How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:48 pm

Carbon Black, in infinitesimally small form is simply carbon, and carbon dioxide is only one of the thousands of chemicals that contribute to warming our atmosphere. Neither Methane nor any other carbon compounds are included when some focus solely upon atmospheric carbon dioxide while ignoring all the other chemical compounds being released into our atmosphere in ever greater quantities that will over long or short periods of time break down and all the while add to atmospheric warming.

Those who focus upon taxes while ignoring they are but a tiny percentage of corporate profit, I find baffling, their reasoning being utterly beyond my comprehension.

The delay and those who support the status quo will be responsible for billions of needless and often gruesome death. If ever there was a need for change, it is now.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby justdrew » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:57 pm

Ben D » 11 Apr 2014 19:29 wrote:
justdrew » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:58 am wrote:ben, do you believe that a globally measured and averaged measure of air temp is a direct measure of the energy balance of the entire planetary system?

More or less yes, assuming the measurement was perfect, it would reflect the state of the relative energy balance...temperature go down..a relative net loss of energy,....temperature goes up..a relative net gain of energy,...temperature steady...the energy is in relative balance.

The average global temperature has gained 0.7C over the last century....meaning there has been a relative net gain of planetary energy...during this 17 year pause into the 21st century the global temperature has been relatively steady so there has relative balance of incoming from the sun energy and outgoing reflected and radiated energy.


I agree there is a relationship, but I asked if you thought it was a DIRECT measure. If the energy perfused trough the system uniformly you'd have a point, but that's not how things work in the real world. Take for example the simple school demonstration of putting a thermometer in ice water while applying heat to the container. The thermostat doesn't start going up UNTIL the ice is melted.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:13 pm

DrEvil » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:01 am wrote:Ben is just mad that his Biblical end-time prophecies are being trumped by scientific end-time prophecies (He thinks the US is the beast from revelations..). Explains a lot.

:lol: good one....
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:31 pm

justdrew » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:57 am wrote:
Ben D » 11 Apr 2014 19:29 wrote:
justdrew » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:58 am wrote:ben, do you believe that a globally measured and averaged measure of air temp is a direct measure of the energy balance of the entire planetary system?

More or less yes, assuming the measurement was perfect, it would reflect the state of the relative energy balance...temperature go down..a relative net loss of energy,....temperature goes up..a relative net gain of energy,...temperature steady...the energy is in relative balance.

The average global temperature has gained 0.7C over the last century....meaning there has been a relative net gain of planetary energy...during this 17 year pause into the 21st century the global temperature has been relatively steady so there has relative balance of incoming from the sun energy and outgoing reflected and radiated energy.

I agree there is a relationship, but I asked if you thought it was a DIRECT measure. If the energy perfused trough the system uniformly you'd have a point, but that's not how things work in the real world. Take for example the simple school demonstration of putting a thermometer in ice water while applying heat to the container. The thermostat doesn't start going up UNTIL the ice is melted.

So yes...
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Laodicean » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:54 pm



Dedicated to BenD, who I henceforth dub the "Caribbean Queen". You can feel the hot exhaled CO2 air in the air from his every breath of denial. The oceans currents adrift with hot hellish surprises on the horizon for humanity.

But by all means "Caribbean Queen", keep "running your game".
User avatar
Laodicean
 
Posts: 3334
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:39 pm
Blog: View Blog (16)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:53 pm

Ben D » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:13 am wrote:
DrEvil » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:01 am wrote:Ben is just mad that his Biblical end-time prophecies are being trumped by scientific end-time prophecies (He thinks the US is the beast from revelations..). Explains a lot.

:lol: good one....


Oh, what the Hell. I can't stay away.
This is from your blog:

Who is the beast that deceives the whole world in bible prophecy?

Here is a brief outline of my understanding of the meaning of the Bible Beasts of Daniel and Revelation in the context of here and now.

Now a warning,,..many of you may find it hard to believe that western world powers, ie. USA and Europe, with the main stream media as its mouthpiece, could be the greatest evil this world has ever witnessed (Rev. 13:7-8), but keep an open mind and you may ‘see’ who the Beast really is?

And the big surprise for the reader is when the mystery of who and what is the earthly powers referred to in Daniel 11:45 reveals itself.

The first beast was Babylon (present day Iraq). The second beast was Media/Persia (present day Iran). The third beast with four heads was Greece, Egypt, Assyria (present day Syria/Lebanon), and Rome. The fourth beast with a head of ten horns is Europe (the ten horns are the ten main imperial colonizing nations of the planet, England, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Austria).

Now consider in Daniel 7:8 “I considered the (ten) horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.”

Now prior to becoming a single nation, the present land that now constitutes the mainland US states once belonged to three of the horns of the fourth beast, Spain, France and England. See map above. As we know from history, the three big horns were uprooted and the US arose in their place, the little horn of Daniel 7:8. After the second world war the little horn became leader (militarily) of all of western Europe….until now. The little horn is the USA, with the president being the most powerful man in the world.

Now these four phases of history of the beasts of Daniel that lead up to the present time are described using different metaphors in other chapters, so for example, the last ‘kingdom’ of the beast with ten horns led by the the little horn is the kingdom of iron mixed with miry clay of Chapter two, and the King of the North of Chapter 11, etc.. And again, a different metaphor is used in Book of Revelations for the last beast, it is the seventh head, that did not yet exist at that time of John, of a seven headed beast, and the little horn of Daniel is described in Revelation as a beast having two little horns like a lamb.

The last point of interest for now is the end of Daniel Chapter 11 (Verse 45), because that fulfils the prophecy of Daniel and it is here that the last Beast will ‘run out of time’ coincident with the start of events described in Chapter 12. Now that which is set up between Jerusalem and the sea is the Zionist state of Israel. It was set up by the Beast/King of the North through the United Nations in 1948. One of the horns of the Beast (Britain) had already ruled the area as a mandate from the League of Nations and now stood aside to allow the Beast/King of the North to take possession.

If I am correct, present day Zionist Israel is soon to be no more, for the beast’s nature and destiny is to war on until its end .

I suggest we should keep an eye on events in Syria as it could well be the trigger for something of Daniel 11:45 prophetic end time proportions.


http://bendhyan.wordpress.com/2013/08/2 ... -prophecy/

:backtotopic:
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:01 pm

Laodicean » Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:54 am wrote:Dedicated to BenD, who I henceforth dub the "Caribbean Queen". You can feel the hot exhaled CO2 air in the air from his every breath of denial. The oceans currents adrift with hot hellish surprises on the horizon for humanity.

Laodicean, you are henceforth judged as being neither hot or cold, but lukewarm.....until you heed this rebuke and repent... :(
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby slimmouse » Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:00 am

Image

Dr Evil,

Heres my source. From SRPs post on page 59 ( I think).

Since when has 400 parts per million represented 0.04%.? Or is this quantity of C02 diluted at some kind of elevated atmospheric height or depth, whereas elsewhere the quanitity is normally one thousand times higher higher?

You see, youre Wiki figure of atmospheric C02 represents four parts per 10 thousand, (which is still, actually pretty fucking small when you think about it.)

All of which indicates to me, without reading the small print, that these figures are ridiculous.

They need to confer. What say you Doc Evil?
Last edited by slimmouse on Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:42 am

slimmouse » Sun Apr 13, 2014 5:00 pm wrote:Image

Heres my source. From SRPs post on page 59 ( I think).

Since when has 400 parts per million represented 0.04%.? Or is this quantity of C02 at some kind of elevated height, whereas elsewhere the quanitity is much higher?

You see, youre figure represents four parts per 10 thousand, which is still actually pretty fucking small, but I digress,

which suggest to me , without reading the small print, that these figures are ridiculous.

They need to confer. What say you Doc Evil?


You're referring to this link I think (p. 60): http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/0 ... est-level/

My number (0.039%) comes from the wikipedia page on Earth's atmosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth). I'm assuming it's correct since it's still showing 0.039% days later (Wikipedia articles that are messed with are usually fixed within 10-15 minutes).
Other sources state the same number.

My math isn't very good, but as far as I can tell, 400ppm = 0.04%. 4 parts per ten thousand is also 0.04%.

Edit: To illustrate my thinking and get it straight in my head:

400ppm/100 = 4 parts per 10000. 4/100 = 0.04, and 10000/100 = 100, so 0.04 parts per 100.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby slimmouse » Sun Apr 13, 2014 12:09 pm

Dr Evil youre absulutely right.

400 parts per million is of course four parts per 10 thousand. Deepest apologies for my senile brain-fart.

Not that the increase from just under 3 parts per ten thousand, to four parts in Ten thousand over the last 60 years has altered my opinion, with regards to climate change. ( Not that I also doubt that we have contributed almost exclusively to the "one part per ten thousand" increase.)

All that said, Its still too small a change to me, personally speaking.

Im still one of those guys who thinks that for the most part, when it comes to our climate, the Sun does/did it.

Whilst at the same time, being a guy who understands the urgency of stopping the rape of our planet.

What pisses me off no end, is the fact that none of this is even remotely neccessary.

Other than the unfortunatate fact that in the current collapse of quantum possibility into our ongoing experience, it is where we currently are.

Thats probably an "intuitive" alogarithm we need to collectively work on a lot harrder.
Last edited by slimmouse on Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:27 pm

I don't doubt that the sun has some influence (watched 'Knowing' with Nicolas Cage yesterday :) ), and over the longer term it changes the climate. The problem is that it doesn't account for the changes we're seeing right now. It's only a small part of it, the rest is mainly human made through releasing all kinds of shit into our atmosphere, deforestation, ocean acidification etc. It's not just the CO2, and it's not just the sun, it's the sum of all the crap we're doing as a species, with some tiny natural variations thrown in.

And another thing - even if you don't believe global warming is man-made, I really don't get why people are so opposed to replacing coal, oil and gas with renewable, non-polluting sources.
(Btw - Burning coal releases a crap-load of radiation. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ear-waste/)

I mean, what's the worst thing that can happen? That we make our planet a nicer place to live?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby slimmouse » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:32 pm

DrEvil » 13 Apr 2014 18:27 wrote:I don't doubt that the sun has some influence (watched 'Knowing' with Nicolas Cage yesterday :) ), and over the longer term it changes the climate. The problem is that it doesn't account for the changes we're seeing right now. It's only a small part of it, the rest is mainly human made through releasing all kinds of shit into our atmosphere, deforestation, ocean acidification etc. It's not just the CO2, and it's not just the sun, it's the sum of all the crap we're doing as a species, with some tiny natural variations thrown in.

And another thing - even if you don't believe global warming is man-made, I really don't get why people are so opposed to replacing coal, oil and gas with renewable, non-polluting sources.
(Btw - Burning coal releases a crap-load of radiation. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ear-waste/)

I mean, what's the worst thing that can happen? That we make our planet a nicer place to live?


Thats a truly interesting question.

Rory usually puts all of that into perspectvie for us.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Nordic » Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:44 pm

DrEvil » Sun Apr 13, 2014 1:27 pm wrote:I don't doubt that the sun has some influence (watched 'Knowing' with Nicolas Cage yesterday :) ), and over the longer term it changes the climate. The problem is that it doesn't account for the changes we're seeing right now. It's only a small part of it, the rest is mainly human made through releasing all kinds of shit into our atmosphere, deforestation, ocean acidification etc. It's not just the CO2, and it's not just the sun, it's the sum of all the crap we're doing as a species, with some tiny natural variations thrown in.

And another thing - even if you don't believe global warming is man-made, I really don't get why people are so opposed to replacing coal, oil and gas with renewable, non-polluting sources.
(Btw - Burning coal releases a crap-load of radiation. http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ear-waste/)

I mean, what's the worst thing that can happen? That we make our planet a nicer place to live?



IMO that's why the global warming "debate" is 90% red herring.

It makes us talk about all the wrong things.

Like .... Nobody talks about deforestation any more, which is quite possibly the most suicidal thing mankind is engaged in these days.

It's all "let's change our lightbulbs and make our cars more efficient and everything will be ok".

Not.

Mass extinction, man made, terminal lung cancer of planet earth, entirely preventable.

But no lets get in an endless unprovable argument about whether or not temperature fluctuations are man made or not. V

Meanwhile the earth dies and do do we.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby DrEvil » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:38 pm

^^ Yup. This is why I roll my eyes every 'Earth Hour'. "Lookit! I turned off my lights for a whole hour (and live-streamed it!). #We're_saved!"
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Nordic » Sun Apr 13, 2014 3:42 pm

It has also locked most people into yet another "divide-and-conquer" bullshit debate about whether or not you should "believe" in global warming.

Like that matters one way or another.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests