The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 04, 2020, 01:54:46 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Global Warming Denialist
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 Print
Author Topic: Global Warming Denialist  (Read 16499 times)
Zeep-Eeep
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 917


Good Grief


View Profile WWW
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2009, 04:55:35 pm »

Even with one child per family rules (assuming most people live) it would take hundreds of years to get the population back down to where it was in the 1800s. And, when you consider how wasteful our society is, it's possible to greatly reduce our foot print (including carbon output) without lowering the population. I don't think it's likely to happen, but it's possible in theory.

One big problem with the current debate (aside from the zealotry) is that there's so little accurate information on temperature through our history. Don't believe me? Try to find out what the temperature was in your home town on June 16, 1953. (I just picked a date at random, there's nothing important about that day.) I checked recently and most of the cities in my country do not have reliable temperature records going back more than thirty years. The ones that do have temperature records for that long do not show any upward trend.

So it amuses me when people claim that the Earth's global average temperature is changing by 0.1 degrees. In my opinion, we don't have accurate data on which to base that statement.
Logged

What sound does a penguin make?
SweetSassyMolassy
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 271



View Profile
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2009, 05:17:22 pm »

I agree with Zeep. The models they have for predicting the temperature risings are so far pretty bogus. I'm sure pollution causes environmental problems, and if I can help it I like to reduce my time driving uselessly, but to make a good scientific claim on something like global warming you have to have a model that is repeatable with time and they don't have that.

Aside from that, I have a hard time putting my trust in something "scientific" purposed by Al Gore, or anyone with an agenda for that matter.
Logged

I am not always understand about what you speak, unfortunately.
Angelfish
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568



View Profile
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2009, 05:59:09 pm »

Even with one child per family rules (assuming most people live) it would take hundreds of years to get the population back down to where it was in the 1800s. And, when you consider how wasteful our society is, it's possible to greatly reduce our foot print (including carbon output) without lowering the population. I don't think it's likely to happen, but it's possible in theory.

You're wrong. If for example we reduce our carbon footprint by 20% right now, in 2025 we'll have the same carbon footprint again. Why? Because then the population of the world will have risen by 20% again. Add to that that third world countries will be more developed by then (and all have cars, electricity etc) and you've got the whole carbon footprint issue all over again. The only way to lower our carbon footprint is to reduce the world population, or to maintain the current world population but emit less CO2. Increasing the population is not an option.
Then again, it remains to be proven that CO2 is causing the global warming. Why not something else that we haven't been able to prove yet?

Quote
One big problem with the current debate (aside from the zealotry) is that there's so little accurate information on temperature through our history. Don't believe me? Try to find out what the temperature was in your home town on June 16, 1953. (I just picked a date at random, there's nothing important about that day.) I checked recently and most of the cities in my country do not have reliable temperature records going back more than thirty years. The ones that do have temperature records for that long do not show any upward trend.

So it amuses me when people claim that the Earth's global average temperature is changing by 0.1 degrees. In my opinion, we don't have accurate data on which to base that statement.

True, before the last ice age we had a huge spike in temperatures. Higher than we're currently experiencing.
Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3842


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2009, 06:20:34 pm »

... or using electrical cars powered through nuclear, wind, and solar.

And I'm still not clear how using grown fuels will continue to raise CO2 levels, unless the effect is to promote deforestation.
Logged
SweetSassyMolassy
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 271



View Profile
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2009, 06:23:31 pm »

... or using electrical cars powered through nuclear, wind, and solar.

And I'm still not clear how using grown fuels will continue to raise CO2 levels, unless the effect is to promote deforestation.

If CO2 emission is coming from fossil fuel burning, then you use a lot of fossil fuel operating the harvesters when you crop the corn for something like ethanol, for example.
Logged

I am not always understand about what you speak, unfortunately.
Angelfish
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 568



View Profile
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2009, 06:47:56 pm »

... or using electrical cars powered through nuclear, wind, and solar.

Nuclear is the only option in that case. The production of solar cells and windmills is likely to produce more CO2 that can be saved in the lifetime of the solar cell or windmill.

Quote
And I'm still not clear how using grown fuels will continue to raise CO2 levels, unless the effect is to promote deforestation.

The problem is that when converting land into biofuel-growing land, a lot of CO2 is actually generated. In the worst case, which happened in indonesia, researchers estimated that creating palm oil fields for biodiesel production has generated so much CO2 that the fields need to be used for 423 years to pay back the difference in CO2 emission.
See below link for more info on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/08/scienceofclimatechange.biofuels

A solution to this could be biofuel generated from algae farms in the oceans and seas (because it doesn't require converting of land), but that technology is not available right now.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2009, 06:51:31 pm by Angelfish » Logged
jaychant
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 432


Please visit my homepage


View Profile WWW
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2009, 08:59:15 pm »

OK, listen, you dorks: You are NOT top scientists, much less climatologists, and you do NOT know everything! Before you question what every climatologist is saying about the climate, become a climatologist yourself.

Unfortunately, using grown biofuels instead of fossil fuels will warm up the earth for centuries to come, so I think you need to restate it again.
Right now, there is no way to diminish the carbon footprint except going back to horse and carriage for transport, or having strict birth control rules (ie. 1 child per family)

OK, stop being a smart ass. You know exactly what I mean. We need to switch over to clean energies instead of oil and coal.

Quote
One big problem with the current debate (aside from the zealotry) is that there's so little accurate information on temperature through our history. Don't believe me? Try to find out what the temperature was in your home town on June 16, 1953. (I just picked a date at random, there's nothing important about that day.) I checked recently and most of the cities in my country do not have reliable temperature records going back more than thirty years. The ones that do have temperature records for that long do not show any upward trend.

The tempurature in a single city is not a good representation of GLOBAL climate change.

Also, scientists have reliable ways to find the approximate temperature from 10,000 years ago. Sure, they can't find the exact temperature on any one particular day, but that data is unimportant. Climatologists have researched it for at least 50 years, and they have so far concluded that up until the 20th century, temperatures have remained steady, and then in the 20th century temperatures all of a sudden shot up. Climatologists are almost certain (there isn't a such thing as "certain" in science) that Earth is getting warmer, the warming is due to CO2, and it's gonna be bad if we don't do something about it.

Quote
Nuclear is the only option in that case. The production of solar cells and windmills is likely to produce more CO2 that can be saved in the lifetime of the solar cell or windmill.

What are you talking about? As long as we are not using fossil fuels to help produce the materials, production of these things doesn't contribute in the slightest to the amount of CO2 in the air.

Quote
If CO2 emission is coming from fossil fuel burning, then you use a lot of fossil fuel operating the harvesters when you crop the corn for something like ethanol, for example.

Again, thinking in the short term. The goal is to switch entirely to alternative energies, not only partly.
Logged

Please visit my homepage.
Zeep-Eeep
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 917


Good Grief


View Profile WWW
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2009, 09:51:54 pm »

Jay, you obviously didn't read my post. I said I checked the temperature records for most of the cities in the country, not a single town. We're talking around a two dozen cities covering an area of several million square kilometers.

Second, one does not have to be a top scientist to look at data and point out giant gaping holes in it.

Third, the GAT records show temperature going down for the past four years. This is why many buzz-word panic-inducing sales people use the term climate change, rather than global warming  these days.


And, Angelfish, you're not thinking in the fourth dimension. If we put in the one child per family rule and reduce the environmental foot print of each person, our affect on the environment will go down over the long term. I'm not talking a short-term plan here, it would have to take place over multiple generations. Also, you're over-looking the possibility that people could reduce their foot print by 20% over twenty years, have a kid and *continue* to reduce their foot print (per person) another 20% over the next twenty years. The amount of impact a person makes on the environment does not have to be a constant. Nor does population growth.
Logged

What sound does a penguin make?
jaychant
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 432


Please visit my homepage


View Profile WWW
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #23 on: September 10, 2009, 10:17:19 pm »

Jay, you obviously didn't read my post. I said I checked the temperature records for most of the cities in the country, not a single town. We're talking around a two dozen cities covering an area of several million square kilometers.

This is still a local area and in no way represents whether GLOBAL warming exists.
Logged

Please visit my homepage.
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2009, 11:45:40 pm »

Even with one child per family rules (assuming most people live) it would take hundreds of years to get the population back down to where it was in the 1800s. And, when you consider how wasteful our society is, it's possible to greatly reduce our foot print (including carbon output) without lowering the population. I don't think it's likely to happen, but it's possible in theory.


I may be looking through Gene Roddenberry's rose colored glasses, but I think technology will save the day when it comes to global warming. No need to pull a China and start legislating family sizes. Techs such as hydrogen fuel cell and electric vehicles will make a huge impact as the technology evolves and improves. With genetic engineering we may be able to grow CO2 "scrubbers", designer bacteria grown for specific purposes.

With the expotential growth of technology, the early 21st century technology may look like the horse and wagon days within 50 to 75 years.

Quote
One big problem with the current debate (aside from the zealotry) is that there's so little accurate information on temperature through our history. ...

Speaking of zealotry, my Father, a creationist fundie, claims the earth is following cyclic tempertaue change. Since he lives in the pacific northwest (USA) ,he loves to report just how much snow they're getting each year. Apparently, the last several years have seen record setting snowpacks and for him, evidence that global warming is hogwash. I'd argue that more moisture in the air from warmer ocean climates might do that.
Logged
Zeep-Eeep
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 917


Good Grief


View Profile WWW
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #25 on: September 11, 2009, 01:00:40 am »

Jay, you obviously didn't read my post. I said I checked the temperature records for most of the cities in the country, not a single town. We're talking around a two dozen cities covering an area of several million square kilometers.

This is still a local area and in no way represents whether GLOBAL warming exists.

So what, in your mind, would be evidence of global warming or lack of? I haven't heard any evidence presented in this thread on the "pro" side yet.
Logged

What sound does a penguin make?
Zeracles
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 69


Icon of X


View Profile WWW
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2009, 01:10:05 am »

So it amuses me when people claim that the Earth's global average temperature is changing by 0.1 degrees. In my opinion, we don't have accurate data on which to base that statement.
Agriculture is expanding in Greenland, glaciers are receding and we've just seen our worst bushfires ever. I actually do science (published) and love data, but that's enough for me. That said, hard evidence isn't at all difficult to come by.

Also, I basically agree with Angelfish. Population growth is the root cause of all these problems.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2009, 01:35:32 am by Zeracles » Logged

Fear not the Arch Viles and Spectres of the Deepest Reaches, for the X is strong in this place.
jaychant
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 432


Please visit my homepage


View Profile WWW
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2009, 01:16:23 am »

Jay, you obviously didn't read my post. I said I checked the temperature records for most of the cities in the country, not a single town. We're talking around a two dozen cities covering an area of several million square kilometers.

This is still a local area and in no way represents whether GLOBAL warming exists.

So what, in your mind, would be evidence of global warming or lack of? I haven't heard any evidence presented in this thread on the "pro" side yet.

The GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPURATURE increasing on a sizable timeframe (i.e. 20 years). Which it is.
Logged

Please visit my homepage.
Zeep-Eeep
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 917


Good Grief


View Profile WWW
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #28 on: September 11, 2009, 02:26:17 am »

Zeracles, that's more of the kind of thing I was hoping someone would dig up. Thank you.

Jaychant, as I pointed out (twice now) not only is the GAT unreliable, but it's also been dropping the last several years, making it poor proof of global warming.
Logged

What sound does a penguin make?
jaychant
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 432


Please visit my homepage


View Profile WWW
Re: Global Warming Denialist
« Reply #29 on: September 11, 2009, 02:51:46 am »

Zeracles, that's more of the kind of thing I was hoping someone would dig up. Thank you.

Jaychant, as I pointed out (twice now) not only is the GAT unreliable, but it's also been dropping the last several years, making it poor proof of global warming.


No, the tempurature hasn't been dropping. There was a single record year in the past that was an outlier, but other than that one year the trend has stayed the same.
Logged

Please visit my homepage.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!