Again, so what? I could show a chart showing that the arctic ice and most of the worlds ice disappearing at an alarming rate. Summertime Arctic ice will be gone in thirty years if trends continue, and there's no reason to think they won't. But by itself is only part of the story and blaming it all on CO2 is not accurate.
INFLUENCE GAME: Leaks show group's climate efforts
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Again, so what? I could show a chart showing that the arctic ice and most of the worlds ice disappearing at an alarming rate. Summertime Arctic ice will be gone in thirty years if trends continue, and there's no reason to think they won't. But by itself is only part of the story and blaming it all on CO2 is not accurate.
NO reason to worry, no CO2 enters the planet no CO2 leaves the planet, sometimes a lot of CO2 is buried under the ground, other times more CO2 is in the air, its a closed system, more CO2 in the air simply means trees will bind more CO2 going forward, any feedback loop has a natural breaking point, more CO2 in the air, less CO2 in the water, less CO2 in water, warmer temperature, warmer temperature less ice, less ice, more heat is reflected, more heat reflected means even more CO2 in the air etc etc just like more equity means higher home prices, higher home prices means more equity, we all know how this story ends, lol how can we expect climate scientist to set a correct CO2 level when central banks have no success in keeping bubbles from happening. Its not like its a simpler system, human hubris has no limit no matter what humans do there will always be a new equilibrium, its not like 390 ppm is wrong and 350 ppm is right any more than s&p 500 at 1361 is wrong and s&p at 700 is right, historicaly higher temperatures has been associated with prosperity while lower temperatures increases odds of plagues and death, basicaly more CO2 in the air supports more life, nothing last forever, its probably a good idea to not wish for a new ice age, in any case there will always be one equilibrium or another, humans will probably adapt, in the long run this does not matter at all, all oil will eventualy be burned, whether it happens in 150 or 200 years makes no diffrence at all, if oil is consumed at a fast rate it simply means alternative energy will be profitable a bit sooner.
How many times do people have to point out to you that warmth precedes CO2 accumulation in the historical data. Do you understand causation? You do not need to be an expert to look at that data. CO2 accumulation comes after the earth warms.
If a temperature rise means the atmosphere will accumulate more CO2... does it matter where the CO2 came from? There is no way for you to answer that question. We were not industrialized during the previous warmings...
You are just guessing. No one can be an expert on this subject.
What will happen the first time we travel faster than light.
What happens to the earth's 10,000 year cycles if man burns some carbon? Will the cycle shorten... will temperatures return to the median faster slower?
No one can be an expert on that.
Regarding, orbital variations... that may be one factor, sun spots another, asteroids, volcanoes could be lots of factors. What we know is that we been hotter... we have been colder... and CO2 accumulation trailed.
Are you really that dense? Did you read what I wrote? We know, without doubt that the extra CO2 is from man. Yes, temps cause CO2 to rise and CO2 causes temps to rise. In the past it was the orbital cycles that raised the temps. Now it's the CO2 that is raising the temps. If you don't understand that I give up. I'll repeat it -- We know, without doubt, that the extra 35% of CO2 is mostly from man.
"You are just guessing.'
Yes. me and nearly all the world's scientists are just guessing. That's it. Science is guessing. Now I understand where you are coming from.
Causation takes an IQ level that can think in systems.
I will give you another shot at this. You are seriously confusing yourself.
I will give you an hypo to illustrate the point...
at 70 degrees the earth has 100 ponds of co2 per jem unit
at 71 degrees the earth has 101 pounds of co2 per jem unit
earth warms from 70 to 71 degrees.... it now says hey I need to accumulate some CO2.... I think I will grab some of that man made co2. (of course this does not really happen stochastically but closer to constantly.) Note it could have easily grabbed some non made and held onto it as well.
Once the earth gets to 101 pounds... to match up its increased temperature I will off gas or process all the rest.
Now in 9999 years when the earth drops from 71 to 70, it will off gas some CO2 from 101 pounds per jem unit to 100 pounds of CO2 per jem unit. The earth may choose to hold on to some man made CO2 or it may not....
Did the man made CO2 really have anything to do with the temperature rise?
the earth warms... in the past when the earth warm CO2 accumulated.
How do you know whether
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/glacials-and-interglacials.jpg
http://www.buildart.com/images/Images2011/ice_fr2.jpg
Getting colder for the past 50 million years:
http://www.buildart.com/images/Images2011/EOCENE_TIME_LINE.jpg
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/glacials-and-interglacials.jpg
http://www.buildart.com/images/Images2011/ice_fr2.jpg
Getting colder for the past 50 million years:
http://www.buildart.com/images/Images2011/EOCENE_TIME_LINE.jpg
Global warming is a political and economic tool. There is simply not a large enuf data set because humans have not been on the planet long enuf. At any rate, the Auto industry and Wal-Mart have gone green, so the rest of it is mute, we are now green!
I'm an engineer and I'm thinking of all the various groupings of people that I can't stand... Psychopaths, American demanding bitchy women, and psudo-scientific scare mongers are all right up there..
If I'm ever the warlord in charge.. we are going to have some fun at the expense of all the above
If I'm ever the warlord in charge.. we are going to have some fun at the expense of all the above
Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists.
.. reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/...ng-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
.. reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it.
"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," said Doran.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/...ng-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: âHuman activities ⦠are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ⦠that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ⦠[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrationsâ [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: âGreenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to riseâ [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: âThe IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issueâ [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: âGreenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to riseâ [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: âThe IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issueâ [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full