Stick to nonsense and all is cool. What Yen is saying has never been credible, CO2 trapping heat has always been negligible. I go right back to the graph at the start of this thread. The fact remains, CO2 and atmospheric temperature are not directly related, something else is causing the heat increase. CO2 is too small in concentration to cause drastic changes. http://forums.mydigitallife.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=9749&d=1308110782
Using this analogy, water vapor becomes a pollutant too, the premise is idiotic. CO2 is essential for life and is in very small concentration in the atmosphere, how did it become termed "a pollutant" ! Essential CO2
Too much of anything is bad for ya, they say... Like too much of MDL... Too humid an atmosphere hurts my granny... but helps my nose stop bleeding... See, it's all twists and roundabouts...
To have studied a matter does not mean to know it better, but more detailed. 'The other things' I have experienced!!! This here I have studied, lol. The point is: The data I have posted are reproducible. I often measure IR radiation in relation to CO2 / H2O found in the measurement chamber, means CO2 and water vapor (when breathing out and the air gets into the chamber) are disturbing when I measure organic substances. The curves I have posted are real. So let's talk about facts and then conclusions. (BTW: I have colleges saying CO2 is responsible and others say it is not, I had voted undecided, let me say why....) To simply say it is nonsense is not scientific here, but... Facts: CO2 DOES exactly that what I have posted. It absorbs thermal heat at the described ranges. CO2 amount is increasing due to burning of fossil fuels /decreasing of plant masses, increasing of humans. "CO2 is essential for life and is in very small concentration in the atmosphere, how did it become termed "a pollutant"" What is a pollutant and what are small concentrations? (Neurotransmitters / hormones can alter your consciousness / condition massively with a few 100 µg already, lol). A pollutant harms or worsens our life conditions, this is my idea of the term. And 'small' is relative, especially when one is not able to get the effectiveness of a process. It is actually quite easy to conclude now: We have a start point with measured conditions, a relation we need to determine to compare with. And we have joined carbon and we have CO2 as a product of oxidation of fossil fuels. We have to see everything as an equilibrium. So we measure start conditions and describe the equilibrium which had been found at start. I simplify now the joined carbon / CO2 equilibrium and evaluate the changes during the years. Effects: To burn fossil fuels is moving the equilibrium from joined carbon to CO2. Humans and animals also. Plants are moving the equilibrium from CO2 to joined carbon. The old earth had no fossil fuels, which came from died plants (coal) and from died micro organisms (fossil oil). But a huge amount of CO2 and almost no animals, no humans and nobody who could have burned fuels. Then the plants came, moving the equilibrium from CO2 to joined carbon. There was a higher global temperature, a rough climate and no polar caps with ice. The sea level had been around 70 cm higher (true value is actually irrelevant). CO2 is decreasing, joined carbon increasing.... There had been a lot of natural cycles ice ages and so on...... Then the humans came to start to burn fossil fuels. We are now massively reversing the equilibrium..... It simply means it will return to a more original state. The 'problem' simply is. We are now comparing anything to ourselves. CO2 will not kill us. Humans/ burning of fuels will just cause raising sea levels, less glaciers (accumulators of freshwater), less plants and a rougher climate (again). An atmosphere with more energy and hence a rougher climate. Local drought, floods, storms.....the process can take 1000 years, but happens now. To say this is nonsense is pure ignorance. Open your eyes and have a look at the Andes Mountains and the Himalaya, the polar caps. But to say it will be a global disaster is also ignorance. It's just a matter of time and who and where people will be affected and will be in danger. The question simply is: Should each of us be aware that everybody is a part of this? YOU at home also? Do you think you are isolated and not a part, means not responsible of it? Isn't it quite reasonable to save energy, to slow down the process? No matter about the effectiveness and time of the process? Isn't it reasonable to be aware to handle our fuels with care? Isn't it reasonable to use renewable raw materials to keep the present equilibrium (where we can live at best)? Isn't it reasonable to switch off the light when leaving the room? Isn't it reasonable to stop the running warm water if not used? Isn't it reasonable to use the best technology that saves most of the fuels (energy saving bulbs, heatings and so on)? Isn't it reasonable to use natural powers such as wind and sun which do not affect the mentioned shift of that equilibrium, no matter what effectiveness it really has? As I have told many times, my awareness says me that that what I am is not different to the nature. I love anybody as I love the nature. We are treating the nature like it's just a thing to be exploited. So the matter here is not to say yes or no, that matter here is to be a part of it and to change finally our awareness turning towards to our true nature to live conform with it. (I post many since I care and I do not link to sources, I just use my inner Self and what I have studied to write here.) And finally the words gorski doesn't like at all: To 'me' it is right.
What kind of University teaches "details" without principles/laws/structures?!? Otherwise... oh, Master... Because, with those two combined you are one, by comparison to me... Maybe you are not posting sources but you sure as hell had to learn principles and methodology alongside those many "details" you studied, from your tutors/professors... Now, if only you could be as... reasonable.... when it comes to Philosophy...
@YEN I agree with you to a point. The issue is certainly not whether there is change occurring, but why it is occurring, however this was never the question ! You are still ignoring the fact that the data shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature. The periods of highest temperature have happened at periods of the lowest CO2 concentrations and vice versa. So why conclude that fossil fuels are increasing temperature ? I have a big problem with people who ignore data, this isn't rocket science the info is staring you right in the face. The only way you can see a correlation between anthropogenic activity and increasing Earth temperatures is if you make it your point of view, the data doesn't support it! Humans are a filthy lot, we dump chemicals in the ocean, create massive landfills and pollute water supplies. Those are things that require immediate change. However to say we are changing the entire worlds climate is a big conclusion to jump to especially when we don't understand the whole. Our primary problem is overpopulation not global warming. There is a big issue now about ocean acidification killing off fishes. The problem is not acidification, it is over fishing, we have too big a population. We are using more resources than is available. There is simply too much nonsense being pushed around as science. Remember it isn't a lie if you believe it!
Sure. With details I mean to have a complex established 'explanation'. Anyway an orange is orange no matter if somebody knows the wavelength which is absorbed most. So do I have a better understanding of orange and its color when studied? I 'know' orange when I am (orange). (When I experience that the nature is not different to me, means to see everything as it is -now- and that had been by main content of 'the other posts'). And this needs no study, it's beyond mind. Love and presence are also beyond mind, you cannot teach somebody to love something. Love (to nature) cannot be studied, so the proper handling of it also. One needs to experience that the nature is not different to oneself. Hence the one with least knowledge could be able to be conform to nature and the best expert could fail.
You missed the point... again... Never mind. You're still a "Mastah", by comparison to the rest of us, when it comes to these matters... Oh, btw: your notion of "mind" is also quite... frivolously restricted... clamped on all sides, it seems to me... Quite possibly because you haven't studied Philosophy... But that's just a wild guess, of course, nothing to worry about... after all, it comes from a Philosopher... So, never to be taken seriously... We only have to take Scientists seriously... Everybody else is... never mind...
human advancement in technology is the basic and the only cause of global warming. because it is commonly said that no doubt science facilitates us with latest inventions and makes our life more and more luxurious but it also disturbs the nature.. it is bitter but a fact.
This is almost like "theism-atheism debate" - impossible to conclusively prove one way or the other... But we certainly have an impact... For instance, look at this: http://www.env-health.org/news/latest-news/article/global-consensus-achieved-on-edcs And if we do have an impact (80% of forests "cleaned", for instance) - then act we must!
The scientific relationship is that CO2 absorbs thermal radiation. So that energy is left in the atmosphere, which would be 'normally' emitted into space. CO2 is very potent in that. And then pure science ends....anything else are conclusions, right. There are facts which could accelerate the chain of reactions. Water vapor will also increase (co-effect, it could be that water vapor is the main issue...) The solubility of CO2 in water decreases at higher temperature and the amount of soluted CO2 in the seven seas is far more than we have in the atmosphere already. And there is another thing most are not noticing.The amount of fine particles which are emitted when burning stuff..... The only fact statistics are saying is that since 1900 there is an significant increasing of global temperature..... "Our primary problem is overpopulation not global warming! This would be interesting to discuss. Even more interesting IF overpopulation has happened already. Especially when we throw away food that could feed 3 times more humans on earth than we have today..... @gorski Maybe a main issue at my posts is the meaning of mind. Is there a definition of it I could relate to? 'Mind' is already difficult compared to my native. I have different meanings here.....'Geist', 'Verstand'. And there are states of 'no-mind'. No mind does not mean to be nuts or dead. It's just a state 'between two thoughts' which is that much extended that it becomes the main state of consciousness, it is called no-mind by many 'spiritual' teachers...
Indeed, as we know fairly well from Philosophy, the meaning of Geist is untranslatable to English, without many foot-notes, as it were... Spirit has very different connotations in English. It's a very different complex of ideas that lie behind it, in different cultures. More than that, there is a difference between Vernunft (Reason, a higher, "critical" instance) and Verstand (Understanding, lower, one could almost say "calculating" instance), carefully built in Philosophy (at least from Classical German Philosophy onwards). Furthermore, there is a difference between Reason in a narrower and Reason in a wider sense, again, in Philosophy, this is a serious difference one must be aware of and know what this is, otherwise... If one starts from Ancient Greeks, the beginning of our, Mediterranean-Western European Civilisation, already there one must start understanding various related notions with care, from logos (with its many meanings), to nous and so on. Not knowing any of this makes it impossible for any lay person to even start debating things - definitely not at that level, sadly... But it is the same in Science or Medicine or...
It is difficult for me to conclude this from the data because it does not measure the CO2 absorbed by the oceans Source http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/20/the-flames-of-ocean-acidity/ The relationships that we have with nature most certainly are varied in personal experience, for some an assault on nature is as if their individual bodies are being assaulted and they respond accordingly and for others their experience is much more removed, so a set of data can be in complete contradiction of what they are personally experiencing ..
R29k. The mechanisms are far more complex than you think. An increase of atmospheric CO2 has a delay in effect of global temperature increase, at the last little ice age it was an 'offset' of around 250 years, means (applying this) we have now the effects of the CO2 increase that had started around 250 years ago, means today's CO2 level will take effect around 2262... Since the industrialization has started a bit later (than the start of increase of CO2 in the year 1860) it could be the CO2 came from the sea additionally. The sea water acts as an accumulator which loses capacity at higher temperatures and gains it at low temperatures. Today the sea water works still quite well to take away atmospheric CO2, but its total amount is far more than the total amount found in the atmosphere. The amount of sea water CO2 during the years is not well recorded.
Back to the equilibrium joined carbon / CO2. Why is that (to me) the most reasonable way to evaluate? It simply doesn't care about us humans. We have effects that create CO2 from joined carbon and we have effects that create joined carbon from CO2. The sea water surface is practically the same, the atmosphere volume also. So the processes that had taken effect are still working their way. So when we are now coverting joined carbon to CO2 then the equilibrium will enforce reverse effects, that is easy and reliable. Means humans will decrease, plants will increase. (CO2 producer will decrease, CO2 consumer increase)....
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19923200 There is, however, another side to the equation: the birth rate. Predicting how that will change is more difficult - and more interesting. For a long time statisticians have seen in the numbers something which they call the "demographic transition", which happens when a society gets wealthier. "The demographic transition is a shift of birth and death rates from high levels to low levels in a population. And that usually is a result of economic and social development," says Dr Pawliczko. "Typically we speak of four stages. We have the first stage which is high birth rates and high death rates. Then we have the second stage of high birth rates and falling death rates. "And then stage three, declining birth rates and relatively low death rates, and this is characterised by a slow growth rate of the population, the growth begins to level off. And then stage four is where you have low birth rates and low death rates, and consequently a low population growth." So as countries get richer their fertility rates fall. But what happens next? Many statisticians assume that advanced nations will remain in periods of low population growth. ========================================= This is the real master number cruncher, however - oh, and very, very funny, to boot!!! Let's bring down the prejudices... and laugh our arses off, too... http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html How "industrialization" and "affluence" affect family life and fertility rates and so on and so forth.... http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html Poverty on show... Njoy!
Uh, some more on the crucial question of Modernity: energy creation, distribution and usage... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20357167 Bad move backwards...