This Is Why I Am Not An "Enviromentalist"

[uneverno]

It's the difference between climatology and meteorology.
Between calculus and chaos mathematics, if you will.
Global and local phenomena.
On a global level, it is reasonable to predict warming based on increases in GHG's, notably CO2 and CH4, the atmospheric content of both having increased substantially over the last 100 years, through largely (though not entirely) human actions. (Volcanos play a substantial role as well.)
What impact that will have on local weather is impossible to predict accurately because the math isn't there, but it is nevertheless possible to model the trend.
Incidentally, I'm on the fence on this one. Mars and Jupiter are experiencing planetary warming as well, so it is logical to assume that Solar activity is a contributing factor. Earth's warming is happening comparitively faster however, so there must be additional factors involved. I am inclined to believe that humankind is a factor in the mix.

 

[mantisman51]

1) Siberia and Alaska's tundra was once a temperate grassland. It is now permanently frozen. That is why the mammoth and sabertooth tigers are no longer there. How did humans cause the global cooling?
2) Mt Pinatubo, Phillipines, spewed out more CO2 and CFC's in one 9 hour eruption than all of human activity in the history of the world. How does that not cause "global warming"? I guess volcano CO2 is less harful than human CO2.
3) Let's say, and this hasn't even been proven, that the Earth's temperature has increased by 1/2 degree, as Al Gore claimed in his hoax er movie. How do we know that we aren't returning to a warmer climate that ALL paleontologists say the earth had, before the ice age?
Since I know none of you chicken littles will be able to answer this, your guru Al has dodged these, I would ask you to examine who has whose head in the sand.

 

[reefraff]

If those pushing the warming hysteria are truly being motivated by the desire to curb greenhouse gas emissions why do they ignore the more potent gas which has increase 3 times faster than CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Methane?
Quick answer is they can't turn a buck doing cap and trade on methane emissions.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3021779
It's the difference between climatology and meteorology.
Between calculus and chaos mathematics, if you will.
Global and local phenomena.
On a global level, it is reasonable to predict warming based on increases in GHG's, notably CO2 and CH4, the atmospheric content of both having increased substantially over the last 100 years, through largely (though not entirely) human actions. (Volcanos play a substantial role as well.)
What impact that will have on local weather is impossible to predict accurately because the math isn't there, but it is nevertheless possible to model the trend.
Incidentally, I'm on the fence on this one. Mars and Jupiter are experiencing planetary warming as well, so it is logical to assume that Solar activity is a contributing factor. Earth's warming is happening comparitively faster however, so there must be additional factors involved. I am inclined to believe that humankind is a factor in the mix.
So you are telling me it is easier to predict the 100 year weather actions than the weather that will happen tomorrow? Seriously?
I would say humankind isn't the distinguishing factor between the planets but sustainable life itself. That and maybe coastal tides or the number of moons that affect all things due to gravitational pull. There are SO many differences between the planets that could account for the climate change difference. To lock down to just human beings is ridiculous. Just like the theory we have enough enough nuclear missles to blow up the earth.....Remember that argument?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3021792
1) Siberia and Alaska's tundra was once a temperate grassland. It is now permanently frozen. That is why the mammoth and sabertooth tigers are no longer there. How did humans cause the global cooling?
We obviously didn't which is why I pointed out the importance of taking Solar activity into account in my response upthread. We don't know that the Earth's orbit was precisely the same as it is now. There have also been several planetary axial and magnetic pole shifts over course of earth's history.
So what?
The argument is a red herring. None of those factors rule out humankind's current contribution to GHG's.
2) Mt Pinatubo, Phillipines, spewed out more CO2 and CFC's in one 9 hour eruption than all of human activity in the history of the world. How does that not cause "global warming"? I guess volcano CO2 is less harful than human CO2.
Again, see upthread. Volcanic activity is most definitely a contributing factor. Compounding it doesn't make things better.
Incidentally, the gas emission was not greater than all human activity in the history of the world. It was greater than all post WWII human activity.
3) Let's say, and this hasn't even been proven, that the Earth's temperature has increased by 1/2 degree, as Al Gore claimed in his hoax er movie. How do we know that we aren't returning to a warmer climate that ALL paleontologists say the earth had, before the ice age?
This is a red herring as well. The short answer is we don't. The long answer has nothing to do with the question as you pose it. Earth's atmospheric content was much lower in Oxygen and much higher in CH4 (methane) at that time than it is now. Apples and Oranges comparison.
Since I know none of you chicken littles will be able to answer this, your guru Al has dodged these, I would ask you to examine who has whose head in the sand.
There is no doubt that Al is a profiteer. As reefraf stated, the cap and trade in CH4 would be distinctly against his personal financial interests as well as those of his collegues.
Let me re-iterate my position for the sake of clarity. I am not an alarmist, nor am I hysterical. I simply believe that it is reasonable to plug the numbers, which are both measurable and predictable, into a model and draw a conclusion from that calculation.
Deny global warming if you wish. That's fine. It does not however, mitigate humankind's contribution to pollution. The end result of that is bound to be bad whether the planet warms up or not.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3021808
So you are telling me it is easier to predict the 100 year weather actions than the weather that will happen tomorrow? Seriously?
That's exactly what I'm saying. The math is simpler for the former than the latter. In the first instance one is predicting a trend, in the second, an incident. Run the numbers.
I would say humankind isn't the distinguishing factor between the planets but sustainable life itself. That and maybe coastal tides or the number of moons that affect all things due to gravitational pull. There are SO many differences between the planets that could account for the climate change difference. To lock down to just human beings is ridiculous. Just like the theory we have enough enough nuclear missles to blow up the earth.....Remember that argument?
Of course there are factors we cannot take into account. While others may have, I have deliberately avoided "locking it down" to human activity. You are correct, that is ridiculous. To dismiss a human contribution altogether is equally ridiculous.
So by drawing a firm conclusion, are you sure you haven't missed anything?
In addition, the nuclear argument is a straw man. It has nothing to do with the point at hand, nor is it metaphorically relevant.
My point is that the jury is still out.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3021815
T
My point is that the jury is still out.
That is my point as well...I do not believe we contribute enough to significantly matter in the grand scheme. Especially when Methane seems to be the highest abundance of gas contributing to this...sure we produce methane, but so do most living creatures and even dead ones.

 

[mantisman51]

Of course, Uneverno. You can't respond to the thought that truth and science are irrelavent to global alarmists. I gave you FACT and you call it a red herring. Global alarmists have a religion and by faith they kneel at the alter of global warming and any dissent is blasphemy.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3021971
Of course, Uneverno. You can't respond to the thought that truth and science are irrelavent to global alarmists.
Ah, no. That statment I can respond to. The "irrelevant to global alarmists" addition is a critical caveat left out of your first statement.
As now stated, I wholeheartedly agree.
I gave you FACT and you call it a red herring.
Which one? I called several of them red herrings and stand by that. I'd prefer to address them specifically, however.
Global alarmists have a religion and by faith they kneel at the alter of global warming and any dissent is blasphemy.
Careful there. Faith of all sorts has a way of painting oppositional fact with the broad brush of blasphemy.
I agree about alarmists - most shout from the mountaintops because there is something personal to be gained. I do not count myself among them. I maintain that the evidence, as it stands, is inconclusive, but worthy of continued investigation.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3021953
That is my point as well...I do not believe we contribute enough to significantly matter in the grand scheme.
We're not far from the same page.
The only place we may differ here is in our respective defintions of "significantly."
Especially when Methane seems to be the highest abundance of gas contributing to this...sure we produce methane, but so do most living creatures and even dead ones.
Methane results from two things humans do:
1) Raising animals (in particular cattle)
2) Drilling for oil.
There are a couple ways we could ameliorate our contribution to the problem.
1) Stop feeding cattle corn. They can't digest it and as a result, their digestive tracts produce methane. Feed them grass instead, which is what they were designed to eat.
2) Capture the methane we tap in drilling for oil, rather than burning it or releasing it into the atmosphere. This is an issue in the middle east in particular, where Natural Gas (methane) is viewed as a waste product in oil production, rather than a product in and of itself.
Compared to oil and coal, Methane is a clean fuel and we have an abundance of it. Rather than waste it, let's take even greater advantage of it while we research even cleaner alternatives.
Waste not want not.

 

[mantisman51]

Dang, I like you uneverno. You are point-to-point. Fact-to-fact. Opinion-to-opinion. You are a fine sparring partner. I'd love to buy you a beer and talk for a while.

 

[uneverno]

I'm still a liberal.

Agreed, however. And how'd you know I like beer?

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3021792
1) Siberia and Alaska's tundra was once a temperate grassland. It is now permanently frozen. That is why the mammoth and sabertooth tigers are no longer there. How did humans cause the global cooling?
2) Mt Pinatubo, Phillipines, spewed out more CO2 and CFC's in one 9 hour eruption than all of human activity in the history of the world. How does that not cause "global warming"? I guess volcano CO2 is less harful than human CO2.
3) Let's say, and this hasn't even been proven, that the Earth's temperature has increased by 1/2 degree, as Al Gore claimed in his hoax er movie. How do we know that we aren't returning to a warmer climate that ALL paleontologists say the earth had, before the ice age?
Since I know none of you chicken littles will be able to answer this, your guru Al has dodged these, I would ask you to examine who has whose head in the sand.
Mantisman - you need to learn how to make an argument. First, as Journeyman will tell you, get your facts straight. Mt. Pinatubo spewed no CFCs, since these are man made molecules. Second, a warmer climate is exactly what planetologists are predicting, so chicken little had it right, as the wolf learned when the sky fell on him.

 

[mantisman51]

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html
You were saying, geridoc? Oh, because the aerosol (cfc chemically) is not man-made it doesn't count? If you would like, I have about 10 other links to government and UN reports, hardly supporters of right-wing conspirists.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3022047
We're not far from the same page.
The only place we may differ here is in our respective defintions of "significantly."
Methane results from two things humans do:
1) Raising animals (in particular cattle)
2) Drilling for oil.
There are a couple ways we could ameliorate our contribution to the problem.
1) Stop feeding cattle corn. They can't digest it and as a result, their digestive tracts produce methane. Feed them grass instead, which is what they were designed to eat.
2) Capture the methane we tap in drilling for oil, rather than burning it or releasing it into the atmosphere. This is an issue in the middle east in particular, where Natural Gas (methane) is viewed as a waste product in oil production, rather than a product in and of itself.
Compared to oil and coal, Methane is a clean fuel and we have an abundance of it. Rather than waste it, let's take even greater advantage of it while we research even cleaner alternatives.
Waste not want not.
A major source of human created methane is from growing rice. Less and less methane is vented off oil production as time goes bye.
One of the reasons I doubt the motives of the global warming crowd is they only concentrate on CO2 emissions and their solution isn't to prohibit emissions, it is to make companies pay for the right to pollute. Mr Global warming Gore has a carbon trading company, yeah, no reason to doubt his motives.
I actually agree with John McCain's position on this. Take reasonable steps to curb CO2 emissions and if we are wrong so what, we didn't hurt anything. I am absolutely opposed to this ridiculous cap and trade scheme, it is a scam.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3022116
A major source of human created methane is from growing rice.
Wow - excellent info - I did not know that

One of the reasons I doubt the motives of the global warming crowd is they only concentrate on CO2 emissions and their solution isn't to prohibit emissions, it is to make companies pay for the right to pollute. Mr Global warming Gore has a carbon trading company, yeah, no reason to doubt his motives.
I actually agree with John McCain's position on this. Take reasonable steps to curb CO2 emissions and if we are wrong so what, we didn't hurt anything. I am absolutely opposed to this ridiculous cap and trade scheme, it is a scam.
Agreed on all counts. Not only is it a pay to play system, but the grossest polluters (China, India, et al.) are exempt from the game. Meantime, living on the left coast, coal dust from Shanghai is raining down on me...
I am a firm believer in the Hippocratic Oath: Above all - do no harm.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3022134
Wow - excellent info - I did not know that

Agreed on all counts. Not only is it a pay to play system, but the grossest polluters (China, India, et al.) are exempt from the game. Meantime, living on the left coast, coal dust from Shanghai is raining down on me...
I am a firm believer in the Hippocratic Oath: Above all - do no harm.
As long as China and India are not going to abide by the same regulations as the rest of the world their ain't squat we can really do. I think they should come up with a standard all the industrialized countries are willing to follow and go with it. If we can get China and India to take small steps it will go a lot further than if we take more drastic steps and those two countries do business as usual.

 

[uneverno]

+1
Trouble is, we're making too much money industrializing them. Their lack of environmental regulation works in favor of US business interests.

 

[reefraff]

I know a guy who has a couple factories in China. About 2 years ago they were rationing power to the point he only had power 3 days a week but he did say China was looking more capitalistic than the US at times.
What we should do is help China build nuke plants. They already have the bomb so what's the downside.

 

[uneverno]

250,000 year half life contained in a sub-spec drum clandestinely disposed of on top of the reef that supports your favorite critter.