Queso Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 i think so too. right now we don't really know what's going on. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 I am willing to bet anyone a cup of cofee (and I mean good cofee) that 40 years from now, we will be laughing that we actually thought global temerature changes were caused by elevations in atmospheric CO2. And we will have an entirely new view of the actual rate and direction of temperature change. I do not think that CO2 levels are the cause, I feel thay do have a role in the fluctuations. I think it would be absurd to think that mnan's sudden shove to the carbon cycle has no effect. A process that takes almost millions of years is being put into hyper-drive and and the balance is being disturbed. What exactly the outcome may be is still up in the air... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 I do not think that CO2 levels are the cause, I feel thay do have a role in the fluctuations. I think it would be absurd to think that mnan's sudden shove to the carbon cycle has no effect. A process that takes almost millions of years is being put into hyper-drive and and the balance is being disturbed. What exactly the outcome may be is still up in the air...Does this mean that we are on for the cup-of-coffee bet? I would be willing to bend my bet to include that we will not even think that CO2 was a material causative agent. That way, we can have a couple of cups of coffee while we debate what I meant (40 years ago) by "material". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 AS long as its none of that fru-fru latte crap. Just a a good cup of black joe.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 ... I would be willing to bend my bet to include that we will not even think that CO2 was a material causative agent. That way, we can have a couple of cups of coffee while we debate what I meant (40 years ago) by "material".You have a way of making sure you win bets, huh Bio? "Material" is indeed going to be a hard thing to prove, since there are so many other variables, but chaos theory basically says that small changes in inputs can have enormous impacts on the performance of systems. The argument on your side has been "our input is minor compared to solar fluctuations, axis tilt changes, etc, etc." but chaos says that it could be a *tiny* input change and have very, very bad consequences, so there's no way you could lose, as long as the change is "small" while we see all our coastal cities inundated or see glaciers in Dallas and Bangalore (I'm actually in the camp that sez the long term result will be Ice Age, not baked Earth). While I agree that there's more moderate approaches, and the economic considerations have to be made, I find it very hard to justify making *no* effort to attenuate the human inputs into the system.... Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 AS long as its none of that fru-fru latte crap. Just a a good cup of black joe..Tell him its gotta be Peet's Arabian Mocha Sanani.... Caffeinated,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 You have a way of making sure you win bets, huh Bio? "Material" is indeed going to be a hard thing to prove, since there are so many other variables, but chaos theory basically says that small changes in inputs can have enormous impacts on the performance of systems. Damn. I concede the point.The argument on your side has been "our input is minor compared to solar fluctuations, axis tilt changes, etc, etc." but chaos says that it could be a *tiny* input change and have very, very bad consequences, so there's no way you could lose, as long as the change is "small" while we see all our coastal cities inundated or see glaciers in Dallas and Bangalore...But now I get to user your argument backwards. If we acknowledge the chaotics (which seems poetic, since chaos theory was first framed by meteorologists) then there is no basis to point to CO2 as causative at all. It could be something even more trivial-like square feet of asphalt or cows farting methane (UncelAl likes that one). Are we going to eradicate roads and cows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 AS long as its none of that fru-fru latte crap. Just a a good cup of black joe..You're on. Did you read the Heinlein book (I think it was "Time Enough for Love") where he described coffee as existing in five grades: "Coffee, java, jamoka, joe and carbon remover"? Heinlein considered "joe" to be grade 4. That was a great book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Damn. I concede the point.But now I get to user your argument backwards. If we acknowledge the chaotics (which seems poetic, since chaos theory was first framed by meteorologists) then there is no basis to point to CO2 as causative at all. It could be something even more trivial-like square feet of asphalt or cows farting methane (UncelAl likes that one). Are we going to eradicate roads and cows?Tee hee! But of course! That's how you win this argument! The practical point is (MBA hat on) is that you'll get the biggest bang for your buck if you go after the biggest contributors. If you lived in LA in the late seventies/early 80s, you got used to orange skies in the afternoon. Its nowhere near as bad now as it was when I was a kid. Why? Emissions controls that all the sticks in the mud said we couldn't afford. Now I think it would be easier to have a national gas standard that would lower gas prices (no need for different formulations for different states), and lower emissions everywhere, that would be an easy, low cost solution with big bang. While cows farting is a contributor, its a small fraction of the amount of emissions put out by cars, and you'd need a whole army of people to run around behind the cows all day long putting the plugs back in. Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Tee hee! But of course! That's how you win this argument! The practical point is (MBA hat on) is that you'll get the biggest bang for your buck if you go after the biggest contributors. Then we should be going after water vapor, not CO2. And I hope that MBA hat doesn't mess up your cute Buffy hair (lecherous slap again-Ouch!). Seriously, isn't hydrogen-powered transportation just going to substitute one greenhouse gas for another one?If you lived in LA in the late seventies/early 80s, you got used to orange skies in the afternoon. Its nowhere near as bad now as it was when I was a kid. I lived in LA county through the early '70s, and you are right. But in that case, the causative agent for smog was known. and the effects of smog were known. This is a VERY tenuous model to use for comparison....While cows farting is a contributor, its a small fraction of the amount of emissions put out by cars, and you'd need a whole army of people to run around behind the cows all day long putting the plugs back in....You clearly are not aware of the new advances in expandable fart-bag technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 Then we should be going after water vapor, not CO2. Seriously, isn't hydrogen-powered transportation just going to substitute one greenhouse gas for another one?Maybe, but CO2 of course stays a gas at all normal temperatures, while water cycles dramatically between all states. Who knows, maybe it will solve our drought problem here...on the other hand it might cause a world-wide flood!I lived in LA county through the early '70s, and you are right. But in that case, the causative agent for smog was known. and the effects of smog were known. This is a VERY tenuous model to use for comparison.But it did have a huge effect on the environment, and it showed how it could be reversed. Maybe its tenouous, but at the time, there was an argument that it had "always been that way" too. Beware of such arguments especially if they cause you to consume massive quantities of sand due to the location of your head....You clearly are not aware of the new advances in expandable fart-bag technology.Nor do I want to become familiar with them... :hihi: Cheers,Buffy niviene 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 25, 2005 Report Share Posted May 25, 2005 ...Beware of such arguments especially if they cause you to consume massive quantities of sand due to the location of your head....I, along with the other executives of the Ostrich council, am shocked at your callous disrespect for the behaviors and preferences of our species.:hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 ___Global warming or not, this study I read today from March 2005 indicates no rising sea levels. It includes data collected in the Maldives atoll as well as other measures. Here is a link & some quotes: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm With the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite mission in 1992, we now have new means of recording actual sea level changes. The record from 1992 to early 2000 (Fig 4) lacks any sign of a sea level rise; it records variability around zero plus a major ENSO even in year 1997. ... When we three years later have the same record extended into year 2003 on the Webb, a tilt has been introduced. This tilt does not originate from the satellite altimetry readings, however, but represents an inferred factor from tide-gauge interpretations. In order to get back to true satellite data, we have to tilt the whole record back to its original data of Fig 4. When this is done, there is no sea level rise to be seen—only a variability around zero plus a number of high-amplitude ENSO oscillations (Fig 5). This is why I in Fig 3 conclude that the sea level remained stationary at around zero for the last 10-15 years (as further discussed in Mörner, 2004a and 2005)....From 2000 to the present, we have run a special international sea level project in the Maldives including six field sessions and numerous radiocarbon dates. Our record for the last 1,200 years is given in Fig 6. There are no signs of any on-going sea level rise. It seems all to be a myth. Whatcha think?:lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted February 18, 2006 Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 Whatcha think?:lol:This is indeed a complex topic, which is, in turn, exaggerated by the potential political utilization of any data. I do think that not only the sea level changes, but the aggregate temperature data is pretty suspect. This is not a suggestion of scientific malfeasance, but just that the long term trend data is very inconsistent and hard to interpret.1) The contribution of land based senssors to the overall temperature mapping is itself an issue in that many sensors were near cities that increased thermal output over a multi-decade horizon.2) It is very difficult to buid a theoretical model that maps well to the observed historical data. This makes predictions pretty weak.3) Causality is an even weaker link. CO2 or otherwise, causality is extremely difficult to link given the problems with historical data interpretation and prescriptive modeling. All that being said, global climate change is real. Something is going on that seems to be dramatic. The degradation in the Greenland glaciers is real. Causality is conjecture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2006 ___Global warming or not, this study I read today from March 2005 indicates no rising sea levels.I would agree with that. If you fill a glass with ice and then fill it to the brim with water it does not overflow when the ice melts.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 I would agree with that. If you fill a glass with ice and then fill it to the brim with water it does not overflow when the ice melts....Floating ice will not raise the water level as it melts, but landbound ice will. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted February 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Floating ice will not raise the water level as it melts, but landbound ice will.Very true... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.