The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 3 - DIY Electric Car Forums
Go Back  

DIY Electric Car Forums > General Forum > Chit Chat

Register Blogs FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-10-2009, 01:46 PM
Jason Lattimer's Avatar
Jason Lattimer Jason Lattimer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 628
Jason Lattimer is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Agreed, particularly when CO2 is not even a pollutant. There are plenty of real cancer causing pollutants burning fossil fuels put out. CO2 is not one of them. It is something all plants will die without and a part of the natural cycle of living things.

Besides. If you want to stop "global warming" you should look to the worst "global warming" gas of all.......water vapor.
__________________
Check out my new website for velomobiles.
www.velomobilenews.com
And now, more controversial subjects.
http://sustainablepolitical.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #22  
Old 07-10-2009, 04:12 PM
Jeff from KY Jeff from KY is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 113
Jeff from KY is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Lattimer View Post
Agreed, particularly when CO2 is not even a pollutant. There are plenty of real cancer causing pollutants burning fossil fuels put out. CO2 is not one of them. It is something all plants will die without and a part of the natural cycle of living things.
Well, other than global warming skeptics, I don't know of anyone saying that CO2 is a "pollutant". What AGW says is that the large increase over pre-industrial levels of CO2 by human activities is the factor that is contributing to global warming. This is very different than saying that CO2 is a "pollutant".

Quote:
Besides. If you want to stop "global warming" you should look to the worst "global warming" gas of all.......water vapor.
Certainly, water vapor contributes the most to the greenhouse effect. If it was not for the contribution of water vapor to the greenhouse effect, the planet would be much colder. However, levels of water vapor remain relatively stable over time, are not increased (except very locally) by human activity, and do not contribute to the increase in global average temperatures that have been observed since the mid-20th century. On the other hand, anthropogenic greenhouse gases (those generated by human activities) such as CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, have increased by between 16%-150% since pre-industrial times.

It is not the amount of the contribution to the greenhouse effect that is important, it is the change that counts. Take this analogy; you have a bathtub that is full to the overflow valve and the tap is on. The inflow from the tap exactly equals the outflow through the valve and the level doesn't change. Increase the inflow from the tap by even a very tiny percentage, and very soon the tub will overflow and flood the bathroom floor. In the same way, heat input from the sun remains fairly stable and in pre-industrial times the relatively stable natural levels of greenhouse gases kept the planet at a relatively steady average temperature. Add just a bit to the GH gases and you get global warming.
__________________
Jeff

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Ben Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-10-2009, 07:40 PM
Jason Lattimer's Avatar
Jason Lattimer Jason Lattimer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 628
Jason Lattimer is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Actually the E.P.A. is pushing hard to get CO2 labeled a pollutant just so they can regulate it.
__________________
Check out my new website for velomobiles.
www.velomobilenews.com
And now, more controversial subjects.
http://sustainablepolitical.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-10-2009, 09:36 PM
david85's Avatar
david85 david85 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Campbell River, Canada
Posts: 4,799
david85 will become famous soon enough
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Not sure why you felt the need to make your own graph, Jeff. I already posted one direct from the nasa website. I do find it interesting that you are stating global warming is an increase at the surface of the earth. I understood that the greenhouse effect was supposed to happen through at least a significant height of the atmosphere.

To ElectricSlide:

Don't worry, we aren't going to tear each other apart here since our forum members are not the type to flame each other. Its a discussion, nothing more. While it will probably run for a little while, you can take some comfort in that once this thread is concluded, it will be the last discussion of its kind on this forum.

This is mainly something I do in my spare time in rare mornings and evenings when I need something else to put my mind to. Work on the business, and EV related stuff is still progressing so this isn't getting in my way. No one should get distracted too much by these political matters since there are limited things that any of us can do about this no matter how passionate we may be about them.
__________________
I knew what kind of vehicle I wanted to drive since before I was old enough to drive,

All I had to do was build it.. http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums...ion-26587.html

Garage: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/garage/cars/206

Forum Rules and terms of service:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/faq.php
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-11-2009, 07:38 AM
Jeff from KY Jeff from KY is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 113
Jeff from KY is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Lattimer View Post
Actually the E.P.A. is pushing hard to get CO2 labeled a pollutant just so they can regulate it.
The US Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs. EPA told the EPA that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Actís capacious definition of air pollutant" thus giving the EPA the authority to regulate it.

While that case certainly has policy implications, I still don't understand why you think calling or not calling CO2 a "pollutant" has any meaning in the debate of whether or not human created CO2 is the cause of global warming.

Any comment on my response to your water vapor comment?
__________________
Jeff

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Ben Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-11-2009, 08:02 AM
Jeff from KY Jeff from KY is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 113
Jeff from KY is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by david85 View Post
Not sure why you felt the need to make your own graph, Jeff. I already posted one direct from the nasa website.
Simply because the graphs you posted did not illustrate your contention that global warming is not happening because of a recent cooling trend.

Quote:
I do find it interesting that you are stating global warming is an increase at the surface of the earth. I understood that the greenhouse effect was supposed to happen through at least a significant height of the atmosphere.
I did not say that global warming is ONLY an increase at the surface of the earth. Since the bulk of long range temperature data comes from surface measurement stations, it is this near-surface data that is used to demonstrate the fact of global warming.

I'll state the basic global warming facts once more. Since the mid-20th century the average, annual, global temperature has been increasing. As of right now (July 2009) that temperature is approximately 0.6 degrees C above the 1950-1980 mean (the mean that NASA uses for it's graphs).

If you have reliable data that invalidates those facts you should definitely publish, a Nobel prize might be in it for you .

On the other hand, playing games with the words that a non-scientist (me) uses in an Internet discussion forum may make for entertaining back and forth but it really does nothing to challenge the fact of global warming. As Gallileo was reputed to have said in a similar situation "and yet it still moves" .
__________________
Jeff

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Ben Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-11-2009, 12:04 PM
david85's Avatar
david85 david85 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Campbell River, Canada
Posts: 4,799
david85 will become famous soon enough
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Your graph is you didn't include the temperature from 1997-1998. This was the period I was referring to. Instead you selected 2001 as your start year.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

If not a shallow cooling, it is at least leveling off despite the high CO2 levels.

To your earlier remark of sea ice, my understanding is sea ice in the Antarctic reached an all time recorded high a few years ago.

What's your take in this?
__________________
I knew what kind of vehicle I wanted to drive since before I was old enough to drive,

All I had to do was build it.. http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums...ion-26587.html

Garage: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/garage/cars/206

Forum Rules and terms of service:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/faq.php
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-11-2009, 03:00 PM
Jeff from KY Jeff from KY is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 113
Jeff from KY is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by david85 View Post
Your graph is you didn't include the temperature from 1997-1998. This was the period I was referring to. Instead you selected 2001 as your start year.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

If not a shallow cooling, it is at least leveling off despite the high CO2 levels.
No, my graph (based on NASA data) covered the period 1998-2008. The table that I had previously posted started at 2001. Here's the updated table with 1997-2000 included:
Code:
1997     0.39
1998     0.69
1999     0.46
2000     0.40
2001     0.53
2002     0.69
2003     0.63
2004     0.60
2005     0.75
2006     0.64
2007     0.74
2008     0.55
I won't bother to redo the graph (98-08) to include 97, we'll leave that as an exercise for the class , but since 97 was a relatively cooler year, the trend line is actually shows a bit steeper increase.

Quote:
To your earlier remark of sea ice, my understanding is sea ice in the Antarctic reached an all time recorded high a few years ago.

What's your take in this?
There is not as much sea ice in Antarctica, most of the ice is on the continent itself. In the egion, the effects of global warming is counterbalanced by the ozone hole over the pole which results in localized cooling. Plus, due to the low temperature of the Antarctic continent (approx. -50 degrees C) even if the region warmed by the amount projected by global warming, it would not bring the temps above the freezing point of water. This was taken into account by the 2007 IPCC report which projected that because of the cooling in the interior of the continent combined with increased precipitation (caused by global warming elsewhere on the planet) the ice sheets in the interior would actually increase while the edges (in contact with the sea) would decrease.

Quote:
A study based on satellite measurements of gravity over the entire continent suggests that while the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica are growing thicker, even more ice is being lost from the peripheries. The study concluded that there was a net loss of ice between 2002 and 2005, adding 0.4 millimetres per year to sea levels. Most of the ice was lost from the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet. Science, 24 Mar. 2006
__________________
Jeff

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Ben Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-11-2009, 11:16 PM
ClintK's Avatar
ClintK ClintK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 668
ClintK is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff from KY View Post
to demonstrate the fact of global warming.
I'm not too interested in getting in a huge man-made global warming debate here, but I'd just like to point out...

The data and trends you all have been referencing is from an agency created 50 years ago studying a planet that formed 4 billion years ago.

Measured temperatures of the entire globe didn't start until maybe 50 years ago.

Scientists are unable to give an accurate prediction of the weather next week.

The Earth is heated by a giant flaming ball whose mass is 332,900 times that of the Earth. Which does really crazy stuff like this!


Fact?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-12-2009, 07:59 AM
Jeff from KY Jeff from KY is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 113
Jeff from KY is on a distinguished road
Default Re: The Climate Change Debate Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintK View Post
The data and trends you all have been referencing is from an agency created 50 years ago studying a planet that formed 4 billion years ago.
And your point is? The polio vaccine was developed about 60 years ago. The polio virus has been around for billions of years. So what?

Quote:
Measured temperatures of the entire globe didn't start until maybe 50 years ago.
Fairly good data is available from many places on Earth going back to the late 1800s. Indirect data (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) provide reliable temperature data going back thousands of years.

Quote:
Scientists are unable to give an accurate prediction of the weather next week.
Two problems with this argument. First, it's not true unless by accurate you are arguing for 100% assurance of a specific temperature or rainfall amount next week. However, modern weather forecasting has very good accuracy in indicating expected temperature and precipitation ranges and probabilities over 1 week time frames. Second, weather and climate are two very different things. You cannot predict with better than 50/50 accuracy if the next flip of a coin will be heads or tails. However, you can predict that if you flip a coin a million times, heads will come up 500,000 times (with a very tiny margin of error).

According to an article in New Scientist magazine (using definitions of the World Meteorological Association):
Quote:
What we call the weather is a highly detailed mix of events that happen in a particular locality on any particular day - rainfall, temperature, humidity and so on - and its development can vary wildly with small changes in a few of these variables.

Climate, however, is the bigger picture of a region's weather: the average, over 30 years of the weather pattern in a region. While weather changes fast on human timescales, climate changes fairly slowly. Getting reasonably accurate predictions is a matter of choosing the right timescale: days in the case of weather, decades in the case of climate.
Here's a good article on Chaotic Systems.

Quote:
The Earth is heated by a giant flaming ball whose mass is 332,900 times that of the Earth. Which does really crazy stuff like this! Fact?
Not sure what your point is or how that says anything about global warming one way or the other.
__________________
Jeff

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
-Ben Franklin

Last edited by Jeff from KY; 07-12-2009 at 08:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Share or Bookmark this

Tags
climate change, global warming

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump

 
Support DIY Electric Car
Sponsors

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Ad Management by RedTyger