Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change (plastics, systems, Maine)
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.
There is also a very strong correlation between the number of home runs hit in the National league and world temperatures over the last 120 yrs. Do HRs cause global warming?
Now you are posting correlations that I can buy into (you must have a plot for this LOL). I dont know if you noticed but there was only about a +/- 3.6 percent deviation in CO2 levels over the previous 8000 years and you are making a definitive correlation to temp? Yet since 1900, there has been a + 42 percent jump in the CO2 levels and it appears to correspond to one of the largest changes in temp per time.
By the way, where did that graph come from? The temperature deviations look different than others I have seen.
I have to agree that we are just going to have to deal with things. Reduce CO2 emission by 20% now and we would be right back in the same place when population increases 20%. And.. seems we are increasing population rapidly (except for the people who are on the end of having to pay for everything.. they are having way less kids).
But dealing with it.. be careful for what you ask for. A couple cities in California had a law suit against the big oil companies to pay for seawalls, etc. I guess that was their way of "dealing with it". I think that was thrown out (by a California judge).
Last edited by waltcolorado; 08-08-2018 at 12:16 PM..
We are absolutely not going to cut back on the use of fossil fuels. They are the lifeblood of our economy, and the key to raising the standard of living for billions of poor people. Think of something else.
Think of adaptations, not trying to control climate.
We can take measures to try to mitigate climate change progression, not control it. As for cutting back on fossil fuels, it's not up to you or me. Those in power are going to decide. And with their track record I would agree with you that fossil fuel cutbacks are not very likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
There is also a very strong correlation between the number of home runs hit in the National league and world temperatures over the last 120 yrs. Do HRs cause global warming?
Refer back to the graph I posted: over the last 8000 yrs, there's a negative correlation between co2 & temps. There is a positive correlation over the past 200 yrs-- just a coincidence.
The emboldened passage above is patently false. Average [co2] during the planet's history has been 3000ppm and has gone as high as 8000ppm. CH4 contribution is negligible: it appears only in extremely small concentrations, it's absorption spectrum is very limited and it is rapidly oxidized to co2.
Someone else poster a graph showing current temps higher than the Medieval Warm Period-- that's the lie started by Mann of hockey stick fame. His computer program has been exposed, as I previously posted: it churns out a hockey stick graph even when random numbers are put in. All other researchers show MWP ~ 2deg warmer than current temps.
The graph you posted has already been debunked by several other posters. As for average co2 levels being incorrect, here's another source that I am sure you'll disagree with.
Imagine there are no people. Imagine a planet where the sea level is about five to 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than normal. Imagine a planet that is hotter and wetter. Imagine, worldwide, it’s roughly 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today. And the North and South poles are even warmer still – as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than today.
Welcome to the Pliocene. That was the Earth about three to five million years ago, very different to the Earth we inhabit now. But in at least one respect it was rather similar. This is the last time that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were as high as they are today.
On May 9, 2013, CO2 levels in the air reached the level of 400 parts per million (ppm). This is the first time in human history that this milestone has been passed.
CO2 is the most important man-made greenhouse gas, which means (in a simple sense) that it acts like a blanket trapping heat near the surface of the Earth. It comes from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, as well as deforestation. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from around 317 ppm in 1958 (when Charles David Keeling began making his historical measurements at Mauna Loa) to 400 ppm today. It’s projected to reach 450 ppm by the year 2040.
To some, crossing the threshold of 400 ppm is a signal that we are now firmly seated in the “Anthropocene,” a human epoch where people are having major and lasting impacts on the planet. Because of the long lifetime of CO2, to others it means we are marching inexorably towards a “point of no return,” into territory that is unknown for the human race.
"It's projected to reach 450 ppm by the year 2040"........The ppm....that is PARTS PER MILLION. That might be significant and it might not be.....likewise did people burn coal FIVE MILLION YEARS ago??
Climate change is a tough issue. To ignore the effects of "natural" climate change while solely focusing on man-caused climate change can lead to some huge policy mistakes and waste of funds as climate changes.
You notice the graph in post 131 has completely cut off the temp and CO2 number since 1900 (guess since the CO2 levels are about what they were in 1900 -maybe because its ice core data??... dont know) so I simply added the recent CO2 and temp change to around 2017 back into the graph.. The graph was modified to only show the 2017 CO2 PPM level of around 400 PPM and the change of around 1 C also since about 1900.
I want to point out also that the time ticks are 500 years on that scale and look at the slopes of change in temp. Note that it has only been 118 years since 1900 so the slope on both the CO2 and temperature changes is very steep.
OK folks, let's discuss this in a different vein. We've presented evidence that the temp records can't be trusted, that there's negative correlation between temp & co2 on long time scales but positivei n recent, short time scales (indicating a lack of cause & effect) and that there seems to be political/economic incentives to push the panic monger agenda, that recent warming is not unprecedented and no harm came to the planet from warmer temps in the past, etc etc... but the warmists persist in their narrative....
...so I'll concede that there has been a 1degC rise in world temps over the past century and won't deny it's all caused by increased co2....so what does it mean?
First, a 1degC rise in average daily temps translate to ~2degF, and that means daily max and daily min temps are each 1degF higher... Let's put that in perspective....the daily difference in max & min is often on the order of 20-40degF and the yearly swing is 120degF... 1deg change is a 1% change. Can you tell the difference in 1deg?..... Do you think a bird or a butterfly can?
Secondly, have you ever read a thermometer? A thermometer can only be read to an accuracy of +/- 1deg.... so your 1degF change is at the borderline of margin of error, ie- statistically insignificant.
BTW- those of you who have contested my posted graphs, search "Holocene Temp records" and click on "images." You get hundreds of graphs and you'll be hard pressed to find ones that agree with the alternative universe graphs the warmists have posted. Those are the ones doctored by Mann et al.-- you know, the guy who is being sued in court to release his data and computer programs and is fighting it all the way. Anyone here in favor of transparent science?
BTW- those of you who have contested my posted graphs, search "Holocene Temp records" and click on "images." You get hundreds of graphs and you'll be hard pressed to find ones that agree with the alternative universe graphs the warmists have posted. Those are the ones doctored by Mann et al.-- you know, the guy who is being sued in court to release his data and computer programs and is fighting it all the way. Anyone here in favor of transparent science?
Im seeing that I have to fact check everything.. and I guess I would have to just believe you that graphs have been altered.. But I dont. Let us know what qualifies you as an expert and maybe we can just believe everything without any backup as it has been presented.
. Fake news, hacked mail, alternative facts
We can take measures to try to mitigate climate change progression, not control it. As for cutting back on fossil fuels, it's not up to you or me. Those in power are going to decide. And with their track record I would agree with you that fossil fuel cutbacks are not very likely.
The graph you posted has already been debunked by several other posters. As for average co2 levels being incorrect, here's another source that I am sure you'll disagree with.
Imagine there are no people. Imagine a planet where the sea level is about five to 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than normal. Imagine a planet that is hotter and wetter. Imagine, worldwide, it’s roughly 3 to 4 degrees Celsius (5.4 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than today. And the North and South poles are even warmer still – as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than today.
Welcome to the Pliocene. That was the Earth about three to five million years ago, very different to the Earth we inhabit now. But in at least one respect it was rather similar. This is the last time that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels were as high as they are today.
On May 9, 2013, CO2 levels in the air reached the level of 400 parts per million (ppm). This is the first time in human history that this milestone has been passed.
CO2 is the most important man-made greenhouse gas, which means (in a simple sense) that it acts like a blanket trapping heat near the surface of the Earth. It comes from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas, as well as deforestation. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen from around 317 ppm in 1958 (when Charles David Keeling began making his historical measurements at Mauna Loa) to 400 ppm today. It’s projected to reach 450 ppm by the year 2040.
To some, crossing the threshold of 400 ppm is a signal that we are now firmly seated in the “Anthropocene,” a human epoch where people are having major and lasting impacts on the planet. Because of the long lifetime of CO2, to others it means we are marching inexorably towards a “point of no return,” into territory that is unknown for the human race.
If the human race survives for millions of years, we're going to have to adapt to climate fluctuations at least that big. We might as well starting figuring out how.
As for CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm in the Pliocene, why didn't mastodons and mammoths cut their carbon consumption so we could stay cool? I'm not saying climate change isn't human accelerated, but the mere fact that CO2 concentrations were that high before there were any people tells you something. We do not control as much as we think we control.
Global warming is a scam created by liberals.
While God and Jesus and the Bible and the Easter Bunny and all that stuff is REAL.
LOL. So funny it's killing me.
No, wait, it's killing us all...
NASA?! What do they know?
Respected scientists all over the world? Bah humbug! The Congressional conservatives know the Real Truth!
As they used to say about what to do in a nuclear war, "Bend over, put your head between your knees, and kiss your arse goodbye."
I hope the kids and grandkids of all these anti-science, anti-global warming folks don't think too badly of their grandparents and parents as they begin to suffer from global climate changes that make life miserable for them.
Global warming is a scam created by liberals.
While God and Jesus and the Bible and the Easter Bunny and all that stuff is REAL.
LOL. So funny it's killing me.
No, wait, it's killing us all...
NASA?! What do they know?
Respected scientists all over the world? Bah humbug! The Congressional conservatives know the Real Truth!
As they used to say about what to do in a nuclear war, "Bend over, put your head between your knees, and kiss your arse goodbye."
I hope the kids and grandkids of all these anti-science, anti-global warming folks don't think too badly of their grandparents and parents as they begin to suffer from global climate changes that make life miserable for them.
Me? I'm glad I didn't procreate.
Worrying about non-existent hypothesized future people is not productive. They will deal with the reality that exists at that time, if they exist at all, or they won’t.
And by the way, there are many Aristotelian atheists that believe that the junk science of left wing eco-terrorist climate scientists is the bull$hit that it is.
"It's projected to reach 450 ppm by the year 2040"........The ppm....that is PARTS PER MILLION. That might be significant and it might not be.....likewise did people burn coal FIVE MILLION YEARS ago??
Climate change is a tough issue. To ignore the effects of "natural" climate change while solely focusing on man-caused climate change can lead to some huge policy mistakes and waste of funds as climate changes.
I hope you're not so ignorant that you are unaware that the current climate models incorporate the impact of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic variables on our global temperature. The concern, of course, is that the anthropogenic factors are driving the current increase in temperature.
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.
