This is the fallacy. The RATE of warming, even if it's "only" 1 degree F per century, is still magnitudes faster than ever before.
You really think that's just a coincidence?
Again, just because SOME people are using climate change for political or economic gains does not mean the basic science is unsound.
I would like to know where this hard data is that says so? There are no detailed CO2 or temperature records from since the ice age (or before) - what is known is based on ice samples etc., but they can not break it down based on how much the temperature increased in say a 30 year span like they are doing now.
How do we NOT know that the temperature didn't rise (or drop) at a faster rate for xx years and then held steady for xx years and then rose again some more at a slower rate in this time frames? All we know is that temperatures have been higher and lower in the past (as has CO2 levels), but there is no data from a small window of 30 years in which we can compare - we only have detailed records over the last 30-50 years.
There is a BIG assumption that temperature rise over the last 30 years is unprecedented, but no absolute proof that that this rate of increase has NOT happened before (it is speculation).
I posted before (in another thread) that now there is speculation that the disappearance of the ancient Mayan civilization (and others) could have been due to 'climate change' (aka global warming) - would this not have been a rapid (drastic) change as well? If it was a slower change, wouldn't they not have adapted? http://news.nationalgeograp...ange-belize-science/
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 09-05-2013).]
Thanks to NoMoreRicers for posting this in another thread. I want to have these links archived in this thread, and get into more detail.
THIS is why I am fighting so hard against the warmists and their proposed carbon. The cost is 50 times any possible benefit, which would be negligible. All pain, no gain. Our quality of life would drop dramatically for a theoretical reduction in temperature too small to even measure.
THIS is why I am fighting so hard against the warmists and their proposed carbon. The cost is 50 times any possible benefit, which would be negligible.
You've claimed multiple times that "the science isn't settled". How can you know what the possible benefit is?
When a guy takes the time and effort to produce a video that explains exactly that the benefit is a negative, the least you could do is listen to it. Of course, by your comment you haven't listened to it, right?
Okay, I'm still going through a ton of information be here is where I'm at.
Is our atmosphere an open or closed system? This question is important because it effects the ability of co2 concentrations to increase.
What is the Thermal Decomposition (thermolysis) of Co2.( without a catalysis ) This question is important because if any part of the structure breaks off it's no longer Co2.
How much Infrared Radiation 15 µm does the earth emit? This is also important because of the amount of Co2 between the troposphere and lower stratosphere.
Do Co2 concentrations increase or decrease during the winter months?
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 09-07-2013).]
Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars. Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand. Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years. Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide. Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite. Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity. Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide. Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!
The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.
Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation.
Oxygen and nitrogen the major gases in the atmosphere do not have this property.
The infrared radiation strikes a molecule such as carbon dioxide and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate.
quote
Two atom molecules like nitrogen and oxygen are bound together too tightly to be capable of vibrating when exposed to infrared radiation (heat) and therefore absorb that energy. Three atom molecules like carbon dioxide and water are able to vibrate and absorb this radiant heat energy in the form of kinetic energy and then pass that kinetic energy to other adjacent molecules of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and water, causing those particles to warm.
Maybe it's just me, but this seems to say that IR is electromagnetic energy produced by objects radiating heat. If the heat is being radiated at ground level (earth emitted IR) hasn't it lost lost capability of transferring heat by convection. Obviously nobody is claiming that co2 is absorbing heat through convection. However, most casual readers on the topic could easily confuse convection with the simplistic statements given by the AGW experts.
IR does not heat up co2 molecules. What it does do is vibrate and bend the bonds that bind 1 carbon atom with the 2 oxygen atoms. That vibration and bending Produces heat. The IR is not being absorbed. Instead IR electromagnetic energy is striking the Co2 molecule causing an energy exchange. The results are the bending and vibration of the molecular bonds that hold the co2 molecule together. Bottom line is that Co2 molecules are not absorbing heat, they are generating heat.
Co2 is still a gas and function as gases are expected to. Their density changes with temperature. But everything has limits and co2 is no different. As long as the IR wave is striking the Co2 molecule, the bending and vibrational response will generate heat. But once the Co2 (gas) molecule is heated it is surrounded by other molecules that do not respond to IR In the same way that co2 does. You get a reaction that moves the molecule away from the IR emission and causing cooler molecules to surround them much as a shield.
When Co2 is heated (a response to IR) it's density decreases below that of it's neighboring molecules which disrupts the Thermodynamic equilibrium the co2 molecule shared with the molecules around them. Once the Co2 molecule heats up, it's density decreases and the the more dense molecules (including other co2) push it upward.
That's where I am at on the issue of AGW and Global warming in general.
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012 BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013 Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.
In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.
The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.
The continuing furore caused by The Mail on Sunday’s revelations – which will now be amplified by the return of the Arctic ice sheet – has forced the UN’s climate change body to hold a crisis meeting.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was due in October to start publishing its Fifth Assessment Report – a huge three-volume study issued every six or seven years. It will now hold a pre-summit in Stockholm later this month.
Leaked documents show that governments which support and finance the IPCC are demanding more than 1,500 changes to the report’s ‘summary for policymakers’. They say its current draft does not properly explain the pause.
At the heart of the row lie two questions: the extent to which temperatures will rise with carbon dioxide levels, as well as how much of the warming over the past 150 years – so far, just 0.8C – is down to human greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural variability.
Much more at the link.
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 09-10-2013).]
Hardly. They make a few flimsy excuses for why their predictions have been proven false over the past decade.
What are their excuses going to be in another five or ten years when their predictions of an environmental apocalypse fail yet again?
Your last statement alone shows you don't listen to what the Scientists and experts are saying. Seriously try reading from some unbiased (from either side) sources rather than sensational headlines in the media.
How many asteroids and meteoroids enter our atmosphere a day.
The Answer The nominal flux of meteoroids with diameter 1 cm or larger is 10^-6 per square meter per year.
Using 6500 km as the radius of the earth + atmosphere, the area is about 5 x 10^14 m^2.
This means that, averaged over the earth's surface, there are about 1,400,000 meteoroids with diameter 1 cm or larger hitting each day.
Needless to say, the vast majority of these burn up in the top parts of the atmosphere, and the number of meteoroids drops rapidly with increasing size.
Just curious as to how much Co2 is release by source from space entering our atmosphere. How exactly would the data reflect this (additional) source of Co2. It seems to me that how ever large or small, it is the same as a human release. According to AGW explanation of the danger of human released Co2, if we are gaining Co2 from objects burned upon entry into our atmosphere it too would overwhelm the Carbon Cycle.
Just curious as to how much Co2 is release by source from space entering our atmosphere. How exactly would the data reflect this (additional) source of Co2. It seems to me that how ever large or small, it is the same as a human release. According to AGW explanation of the danger of human released Co2, if we are gaining Co2 from objects burned upon entry into our atmosphere it too would overwhelm the Carbon Cycle.
Your last statement alone shows you don't listen to what the Scientists and experts are saying. Seriously try reading from some unbiased (from either side) sources rather than sensational headlines in the media.
When your arguments fail, ad hominem.
I suppose I should reciprocate with some accusations of your bias, ignorance and lack of critical thinking, but I will refrain from doing so.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ makes for good and informed reading, however, we are still talking about CO2 being 0.039% of the atmosphere with all hothouse gases combined being only less than 3%.
So the discussion about CO2 is a bit of interesting discussion of a minor issue. It is not major in terms of atmospheric influence.
How about a discussion about the thermal output of the sun, the tilt of the earth, and the evaporation rates in higher temperatures vs. cooler temperatures?
Does more evaporation mean more clouds and more thermal insulation and heat absorption?
I suppose I should reciprocate with some accusations of your bias, ignorance and lack of critical thinking, but I will refrain from doing so.
My argument failed? Which one is that now?
Please if you have examples of my "bias, ignorance and lack of critical thinking," I would welcome them (please keep them somewhat recent as when I discuss and read I tend to learn more as I go. I don't consider myself an expert)
You can reciprocate however you like and it appears you chose to distance yourself from your own statement by deflecting and feigning some kind of moral high ground.
Do you have ones that suggest climate experts have used "flimsy excuses" to explain predictions that have been proven false? Do you have many reputable examples of climate scientists predicting an environmental apocalypse in 5 to 10 years? Does your statement encompass all Climate Scientists and Experts?
Please if you have examples of my "bias, ignorance and lack of critical thinking," I would welcome them (please keep them somewhat recent as when I discuss and read I tend to learn more as I go. I don't consider myself an expert)
You can reciprocate however you like and it appears you chose to distance yourself from your own statement by deflecting and feigning some kind of moral high ground.
Do you have ones that suggest climate experts have used "flimsy excuses" to explain predictions that have been proven false? Do you have many reputable examples of climate scientists predicting an environmental apocalypse in 5 to 10 years? Does your statement encompass all Climate Scientists and Experts?
The IPCC and the various Global Warming Chicken Littles like to make predictions that are several decades in the future. The obvious flaw is that by the time their predictions can be proven false, they are long dead.
One thing little know is that the IPCC made predictions in 1990 that after over two decades can be tested and have been shown to be false.
Argue the details of temperature fluctuations and the regular rise of ocean levels and you still cannot justify the outlandish scare tactics used by the GW proponents.
There is still:
No Arctic open water for shipping No starving and dying polar bears No increased hurricane activity No inundated islands
Originally posted by newf: Right wing blogosphere cherry picking, read the article sited and you will find the real science being cited not just the sensational headline.
No Arctic open water for shipping, why not? No starving and dying polar bears, where are they? No increased hurricane activity, where are they? No inundated islands, oops what happened to all the water?
No Arctic open water for shipping, why not? No starving and dying polar bears, where are they? No increased hurricane activity, where are they? No inundated islands, oops what happened to all the water?
Yawn....... blah blah blah with still no answers.
Arn
Your questions have been answered scientifically many times over by many different people.
