U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 01:17 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,305 posts, read 1,453,553 times
Reputation: 3793

Advertisements

After nearly 50 years of caterwauling and insisting man's activities cause climate change, still NO PROOF?


All I can find are statements like, "man puts out carbon and greenhouse gases, those things can change climate, therefore man is changing the climate."

Sort of like saying, "Jim left his lawn sprinklers running five minutes longer than he should have, water can flood cities, therefore Jim is flooding cities."

And papers that relate statements like the above, using many erudite pages, but which ultimately refer to another paper for proof. And sure enough, that other paper carries on for more pages, but refers to yet another. And that one points to yet another etc.

Are there any actual studies that methodically prove that man is generating enough to overwhelm the earth's natural tendencies to absorb them? And do more to change the climate than the sun (a nuclear bomb a million times the size of the entire planet), all the volcanoes on Earth, and everything else that has been varying the Earth's climate long before man learned how to use tools?

Not just guesses, not just "everybody knows that...", not just references, not just "but it must be true that...".

Where is any proof that man's activities have any effect on climate? And/or can do anything to change it back?

When the manmade-climate-change can spend 50 years insisting that government must take huge taxes from us, and spend it on trying to change the climate... but are unable to come up with any proof it can actually change it...

Isn't that a pretty good indication that there can be no proof, because man's activities actually have nothing to do with the climate change we're seeing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 01:57 PM
 
463 posts, read 100,822 times
Reputation: 418
Quote:
Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce. However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? « RealClimate


It's pretty well documented how much fossil fuels we burn. And the laws of chemistry are irrefutable - burning them makes CO2. There is also irrefutable proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:59 PM
 
9,352 posts, read 2,862,333 times
Reputation: 5658
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma View Post
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities? « RealClimate


It's pretty well documented how much fossil fuels we burn. And the laws of chemistry are irrefutable - burning them makes CO2. There is also irrefutable proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The naysayers refuse to listen to science. Nothing can be done about that unfortunately. However, we're all going to suffer the consequences, believers or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:11 PM
 
463 posts, read 100,822 times
Reputation: 418
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
The naysayers refuse to listen to science. Nothing can be done about that unfortunately. However, we're all going to suffer the consequences, believers or not.
The problem is that reducing CO2 significantly would destroy our economy. Millions of people could die from starvation. We are dependent of fossil fuels and will be for the foreseeable future.

Really good article here:

Quote:
Political rhetoric is cheap, but drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions remain prohibitively expensive and technologically challenging. After all, emissions cuts have been promised (and mostly not delivered) since the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992....


Although opinion polls show that people care about climate change and want to spend a relatively modest amount to fix it, they want more spent on education, health, job opportunities, and social support. Most Americans, for example, are willing to pay up to $200 per year to fight climate change; in China, the amount is about $30. Britons are unwilling to cut their driving, flying, and meat consumption significantly in order to combat climate change. And although the German government prioritizes climate action so highly that it convened a “climate cabinet,” just one-third of Germans support a controversial proposed tax to reduce global warming.The gulf between politicians and citizens is most apparent in France. The government vowed to cut CO2 emissions sharply by 2050 – but, embarrassingly, this has turned into an empty promise, with almost no meaningful measures enacted under President Emmanuel Macron. That’s because the “Yellow Vest” protest movement took to the streets to push back against the government’s fuel price surcharges, which disproportionately hit car-dependent people in rural areas.
France is not alone in neglecting its lofty promises. Recent analysis shows that of the 185 countries that have ratified the 2015 Paris climate agreement, just 17 – including Algeria and Samoa – are actually meeting their commitments.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/co...omborg-2019-05
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:14 PM
 
Location: In The Thin Air
12,336 posts, read 8,162,594 times
Reputation: 8957
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
The naysayers refuse to listen to science. Nothing can be done about that unfortunately. However, we're all going to suffer the consequences, believers or not.
They might as well be flat Earthers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:14 PM
 
3,172 posts, read 910,546 times
Reputation: 1889
Here's a trick question for the cargo cult....

China's CO2 emissions have increased exponentially, especially after 2000 > https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-conte...rch-update.jpg

...in only 10 years...China's CO2 emissions increased 3 times what it was > https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn....rbonemissi.jpg

...and yet, measured atmospheric CO2 did not catch it...and continued to rise linearly > https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdat...2_data_mlo.png

How come?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:19 PM
 
9,352 posts, read 2,862,333 times
Reputation: 5658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyy View Post
They might as well be flat Earthers.
Yep, may as well. It's like not believing in gravity, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:21 PM
 
3,172 posts, read 910,546 times
Reputation: 1889
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom View Post
Yep, may as well. It's like not believing in gravity, lol.
...or God
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Haiku
4,403 posts, read 2,663,218 times
Reputation: 6478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrie22 View Post
Here's a trick question for the cargo cult....

China's CO2 emissions have increased exponentially, especially after 2000 > https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-conte...rch-update.jpg

...in only 10 years...China's CO2 emissions increased 3 times what it was > https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn....rbonemissi.jpg

...and yet, measured atmospheric CO2 did not catch it...and continued to rise linearly > https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdat...2_data_mlo.png

How come?
That's easy. Chart #1 is expressed in GT (gigatonne) CO2, chart #3 is expressed in PPM (parts per million). To convert GT to PPM you have to divide by 2.3, so 6 GT of CO2 is less than 3 PPM. You will notice that chart #3 shows current CO2 concentration is about 400 PPM. In other words, the China annual emission is a blip so small it doesn't show on the concentration chart.

This is a common complaint of the denier crowd because they don't understand, or ignore, proper units. The other thing they ignore is that CO2 emissions are cumulative. So while China's annual emission is a blip on the total atmospheric concentration in any one year, it adds up over time. So 20 years of emission at 6 GT per year will increase concentration by a very noticeable amount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 02:37 PM
 
3,172 posts, read 910,546 times
Reputation: 1889
total BS....emissions increased exponentially in just 10 years....that's directly into the atmosphere where it's measured

Atmospheric measurements did not even show a blip....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top