Global Warming Stuff

[warmonger1981]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... PvH6FRe2hw

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... _EMvlZtFEg

[Phatscotty]

Global warming does not cause an increase in average air temperature. The name "global warming" is a massive misnomer.

Global warming causes an increase in fluctuations of the weather to the extremes. More extreme high temperatures, more extreme low temperatures. More periods of drought, more periods of snow. Reduction in temperature conditions in between.

No, no, no, no. Global warming is causing an increase in average air temperature. It has already happened. The average surface air temperature has increased by over 1 degree Fahrenheit since the industrial revolution began -- this is a clearly measured quantity. It is true that global warming will cause more weather extremes, and that some places (e.g. the Arctic) will warm more than others -- but it is also true that the average temperature is increasing.

has there ever been an increase like that in a similar time frame at any other time in history? Or is this 1 degree increase in the last 125 or so years a totally new phenomenon for the earth in it's history?

Of course, it is not possible for me to answer whether this has happened before; we don't have a complete temperature record of all the Earth's history.

So......it's possible these changes could be totally normal?

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Pretty sure the answer is that this weather phenomenon preceded the last ice age, so you either go with the theory that we should prevent it occurring, or start planning how to deal with the next ice age. Neither s particularly attractive.

Burying your head in the sand is not an option.

[mrswdk]

Pretty sure the answer is that this weather phenomenon preceded the last ice age, so you either go with the theory that we should prevent it occurring, or start planning how to deal with the next ice age. Neither s particularly attractive.

Burying your head in the sand is not an option.

Isn't the next ice age only due to start in something like 1-2,000 years? What does it matter?

[Metsfanmax]

Global warming does not cause an increase in average air temperature. The name "global warming" is a massive misnomer.

Global warming causes an increase in fluctuations of the weather to the extremes. More extreme high temperatures, more extreme low temperatures. More periods of drought, more periods of snow. Reduction in temperature conditions in between.

No, no, no, no. Global warming is causing an increase in average air temperature. It has already happened. The average surface air temperature has increased by over 1 degree Fahrenheit since the industrial revolution began -- this is a clearly measured quantity. It is true that global warming will cause more weather extremes, and that some places (e.g. the Arctic) will warm more than others -- but it is also true that the average temperature is increasing.

has there ever been an increase like that in a similar time frame at any other time in history? Or is this 1 degree increase in the last 125 or so years a totally new phenomenon for the earth in it's history?

Of course, it is not possible for me to answer whether this has happened before; we don't have a complete temperature record of all the Earth's history.

So......it's possible these changes could be totally normal?

That doesn't logically follow from what I said. We have concrete and essentially indisputable evidence that these changes are not normal and that human-caused CO2 emissions are causing the warming -- the type of CO2 that we emit from (say) fossil fuel combustion is different in nature than the type of CO2 that is emitted in natural processes, so we can be confident that it is our emissions that are involved here. So by construction there is no way for this change to be "normal" if that means non-industrial.

[Phatscotty]

Global warming does not cause an increase in average air temperature. The name "global warming" is a massive misnomer.

Global warming causes an increase in fluctuations of the weather to the extremes. More extreme high temperatures, more extreme low temperatures. More periods of drought, more periods of snow. Reduction in temperature conditions in between.

No, no, no, no. Global warming is causing an increase in average air temperature. It has already happened. The average surface air temperature has increased by over 1 degree Fahrenheit since the industrial revolution began -- this is a clearly measured quantity. It is true that global warming will cause more weather extremes, and that some places (e.g. the Arctic) will warm more than others -- but it is also true that the average temperature is increasing.

has there ever been an increase like that in a similar time frame at any other time in history? Or is this 1 degree increase in the last 125 or so years a totally new phenomenon for the earth in it's history?

Of course, it is not possible for me to answer whether this has happened before; we don't have a complete temperature record of all the Earth's history.

So......it's possible these changes could be totally normal?

That doesn't logically follow from what I said.

I wasn't trying to follow, it was a question about if it's possible, given we don't really know the temperature record of earth's history.

[Phatscotty]

Pretty sure the answer is that this weather phenomenon preceded the last ice age, so you either go with the theory that we should prevent it occurring, or start planning how to deal with the next ice age. Neither s particularly attractive.

Burying your head in the sand is not an option.

people can be pretty crappy planners even when it comes to tomorrow or next week. Very few people I know are even planning for their own retirement, it's just not on their mind. If we are supposed to plan for the next 'age', then I'm gonna start digging a hole so I can be next to the earth's core where it's still warm. And forget turning it over to the government, besides printing money and papering things over for the short term, they can't plan a cup of soup.

[WingCmdr Ginkapo]

Pretty sure the answer is that this weather phenomenon preceded the last ice age, so you either go with the theory that we should prevent it occurring, or start planning how to deal with the next ice age. Neither s particularly attractive.

Burying your head in the sand is not an option.

people can be pretty crappy planners even when it comes to tomorrow or next week. Very few people I know are even planning for their own retirement, it's just not on their mind. If we are supposed to plan for the next 'age', then I'm gonna start digging a hole so I can be next to the earth's core where it's still warm. And forget turning it over to the government, besides printing money and papering things over for the short term, they can't plan a cup of soup.

Thats an excuse not an answer

[tzor]

That doesn't logically follow from what I said. We have concrete and essentially indisputable evidence that these changes are not normal and that human-caused CO2 emissions are causing the warming -- the type of CO2 that we emit from (say) fossil fuel combustion is different in nature than the type of CO2 that is emitted in natural processes, so we can be confident that it is our emissions that are involved here. So by construction there is no way for this change to be "normal" if that means non-industrial.

Perhaps it is because you are not logical in the first place? Now let me break down your quote one line at a time.

"We have concrete and essentially indisputable evidence that these changes are not normal" ... Actually all the "concrete" evidence has been proven to either be outright fake or basically sand, adjusted specifically in order to prove the case. This isn't to say that there may not be some evidence, but it's hardly "concrete."

"the type of CO2 that we emit from (say) fossil fuel combustion is different in nature than the type of CO2 that is emitted in natural processes" ... in my state, you need a medical condition in order to smoke that shit. CO2 is a molecule of two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. It basically has one nature. It's not like complex molecules which can form in different ways (see left handed vs right handed sugar for an example). Unless we are talking about isotopes (and even then I have seen no documentation how different isotopes of carbon or oxygen in CO2 changes global warming effects) there is no difference in the nature of CO2. NONE. Now if you are talking about other gasses as a result of burning coal and and oil derived fuels, that is an entirely different can of beans.

The only think you can be "confident" of is that you can spin a goof yarn and sound scientific.

[Lord Arioch]

It just arrived 29 celsius in the shade and no wind! Damn u all for giving us summer at last!

[Metsfanmax]

"We have concrete and essentially indisputable evidence that these changes are not normal" ... Actually all the "concrete" evidence has been proven to either be outright fake or basically sand, adjusted specifically in order to prove the case. This isn't to say that there may not be some evidence, but it's hardly "concrete."

OK, you can believe whatever you want to. As a scientist, I'm pretty confident that a global conspiracy to fake massive amounts of data would be... rather tricky. But I'm probably not going to convince you of this, and you're definitely not going to convince me that my experiences as a scientist don't show me that scientists love to tear apart the work of others, so what's the point? I mean, I would hope that you would know enough to recognize that your undergrad engineering degree from a few decades ago doesn't exactly qualify you to comment on the contemporary state of the academic process, but perhaps that is hoping too much.

"the type of CO2 that we emit from (say) fossil fuel combustion is different in nature than the type of CO2 that is emitted in natural processes" ... in my state, you need a medical condition in order to smoke that shit. CO2 is a molecule of two oxygen atoms and one carbon atom. It basically has one nature. It's not like complex molecules which can form in different ways (see left handed vs right handed sugar for an example). Unless we are talking about isotopes (and even then I have seen no documentation how different isotopes of carbon or oxygen in CO2 changes global warming effects) there is no difference in the nature of CO2. NONE. Now if you are talking about other gasses as a result of burning coal and and oil derived fuels, that is an entirely different can of beans.

It is the isotopic ratio that is relevant here. Plants generally have a lower ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 than the atmosphere does, since the energetics favor usage of carbon-12 over the heavier carbon-13. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in plants is fairly constant over time since photosynthesis doesn't change its nature, so the ancient organic material that decayed to form fossil fuels has about the same C13/C12 ratio that modern plants do. So then fossil fuels have about the same C13/C12 ratio as plants now do; that is, a lower C13/C12 ratio than the atmosphere had when the industrial period started. Consequently the burning of fossil fuels means that the ratio of C13 in the atmosphere is decreasing, because the typical CO2 molecule is now more likely to come from the C13-depleted fossil fuel burning.

That of course doesn't mean that C13-depleted carbon dioxide has a different global warming potential, since the extra neutron doesn't much change the absorptive properties of the CO2*. But that's not relevant to the point I was making to Phatscotty, which is that there's indisputably a human fingerprint on the current CO2 emission rate, which gives the lie to the possibility that what we are seeing now could have happened at any time in the past.

*This means, naturally, that there may be quite a bit we can learn from past ice age-interglacial transitions in relation to what might be in store for us. But I wanted to make it absolutely clear that there is nothing natural about what is currently happening.

[mrswdk]

The question still remains: why even bother fighting climate change?

[Metsfanmax]

The question still remains: why even bother fighting climate change?

For the same reason any of us do anything: a better future for myself, my family, and the rest of the world.

[mrswdk]

The question still remains: why even bother fighting climate change?

For the same reason any of us do anything: a better future for myself, my family, and the rest of the world.

lol. Very noble.

[Metsfanmax]

The question still remains: why even bother fighting climate change?

For the same reason any of us do anything: a better future for myself, my family, and the rest of the world.

lol. Very noble.

Read this.

[mrswdk]

The question still remains: why even bother fighting climate change?

For the same reason any of us do anything: a better future for myself, my family, and the rest of the world.

lol. Very noble.

Read this.

We should care about what happens to the world in 100 years because boogie woogie.

[Dukasaur]

The question still remains: why even bother fighting climate change?

For the same reason any of us do anything: a better future for myself, my family, and the rest of the world.

lol. Very noble.

Read this.

We should care about what happens to the world in 100 years because boogie woogie.

No "we should" but "we do." The article is not advising you to care about future generations, it's pointing out that you already do. People write books with the assumption that there will be other people around to read them, perhaps not forever, but for a good long time. People make sculptures with the assumption that there will be people to admire them, perhaps not forever, but for a good long time.

Physical death is scary enough, but memetic death -- the idea that our achievements will vanish and be observed by nobody, is scarier yet.

[mrswdk]

Physical death is scary enough, but memetic death -- the idea that our achievements will vanish and be observed by nobody, is scarier yet.

Maybe to you. Me personally, I couldn't care less.

[mrswdk]

I don't understand why you'd give a shit. After you die, you're dead. Who cares what happens after that? It doesn't affect you at all.

[Metsfanmax]

Physical death is scary enough, but memetic death -- the idea that our achievements will vanish and be observed by nobody, is scarier yet.

Maybe to you. Me personally, I couldn't care less.

I believe that more or less qualifies you as a sociopath, and if so it makes sense that you literally cannot understand our perspective.

[Dukasaur]

I don't understand why you'd give a shit. After you die, you're dead. Who cares what happens after that? It doesn't affect you at all.

We've already discovered in other threads that you don't feel a normal range of human emotions. It's impossible to make you perceive something that you're genetically incapable of perceiving. Let's just say, for the 98% of us that experience human feelings, the above is true, and leave it at that.

[mrswdk]

If you guys want to waste your life worrying about something that doesn't even affect you then that's your choice.

Me, I can think of better ways to spend my time.

[Metsfanmax]

If you guys want to waste your life worrying about something that doesn't even affect you then that's your choice.

What we are trying to explain is that it does affect us and we don't have a choice about that. Most people can't willingly make go away the fact that we care about what other people think of us, and care that they're doing alright. (Although it is easier to ignore the latter in day-to-day life if the suffering is not at your doorstep. But if forced to think about it, most of us can't help but feel that it's miserable that this suffering exists.)

[mrswdk]

If you guys want to waste your life worrying about something that doesn't even affect you then that's your choice.

What we are trying to explain is that it does affect us and we don't have a choice about that. Most people can't willingly make go away the fact that we care about what other people think of us, and care that they're doing alright.

How do events that happen 20 years after my death affect me?

[Metsfanmax]

If you guys want to waste your life worrying about something that doesn't even affect you then that's your choice.

What we are trying to explain is that it does affect us and we don't have a choice about that. Most people can't willingly make go away the fact that we care about what other people think of us, and care that they're doing alright.

How do events that happen 20 years after my death affect me?

Well, this is what that piece was trying to explain. Suppose that you really love art, and are getting on in your years. You want to leave something to the world so that they can appreciate art as much as you do. You spend the last good years of your life building an art gallery. This way there's something there for future generations to see. But suppose there are no future generations. Then what would have been the point of building the gallery? If you knew that the future generations would be wiped out before you started the task, you likely wouldn't decide to build the gallery; you'd do something else instead.