Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • demi-conservative
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    . Unfortunately, it is very, very hard to get people to deal with the question of IS the planet warming due to human activity independent from the politics of WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT.
    Maybe cos people like to jump from 'warming is happening' to 'we must pull all stops to stop warming cos sky is falling!!!' Measure of temp more certain than prophesy of disaster, but they pretend cos we are so so sure about warming we are so so sure that sky is falling.

    Tell demi 'earth is warming, even unprecedented'. Ok, so what???

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    The warming itself hit a hiatus about 13,000 years ago due most likely to an asteroid impact (Younger Dryas - current best guess - recently announced finding hard evidence of it) which plunged us back into an ice age for about 1500 years, then the modern warming began in earnest about 11,600 years ago.
    OK and?

    Meager 3%? You guys persist in not reading anything but anti-climate pseudo science. The natural equilibrium is just that - equilibrium. Of what we are adding, only about 40% can be reabsorbed. So about 60% of what we add STAYS and is not reabsorbed. That is why there is a steady, year over year advance in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. IT doesn't matter that nature contributes 20x what we do if the earth can only reabsorb what nature naturally creates. What we add then pushes the concentration up slowly year by year, decade by decade. About 3ppm per year, from around 300ppm at the start of the 20th century to over 410ppm now - an increase of 33%. And the real problem is that of that growth, 80% if it in from 1980 to the present - the growth is not linear.


    NP, I note that both were tropical ... over 50 million years ago. As for 'don't really understand', what you really mean is "can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt". AFAIK, we know, we are the only continuously rising source of CO2 on the planet. There isn't much else that can be producing the steady rise we see based on what we know at this time.


    Jim
    Jim, did you read my link? We don't even know in the past if the rise of Co2 preceded the warming or if the warming drove the rise in Co2. And, I quote:Just where the extra carbon dioxide came from remains unclear as well. So in these past warming trends we don't even know where this extra Co2 came from. And what exactly is the natural equilibrium for the earth? What is the mean? And if we were not cutting down trees and such a rate most of his may be mitigated.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    First, Jim I'm not sure what glaciers have advanced for the last 20,000 years. They haven't come back to New England since the. There has been a pretty consistent warming (besides the little ice age) for many thousands of years. And as you said warming begets more warming, and in the last 100 years or so deforestation has been unprecedented (which adds to the present warming). And no Jim, we do not know what has cause the warming since the little ice age - every theory has serious problems. So is man adding to the problem, probably, but who know how much our meager 3% of the total Co2 is driving this.
    The warming itself hit a hiatus about 13,000 years ago due most likely to an asteroid impact (Younger Dryas - current best guess - recently announced finding hard evidence of it) which plunged us back into an ice age for about 1500 years, then the modern warming began in earnest about 11,600 years ago.

    Meager 3%? You guys persist in not reading anything but anti-climate pseudo science. The natural equilibrium is just that - equilibrium. Of what we are adding, only about 40% can be reabsorbed. So about 60% of what we add STAYS and is not reabsorbed. That is why there is a steady, year over year advance in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. IT doesn't matter that nature contributes 20x what we do if the earth can only reabsorb what nature naturally creates. What we add then pushes the concentration up slowly year by year, decade by decade. About 3ppm per year (current rate), from around 300ppm at the start of the 20th century to over 410ppm now - an increase of 33%. And the real problem is that of that growth, 80% if it in from 1980 to the present - the growth is not linear.


    co2_and_ch4_thick_25pct.png



    No I was speaking of the Arctic:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-n...-was-tropical/ and the point is there is no mean temperature for the earth, and I doubt very much that we understand all the variables that drive this preset warming.
    NP, I note that both were tropical ... over 50 million years ago. As for 'don't really understand', what you really mean is "can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt". AFAIK, we know, we are the only continuously rising source of CO2 on the planet. There isn't much else that can be producing the steady rise we see based on what we know at this time.

    No, there is no mean temperature for the earth over it's entire lifetime. But we are talking about the time when mankind has been on the Earth and the species that cohabit it with us. And it is not so much the mean temperature as it is the rate of change that is critical. Slow enough, life adapts. Too fast, some can, some can't. But I'm not as much about the gloom and doom potential of warming, and more just that it IS and it is REAL. What that means to us, the the Earth etc, that is another dicussion.

    THIS THREAD mocks the idea that we are running out of time to limit temperature growth to 1.5C. And the author is wrong. But what does 1.5C mean? How do we respond to it? Do we care? Should we care? Those are other questions and the answers to those questions should NOT be driving how we interpret or understand the science showing that the planet is warming and how fast it is warming. Unfortunately, it is very, very hard to get people to deal with the question of IS the planet warming due to human activity independent from the politics of WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT.


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 08-01-2019, 11:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    This is not the scientific view. It's the uninformed rationalization of climate-change deniers.
    You were saying?

    The reason for the retreat of the ice sheets remains elusive, however. Whereas there was a change in the relative strength of the sun roughly 20,000 years ago thanks to variations in the planet's orbit, it was smaller than changes that preceded it and failed to trigger a melt. In fact, ice cores from Greenland suggest there was an even larger warming event in the north roughly 60,000 years ago, notes climate scientist Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey in a comment on the findings also published in Nature.

    "We know that the only thing changing in the Northern Hemisphere [20,000 years ago] were these orbital changes" that affect the amount of sunlight striking the far north, explains geologist Peter Clark of Oregon State University, who guided Shakun's research. The melting in the north could have been triggered "because the ice sheets had reached such a size that they had become unstable and were ready to go." This may also help explain the cyclical rise and fall of ice ages over hundreds of thousands of years.

    Just where the extra carbon dioxide came from remains unclear as well. "There is no convincing evidence that a sufficiently large reservoir of old metabolic carbon existed in some mysterious location in the glacial ocean only to be ventilated during deglaciation," argues paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott of the University of Southern California, who was not involved in the study. But a paper published online in Science on March 29 suggests that the extra CO2 did come from the Southern Ocean, based on analysis of the isotopes of carbon embedded in the molecule most responsible for global warming. Stott also argues that the timing of the warming versus that of increasing CO2 levels remain too close to be sure which came first. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-last-ice-age/

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    If you look at the temperature trends, the change in slope is unmatched by any historical measure. As for 'no one really knows why' - that is a bit of a stretch. We know that historically glaciers advance and recede, the climate warms and it cools. We know there are astronomical correlations with the recession of the Earth and the relationship between summer/winter and the close/far points in our orbit. The periods match. But there is little to match what we see today in the historical record of temperature change - so the idea this is part of that natural cycle doesn't have a great deal of merit.
    First, Jim I'm not sure what glaciers have advanced for the last 20,000 years. They haven't come back to New England since the. There has been a pretty consistent warming (besides the little ice age) for many thousands of years. And as you said warming begets more warming, and in the last 100 years or so deforestation has been unprecedented (which adds to the present warming). And no Jim, we do not know what has cause the warming since the little ice age - every theory has serious problems. So is man adding to the problem, probably, but who know how much our meager 3% of the total Co2 is driving this.


    The reason for the retreat of the ice sheets remains elusive, however. Whereas there was a change in the relative strength of the sun roughly 20,000 years ago thanks to variations in the planet's orbit, it was smaller than changes that preceded it and failed to trigger a melt. In fact, ice cores from Greenland suggest there was an even larger warming event in the north roughly 60,000 years ago, notes climate scientist Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey in a comment on the findings also published in Nature.

    "We know that the only thing changing in the Northern Hemisphere [20,000 years ago] were these orbital changes" that affect the amount of sunlight striking the far north, explains geologist Peter Clark of Oregon State University, who guided Shakun's research. The melting in the north could have been triggered "because the ice sheets had reached such a size that they had become unstable and were ready to go." This may also help explain the cyclical rise and fall of ice ages over hundreds of thousands of years.

    Just where the extra carbon dioxide came from remains unclear as well. "There is no convincing evidence that a sufficiently large reservoir of old metabolic carbon existed in some mysterious location in the glacial ocean only to be ventilated during deglaciation," argues paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott of the University of Southern California, who was not involved in the study. But a paper published online in Science on March 29 suggests that the extra CO2 did come from the Southern Ocean, based on analysis of the isotopes of carbon embedded in the molecule most responsible for global warming. Stott also argues that the timing of the warming versus that of increasing CO2 levels remain too close to be sure which came first. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-last-ice-age/

    As for the arctic being tropical ... I think you may mean Antarctica (that is the more commonly reference pole for past Tropical weather because it is so cold there and a continent), but both were - at 55 and 52 million years ago respectively - many glacial cycles in the past - before the glacial cycles actually (first one was 2.4 million years ago).

    Jim
    No I was speaking of the Arctic:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-n...-was-tropical/ and the point is there is no mean temperature for the earth, and I doubt very much that we understand all the variables that drive this preset warming.
    Last edited by seer; 08-01-2019, 09:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
130 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
332 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
361 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X