1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Should local climate effects be used as evidence of global climate change?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Cohete Rojo, Feb 11, 2014.

  1. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,105
    Likes Received:
    3,757
    LOL! Break this sentence down. CO2 is created during combustion, released from volcanos etc. This gives two and alludes to more ways carbon dioxide is created. Please stop saying carbon when you mean CO2. I won't reference your misuse in my reply beyond this and will just guess which one you are talking about.



    I THINK it means something that exists and is being locked away. But that would make your statement just as false because CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels doesn't exist until we burn it. So either way, your statement was false and your arguments are even more out there.

    There is no equilibrium. Equilibrium means the amounts of each substance remains constant. If I dump HNO3 in a glass of water, the amount of H+'s will remain basically constant after it has reach equilibrium. The amount of oxygen, CO2 and other atmospheric gases have not remained constant for the planets history. It has constantly changed.



    Volcanoes don't account for a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels? Is that what this gibberish means.


    I don't know what you mean to say here honestly. The volume of water changes constantly with respect to temperature obviously.

    Well so far you have spouted out that you work with smart people and then just rambled off some other incoherent garbage.

    I don't know if you are drunk, or if you just typed your ideas wrong, but the statements I quoted earlier are just false.
     
  2. heypartner

    heypartner Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    63,511
    Likes Received:
    59,008
    Dude,you are clearly trying to catch up on the Internet with my knowledge. You are too easy, like a book that you were told to read.

    You keep telling me to say carbon vs CO2 like you caught me in something

    Fact is you making that point shows your lack of knowledge

    Carbon is not a gas, CO2 is. I assumed you understood that.

    Do you know what CO2e means


    Again, do you want to know and challenge the efforts of Global 500 companies like Mercedes Benz thinks of your amateur take in this

    And please share with us why your opinion is better than my clients.

    Tell me why Kimberly-Clark cares more about this than Georgia Pacific. You can't, but I can.
     
    #22 heypartner, Feb 12, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2014
  3. heypartner

    heypartner Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    63,511
    Likes Received:
    59,008
    Volcanoes do not burn Fossil Fuels in significance. You are just mistaken.

    Your argument is that CO2 is released during combustion; sure, in a car! And then you extrapolate that to say ALL fires have CO2.

    That's false. I don't think you know how fires work. Volcanoes contribute to no net gain....and they don't really burn like by BBQ does. They don't need Carbon. They just need Oxygen.

    You really do not know how fires work do you,,,and yet you continue to argue an ignorant position.
     
    #23 heypartner, Feb 12, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2014
  4. Northside Storm

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    11,262
    Likes Received:
    450
    It has everything to do with the topic, and the theme you're trying to advance with it. You're advocating for caution by picking off anecdotal data before people get their "panties in a wad"---meanwhile, even if you're anti-scientific, you can't get away with argumentation that is also incredibly short-sighted.

    Your premise is that based on minor data point A--->we should be cautious about the climate change debate as a whole. Given your previously articulated position misinterpreting "in the long run we are all dead", I find it fitting to counter that line of thinking no matter how you choose to frame it in this forum.

    As for your barb on public research, I wish to counter your anti-scientific thinking on this front as well.

    PageRank was based on public research, shale gas was based on federal incentives, the Internet was largely conceived with defence funding---big data builds on Google---is there a common theme here of a few people living a short term party on the work and efforts of many? Of private exploitation of public goods?

    [​IMG]

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733397000139

     
  5. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,682
    Likes Received:
    16,206
    No - I don't think that's the case. But there's far more to GWT than "the world is getting warmer!"
     
  6. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
  7. durvasa

    durvasa Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    38,893
    Likes Received:
    16,449
    If you want to look at it in in these terms, wouldn't the 100-year trend be much more relevant and a far larger "elephant in the room"?
     
  8. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    Why stop at 100 years? Why not 2000 years? Or even twice that?
     
  9. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,116
    Likes Received:
    23,394
    There is not a 17yr cooling trend. There is a 17 (16 to be more accurate) years of little global temp rising (actually there is a bit or a rise, but insignificant). So there is a PAUSE in temp raising. This has been explained. It doesn't at all mean climate change (temp trending up) isn't happening.

    Btw, Climate by definition look at 30yrs span.

    The elephant in the room -- 97% of scientists that study climate agree in climate change and human is a significant contributing factor.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,168
    Likes Received:
    48,335
    I'm actually surprised that it took this long for someone to bring up the relatively cold winter much of the US is experiencing to argue against climate change. I see this brought up on my Facebook a lot.

    First off Lake Superior icing over isn't climate but is a weather in regard that it is a short term phenomenon and not a trend. That said if we are considering weather you have to also consider that while much of the US East of the Rockies has been unusually cold the West Coast and Alaska has had record warmth and drought. Even with the storm in CA last week the Sierra snow pack is still less than a third of what it has been previously. This drought has been going on for 14 years and it is drier than it has been in recorded history. Whereas while it is as cold in MN as it has been in 30 years the last few winters have been relatively warm and two years ago we had record warmth in MN.

    While Lake Superior is freezing over this year keep in mind that ice formation isn't just a function of temperature but also of wind and pressure patterns. High pressure low winds allow for ice formation and the polar vortex that we keep on hearing about is an arctic high pressure that because of a weakening jet stream was able to drift out over the Northern Plains. Also if we are talking about Lake Superior there is plenty of evidence that it is already experiencing the affects of climate change.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Superior
    [rquoter]According to a study by professors at the University of Minnesota Duluth, Lake Superior may have warmed faster than its surrounding area.[20] Summer surface temperatures in the lake appeared to have increased by about 4.5 °F (2.5 °C) since 1979, compared with an approximately 2.7 °F (1.5 °C) increase in the surrounding average air temperature. The increase in the lake’s surface temperature may be related to the decreasing ice cover. Less winter ice cover allows more solar radiation to penetrate and warm the water. If trends continue, Lake Superior, which freezes over completely once every 20 years, could routinely be ice-free by 2040.[21] This would be a significant departure from historical records as according to Hubert Lamb, Samuel Champlain reported ice along the shores of Lake Superior in June 1608.[22] Warmer temperatures could actually lead to more snow in the lake effect snow belts along the shores of the lake, especially in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.[/rquoter]

    On the subject the 17 year cooling trend that has been debunked several times and someone had posted a great graph explaining that on one of these threads. Anyway what that is based on is that in 1998 there was a record El Nino that raised global temperatures. Taking that as the high point it does appear that global temperatures are cooling. The problem with that though would be like if you a stock reached a record high and then you looked at the 5 week average from that point. If the stock doesn't reach that point again then yes over that 5 week average the stock price is dropping. Any smart investor though isn't going to base their decisions on only the 5 week average. So if you looked at the one year or 5 year average and saw that the stock price had been rising that whole time the long term trend is that the stock is that the stock is rising.
     
  11. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,116
    Likes Received:
    23,394
    How about 65Million years. Yes, it has been studied.
     
  12. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    and what does that study say? Please link it with an executive summary of the findings
     
  13. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,116
    Likes Received:
    23,394
    If you are interested, goggling is your friend. If not, your choice.
     
  14. hieuytran

    hieuytran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    628
    Just blame it on the woolly mammoth and the saber tooth tigers because wasn't it an ice age when they were around and then they started warming up the planet and melting all that ice. :grin:
     
  15. CrazyDave

    CrazyDave Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    6,027
    Likes Received:
    439
    I suspect we're screwing things up, probably worse than we know, but like Carlin said the planet will shake us off when it needs to or feels like it. Maybe it will happen this millennium, maybe no. Maybe we'll live through it, maybe no. Maybe we can reverse it, maybe no.

    I do know that regardless how long it takes for us to completely offend mother nature, the way things are now, solutions through partisanship and politics are sure to lag behind any problem and it's advancement, with the help of those that would be hurt by attempts to change anything for the better in the long term. And that's not even talking about the global picture. That's just the US.

    So, until there is an undeniable consensus, maybe you wanna 'pascal wager' on this. Maybe you don't want to do too much about it and be wrong and/or contribute to what you see as a myth and a detriment, but maybe anyway you want to at least recognize the possibility, and move forward with positive ideas and actions where possible. There have to be more ways which we agree can help without causing whatever talking point or lobbyist concern to topple the economy or our social well being. Sometimes small steps are the most productive.

    If not, damn the torpedoes and let's see what happens, I guess, but it does seem to me we could be generally more progressive in awareness of the potential for long term problems regarding our consumptions, whether next year or next millennium.

    As to the OP question in the title... I'd say no, but that doesn't rule out using a conglomeration of that data and anything else that we can use scientifically to determine what's going on in our climate.
     
  16. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Can you produce a chart, with citation, that shows a 65 million year CO2-climate change correlation?

    With regards to the western US you bring up a good point that population distribution has some effect on the perception of both the connotation and severity of climate change. If northern Canada were experiencing record heat or cold for the past two decades, I don't think anyone would give a damn. Where as a tropical storm landing in NYC would cause major uproar in the news media.

    I also see your point in separating climate into temperature, wind, precipitation and the like. It has been put forth that much of England could be entirely glaciated by changes in the jet-stream - regardless of whether the overall temperature of the Earth is warming or cooling. We do live in a period of time in which 10% of the Earth's surface is covered in ice, and not too long ago it was a greater percent.

    I remain an existentialist on the issue. How do I know if climate change, regardless of temperature direction, is good or bad - and for who? It is such a subjective matter to say that human influence on climate is bad. In that case we should not only question our consumption of transportation, heating and cooling energy but also our consumption of food energy. Particularly our consumption of meat, dairy and rice.
     
  17. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    So you cannot produce evidence of the study you cited?

    or did you just make that study up?
     
  18. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,105
    Likes Received:
    3,757
    I'm not sure what you think I had to look up, but you clearly have zero knowledge of chemistry.
     
  19. durvasa

    durvasa Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    38,893
    Likes Received:
    16,449
    If you can extrapolate that far back, I agree that its worth doing so.

    So, here's an article reporting on the results of a study published in Science.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/

    [​IMG]

    [rquoter]To be clear, the study finds that temperatures in about a fifth of this historical period were higher than they are today. But the key, said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University, is that temperatures are shooting through the roof faster than we've ever seen.

    "What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.[/rquoter]
     
  20. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    so for about a fifth of history temperatures were higher?
     

Share This Page