Su Moo Nein The Belgium Comeex Foliatet Hist Wat Is Leepking Ingin Thes Tifler
-
I just skimmed. Have we solved the global warming debate for the world yet?
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
I just skimmed. Have we solved the global warming debate for the world yet?
Have we ever solved any debate on here?
-
I think it boils down to:
We are all a bunch of idiots and nobody knows a goddamned thing about anything because we are a stupid collection of chemicals that sits in a sack and reacts for around 80 years and somehow creates the illusion of grandeur and self-importance
-
-
I don't get why he has a problem with the data coming from millinocket.
Wait, did we read the same article?
Millinocket maine is no less random wilderness than anywhere else out there, meaning it is a valid source for a temperature from rural locations.
It's valid to compare Millinocket today to Millinocket in the past.
It doesn't make sense to compare some measurement of whatever the dam is called in the past with approximated measurement today.
-
Have we ever solved any debate on here?
I think we all agreed that @ben_lubar is crazy.
-
I'm one of the greys
?
Welcome to Earth, oh child of a distant star!Filed Under: That explains a lot
-
-
I believe global warming is real, human-caused, but:
-
not that big a deal (we've survived as a race vastly more devastating events in the past and that was before we had air conditioners and microwave burritos and all kinds of wondrous modern technologies)
-
probably not worth reversing, even were it possible, which is probably is not
So I believe in global warming, but oppose any government legislation based on it.
WHICH BUCKET AM I IN BLACK AND WHITE BINARY PEOPLE!
I don't see anything in your statements that I disagree with. Therefore:
YOU ARE A CLIMATE DENIER.
-
-
not that big a deal (we've survived as a race vastly more devastating events in the past and that was before we had air conditioners and microwave burritos and all kinds of wondrous modern technologies)
Every time CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen at anything close to the rapid rate we've seen in the past century, it was followed by a mass extinction that practically scoured the entire Earth of life.
probably not worth reversing, even were it possible, which is probably is not
Plenty of things consume CO2, we just need to find something we can mass produce quickly and efficiently. That, or start seriously beefing up our space program.
In either case, we probably need more time than we have to actually accomplish either of those goals, so slowing down global warming would at least be a good start.
-
I do not believe that global warming (or global cooling) is a conspiracy from the UN to redistribute wealth.
No, but it's an excuse / rationalization for those who want the UN (or whomever) to redistribute wealth a priori.
-
When Freeman Dyson, a brilliant scientist who has been researching climate change since before most of us were even born, says, "You know, most people are being fuckwits about it," perhaps people should listen up.
All Freeman Dyson said was "the models were wrong!" and "CO2 has some benefits!" (the first of which is true but doesn't disprove global warming, and the second of which is true but doesn't prove those benefits outweigh the costs)
-
"the models were wrong!" a...which is true but doesn't disprove global warming
But without them there's not good evidence to back up the claims of AGW. And there are reasons (like it got warm in the past without our CO2) to think that other factors may be more important.
-
Every time CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen at anything close to the rapid rate we've seen in the past century, it was followed by a mass extinction that practically scoured the entire Earth of life.
– written by a living member of mammal species with lineage of over hundred million years.
-
-
But without them there's not good evidence to back up the claims of AGW. And there are reasons (like it got warm in the past without our CO2) to think that other factors may be more important.
There's plenty of historical and experimental evidence to back up the claim that CO2 increases and temperature increases are highly correlated, and there is absolutely no question that we as a species have caused massive amounts of CO2 emissions in the past hundred or so years.
-
There's a long way from "worst mass extinction" and "scouring the entire Earth of life".
-
practically scoured the entire Earth of life.
Emphasis added for clarification. 90% extinction is what I would call practically scoured of life.
-
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/13/3646211/boom-youre-dead/
Yes, because what we're doing is just like thousands of years of eruption from ginormous volcanoes.
There's plenty of historical and experimental evidence to back up the claim that CO2 increases and temperature increases are highly correlated, and there is absolutely no question that we as a species have caused massive amounts of CO2 emissions in the past hundred or so years.
I know that's enough to convince you, but then you think the predicted catastrophic temperature rise is due to the greenhouse effect of CO2.
-
Emphasis added for clarification. 90% extinction is what I would call practically scoured of life.
What I would call practically scoured of life would be the kind of extinction that has basically the same effects as total extinction. And total extinction means that the population is zero and will never reach a significant number.So no, 90% is far too little to be considered "practically scoured of life".
-
Yes, because what we're doing is just like thousands of years of eruption from ginormous volcanoes.
Let's be clear: the earth can quite easily hit us with much larger shocks than we can generate ourselves. (See anything listed under supervolcano, such as Yellowstone or Toba…) But that doesn't mean we can't cause problems.
For a long time, people thought that the CO2 we were producing was just being absorbed (through a mix of plant growth and increased weathering of rocks) but it seems not as much as we thought. The increases have been measured independently in quite a few different places, they appear to be real. (They also appear to be anthropogenic; the signal doesn't remotely correlate with anything else.)
The tricky bit is what does this mean. We do not know this for sure. The things that really worry are things that cause major changes to the best places to grow food, especially if any of the major breadbaskets get desertified, because that will trigger major wars. Having to do lots to relocate people and cities is simple and cheap by comparison, as will dealing with big changes to disease patterns or invasive species.
Unfortunately, the green wingnuts have got hold of all this and are running with it, screaming that everyone needs to go back to the stone age (or something; I don't listen too carefully to their blathering). They're noisy idiots. Technological fixes that actually work are of interest to anyone who's not crazy.
-
But that doesn't mean we can't cause problems.
But that doesn't mean we should panic about someone throwing a bowling ball down the alley because a comet impact killed the dinosaurs.
For a long time, people thought that the CO2 we were producing was just being absorbed (through a mix of plant growth and increased weathering of rocks) but it seems not as much as we thought.
But I think now more that we previously thought.
NASA: CO2 absorption by tropical forests higher than previously thought - edie
Tropical rainforests may be absorbing far more carbon dioxide than many scientists thought, in response to rising atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas.
Technological fixes that actually work are of interest to anyone who's not crazy.
Yes, especially if you include economic viability as part of the definition of working.
-
Indeed, the last time carbon dioxide levels were at 400 parts per million was between 800,000 and 15 million years ago. Or, as as Andrew Freedman put it for Climate Central, a time when [m]egatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world’s seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.”
No, what we're at now in terms of CO2 levels is just like the halfway point in the slow recovery from the last major extinction event. And, if our emissions continue the way they have for the past 50 years, it seems likely that we will at the very least mimic, in a span of centuries, increases which have been linked to smaller scale mass extinctions which took millions of years.
http://www.johnenglander.net/sites/default/files/images/CO2 550my Extinction Chart from Ward.jpg
Note how incredibly long it took CO2 levels to reach their height during the Permian extinction, and any of the ones before it. We've already manage to make it a significant fraction of the way there in a century, and, by percentage, we've already made increases equivalent to all of the extinction events before the Permian extinction shown on this graph, as well as the Toarcian extinction, in an insignificant fraction of the time it took for any of them to occur.
-
And, if our emissions continue the way they have for the past 50 years, it seems likely that we will at the very least mimic, in a span of centuries, increases which have been linked to smaller scale mass extinctions which took millions of years.
Amen, brother!
-
-
Oh, is that a wrong response to a declaration of faith?
-
No, it's the wrong response to a declaration of facts.
-
Agreed.
-
Hence the
-
So now you use a different definition of facts, too?
-
I don't see anything in your statements that I disagree with. Therefore:
YOU ARE A CLIMATE DENIER.
I'm pretty sure the AGW credulists would say the same thing, so it's a consensus.
So now you use a different definition of facts, too?
They're in denial about being a religion. You don't want to disturb their self-delusion, do you? Remember that people are who they say they are.
-
No, I don't. The fact is that we've produced a massive amount of CO2 emissions in the past 50 years, and if that trend continues, in a span of centuries we will have equaled emissions linked to numerous mass extinctions. By percentage, we have already increased CO2 levels by as much as the increases linked to the Late Cambrian, Late Ordovician, and Late Devonian extinctions, and we're very close to the percentage increase linked to the Toarcian extinction, too. If the trend continues, we will have CO2 increases by actual number, not just percent, in accordance with the Triassic extinction in a matter of a few centuries rather than a few dozen million years. If by some chance we still keep going after that, we'll reach Permian extinction levels within a few centuries of that.
-
By percentage, we have already increased CO2 levels by as much as the increases linked to the Late Cambrian, Late Ordovician, and Late Devonian extinctions, and we're very close to the percentage increase linked to the Toarcian extinction, too.
Heh...that's funny. Of course, most of those had higher starting CO2 than we did here (I'm just eyeballing your chart here).
If the trend continues...
This is the sort of sentence where you can usually ignore everything that comes after this bit. Maybe you should watch horror movies to scare yourself instead.
-
Heh...that's funny. Of course, most of those had higher starting CO2 than we did here (I'm just eyeballing your chart here).
By percentage, we have already increased CO2 levels by as much as the increases linked to the Late Cambrian, Late Ordovician, and Late Devonian extinctions
Emphasis added for clarification.
@boomzilla said:This is the sort of sentence where you can usually ignore everything that comes after this bit. Maybe you should watch horror movies to scare yourself instead.
http://i.imgur.com/qDJtd.jpgContinuing to spew CO2 into the environment and expecting it to stop accumulating is insane.
-
At the very least, if we continue to pump fuckloads of CO2 into the atmosphere, we will have another massive algae bloom and then soon we will have way more oil! Perfect way to end the energy crisis!
-
Emphasis added for clarification.
I know. It's like you already knew it was a stupid thing to say. That's part of why it's so funny!
Continuing to spew CO2 into the environment and expecting it to stop accumulating is insane.
Yes, but what does that have to do with making ridiculous assumptions about the future?
-
I know. It's like you already knew it was a stupid thing to say. That's part of why it's so funny!
Do you know how equilibrium works? It's not about whether you have a liter of water and add a kilogram of salt or if you have a milliliter of water and add a gram of salt. You still just made saltwater either way.
Yes, but what does that have to do with making ridiculous assumptions about the future?
If we continue to spew CO2 in the environment, it will continue to accumulate, you dip shit
-
we've produced a massive amount of CO2 emissions in the past 50 years, and if that trend continues, in a span of centuries we will have equaled emissions linked to numerous mass extinctions
So this is the first time in all of history that humans have caused a spike in CO2 emissions... but you're certain that it'll end in exactly the same result as every other CO2 spike in history, because... correlation.
<correlation != causation>
-
There is no evidence that it will have any different result. If a human jumps off a cliff, that human will die, just like any other non-winged animal would. We're not special snowflakes. Actions have the same effect regardless of whether it's a human or something else taking the action.
-
Do you know how equilibrium works? It's not about whether you have a liter of water and add a kilogram of salt or if you have a milliliter of water and add a gram of salt. You still just made saltwater either way.
An excellent demonstration of your simple way of thinking about climate if ever there was one.
If we continue to spew CO2 in the environment, it will continue to accumulate, you dip shit
I'm not sure why you repeated this. I never disagreed with it. Though...it's probably possible to release less than natural processes absorb, and then it would not be accumulating in the atmosphere, at least.
There is no evidence that it will have any different result
But there isn't good evidence that it will have the result you believe in, either.
If a human jumps off a cliff, that human will die, just like any other non-winged animal would. We're not special snowflakes. Actions have the same effect regardless of whether it's a human or something else taking the action.
Again, you are so simple minded! It's kind of cute.
-
There is no evidence that it will have any different result
Other than it being the result of a totally different cause, and in an extremely complex ecosystem.
But no, CO2 is obviously the sole culprit when it comes to asking why a global near-extinction might have happened. Whatever caused all that CO2 couldn't possibly have had anything more to do with causing a global near-extinction, apart from generating all that evil CO2.
-
Though...it's probably possible to release less than natural processes absorb, and then it would not be accumulating in the atmosphere, at least.
But we're not doing so right now, and if we continue to not do so, it will continue to accumulate.But there isn't good evidence that it will have the result you believe in, either.
Yes there is! Jesus fucking christ, all I've been providing is evidence that drastic CO2 increases lead to drastic climate change.
-
Whatever caused all that CO2 couldn't possibly have had anything more to do with causing a global near-extinction, apart from generating all that evil CO2.
An "unbelievably massive volcano" certainly would do other things to cause a mass extinction (namely, blocking out the sun), but there hasn't been an "unbelievably massive volcano" causing every mass extinction linked to CO2. A lot of smaller eruptions over the course of dozens of millions of years would not be able to produce enough ash to cover the earth.
-
Yes there is! Jesus fucking christ, all I've been providing is evidence that drastic CO2 increases lead to drastic climate change.
No, all you've been providing is evidence that, historically, a strong correlation <which is != causation, dammit> exists between drastic CO2 increases and drastic climate change.
-
@Fox said:
Yes there is! Jesus fucking christ, all I've been providing is evidence that drastic CO2 increases lead to drastic climate change.
No, all you've been providing is evidence that, historically, a strong correlation <which is != causation, dammit> exists between drastic CO2 increases and drastic climate change.
And direct evidence that CO2 is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, and to the changes in our oceans which then leads to increases in water vapor, which is the only contributor to the greenhouse effect which is more influential than CO2 itself.
-
-
CO2 is a major contributor to the greenhouse effect, and to the changes in our oceans which then leads to increases in water vapor, which is the only contributor to the greenhouse effect which is more influential than CO2 itself
That's a positive feedback loop. Let me show you how positive feedback loops work:
-
Floods, mostly. And then eternal winter.
So like The Day After Tomorrow. Awesome.
I'm just saying it's more consistent theory than that governments spending trillions of bucks really has any significant effect on global warming.
I think this sentence is missing at least one word.
Welcome to Earth, oh child of a distant star!
The funny thing is I was searching my brain to find the name of those aliens and couldn't come up with it, so I wrote thetans instead. Greys. Huh.
Every time CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen at anything close to the rapid rate we've seen in the past century, it was followed by a mass extinction that practically scoured the entire Earth of life.
Of life that didn't have air conditioners.
Plenty of things consume CO2, we just need to find something we can mass produce quickly and efficiently. That, or start seriously beefing up our space program.
The problem is no matter what we do, China, India, most of the countries in Africa, etc. won't. Even if they did, essentially uncontrollable natural events, like a bad forest fire season or a volcanic eruption can output far more than human civilization in a small fraction of the time-- the forest fires in Indonesia this season have put more CO2 in the atmosphere than all human activity in the US. For example. And Indonesia isn't even a very big country.
How the heck would the space program help?
In either case, we probably need more time than we have to actually accomplish either of those goals, so slowing down global warming would at least be a good start.
Why is time limited? What's the countdown at? What happens when the "deadline" passes?
-
and if that trend continues, in a span of centuries we will have equaled emissions linked to numerous mass extinctions.
Aren't we running out of oil in what was it, 50 years?
Then we probably won't have CO2 emissions for long either.
-
That's a positive feedback loop. Let me show you how positive feedback loops work:
Fortunately there are negative feedbacks too. For example, elevated carbonic acid levels cause greater levels of atmospheric weathering of rocks.
Study: Plankton's absorption of CO2 higher than assumed
