7 F rise for planet built into US agency report (electric, electricity, crash)
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.
Interesting in that understanding solid evidence/data does not constitute a belief system. Either you understand the science data or you don't. It has nothing to do with belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid
Even if there is warming, throughout ALL of millenia, it has been happening just fine with no input from man whatsoever. Indications are that if it is happening, it’s just part of an inexorable natural planetary processes....because it always has been.
This is where your facts are not straight.
First there is clearly warming.
Second, Scientists have tracked these earlier natural changes in climate by examining ice cores drilled from Greenland and Antarctica, which provided evidence about conditions as far back as 800,000 years ago.
Today, CO2 levels are 40% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution began; they have risen from 280 parts per million in the 18th century to over 400 ppm in 2015 and are on track to reach 410 ppm in spring 2017.
Global temperatures have risen an average of 1.4˚ F since 1880.
Do you know what occurred in 1880?
How do we know it's warming?
Sea ice in the Arctic has thinned and decreased in the last few decades; the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are decreasing in mass
The North and South Poles are warming faster than anywhere else on Earth
Glaciers are retreating on mountains all over the world. Spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the last 50 years
Global sea levels rose an average of 6.7 inches in the last century, and in the last 10 years, have risen almost twice as fast
Oceans are the warmest they have been in a half-century; the top layer is warming about 0.2˚F per decade
The oceans are also 30 percent more acidic than they were at the start of the Industrial Revolution because they are absorbing more CO2
The number of record-breaking hot temperatures in the U.S. is on the rise.
How do we know it's man made vs. all of the myths skeptics cling to without any credible scientific evidence to support their claims?
Myth: It's the sun
Fact: If the sun were brighter, we would see warming all the way up through the atmosphere from the surface to the stratosphere to the mesosphere. We don’t see this. We see instead warming at the surface, cooling in the stratosphere, cooling in the mesosphere. And that’s a signature of greenhouse gas forcing, it’s not a signature of solar forcing. So we know it’s not solar.
Additionally, the sun’s radiation has not increased since at least 1978 (when satellite monitoring began) though global temperatures over the last 30 years have continued to rise.
Myth: It's not man made
Fact: Scientists also can distinguish between CO2 molecules that are emitted naturally by plants and animals and those that result from the burning of fossil fuels. There is a distinct carbon footprint between human produced CO2 and natural CO2.
Hopefully you know what an isotope is. Carbon isotopes derived from burning fossil fuels and deforestation are lighter than those from other sources.
Scientists measuring carbon in the atmosphere can see that lighter carbon molecules are increasing, corresponding to the rise in fossil fuel emissions.
Did you know that ocean sediments provide a longer term baseline (tens of millions of years) that allows you to compare the past with the present, giving you an idea of how variable ocean temperatures have been before we had thermometers?
Over the last 2,000 years, there have been natural climate variations, but they were not especially large…the Medieval Warm period around 1,000 years ago, and the little ice age which was three separate cooling periods lasting a few decades each, beginning around 1300 to around the 1850s.
Now lets get back to the era of the Industrial Revolution, the warming after the 1850s has been remarkable and unique over the last couple of millennia. This can been seen in the ocean sediment cores.
Evidence from:
coral reefs
ice cores, tree rings
ocean sediments
sedimentary rocks
Show that the current warming is occurring 10 times faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages, at a rate unprecedented in the last 1,300 years.
That's the point that most skeptics miss.
Climate deniers offer a variety of bases for their skepticism without providing scientific evidence.
I've provided you with a good amount of science findings that you can verify with just a tiny bit of effort. I would be happy to review any supporting valid scientific evidence you have to support your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid
More importantly, IMO, is that we have real and immediate threats that are being more largely ignored. Plastics are beginning to poison the oceans with their physical presence, being ground into fine particles and interfering in the food chain.
When you have a world over population problem and no one's talking about ways to control the human population that's the real threat...humans. Who do you think is manufacturing plastic? Who is buy plastic? Who is tossing their garbage into the oceans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid
We are due any time now for a significant CME event.
I’m even much more interested in funding an asteroid/comet early detection/deflection system.
It's analogous as in trying to talk science with a scientifically illiterate person or an anti-science mind. Their confirmation bias is so strong that any evidence presented goes in one ear and out the other.
I guess all 30,000+ of these scientists are illiterate or anti-science.
Anyway, confirmation bias is usually found in someone making the claim, not for the person who is confessing disbelief. “Deniers” simply aren’t convinced.
And you wonder why the US is viewed as the scientifically illiterate laughing stock around the world.
This is embarrassing to the folks who actually post this laughable link. This is the biggest debunked list myth you will find on the internet today. It's been the laughing stock of embarrassment for the folks who actually post the link as if it's some sort of validation for their beliefs.
The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialize in climate science. LOL!!!!!!
The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign.
If you're going to post links in the science forum please make sure they are credible links before positing them.
Anyway, confirmation bias is usually found in someone making the claim, not for the person who is confessing disbelief. “Deniers” simply aren’t convinced.
I don't think you understand what confirmation bias means: It's the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
We see this with the Creationists and ultra fundamentalist religious followers. They are having to constantly reinvent the wheel to keep up with all the new science discoveries that debunk the myths they've been spreading for 100's of years. Funny in that they are not convinced by solid evidence but yet they can't explain why?
I've never seen a climate denier able to back up why they are skeptics. Simply stating "I don't believe it" is not a convincing argument in a science discussion. Nor is posting non-credible links.
This is why us scientists are skeptical of climate denier claims. When we dig into their claims we find they are either flat our false or misrepresentations of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid
BTW, good video here.
Patrick Moore is not a climate scientist.
Come on now you're in the Science forum...you have to do better than this if you are going to come across as having a valid argument.
If you want to learn the science don't listen to Patrick Moore as he's nothing more than a climate disinfomer.
Matadora: Not a scientist here. However, I think one of the best arguments in favor of anthropogenic climate change is the simplest: geologic history sequestered hundreds of millions of years of sunlight (in the form of plants and animals) into coal, oil, and gas. Now, humans have released at least half of these hundreds of millions of years of sunlight back into the atmosphere in maybe two hundred years or so. To think that doing so would not affect the climate, one would have to be bat-**** crazy. So, forgive me if I jump over your arguments to the next step: What exactly, are we supposed to do about it? Unless we invent some kind of game-changer (unlimited energy sources such as fusion reactors, that could power huge carbon re-sequestering machines to scrub the atmosphere), we're pretty much farked. Unless, of course, mankind agrees to cull its numbers to maybe ten percent of present. We don't need to make soylent green to do so; we just need to halt population growth to one percent, and allow the living population to peacefully die off over the natural course of their lifetimes, until we get down to sustainable numbers, maybe five hundred million people on the planet, who could all live modern lifestyles using sustainable methods, while Mother Nature re-sequesters the carbon in the atmosphere into new limestone, oil, gas and coal. Now, the diaper and toy companies and schoolteachers will just hate that idea, but the option is going to be war the likes of which the world has never seen before, creating human misery which will leave almost no one untouched.
Which option do you think mankind is going to choose? Sadly, my money is on the latter.
I’m sorry, but I really can’t take any of this seriously. You’re saying “denial” petitioners are politically motivated while MMGW advocates are not? Pardon me while I recover from my laughing fit.
I never said Patrick Moore was a climate scientist, I said it was an interesting video. Besides, just saying he’s not a climate scientist and dismissing what he says on those grounds is simply an ad hominem attack. However, he’s infinitely more of a climate scientist than Al (rake in the millions) Gore.
Going back to the first graph I posted, there is nothing there to indicate that CO2 and temperature followed any correlative pattern at all. Mankind was absent for almost the whole of this. We have been busily measuring things in our clumsy ways on planet earth for a few hundred years. I simply am not going to get upset about changes we see in that short a period of time and I’m certainly not going to encourage my legislators to spend yet more money on something that is at best a hypothesis in search of funding.
As far as continuing any debate on this, I have been through this at length on two other boards I frequent and am bored with discussing it. I have seen nothing that convinces me there is any crisis. So, continue on folks, knock yourselves out.
I’m sorry, but I really can’t take any of this seriously. You’re saying “denial” petitioners are politically motivated while MMGW advocates are not? Pardon me while I recover from my laughing fit.
I'm still laughing about that bogus link you posted.
Do tell what political/economic gains are made by Climate Scientists?
Before you post more misinformation I suggest you watch this video.
Besides, just saying he’s not a climate scientist and dismissing what he says on those grounds is simply an ad hominem attack. However, he’s infinitely more of a climate scientist than Al (rake in the millions) Gore.
I'm not just dismissing what he say's I'm pointing out his blatant lies and misrepresentations of science.
Going back to the first graph I posted, there is nothing there to indicate that CO2 and temperature followed any correlative pattern at all.
First of all there is no source for that graph. If you are going to post data I want to see the source. I don't trust anything you post at this point especially a graph with no source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid
As far as continuing any debate on this, I have been through this at length on two other boards I frequent and am bored with discussing it. I have seen nothing that convinces me there is any crisis. So, continue on folks, knock yourselves out.
I recommend if you are going to continue having a discussion about climate change that you post credible links and data vs. simply your opinion.
So, forgive me if I jump over your arguments to the next step: What exactly, are we supposed to do about it?
IMO the first step is to awaken folks to the concept of population control. The human carbon footprint is huge!
Quote:
The only realistic way of getting back to 350 ppm is leaving most of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground. We must:
1) phase out coal by 2030. It is not enough to slow down coal-burning by converting it to liquid fuels, because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time. The fundamental problem is with the coal being burned at all.
2) not burn tar sands or oil shale. Their reserves are virtually untapped but thought to contain even more carbon than coal. Canada cannot keep burning them.
3) not burn the last drops of oil and gas if their reserves are on the high side. If it turns out we have already used about half, then we can safely burn the rest.
4) turn deforestation into reforestation. We’d still be left with the gargantuan task of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Nature can absorb some carbon, but it has limits.
This website is an excellent resource and I encourage anyone who is remotely interested in the truth and the actual data to take the time to go through this website.
I totally agree with Bill Nye. You can't ignore facts forever and the BBC is correct...it's time to move on from the days of debating human caused climate change facts. Now we have work to do!
This is the point that climate deniers tend overlook and never talk about.
Quote:
It's not that the world hasn't had more carbon dioxide, it's not the world hasn't been warmer. The problem is the speed at which things are changing. We are inducing a sixth mass extinction event...
I totally agree with Bill Nye. You can't ignore facts forever and the BBC is correct...it's time to move on from the days of debating human caused climate change facts. Now we have work to do!
This is the point that climate deniers tend overlook and never talk about.
You were earlier slamming people for not being scientists, or not good enough scientists for your purposes....
Do you know that Bill Nye is not a scientist?
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.
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.
This is the biggest debunked list myth you will find on the internet today. It's been the laughing stock of embarrassment for the folks who actually post the link as if it's some sort of validation for their beliefs. 
