EISPIRATEN

{NOTE: This topic has been split from the thread on Andrew Curtis' Tungsten Mine.}

Sean wrote: ↑Man needs minerals and resources to make important things for industrial progress, and he needs to get them from somewhere, somehow.

No, man doesn't. "Industrial progress" is killing the planet. I will be dead before the worst hits, but my college age nephews will witness the death of a billion people or more by the time they are my age (71 on March 1).

A lot of people are living in fantasy land thinking that some one, some day, some where, will do something about climate change. It is not going to happen. Nothing significant will be done until the effects hit like a tidal wave. Then it will be too late.

RichardK wrote: ↑"Industrial progress" is killing the planet.

I don't think so. If you study the ice core record, you'll find that there is a global temperature spike every 100k years or so. We are at or near the height of one of these spikes right now. Industrial waste causes pollution, but I don't think it causes global warming. The causality appears to be the other way around. Warming causes more life, which causes more CO2 production. It's true that we now produce a lot more CO2 since the industrial revolution. But it hasn't caused an equally dramatic rise in global temperature.

Hmmm? The current spike in CO2 levels is happening orders of magnitude faster than anything in the historical record, according to the ice cores. The temperature effects lag the CO2 levels, so we're starting to see warming now, and the thought is that it will continue far beyond what we're seeing today. Because it lags. You're thinking that the recent higher temperatures are causing the CO2 increases? What life is producing that, you think? And is that borne out by the observations at all from the last 100 years?

Have you ever wondered why a car parked in the sun with the windows rolled up gets really hot inside, hot enough to kill a child? The reason is that sunlight passes through the glass warming the interior. But, glass is a great insulator for heat. It's why coffee mugs are made of glass. So, the heat is trapped inside the car and it just gets hotter and hotter. Carbon dioxide, ammonia, and methane do the same thing in the earth's atmosphere. Sunlight passes through them warming the place up, but the heat is trapped as these gases are also insulators of heat. It just gets hotter and hotter.

dima wrote: ↑You're thinking that the recent higher temperatures are causing the CO2 increases? What life is producing that, you think? And is that borne out by the observations at all from the last 100 years?

The recent CO2 spike has been caused by man. That's not in dispute. What I'm saying is that climate change didn't begin 100 years ago. The planet has been trending warmer for about 20,000 years, long before any industrial revolution or population boom. Such warm periods have helped humans and other life forms flourish and thereby produce more carbon dioxide and methane gas as waste products. In my view, this is one reason why we see a strong but imperfect correlation between temperature and these gases in the ice core records. Temperature affects the amount of life possible on the planet, and the amount of life affects the amount of certain gases in the atmosphere.

RichardK wrote: ↑Carbon dioxide, ammonia, and methane do the same thing in the earth's atmosphere. Sunlight passes through them warming the place up, but the heat is trapped as these gases are also insulators of heat. It just gets hotter and hotter.

But it doesn't just get hotter and hotter. The average temperature fluctuates. Even in the last hundred years, it has gone up some years and down other years, while the CO2 levels have steadily risen. This indicates some other cause for the temperature changes.

I've never been impressed by the "greenhouse" gas analogy. A gas in the open atmosphere is very dissimilar to a greenhouse (or car). For starters, the two things aren't even in the same state of matter. CO2 and methane are gases, while a greenhouse is made of solid material like metal and glass. Furthermore, the quantities of matter are absurdly different. A greenhouse is nothing in size compared to the planet's atmosphere. There's also the categorical differences in shapes (a box versus a sphere) and systems (closed and protected versus open and exposed). So I have trouble accepting that what's true for the space inside a greenhouse will be true for the planet Earth as a whole.

While the earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past, there is nothing in the scientific record that compares to the stunning, rapid rise seen since we started burning fossil fuels. Actually, the greenhouse analogy works perfectly. Why does a greenhouse get warm? Sunlight passes through the glass to warm the interior, but the glass is also an insulator. Glass may be solid (actually an amorphous solid, look it up) and CO2 a gas, but they both insulate heat. It's the insulation property that makes the analogy work. The shape of the greenhouse or of the earth is irrelevant. We are wrapping the earth in a transparent blanket.

My friend, you should really educate yourself. A simple Google search will turn up plenty of reasoned, scientific evidence with all of the anti arguments refuted. And think about who is behind climate change skepticism. Who benefits? The oil and gas industries! They are willing to deep six the future of our planet for profits now. They are no different than the tobacco companies that knowingly let people die so they could sell another pack.

and systems (closed and protected versus open and exposed).

I don't know that there is much real dispute that the earth's atmosphere is a "closed system" as that term is generally defined and understood, is there?

Uncle Rico wrote: ↑

and systems (closed and protected versus open and exposed).

I don't know that there is much real dispute that the earth's atmosphere is a "closed system" as that term is generally defined and understood, is there?

The definition of a closed system is one where there is a finite amount of matter that cannot be replenished. So, yes, the earth is a closed system The only thing that enters is energy radiated by the sun. The only thing that leaves is heat radiated by the earth. We are steadily reducing the amount of heat that can be radiated by flooding the atmosphere with insulating gases.

RichardK wrote: ↑We are steadily reducing the amount of heat that can be radiated by flooding the atmosphere with insulating gases.

..and by putting up solar panels.

RichardK wrote: ↑While the earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past, there is nothing in the scientific record that compares to the stunning, rapid rise seen since we started burning fossil fuels.

How do you support this claim? We only have precise yearly data going back to 1880, and even then the data's accuracy is somewhat questionable prior to recent, satellite-generated information. Even so, going by the yearly data that we do possess, the current rate of warming is not alarming and does not seem to correlate with the rate of CO2 increase. Since 1880 there have been four significant cooling periods (1880-86, 1899-1910, 1942-49, and 1960-66), plus a number of plateaus in the 5-year trend line. Also, it's interesting to note that we dropped to 1880s levels in the 1960s and 70s (~14.1°C), before climbing to the present level (~15.1°C). Additionally, the warming trend rate between 1966 and 2019 (+0.0196°C/year) is not radically higher than the rate between 1910 and 1942 (+0.0156°C/year). So if global warming is significantly impacted by greenhouse gases, how do we make sense of this temperature data when CO2 levels have been on a steep and consistent upward trajectory since the 1800s?

I know this topic often turns into a heated affair, but I'm just interested in the data and making logical sense of it. If CO2 is causing the warming trend, so be it. I have no emotional investment in this debate. I'm well-aware of industry propaganda, as well as environmentalist. But just because an oil company rep or tree-hugger makes an argument, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Besides, I'm not using biased info from either side. I'm basing my argument on the best scientific data from the ice core records and respected authorities like NASA.

Uncle Rico wrote: ↑I don't know that there is much real dispute that the earth's atmosphere is a "closed system" as that term is generally defined and understood, is there?

Relative to a shuttered greenhouse, the atmosphere is an open system, because it's exposed to space and natural weather phenomena, whereas a greenhouse's atmosphere is protected from interacting with these other systems.

Sean wrote: ↑ I know this topic often turns into a heated affair

?

RichardK wrote: ↑So, yes, the earth is a closed system The only thing that enters is energy radiated by the sun. The only thing that leaves is heat radiated by the earth. We are steadily reducing the amount of heat that can be radiated by flooding the atmosphere with insulating gases.

Actually lighter gases escape from earth's gravity all the time. But since we're rolling through space, we're also capturing gases at the same time. Also, plants use and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is one reason why we can release so much of it into the air without suffocating ourselves. Another reason is that most CO2 eventually dissolves into the ocean.

Sean wrote: ↑ Additionally, the warming trend rate between 1966 and 2019 (+0.0196°C/year) is not radically higher than the rate between 1910 and 1942 (+0.0156°C/year).

It's about a 25% higher rate, I think that's significant. If I gained another 50 pounds (25% increase) I would definitely think something was wrong. If I got a 25% raise instead of 1% I would have a much different reaction.

JeffH wrote: ↑

Sean wrote: ↑ Additionally, the warming trend rate between 1966 and 2019 (+0.0196°C/year) is not radically higher than the rate between 1910 and 1942 (+0.0156°C/year).

It's about a 25% higher rate, I think that's significant. If I gained another 50 pounds (25% increase) I would definitely think something was wrong. If I got a 25% raise instead of 1% I would have a much different reaction.

The analogy to a human also doesn't work. If you were a baby, and you gained only 25% of your body weight in the first year, something is terribly wrong. The point is that you're comparing apples and oranges--not even that, actually, because both are fruits. It's like comparing apples to mountains. With something as large and complex as historical climate changes, I don't think a 25% warming rate change is shocking. You could manipulate the data to get an even higher rate change period, and then you could get negative changes for cooling periods.

I'd also like to point out that CO2 comprises a truly miniscule amount of the atmosphere. It's something like 0.04%! So it's hard to accept that it's the cause of the current warming. Way more significant to warming is water vapor, which varies from trace amounts to about 4%. And most studies exclude this factor in their calculations on climate change. There are many other factors, including the oscillations of earth's axial tilt and solar cycles. I'm not claiming global temperature changes can be explained by these factors alone. Maybe there's an unknown factor. But it's not as easy as saying that unless we adopt the green new deal the polar caps will melt. They will probably melt anyway. They melted many times before. Why not again? Millions of years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the planet, CO2 levels were three or four times higher than they are now. So if we don't control our CO2 output, we might get eaten by new dinosaurs, but we're not going to kill the planet.

Sean wrote: ↑

RichardK wrote: ↑While the earth's temperature has fluctuated in the past, there is nothing in the scientific record that compares to the stunning, rapid rise seen since we started burning fossil fuels.

How do you support this claim? We only have precise yearly data going back to 1880, and even then the data's accuracy is somewhat questionable prior to recent, satellite-generated information. Even so, going by the yearly data that we do possess, the current rate of warming is not alarming and does not seem to correlate with the rate of CO2 increase. Since 1880 there have been four significant cooling periods (1880-86, 1899-1910, 1942-49, and 1960-66), plus a number of plateaus in the 5-year trend line. Also, it's interesting to note that we dropped to 1880s levels in the 1960s and 70s (~14.1°C), before climbing to the present level (~15.1°C). Additionally, the warming trend rate between 1966 and 2019 (+0.0196°C/year) is not radically higher than the rate between 1910 and 1942 (+0.0156°C/year). So if global warming is significantly impacted by greenhouse gases, how do we make sense of this temperature data when CO2 levels have been on a steep and consistent upward trajectory since the 1800s?

I know this topic often turns into a heated affair, but I'm just interested in the data and making logical sense of it. If CO2 is causing the warming trend, so be it. I have no emotional investment in this debate. I'm well-aware of industry propaganda, as well as environmentalist. But just because an oil company rep or tree-hugger makes an argument, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Besides, I'm not using biased info from either side. I'm basing my argument on the best scientific data from the ice core records and respected authorities like NASA.

Since you want to use NASA here is what they say. The consensus is overwhelming 97%, every one of your points has been addressed if you are truly interested in the science.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Just think of how many caves/mines will be exposed when all of the pesky ice melts!

HikeUp wrote: ↑Just think of how many caves/mines will be exposed when all of the pesky ice melts!

Along with Atlantis, alien spaceships and maybe even the Oak Island treasure.

Gene wrote: ↑ ...and maybe even the Oak Island treasure.

No, they still won't find the Oak Island treasure. ?

Uncle Rico wrote: ↑

Gene wrote: ↑ ...and maybe even the Oak Island treasure.

No, they still won't find the Oak Island treasure. ?

Probably not. ?

I honestly think someone already found the treasure. My top suspect would be the cabbage farmers that ended up the richest man in the province, I just cannot believe cabbage was that popular.

HikeUp wrote: ↑Just think of how many caves/mines will be exposed when all of the pesky ice melts!

Yeah, but where will the Yeti live once all the ice is gone?

RichardK wrote: ↑ I will be dead before the worst hits, but my college age nephews will witness the death of a billion people or more by the time they are my age (71 on March 1).

So in 50 years climate change will be responsible for 1 billion people dying? That alone should reduce emissions enough to stop climate change right in it's tracks!

The crude death rate is approximately between 7.5 and 8 right now. That's 7.5 people per 1000 people per year. There are 7.8 billion people in the world I think.

7.5 x 7,800,000,000 / 1000 = 58,500,000 dead people per year.

50 years x 58.5M people/yr = 2,925,000,000 people dead from "mere existence". That's 2.925 Billion by the time your nephews are 71.

Look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6807963/

The carbon budget for 2°C AGW (roughly 10*12 tonnes carbon) will indirectly cause roughly 10*9 future premature deaths

I inserted the "*" as the Tapatalk format does not allow superscripts.

RichardK wrote: ↑Look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6807963/

The carbon budget for 2°C AGW (roughly 10*12 tonnes carbon) will indirectly cause roughly 10*9 future premature deaths

I inserted the "*" as the Tapatalk format does not allow superscripts.

To complete the quote...
The carbon budget for 2°C AGW (roughly 10^12 tonnes carbon) will indirectly cause roughly 10^9 future premature deaths (10% of projected maximum global population), spread over one to two centuries.

My emphasis.

Thanks for the context - "...premature..." . So mortality will go up.

Ask any warmist what temp. should the earth be and you'll get a different answer from everyone. There's no right or wrong answer because the earth's temp. has fluctuated a lot over its 4.5 billion year history.

Should we be concerned about our environment, yes but we shouldn't send the human race back to the stone age with some of the outlandish ideas (Green New Deal) people in power are proposing.

I just stumbled across your discussion. I wonder if you can provide more info on Earth's temperature fluctuations.