Extreme is the New Normal

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

fig tree wrote: The pre-industrial level of CO2 is thought to have been about 280 parts per million. Now it's about 390 parts per million. We also have good evidence that it's there because we put it there. ... It's clearly our doing.
Within the larger scope, CO2 levels were ABOVE 1,000ppm for 100s of millions of years.

Currently they are at about 390ppm. 390 today vs 1,000 (and as higher as 7,000 in Cambrian)!!!! It actually seems like we are LOOSING CO2 at an alarming rate. That should be a bigger concern. See the graph.
co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
co2-levels-over-time1.jpg (96.06 KiB) Viewed 3026 times
In a lot of what you're quoting, there's a kind of unstated argument that runs sort of like this. If there have been big changes that don't have to do with human beings adding CO2 to the atmosphere, then we can reckon that this time too might have nothing to do with us. But this is just sloppy. Even assuming climate varied as described (which seems incorrect) we'd still have a problem.
Current CO2 levels 390ppm.
They have stayed above 1,000 ppm for hundreds of millions of years, and in some case reached 7,000ppm.


What caused such increase and decrease (in Cambrian after going to 7,000 it fell to about 4,500ppm again) ? If nature could do that at those times, it can do again.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Ceisiwr »

Even if global warming as the result of the activity of humans was false, we would still need to cut back on things such as deforestation and the use of fossil fuels, eventually abandoning fossil fuels forever



Just my two cents anyway


:focus:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Ceisiwr »

Again, certain people keep pushing aside data of far past. Why? Because it shows that MUCH more CO2 was produced and lost before the modern civilization. Those levels of CO2 and global temperature humble current levels. So why be scared?

Because it is irrelevant to the question of if Humans are causing climate change now, or play a part in it


Also because slight variations in temperature do have effects
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

clw_uk wrote:Even if global warming as the result of the activity of humans was false, we would still need to cut back on things such as deforestation and the use of fossil fuels, eventually abandoning fossil fuels forever
Just my two cents anyway
:focus:
It would be good if people also planted more trees and help the regrow. Sure. No disagreement here. I am also all for responsible usage of the environment.

However, IMHO, human rights are more important than "rights of trees".


I agree that it would be awesome if humans developed a better (equally or more efficient, cleaner, safer, etc) kind of fuel than gasoline.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

clw_uk wrote:
Again, certain people keep pushing aside data of far past. Why? Because it shows that MUCH more CO2 was produced and lost before the modern civilization. Those levels of CO2 and global temperature humble current levels. So why be scared?

Because it is irrelevant to the question of if Humans are causing climate change now, or play a part in it


Also because slight variations in temperature do have effects

And those variations in temperature and CO2 levels have been happening in both directions. IMHO we should not rely too much on linear graph of CO2 from 1958-2010 that is found in http://co2now.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to predict the future.


We could extrapolate that linear graph backwards and come to the wrong conclusion that there was no CO2 274 years ago (390 / 1.4 ppm per year).
So just as we can't correctly extrapolate it to the past, maybe the similar could be said about the future.


When it comes to 1958-2010 the CO2 graph looks scarily upward. But when we look at CO2 graph over MILLIONS of years, the overal trend is down.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Ceisiwr »

However, IMHO, human rights are more important than "rights of trees".

Your forgetting that we need a good number of trees in order for there to be humans to have rights
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Ceisiwr »

Alex123 wrote:
clw_uk wrote:
Again, certain people keep pushing aside data of far past. Why? Because it shows that MUCH more CO2 was produced and lost before the modern civilization. Those levels of CO2 and global temperature humble current levels. So why be scared?

Because it is irrelevant to the question of if Humans are causing climate change now, or play a part in it


Also because slight variations in temperature do have effects

And those variations in temperature and CO2 levels have been happening in both directions. IMHO we should not rely too much on linear graph of CO2 from 1958-2010 that is found in http://co2now.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to predict the future.


We could extrapolate that linear graph backwards and come to the wrong conclusion that there was no CO2 274 years ago (390 / 1.4 ppm per year).
So just as we can't correctly extrapolate it to the past, maybe the similar could be said about the future.


When it comes to 1958-2010 the CO2 graph looks scarily upward. But when we look at CO2 graph over MILLIONS of years, the overal trend is down.


Straw man
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

clw_uk wrote: Straw man

Exactly where? It is easy to say "you or your argument is wrong". But please tell me exactly where mistake is, and why it is a mistake in the first place.

Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill - all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Ceisiwr »

Exactly where? It is easy to say "you or your argument is wrong". But please tell me exactly where mistake is, and why it is a mistake in the first place.

I didnt say it was wrong I said it was a straw man
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Ceisiwr »

I will repeat it

Because it is irrelevant (if CO2 and temperatures were higher in the past) to the question of if Humans are causing climate change now, or play a part in it


Also because slight variations in temperature do have effects


Banging on about the Cambrian age is a straw man since it does not answer


If Humans are causing climate change now?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

clw_uk wrote:Banging on about the Cambrian age is a straw man since it does not answer

If Humans are causing climate change now?

There are these questions:

1) If humans didn't cause CO2 levels to go from 4,500 to 7,000 in the Cambrian age, then what did? Nature?

If nature could do it then to a much greater degree than humans can, why can't nature be mostly responsible now? Climate was changing for billions of years, and something tells me that there were far worser environmental extremes in the distant past that would make current worst calamities look like heaven on earth.

2) If humans actually do have ANY contribution to the rising of CO2 levels, how large and significant is it?

As it was said:
Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill - all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Ceisiwr »

1) If humans didn't cause CO2 levels to go from 4,500 to 7,000 in the Cambrian age, then what did? Nature?
Firstly no one is denying that CO2 has arisen in the past due to nature

Secondly this is a fallacy, just because it was caused by nature in the past does not mean that Human activity now is not the cause or plays some part. It just doesnt follow



2) If humans actually do have ANY contribution to the rising of CO2 levels, how large and significant is it?
Finally your approaching the issue, only took god knows how many posts
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Ceisiwr »

Some links about Climate Change if anyone is interested


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://environment.nationalgeographic.c ... entNetwork" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

clw_uk wrote: Firstly no one is denying that CO2 has arisen in the past due to nature

Secondly this is a fallacy, just because it was caused by nature in the past does not mean that Human activity now is not the cause or plays some part. It just doesnt follow
But just like increase of CO2 in the past was not caused by humans, why can't current increase in CO2 also not be significantly caused by humans?

Levels of CO2 go in cyclical fashion. Sometimes up, sometimes down. The often cited graphs, are highly selective to only show those parts where CO2 went up, but quietly omit CO2 graphs that show CO2 going down.


Alex wrote:2) If humans actually do have ANY contribution to the rising of CO2 levels, how large and significant is it?
clw_uk wrote:Finally your approaching the issue, only took god knows how many posts
Almost nothing that humans do (save perhaps detonating 100s or more nukes) seriously affects temperature levels. Nature is much more powerful.

There is

Humans burn 30 Billion tonnes of CO2 per year.
That is 2 ppm in the atmosphere
That is 15 billion tonnes per 1 ppm (30/2 = 15).

UN says we are going to increase 468 ppm in the next century. That means that 7 trillion tonnes of CO2 will be produced in the next century.
(468 x 15 billion tonnes = 7020 (7 trillion tonnes of CO2 in the next century).

UN says that there will be 7 Fahrenheit increase. That means that for every 1 trillion of CO2 emissions there is change of 1 degree of Fahrenheit.

In order to forestall 1 Fahrenheit increase, we need to stop burning 1 trillion of CO2 emissions . If we burn 30 billion tonnes per year.


How long will we have to go without ANY carbon emission to forestall ONE increase in Fahrenheit? 33 years without ANY CARS, ANY ELECTRICITY that emits CO2.

Remember that humans also exhale CO2...

So even if human civilization would drop to cave man stage or even disappear, IN 33 YEARS we would not have 1 Fahrenheit increase in global temperature. As you see, there is nothing economically reasonable that we can do . And nature can and has increased or decreased CO2 levels. So regardless of what we do when it comes to CO2 emissions, nature has an upper hand anyways.






Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill - all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures.

Please refute the facts, rather then the messenger. Please use logic rather than emotion.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Post by Alex123 »

clw_uk wrote:Some links about Climate Change if anyone is interested


http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Image


Oh, really? The levels of CO2 were above 1,000ppm for MILLIONS OF YEARS prior to Homo Sapiens.
This is kind of selective bias that I am talking above. Show only 650,000 years of data that makes it look like CO2 increasing, but ignore 100s of millions of years where CO2 is actually going down from 7,000 ppm to modern 390ppm. Note that CO2 levels can go up and down of 1000s of ppm, and have done so millions of years ago, in up/down directions.

co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
co2-levels-over-time1.jpg (96.06 KiB) Viewed 2538 times




Even if human civilization would drop dead, IN 33 YEARS we would prevent a 1 Fahrenheit increase in global temperature. Nature can increase temperature much more than humans can. As you see, there is nothing economically reasonable that we can do . Nature can and has increased or decreased CO2 levels. So regardless of what we do when it comes to CO2 emissions, nature has an upper hand anyways.
Locked