PDA

View Full Version : Earth is Billions of Years Old, and Yet We Take Credit for the Climate!!!



Ed Garrett
06-26-2007, 11:18 AM
In my last post about causes for global warming I was asked what was my point in posting something controversial. My answer:

Of course posting something controversial is entertainment. Why do it if it’s not fun (just like woodworking)? But I’m not entertained by aggravating people. I just wanted to see some opinions from people I have something in common with. I don’t feel like I have much in common with the news media, the U.N., or the public in general, the vast majority of whom take it for granted that global warming is necessarily man-made.

I thought it would be entertaining to try to insert a little science into the debate. Most of what I hear about global warming is not science. I’ve read and heard statements like, “This is the warmest winter ever…” Doesn’t this strike you as ridiculous? We are in the middle of a multi-million year ice age, and yet ice at the poles is the exception in earth’s history. Dinosaurs, large trees, and wetland ecosystems have thrived at the poles. There are coal deposits of polar origin. This speaks of incredible climate change in the past (all well documented), and it flies in the face of the popular theory that we are ruining the climate.

It’s not scientific to say: “we emit carbon dioxide, it’s a greenhouse gas, and therefore we are responsible for global warming.” That’s a hypothesis, an assumption, not a theory, and not a fact. Just because it could be true doesn’t mean that it is true. You need proof. Science is the process of turning a hypothesis into a theory that explains your observations and ultimately withstands counter theories to become fact. Proof is not a cluster of U.N. or government funded scientist who proclaim “it is highly likely global warming has been caused by human activity...” Consider these scientists’ motivation, who they are paid by, what kind of proposals get funding (accompanied of course by the popular hypothesis), and then ask them to explain the extraordinary climate changes that predated people burning fossil fuels and why those same natural mechanisms could not be in place today. They can’t do it. Their theory is thereby shot down.

Science and fact are not determined by votes from well paid scientists. A single proven observation, which doesn’t even have to come from a scientist, can topple a theory held dear by the highest paid scientists.* Wouldn’t you agree there is overwhelming evidence of drastic climate change predating people? Congratulations. You have just stripped bare the theory that humans have caused the current climate change. Where's their rebuttal? Where's your rebuttal?



*Example of “iron clad” theory of a well paid scientist being obliterated:

In the mid-1800’s Lord Kelvin was the dominant scientist who nailed down the age of the earth at about 100 million years old based on his indisputable thermodynamic calculations. He took the heat energy the earth must have started with (converted from gravitational potential energy released by collapsing enough dust to build our planet, sink most of the heavy stuff to the core, and float the light scummy crust, particularly continents, to the surface), divided by the rate of heat flow from the earth (derived from the temperature gradient established by mining and well data), and came up with the 100 million year figure that nobody could shoot down…until a few decades later when radioactivity was discovered and the enormous amount of heat produced by naturally occurring radioactive decay proved the age of the earth to be billions rather than millions of years old.

Wayne Watling
06-26-2007, 12:14 PM
and then ask them to explain the extraordinary climate changes that predated people burning fossil fuels and why those same natural mechanisms could not be in place today. They can’t do it. Their theory is thereby shot down.


I found it disheartening when during a recent interview by a local Toronto radio station David Suzuki walked out... the interviewer got to the point where he wanted to talk about the science behind global warming, David Suzuki got furious and stormed out of the interview. One would have thought that being a scientist he would relish the opportunity to talk about the science of such a 'big' global issue.

Lee DeRaud
06-26-2007, 12:35 PM
There are questions yet to be answered, and also (IMHO) yet to be asked, on this topic. But the loudest voices on the two sides of the issue seem to be reduced to using the following kinds of arguments:
1. "You can't prove every detail, therefore you must be completely wrong."
2. "Something is wrong, therefore fixing it must be our highest priority, regardless of whether that is even possible."

I find both positions a bit...childish.

Ed Garrett
06-26-2007, 12:54 PM
Wayne,

Good Example. Good science holds up to good questions. Bad science denies the facts or refuses to answer.

Lee,

I would agree that extremist are often wrong, but I wouldn’t characterize my little thorn in this popular mania as extreme or a detail. Extreme is what happened to our climate before humans came along. A detail is the relatively minimal climate change we are experiencing today. I only contend that nature has proven to be far more powerful than we are and that we tend to give ourselves more credit than we deserve. Before Copernicus, we thought the sun, the planets, and the stars all revolved around the earth. Many who previously dared to contend that we weren't the center of the universe were tortured and killed. Such is the nature of the vast majority who will latch onto a simplistic explanation and refuse to be confronted with contradictory facts.

Joe Melton
06-26-2007, 1:15 PM
Think of the earth as a largish, roundish piece of dirt floating through space. The space is a vacuum, containing other largish, roundish, etc. objects. Our piece of dirt swings around the sun in an orbit determined by its velocity and the pull of gravity of the sun. If the velocity or the pull of gravity change, the orbit changes. We are in balance with the sun.
Our piece of dirt has its own atmosphere, and this atmosphere determines the types and varieties of life that are possible on this piece of dirt. These life forms receive sustenance from the sun, which provides the necessary heat. If this heat all stays inside the atmosphere, the earth is going to heat up very fast, and all life forms will perish. So, the heat must escape from the earth and its atmosphere, to be lost in space. If the heat escapes too fast, everything on earth will freeze. It is sort of like having the right number of blankets on your bed in the wintertime.
So, here is another, natural, delicate balance. That is, just the correct amount of heat must escape our atmosphere. Now, what controls the rate at which this heat escapes? It appears to be a "blanket" of gases, mostly methane and carbon dioxide. These gases, based on their concentration (with various other gases) in our atmosphere, allow heat from the sun to quickly penetrate to the ground, but act to regulate the rate the heat escapes from the ground and goes to the vacuum. That is why they are called "greenhouse gases." They act just like the cover of a greenhouse.
The mix of gases has been forming over billions of years. Plants are constantly generating new carbon dioxide to replace that which is lost, thus acting to maintain the surface temperature necessary for them to thrive. Life has evolved based on the delicate balance of gases in the atmosphere, e. g., determined by the differential between the rate of generation of carbon dioxide and the loss of carbon dioxide to space.
Now once again, position your perspective in space and imagine this slowly turning piece of dirt, rotating through space with its atmosphere, and imagine removing much of the vegetation that has been providing the carbon dioxide. Further, imagine industries developed by the life forms on the earth spewing larger and larger quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Humans can respond to temperature changes, to some degree. Other life forms are not so adaptable, and a small change in temperature dooms them. Their demise has a cascading effect on other life forms, including humans.
The earth will survive, but life forms will definitely be different unless this imbalance between generation and loss of greenhouse gases is corrected.

Ed Garrett
06-26-2007, 1:29 PM
There is a delicate balance going on with greenhouse gases, but why should we be so certain we have a major influence on that balance. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 and methane are very minor components of the greenhouse effect. Look it up.

Randal Stevenson
06-26-2007, 2:43 PM
but why should we be so certain we have a major influence on that balance.


Quite simply, Human EGO. The thing that makes us think, we are the only intelligent life here, and possibly anywhere.

Wayne Watling
06-26-2007, 3:13 PM
Quite simply, Human EGO. The thing that makes us think, we are the only intelligent life here, and possibly anywhere.

I dont want to stray off topic to much but there is nothing wrong with an ego, its more a case of a lack of control over the ego that creates mess. i.e the horse and not the rider is in charge, an unfortunate situation.:rolleyes:

Dennis Peacock
06-26-2007, 3:23 PM
In my last post about causes for global warming I was asked what was my point in posting something controversial. My answer:

Of course posting something controversial is entertainment. Why do it if it’s not fun (just like woodworking)? But I’m not entertained by aggravating people. I just wanted to see some opinions from people I have something in common with. I don’t feel like I have much in common with the news media, the U.N., or the public in general, the vast majority of whom take it for granted that global warming is necessarily man-made.


Ed,

I wondered why you posted some many controversial topics. Now I know why. ;)

Randal Stevenson
06-26-2007, 3:40 PM
I dont want to stray off topic to much but there is nothing wrong with an ego, its more a case of a lack of control over the ego that creates mess. i.e the horse and not the rider is in charge, an unfortunate situation.:rolleyes:


That is why I used "quite simply". There could be a whole disertation on Ego and the good and bad and examples of each "aka, let's see who can find a cure/solution for xyz first, verses, I am the only one right".

Jim Becker
06-26-2007, 3:52 PM
There is a delicate balance going on with greenhouse gases, but why should we be so certain we have a major influence on that balance. .

"Certainty" is a tough thing on either side of the argument, but being concerned isn't a horrible stance to take. If humanity takes steps to at least attempt to minimize our impact on our planet's health, than we can get closer to the certainty that we are less likely to be part of the issue, if it does exist. In the tech world, this kind of thing gets labeled as a "best practice". Even if one doesn't believe that humans have had/can have a major effect on global warming, it's not a horrible thing to live responsibly and leave things better than they were when we individually arrived on the scene. It seems to me that would be in the "best practice" category, too...

Mitchell Andrus
06-26-2007, 4:08 PM
The earth being billions of years old VS our taking credit or blame for the climate is a rediculous premise. Of course we can have an effect on the environment and the age of the environment has nothing to do with our abilities.

Can't you knock down a 1,000 year old tree with a quart of gasoline in a chainsaw?

Can't you kill a 100 year old man with a garage filled with a car's exhaust emisions just as dead as a newborn?

Age and effect are non-connectors.

Look up the connection between spraying DDT and the Condor, then tell me we can't harm the billion year old ecosystem. Scientists got that one wrong, didn't they?

Less than 1% of the water on this planet is fresh water. How many degrees will we allow the atmosphere to rise? How about enough to turn it all into vapor. Did that prove we are responsible?? Who cares - it's too late, isn't it....

Brett Baldwin
06-26-2007, 5:04 PM
I was with you till this point Joe...


Plants are constantly generating new carbon dioxide to replace that which is lost, thus acting to maintain the surface temperature necessary for them to thrive. Life has evolved based on the delicate balance of gases in the atmosphere, e. g., determined by the differential between the rate of generation of carbon dioxide and the loss of carbon dioxide to space.
I think you may want to revisit the "respiration" cycle in plants.

In general, I think we don't have anywhere near the amount or quality of data we would need to reach the conclusions we have about what our effect is on the world beyond the natural fluctuations. However, we can certainly see that even if the effect we are having is much less than currently indicated by the global warming proponents, I think we can all agree that eventually our industrial nature will make some impact and that there is no reason not to look for ways to minimize it in the future for the same reason we wouldn't want to cut down all the trees right this minute no matter how much beautifully figured wood they have in them. We want them to be around later as well.

If you agree with the basic premise that our industrial nature is going to eventually do bad things to our planet (above and beyond anything that has happened so far) then I think that instead of arguing the merits of global warming science and other similar ideas, it will be more productive to help develop a culture where we try to minimize our impact because it is the responsible thing to do. Much easier said than done of course but it certainly isn't going to accomplish itself (unless you count when the Earth gets so bad that we all die off then it recovers millions of years later without us).

Just some food for thought.

Zahid Naqvi
06-26-2007, 5:05 PM
I agree with what Jim said earlier. I not an environmental scientist and cerainly don't have the time to indulge in research and study to settle an argument. But I do know this.

1. There is an overwhelming majority of environmental scientists who strongly believe that the humans are significantly contributing towards the current global warming. Please don't ask me to provide numbers of what constitutes "overwhelming"

2. I live in a house and share it with the rest of the family and we collectively take responsibility to keep is clean and healthy. I pull the flush after I use the toilet, if someone spills a drink they clean it up and so on. I look at earth like a much bigger house shared between a much bigger family (and by family I mean living organisms not just humans). We have to make sure we do our part to keep it clean and healthy for all members of the family.

3. Let's look at the cost of being wrong on either side of the argument. If humans have no impact on the global warming and we go everything possible to reduce pollution, conserve our eco system and in general be more careful about the environment. I can't see how any of these actions could be harmful in anyway. We'll probably throw out our sneakers only after they have worn out, as opposed to they got out of fashion, or maybe we will have to drive a smaller vehicle etc. On the other hand if humans do have an impact on the environment and we do nothing to change our behavior, it doesn't take much to grasp the disaster that could happen as a result of our negligence.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the cost of being a respobsible citizen is so small and the cost of being wrong so great that it should be abvious what needs to be done.

TYLER WOOD
06-26-2007, 5:10 PM
Again we can go back to the Earth goes through cycles. If water vapor is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, when the Earth warms up we get more water vapor. Right? To a point after a while you get cloud cover that would reflect the light back into space and the Earth would then cool down. We go through stages.

As a previous post stated we are a speck of dust in orbit. But our obrit is not round. The closer and further we get from the sun in our eliptical orbit will cause cooling and heating.

Nor is our revolution stable. Our poles here on Earth switch around constantly, We are bound to have another magnetic pole shift in the future as they have occured in the past. I know that this has not been studied as part of the global warming "PROBLEM". I fell the magnetic field around us has a lot more to do with our weather than they suppose. If it changes so does the weather, and it changes constantly. The North pole has shifted about 650 miles since we mapped it in 1831. How does this affect our weather. Especially since it has been increasing it's rate of travel. Could that have to do with the warming we have been seeing? From 1831 to 1904 the pole moved about 31 miles, since then it hace raced towards Siberia. You will find this has not been studied because it might not affect our weather. HMMMMM how did they figure that it doesn't. The only record we have correlate to warnig trends as the magnetic field moves further from geographic North.

Out put of the sun is also not constant. The more output from the sun the warmer the climate.

All this is to say there are way too many predictors and equations the scientists have either not figured in or left out on purpose, to say for sure what is causing the current conditions.

Yes we should probably err on the sied of caution, but not at such a huge expense as what it would cost. Bio fuels are not a good answer, only free sources of power would help. By free I mean solar, wind, and nuclear. They do not require any burning to produce power, therefor are what I personally call free. Nuclear is not the best option, but for the price it is the best alternative right now. We say electric cars, the power still comes from coal, oil, natural gas plants burning to produce it. We need to further research stuff before we start implementing things that will ont only help much, but will be exorbitant in costs.

Evolutionist's, Christians, and other religions, all believe a little differently. That's just the way it is.

Hey either way the Earth is renewed and there are no more issues!

Cliff Rohrabacher
06-26-2007, 6:15 PM
LOL



1. "You can't prove every detail, therefore you must be completely wrong."
Also an argument used by those moonbats who have 09/11 conspiracy theories.


2. "Something is wrong, therefore fixing it must be our highest priority, regardless of whether that is even possible."I love that one. They are both quotable


I find both positions a bit...childish.At best.

Cecil Arnold
06-27-2007, 12:13 AM
This is almost an amusing thread. The question, "earth is a billion years. . ." is typically "hide the ball" since it ignores the reality (ego aside) that there has never, in the history of the earth, been so many of us using so much heat producing fuels. So far as scientist, no one seems to remember the time when you could turn on the TV and see a scientist or medical doctor telling you the benefits of cigarettes or other tobacco products. Once tobacco regulation started to be introduced the tobacco companies hired even more "scientist" to assure us that there product was neither harmful or addictive. Isn't it funny how self interest can sway science?

John Schreiber
06-27-2007, 1:24 AM
I'm with Ed, I enjoy reading and posting things which are controversial. It stretches my brain and improves my knowledge. I learn from what others say, and I hope others will learn from what I say.

I'll dive in and try to respond to Ed's post.

When you say "it would be entertaining to try to insert a little science into the debate." I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that you think you and others on this board can meaningfully debate the validity of a complex scientific theory in the area of climatology? Or are you saying that any intelligent lay person is qualified to challenge experts? If so, I ask if you are an expert in some areas of your life – and would you agree that the theories of untrained people are as valid as your own in those areas?

You are mostly right about science and your example of Lord Kelvin is a wonderful example of how science works. His theory was good as far as it went, but a new theory came along which was better. Theories get stronger and stronger, but science recognizes that new data may be recorded or a new theory may come along which works better. Science is self correcting and its greatest honors are reserved for those who come up with new theories which displace the old. There are no "facts" in science, but there are theories strong enough to bet your life on.

When you say "Consider these scientists' motivation" and mention "well paid scientists," you question the integrity of scientists. THAT'S GOOD. We should always question everyone's integrity and depend on good data not trust and enthusiasm. But I don't understand what you would prefer. Do you want the opinions of poorly paid scientists? Are you saying that professional scientists should not tell us what they learn? Or are you saying that scientists have a financial incentive to cry about a crisis? If so, keep in mind that the oil industry is supporting most of the scientists who are actively arguing against global warming and the US government has been decreasing funding for research about the Earth during the last six years.

The good news is that science constantly tests and retests theories with new data. Theories which keep working with more and more data get stronger. (That is what has changed re. global warming in the last 10 years.)

Then you make a scientific statement which seems to finish it for you. "Wouldn't you agree there is overwhelming evidence of drastic climate change predating people? Congratulations. You have just stripped bare the theory that humans have caused the current climate change. Where's their rebuttal? Where's your rebuttal?" I could give my best attempt at an answer, but I'm not a climate scientist. I'll just quote the Global Warming FAQ from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Note that NOAA is the part of the United States' Department of Commerce, not a some fringe group.)

"Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases."
Does that answer your question. The rebuttal is, yes, there have been slow gradual changes in the past. What we are seeing now is much faster and appears to be related to the FACT that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Here's NOAA's FAQ on greenhouse gases.

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."
There's some science, and it's easy to find. Sorry it's so long, but I don't answer complex questions with simple answers.

John Schreiber
06-27-2007, 1:41 AM
There is a delicate balance going on with greenhouse gases, but why should we be so certain we have a major influence on that balance. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. CO2 and methane are very minor components of the greenhouse effect. Look it up.
OK, I looked it up.

The solid dark blue line in the graph below (from NASA) is the effect of water vapor in "forcing" change in temperature. Note that while water vapor is a very major greenhouse gas, it has very little effect in changing temperature.


66985


Apparently the reason that water vapor has such a small effect is because the amount of water vapor in the air depends on the temperature of the air. If it gets warmer, more water can be in the air, if it gets colder, more water turns to rain and comes out. Changes in water vapor do not drive (force) climate change, it is a result of climate change.

Lee DeRaud
06-27-2007, 10:14 AM
If the medium-blue curve (with the downward spikes) is what I think it is, all we need to "solve" the greenhouse-gas problem is one decent-sized volcanic eruption every year. Of course, that would make life extremely unpleasant for people in the surrounding areas...or at least be the basis for a whole slew of cheesy disaster movies.

John Schreiber
06-27-2007, 10:24 AM
If the medium-blue curve (with the downward spikes) is what I think it is, all we need to "solve" the greenhouse-gas problem is one decent-sized volcanic eruption every year. Of course, that would make life extremely unpleasant for people in the surrounding areas...or at least be the basis for a whole slew of cheesy disaster movies.
There are some scientists working on ideas like that. (On my screen, it's a spiky gray line.) More pollution of one kind might in fact be the solution to pollution of another kind.

That gets to be like taking medication to cure an illness. In this case, we don't know if that medication would work or what side effects it might have. But it still might be easier than decreasing our output of CO2.

TYLER WOOD
06-27-2007, 10:34 AM
I still think most of you are missing the reason for this post. He may not be meaning to question the scientists capabilities, or their motivation. I see it as he is questioning whather it is worth our time, energy, money, and raw materials to prevent something that we may not even be able to stop. We see everything from the point of scientific measurements. They have only been acurate enought in the (loosly) past 100 years to be able to keep acurate measurements. Is the rise in temperature normal? Yes it is increasing at a faster rate now, we can proove that. But what is the cause of the rise, natural or man. We see temperature variation all throughout time. We have records from ice samples (sketchy at best) showing rise and fall in temperature over a couple centuries. But how fast did it rise? We don't have enough records of acurate measurements to make any assuptions that we are raising the temperature faster than ever before. Not one scientist in the world could acurately make that claim, yet that is what tree huggers, and politicians are saying. Even if they tried they would be wrong. After the Kraktoa eruption three years later the temperature rose 2 degrees in one year! We are not even at one degree in a century. Yes it was due to a volcano, but we can not say what is causing it now.