number by then with some proper climate change. I'll be dead by then though, so not a lot of money...
-
Yep, the same way Gore & co have made money out of it, all you have to do is show you're right. That alone would get people's money, to replace the resource waste and scamming on both sides, as the one true solution. But instead you just have rules of thumb, no actual science of what's going on in detail. Everyone has the former already. "Don't crap where you eat", etc. What would pay huge bucks is a proper proof of what Man's doing that affects climate change, and how. That would allow not just green living based on common sense zero-sum ecology (all ecological malus offset by equal bonus), but we could actualy discern a natural trend in climate from one that merely looks (even uncanily) like it's caused by us.
-
Volcanic gases and the work of those geologists are not rules of thumb. 1% off is not the same as 100 times more, but that seems to be a common practise when this is discussed on these boards.
That alone can also make money, much more likely in the oil business camp,after all they pay their "scientists".
Now what else do we see here....yes, discussion of the topic should be banned, and the scientists researching the matter should not be funded....
And a true solution? It's not there. Gaia is ill, but we do not know the cure and spend most of the time debating whether she's ill, and if we shouldn't ban medicine...
-
Gaia? What happened to chemistry, physics.. ?
Volcanic gases aren't the only part to the puzzle. You need to provide the whole picture, the whole context, otherwise you're just guessing at best, misleading at worst.
Mentioning money was beside the point. The point is a working model, something that correctly assesses our influence, and allows us to accomodate industry. No industry, no civilization. Also beside the point is arguing over censorship.. that's a non-issue for this debate. Obviously science shouldn't be censored; otherwise we wouldn't even be discussing all this.... My main point was that you're arguing just one piece of the puzzle. You have no defendable argument for or against man's influence on climate change, nor whether climate change will go one way or another. You can't predict what you don't understand. Climate isn't just volcanoes or any other element. It's not even all of them minus one element. Everything must be accounted for. You can't scam people into carbon credit bullstump before you have such an understanding and predicting power. Unless you really are in it for the scamming.
-
Volcanic gases + Fossil fuels are the ONLY parts where carbon is being added from the depths of the earth. The fossil fuel figure is pretty accurate.
The volcanoes ARE being measured and monitored and data is increasing.
So, it takes a long shot to have the number wrong by 100 times.
I chose to argue this piece because the ever-ongoing volcanoe troll showed up.
Regarding climate change there are endless other jigs...
-
See Rule #14
-
Climate change so far in the last decades sais...warming. Ocean temp mostly the same. Shifting habitats of living creatures, be it fish or mosquitos goes for warming. Some areas warm very much, some cool, but this is the total.
From non atmospheric sources it should have been cooling quite a bit.
Let's wait and...see :devil
And for this decade, it appears to be stable or cooling, despite continued rise in CO2. However, I agree whole-heartedly with your last statement, "Let's wait and...see", before entering any growth-restricting international treatise on CO2 regulation, or economy-crushing cap-n-trade systems. Interesting that the temperature rise peaked just as the solar activity began to quiet down.
-
Chalenge:
"Angus: Your volcano is just lightly venting pressure. The eruptions cited are along the lines of Mount Saint Helens. The end-all effect of Yellowstones caldera eruption might be more destructive for man but the planet will survive even that."
I mentioned the one since it's only 50 km away. I just have to move some 200 km to get to the source of the greatest eruptions of earth for some thousands of years, - emissionvise. The effect was cooling on the Northern hemisphere, all the way down to Egypt, lasting years as a total. It altered the Sunset view in the USA and was mistakenly thought to be the one who is my neighbour:)
I was actually there up close during one eruption, - the only time I saw lava streams and such. Didn't give me a headache, but a day downtown in a big city will....
Anyway, the 1% must be an average of some years (didn't look), but its still just ONE PERCENT of HUMAN co2 emission, and guess where it's heading??? Wait and see....
Oh, and if Yellowstone caldera goes poppy it's big.
Sources for the other one, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakagigar
A quote:
"Consequences in North America
In North America, the winter of 1784 was the longest and one of the coldest on record. It was the longest period of below-zero temperatures in New England, the largest accumulation of snow in New Jersey, and the longest freezing over of Chesapeake Bay. There was ice skating in Charleston Harbor, a huge snowstorm hit the south, the Mississippi River froze at New Orleans, and there was ice in the Gulf of Mexico"
Some warming effect there :D
-
You must be thinking of carbon MONOxide.
-
One atom of Carbon there too. But you cannot breath a lot of it, and you won't smell it either...
-
No but carbon monoxide gives headaches. Carbon dioxide never has hurt me (except bleaching a little calcium from my bones when I drink soda pop).
-
Lots of other exhausts give you a heavy head.
Anyway, a volcanoe can go off 50 km away from me, and cover the area with black ash, I still can't even smell it, nor do you have a blurry sphere about it.
-
Chicken Little predicted that the sky is falling. :aok
-
global warming is a hoax. we are goin into an ice age. cool! (literall :rock :rock :aok)
-
Lots of other exhausts give you a heavy head.
Anyway, a volcanoe can go off 50 km away from me, and cover the area with black ash, I still can't even smell it, nor do you have a blurry sphere about it.
That makes sense since the gases would be light (hot) and unlikely to stay at ground level. Sulphur gas on the other hand kills nearly immediately. The huge amounts of carbon dioxide would be going up pretty quick before cooling and mixing in.
What I would like to see is gas stratification charts for standard atmospheric pressure of all the gases in our atmosphere.
EDIT: I meant (of course) the hot gas that kills so quickly like the Dukono eruption of 1922.
-
That kills by heat, - one nasty thing.
But a good concentration of some sulphuric gasses will actually kill you, and in the eruption of 1783, people and livestock alike would drop dead...in Britain!!!!
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakagigar
Anyway, the main effect of those S gases are cooling. So much actually, that it has been calculated how much you need to counter overwarming of the globe (tsk tsk, doomsday folks), - it turned out to be doable.
Anyway, Volcanoes=not much effect on greenhouse gases for a very very long time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases#Natural_and_anthropogenic
-
You know wikipedia is the worse thing you could link to.
-
I beg to differ.
Wiki also lists the sources, and the first source I quoted for the 1% was NOT Wiki.....
-
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y212/blueyeditalian/globalwarming.jpg)
Sunday's gonna be a bit warm for this time of the year....
Teh globull warmeeng!11!!!!1 :O
-
It's just a weather forecast...
-
No?
Really?
How'd ya figure that?
-
No?
Really?
How'd ya figure that?
Angus is pointing out that weather and climate are two different things. Maybe you might try opening a book, preferably prior to being a jerk. ;)
-
Angus is pointing out that weather and climate are two different things. Maybe you might try opening a book, preferably prior to being a jackoff. ;)
How can you stand to slum with us mere mortals? You are indeed a very special person.
-
I say forget all the politics Yay or Nay on the subject, I think it goes without saying, that its generaly still a good idea to try and work away from fossil fuels, in whatever ways possible.
Emissions control is a good thing, though a pain in the butt admittedly, nobody likes smog clouds. As far as climate change go's, at this point I agree there's little to nothing humanity can do to change the process's that are going on now.
-
Angus is pointing out that weather and climate are two different things. Maybe you might try opening a book, preferably prior to being a jerk. ;)
Climate - The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
Weather - The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.
Pretty much the only difference is the measure of time...
I was pointing out a funny typo from my local weather station... I'm sorry this thread is too serious for some humor.
Will you ever forgive me?
:aok
-
How completely advanced sense of humour.
Almost tops the volcanoes being 100 times above the humans in regards of CO2.....
-
:aok
-
You want to know what things peeve those in science? Things like these....
With the axing of the CNN Science News team, most science stories at CNN are now being given to general assignment reporters who don't necessarily have the background to know when they are being taken for a ride. On the Lou Dobbs show (an evening news program on cable for those of you not in the US), the last few weeks have brought a series of embarrassing non-stories on 'global cooling' based it seems on a few cold snaps this winter, the fact that we are at a solar minimum and a regurgitation of 1970s vintage interpretations of Milankovitch theory (via Pravda of all places!). Combine that with a few hysterical (in both senses) non-scientists as talking heads and you end up with a repeat of the nonsensical 'Cooling world' media stories that were misleading in the 1970s and are just as misleading now.
Hate that damn network.
-
The ice age was most probably caused by the merging of continents. This new topic is a "Theory" and is most probably the most off the wall thing out there now. LOL. Read other "Theories" and you may think different.
-
See Rule #14
hehehe
-
Hate that damn network.
It's not just CNN. Popular media, even respectable newspapers are incredibly unprofessional when it comes to science (and I suspect, not only regarding science). We used to bring funny news bits on our seminars. Things like:
- The core of the earth is an Iron cube! Complete misinterpretation of "cubic Iron lattice" which refers to the lattice arrangement of iron atoms.
- First image of a non solar planet! Only the planet our a dim point that was left out of the picture in the editing. The caption pointed to some background star as "the planet".
and many more...
My university's PR department got a piece into a major Hebrew news site, about my masters thesis. No one from the paper contacted me to ask or verify the details. They just edited the text that was given to them by the PR and published it. Needless to say that even I didn't understand what that was written there.
Professional journalism does not exist any more.
-
Do I vote here? (looks around)
I would like to cast one vote in favor of global warming please. :cool:
thank you.
-
Take a number and get in the line :D
-
Did everyone miss the line about CO2 failing to absorb the proper spectrum to absorb and re-emit solar radiation (heat)? Its the chink in the armor of global warming. The 'chicken littles' claim that the additional heat from extra CO2 will cause more water to evaporate from the ocean and cause more clouds to form? But if the water vapor would accelerate warming now why didnt that happen at the Medieval Optimum (1000 AD) or the Holocene Maximum (6000 yrs ago)? Its going to happen now because Al Gore said it will? Horse feathers!
The model Gore is flaunting also contains terrible assumptions about the clouds within the climate models but worse he makes the conclusion while posing the assumption and the very satellite observations Gore depends on were ignored and misrepresented to stress his point (twisting results to suit his desires).
The theory has not been granted one observation confirming any of the predictions made.
This theory is a failure. The main premise of success from this global warming 'religion' is that humans will always assume that things are getting worse around them and buy into snake oil theories from has-been politicians.
Wake up people!
Angus the quote concerning 'the gross average volcanic output of CO2...' comes from the fact that the vast majority of volcanic eruptions occur beneath the sea. Air versus water. Very different chemistry. But this again proves how facts are twisted to make the case for a rabid religion.
-
More clouds?
More vapour doesn't have to mean more clouds. Add temperature and more water will be able to stay in the atmosphere WITHOUT forming clouds. You could for that sake have the same amount of clouds with more vapour.
Anyway, the little chicken say that it's possible to accelerate into a Venus scenario. Venus, being further from the Sun than Mercury, is much hotter due to greenhouse gases. So, once the temp starts boiling surface water, the theory is that we go toast.
Personally, I don't buy that, for it didn't happen before with incredible amounts of CO2. Mind you though, that back then, circumstances would not have allowed any "human" life.
IMHO, basically the formula for climate temp is..:
(Solar input - reflection)*Greenhouse gas effect.(probably one point something)
Vapour is greenhouse gas effect. clouds are reflection. Ice is reflection.
Of course this is...coarse, but you get the idea. And the greenhouse gases do have some gravity, - the estimation goes that without them, we'd be frozen over.
Now, volcanoes. 70% of them are underseas. If the activity was equal it would put the humble 1% of HUMAN ACTIVITY up to 3%, WOW.
There is however a reason to doubt the underseas activity to be relatively equal to land activity. Put your brain onto it and tell me why :devil
-
IMHO, basically the formula for climate temp is..:
(Solar input - reflection)*Greenhouse gas effect.(probably one point something)
For the life of me, I can't find a more wrong way to formulate this effect. It is so far off that I can't even point at where it is wrong.
Here is an interesting tidbit: In a green house, the energy flux that comes in is EXACTLY the same as the energy flux coming out - or it will keep heating for ever. The green house effect is the shifting of the cooling spectrum, not a change in flux!
-
Arrrrfff. Well, put it like this. Without Greenhouse effect, it would be colder. And it's (given some sun) warmer inside a greenhouse than outside it.
Flux in, flux out, the result is a planet staying warmer than without the effect.
-
All i know is this (and i certainly aint that smart) in high school were told.."RUN,,, global cooling is coming"
Now its "RUN,,,, global warming is coming" whats frakin next? Run, Global Balmy kinda misty weather is coming"
To much politics involved in all sides of the issue for me.
Im not runin anymore,,, bring it on!!! :)
zuii
-
Angus, I apologize if my previous post seemed mocking. It was not personal.
I am a little frustrated with the constant need of explaining what the greenhouse effect is. It is not just you, an incredible number of people are being mislead by the "popular" description of the greenhouse: "Energy comes in a visible light, but emitted infra-red radiation is blocked from escaping". This simplified, to the point of becoming completely false explanation, hides the complexity of the radiation transfer through earth's atmosphere.
The truth is that atmospheric radiation transfer is a difficult non-linear problem - the absorber properties change with pressure and temperature. The effect of changing the composition of the atmosphere is a change in the vertical temperature structure, not necessarily heating of the surface by any significant amount. For example: molecular absorption happens in very specific wavelengths (spectral lines). If at some atmospheric layer a line is saturated (complete absorption of all emission in this narrow wavelength region) adding more absorption will have almost no effect. If you now broaden the width of the lines by higher temperature or pressure than this extra absorption comes into play - but not in a simple way, because the absorption in every wavelength interval around the line center is lower, so some radiation will pass more easily though the layer... etc, etc, etc...
Some scientists make people believe that they can throw everything into a big computer and get the answer - they get AN answer, which is only as good or as worse as their models and the approximations they were forced to make. Uncertainty is something that is tracked in good science. In the case of global warming, the Human contribution is consistent with ZERO within one standard deviation. It does not means that the result is wrong - it means that we can't trust it. As strange as it sounds, it means that it is not unlikely that our contribution is actually cooling of the planet. I would not lead major world wide plans based on such weak evidence. Using the metaphors I used before, when you do not understand something, it is cheaper, less time consuming and as effective to just slaughter a goat and do the rain dance instead.
-
No problem m8 ;)
Anyway, despite all complexes, we can say that without some greenhouse effect, we'd be much colder. One model claimed 18 degrees C as a global average, which is more than enough to call it an ice age.
So, for the simplicity, the greenhouse effect works. Sun - reflection - dimming and add greenhouse effect and you have what you have....basically.
-
Just think... if Co2 levels were twice what they are now plant output would be about 33% more. That may just be enough to wipe out world hunger. Of course that would never happen before the next ice age. Most believe we are at the end of our historical 12000 year cycle. Now for 100000 years of ice............. where not much grows.
Maybe we should be looking to increase our CO2 footprint.
-
Well, being an ICE-lander, I cannot be completely neutral. Ok...this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Qamutik_1_1999-04-01.jpg/800px-Qamutik_1_1999-04-01.jpg)
Vs this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Mgn_p39146.png
:devil