Human-€induced climate change requires urgent action

[jem]

and I have told you the positive feedback loop is a possibility... and since NASA says CO2 is also a coolant... a negative feedback loop is also a possibility.
NASA states CO2 is like a thermostat.

you know I have told you what I suspect... after a reading a lot of papers... since the earth has cycled for millions of years, I suspect it functions as a blanket as we come out of an ice age but as you add more of it, it becomes a blanket.

The point is... science does not know right now.

Of course the positive feedback loop aspect was mentioned to jem a long long time ago.

 

[377OHMS]

If you need something to worry about it should be the proclivity of the Earth to turn into an ice-ball for thousands of years at a time. That would suck rather more than a few tiny islands and poorly located cities going under water.

On a planet that historically oscillates between lush tropical conditions and mile-thick glaciers and sheet ice in the nearly perfect absence of human activity it is pretty arrogant to assume that changing climate is now due solely to man.

There is stuff we are doing that is terribly damaging but it has more to do with the entire marine industry routinely dumping into the sea (like *all* of their trash and waste material) and other failures relating to deep sea drilling and transport of fuel products. River and lake pollution is a huge problem but the government is using it to erode property rights instead of actually trying to improve the situation. Runoff from agriculture and toxic stuff in municipal drainage isn't addressed but the EPA goes after the guy who builds a pond on his property. Wtf.

Global Warming? I don't think so.

 

[piezoe]

That's not the problem piezoe. Problem is, it's caused the next.

I'm not following you, Stu. If you'll take the time to elaborate, and if I can then understand your argument, I will carefully consider it. And I will respond respectfully, and perhaps we will agree. Is it the positive feedback, as Ricter has interpreted your remark, that you were you are referring to?

 

[dbphoenix]

If you need something to worry about it should be the proclivity of the Earth to turn into an ice-ball for thousands of years at a time. That would suck rather more than a few tiny islands and poorly located cities going under water.

On a planet that historically oscillates between lush tropical conditions and mile-thick glaciers and sheet ice in the nearly perfect absence of human activity it is pretty arrogant to assume that changing climate is now due solely to man.

There is stuff we are doing that is terribly damaging but it has more to do with the entire marine industry routinely dumping into the sea (like *all* of their trash and waste material) and other failures relating to deep sea drilling and transport of fuel products. River and lake pollution is a huge problem but the government is using it to erode property rights instead of actually trying to improve the situation. Runoff from agriculture and toxic stuff in municipal drainage isn't addressed but the EPA goes after the guy who builds a pond on his property. Wtf.

Global Warming? I don't think so.

I suppose that would depend on whether or not the pond-building guy was a campaign donor.

But as far as needing something to worry about, no. In fact, I don't worry about any of it anymore. Life is not a movie, and people are what they are. What is unfortunate is that so many people spend so much of their time arguing over bullshit rather than working toward being happy (of course, what makes one person happy can make somebody else miserable, but there you are). The complete lack of regard for the environment has always puzzled me, but where I live may have a lot to do with that. Plus an old saying that I heard long ago that has always stayed with me: don't shit where you eat.

I suppose one could take the attitude that none of it matters since we're all going to die anyway, but I'm bothered by the fact that I can't eat fish anymore without regard for where it came from, that I have to pay through the nose for "organic" meats that haven't been pumped full of junk and fed crap, though this has had the effect of making me a sort of involuntary vegetarian, which I suppose is all for the best, and that I actually have to buy water to drink because we mismanaged the acquifer.

But, as Brian sang, always look on the bright side of life.

 

[futurecurrents]

My argument is somewhat different. It is equivalent to observing that a chicken cannot be the cause of the egg it hatched from because the egg existed before the chicken that hatched from it. But nevertheless I enjoyed your clever rejoinder.

No you are trying to say that man's burning of fossil fuels did not cause the 40% rise in CO2 and corresponding temp increase. Which is fucking stupid. You also seem to think some mysterious thing caused temps to rise which then caused the increase in CO2. Which is also fucking stupid. In fact I have never seen someone sound so smart while being really fucking stupid. If I didn't know better, I would think you are a professional.

 

[Lucrum]

No you are trying to say that man's burning of fossil fuels did not cause the 40% rise in CO2 and corresponding temp increase. Which is fucking stupid. You also seem to think some mysterious thing caused temps to rise which then caused the increase in CO2. Which is also fucking stupid. In fact I have never seen someone sound so smart while being really fucking stupid.

I burned 1830 pounds of jet fuel today.
I'll burn over 4,000 pounds tomorrow.

Does that make you mad?

LOL

 

[futurecurrents]

Oh Jem, Over here!!!! Click on "more". The science!!!!!! Here it is!!!!! All one needs to know.!!!!!Look here!!! See?????!!!!Put on your glasses!!!!

You lying sack of shit

So to summarize what we have shown so far, and ignore jem's lunatical ravings:

We know CO2 is a GHG

We know man has increased it's concentrations by 40% mostly by burning massive quantities of fossil fuels.

We can see the result of this added CO2 in reduced outgoing radiation at those wavelengths proving this added CO2 must be heating up the earth.

So now we should also expect to see increasing world temps, which we do.

In addition we can see the temps increased exactly when the CO2 levels increased.

 

[futurecurrents]

Multiple lines of evidence support attribution of recent climate change to human activities:[4]

• A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
• Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
• Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
• Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]

The IPCC's attribution of recent global warming to human activities is a view shared by most scientists,[5][6]:2[7] and is also supported by 196 other scientific organizations worldwide[8] (see also: scientific opinion on climate change).

 

[jem]

I will review using the language President Obama used with Hillary..

a. bullshit... recent papers are showing its the sun and the tides and that while it is speculated C02 levers its contribution by impacting water vapor... in the last 2 years papers have shown that water vapor may cause cooling. Additionally, recent NASA testing has shown CO2 is also a very efficient coolant in the atmosphere.
b. bullshit... using the best statistical methods there is no indication we have warmed outside natural variability.
c. bullhsit - computer based models are unable to predict any climate sensitivity to co2 at all. the models failed. we had a 40% rise in co2 the last 17 years... and the IPCC models have all overpredicted warming.... how do we know... there has been no warming.
d. bullshit - purely moronic statement. the models have failed... they have no idea what natural forces are impacting ocean warming among the other earth systems.

we have shown that there is no consensus in peer reviewed papers.
you consensus stuff is also bullshit.

Multiple lines of evidence support attribution of recent climate change to human activities:[4]

• A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[4]
• Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[4]
• Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[4]
• Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[4]

The IPCC's attribution of recent global warming to human activities is a view shared by most scientists,[5][6]:2[7] and is also supported by 196 other scientific organizations worldwide[8] (see also: scientific opinion on climate change).

 

[jem]

it is quite likey the rise in co2 is caused by the warming of the oceans.
I have showed you the chart and linked to the data.

the ocean warms and cools and has a strong match with a 12 month lag.
it makes sense. Ocean warms and releases co2. air warms then co2 goes up because warm air holds more water vapor and co2.

So now let me ask you a question.

If the ocean warms and releases co2 as it warms... what would you expect to happen to co2 levels in a closed system?

What if the earth also off gased co2 and it was therefore not a closed system.

Guess what... the system is not closed.

No you are trying to say that man's burning of fossil fuels did not cause the 40% rise in CO2 and corresponding temp increase. Which is fucking stupid. You also seem to think some mysterious thing caused temps to rise which then caused the increase in CO2. Which is also fucking stupid. In fact I have never seen someone sound so smart while being really fucking stupid. If I didn't know better, I would think you are a professional.