Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[On Guard for Thee]

This sounds like religious nonsense. Oh no, we have sinned against mother nature, therefore she will wipe us out!

Humans are the most intelligent species on the planet, evolved in a very warm part of the planet (Western Africa), have a very large population, and live in a large variety of climates. Other species at risk for extinction? Sure. Humans? No.

Believe me, I would be the last one to try and put any sort of religious spin on the ball. To clarify what I mean is simply that if we render the planet uninhabitable for our species then we will disapear, but the planet will carry on in whatever form we have left it in. So in effect we will have kicked ourselves out. And who knows. it may right itself after we're gone.

[Wilber]

"Heat retention" ? Are you asking if I believe in anthropogenic global warming ? The earth is not a closed system, and warming/cooling happen for a myriad of reasons, including human activity.

For practical purposes, it is a closed system. Solar temperature variations can have a pronounced effect on weather but are not considered to be an influence on global temperature increase.

[-1=e^ipi]

Why would you assume that? Dinosaurs ruled at one time but were made extinct in short order.

I'm not assuming my conclusion. I based my conclusion on evidence.

Tell me, how many dinosaurs went to the moon? 0.

Any species can be made extinct and we already have the means to do it ourselves in the form of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Apocalypse would not be sufficient to make humans extinct. Humans could just go underground, or to other celestial bodies.

The question is, can we destroy our environment by other means such as triggering a runaway greenhouse effect. Fact is, we just don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

Let's see, definition of runaway greenhouse effect:

"A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away."

The oceans aren't going to 'boil away' under anything close to a reasonable projection of what will occur on Earth as CO2 levels increase. 'We know' it wont happen in the same way 'we know' the moon won't crash into the Earth. It's physics.

[Wilber]

I'm not assuming my conclusion. I based my conclusion on evidence.

Tell me, how many dinosaurs went to the moon? 0.

How much food can you grow on the moon? That was over 40 years ago, the earths population has more than doubled since the first moon landing.

Nuclear Apocalypse would not be sufficient to make humans extinct. Humans could just go underground, or to other celestial bodies.

Regardless of the effects of radiation on humans, if your ability to produce food is destroyed, so are you. It was starvation that killed the dinosaurs, not the asteroid. You better get your ass in gear if you want to get to those other celestial bodies with the ability to be self sufficient when you get there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

Let's see, definition of runaway greenhouse effect:

"A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away."

The oceans aren't going to 'boil away' under anything close to a reasonable projection of what will occur on Earth as CO2 levels increase. 'We know' it wont happen in the same way 'we know' the moon won't crash into the Earth. It's physics.

Again, we don't know. It isn't just our own emissions, as the world warms and things like permafrost melt, even more greenhouse gasses are emitted into the atmosphere. Meanwhile we are destroying the planet's carbon sink through things like deforestation.

You make a lot of assumptions for a "physicist".

[bush_cheney2004]

For practical purposes, it is a closed system. Solar temperature variations can have a pronounced effect on weather but are not considered to be an influence on global temperature increase.

No it's not...far from it. Long wave radiation sends energy that is not absorbed into space, and recent findings blew gaping holes in climate change models that didn't understand this part of the earth's "energy budget".

[Wilber]

No it's not...far from it. Long wave radiation sends energy that is not absorbed into space, and recent findings blew gaping holes in climate change models that didn't understand this part of the earth's "energy budget".

What findings?

From Wiki and a few other places.

Since 1978, output from the Sun has been precisely measured by satellites.^[110] These measurements indicate that the Sun's output has not increased since 1978, so the warming during the past 30 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.

[bush_cheney2004]

What findings?

From Wiki and a few other places.

From NASA of course....not any Canadian sources !

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

[On Guard for Thee]

From NASA of course....not any Canadian sources !

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

Jeez, last week NASA was Canadian, now you say it's not. I'm confused.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm not assuming my conclusion. I based my conclusion on evidence.

Tell me, how many dinosaurs went to the moon? 0.

Nuclear Apocalypse would not be sufficient to make humans extinct. Humans could just go underground, or to other celestial bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

Let's see, definition of runaway greenhouse effect:

"A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away."

The oceans aren't going to 'boil away' under anything close to a reasonable projection of what will occur on Earth as CO2 levels increase. 'We know' it wont happen in the same way 'we know' the moon won't crash into the Earth. It's physics.

Hopefully those Russians don't know where Cape Canaveral is if we are going to try going to the moon "the day after"

[-1=e^ipi]

hat was over 40 years ago, the earths population has more than doubled since the first moon landing.

How does having a larger population make a species more likely to go extinct.

Regardless of the effects of radiation on humans, if your ability to produce food is destroyed, so are you. It was starvation that killed the dinosaurs, not the asteroid. You better get your ass in gear if you want to get to those other celestial bodies with the ability to be self sufficient when you get there.

You can grow food underground. You just need an energy source (such as geothermal energy) to produce artificial light.

Again, we don't know. It isn't just our own emissions, as the world warms and things like permafrost melt, even more greenhouse gasses are emitted into the atmosphere. Meanwhile we are destroying the planet's carbon sink through things like deforestation.

Of course we know.

Look, most 'climate sensitivity' estimates are around 3 Kelvin for atmospheric CO2 doubling. Though for the sake of argument, let's take a long term equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 4.5 Kelvin (though climate sensitivity decreases with temperature, especially on the scale of 100 degrees where you will start getting significant negative feedback effects due to cloud formation, but whatever).

Current global temperature is 288 K. Water Boils at 373 K. Therefore, global temperatures would have to increase by about 85 K in order for the Earth to boil over. Current atmospheric CO2 is about 400 ppm. Therefore, in order to obtain this 'boiling temperatures' atmospheric CO2 would have to increase to 400 ppm * 2^(85/4.5) = 194170000 ppm. In other words the atmosphere would have to be 19417% CO2 (assuming the same atmospheric pressure) to reach these boiling temperatures; and again this is using a high estimate of climate sensitivity. Now, obviously it is impossible to have an atmosphere that is 19417% CO2, but if you could manage to made the atmosphere 100% CO2 and 194 times as dense as it currently is, then that would work too.

But even 100% is impossible, since there simply isn't enough oxygen to burn all that hydrocarbon into CO2 and water. Since the atmosphere is currently 21% O2, at most the atmosphere could become 21% CO2.

But even the 21% CO2 is impossible since there simply aren't enough hydrocarbon reserves on Earth to burn all that oxygen. At best, even if humans burn all the hydrocarbon reserves on the plant, Earth will reach like 1500 ppm - 2000 ppm, roughly the historical average over the past 600 million years.

So let's see, need an atmosphere that is 19417% CO2 to 'boil the planet' even using high estimates of climate sensitivity. Where as at best atmospheric CO2 can increase to like 0.2% of the atmosphere.

There seems to be orders of magnitude of difference here.

[Wilber]

How does having a larger population make a species more likely to go extinct.

Maybe not extinction but mass die offs are common in nature when populations become too large.

You can grow food underground. You just need an energy source (such as geothermal energy) to produce artificial light.

Wonderful, your future for mankind is a bunch of moles scraping out an existence underground.

Of course we know.

Look, most 'climate sensitivity' estimates are around 3 Kelvin for atmospheric CO2 doubling. Though for the sake of argument, let's take a long term equilibrium climate sensitivity of around 4.5 Kelvin (though climate sensitivity decreases with temperature, especially on the scale of 100 degrees where you will start getting significant negative feedback effects due to cloud formation, but whatever).

Current global temperature is 288 K. Water Boils at 373 K. Therefore, global temperatures would have to increase by about 85 K in order for the Earth to boil over. Current atmospheric CO2 is about 400 ppm. Therefore, in order to obtain this 'boiling temperatures' atmospheric CO2 would have to increase to 400 ppm * 2^(85/4.5) = 194170000 ppm. In other words the atmosphere would have to be 19417% CO2 (assuming the same atmospheric pressure) to reach these boiling temperatures; and again this is using a high estimate of climate sensitivity. Now, obviously it is impossible to have an atmosphere that is 19417% CO2, but if you could manage to made the atmosphere 100% CO2 and 194 times as dense as it currently is, then that would work too.

But even 100% is impossible, since there simply isn't enough oxygen to burn all that hydrocarbon into CO2 and water. Since the atmosphere is currently 21% O2, at most the atmosphere could become 21% CO2.

But even the 21% CO2 is impossible since there simply aren't enough hydrocarbon reserves on Earth to burn all that oxygen. At best, even if humans burn all the hydrocarbon reserves on the plant, Earth will reach like 1500 ppm - 2000 ppm, roughly the historical average over the past 600 million years.

So let's see, need an atmosphere that is 19417% CO2 to 'boil the planet' even using high estimates of climate sensitivity. Where as at best atmospheric CO2 can increase to like 0.2% of the atmosphere.

There seems to be orders of magnitude of difference here.

Doesn't have to. See definition of greenhouse.

[Wilber]

Hopefully those Russians don't know where Cape Canaveral is if we are going to try going to the moon "the day after"

Seems he thinks we should be putting all our resources into "escaping" to inhospitable planets instead of not f$&(#@g up the perfectly good one we already have.

[-1=e^ipi]

Maybe not extinction but mass die offs are common in nature when populations become too large.

Wonderful, your future for mankind is a bunch of moles scraping out an existence underground.

No, I was merely refuting the claim that a nuclear apocalypse would cause humans to go extinct.

Doesn't have to. See definition of greenhouse.

Wow! Brilliant and well thought out rebuttal! *sarcasm*