Global Climate Change: It's not just for breakfast anymore - Page 6 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-31-2006, 10:32 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Any change in the orbit, rotation, tilt or precession of the Earth would be of the greatest importance to life on Earth. Anybody who can navigate using the stars would know immediately that there is a problem. Anybody who works as a local TV weather announcer would know something extremely strange was happening. Any astronomer would be beside himself with excitement. It could not possibly be hidden and is of such fundamental importance to life on Earth that there is no possible way that climatologists could ignore it.

Volcanic activity can have many different types of emissions. If the emissions are great volumes of fine particulates lofted into the upper stratosphere then the regions blanketed by those particulates will cool. If the eruption is not fine particulates blasted high into the atmosphere then the greater effect on a global scale could be from greenhouse gas emissions -- especially sulfurous, nitrous and carbon-containing gases.

Another natural source of natural CO2 is the weathering of exposed carbonaceous and sulfurous rock (marbles, limestones, serpentines), especially when accelerated by acid rain, another effect of Man. This source is not yet well understood, either.

In my previous posts I did not mean to imply that all things are known but rather, that enough is known NOW that most scientists believe that general trends can be reliably described. It isn't proof in the deductive sense. But it is very compelling correlations that has convinced most scientists.

B
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 83 (permalink) Old 12-31-2006, 10:36 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
Volcanoes cool the atmosphere, as the particles they emit reflect light back to space. While St Helens was certainly large, it was not of the massive type that happens about every 400,000 years that puts huge amounts of greenhose gases in the atmosphere. An interesting side note, I actually drove up Mt St Helens last year, and will be returning there in about three weeks to work. I learned last year that driving up Mt. St Helens in the winter is an incredibly stupid idea, so I shall not attempt it again. Walking up it is also a bad idea, as it has more grizzly bears per square mile than any place on earth except for Yellowstone, and these guys ain't Yogi.

As far as I know, the earth has not changed orbit. I am sure we would all be notified.

The tilt of the earth's axis is also pretty steady, altho there are indications a reversal of the earth's magnetic field may be under way.

The other questions I am sure are the same, if there is a change, it is infintessimial on our time scale.
FTL, it sounds like you don't like grizzly bears?
maine_coon is offline  
post #53 of 83 (permalink) Old 01-01-2007, 02:19 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
I have spoken to two different petroleum geologists who both report that the Greenland ice sheet is literally slipping off the island into the sea. If I remember right, most of the fresh water on Planet Earth is locked into the Greenland icesheet. If it begins to do what this chunk right in it's neighborhood just did, the introduction of that much fresh water into the ocean will result in an ecological catastrophe. There is also tremendous evidence the rate of warming is accelarating. It is sad that right wing morons will do to us the same thing they did in Iraq: through ignorance, idealogical fanaticism and rosy thinking, they will lead us to disaster.
Ever hear of Leif Erikson? He settled in GREENland back when it was warm. Then after 400 years, the Icelanders left as the climate got colder and colder.

What percentage of climate change is due to man's activities?
DaveN007 is offline  
post #54 of 83 (permalink) Old 01-01-2007, 02:20 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Do you get your climate knowledge from the popular press or from peer reviewed science pubs? Are you active in any aspect of climate research?

Would you like to be? An awful lot of raw climatic data can be downloaded off the WWW. You needn't take anybody's word for anything: Download the data and wail away at it in Excel. Discover trends and interpret them for yourself. Why take some knucklehead PhD's word for anything when you can DIY?

B
What percentage of current climate change is caused by man?
DaveN007 is offline  
post #55 of 83 (permalink) Old 01-01-2007, 02:21 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs210
That's one of the funniest things on BW that I've read in a long time.
hehe
DaveN007 is offline  
post #56 of 83 (permalink) Old 01-01-2007, 02:27 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,495
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
That is why peer review plays such a critical role at this time.
B
That is a joke, right? Peer review may have worked when science was less tainted by the insatiable quest for funding from private and public sources.

Now it is a joke.

You want to read the results of the "peer review" of a certain Korean scientist's work?

He was vetted and reviewed and heraded until he was exposed by a lab assistant.

I can give you countless examples.
DaveN007 is offline  
post #57 of 83 (permalink) Old 01-01-2007, 03:06 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,543
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Any change in the orbit, rotation, tilt or precession of the Earth would be of the greatest importance to life on Earth. Anybody who can navigate using the stars would know immediately that there is a problem. Anybody who works as a local TV weather announcer would know something extremely strange was happening. Any astronomer would be beside himself with excitement. It could not possibly be hidden and is of such fundamental importance to life on Earth that there is no possible way that climatologists could ignore it.

Volcanic activity can have many different types of emissions. If the emissions are great volumes of fine particulates lofted into the upper stratosphere then the regions blanketed by those particulates will cool. If the eruption is not fine particulates blasted high into the atmosphere then the greater effect on a global scale could be from greenhouse gas emissions -- especially sulfurous, nitrous and carbon-containing gases.

Another natural source of natural CO2 is the weathering of exposed carbonaceous and sulfurous rock (marbles, limestones, serpentines), especially when accelerated by acid rain, another effect of Man. This source is not yet well understood, either.

In my previous posts I did not mean to imply that all things are known but rather, that enough is known NOW that most scientists believe that general trends can be reliably described. It isn't proof in the deductive sense. But it is very compelling correlations that has convinced most scientists.

B
So it sounds like climatology is close to the medical care. it is more like the social science than the real science.
maine_coon is offline  
post #58 of 83 (permalink) Old 01-01-2007, 07:40 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN007
What percentage of current climate change is caused by man?
That is EXACTLY the right question and the focus of furious research. I do not believe anybody can give a meaningful answer, yet. What can be clearly demonstrated is correlative evidence of a relationship between the expansion of the human population, increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases and increase in global temperatures. What cannot be demonstrated is a causal-deductive link among those factors. That's why it is called, "research" and not, "explained."

Most folks who actually review the data or work with the data believe that the correlative evidence is too compelling to reject out-of-hand. Also, some of the model outcomes are so awful that given the correlative evidence, it would be unconscionable NOT to determine the degree to which the global warming phenomenon is due to some aspect of Man's presence that can be ameliorated through changes under Man's control.

Finally, as Kirk mentioned earlier (I believe it was Kirk, may have been Prof), if the theory of human-induced global warming is wrong, but we act as though it is correct, what is the worst possible outcome? Conversely, if the theory of human-induced global warming is correct and we do NOTHING, what is the worst possible outcome? Those are the two boundary conditions within which are a large, probably infinitely large, set of responses. Are they not worthy of investigation?

B
Botnst is offline  
post #59 of 83 (permalink) Old 01-01-2007, 09:41 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by maine_coon
FTL, it sounds like you don't like grizzly bears?
I think it is the ignominy of ending up as bear shit that troubles me.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #60 of 83 (permalink) Old 01-01-2007, 09:48 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
That is EXACTLY the right question and the focus of furious research. I do not believe anybody can give a meaningful answer, yet. What can be clearly demonstrated is correlative evidence of a relationship between the expansion of the human population, increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases and increase in global temperatures. What cannot be demonstrated is a causal-deductive link among those factors. That's why it is called, "research" and not, "explained."

Most folks who actually review the data or work with the data believe that the correlative evidence is too compelling to reject out-of-hand. Also, some of the model outcomes are so awful that given the correlative evidence, it would be unconscionable NOT to determine the degree to which the global warming phenomenon is due to some aspect of Man's presence that can be ameliorated through changes under Man's control.

Finally, as Kirk mentioned earlier (I believe it was Kirk, may have been Prof), if the theory of human-induced global warming is wrong, but we act as though it is correct, what is the worst possible outcome? Conversely, if the theory of human-induced global warming is correct and we do NOTHING, what is the worst possible outcome? Those are the two boundary conditions within which are a large, probably infinitely large, set of responses. Are they not worthy of investigation?

B
It was I who asserted that. It is a simple probability analysis. There are two possible outcomes on each side, they can either be right or wrong. What happens in all four cases? If the proponents are right, then taking steps to reduce carbon emissions is right and offers no harm. If they are wrong, then there are enough side benefits to balance costs and there is also nothing about reducing carbon emissions that will cause anyone actual physical harm. Now look at the opponents. If they are right, and we do nothing, we are all going to be ok. If they are wrong, and we do nothing, human civilization will cease to exist. So, with the proponents, we have a 100% chance that there will be an outcome that causes us no physical harm. With the opponents, we have a 50% chance we will all be annihilated. One side is a sure thing, with a 100% probabilty that right or wrong no one will be harmed, that is if we are not too late. The other side is gambling with your lives on a coin flip. Place your bets.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address

Last edited by FeelTheLove; 01-01-2007 at 09:56 AM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Bush's policy on climate change thaws. deathrattle Off-Topic 15 12-28-2006 08:19 PM
    Bizarre breakfast ThrillKill Off-Topic 1 07-02-2006 03:28 PM
    Climate control unit: Bulb change ? sappster R129 SL-Class 2 04-25-2006 08:51 AM
    A refresher on Global Cooling. errrr Global Warming 430 Off-Topic 67 04-07-2006 06:55 PM
    Are dash, climate control, and gear change light bulbs in separate areas?? Rollingstone W126 S,SE,SEC,SEL,SD,SDL Class 2 10-15-2005 11:28 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome