by BurnTheShips 79 Replies latest members politics
1. Humans didn't evolve during the Ordovician. Our civilization has devloped over a relatively stable climactic period with relatively stable CO2 levels. CO2 levels are now currently the highest they've been since Homosapiens have been around.
2. Gondwana moved over the south pole causing glaciation.
3. Preceding that ice age CO2 levels fell from 7000ppm to about 4000ppm.
CO2 levels are now currently the highest they've been since Homosapiens have been around.
"China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. The British summer has also left many yearning for global warming, with temperatures in June and July rarely struggling to get over 16 degrees and on one occasion even dropping as low as 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon."
“Summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century’s opening decade,” reports the Chicago Tribune. “There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That’s by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.”
I live in Minnesota, our summer didn't really get going until July...time for farmers to get those cows to increase farting.
@RGB - I need you to slow down a little and read my question once more:
how many ppm of atmospheric CO2 would you set as a maximum upper limit?
I even told you I didn't want cut and paste in answer, but nevertheless you say:
but anyhow here is the answer you want me to parrott a-www-k the government says and I the will dutifully puppetishly repeat that.......
and then hit me with some cut and paste from the NASA website - if I want to know what a whole variety of US Government agencies think they have recently been usefully combined in a single location at www.globalchange.gov - of course Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Smithsonian Institution, Agency for International Development, Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency are all party to the biggest confidence trick ever but I digress.
I want to know what YOU think is the safe upper limit. No cut and paste. Just a 3 or 4 digit number followed by 'ppm'.
No burn you and read have become the forums political equivalent of JCanon.
Perfect analogy.
"China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. The British summer has also left many yearning for global warming, with temperatures in June and July rarely struggling to get over 16 degrees and on one occasion even dropping as low as 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon."
“Summer heat continues in short supply, continuing a trend that has dominated much of the 21st Century’s opening decade,” reports the Chicago Tribune. “There have been only 162 days 90 degrees or warmer at Midway Airport over the period from 2000 to 2008. That’s by far the fewest 90-degree temperatures in the opening nine years of any decade on record here since 1930.”
@RGB - are you capable of grasping the difference between global climate and local weather. If you are capable then please describe in your own words the relevance of the cut and paste you just made here.
If you are incapable of working out this difference then please cut and paste some more 'stuff'.
"@RGB - are you capable of grasping the difference between global climate and local weather. If you are capable then please describe in your own words the relevance of the cut and paste you just made here.
If you are incapable of working out this difference then please cut and paste some more 'stuff'."
I am not a scientist, I have taken enough science in college to be able to read and understand it but I prefer to quote scientist because the minute I put my opinion on CO 2 levels etc. I expect to be criticized for that, however let me ask you Besty if I don't beleive in Global Warming what answer could I give you to CO 2 levels, that's kind of obvious??
They are scientist I am quoting who are stating the temperture/weather as an issue on Global Warming, are you saying they are incapable of grasping the GW issues? Am I am suppose to give my personal analysis on the temp of oceans and whether it's rising, whether my studies show an increase in hurricaines and tornadoes, and if my scientific experiements show the glacial mass in the Artic increasing, and should I run out and count the Polar Bears? Some posters have made statements without any science study backup but as along as their on your side of the issue that's fine?
You tell me Besty, why don't you tell me your opinions you go first this time, you stick your neck out first this time. Remeber you are repeating the Government's postions on Global Warming, considering the recent bills going through Congress to criminalize free speech its nice and safe to be on the establishments side of this issue isn't it. (edited)
"No burn you and read have become the forums political equivalent of JCanon.
Perfect analogy".
Beks, I was debating issues not attacking posters, I don't personally attack and compare you to other posters.
Edit - what does 'not consistently complete' mean?
What I meant was that there is a serious question over whether we can actually measure season by season global temperatures of a mass as great as the Earth atmosphere by the limited observations which are possible through current technology.
Even if those limited observation indicate a pattern of recent cooling, the believers in this Gore religion will dismiss it like a Jehovah's Witness looking for the end...if there is war, then the end is near. If there is no war, then beware - they are saying "peace and security" and the end is near.
This is about taxing the American public in an extreme manner such as never seen before an nothing else. No global CO2 levels will be reduced.
It is just a massive tax (and the beneficiaries are people like Al Gore, who is making millions of this).
I am not a scientist, I have taken enough science in college to be able to read and understand it but I prefer to quote scientist because the minute I put my opinion on CO 2 levels etc. I expect to be criticized for that, however let me ask you Besty if I don't beleive in Global Warming what answer could I give you to CO 2 levels, that's kind of obvious??
Am I right in deducing from the above you do not believe the planet is getting warmer, and further to that you believe an unlimited amount of atmospheric CO2 is fine, as we aren't warming and CO2 is not responsible in any case?
Is that a fair summary of what you believe?
They are scientist I am quoting who are stating the temperture/weather as an issue on Global Warming, are you saying they are incapable of grasping the GW issues?
I would first of all ask if they are climate scientists you are quoting - that's why I like to see the source material if possible. If the scientist you are quoting is making an elementary mistake, such as you have made, by confusing global climate with local weather then yes, I would question their objectivity and why they are confusing the public with misinformation.
If you want to know the difference between local weather events and global climate change then ask me and I will help you.
Am I am suppose to give my personal analysis on the temp of oceans and whether it's rising, whether my studies show an increase in hurricaines and tornadoes, and if my scientific experiements show the glacial mass in the Artic increasing, and should I run out and count the Polar Bears?
No, but it might be useful for all of us to understand where the majority of experts hold their opinion on these topics.
Some posters have made statements without any science study backup but as along as their on your side of the issue that's fine?
If they are making statements that are demonstrably false then feel free to correct them with contrary evidence - the people reading these threads will make their own mind up about who has the most compelling, logical and well founded argument.
You tell me Besty, why don't you tell me your opinions you go first this time, you stick your neck out first this time.
Let's bear in mind you appear to have conceded that you don't want to/can't answer the question, or are frightened of criticism or something.
But seeing as you asked so nicely :-)
I am persuaded that the planet is warming, that human caused emissions of GHGs are significant, that natural feedback loops will amplify and exacerbate the situation, and that we can and should do something about it. 450ppm CO2 by 2050 seems to be a headline figure that has acceptance by climate scientists. This correlates to a reduction in CO2 emissions of about 80% and a temperature increase of 2 deg C above pre-Industrial levels.
RGB, www.realclimate.org
Read the June 26th post. By the way, the Sun was much colder during the Ordovician, at least 10% less than present..
@JWoods
What I meant was that there is a serious question over whether we can actually measure season by season global temperatures of a mass as great as the Earth atmosphere by the limited observations which are possible through current technology.
Can you can supply primary source peer reviewed research which supports this 'serious question'?
I would say you are either uneducated on the subject or are being disengenous. NASA GISS and the CRU both have extensive global suraface temperature records going back 150 years. Additionally there is satellite data, radiosondes data, borehole analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise, proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate, and permafrost melt statistics. I am happy to support all these methods with more data if you wish. The data is unequivocal - the planet is warming.
In the absence of the research I have asked you to provide I would offer that you are making a classic denier response of 'we don't have enough data yet' - same as the tobacco apologists did 20 years ago.
Even if those limited observation indicate a pattern of recent cooling
Sorry JWoods - is it 'recent' or is it a 'pattern'? Pointing out that temperatures have recently receded from an all time high is a classic denier cherry-pick. How can you look at the graph above and say that the recent cooling is any way indicative of the long term trend?
This is about taxing the American public in an extreme manner such as never seen before an nothing else.
Excuse me - the USA has just recently engaged in the global (as in a real World Series that includes other countries) effort to stop the planet heating up. How can you say with a straight face that thousands of scientists and government officials from hundreds of countries have been engaged in a decades long conspiracy to tax Americans? That doesn't even make sense. Of course BP and Shell, two of the worlds biggest oil companies have also joined the global conspiracy to con the American taxpayers. On climate change they say, and I quote:
"There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases."
"Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate."
So scientists first, the public second, politicians third and grudgingly last Big Oil concur that burning thousands of millions of tons of fossil fuels may not be a good idea for the climate. Exactly who is on the conspiracy theory side of this argument? Oh yes - the usual suspects crackpot deniers either taking backhanders from Big Oil or those with an ideological position that doesn't allow for government intervention.
No global CO2 levels will be reduced.
Exactly what are you basing this statement on? What are your credentials for being so dogmatic in opposition to mainstream climate science?
It is just a massive tax (and the beneficiaries are people like Al Gore, who is making millions of this)
Thousands of scientists in agreement about the causes of climate change - with many of them having dedicated their entire lives work to investigating the cause of what they observe - to make Al Gore rich? What a shameful and disgustingly crass slap in the face you offer to these men and women. I hope you have a think about what you are saying. What have you offered to the advancement of knowledge on this planet? What is your legacy JWoods?
Perhaps you can answer a few questions for me - in addition to those posed above:
1 - What in your opinion is the safe upper limit for atmosperhic CO2?
2 - Is climate change primarily a matter for climate scientists or politicians?
EDIT - I also note you haven't retracted your inaccurate Obama quote on lightbulbs and energy consumption. Like most deniers you spread your halftruths on the internet and leave them to fester like toxic waste. It's not about winning the argument for people like you, just confusing everyone else with your worthless graffiti.
