Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Hurricanes and climate change
Collapse
X
-
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm not saying that Co2 doesn't have an effect, but how much does man produce as compared to nature? I have read that we put in about 2% of the total - is that really enough to drive all this? Or could there be forces or variables involved like we saw in the D-O climate cycles that we do not understand?
Think of the atmosphere like a bathtub with the drain open. Natural sources are pouring water into the tub at the same rate as the drain's capacity to remove it. If we start pouring some water in as well, no matter how little compared to the other sources, it'll start accumulating in the tub."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
Think of the atmosphere like a bathtub with the drain open. Natural sources are pouring water into the tub at the same rate as the drain's capacity to remove it. If we start pouring some water in as well, no matter how little compared to the other sources, it'll start accumulating in the tub.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostStandard measures of hurricane strength are pressure in the eye and sustained wind speed.
And it would be "stronger than at a point where the earth was cooler". In practical terms, we don't have much organized record keeping before the 1960s, though there are extensive historic reconstructions in many areas that go back for centuries, based on whether sand shows up in sediment records."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by mountain man View Postfurthermore, co2 is a trace gas and such a miniscule part of our total atmosphere that whatever effect it has on the global climate is negligible. As the nipcc says in their summary paper,
"no unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related co2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events. Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring."
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell in the past, when the earth was much warmer, was that because it was all out of balance? And was the continual warming from the ice age on caused by Co2 imbalance?
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostSo negligible that we can detect its absorption bands from space, and it has completely saturated some regions of the spectrum. As in, there are areas of the IR spectrum that no photons can pass through the Earth's atmosphere because of that negligible amount of CO2.
Could it have an effect? Sure, it's possible. But whatever impact it has is impossible to separate from the much more significant sources causing climatic fluctuations. The fact that the planets in the solar system are warming and cooling more or less in sync with the earth should tell you that it's not the CO2. This suggests that the sun is the biggest contributor to climate change.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostDo you think because naturally occurring forest fires occurred in the past that means a fire we see today can't be arson? Even though we've found the burned matches and the emptied gasoline can?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
To understand hurricane trends over time and global warming you have to think global trends and the causes, and not just the trends of Atlantic hurricanes.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostOK... and? Nobody is saying that CO2 doesn't exist in our atmosphere. What we are saying, and what credible peer-reviewed studies have shown, is that it has a negligible affect on the global climate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seerI'm not saying that Co2 doesn't have an effect, but how much does man produce as compared to nature? I have read that we put in about 2% of the total - is that really enough to drive all this? ... Well considering the amount of CO2 man puts out as compared to nature it would like comparing a naturally caused forest fire to a camp fire.
Nature isn't drilling oil and burning it on its own. That carbon would have stayed down there forever without us drilling it up. So adding it back causes there to be more carbon in the cycle. More carbon in the cycle causes more net CO2 to be there on average, which is exactly what we see. Check this graph of CO2, notice the yearly oscilations? But notice how its all trending upwards. We're the cause of that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seerOr could there be forces or variables involved like we saw in the D-O climate cycles that we do not understand?
There are cycle that explain the Ice Age. There's a big one about the wobble of the Earth's rotation which is more than ten thousand year long called the Milankovich Cycle. It explains a very slow, periodic temperature variation. It can't however explain the sudden rise in temperature since the seventies. CO2 driving a greenhouse effect can however.
Well in the past, when the earth was much warmer, was that because it was all out of balance? And was the continual warming from the ice age on caused by Co2 imbalance?
There was a lot more carbon in the atmosphere back then, a lot more CO2. It got eaten up by plants, and algae and other things over millions of years, slowly dwindling down. We're releasing that stuff back into the atmosphere again since we use the oil and coal to drive our fossil fuel based industry.
Comment
-
The fact that the planets in the solar system are warming and cooling more or less in sync with the earth
Pluto is getting warmer though, but we don't really understand why. We don't have data on Jupiter, but models (those things you climate dissenters don't like? ) predict that its equator is going to be heating up. Having nothing to do with changing solar activity.
should tell you that it's not the CO2. This suggests that the sun is the biggest contributor to climate change.
However its not really that much, just a minute intensity variation that occurs periodically over a decade or so. The sun is very stable. Some try to correlate sun spots, or magnetic fields, or some sort of anything measurable on the sun with a temperature increase, but that's just correlation hunting. Correlations are easy, but its only significant when you have a model that shows how a change in one variable causes a change in another variable. There isn't really something like that for the Sun.
I'm personally fascinated by other things that unexpectedly might have a minor impact on the Earth's climate, and I was interested in the idea that a decrease in the Sun's magnetic field might cause more cosmic radiation to seed clouds on Earth, increasing albedo and cooling the Earth slighty. The big problem with this model is that we can't show enough water cluster ions being produced by cosmic radiation. They conducted experiments with cloud chambers at CERN, and they were off by at least a factor of a billion from what is needed. Currently they're trying to see if there's some catalyst not thought of that could still create seeds, but at the moment the hypothesis is doing very poorly in terms of evidence.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
136 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment