Let's watch global warming deniers' heads explode
- Thread starter countryroads89_rivals
- Start date
What does the writer's bio have to do with the NASA data showing not only no melting, but an expansion?
I was referring to those who would sacrifice their economic future for something as muddled as climate change when climate has always changed
Because there is no expansion. There is a net loss of ice on the face of the earth.
Leave the science to scientists, not attorneys.
There was a large loss of icea fter each ice age melted away. The surface of the sun is 5,500 degrees Celsius and 15,000,000 at the center. One tough mother and she has been determining our weather since earth began not a bunch of neurotic hippies.
Hey Mr. Science, what do you attribute the rise in CO2 to in the last century or so? Is this rise in CO2 levels contributing to any warming that may be occurring?
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide
Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.
Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the "Anthropocene", one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.
If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. This graph not only conveys the scientific measurements, but it also underscores the fact that humans have a great capacity to change the climate and planet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
Hey Mr. Science, what do you attribute the rise in CO2 to in the last century or so? Is this rise in CO2 levels contributing to any warming that may be occurring?
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide
Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.
Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the "Anthropocene", one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.
If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. This graph not only conveys the scientific measurements, but it also underscores the fact that humans have a great capacity to change the climate and planet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
From the President's own White House initiative, the temperature has risen a whopping 1* degree in the last 100 years. A f**king 1 degree and you morons are willing to rweck our economy because some socialist wants to tell you what you can drive and how warm you can keep your house or how your state makes electricity. CO2 is good for plants and there is no evidence that there is any actual problems from any climate change. More people die from cold than heat.
Hey Mr. Science, what do you attribute the rise in CO2 to in the last century or so? Is this rise in CO2 levels contributing to any warming that may be occurring?
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide
Since the temperature rise has been about 1* in the last 100 years, then you can't say the Co2 levels caused it. Still, I wish those who want to stop coal burning electrical plants to volunteer to have their electricity cut so we don't have to use as much. I'm tired of having my tax support sources that need help be cost effective.
Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.
Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the "Anthropocene", one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.
If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. This graph not only conveys the scientific measurements, but it also underscores the fact that humans have a great capacity to change the climate and planet.
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
When you get tired of making stuff up, scroll up to the articles that I linked at 8:57am today. As long as things are ok for your last few years on the planet, who cares about future generations? Fortunately others aren't so short sighted.
Check out the World Meterological Organization position on what you said. You'd be surprised that they actually cannot find any correlation. Just to make one thing clear, I am not against efforts to clean up the planet. I'm against our President continually ruining what's left of our economy with make believe stuff and the real culprits for CO2 is India and China and they aren't doing much to help. Our country has done great things with reducing Co2 and to continually put more and more stress on our economy is ruining working peoples lives.
The CO2 cycle is roughly 300 million years. When the atmosphere becomes saturated, CO2 is precipitated (It rains, as it were, in the shallow quiescent seas.) In other words, the CO2 combines with Calcium, and Limestone 'drops out' and forms on the sea floors. This 'rain' of limestone occurs under water and builds up. Calcium rich life (coral, conchs, bivalves, bony fish, etc.) flourishes during these precipitous events. With a concerted effort, working 'round the clock, man could change the 300 mil cycle by one percent.
Do I get thrown into the abyss if I do not know the answer? The problem is, many liberals want to keep us from using the things that are plentiful and makes sense for those that we have to subsidize. The US has done it's part in reducing levels of Co2 but we can't do anything about China and India. I hope you have seen Monte Python's Holy grail or that first reference means nothing.
What are you attributing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere that accelerated during the industrial age (early 1800's to the present) to? Are you saying that man is not playing a role in the "recent" spike in atmospheric CO2 levels? With the oceans acidifying, how's that all going to play out? My link goes counter to much you've said.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification?
However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.
The Biological Impacts
Ocean acidification is expected to impact ocean species to varying degrees. Photosynthetic algae and seagrasses may benefit from higher CO2 conditions in the ocean, as they require CO2 to live just like plants on land. On the other hand, studies have shown that a more acidic environment has a dramatic effect on some calcifying species, including oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. When shelled organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk. Today, more than a billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. Many jobs and economies in the U.S. and around the world depend on the fish and shellfish in our oceans.
Which is "But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."
- Liberal/Socialist governments fund global warming studies. They want global warming to be true. They want more taxes. They really want a global tax.
- Universities gain by this government funding
- Individual university employees gain by reporting that global warming is true, in that they keep getting funding.
Do you think that the fossil fuel industries have something to gain by denying it as well, potentially more than any of the above?
I believe the majority of scientists working in climatology. The warming happening. While it isn't entirely manmade, we are adding to it. A lot of the projections have been too high, and I understand that is a sticking point with a lot of folks. I work in predictive modeling, and hitting the nail on the head is not something that is common. You have to make assumptions about what is going to happen in the future (anomalous events, etc) and base your predictions on what information you have right now. I'll add that I've been to places in Alaska where glaciers that were huge year round 50 years ago have all but disappeared. The talk about sea ice has no bearing on the polar caps. In fact, that could easily be seen as a sign of a loss there - ice that breaks off a cap becomes sea ice. That's not a sign of cooling, but one of warming.
Having said all of that, I'm pragmatic about solutions. I think you have to move toward future energy solutions while not losing sight of what it takes to keep the economy moving forward. You can't abandon fossil fuels. You can move toward "green" solutions, and there is a lot of economic benefit to doing that. We became an economic power in the world because of forward thinking in industry and power production. If we abandon forward thinking, we are simply holding on to status quo and letting someone else become that emerging power when the status quo becomes more and more expensive. You still take coal and gas and oil out of the ground though. It's not going away soon, and you can always export those things as they become less and less necessary to sustain our economy.
There's nobody on the left that is pragmatic. When the fossil fuels start running out, science will make the other forms more economical. Taking my hard earned tax money and giving to the crappy people like solyndra so they can give money back to Obama should be prosecuted on the Federal level. Today, McCauliff's Green tech company is going to be sued for non payment of money for green car jobs promises. Imagine that, green jobs not producing because they can't deliver without taking tax money to cover their expenses. Green jobs are not green because of the environment but because they take green from our govt to keep them afloat and those companies keep giving money to the party in power, mostly dems. It's a crock of crap.
My stance is basically what Hillary said in the second debate when asked about the situation.
All green jobs are government money suckers ... well maybe not Tesla. You see what you want to see. Solyndra failed mainly because China dumped solar panels on the market below cost in order to kill competition. We give subsidies to oil companies to this day, so I'm not opposed to some incentives or grants to companies that are trying to prepare for the next generation of power production. Also, I can almost throw a rock and hit a huge field of wind farms, and I drive by several solar farms on a regular basis. It's not like the technology we've developed thus far isn't already producing.
If you know me you know I don't favor subsidies for anybody. How come wind farms get preferential treatment for killing birds of prey? The federal govt penalizes traditional power companies when birds land on the power lines and are killed. Just picking winners and losers. Solyndra failed becaseu of it's business model. They applied in the bush admin but were turned down and advised the Obama admin to turn them down too. Of course, Obama was friends with the cEO who was a bundler and as soon as the 550 mill changed hands, he gave Obama several mill back and then declared bankruptcy. You are wrong on that one. Obama is only interested in things that give the govt more power.
As you may have noticed I gave you a "like" and a "well done" for your 2:13 post. I missed most of the debate.....What were Clintons comments regarding her "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." comment?
I did see that, and thanks for that. She really didn't respond to that specifically. The question was from the guy in the red sweater, and she basically said that she wasn't looking to move off of fossil fuels on day 1, only to try to look toward the future while still working with existing technology.
While she put miners out of work, which is her private position not her public one that she was saying in the debate. Duplicitous liar that she is.
That may be true. Who really knows what sort of policy either will put in place when in office? I know some of what she is proposing as her platform will never pass - the free college thing for one. I can see a ton of that in Trump's platform as well though. Politicians politic when running for office. Just because this is Trump's first run doesn't make him any different. We just don't have evidence of failure to delivery on campaign promises from him. We do have evidence that he failed to live up to his end of contracts as a businessman though. Maybe we should take that into consideration when analyzing the "truthiness" of these 2 candidates.