Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
Whoa there, you seem upset.
|
What's there to be mad about? *shrug*
You appear to be mad. Why are you so mad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
Why is it that you have to cast all those assumptions about me on such a personal level?
|
Assumptions? It's clear as a bell the things I've pointed out about your level of scientific education, your hatred of education and science and your low emotional intelligence are seen in each and every one of your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
I'm a common sense guy, and sorry, I don't believe the BS you spew. I live on Long Island, NY. This place is a HUGE scar left over from the last ice age. A mile thick ice sheet terminated here leaving behind a moraine, well two actually. Kame hills, deltas, outwash plains, kettle lakes and the like are all here.
|
The entire rant is evidence of what I've observed about your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
What caused the end of last ice age; the melting of the MASSIVE Laurentide ice sheet 20,000 years ago? Let's not ignore the Younger Dryus event that brought the ice back for a bit, but that eventually receded too.
|
The usual denier take is to point major spikes in the NH temperature record (eg Younger Dryas) associated with exit from glacials. There is some evidence of similar, anti-phased events, in the SH record as well...but I guess the denier blog sites are not aware of the SH record.
These proxies do indeed indicate very rapid temperature changes, but I am not aware of evidence for a global temperature change of that speed as opposed to regional change. The mechanism is disputed, but is associated with the end of glacial periods so relevance to present climate is doubtful to say the least. Why? Because the Earth's climate is not in the beginning stages of shifting from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state.
Please work on being an informed poster if you're going to discuss global warming.
Basically you just tossed in a non sequitur that has nothing to do with our current climate.
It's education time!
What caused the Younger Dryas?
The Younger Dryas occurred during the transition from the last glacial period into the present interglacial (the Holocene). During this time, the North American, or Laurentide, ice sheet was rapidly melting and adding freshwater to the ocean. Scientists have hypothesized that, just prior to the Younger Dryas, meltwater fluxes were rerouted from the Mississippi River to the St. Lawrence River. Geochemical evidence from ocean sediment cores supports this idea
(Carlson et al. 2007), although other possible routings such as to the Mackenzie River cannot be ruled out presently. A more northerly routing of meltwater has a greater impact on the salinity and density of the surface ocean in the North Atlantic, which can cause a slowing of the ocean's thermohaline circulation and climate changes around the world. Multiple proxies for the thermohaline circulation indicate that such changes occurred during the Younger Dryas
(McManus et al. 2004;
Praetorius et al. 2008;
Lynch-Stieglitz et al. 2011). Eventually, as the meltwater flux abated, the thermohaline circulation strengthened again and climate recovered.
The record from Dome C in Antarctica supports this explanation. If the thermohaline circulation were to slow, less heat would be transported from the South Atlantic to the North Atlantic. This would cause the South Atlantic to warm and the North Atlantic to cool. This pattern, sometimes called the "bipolar see-saw," is observable when comparing the GISP2 and Dome C records for the Younger Dryas
(EPICA Community Members 2004).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
What caused the end of the last ice age? CO2???? I highly doubt that.
|
I addressed this above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
In 2009, Obama's EPA deemed Co2 a "pollutant", a "danger
to human health and welfare, and, therefore, it must be regulated".
|
Before assessing whether or not CO2 is a pollutant, we must first define the term.
It's education time!
What is an Air Pollutant?
The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:
The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
Clearly this is a very broad definition. More importantly, its Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:
"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that
"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."
Greenhouse gases including CO2 unquestionably fit the Clean Air Act's broad definition of "air pollutants," and must be listed and regulated by the EPA if it can be determined that they endanger public heath and/or welfare.
Alternatively, the definition of "pollution" from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
"the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form.""
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger public health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored "harmlessly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
At that point, it became a political issue leaving science to be ravaged by people like YOU!
|
More nonsense. I learned about the effects of CO2 and human activity on this earth long before Al Gore or Obama were known. My science education is what led me to the understanding and knowledge I possess. There has not been one single president or vice president who is a formally trained scientist...thus why it's not a good idea to get your science knowledge from politicians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaMaj7
I'm sorry that you have been brainwashed to the point of debating how this bogyman gas is going to end our existence, all the while ignoring the MULTIPLE GLACATION EVENTS THAT OCCURED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS!!!!
The causation of these multiple cycles is NOT definitively understood, but charlatans like YOU want to grasp onto Co2 as the end all paramount issue, and therefore use such as a mechanism for CONTROL.
No me jodas mas, senorita!  |
Non Sequitur low emotional intelligence response.
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.
