Could The Nefarious Hand Of Antifa Be...
News1 min ago
Global Warming
Leaving greenhouse gases out of the equation, would the general human industrialisation be significant enough to have any effect on global temperatures - 7 billion people, countless animals, a billion cars, houses etc all generating heat. Be a bit like heating a swimming pool with a candle but would if have any discernible impact?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ck1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Leaving greenhouse gases out of the equation..."
That's not really possible. I'm not sure theres been any estimate of the heat energy released by human activities alone, but it has to go somewhere and if the atmosphere is relatively free to conduct heat then over a relatively short time scale it would just escape. The greenhouse gases would help to trap at least some of that heat energy, and principally it's those that have the effect. Perhaps the analogy is closer to heating a swimming pool with a candle while also coating the swimming pool with an insulator so that what little heat is added is trapped there.
More of the climate change effect comes ultimately from heat radiated from the ground that is absorbed by greenhouse gases. In turn most of that heat came originally from the Sun. But it's the trapping that matters more than adding to any heat energy.
Note that I am by no means an expert on the Science behind Climate Change, and would encourage you to read around the subject further rather than taking any of the above as the last word on the subject. It's how I understand it on a Friday morning when I'm still tired and haven't bothered to check anything, and so is probably about as accurate as you would expect in those circumstances (ie not very).
That's not really possible. I'm not sure theres been any estimate of the heat energy released by human activities alone, but it has to go somewhere and if the atmosphere is relatively free to conduct heat then over a relatively short time scale it would just escape. The greenhouse gases would help to trap at least some of that heat energy, and principally it's those that have the effect. Perhaps the analogy is closer to heating a swimming pool with a candle while also coating the swimming pool with an insulator so that what little heat is added is trapped there.
More of the climate change effect comes ultimately from heat radiated from the ground that is absorbed by greenhouse gases. In turn most of that heat came originally from the Sun. But it's the trapping that matters more than adding to any heat energy.
Note that I am by no means an expert on the Science behind Climate Change, and would encourage you to read around the subject further rather than taking any of the above as the last word on the subject. It's how I understand it on a Friday morning when I'm still tired and haven't bothered to check anything, and so is probably about as accurate as you would expect in those circumstances (ie not very).
I am quite curious at what you are trying to establish, ck. Are you attempting to assign some kind of % value to different sources of human contributions towards climate warming?
Like Jim, I am not at all sure how possible that is.And even were it possible, I am not entirely sure how valuable it would be - the greenhouse gasses are the predominant and over-riding concern, surely?
Like Jim, I am not at all sure how possible that is.And even were it possible, I am not entirely sure how valuable it would be - the greenhouse gasses are the predominant and over-riding concern, surely?
Very interesting article here on the value of consensus, Woofgang.
http://
From the article;
"For a skeptic and supporter of science-based medicine, in matters of science it is undoubtedly true that the scientific consensus is always the best place to start when evaluating unfamiliar issues. While it is certainly possible that a given scientific consensus regarding an issue can be wrong in almost any area, it nonetheless almost always represents the best current scientific understanding. "
http://
From the article;
"For a skeptic and supporter of science-based medicine, in matters of science it is undoubtedly true that the scientific consensus is always the best place to start when evaluating unfamiliar issues. While it is certainly possible that a given scientific consensus regarding an issue can be wrong in almost any area, it nonetheless almost always represents the best current scientific understanding. "
Generally speaking, by the way, human impact in natural systems can be thought of as "small but significant". In the particular case of greenhouse gases, for example, a lot of Carbon Dioxide is released each year by natural activities, many times more than is released by human activities (though the equation can be affected by what counts as "human activity). This gives all the sceptics something to jump on with glee as they say "See, we can't make a difference!" What they neglect to mention is that almost all greenhouse gases are reabsorbed, and so prior to humans starting to released significant quantities of CO2, say, there was approximately as much going into the atmosphere as was taken back out again. Say, about 99 parts in, 100 out. Over the last hundred years or so that balance has changed to something like 101 parts in, 100 out. So the human-specific contribution of CO2 emissions is only about 2 parts in 100... but that small change has tipped the balance in favour of increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rather than decreasing it.
This, then, is a small but significant change. I'd expect that a similar analysis would hold from the human-specific contribution to heat energy released into the atmosphere. In absolute terms it might not be much, but it would make the difference between stable and unstable.
This, then, is a small but significant change. I'd expect that a similar analysis would hold from the human-specific contribution to heat energy released into the atmosphere. In absolute terms it might not be much, but it would make the difference between stable and unstable.
One must follow the consensus in the sense that if experts who study a subject agree on a particular point it would be foolish and arrogant to assume you, who have not made such a study, know better.
Leaving human activity out of the equation, would human activity be sufficient to cause a change in the climate ? It would amount to no change wouldn’t it ? No discernable change I suspect.
Leaving human activity out of the equation, would human activity be sufficient to cause a change in the climate ? It would amount to no change wouldn’t it ? No discernable change I suspect.
"...which by the way has been disproved..."
Today a paper was released saying the exact opposite. (to within a 95% confidence, which is usually enough in fields like this). And anyway, is it so hard to believe really? All that deforestation, planting crops such as rice in vast fields of water such that they release tonnes of methane? Industrial-scale farming of cattle etc who also contribute a significant amount of methane etc. The invention of CFCs, which not only destroy Ozone, but also have a greenhouse effect many times more than that of CO2, and are entirely artificial and unlike anything that existed in nature? Taking all those vast, locked-away stores of CO2 and other gases that were locked up in the oil and coal deposits and burning them to release those reserves, at an incredible rate? Fishing the oceans to the point of destroying elements of the food web... and the oceans themselves play a major role in determining the weather. Flying aeroplanes that leave vapour trails criss-crossing the skies...
Is it really so hard to believe that we can make a difference? The climate may well follow natural cycles, but for all that Human activity is more than capable of disrupting those cycles. And as I said earlier, it doesn't even have to be much of an absolute difference to have a huge impact in tipping the balance.
Today a paper was released saying the exact opposite. (to within a 95% confidence, which is usually enough in fields like this). And anyway, is it so hard to believe really? All that deforestation, planting crops such as rice in vast fields of water such that they release tonnes of methane? Industrial-scale farming of cattle etc who also contribute a significant amount of methane etc. The invention of CFCs, which not only destroy Ozone, but also have a greenhouse effect many times more than that of CO2, and are entirely artificial and unlike anything that existed in nature? Taking all those vast, locked-away stores of CO2 and other gases that were locked up in the oil and coal deposits and burning them to release those reserves, at an incredible rate? Fishing the oceans to the point of destroying elements of the food web... and the oceans themselves play a major role in determining the weather. Flying aeroplanes that leave vapour trails criss-crossing the skies...
Is it really so hard to believe that we can make a difference? The climate may well follow natural cycles, but for all that Human activity is more than capable of disrupting those cycles. And as I said earlier, it doesn't even have to be much of an absolute difference to have a huge impact in tipping the balance.
A final thought (for now at least), one of those comics that makes a serious point:
http://
http://
Ah but would it be a better world with a thousand bins outside each house, and fines and suchlike for putting the wrong thing in the wrong place or putting the wrong bin out of the wrong twice yearly collection day, and having no countryside to enjoy because each acre holds 30 windmills and we all have to keep our homes down to 10°C by law or they'll shut off your energy supply via their office using the obligatory smart meter and all the ships can't get to port because of all the tidal energy gadgets blocking the entry, and we all have to eat lentils to create the gas to burn, and all the street lights are turned off by 8pm because no one wants to waste energy after then, and no one can afford the garden refuse collection the authorities won't provide for nothing so all gets tarmaced over, at which point the rates go up because that was an anti-green action, and using the wrong kind of lightbulb is a federal offence, every roof must be turfed and mown twice a month, and cars must run by pedals not fuel, and every house front must be made of solar panels that must be maintained, and .........
One can, I suppose, select any set of changes to give one impression or another of the benefits/ disadvantages of a greener life style. The truth, of course, is likely to be somewhere in the middle, but it's hard to see how the benefits could not outweigh the disadvantages if things were done in the "right way". At the moment being "green" is just a little bit too much about doing small and relatively pointless things and increasing bureaucracy, and far too little about actually being green. Global and far-reaching changes are needed. Using more efficient lightbulbs or sorting rubbish better just won't cut it.
That's a nice thought but ignores the significant impact on the environment even of the pre-1900s population that was relatively stable. It's interesting that Malthus's theory was born in a world with around one-seventh of today's population. Most of the world's deforestation, particularly in the Western world, occurred in early human industry -- and the countryside of the UK hasn't been "natural" for hundreds of years. Some of the biggest environmental disasters occurred, anyway, in a smaller population. Think, for example, the destruction of the Passenger Pigeon and Carolina Parakeet, that both belong to the 19th Century, or all the Deforestation of the Neolithic Age.
While granted having even more people is clearly going to exacerbate these problems, far more far-reaching changes are needed than just reducing the population, or stabilising it. No, you must also change how the people that are left live, and how they use the World's resources. And such changes are probably easier to implement because in principle they can be done *now*, or very soon. A reduction in birth rate tends to happen only when the people are ready for it, and is very difficult to force.
So yes, overpopulation is part of the problem, and reducing or combatting it will be part of the solution. But it is not the whole problem, nor the whole solution.
While granted having even more people is clearly going to exacerbate these problems, far more far-reaching changes are needed than just reducing the population, or stabilising it. No, you must also change how the people that are left live, and how they use the World's resources. And such changes are probably easier to implement because in principle they can be done *now*, or very soon. A reduction in birth rate tends to happen only when the people are ready for it, and is very difficult to force.
So yes, overpopulation is part of the problem, and reducing or combatting it will be part of the solution. But it is not the whole problem, nor the whole solution.
And why has it not happened before now when all the industrial world was belching smoke out,when every household had coal fires,now the world is a far cleaner place we have "global warming".In the last few weeks global warming has been disproved,the arctic ice cap is bigger now than it has been for years,the antarctic ice cap is losing ice on one side but expanding twice as fast on its other side.This argument can go on forever,but if you look through the ages it is a natural phenomena.I once did a carbon footprint calculation for me and my family,we have central heating on most of the time because we are getting on in years,I have a 4x4 which I need for the wifes comfort in getting in and out of and my carbon footprint was 20% of the average uk household(cobblers if you ask me).Apparently each government have been asked to sweep under the carpet the climbdown re global warming.We are being conned out of thousands of pounds because of it.Everyone speaks about aircraft being a big contributor,shipping around the world is a far bigger contributor than all the rest put together.When all aircraft were grounded in America following 9/11 the mean temperature actually rose 2 degrees and didnt fall back till flights resumed.
Catastrophe Theory maybe ? Before things were able to cope, some point was reached, and now things change rapidly. I don't feel convinced any fiddling around the edges will have much affect whilst there is an ever increasing demand from a growing population, and more wanting the life standards seen in the "western world" by those not presently as well off. Reduce demand significantly and one has a chance or reversing the issue. Otherwise one can only hope it hits a natural plateau and the world gets away with human activity.
"Why has it not happened before now..." Cumulative effect, maybe?
"Global warming has been disproved..." Sources? And, again, like it or not this contradicts the scientific consensus, as today's report illustrates.
"When all aircraft were grounded in America following 9/11 the mean temperature actually rose 2 degrees..." This is disputed see http://
And, anyway, again, even if Climate Change were a hoax (by which you mean, wrong -- Scientists can be wrong, but there's no reason to believe that they are deliberately being wrong) -- why should it matter? The changes in lifestyle and energy sources being proposed have the benefits firstly of returning to dependence on local resources and secondly to more long-term ones. Both of these in themselves have the potential to be hugely beneficial, regardless of how the climate changes or does not.
As regards the Arctic sea ice, point, this is an example of selective reporting. The ice levels have been decreasing significantly overall in the last few decades -- but rose in 2011. Aha, so one year's rise against the general trend and the whole claim is ruined, sceptics cry. No, that's not how things work. We are interested in general trends, not seasonal fluctuations, and as evidenced too by the fact that suddenly the US and Russia and ither countries are fighting over rights to the newly-opened shipping channels in the Arctic Ocean, it doesn't take long to realise that this has only been possible recently because overall the ice is melting (see also http://
Climate-change sceptics are highly selective in their use of evidence and often end up tying themselves up in knots trying to contradict themselves. And in the mean time the changes are still happening, plain to see. We can't say for sure what will happen in future, and how the climate will change, and in the meantime it's possible that other weather factors will cycle around to hide our own impact. But, again, the same question: giving the extensive levels of deforestation, destruction of species almost wherever we find them... it's not hard to see that humans can have a deadly and irreversible impact on our world. We may as well try to do something to reduce that impact while we can.
"Global warming has been disproved..." Sources? And, again, like it or not this contradicts the scientific consensus, as today's report illustrates.
"When all aircraft were grounded in America following 9/11 the mean temperature actually rose 2 degrees..." This is disputed see http://
And, anyway, again, even if Climate Change were a hoax (by which you mean, wrong -- Scientists can be wrong, but there's no reason to believe that they are deliberately being wrong) -- why should it matter? The changes in lifestyle and energy sources being proposed have the benefits firstly of returning to dependence on local resources and secondly to more long-term ones. Both of these in themselves have the potential to be hugely beneficial, regardless of how the climate changes or does not.
As regards the Arctic sea ice, point, this is an example of selective reporting. The ice levels have been decreasing significantly overall in the last few decades -- but rose in 2011. Aha, so one year's rise against the general trend and the whole claim is ruined, sceptics cry. No, that's not how things work. We are interested in general trends, not seasonal fluctuations, and as evidenced too by the fact that suddenly the US and Russia and ither countries are fighting over rights to the newly-opened shipping channels in the Arctic Ocean, it doesn't take long to realise that this has only been possible recently because overall the ice is melting (see also http://
Climate-change sceptics are highly selective in their use of evidence and often end up tying themselves up in knots trying to contradict themselves. And in the mean time the changes are still happening, plain to see. We can't say for sure what will happen in future, and how the climate will change, and in the meantime it's possible that other weather factors will cycle around to hide our own impact. But, again, the same question: giving the extensive levels of deforestation, destruction of species almost wherever we find them... it's not hard to see that humans can have a deadly and irreversible impact on our world. We may as well try to do something to reduce that impact while we can.
