Earth Has Its Warmest May on Record Globally

[The_Lillard_King]

The science on man made global warming can only be inconclusive at best.

However, you've pretty much affirmed what I wrote about pressure being put on scientists to toe the line. Further should need no more evidence than the behavior of the Believers in this thread.

It's funny DC, you always come across so knowledgeable on all topic and often times I just defer and buy into what youa re saying because I really don't know. But then there are times you are clearly so wrong about your analysis, no matter how good or biting you try to come across it all just comes across as gibberish.

 

[noknobs]

The science on man made global warming can only be inconclusive at best.

However, you've pretty much affirmed what I wrote about pressure being put on scientists to toe the line. Further should need no more evidence than the behavior of the Believers in this thread.

The science behind it is extremely conclusive.

 

[Denny Crane]

The science behind it is extremely conclusive.

If it were, then 100% of the scientists would agree, not some contrived 97% figure.

It cannot be conclusive by the nature of the problem, how measurements are done, and gazillions (to indicate a really huge number) of factors affecting climate aside from CO2.

What is conclusive is that Al Gore is making a fortune off this hoax and the cost of the proposed solutions would fund colonizing a city on Mars.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ing-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/

Al Gore and David Blood not only emphasize the regulatory risk of fossil fuel investment, they have aggressively worked to ensure it. Their article provides a roadmap to disaster, including: “direct regulation on carbon led by authorities at the local, national, regional or global level; indirect regulation through increased pollution controls, constraints on water usage, or policies targeting health concerns; and mandates on renewable energy adoption and efficiency standards.” They further note that “Even the threat of impending regulation creates uncertainty for long-lived carbon-intensive assets.”

There can be no doubt that they have found a strong advocate for these strategies in the current White House. The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.5 trillion Washington is currently spending.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...d-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.

The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy as Mr Gore. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.

 

[BlazerWookee]

FWIW: (An e-mail from someone who knows what they are talking about)

Sea level has risen about 8 inches in the last 100 years, but projections are for a more rapid sea level rise in the future. Depending on how much fossil fuels we burn, the sea level predictions for the year 2100 (~85 years from now) range from about 1.3 - 2.3 feet. So, if you hold onto your property for 20 years, you might expect about .3 - .6 feet of sea level rise in that time. This is the GLOBAL sea level rise, and Oregon may be a bit different then global.
In this report: http://slr.s3.amazonaws.com/factsheets/Oregon.pdf
they say that you can expect about 1 foot of sea level rise on the coast of Oregon by 2050. And, they predict that if you think of the worse case scenario whereby you get a winter time storm surge during a high tide, then even with modest sea level rise, the water will reach the 1 foot mark by 2020.

Here are maps (see the links below) that shows how much of the land in Lincoln City and in Rockaway Beach is under 1 foot of elevation, so this is the portion that will be essentially under sea level by 2050. This is not a perfect way of understanding how the sea will look with sea level rise since it doesn't take into account how the sand will move around, but generally, when sea level rises, then the storm surges are higher and more sand gets eroded away.

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/...nter=13/44.9671/-123.9974&show=cities&surge=1

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/...43819#center=14/45.6132/-123.9438&show=cities
It looks like the beachfront property that you are looking at are all above the 1 foot mark, so they won't be flooded by sea level, but the sea level rise will eat away a lot of the beach, and the ocean will be sitting closer and closer to the front of the houses. So, I think that would mean that there's a danger of flooding these houses during storm surges. They say there's a 1 in 6 chance that by 2020 that sea level, plus high tide, plus storm surge, would reach the 1 foot mark. And, I guess the chances probably increase with time.
It might be best to not get a house that is near present day sea level, or not get a house that is on a cliff where the storm surges will reach.


I found the links interesting . . ..

Yeah, because the equipment and methodology used to measure sea level was SOOOO comprehensive and accurate in 1914, lol...

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Yeah, because the equipment and methodology used to measure sea level was SOOOO comprehensive and accurate in 1914, lol...

Well this may be shocking but they actually use today's technology and core samples from the ocean floor along with all that other scientific data they gather to figure that all out . . . but those scientist, what do they know?

I'm not so sure about evolution either . . . what kind of equipment and methodology did they have back then to talk about evolution. And this using fossils to try to figure out what things were like in the past, give me a break.

Scientist today are the equivalent to witch doctors.

 

[Further]

Well this may be shocking but they actually use today's technology and core samples from the ocean floor along with all that other scientific data they gather to figure that all out . . . but those scientist, what do they know?

I'm not so sure about evolution either . . . what kind of equipment and methodology did they have back then to talk about evolution. And this using fossils to try to figure out what things were like in the past, give me a break.

Scientist today are the equivalent to witch doctors.

Your sarcastic response cuts a little close to how so many actually think.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well this may be shocking but they actually use today's technology and core samples from the ocean floor along with all that other scientific data they gather to figure that all out . . . but those scientist, what do they know?

I'm not so sure about evolution either . . . what kind of equipment and methodology did they have back then to talk about evolution. And this using fossils to try to figure out what things were like in the past, give me a break.

Scientist today are the equivalent to witch doctors.

5 minutes. Watch it. The guy is not a global warming skeptic. He's clearly one of those right wingers who dominate Berkley (where he's a professor).


[video=youtube;BuqjX4UeBYs]

 

[BlazerWookee]

Well this may be shocking but they actually use today's technology and core samples from the ocean floor along with all that other scientific data they gather to figure that all out . . . but those scientist, what do they know?

I'm not so sure about evolution either . . . what kind of equipment and methodology did they have back then to talk about evolution. And this using fossils to try to figure out what things were like in the past, give me a break.

Scientist today are the equivalent to witch doctors.

Soooo... core samples from the ocean floor have some sort of record of sea level trapped in them? Interesting...

 

[The_Lillard_King]

5 minutes. Watch it. The guy is not a global warming skeptic. He's clearly one of those right wingers who dominate Berkley (where he's a professor).


[video=youtube;BuqjX4UeBYs]

OK, I watched it.

Here is what I don't understand. If I understand your position, you discredit scientists because they have an agenda . . . and then you want to make a point using what this scientist says. So you find a scientist that agrees with what you believe and then you give credit to that scientist?

Watching that 5 minutes, I still have the same thoughts . . . which is this is all above my head. But I jumped in because I relate with Further that when I talk personally with a scientist, I am convinced they don't have an agenda and are telling me what they genuinely think.

Do I think you can get two scientist who have studied this topic to death and come out with two different opinions, absolutely. At that point it is who do you think is more credible.

But do I the people I talk to personally are driven by an agenda when I talk to them off the record, no.

But again, how can you do a blanket discredit of scientist's opinions because they have an agenda and then try to make a point with a scientist giving a lecture to a class (if that is what it is).

The only issue I have with your posts is you think all scientist have an agenda . . .

Don't know if I expressed that correctly . . but I got to run.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Soooo... core samples from the ocean floor have some sort of record of sea level trapped in them? Interesting...

Well being that I'm not a scientist, I can't explain it. I do find it funny you think the only way to know about the past is from data from the past, lol

 

[Denny Crane]

OK, I watched it.

Here is what I don't understand. If I understand your position, you discredit scientists because they have an agenda . . . and then you want to make a point using what this scientist says. So you find a scientist that agrees with what you believe and then you give credit to that scientist?

Watching that 5 minutes, I still have the same thoughts . . . which is this is all above my head. But I jumped in because I relate with Further that when I talk personally with a scientist, I am convinced they don't have an agenda and are telling me what they genuinely think.

Do I think you can get two scientist who have studied this topic to death and come out with two different opinions, absolutely. At that point it is who do you think is more credible.

But do I the people I talk to personally are driven by an agenda when I talk to them off the record, no.

But again, how can you do a blanket discredit of scientist's opinions because they have an agenda and then try to make a point with a scientist giving a lecture to a class (if that is what it is).

The only issue I have with your posts is you think all scientist have an agenda . . .

Don't know if I expressed that correctly . . but I got to run.

There are several points here to be made.

First, your ocean floor core samples along with more recent data are manipulated in a similar manner as this highly qualified scientist demonstrates.

Second, I don't think all scientists have an agenda. I think there are enough prominent scientists with an agenda to drive the honest ones to a wrong belief.

Third, you think I have an agenda or something. I am not a republican. I don't own even one share of stock in an energy company (green or big oil/whatever). I don't get paid by any of those sorts of companies either.

Fourth, your scientist friends aren't likely to be observing any experiments or data directly that somehow "proves" man is the cause of global warming.

I cannot repeat this enough: It is common sense that the earth is warming (where are the glaciers that covered the great lakes). It's the link to man made CO2 that is weak.

 

[Further]

5 minutes. Watch it. The guy is not a global warming skeptic. He's clearly one of those right wingers who dominate Berkley (where he's a professor).


[video=youtube;BuqjX4UeBYs]

First, how is this scientist professor able to say what he is saying if there is such terrible pressure for him to conform?

Now, about the actual content of the video, that, if true which I have no information against, is terrible and I completely side with the professor. Drum those shitty scientists out who are manipulating data. There is a scientist in my labs field who manipulated some data about a decade ago, nothing too grave, but basically photoshopped a westernblot (something showing a specific protein) to be a bit darker and more prevalent than it should have been. He lost credibility, did not receive a subsequent grant and last year past away with a soiled name.

But the fact that one scientist manipulated data doesn't mean one thing or another about the topic he is doing research on. It just shows he is a cheating fool. But when there are thousands of researchers, being published in credible journals, that all seem to be building a common picture that man is influencing climate change through their peer reviewed research, perhaps in aggregate that means something.

You can always point to an outlier, heck the tobacco industry kept pointing to outliers that showed smoking wasn't related to cancer when they knew it was. You cling to your chosen side side because it fits your politics, and because you don't like to recant any past stances. I asked you some straight forward questions before, twice, and you simply refused to answer it because you though I was trying to trap you. So you turned the tables on me and asked me the same question in reverse, and I answered you with specifics. This doesn't have to be a game of basketball where we are competing against eachother on separate teams, it should be a discussion. This is a flaw but it applies to many people on all sides of issues, and it's hurting society. There is no way one side can possibly be right on every issue while the other side is wrong on every issue.

OK, enough of a rant, I'm going to do some work. Peace!

 

[Denny Crane]

First, how is this scientist professor able to say what he is saying if there is such terrible pressure for him to conform?

Now, about the actual content of the video, that, if true which I have no information against, is terrible and I completely side with the professor. Drum those shitty scientists out who are manipulating data. There is a scientist in my labs field who manipulated some data about a decade ago, nothing too grave, but basically photoshopped a westernblot (something showing a specific protein) to be a bit darker and more prevalent than it should have been. He lost credibility, did not receive a subsequent grant and last year past away with a soiled name.

But the fact that one scientist manipulated data doesn't mean one thing or another about the topic he is doing research on. It just shows he is a cheating fool. But when there are thousands of researchers, being published in credible journals, that all seem to be building a common picture that man is influencing climate change through their peer reviewed research, perhaps in aggregate that means something.

You can always point to an outlier, heck the tobacco industry kept pointing to outliers that showed smoking wasn't related to cancer when they knew it was. You cling to your chosen side side because it fits your politics, and because you don't like to recant any past stances. I asked you some straight forward questions before, twice, and you simply refused to answer it because you though I was trying to trap you. So you turned the tables on me and asked me the same question in reverse, and I answered you with specifics. This doesn't have to be a game of basketball where we are competing against eachother on separate teams, it should be a discussion. This is a flaw but it applies to many people on all sides of issues, and it's hurting society. There is no way one side can possibly be right on every issue while the other side is wrong on every issue.

OK, enough of a rant, I'm going to do some work. Peace!

Outlier? One scientist? It's a lot bigger than that.

The data in question is the famous Mann Hockey Stick graph that appeared in the IPCC reports. Now you have the whole UN panel involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

See also ClimateGate. And ClimateGate 2.0. And ClimateGate 3.0. These are leaked emails between prominent climate scientists detailing their manipulation of the data to get desired results. They also demonstrated conspiracies to avoid Freedom of Information requests for their data so their results could be verified, and conspiracies to silence scientists skeptical of their work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Sure, the scientific community found no wrongdoing, but that's akin to the Clippers lawyers investigating Donald Sterling and exonerating him.

 

[MarAzul]

FWIW: (An e-mail from someone who knows what they are talking about)

Sea level has risen about 8 inches in the last 100 years, but projections are for a more rapid sea level rise in the future. Depending on how much fossil fuels we burn, the sea level predictions for the year 2100 (~85 years from now) range from about 1.3 - 2.3 feet. So, if you hold onto your property for 20 years, you might expect about .3 - .6 feet of sea level rise in that time. This is the GLOBAL sea level rise, and Oregon may be a bit different then global.
In this report: http://slr.s3.amazonaws.com/factsheets/Oregon.pdf
they say that you can expect about 1 foot of sea level rise on the coast of Oregon by 2050. And, they predict that if you think of the worse case scenario whereby you get a winter time storm surge during a high tide, then even with modest sea level rise, the water will reach the 1 foot mark by 2020.

Here are maps (see the links below) that shows how much of the land in Lincoln City and in Rockaway Beach is under 1 foot of elevation, so this is the portion that will be essentially under sea level by 2050. This is not a perfect way of understanding how the sea will look with sea level rise since it doesn't take into account how the sand will move around, but generally, when sea level rises, then the storm surges are higher and more sand gets eroded away.

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/...nter=13/44.9671/-123.9974&show=cities&surge=1

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/...43819#center=14/45.6132/-123.9438&show=cities
It looks like the beachfront property that you are looking at are all above the 1 foot mark, so they won't be flooded by sea level, but the sea level rise will eat away a lot of the beach, and the ocean will be sitting closer and closer to the front of the houses. So, I think that would mean that there's a danger of flooding these houses during storm surges. They say there's a 1 in 6 chance that by 2020 that sea level, plus high tide, plus storm surge, would reach the 1 foot mark. And, I guess the chances probably increase with time.
It might be best to not get a house that is near present day sea level, or not get a house that is on a cliff where the storm surges will reach.


I found the links interesting . . ..

I guess I can take her word for it, the sea level has been rising

You are aware people walked to North America when it was connected to Asia because the seas
were about 180' lower? Seem like the rise has been slowing quite a bit.

But in any event, I would not buy any of the low land along the Oregon Coast, Rockaway, Lincoln City, or Bandon. A Tsunami will clear your tracks long before another foot of sea rise
will cause you grief.

I have 10 acres of property, My house is on a portion about 50 feet higher than the rest of the property. The lower level property has a layer of hard pan about 3 to 4 inches thick, gray almost like cement, nearly 18" below the surface. It occurs all around the higher ground but no higher than an equal elevation point. An old Tsunami deposit, covers the whole area about 150' feet above sea level.

Buy your land above 150' my friend.

 

[crandc]

I live in a population dense area but nearby are low population areas with wildlife. Due to imaginary drought, which is due to imaginary warming, the animals that live on seeds, grasses etc. have no food, it has dried up and died. So wild animals are moving into populated areas. I saw a deer killed by a car on a main street nearby. in 18 years only the second deer I've seen in the populated area. Many people are now having problems with rodents in their yards searching for foods. Then the predators have no food because the grazers are moving so predators are now moving into populated areas. And are more aggresssive than usual due to hunger. I got this from the Animal Wildlife Control and from the hunting/wildlife column in the SF Chronicle, although not doubt they just imagined the bear in a schoolyard or rattlesnake in a soccer field. And when I went out at night with a flashlight because I forgot to bring in the rugs hanging on the line no doubt I imagined the giant raccoon in the walnut tree. And when my cat Sophie vanished without a trace, no doubt it is an imaginary predator who killed her. And when the wildlife control set traps we caught an imaginary raccoon, an imaginary possum and today an imaginary skunk. I feel I have half the Oakland Zoo in my backyard. But that is just imagination.

Funny. ONE snowstorm in the winter is PROOF that global warming is a myth and besides Al Gore is fat so that disproves something. But year after year of record heat, droughts, superstorms, animal migration? Just imagination. Nothing to see here.

Yes, the world's planetary scientists are all part of a huge evil plot to convince the population that the planet is warming. Fortunately, two brave billionaires, the valiant oil companies and the intrepid Fox News are here to save us from alternate energy, conservation, public transit and other evil consequences of evil scientists.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-fun-at-Al-Gore-during-Gridiron-dinner.html

Mr Clinton, who stood in for President Barack Obama, predicted that Democrats were going to pass the health care reform bill.

"It may not happen in my lifetime, or Dick Cheney's, but hopefully by Easter," he said referring to his and the former to vice president's heart ailments.

He also targeted Al Gore, noting that it was spring: "otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming."

(Sadly, it's no joke)

 

[MarAzul]

I live in a population dense area but nearby are low population areas with wildlife. Due to imaginary drought, which is due to imaginary warming, the animals that live on seeds, grasses etc. have no food, it has dried up and died. So wild animals are moving into populated areas. I saw a deer killed by a car on a main street nearby. in 18 years only the second deer I've seen in the populated area. Many people are now having problems with rodents in their yards searching for foods. Then the predators have no food because the grazers are moving so predators are now moving into populated areas. And are more aggresssive than usual due to hunger. I got this from the Animal Wildlife Control and from the hunting/wildlife column in the SF Chronicle, although not doubt they just imagined the bear in a schoolyard or rattlesnake in a soccer field. And when I went out at night with a flashlight because I forgot to bring in the rugs hanging on the line no doubt I imagined the giant raccoon in the walnut tree. And when my cat Sophie vanished without a trace, no doubt it is an imaginary predator who killed her. And when the wildlife control set traps we caught an imaginary raccoon, an imaginary possum and today an imaginary skunk. I feel I have half the Oakland Zoo in my backyard. But that is just imagination.

Funny. ONE snowstorm in the winter is PROOF that global warming is a myth and besides Al Gore is fat so that disproves something. But year after year of record heat, droughts, superstorms, animal migration? Just imagination. Nothing to see here.

Yes, the world's planetary scientists are all part of a huge evil plot to convince the population that the planet is warming. Fortunately, two brave billionaires, the valiant oil companies and the intrepid Fox News are here to save us from alternate energy, conservation, public transit and other evil consequences of evil scientists.

I have a NOAA chart of the San Francisco bay on one of my screen right now. The bay between Oakland and San Francisco is not very deep. Just think if you had lived there 7 thousnd years ago, you would not have needed that pecky bridge. But you would, only a thousand years later, and then it would need to be higher again in another one thousand years.

Now do you have a cogent explanation for why the US should take up this Cap and Trade burden when the largest GHG emitters do not?

 

[Denny Crane]

Maui is governed by a mayor and the city government actually governs 4 islands: Maui, Koohalave, Lanai, and Molokai. 1.2M years ago, it was one big island, and it was 150,000 years ago that the now 4 islands became separate islands. The ocean rose to flood the place.

No humans burning fossil fuel.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Maui is governed by a mayor and the city government actually governs 4 islands: Maui, Koohalave, Lanai, and Molokai. 1.2M years ago, it was one big island, and it was 150,000 years ago that the now 4 islands became separate islands. The ocean rose to flood the place.

No humans burning fossil fuel.

But... but... greenhouse gasses...

 

[noknobs]

I cannot repeat this enough: It is common sense that the earth is warming (where are the glaciers that covered the great lakes). It's the link to man made CO2 that is weak.

Ice core samples have ancient air trapped in them, and from that we can tell that at no point in the last 800,000 years has the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere been over 3/100 of 1 percent. That is, until the industrial revolution, and it's since continued to rise rapidly. The amount is now 40% higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Do you honestly believe that's just a wacky coincidence?

Perhaps you think it's volcanic carbon dioxide, except the 500 million tons (that's extremely generous, I've seen estimates as low as 200m/yr) of volcanic carbon dioxide that are expelled each year isn't even 2% of the 30 billion tons that man expels each and every year from burning fossil fuels. Not to mention the effects that deforestation have on CO2 levels. Volcanic carbon dioxide is heavier than the CO2 from fossil fuels, so when studied at the molecular level scientists can determine where the increase in carbon dioxide comes from... so when you say the link to man made CO2 is weak you simply don't know what you're talking about. And by the way, the current climate change and rate of global warming correlates with the known amount of carbon dioxide that man expels each year. Probably just another wacky coincidence.

The case is pretty cut and dry for anyone who doesn't have an agenda. If you want to point to an article that says someone (Al Gore for ex) may profit off of alternative energy as your reason for thinking it's just some elaborate hoax, then whatever. Your conspiracy theories have no effect on my life or reality, so I'll leave you to it. It's not like anyone profits off of fossil fuels, right? I'm sure no one has an agenda on that side right?...

My conspiracy theory is you don't actually believe what you're typing, you're just playing dumb to increase interest in the OT forum. Good luck with that.

 

[MarAzul]

Ice core samples have ancient air trapped in them, and from that we can tell that at no point in the last 800,000 years has the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere been over 3/100 of 1 percent. That is, until the industrial revolution, and it's since continued to rise rapidly. The amount is now 40% higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Do you honestly believe that's just a wacky coincidence?

Perhaps you think it's volcanic carbon dioxide, except the 500 million tons (that's extremely generous, I've seen estimates as low as 200m/yr) of volcanic carbon dioxide that are expelled each year isn't even 2% of the 30 billion tons that man expels each and every year from burning fossil fuels. Not to mention the effects that deforestation have on CO2 levels. Volcanic carbon dioxide is heavier than the CO2 from fossil fuels, so when studied at the molecular level scientists can determine where the increase in carbon dioxide comes from... so when you say the link to man made CO2 is weak you simply don't know what you're talking about. And by the way, the current climate change and rate of global warming correlates with the known amount of carbon dioxide that man expels each year. Probably just another wacky coincidence.

The case is pretty cut and dry for anyone who doesn't have an agenda. If you want to point to an article that says someone (Al Gore for ex) may profit off of alternative energy as your reason for thinking it's just some elaborate hoax, then whatever. Your conspiracy theories have no effect on my life or reality, so I'll leave you to it. It's not like anyone profits off of fossil fuels, right? I'm sure no one has an agenda on that side right?...

My conspiracy theory is you don't actually believe what you're typing, you're just playing dumb to increase interest in the OT forum. Good luck with that.

You can take a stab at providing a cogent explanation for why the US should take up this Cap and Trade burden when the largest GHG emitters do not?

 

[Further]

You can take a stab at providing a cogent explanation for why the US should take up this Cap and Trade burden when the largest GHG emitters do not?

You keep hitting on this, but nobody has given their stance one way or another. This is an attempt to discuss the FACT that man is creating global climate change. We aren't even talking about solutions at this point.

 

[BlazerWookee]

You keep hitting on this, but nobody has given their stance one way or another. This is an attempt to discuss the FACT that man is creating global climate change. We aren't even talking about solutions at this point.

Not.

A.

Fact.

 

[noknobs]

Not.

A.

Fact.

Yes it is.

 

[Further]

Not.

A.

Fact.

The debate could switch to how much of an effect we have vs nature, what kind of effects will be long lasting, or if those changes are actually good. But there really is no debate if humans are influencing climate change. Sure, there are still people who say it is not fact, but there are people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, people who believe in voodoo, and people people who believe in unicorns. And that's how this will be viewed shortly, that deniers believe in something akin to unicorns. Saying the opposite doesn't make it so.

 

[MarAzul]

You keep hitting on this, but nobody has given their stance one way or another. This is an attempt to discuss the FACT that man is creating global climate change. We aren't even talking about solutions at this point.

Well ok, fill us in on the facts of when man started having his disastrous impact relative to this chart of Sea Level Rise over the last 20 thousand years.

The Cap n Trade is the only international fix so far. It failed in Congress, not even one Democrat voted to do it. But it does remains as Obam's fix, even without Congress. He is proceeding by executive action. Who in the hell is dumb enough not to say man didn't cause this with this fix in view?

 

[Denny Crane]

Ice core samples have ancient air trapped in them, and from that we can tell that at no point in the last 800,000 years has the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere been over 3/100 of 1 percent. That is, until the industrial revolution, and it's since continued to rise rapidly. The amount is now 40% higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Do you honestly believe that's just a wacky coincidence?

Perhaps you think it's volcanic carbon dioxide, except the 500 million tons (that's extremely generous, I've seen estimates as low as 200m/yr) of volcanic carbon dioxide that are expelled each year isn't even 2% of the 30 billion tons that man expels each and every year from burning fossil fuels. Not to mention the effects that deforestation have on CO2 levels. Volcanic carbon dioxide is heavier than the CO2 from fossil fuels, so when studied at the molecular level scientists can determine where the increase in carbon dioxide comes from... so when you say the link to man made CO2 is weak you simply don't know what you're talking about. And by the way, the current climate change and rate of global warming correlates with the known amount of carbon dioxide that man expels each year. Probably just another wacky coincidence.

The case is pretty cut and dry for anyone who doesn't have an agenda. If you want to point to an article that says someone (Al Gore for ex) may profit off of alternative energy as your reason for thinking it's just some elaborate hoax, then whatever. Your conspiracy theories have no effect on my life or reality, so I'll leave you to it. It's not like anyone profits off of fossil fuels, right? I'm sure no one has an agenda on that side right?...

My conspiracy theory is you don't actually believe what you're typing, you're just playing dumb to increase interest in the OT forum. Good luck with that.

I don't think it's a coincidence, but it is a huge leap that 300 to 400 PPM is causal.

I've already shown that warming correlates to our national debt and to world population. I don't know if they're causal, either, but equally compelling. The link is weak.

What the ice core data shows is that CO2 increases after temperature rises, and we've had significant warming for ~20,000 years, long before the industrial revolution. That's why I keep asking where the glaciers that covered the Great Lakes went.

 

[Denny Crane]

The debate could switch to how much of an effect we have vs nature, what kind of effects will be long lasting, or if those changes are actually good. But there really is no debate if humans are influencing climate change. Sure, there are still people who say it is not fact, but there are people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, people who believe in voodoo, and people people who believe in unicorns. And that's how this will be viewed shortly, that deniers believe in something akin to unicorns. Saying the opposite doesn't make it so.

Stop it. There are highly skilled and qualified scientists who aren't any of that nonsense, but who admit AGW is a scam.

 

[noknobs]

I don't think it's a coincidence, but it is a huge leap that 300 to 400 PPM is causal.

What the ice core data shows is that CO2 increases after temperature rises, and we've had significant warming for ~20,000 years, long before the industrial revolution. That's why I keep asking where the glaciers that covered the Great Lakes went.

Look at the VERTICAL red line at the very far right and then point to where that's happened elsewhere on the graph. It's not just that the CO2 concentration has risen by 80 ppm, it's that it has done so in a century. Compare that to the end of the past ice ages which took around 5,000 years to rise 80 ppm. The reason is that the increase isn't natural, it's man-made.

 

[Denny Crane]

Look at the VERTICAL red line at the very far right and then point to where that's happened elsewhere on the graph. It's not just that the CO2 concentration has risen by 80 ppm, it's that it has done so in a century. Compare that to the end of the past ice ages which took around 5,000 years to rise 80 ppm. The reason is that the increase isn't natural, it's man-made.

Look at the blue line, it's not any higher than many times in the past. Temperature rises before CO2 does, so it's not tied to CO2.

I mean, if you graph # of toilets, you'll have a big spike, too (that went from 0 to a whole lot of 'em since the industrial revolution). They don't cause temperature to rise either.