Global warming

[Frank]

And if the desert gets warmer, perhaps too inhospitable to live. Are you willing to let them move to the mid west?

Are you talking about the Sahara Desert?

Now that's something humanity can be proud about! The single largest change we wrought on this Earth, by chopping down all the trees in a vast area, with only very primitive tools. It's easily visible from space, and something that dwarfs silly things like the recent CO2 increase in terms of scale and change to nature.

 

[Squilliam]

Well, we all agree that the global temperature is slowly rising. Like it did for the last few centuries.

The discussion is about the upward fluctuation for the last few decennia being a natural thing and fitting the historic graph (which it does),

Except we don't really have a control Earth in order to see whether the temperature would have maintained that course or not. I don't believe you could find proof or disproof really since we cannot explain why the climate changes naturally well enough to try. But its definately an area worth pursuing.

or being a totally human-caused deviation which will increase exponentially in the future.

Human deviants? Anyway it doesn't need to be totally human caused, I suspect the requirement of proof only has to be that the human contribution and related danger warrant action.

 

[corduroygt]

That is such a strange argument I barely know how to respond. Can you provide proof of your belief that -1 degree is worse for the planet than +1?

As far as human civilization is concerned, 1C temperature increase is far better than a 1C decrease. Cold weather is more damaging to crops than hot weather as long as there is irrigation, more damaging to machinery, snow storms have huge impacts on transportation and economy, causing more energy to be wasted to deal with them, more energy is needed for heating compared to A/C, etc. I agree that if the temperature was to increase too quickly, there could be problems, but it's going to increase eventually.

You say CO2 is causing GW, I say without CO2, we'd be back in the stone age since it's a sign of economic progress, so it's in our best interests to get everything and everyone used to high CO2 and make it the norm. If this means a warmer earth, all the better. I'd be in favor of disallowing deforestation and planting trees everywhere to take advantage of this highly concentrated plant food.

 

[KimB]

Yes, it's warmer in Antarctica and America, and colder on the North Pole and in Europe. Using only a single data point is called cherry picking.

What are you talking about? The arctic has experienced the most warming of any place on Earth, because of the lower sea ice coverage.

 

[KimB]

Well, we all agree that the global temperature is slowly rising. Like it did for the last few centuries.

Until the 70's, there was no definitive overall warming or cooling trend. Until very recently the global temperature, aside from the usual year-to-year fluctuations, varied very slowly in concert with the usual fluctuations due to the Earth's orbit. The behavior over the past few decades is a tremendous departure from that trend.

 

[Grall]

As far as human civilization is concerned, 1C temperature increase is far better than a 1C decrease.

What's best for nature is best for humanity. We're dependent on the biosphere of this place on SO many levels it's not even funny.

You seem to think we're in control of this place, that we're the masters of planet earth... That is NOT SO.

We're able to wreck things real good, sure. But controlling? No. Not by a long shot.

Cold weather is more damaging to crops than hot weather as long as there is irrigation

More evaporation countered by irrigation just means saltification of the soils that much faster. Bad idea. It's often a crap idea where the groundwater table is concerned as well.

You say CO2 is causing GW, I say without CO2, we'd be back in the stone age since it's a sign of economic progress

Why is economic progress a means unto itself you think, particulary if it's wrecking the nature of this planet?

If this means a warmer earth, all the better.

You just have no idea what you're saying.

 

[Ty]

As far as human civilization is concerned, 1C temperature increase is far better than a 1C decrease. Cold weather is more damaging to crops than hot weather as long as there is irrigation, more damaging to machinery, snow storms have huge impacts on transportation and economy, causing more energy to be wasted to deal with them,

One of the issues I have with your argument is that you're picking ambiguous temperatures when describing "cold" and "hot".

more energy is needed for heating compared to A/C, etc.

Hmm, I bet you it's exactly the opposite. To cool 1 degree with AC requires far MORE (human derived) energy than to heat 1 degree. Heating is just about releasing energy via combustion. AC is about MOVING heat energy around using mechanical compressors so I'm pretty sure you are very very wrong here.

I agree that if the temperature was to increase too quickly, there could be problems, but it's going to increase eventually.

Eventually? Even if this is true (is it?), does that mean if AGW is fact, then it's ok? Another strange argument. That's like arguing that murders will happen anyhow so it's ok that they do. Or disease so we should stop trying to find cures.

You say CO2 is causing GW

Of course it is, it's a scientific fact. But what I personally have doubts about is just how much impact human caused CO2 is having on GW but it's true regardless of how little it might be.

I say without CO2, we'd be back in the stone age since it's a sign of economic progress, so it's in our best interests to get everything and everyone used to high CO2 and make it the norm.

Another strange argument. Almost like arguing that smog and mercury are signs of progress, so we should get everyone use to those as well? Do you know anything about Venus BTW?

If this means a warmer earth, all the better. I'd be in favor of disallowing deforestation and planting trees everywhere to take advantage of this highly concentrated plant food.

But deforestation is a sign of progress.

I'm for finding a better balance of sustainable human progress. I personally have the feeling we've moved beyond that. Over fishing, over harvesting, polluting lakes, streams, &oceans are not a healthy way to that end. Think of it this way. If your focus is on human progress, then don't you want that to continue indefinitely?

 

[corduroygt]

Hmm, I bet you it's exactly the opposite. To cool 1 degree with AC requires far MORE (human derived) energy than to heat 1 degree. Heating is just about releasing energy via combustion. AC is about MOVING heat energy around using mechanical compressors so I'm pretty sure you are very very wrong here.

You just lost the bet. I'm sure you'd rather have us use electricity other than natural gas or other fossil fuels to heat up, but either way, a typical home in Florida produces 6600 pounds of CO2 per year to cool it, whereas a typical home in Minnesota results in 8000 (Natural Gas) or 9900 pounds of CO2 (Electric)

Eventually? Even if this is true (is it?), does that mean if AGW is fact, then it's ok? Another strange argument. That's like arguing that murders will happen anyhow so it's ok that they do. Or disease so we should stop trying to find cures.
Of course it is, it's a scientific fact. But what I personally have doubts about is just how much impact human caused CO2 is having on GW but it's true regardless of how little it might be.

Therefore drastic economic measures to prevent it should be avoided, since the effect might be very little. It would cost me $30/month extra to get my home electricity from wind power, so I won't do it, not to mention they couldn't switch everyone to it anyway, there wouldn't be enough capacity. I'm sure it wouldn't cost my any extra if I had a nuclear option and you could switch everyone.

Another strange argument. Almost like arguing that smog and mercury are signs of progress, so we should get everyone use to those as well? Do you know anything about Venus BTW?

We don't breathe out smog or mercury. Therefore people arguing for CO2 reduction better stop breathing themselves before they can make me eat less meat or tax me.

I'm for finding a better balance of sustainable human progress. I personally have the feeling we've moved beyond that. Over fishing, over harvesting, polluting lakes, streams, &oceans are not a healthy way to that end. Think of it this way. If your focus is on human progress, then don't you want that to continue indefinitely?

Human progress depends on cheap energy. The only emissions-free cheap energy available right now is Nuclear and while it's not sustainable, we have enough Uranium and Thorium to last us thousands of years with the current reprocessing and breeder reactor technologies we have available. The same idiots against Nuclear are the strongest proponents of CO2 reduction, which is contradictory to say the least. They don't say let's build nuclear plants and have cheap electricity and everyone switch, they say you should all reduce the comfort level of your lifestyle and pay extra taxes. That attitude just won't fly with me.

 

[Squilliam]

As far as human civilization is concerned, 1C temperature increase is far better than a 1C decrease.

If I shot you in the balls it would be worse most likely for you than if I shot you on the outer thigh. That doesn't mean that being shot in the outer thigh won't be bad for you.

P.S. Mize shoots people. He has guns, he also has an nVidia GTX 580 which makes him crazy enough to shoot you.

 

[FUDie]

You just lost the bet. I'm sure you'd rather have us use electricity other than natural gas or other fossil fuels to heat up, but either way, a typical home in Florida produces 6600 pounds of CO2 per year to cool it, whereas a typical home in Minnesota results in 8000 (Natural Gas) or 9900 pounds of CO2 (Electric)

How is this apples to apples? It gets *far* colder in Minnesota than it gets hot in Florida, relative to a mean of, say, 70F.

-FUDie

 

[corduroygt]

How is this apples to apples? It gets *far* colder in Minnesota than it gets hot in Florida, relative to a mean of, say, 70F.

-FUDie

Not my fault that the Homo Sapiens species is more optimized towards warmer temperatures than colder ones.

 

[KimB]

Not my fault that the Homo Sapiens species is more optimized towards warmer temperatures than colder ones.

And yet, Miami will still be underwater in a few decades. That will, at the very least, cost a lot of money to deal with. Poorer parts of the world won't have that luxury, and will be forced to move. It will also leave the city at much greater risk of damage when the next hurricane rolls through (which will also likely be stronger due to global warming).

 

[corduroygt]

And yet, Miami will still be underwater in a few decades.

You don't know that, can't say that like it's the truth. It's a prediction based on flawed models that keep changing by the minute. I can just as validly predict that it will be 500 years before Miami's underwater.

Sea levels have been constantly rising and falling over the years during the history of time. Nothing we can do, except for picking smarter places to settle can solve that problem. Besides there are lots of homes already underwater in Miami.

It's 28F here today, which is about 10F less than normal. It sucks and I didn't shut off my car until the engine warmed up because I didn't like being cold in the car.

 

[KimB]

You don't know that, can't say that like it's the truth. It's a prediction based on flawed models that keep changing by the minute. I can just as validly predict that it will be 500 years before Miami's underwater.

Sorry, but you pulling a number out of your ass is a far, far cry from physical models of sea level rise that have been validated against observations.

Sea levels have been constantly rising and falling over the years during the history of time. Nothing we can do, except for picking smarter places to settle can solve that problem. Besides there are lots of homes already underwater in Miami.

This simply ignores the evidence. But then, that's what I expect from denialists like you.

It's 28F here today, which is about 10F less than normal. It sucks and I didn't shut off my car until the engine warmed up because I didn't like being cold in the car.

That's weather, not climate. Learn the difference, please.

 

[FUDie]

Not my fault that the Homo Sapiens species is more optimized towards warmer temperatures than colder ones.

Except that it completely debunks your idea that it's cheaper to cool than it is to warm.

-FUDie

 

[corduroygt]

Except that it completely debunks your idea that it's cheaper to cool than it is to warm.

-FUDie

As far as the operating temperature range of humans is concerned, it is less energy intensive to cool down than to heat up, that's what matters now isn't it?

 

[corduroygt]

Sorry, but you pulling a number out of your ass is a far, far cry from physical models of sea level rise that have been validated against observations.

Those physical models change every day, and they give a vast range. it can be 40 years or 200 years. "Oh No! Miami is going under" is just alarmist environ-mental-ist propaganda.

That's weather, not climate. Learn the difference, please.

If people, animals, plants, etc. can withstand daily variations that are an order of magnitude more than the warming amount, they'll be fine with the gradual warming of the average by 1 degree over a hundred years.

 

[Ty]

You just lost the bet. I'm sure you'd rather have us use electricity other than natural gas or other fossil fuels to heat up, but either way, a typical home in Florida produces 6600 pounds of CO2 per year to cool it, whereas a typical home in Minnesota results in 8000 (Natural Gas) or 9900 pounds of CO2 (Electric)

Hmm, I think you are confused or perhaps I am. Your earlier argument was about ENERGY use, not the release of CO2. The amount of CO2 released is NOT NECESSARILY directly proportional to the amount of joules consumed.

I could use a match to light some newspaper that eventually lights many logs. This would release quite a bit of CO2 but not cost much in terms of energy that you'd pay $ for.

We don't breathe out smog or mercury. Therefore people arguing for CO2 reduction better stop breathing themselves before they can make me eat less meat or tax me.

Are you measuring progress just by how many humans are exhaling? In that case, as the human population increases, you're going to get progress for free.

I took your argument (again, the more CO2, the more progress we're making) because CO2 is a by product of human activity (industry), not just exhalation. Therefore both smog and mercury are, by your argument, signs of progress.

Not my fault that the Homo Sapiens species is more optimized towards warmer temperatures than colder ones.

Again, based on what arbitrary temperatures? Could I choose 110 degrees as warm and 60 degrees as cold?

 

[Frank]

Except we don't really have a control Earth in order to see whether the temperature would have maintained that course or not. I don't believe you could find proof or disproof really since we cannot explain why the climate changes naturally well enough to try. But its definately an area worth pursuing.

Agreed. What-if. The thing that definitely should get a lot more attention.

Human deviants? Anyway it doesn't need to be totally human caused, I suspect the requirement of proof only has to be that the human contribution and related danger warrant action.

Deviations, or anomalies. The only thing interesting: how much does it deviate from the expected trend or baseline? Which is the thing we'll never know, as you said.

 

[Frank]

What are you talking about? The arctic has experienced the most warming of any place on Earth, because of the lower sea ice coverage.

Well, 2010 was the coldest year since decades here in the Netherlands.