I'm just going to call bull on your first two sentences. And, it was vehemently argued that mankind had no business whatsoever putting men in space...the very thought was dangerous. Such blind hubris..the arrogance of such a thing was unthinkable to some segments of society.
Predicating control of a heretofore immovable object is not a particularly strong metaphor.
That being said, as soon as we take control of something we own it. It becomes our responsibility, and we will have to work harder to maintain and manage it. One example that illustrates this well is agriculture. Agriculture requires a great deal of control over resources. In addition it creates new problems which in addition require even more work to solve....much like the emerging thought that we have an impact upon our climate.
"belief mankind has a larger role in global climate than was before believed...and, there is still serious disagreement over whether or not that is true."
not a belief, it's scientific fact.
the disagreement is not serious, is paid for by carbon-industry, etc corps
There's a difference between believing man shouldn't do something because it's dangerous and believing a man can't do something because it is infinitely larger than he is.
Space exploration <> global climate control.
The effects of agriculture is localized, regional at best...not global.
I agree, it's an emerging thought. One that's not settled. One over which there is serious disagreement among people much smarter, about such things, than anyone that visits this forum. And, certainly, one at which it would be foolish to thrown costly and draconian fixes.
You have officially entered the realm of asshole bag. Why didn't you quote the entire Takahashi blurb?
He is quantifying not only the surface flux, but also the chemcial ratio change in the water itself, the mixing of the waters and biotics.
Your dumbass does not get let off the hook and I guess I am going to have to rub your nose in your quotes from before because your too stupid to keep up with the discussion.
Below is crown stupid and has been the basis of Glassman proxied through you in the aqcuital nonsense.
It's annoying that I cannot talk to you about anything more complex than a couple of variables but this is simple enough: do you withdraw that last quote?
You missed the point, again. At the inception of the meme, all endeavors are infinitely larger than man. Btw, that concept makes no sense when broken down. Infinitely? Not really.
Nobody said it was settled. But the resistance to the mere mention of it is a very strong call back to the meme.
If by regrional you mean the region being the entire earth then I agree with you. Being able to make nitrates using N2 from the air and diesel power changed everything from population capacity, to fuel consumption, to removal of covered terrain to plant crops and free range livestock etc.The effects of agriculture is localized, regional at best...not global.
It also gotten to the point that every continent but one is covered in agricultural regions. this notion that there is a magical line where things stop having an effect doesn't exist.
I've never believed that.
Don't start Chumping the thread TeyshaBlue.
Sure they have. I believe the words, "the science is settled," have been used.
It's not the "mere mention" of it that is the problem. It's the bloated bureaucracy and nonsense that accompanies it -- cap and trade, defining CO2 as a toxin, Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Rio, AGC proponents with larger carbon footprints than most countries in the world, just to name a few.
"I've never believed that."
Then stop saying it.
Don't conflate political nonsense with the underlying science. I can understand why you would want to do that, but it's pretty hollow.
Yep, sure enough...someone did say, "the science is settled."
Gore Takes Global Warming Message to Congress
The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere.
When did I say "all endeavors are infinitely larger than man?""I've never believed that."
Then stop saying it.
The underlying science is only on our plates because of the political nonsense. If Algore and company hadn't made a religion out of AGCC, it wouldn't even be on our radars. As it stands, as the clowns lose their credibility, the fad seems to be passing and the world seems less inclined to buy into the hysteria.
I suspect we won't even be arguing over it in a few years. Well, except for Manny.
"When did I say "all endeavors are infinitely larger than man?""
Stop reading the WC Playbook.
One endeavor at a time. Today we're talking about climate science which is according to you, infinitely larger than man.
Which again, is nonsensical at best.
Gore <> Scientist.
Alex Jones says a great many things. They're about as relevant.
Yonivore loves to say on this subject that has absolutely no factual basis but he perceives as an absolute certainty. He then loves to paint with large brush strokes that really have no basis in reality either.
I've been around here long enough to understand thats how it works on an internet forum and thats how it works in politics. If politician A says something he doesn't need it to be backed in fact because the only people who are going to call him on it are those who are against him. If the subject is technical, then it won't even matter if he gets called on it because who is going to understand the intricacies of the topic outside of those in the field?
Thats why Yonivore can get away with this crap. He can say that no prediction has come true regarding Climate Science. Why does he believe that? Because thats what he's read on some blog or heard form some person and he is ignorant of the subject. Of course, anyone familiar with the science knows that the temperature increases we've seen are right in line with the IPCC forecasts. Some of the other forecasts have been correct as well - IE the sea ice and sea level increase.
Atmospheric sciences are damn complicated. The fluid dynamics of an entire atmosphere are very hard to define at a very high resolution. That being said, when taking a look at the entire system it is NOT that difficult to understand how the reduction in outgoing energy will raise the energy of the system and by how much. That fact is always lost in these debates. It is much easier to understand climate science on a global resolution than it is to find out what the temp due to AGW is going to be in XYZ neighborhood in ABC city 50 years from now.
Its much like I can tell you that if you stop excercising and you eat poorly you will put on weight but I may not be able to tell you the exact measurements you're going to have after 2 years of this lifestyle. Thats because when you break down the energy budget of the earth you've made it a much simpler system than if you try to predict the very chaotic movement of each small piece of the atmosphere.
Furthermore, when people say like there are natural causes for climate change they almost always do so without understanding the way paleoclimates have worked in the past. The reason scientists have homed in on CO2 is not because they held a god damn straw poll at some conference but because it has been the regulator of climate on the planet according to all of the evidence we have. As an example, the current interglacial cycles we've seen on earth are a result of the CO2 cycling in and out of the atmosphere. That CO2 cycling is in turn controlled by the orbital variations that affect which parts of the earth receive more sunlight and when they receive that energy. If not for CO2, there would be no mechanism for these changes to occur.
So what we have now, is a huge increase in the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere which has been directly attributed to human influence. (on another note here - the idea that humanity is incapable of of influencing the earth is incredibly stupid. There's just no nice way of putting it because there are mountains of examples and evidence to show that humans have a huge effect on the planet and to ignore that fact is the act of willful ignorance of stupidity) If anyone wants to dispute that this is due to human influence they are welcome to overturn the mounds of evidence that says it is humans. They can provide a place the CO2 is coming from and explain where the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere goes and they will probably win themselves a nobel prize.
Dupe
I love it when you talk dirty in climate change threads...your passion is just so...uhhh...passionate...
"I've never believed that."
Then stop saying it.
Don't conflate political nonsense with the underlying science. I can understand why you would want to do that, but it's pretty hollow.
Also, am I the only one who can't help but capture the huge irony in claiming that an urban heat island affect is the cause for global warming while at the same time claiming humans can't affect the climate?
The inconsistencies don't even occur to him.
I kinda get the micro urban irregularity of temperature. The ranchito which is 35 miles south of San Antonio gets colder than San Antonio in the winter. Geographically it should be warmer. Lots of asphalt and concrete and other heat sink material in cities. On the other hand, the global heat sink dwarfs the urban heat sinks.Also, am I the only one who can't help but capture the huge irony in claiming that an urban heat island affect is the cause for global warming while at the same time claiming humans can't affect the climate?
The urban heat island affect is very much real. But urban environments make up a tiny amount of the entire planet.
I honestly try to stay out of this thread but I know that I read that a lot of the global collection sites were in urban areas. If you look at how some of those sites have exploded in the last 30 years (China, India, Asia, etc.) then there may be SOME validity of potential data skew from urban island contamination. Just sayin. Not really wanting to get in this argument.
If that's what you wish to believe. Remember, this exchange of CO2 levels between atmosphere and ocean only occur where they meet. The rest of the mixing changes the levels as they mix. Regardless of what other functions do, consider them constant for the purpose of how temperature changes mixing, in your partial derivative. This mixing is limited by temperature and salinity, and the rate is limited by wind, pH, and humidity.
edit add...
Seems to me pH and wind have very little long term change, but the heating effect on the water via solar changes are known long term changes. Deeper mixing also doesn't matter unless it reaches the surface pressure saturation point, and resurfaces. Gas solubility is also based on pressure, and the pressure increases rapidly as you get deeper and deeper.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-14-2012 at 07:45 PM.
I don't see it as the heat island being the cause of global warming. I see it as a cause for assumed temperatures to be higher than they are. It's just that all the temperature data taken from these places skews the real global change. These little island of heat an indication of a very small percentage of global land size, yet they are probably more than 70% of the data points.Also, am I the only one who can't help but capture the huge irony in claiming that an urban heat island affect is the cause for global warming while at the same time claiming humans can't affect the climate?
What if the only data we looked at were untouched sites from the day they were built with no other buildup around them over time?
Now again, I am not denying there is global warming. I am only disagree with the degree claimed and root cause.
Now I don't know what the global buildup land area is vs. unimproved, but I would thing it's well under 1%. Sure, the heat islands have an effect, but what is only 1$ of their effect.
What if...
What if the temperature data says global temperature is 1C greater, and 70% of the data points are influence by the heat island effect. The 30% are real data and a sample of 99% of the earth, and shows a 0.2C change. If I do the math based on that, treat all data points as being equal, I get a a 0.76 C rise in temperature. If I give each the weight based on a value to represent how much surface area is apportioned to each, I only get a 0.208 C rise.
I know they attempt to correct the actual readings, but how can they actually do that? All urban sites are contaminated data points. Their is no way to disagree with that fact.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-14-2012 at 07:38 PM.
It may be counterintuitive, but when you only look at sites that are outside of an urban heat island effect you actually see a LARGER temp growth. Scientists have undertaken many studies to take a look at the effect these sites have on the record and its really not a big effect either way because they make up so little of the surface.
Then you have measurements from space which say the same thing.
As someone that can grasp more complex ideas better than you I can see where your ability to interrelate things stops. Its not what I want to believe its literally what the quote says.
temperature dependence changesthe temperature dependence changes over the range indicated above because seasonal temperature changes in mixed-layer water are accompanied with an increase (by deep-water upwelling andsea–ai r CO2 exchange) or decrease (by photosynthesis andsea–ai r CO2 exchange) in the total CO2 concentration.
accompany
an increase by deep-water upwelling and
a decrease by photosynthesis
You teach 7th grade reading students to pull out the subjects and the verbs. There they are.
We have just seen where the rubber meets the road on your scope of understanding. You do not understand functions as descriptions of systems at all and you suck at math. , you aren't very good at reading.
Yes, the range of +/- 4C also changed things that have an effect. This brings us back to the 3.1% change per degree by temperature alone I mentioned.
That's how I model heat absorption and transfer. WTF was Boltzmann thinking?
You cannot understand multivariable functions. You have no chance on doing mathematical approximations of this phenomenon.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote