Is Solar Activity causing climate change?

[Unwardil]

@ Arthur

You're saying it would be completely impossible to make a giant sun lamp that can hit a wide area of crop versus lots of little tiny ones and that the one big one would use exactly the same amount of energy as it would take to use all the little ones anyway? Cause I don't buy it for a second. For giant sun lamps you need a giant facility and probably your own dedicated power station, such as a factory has and such that a growop does not have. Farms gain efficiency over gardens in a hundred ways that have nothing to do with the crops themselves too, the same would apply in this sense. The only cost is in electricity which is a theoretically infinite resource if you can find a way to generate it. Electricity is, fundamentally, the movement of electrons. We're never going to run out of electrons, we just need new and fun ways to make them dance.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

You're saying it would be completely impossible to make a giant sun lamp that can hit a wide area of crop versus lots of little tiny ones and that the one big one would use exactly the same amount of energy as it would take to use all the little ones anyway? Cause I don't buy it for a second.

My knowledge of physics begins and ends with Newton. Thankfully he covered this one.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/GeneralResources/Formula/RTFormula/InverseSquare/InverseSquareLaw.htm

The energy received by the plants decreases by the inverse square of the distance from the bulb, and that's before you factor in the atmospheric losses. Also, unless you somehow plan to grow plants on the ceiling, a single bulb would increase the dead zone of photons uselessly hitting walls. Your one giant bulb far away would be more inefficient then the smaller ones closer up. I suspect, but cannot confirm of my own knowledge, that physics would tell you turning up the intensity of the bulb would require geometrically increasing amounts of the energy.

Farms gain efficiency over gardens in a hundred ways that have nothing to do with the crops themselves too, the same would apply in this sense.

Yeah, probably, but that also applies to currently existing farms.

The only cost is in electricity which is a theoretically infinite resource if you can find a way to generate it.

So don't put the cart before the horse; once we have cheap energy, maybe this idea will be more viable.

 

[Unwardil]

Yes, see the trouble with your standard farms is that they're incredibly vulnerable to meteorological instability, such as can be expected due to global warming. Everyone says it's a problem, they say 'Global warming is a problem because it will make growing seasons unpredictable! Therefore you should stop driving big trucks!' like that is going to do anything. What they don't say is 'We should move farms inside where they can't be affected by global warming and we need your money to make it happen.'

I don't pretend it wouldn't cost A LOT of money to do this. What I propose is that it's possible and that it's necessary. You're right, this is currently less efficient than regular farming, it's more expensive and it'll take a hell of a lot of investment to even get it started at all in any meaningful sense... But I'm not hearing any better ideas. By all means, hit me with better ideas, I LIKE good ideas. This is, by all accounts NOT a good idea... But it is AN idea. Not driving trucks is not an idea. When every global warming activist is willing to go and live the rest of their life in a cave, then at least I won't think they're massive hypocrites, though I still won't join them, until then I don't want to hear about gas guzzling cars killing the planet. It's not just cars, it's the entirety of industrialized civilization that's the cause and I'm not willing to give that up at any cost. You try living for a week in the winter without hot water and then tell me you are too. The climate is dead, let's hear some ideas about body disposal please so we can all get on with it. Before it starts to really smell.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, I certainly don't object to pragmatism and looking forward to workable solutions. The warehouse farm, however, just isn't one of them. I really do believe that when and if AGW comes to pass, it will be people coming up with workable solutions that will get through it and live on. What it is important to do is not come up with wild ideas and implement them just because we can; that's what leads to such terrible fraud and waste as we seen in the green movement now.

 

[Gnug215]

Well, I certainly don't object to pragmatism and looking forward to workable solutions. The warehouse farm, however, just isn't one of them. I really do believe that when and if AGW comes to pass, it will be people coming up with workable solutions that will get through it and live on. What it is important to do is not come up with wild ideas and implement them just because we can; that's what leads to such terrible fraud and waste as we seen in the green movement now.

Emphasis mine.

You seem to be implying that AGW is something that may or may not occur sometime in the future.

Is my understanding correct here?

 

[Dean]

I don't see how Arthur can take such a stance, if you are correct (Gnug215). Anthropogenic Global Warming already is happening. It's abundantly clear.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, I certainly don't object to pragmatism and looking forward to workable solutions. The warehouse farm, however, just isn't one of them. I really do believe that when and if AGW comes to pass, it will be people coming up with workable solutions that will get through it and live on. What it is important to do is not come up with wild ideas and implement them just because we can; that's what leads to such terrible fraud and waste as we seen in the green movement now.

Emphasis mine.

You seem to be implying that AGW is something that may or may not occur sometime in the future.

Is my understanding correct here?

My apologies for being vague; I meant if and when the predicted negative consequences of AGW come to pass.

 

[Gnug215]

Emphasis mine.

You seem to be implying that AGW is something that may or may not occur sometime in the future.

Is my understanding correct here?

My apologies for being vague; I meant if and when the predicted negative consequences of AGW come to pass.

So you are saying that we are not seeing any negative consequences yet, and that we might not see any at all?

 

[Dean]

To clarify, I do not agree with Arthur in the slightest on this issue, but ... I think he is specifically referring to the far more dire consequences that will inevitably result from these changes in the climate. We have yet to warm the planet by 1C. There will be tremendous hell and high water when we are at 2 or 3, and maybes we'll even see 4-6 in the next 100 years. As of yet, the climate change has been fairly manageable. But that will NOT last, if the "predictions" as he put it, are correct. This, I think, is what he is referring to.

 

[Gnug215]

To clarify, I do not agree with Arthur in the slightest on this issue, but ... I think he is specifically referring to the far more dire consequences that will inevitably result from these changes in the climate. We have yet to warm the planet by 1C. There will be tremendous hell and high water when we are at 2 or 3, and maybes we'll even see 4-6 in the next 100 years. As of yet, the climate change has been fairly manageable. But that will NOT last, if the "predictions" as he put it, are correct. This, I think, is what he is referring to.

I guess we won't konw what he's specifically referring to, since he isn't responding.

 

[tuxbox]

1) AGW is not clear.
2) The earth is getting hotter is very clear.
3) Modern civilization is definitely contributing to higher temperatures.
4) Is it possible to stop the earth from getting hotter? Probably not.
5) Can we minimize the effect humans have on the environment? You bet.

 

[Gnug215]

1) AGW is not clear.
2) The earth is getting hotter is very clear.
3) Modern civilization is definitely contributing to higher temperatures.
4) Is it possible to stop the earth from getting hotter? Probably not.
5) Can we minimize the effect humans have on the environment? You bet.

1) Not clear? How so?

4) Well, if 3 and 5 are true, then how come 4 doesn't yield a positive answer?

If CO2 is the main culprit, then reducing that would surely help, right?

We'd not see an immediate effect, but more likely something that we've seen with the ozone layer, where the negative effects are present for some time after a reduction, due to delays in the system.

That is, at least, how I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And I was also hoping for a response from Arthur with regards to this; whether or not his understanding of this differs from mine.

 

[tuxbox]

1) Not clear? How so?

Anthropogenic would suggest that humans are the sole cause of global warming. The fact is the earth has been heating up and cooling down for billions of years. Since we cannot remove humans from the equation, it is impossible to know for certain what the earth's temperature would be if humans were not here.

4) Well, if 3 and 5 are true, then how come 4 doesn't yield a positive answer?

For the same reason 1 is not clear. The earth could be warming without humans negative influence. Though I doubt it would be heating up so quickly.

If CO2 is the main culprit, then reducing that would surely help, right?

We'd not see an immediate effect, but more likely something that we've seen with the ozone layer, where the negative effects are present for some time after a reduction, due to delays in the system.

That is, at least, how I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And I was also hoping for a response from Arthur with regards to this; whether or not his understanding of this differs from mine.

It is my understanding that C02 does cause higher temps, but in the past so has tectonic plate activity. The Sun is definitely getting hotter which would also contribute to the earth's warming.

That said, the earth is getting hotter, and humans have definitely helped to increase the temperature. Everything else I have posted is just my opinion, based on my own research. As far as correcting you, I am in no position to do that.

 

[Unwardil]

4 is the killer for me.

There is very probably nothing we can do about it at this point, and very certainly, at all. That is to say maybe we can reverse the current warming trend by simply reducing CO2 emissions (doubtful) but without very very serious, purposeful monkeying with the climate, the earth is going to heat up eventually anyway. As Tubox pointed out, the earth has been doing this since long before humans were around for reasons that we do not as such completely understand. There are a lot of reasons the earth can heat up or cool down and we have no control over 95% of them.

Also, the CO2 thing has been happening since the industrial revolution. Unlike CFCs which was a comparatively recent dilemma, if someone back in say, the victorian era had said 'now hang on a second if we keep expanding fossil fuel burning at this rate, eventually it's going to cause a big problem' then maybe now we could do something about it. Because the warming trend goes back that far, it only recently spikes up, which to me says we've already passed the tipping point where the warming starts to create a feedback loop. Start dealing with the consequences now say I, not the cause. We've already broken the leg, now it needs a cast and crutches and phisio. A warning to not jump off of high places is too little too late.

 

[Gnug215]

1) Not clear? How so?

Anthropogenic would suggest that humans are the sole cause of global warming. The fact is the earth has been heating up and cooling down for billions of years. Since we cannot remove humans from the equation, it is impossible to know for certain what the earth's temperature would be if humans were not here.

I suppose it does suggest that, but I have not seen it quite that way. The human factor is not the sole cause, but it will be the deciding factor in reaching a critical point (of a positive feedback loop). To me it's more nuanced than often presented in the media (especially by critics, I suppose), as with most things.

 

[Gnug215]

...

Start dealing with the consequences now say I, not the cause. We've already broken the leg, now it needs a cast and crutches and phisio. A warning to not jump off of high places is too little too late.

I think a more fitting analogy would be that of an alcoholic: We need to treat his liver (and other damages), but he also needs to stop &%,¤# drinking (or slowly be weened off. I once heard that if a hard-core alcoholic stopped drinking from one day to the next, the organism would die from shock. Not sure if that's true, but ah well.)

I assume the effects will be worse and last longer if we keep pumping out CO2 in these (or increased) amounts.

 

[Dean]

[ ... ] I assume the effects will be worse and last longer if we keep pumping out CO2 in these (or increased) amounts. [ ... ]

[ ... ] In 1869, while doing experiments searching for the location of the soul, German physiologist Friedrich Goltz demonstrated that a frog that has had its brain removed will remain in slowly heated water, but his intact frogs attempted to escape the water. [ ... ]

(Source)

Huh? :?

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

I think a more fitting analogy would be that of an alcoholic: We need to treat his liver (and other damages), but he also needs to stop &%,¤# drinking (or slowly be weened off. I once heard that if a hard-core alcoholic stopped drinking from one day to the next, the organism would die from shock. Not sure if that's true, but ah well.)

A small derailment but it's worth a serious look:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312739/

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh22-1/61-66.pdf

 

[Unwardil]

...

Start dealing with the consequences now say I, not the cause. We've already broken the leg, now it needs a cast and crutches and phisio. A warning to not jump off of high places is too little too late.

I think a more fitting analogy would be that of an alcoholic: We need to treat his liver (and other damages), but he also needs to stop &%,¤# drinking (or slowly be weened off. I once heard that if a hard-core alcoholic stopped drinking from one day to the next, the organism would die from shock. Not sure if that's true, but ah well.)

I assume the effects will be worse and last longer if we keep pumping out CO2 in these (or increased) amounts.

And what do you do when the liver has already failed? I'm saying that in all probability we're already there and nothing short of a timely transplant has any hope of proving effectual. Let him stop being an alcoholic once we've got the new liver sorted out. Other livers exist, surgeons exist to put them into the alcoholic, this is a more pressing matter. Worry about how you're going to stop the alcoholic repeating their past mistakes once you have dealt with the far more imminent threat of death.

 

[Gnug215]

And what do you do when the liver has already failed? I'm saying that in all probability we're already there and nothing short of a timely transplant has any hope of proving effectual. Let him stop being an alcoholic once we've got the new liver sorted out. Other livers exist, surgeons exist to put them into the alcoholic, this is a more pressing matter. Worry about how you're going to stop the alcoholic repeating their past mistakes once you have dealt with the far more imminent threat of death.

Staying in the analogy, as I see it the liver hasn't failed yet, but it has taken damage that will affect the body for some time yet, even if the alcoholic stops drinking. The liver has regenerative capabilities, so stopping now would begin a long and slow healing process, but a healing process nonetheless.

In non-analogous terms, replacing the liver sounds a bit like replacing the Earth.


Leaving the analogy for a bit. I said this:

I assume the effects will be worse and last longer if we keep pumping out CO2 in these (or increased) amounts.

Am I correct in this assumption?

Because if so, it's still important to treat the cause, and not just deal with the symptoms.