Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Orange

Is climate change real, and human caused?

Is climate change real, and substantially human caused?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Is climate change real, and substantially human caused?

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

Quote

To identify the cause of global warming, scientists study the carbon in our atmosphere.

Powell: “Carbon has three varieties: three different isotopes, all with the same number of protons, but three different numbers of neutrons.”

James Powell of the National Physical Sciences Consortium says these isotopes are found in different proportions in different substances. For example, the carbon found in plants has a distinct ratio of the isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-13.

There’s also a difference between the carbon isotopes in living plants and those in fossil fuels, which are made from plants that died millions of years ago.

That’s because plants contain the radioactive isotope carbon-14, which decays over time.

Powell: “Geological materials like coal, oil, and natural gas are so old that they no longer have any carbon-14.”

So by studying isotopes, scientists can measure exactly how much of the carbon in the atmosphere today came from fossil fuels.

Powell: “We can’t get away with saying that humans are not responsible for the carbon that’s been added to the atmosphere. The isotopes don’t lie and they show it.”

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/11/isotopes-point-to-the-culprit-behind-climate-change/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bsu_alum9 said:

What?  You have a source for that?

https://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/

The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? Are there variations in the natural flux? Could those explain the CO2 increase?

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CV147 said:

The first two are facts. The third is problematic because human history only goes back two hundred thousand years at best (age of our species), and at worst our history is confined to what was actually written down (~10,000 years).

It might be better to talk about ice core samples, mineral deposits, and maybe fossilized leaf pores.

This is actually what I was referring to.  Arguably, human-like ancestors have existed for a couple million years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CV147 said:

Also to the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas: there are other greenhouse gasses to account for. For example methane, as well as water vapor, which is the best at keeping heat in our atmosphere.

And the rapid rise in CO2 has led to conditions that create more emissions of methane (thawing of the Siberian tundra results in methane deposits being unleashed for the first time in millennia).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CV147 said:

I was not disagreeing with that at all. I was disagreeing with "hundreds of thousands of years of human history."

Another point that could be made in favor of man-made global warming, that hasn't been made in this thread, is the ratio of carbon isotopes in our atmosphere that only come from burning fossil fuels as opposed to natural sources like volcanoes.

Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Orange said:

And the rapid rise in CO2 has led to conditions that create more emissions of methane (thawing of the Siberian tundra results in methane deposits being unleashed for the first time in millennia).

I don't disagree that the melting of the tundra is adding methane.

My problem is the correlation/causal relationship between carbon dioxide and global warming. I think there's many factors that go into the chaotic system that is our global climate which we can't completely comprehend. Pointing to one input and its correlation with warming, and then saying this is definitively the cause is where I have an issue. I do believe carbon dioxide contributes to the warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Orange said:

Do you think MAYBE Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukshima may have some tiny impact on this?  Nuclear power plants have historically caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and destroyed vast swaths of nature.  I don't get why you refuse to recognize this.  We don't rush into some technology when it's clearly not safe.

But it’s estimated that nuclear power has saved 1.8 million lives. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/497539e

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CV147 said:

I don't disagree that the melting of the tundra is adding methane.

My problem is the correlation/causal relationship between carbon dioxide and global warming. I think there's many factors that go into the chaotic system that is our global climate which we can't completely comprehend. Pointing to one input and its correlation with warming, and then saying this is definitively the cause is where I have an issue. I do believe carbon dioxide contributes to the warming.

This would be why scientists have spent decades exploring other causes (including water vapor, vulcanology, methane, etc.) and it all comes back to the massive amounts of CO2 emissions during the industrial revolution.  Particularly since the warming precisely coincides with this event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t understand why nuclear and wind/solar are always presented as a binary. We’re talking about saving our +++++ing species. Por que no Los dos? We should be trying everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Orange said:

The planet we'll be fine.  It's us who is +++++ed if we don't act.

You can blame me for that news if you want, but it's kind of medieval to kill the messenger, don't you think?

But if you believe the message...that humans are causing all of this...then why are we not pursuing a strategy of all options?  If I believed with 100% certainty that humans were causing a mass extinction, then I would not care so much if the solutions aligned with my political sensitivities.  There would be several new nuclear power plants under construction right now.  But they aren't.  The solutions are all about the lefts pet policies of wealth transfer and 0% growth for the Birkenstocks and granola crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CV147 said:

I don't disagree that the melting of the tundra is adding methane.

My problem is the correlation/causal relationship between carbon dioxide and global warming. I think there's many factors that go into the chaotic system that is our global climate which we can't completely comprehend. Pointing to one input and its correlation with warming, and then saying this is definitively the cause is where I have an issue. I do believe carbon dioxide contributes to the warming.

The larger issue with CO2 is that when it goes into the atmosphere it stays for a long time if it’s not consumed elswhere - as opposed to water vapor and other greenhouse gases that have a short lifespan and are constantly cycling.  Over time, CO2 volumes will gradually build as a result.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SJSUMFA2013 said:

I don’t understand why nuclear and wind/solar are always presented as a binary. We’re talking about saving our +++++ing species. Por que no Los dos? We should be trying everything.

I agree that we should be doing everything possible.  My argument for nuclear is we know how to do it safely.  We can do it quickly and we get more energy per acre than we do with wind or solar.  I understand the apprehension about accidents.  But Chernobyl was a serious design flaw. And Fukushima was caused by an unforeseen (or poorly planned for) natural disaster.  And if we’re that concerned about accidents, which as I said is a valid concern, let’s build them near water sources but not near anybody so if there is a major accident the death toll is minimal. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I agree that we should be doing everything possible.  My argument for nuclear is we know how to do it safely.  We can do it quickly and we get more energy per acre than we do with wind or solar.  I understand the apprehension about accidents.  But Chernobyl was a serious design flaw. And Fukushima was caused by an unforeseen (or poorly planned for) natural disaster.  And if we’re that concerned about accidents, which as I said is a valid concern, let’s build them near water sources but not near anybody so if there is a major accident the death toll is minimal. 

Some newer technology doesn’t even require a water source for cooling.

v0icAvfW.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BYUcougfan said:

But if you believe the message...that humans are causing all of this...then why are we not pursuing a strategy of all options?  If I believed with 100% certainty that humans were causing a mass extinction, then I would not care so much if the solutions aligned with my political sensitivities.  There would be several new nuclear power plants under construction right now.  But they aren't.  The solutions are all about the lefts pet policies of wealth transfer and 0% growth for the Birkenstocks and granola crowd.

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or not.  I literally gave you a link to a discussion of how numerous plants are in the works.

The irony isn't lost that you believe scientists who claim we can build nuclear power plants that have zero chance of a meltdown or other mechanical failure, but you refuse to believe scientists when it comes to climate change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I agree that we should be doing everything possible.  My argument for nuclear is we know how to do it safely.  We can do it quickly and we get more energy per acre than we do with wind or solar.  I understand the apprehension about accidents.  But Chernobyl was a serious design flaw. And Fukushima was caused by an unforeseen (or poorly planned for) natural disaster.  And if we’re that concerned about accidents, which as I said is a valid concern, let’s build them near water sources but not near anybody so if there is a major accident the death toll is minimal. 

Yeah, who could foresee an earthquake or tsunami in Japan.  :rolleyes:

 

We have plants on fault lines all over the world.  We're literally playing with the worst kind of fire known to chemists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

Some newer technology doesn’t even require a water source for cooling.

I wasn’t aware of that.  Shit.  Can we build these things underground?  That was if there’s a disaster we just collapse all entrances to prevent radiation from escaping. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...