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.
That isn't climate change, that is localized pollution issues and micro occurrence does not validate macro occurrences.
You want to clean up your town, fine... do it on the merit of localized cause and effect, not unsupported assumptions as to global occurrence.
Neat pictures, though they are not indicative of anything on the value you use them for.
Nah.... it goes back to that killing two birds with one stone.
Or to translate it, using your vernacular:
The significance of these pictures is to suggest that localized, micro occurrences of air pollution that factors into health and quality of life issues could be solved at the "country or nation state" level. As an added significance, measures to reduce local smog emissions would have the secondary effect of decreasing greenhouse gas through proper regulation(s).
Snide remark aside. The US really has made great progress with it's emissions and the dreaded CO2. Honestly the future really depends on how the developing country, well develops... Despite my rhetoric, I view climate change as a secondary issue as there are far more pressing global environmental issues. Small steps can add up and make a big difference. Greater global access to contraceptives is a small step but has great effect population and therefore climate change. It's sad how both sides have politicized the environment but that's just life.
In this case, this isn't an issue to be overly concerned with.
Possibly, possibly. The second article is based on research no more recent than 2011, though; I skimmed the bibliography. Further research, as they say, is called for.
Quote:
But to flat out deny humans have no consequence to the climate deserves to be called out.
That's the thing: the intellectual dishonesty of the right is what gets me. And I don't even know why I have to say 'the right', because this ought not to have anything to do with politics. It's a matter of science, and the only legitimate way to counter scientific arguments is on their own terms. But we're accosted with excerpts from 40 year old pop-sci books whose authors use esquire magazine and Reader's Digest as sources, blogs from ex-TV weathermen and retired teachers, and wacked-out conspiracy theories. Basically everything but what would make their case, which is research as thorough as has been done up until now that shows completely different results than all the research that came before, an explanation of why they're right and everyone else is wrong, and tons and tons of checking old research in this new light to see if it all holds up. Debunking cold fusion or the allegedly faster-than-light neutrinos wasn't that difficult because those claims were basically based on just a couple of experiments, and two experiments are not going to produce results that can overturn decades of self-consistent research that contradicts them. It's going to take a lot more than a couple of bloggers and neener-neener arguments about volcanoes to blow 40 years of climatology out of the water.
Speaking of which, what about volcanoes? One of the more skeptical among us mentioned them somewhere upthread, so I thought I would help our learned colleague and point him toward the answer. Why said friend didn't just use the same magic box he uses to express his views on things geological to explore the issue on his own time eludes me.
But I digress. Volcanoes.
Quote:
Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates.
As per the United States Geological Survey, which I choose to consider a pretty solid place to go for answers to such questions because they aren't a retired weatherman's blog.
And the conspiracy theories are just insulting. As if a conspiracy of any sort that large could go undiscovered. As if that many scientists would be so unethical as to fake their results. As if these scientists wouldn't be overjoyed to be wrong. It's insulting. I'm not a scientist, but I am a man of science, and as a man of science it is insulting. (Before the peanut gallery jumps down my throat, I mean I am an educated layman: science and engineering go hand in glove. So there.)
I see looking back through the thread that it was you asking for a wake-up call regarding volcanic CO2 emissions. Well, there you have it, courtesy of the USGS.
Edit: The problem with you and many others is that y'all take an all or nothing approach. We know greenhouse gases that humans are responsible for, particularly methane and a lesser extent CO2, factor into the climate. So say for example, if the solar cycle is causing warming, the consequence of that would be exacerbated by human actions.
Also, then by your own semantics what is the difference between AGW and CAGW?
Again, you ignore significance. If the contribution of man and the effect of that contribution within the system is insignificant, then claiming we are responsible is like saying that because you blew with the wind during a hurricane, that you are responsible for that home being blown over. The details are important, yet you ignore these to keep arguing a "big picture" because the details are inconvenient.
What should be evaluated is if our contribution is meaningful (ie, does our contribution make any difference?) and as I have already discussed, the contribution and the changes within climate are so small that we can not isolate it outside of natural variability.
As I have said previously, AGW is simply the fact that man contributes to warming, CAGW is that man contributes, its contribution is significant and climate extremes and weather events are due to mans contribution. You keep looking at the big picture for the sake of generalizing them to the same purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
First of all, I am talking about the biological evidence that species are adapting and migrating due to a warmer climate.
Second of all, who are warmer climates beneficial for? Plants? Dinosuars? But hey correct me if I am wrong, when was the last time the Earth had to feed 7 billion people?
Like I said, we have one discussion on the plate here, stick with that, I am not going to chase after another discussion. One thing at a time.
Nah.... it goes back to that killing two birds with one stone.
Or to translate it, using your vernacular:
The significance of these pictures is to suggest that localized, micro occurrences of air pollution that factors into health and quality of life issues could be solved at the "country or nation state" level. As an added significance, measures to reduce local smog emissions would have the secondary effect of decreasing greenhouse gas through proper regulation(s).
Snide remark aside. The US really has made great progress with it's emissions and the dreaded CO2. Honestly the future really depends on how the developing country, well develops... Despite my rhetoric, I view climate change as a secondary issue as there are far more pressing global environmental issues. Small steps can add up and make a big difference. Greater global access to contraceptives is a small step but has great effect population and therefore climate change. It's sad how both sides have politicized the environment but that's just life.
The problem with those pictures is that they are not scientific, they are simply pictures. Trying to draw any conclusions from them is pointless. What next? Are you going to show me pictures of the water vapor stacks from a coal plant and go on about how terrible that pollution is? By the way, cause of pollution, severity, and the solutions to dealing with it vary from location to location. You can't take a one size fits all approach to the issue and mandate it across states. Each area that has a localized pollution problem must be tackled with the details of each locations occurrence.
I see a lot of whining here about Al Gore, liberals in general, and me in particular. But not a single counter-argument to the claim mentioned in the OP. Not one.
And you guys think your opinions deserve consideration. Remarkable.
I'm trying to imagine how so much ignorance can be contained within a single individual.
You scream, I have a hockey schtick! Prove it isn't science.
Other side says, It was disproved here, here, and here.
You scream, That's not proof! if your gonna make claims, prove them!
You scream, It's man-made, anthropogenic global warming!!! Prove it isn't!
Other side says, it is a theory and it is not the job of the scientific community to disprove a theory, rather the job of the scientists putting forth the theory to begin with to PROVE it with acceptable scientific methods, not simply peer review from others who hold the same beliefs.
You scream, See... you CAN'T disprove it, therefore you are a hater of science.
So much ignorance for you to spread... so little time.
everyone knows (and its scientificly proven) that climate has changed many, many times
and yet NOT ONE scientist has proven MANMADE global warming
the globe evolves..the global enviroment changes..periodicly...there have been WARMER TIMES..there have been cooler times..there have been times when C02 was MUCH, MUCH higher
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm
The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.
science shows As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 225 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
SCIENCE shows that plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.............yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
why do liberals DENY science???...because with the science they cant get their TAX..so they manipulate the science
historical record tells us of many warming episodes - and subsequent cooling periods - that have bedevilled humans for thousands of years.
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who lived in 427-347 BC, wrote about major climate changes known in his day. In the dialogue, "Timaeus," he argued global warming occurs at regular intervals, often leading to great floods. Said Plato, "When... the gods purge the Earth with a deluge of water, the survivors... are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains. But those who... live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea."
In the dialogue, "Critias," Plato wrote about weather-related geological changes. He referred to "formidable deluges" that washed away all the top soil, turning the land into a "skeleton of a body wasted by disease." What were now plains had once been covered with rich soil, Plato said, and barren mountains were once covered with trees. The yearly "water from Zeus" had been lost, he went on, creating deserts where the land was once productive.
Plato's student, Aristotle, who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC, also recorded evidence of global warming in his work, "Meteorologica." He noted that in the time of the Trojan War, the land of Argos was marshy and unarable, while that of Mycenae was temperate and fertile. "But now the opposite is the case," Aristotle wrote. "The land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren, owing to the water has now become fruitful." He observed the same phenomenon elsewhere covering large regions and nations.
Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle who lived 374-287 BC, discussed climate change in his work, "De ventis," which means "The Wind." He observed that in Crete, "nowadays the winters are more severe and more snow falls." In earlier times, he said, the mountains there bore grain and fruit, and the island was more populous. But when the climate changed, the land became infertile. In his book, "De causis plantarum," Theophrastus noted the Greek city of Larissa once had plentiful olive trees but that falling temperatures killed them all.
In the first century AD, an ancient Roman named Columella wrote an agricultural treatise called, "De re rustica." In it, he discussed global warming that had turned areas once too cold for agriculture into thriving farm communities. Columella cites an authority named Saserna who recorded many such cases. According to Saserna, "regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus [wine] in greatest abundance."
In the Middle Ages, people began recording the temperature and climate-related phenomena, such as the dates when plants began to blossom annually. They were aware of a warming trend that began around 900 and a cooling trend that began around 1300. We know that during the warm period, the Vikings established settlements in Greenland where perpetual ice had previously covered the land. Ancient Norse records tell us these settlements were abandoned after 1250 when falling temperatures made farming less viable and spreading ice in the sea made transportation more difficult.
The cooling trend led to heavy rains in 14th century Europe that were too much for the crops, leading to reduced agricultural output and numerous famines. In the 15th century, a warming trend returned, which lasted until the middle of the 16th century when temperatures again started to fall. By the 17th century, it was clearly apparent that a cooling trend was altering sea routes, changing the kinds of crops farmers could grow, fishing patterns and so on. Glaciers began to advance rapidly in many places and rivers that had long been ice-free year round started to freeze in the winter. This "little ice age" continued well into the 19th century.
Since then, we have been in a warming cycle that appears to have accelerated around 1950. The point is that we know a great deal about climate changes from the historical record and need not rely solely on scientific studies of core samples, tree rings and so on. These changes occurred long before industrialization and could not possibly have been man-made in any way. They don't prove man is not now affecting the climate through carbon dioxide emissions, but they do tell us temporary warming trends are common in human history. It may only be a matter of time before another cooling trend comes along.
you see the problem,,we are not saying that there is no such thing as global warming/cooling...we are saying that it is a NATURAL OCCURANCE.....The simple FACT is, to say its 'man-made' is just a LIE...do we humans help/hinder it...certainly..but we are not the CAUSE
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.
