- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,661
- 10,093
- 146
Bush The Environmentalist
- Thread starter Perknose
- Start date
Not willing to "sign up" for the new york times just to read an article. Not to sound naive but was that quote for real?
Humans preventing global warming by reducing the emissions of "greenhouse gases" is really preposterous. More greenhouse gases are released from an average volcanic eruption than mankind has produced in its entire history. If you want to cut back on global warming (which could be natural climactic cycling... remember the last ice age? It's been getting warmer since), stop breathing, since human breathing produces more carbon dioxide than industry.
I was under the impression it was widely accepted that we should still be in a "cooling phase" as far as natural climactic changes and ice ages were concerned.
I think the problem here is that people really only started keeping track of temperature within the past few hundred years. Now, any change is huge relative to the available data, so everyone freaks out.
In this case, the best response is to do nothing, that way you don't contribute to the heat-death of the universe.
In this case, the best response is to do nothing, that way you don't contribute to the heat-death of the universe.
Todd33
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 7,842
- 2
- 81
I'm not sure where you get your "science" (Rush maybe?). Most scientist agree that greenhouse effect is real and fossil fuels are a large contributor.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/x/sxf211/art297final/causes.html
Volcanoes have been around for millions of years, but with the loss of things like the rain forest and the huge increase of CO2 by human, the balance is out of whack. They don't need to rely on temperature data directly, they can study things like ice core samples that go back ten of thousands of years.
Hi,
Whilst I agree there is definitely a debate to be had on global warming - your simple explanation is somewhat lacking in substance. For instance, I'm *sure* the "average volcanic eruption" dumps "more sulphur dioxide than mankind has produced in its entire history" - yet the Norwegians never started to see the effects of perpetual and destructive acid rain on their forests until recently. Coincidentally a lot of the resposible SO4 has been tracked through air currents across from the USA.
And who'd have thought that the relatively small amounts of CFCs released by humans could be responsible for a huge whole in the ozone layer?
As you can see - the picture is not necessarily simple for human emissions < environmental emissions. I guess that's why there are several thousand scientists the world over trying to work it out? You'd think they'd have read your answer by now - or do you believe they are all trying to create work for themselves?
The same goes for dendrochronology - yes the climate has fluctuated all over the place - some of that can currently be attributed to well understood phenomena such as CO2 released via volcanic eruptions - some can't. That's not to say there might not be some human element present. No-one denies the human factor, the arguement is "how much". It *may* well be true that there is a large human component to our current climate. One thing is for sure, we've been wrong with regard to the weather and the climate more often than we've been right.
Cheers,
Andy
Actually, I just wrote an environmental engineering thesis for a masters degree. What you're failing to see was my primary point: whether humans cause this disturbance in the equilibrium or not, it's an equilibrium and it will return one way or the other (that's the whole idea of equilibrium). There are natural processes that break down CO2, such as plant respiration. So, in not so many words, a SLIGHT increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (which is what we're talking about here - CO2 makes up approximately 1% of the atmosphere, so even an incredibly huge, spontaneous output in its production would not even come close to bringing it to 1.5%) will cause plants to grow faster. Wooptie doo. If I'm wrong, you shouldn't be so worried about the ever-increasing CO2 concentration and temperature but when your oxygen will run out -- if it drops below 19.5%, you'll DIE! Unfortunately for all of these theories, it remains at its ever-constant 21.5%, because nature is capable of picking up the slack.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that people will be gravely disappointed when they learn that we're not the only thing on earth, and what we do isn't the end-all, be-all. The earth will be here afer we're gone, as will trees and other things.
Fencer, I agree with you 100%. There's actually an ongoing project here (Washington U in St. Louis) to track sulfate clouds using satellite imaging. You actually stated what I was trying to state better than I did. The point I was trying to make is that humans just don't know their impact on the environment, so trying to regulate without sufficient knowledge is futile. And, as a researcher, I can say that yes, many scientists come up with theories just so they have something to test and more research dollars to pull down.
Todd33
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 7,842
- 2
- 81
I agree there.
I don't see how CO2 emmisions rising by 30% since the the industrial revolution is simply going to make plants grow faster. You did your work on this area, mine was in signals, so I know jack. I just don't see how so many scientist are wrong and Bush is somehow right. He's not known for his science
The bigger problem is the pollution of all types by industrial nations. We dump everything we can, poison our own people just to make more money for companies and make investors happy.
CycloWizard -- Your profile says you're in college. I hope you're majoring in basket weaving or floral arrangement because it's obvious your strong suit is not any scientific area of study. :roll:
Todd33
Diamond Member
- Oct 16, 2003
- 7,842
- 2
- 81
Hey, he isn't Rip. He can express his opinions and theories with more intelligence than most around here. He is still learning, he may find later than the balance is more fragile than he thinks. I found that the more I knew, the more I didn't really understand. I have a PhD and feel like I know jack most the time
the world has burnt through roughly 1 trillion barrels of oil, which = 28 trillion gallons of oil
a lot of it in just the last few decades. anyone who doesn't believe burning 28 trillion gallons of anything without causing an impact is ludicrous
a lot of it in just the last few decades. anyone who doesn't believe burning 28 trillion gallons of anything without causing an impact is ludicrous
good postOriginally posted by: CycloWizard
Actually, I just wrote an environmental engineering thesis for a masters degree. What you're failing to see was my primary point: whether humans cause this disturbance in the equilibrium or not, it's an equilibrium and it will return one way or the other (that's the whole idea of equilibrium). There are natural processes that break down CO2, such as plant respiration. So, in not so many words, a SLIGHT increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (which is what we're talking about here - CO2 makes up approximately 1% of the atmosphere, so even an incredibly huge, spontaneous output in its production would not even come close to bringing it to 1.5%) will cause plants to grow faster. Wooptie doo. If I'm wrong, you shouldn't be so worried about the ever-increasing CO2 concentration and temperature but when your oxygen will run out -- if it drops below 19.5%, you'll DIE! Unfortunately for all of these theories, it remains at its ever-constant 21.5%, because nature is capable of picking up the slack.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that people will be gravely disappointed when they learn that we're not the only thing on earth, and what we do isn't the end-all, be-all. The earth will be here afer we're gone, as will trees and other things.
Fencer, I agree with you 100%. There's actually an ongoing project here (Washington U in St. Louis) to track sulfate clouds using satellite imaging. You actually stated what I was trying to state better than I did. The point I was trying to make is that humans just don't know their impact on the environment, so trying to regulate without sufficient knowledge is futile. And, as a researcher, I can say that yes, many scientists come up with theories just so they have something to test and more research dollars to pull down.
though I might not agree with the conclusions, as in I think its better to play it safe untill we do know for sure, but so well written, very rare,, , , , For someone who just wrote a master's thesis on the subject you seem quite ignorant of the myriad ways scientists can, in effect, go back in time to measure climatic data. Trees whose rings can be used to reconstruct warm seasons and annual temps, coral growths which use carbon for calcification can be used to measure average ocean temps, and ice core samples can reveal all kinds of climate data dating back thousands or even tens of thousands of years.
I didn't write my masters thesis on global warming, and I am aware of these methods. However, using these methods to state that ambient earth temperature increases by 0.6°F every year is definitely misleading. It's like using carbon dating on something from the 1950's, despite the fact that it's only really accurate to +/- 5000 years. Trees and other things adapt to temperature over time, just like humans do, but that's not even the point I'm making. The point I'm trying to make is that even if the temperature is suddenly going through the roof, no one really knows !WHY!. It's just theories, theories, theories. Humans might not even factor into it. Or they might, who knows? Maybe us venting CO2 into the atmosphere is actually preventing some major atmospheric disaster. You don't know, I don't know, so how is anyone going to accurately regulate it?
I agree, we have ice core data going back 740 000 years.
Enviromental science was mandatory when I was a student (I have a M.Sc in physics) , and even if I do not remember all the details anymore i DO remember going through a lot of data (among other things we calculated the CO2 balance fo the whole planet) and concluding that the global warming is very real. You only need to know some basic thermodynamics to understand the basic meachanism.
We can argue about how large the effects are, but we are well past the point where it was possible to quesion the green house effect; there too much data.
Where I live (Sweden) we are probably already seing the effects of global warming. We are getting new species and the climate in the mountains has changed quite a lot over the past 100 years (there are trees at higher altitudes). Our national weather service has predicted that in a not-to-distant future (I think it was around 100-200 years) Stockholm will have the same climate as Berlin has today which would be a major change.
Enviromental science was mandatory when I was a student (I have a M.Sc in physics) , and even if I do not remember all the details anymore i DO remember going through a lot of data (among other things we calculated the CO2 balance fo the whole planet) and concluding that the global warming is very real. You only need to know some basic thermodynamics to understand the basic meachanism.
We can argue about how large the effects are, but we are well past the point where it was possible to quesion the green house effect; there too much data.
Where I live (Sweden) we are probably already seing the effects of global warming. We are getting new species and the climate in the mountains has changed quite a lot over the past 100 years (there are trees at higher altitudes). Our national weather service has predicted that in a not-to-distant future (I think it was around 100-200 years) Stockholm will have the same climate as Berlin has today which would be a major change.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,661
- 10,093
- 146
Wow, this from a guy who supposedly just wrote his master's thesis? Introducing new (in this case, human) input into ANY equilibrium can upset said state. Any equilibrium is not an equilibrium NO MATTER WHAT!
Example: The equilibrium of two equally sized and spaced kids on a see-saw. Absent movement, they remain poised in equilibrium. Put another kid on one end and that equilibrium is destroyed. It will NOT "return one way or the other (that's the whole idea of equilibrium)."
If my tax dollars helped in part to underwrite your education, you owe me a refund.
And our Glacier National Park is all but devoid of any glaciers.
It's not a question that the overall temperature of the planet is rising. The question remains, how much of an influence do humans and our industrialization have on the planet?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,267
- 126
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Actually, I just wrote an environmental engineering thesis for a masters degree. What you're failing to see was my primary point: whether humans cause this disturbance in the equilibrium or not, it's an equilibrium and it will return one way or the other (that's the whole idea of equilibrium). There are natural processes that break down CO2, such as plant respiration. So, in not so many words, a SLIGHT increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (which is what we're talking about here - CO2 makes up approximately 1% of the atmosphere, so even an incredibly huge, spontaneous output in its production would not even come close to bringing it to 1.5%) will cause plants to grow faster. Wooptie doo. If I'm wrong, you shouldn't be so worried about the ever-increasing CO2 concentration and temperature but when your oxygen will run out -- if it drops below 19.5%, you'll DIE! Unfortunately for all of these theories, it remains at its ever-constant 21.5%, because nature is capable of picking up the slack.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that people will be gravely disappointed when they learn that we're not the only thing on earth, and what we do isn't the end-all, be-all. The earth will be here afer we're gone, as will trees and other things.
Fencer, I agree with you 100%. There's actually an ongoing project here (Washington U in St. Louis) to track sulfate clouds using satellite imaging. You actually stated what I was trying to state better than I did. The point I was trying to make is that humans just don't know their impact on the environment, so trying to regulate without sufficient knowledge is futile. And, as a researcher, I can say that yes, many scientists come up with theories just so they have something to test and more research dollars to pull down.
Well, tell us if equilibrium points are constant, or if they can be altered. When you say than they can be shifted, you will also tell us that once a new equilibrium point is set, there is no knowing where that is, and if it can be reversed.
There are many many atmospheric scientists who have far more knowledge than you or I who are concerned. If it were as simple as you make it out to be, and you had the answer, you would not only have a PhD, but a Nobel.
Not to bust on you too much, but the body of scientific evidence suggests your idea is at best incomplete.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter