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.
They seem to be pushing this despite a lack of evidence, a lack of impact on agriculture and the environment and a total lack of support by the American people. Nobody cares about global warming because it doesn't seem to be an actual problem. But they want to get hysterical and say it is and ram negative legislation down out throats despite our objections.
They need to feel the backs of our hands, politically.
What happened to actual environmental issues? Air and water pollution, radiation form a melt down nuclear reactor in Japan, honey bee hive collapse, GMO crops?
The same people who think AGW is catastophic are also the same people who raise the alarms over nuclear, GMOs, and such. Their assertions about all of the preceding are high exaggarated. It's not really about politics who is paying who, it is about a fundamental belief that humans are destined to destory the planet.
They make failed prediction after failed prediction just like the boy who cried wolf. I predict that just like a broken clock they will actually get it right one of these days, but by then no one will believe them.
Latest prediction: “An analysis of more than 1,700 simulations found that across all regions and all crops, including wheat, maize and rice, yields will drop by 2% each decade, based on a 2C rise by 2050.”
oh how cute, a fun little graph that goes all the way back to 1970. i am not questioning the fact that warming is happening, i just question how much man is responsible for. and the problem the alarmists have is that they cant prove that man is responsible for any of it because they cant prove that this interglacial period is any different than previous interglacial periods, so until they can do that, you graphs, while cute, prove nothing.
Here's the problem with the US attitude to climate: It's seen as a political issue. Even this thread is on a political forum. This stuff should be on the science forum. This is a scientific subject, yet many refuse to treat it as such.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,168,495 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
oh how cute, a fun little graph that goes all the way back to 1970. i am not questioning the fact that warming is happening, i just question how much man is responsible for. and the problem the alarmists have is that they cant prove that man is responsible for any of it because they cant prove that this interglacial period is any different than previous interglacial periods, so until they can do that, you graphs, while cute, prove nothing.
I don't understand your problem with this. You know that co2 and other greenhouse gasses tend to trap heat from the sun. You know that those gasses have increased in our atmosphere, mostly due to industrial processes.
There are other mitigating processes, but on the whole the entire period of warming over the last century is strongly correlated with the amount of c02 etc we're putting into the air. Very strongly. The math indicates that it's very unlikely to be from natural causes.
I can see quibbling over specific strategies to deal with the problem ..... I can even understand denying that the increase will be catastrophic. But there's really no question that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms up the Earth, and that we are the main cause of the co2 buildup.
I don't understand your problem with this. You know that co2 and other greenhouse gasses tend to trap heat from the sun. You know that those gasses have increased in our atmosphere, mostly due to industrial processes.
There are other mitigating processes, but on the whole the entire period of warming over the last century is strongly correlated with the amount of c02 etc we're putting into the air. Very strongly. The math indicates that it's very unlikely to be from natural causes.
I can see quibbling over specific strategies to deal with the problem ..... I can even understand denying that the increase will be catastrophic. But there's really no question that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere warms up the Earth, and that we are the main cause of the co2 buildup.
you first have to convince me that the current round of climate change is man made, and not a natural event. the global mean temperature is no different than in the last several interglacial periods, but somehow those were natural events and todays is caused by man? that doesnt wash. if the global mean temperature was higher today than in previous interglacial periods, and by higher i mean outside the statistical margin of error, then you perhaps have a point. but since todays temps are inside that margin of error, you cant make the claim that man is causing todays climate change.
you are also stuck on carbon dioxide, which is a lagging indicator, not a leading one, and that has been shown several times in this thread. there are far worse green house gasses than carbon dioxide though, water vapor and methane are two of those, and those are caused by natural forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
You're doing a fine job convincing me that blog of yours has scientific merit. A fine job.
i have given up in trying to convince you of anything. you are obstinate in the extreme, and refuse to even bother to do any research. you have decided that anything that doesnt fit your point of view isnt worth the effort, thus you are not worth the effort. perhaps one day you will grow up and realize that there are other people that have a point of view also, and that perhaps you might want to open up your mind and actually think about what people say. until that time you are hopeless.
you first have to convince me that the current round of climate change is man made, and not a natural event. the global mean temperature is no different than in the last several interglacial periods, but somehow those were natural events and todays is caused by man? that doesnt wash. if the global mean temperature was higher today than in previous interglacial periods, and by higher i mean outside the statistical margin of error, then you perhaps have a point. but since todays temps are inside that margin of error, you cant make the claim that man is causing todays climate change.
you are also stuck on carbon dioxide, which is a lagging indicator, not a leading one, and that has been shown several times in this thread. there are far worse green house gasses than carbon dioxide though, water vapor and methane are two of those, and those are caused by natural forces.
Ummmm... methane is caused by fertilizers that your friends the Koch brothers are heavily into, along with oil and gas. That is the number one source of human-generated methane-- agriculture. But a great deal of the methane being released into the atmosphere has been trapped in the ice in the Arctic, and most of the water vapor being released is from the oceans-- and CO2 is responsible for both of those.
Yes, CO2 alone isn't causing the rapid increase in warming, that's true. It also isn't as potent a greenhouse gas as methane or water vapor, so again... it isn't responsible for ALL of the warming. BUT the thing about CO2 is that it remains in the atmosphere much longer than water vapor or methane--
which means that a thick layer of CO2 is building in the atmosphere as a result of human activity-- so CO2 released in the 80s, or even in the 50s and 60s is potentially STILL in the atmosphere. Potentially, CO2 could remain in the atmosphere for as long as 500 years... not because of the residence time of CO2 (before you go there), but because of the surplus of CO2 that is now in the atmosphere because of human activity.
And this is causing the ice to melt in the Arctic, and of course the seas are warmer so there is more evaporation taking place... so there is more water vapor in the atmosphere now than before. That is easily explained.
The Arctic methane is naturally present from dead organisms trapped under the ice, whose rotting corpses produce methane bubbles... under normal circumstances, this methane would be released gradually, so as to not disturb the global climate too much. BUT what is happening is that because of this layer of CO2 that isn't being disposed of, instead of the arctic methane being released gradually as it normally would be, it is being released rapidly, meaning it's accumulating in the atmosphere and accelerating warming all over the planet, which in turn releases more methane/greenhouse gases/water vapor in what is called a feedback loop. This is also happening in swamps which are flooding... and of course, the fertilizers aren't helping either.
So yes, it isn't just the CO2 that's the problem, it's the rate at which it is being released, the fact that there is a large surplus, and that that surplus is causing more methane and more water vapor to be released. Cutting emissions will reduce the surplus and allow some of the trapped gases to escape the atmosphere, or be slowly digested into the planet.
There have been warm periods in the past, but they typically took millennia to develop, usually from volcanoes/flood basalts spewing clouds of toxic gas into the air over 100s of years (btw a similar event caused the greatest extinction event in the history of the planet)-- but there has never been a release of CO2 as fast as this one-- EVER. And its beginnings perfectly coincide with the industrial revolution, and accelerate as industry/human activity accelerates.
So yes, maybe it's just an enormous fluke, something we don't know about, or the extra CO2 is coming from aliens... but more likely it is because of us. If you can't produce an alternative explanation for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere-- or even if you CAN, it has no effect on the simple hard truth that there is too much CO2 up there for the planet to digest and if we don't stop adding to it things are going to get worse.
Last edited by Spatula City; 05-06-2014 at 01:13 PM..
Ummmm... methane is caused by fertilizers that your friends the Koch brothers are heavily into, along with oil and gas. That is the number one source of human-generated methane-- agriculture. But a great deal of the methane being released into the atmosphere has been trapped in the ice in the Arctic, and most of the water vapor being released is from the oceans-- and CO2 is responsible for both of those.
Yes, CO2 alone isn't causing the rapid increase in warming, that's true. It also isn't as potent a greenhouse gas as methane or water vapor, so again... it isn't responsible for ALL of the warming. BUT the thing about CO2 is that it remains in the atmosphere much longer than water vapor or methane--
which means that a thick layer of CO2 is building in the atmosphere as a result of human activity-- so CO2 released in the 80s, or even in the 50s and 60s is potentially STILL in the atmosphere. Potentially, CO2 could remain in the atmosphere for as long as 500 years... not because of the residence time of CO2 (before you go there), but because of the surplus of CO2 that is now in the atmosphere because of human activity.
And this is causing the ice to melt in the Arctic, and of course the seas are warmer so there is more evaporation taking place... so there is more water vapor in the atmosphere now than before. That is easily explained.
The Arctic methane is naturally present from dead organisms trapped under the ice, whose rotting corpses produce methane bubbles... under normal circumstances, this methane would be released gradually, so as to not disturb the global climate too much. BUT what is happening is that because of this layer of CO2 that isn't being disposed of, instead of the arctic methane being released gradually as it normally would be, it is being released rapidly, meaning it's accumulating in the atmosphere and accelerating warming all over the planet, which in turn releases more methane/greenhouse gases/water vapor in what is called a feedback loop. This is also happening in swamps which are flooding... and of course, the fertilizers aren't helping either.
So yes, it isn't just the CO2 that's the problem, it's the rate at which it is being released, the fact that there is a large surplus, and that that surplus is causing more methane and more water vapor to be released. Cutting emissions will reduce the surplus and allow some of the trapped gases to escape the atmosphere, or be slowly digested into the planet.
There have been warm periods in the past, but they typically took millennia to develop, usually from volcanoes/flood basalts spewing clouds of toxic gas into the air over 100s of years (btw a similar event caused the greatest extinction event in the history of the planet)-- but there has never been a release of CO2 as fast as this one-- EVER. And its beginnings perfectly coincide with the industrial revolution, and accelerate as industry/human activity accelerates.
So yes, maybe it's just an enormous fluke, something we don't know about, or the extra CO2 is coming from aliens... but more likely it is because of us. If you can't produce an alternative explanation for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere-- or even if you CAN, it has no effect on the simple hard truth that there is too much CO2 up there for the planet to digest and if we don't stop adding to it things are going to get worse.
There have been warm periods in the past, but they typically took millennia to develop, usually from volcanoes/flood basalts spewing clouds of toxic gas into the air over 100s of years (btw a similar event caused the greatest extinction event in the history of the planet)-- but there has never been a release of CO2 as fast as this one-- EVER. And its beginnings perfectly coincide with the industrial revolution, and accelerate as industry/human activity accelerates.
If you are referring to the Siberian Traps, they erupted 248 million years ago (±800,000 years), after the Permian/Triassic extinction event and therefore could not have been the cause of the extinction. Furthermore, volcanic eruptions always lower the surface temperature of the planet temporarily, they never increase the surface temperature. Therefore, it may have been the eruption of the Siberian Traps that lowered the surface temperature after it peaked between 35°C to 40°C some 250 million years ago.
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.
