Bernie Sanders

[Heyo]

And some CO2 escapes the atmosphere.

Any particle that leaves earth has to go 11.2 km/s (look up "escape velocity"). That is most easy for light particles like hydrogen and helium. Oxygen will escape when separated into atoms. Carbon dioxide is stable and heavy. It's a random process so every now and then even a CO2 molecule gets accelerated enough but it is so rare that it doesn't really count.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Analogy wont work here since i trust the doctor (although that dont mean doctors arent wrong, because they can be).

I dont trust man made global warming (i.e. alarmism).

Plus, its reasonable that man can know more about how to save lives and address illnesses vs knowing all the ins and outs of climate, which would be way more complicated.

The analogy should hold, though, given it was meant to show that "likely" is a term to be taken seriously when dealing with a serious situation.

Hm...good question about which is more complex, body systems or climate! Considering we are just beginning to understand the influence of microbiomes on our health and development, I am not sure...

Well, apparently they did otherwise we wouldnt be here.

The ecosystems themselves have changed dramatically. Most forms of life have adapted having survived extinction level events wrought from changes in ecosystems.

I dont see "rapid" change going on. Ive been on the planet now 40 years and the weather seams to me to be completely normal.

I get that. I am 39, and I will say there has been some wonky weather in the past few years...

But I also recognize that localized weather is not global climate.

"Unlikely" is an assumption and thats not gonna work for me. The orbital (i Just gonna call it orbit cycles, just because i dont want to spell that guys name over and over) cycles happen and they do play a factor in climate.

They do. Just slower, and more importantly, these are factored into the deviations scientists have observed from the norm.

Most if not all the animals are still here on earth. Everything is doing fine.

I go into this in more detail later on, but we are in an extinction level event:

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

Extinction risk from global warming - Wikipedia

There is LOTS of trees around. Quite alot to take care of that pesky CO2.

Yet, deforestation of areas such as the Amazon have a huge impact on disrupting the Carbon cycle. Not only does it remove the trees, but also changes the soil composition (another carbon pool), and when a forest becomes farmland or--possibly worse--urbanized, you have an area no longer taking in Carbon but releasing it and possible even trapping heat.

Deforestation and climate change - Wikipedia

Give me an example of some species or ecosystem you think died off due to global warming?

Penguins, sea turtles, some rodent species come to mind. Wiki has a good article with lots of details including the history of our understanding of it: Extinction risk from global warming - Wikipedia

I fear most for the ocean. The ocean is our largest carbon sink, and in addition to overfishing and toxic chemicals, the dissolving of extra carbon into the ocean from the excess in the atmosphere is raising its acidity, disrupting this vital ecosystem, not too mention all of the melting glaciers changing salinity and temperatures.

 

[Jollybear]

No, you don't know. You have shown in other threads a very poor understanding of the physical sciences. I need just a little honesty on your part before we go on. If a person cannot be honest there is no helping them.

Why dont you stop telling me what i "dont know" and get to work telling me what you DO know.

Sound like a plan?

 

[Lyndon]

Why dont you stop telling me what i "dont know" and get to work telling me what you DO know.

Sound like a plan?

Still waiting for you to tell us your education in the sciences, or is the problem that there is none??

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why dont you stop telling me what i "dont know" and get to work telling me what you DO know.

Sound like a plan?

It appears that you are afraid to learn. You made some huge errors in your posts, such as claiming that CO2 would be lost to space. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the basics to physics. Let's go over that quickly. To escape from Earth an object must be moving at a bit more than 11 km/sec. That is quite a bit faster than the speed of sound. Even in the thermosphere, the hottest part of the atmosphere, CO2 is not even going to be moving at a tenth of that speed. Several mechanisms can remove gases from a planet. Those that affect the Earth tend to remove the lightest of molecules and very few of any above that. The gases that Earth loses to space is almost all hydrogen, about 3 kg/sec of hydrogen. About 50 gm/sec of helium, and minuscule amounts of heavier molecules. CO2 is of course even heavier than O2 and has a relatively low concentration. We lost almost no CO2 to space. Even if we lost it at the rate that hydrogen is lost that factor would be so small as to have no effect at all.

That is why you probably heard a long series of slaps as people face palmed upon reading your post where you said that CO2 is lost to space.

So would you like to learn how the Greenhouse Effect works? No criticism, just a lesson, of course you need to participate a bit. I won't lecture to no one.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Still waiting for you to tell us your education in the sciences, or is the problem that there is none??

I'd let it go. Jollybear seems willing to debate and discuss and the important part is getting the information across.

 

[Prometheus85]

I mostly approuch all subjects from a common sense standpoint. Climate change is no different to me.

That aside, ive done my research. Reading, listening to debates and lectures, bla bla.

But, you tell me what made you believe man is causing global warming and we can start there.

It’s truly amazing how you take most the extreme position on EVERY topic ALL THE TIME!

 

[Prometheus85]

Everyone knows they lobby.
But Bernie's hyperbole is dishonest.
And people take it literally.

When Trujmp lies, it's wrong.
Same goes for others.

so Bernie lied about oil companies lobbying millions to politicians in order to block climate change efforts?

 

[Revoltingest]

...Bernie...about oil companies lobbying millions....

I'd have no issue if he'd said that.

 

[Jollybear]

Still waiting for you to tell us your education in the sciences, or is the problem that there is none??

Check out post 51 and youl see how much of the sciences i know. And thats not all.

After you check out post 51, refute it and that will demonstrate to me how much of the "sciences" you know.

So....go ahead.

 

[Jollybear]

Any particle that leaves earth has to go 11.2 km/s (look up "escape velocity"). That is most easy for light particles like hydrogen and helium. Oxygen will escape when separated into atoms. Carbon dioxide is stable and heavy. It's a random process so every now and then even a CO2 molecule gets accelerated enough but it is so rare that it doesn't really count.

I agree CO2 dont escape alot. But it does some.

It gets absorbed by plants more so.

 

[Jollybear]

The analogy should hold, though, given it was meant to show that "likely" is a term to be taken seriously when dealing with a serious situation.

Hm...good question about which is more complex, body systems or climate! Considering we are just beginning to understand the influence of microbiomes on our health and development, I am not sure...



The ecosystems themselves have changed dramatically. Most forms of life have adapted having survived extinction level events wrought from changes in ecosystems.



I get that. I am 39, and I will say there has been some wonky weather in the past few years...

But I also recognize that localized weather is not global climate.



They do. Just slower, and more importantly, these are factored into the deviations scientists have observed from the norm.



I go into this in more detail later on, but we are in an extinction level event:

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

Extinction risk from global warming - Wikipedia



Yet, deforestation of areas such as the Amazon have a huge impact on disrupting the Carbon cycle. Not only does it remove the trees, but also changes the soil composition (another carbon pool), and when a forest becomes farmland or--possibly worse--urbanized, you have an area no longer taking in Carbon but releasing it and possible even trapping heat.

Deforestation and climate change - Wikipedia



Penguins, sea turtles, some rodent species come to mind. Wiki has a good article with lots of details including the history of our understanding of it: Extinction risk from global warming - Wikipedia

I fear most for the ocean. The ocean is our largest carbon sink, and in addition to overfishing and toxic chemicals, the dissolving of extra carbon into the ocean from the excess in the atmosphere is raising its acidity, disrupting this vital ecosystem, not too mention all of the melting glaciers changing salinity and temperatures.

Im gonna study your links and respond in depth when i finish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree CO2 dont escape alot. But it does some.

It gets absorbed by plants more so.

No. We can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can also tell where it came from. Plants can only absorb a limited amount.

 

[Prometheus85]

Yes, CO2 contributes to warming. But CO2 makes up such a tiny percent of the atmosphere and the earth had way more CO2 in its past then it does now and it did fine.

The total number of CO2 molecules above our heads in the atmosphere is more important than their percentage in the atmosphere. When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower. The combined effect of sun and CO2matches well with climate

And some CO2 escapes the atmosphere. And some gets absorbed by plants.

you ever heard of something called gravity? And too much co2 is not good for plants

 

[Subduction Zone]

Check out post 51 and youl see how much of the sciences i know. And thats not all.

After you check out post 51, refute it and that will demonstrate to me how much of the "sciences" you know.

So....go ahead.

That post shows how little you know about the sciences. Your first large error was in not understanding scientific language. In a journal one uses terms such as "likely". It means "all of the evidence supports this observation" . If one wrote a scientific article about a ball falling one would say "It is likely that the ball fell due to the effects of gravity". Your objection tells us of your lack of knowledge of journals. It was not a refutation of what you posted.

 

[Heyo]

I agree CO2 dont escape alot. But it does some.

It gets absorbed by plants more so.

Please look up "carbon cycle" in Wikipedia.
A lot of carbon gets absorbed by plants - but not all.
Imagine the earth as a giant bath tub. The tap represents the natural carbon emission and the drain the natural carbon uptake. As long as the uptake is at least the same as the emission the waterlevel will not rise. But when someone pisses into the tub, the water will rise. And it doesn't matter how little that **** is compared to the tap. It is that what is additional.

 

[Shad]

I agree CO2 dont escape alot. But it does some.

It gets absorbed by plants more so.

Humans have been bulldozing a lot of "plants". We have not been keeping any sort of parity between increased CO2 release and absorption. Agriculture created from former woodlands is not comparable in CO2 absorption to the woodlands. Human tend to develop out instead of up (area vs volume)

 

[Jollybear]

The analogy should hold, though, given it was meant to show that "likely" is a term to be taken seriously when dealing with a serious situation.

Since i dont believe in global warming, "likely" isnt going to be enough for me.

Hm...good question about which is more complex, body systems or climate! Considering we are just beginning to understand the influence of microbiomes on our health and development, I am not sure...

I think there both equally complicated, its just climate is much bigger, so harder to study.

The ecosystems themselves have changed dramatically. Most forms of life have adapted having survived extinction level events wrought from changes in ecosystems.

Ok

I get that. I am 39, and I will say there has been some wonky weather in the past few years...

Wonky as in normal or wonky as in not normal? What kind of weather?

In my 40 years of being on earth, all 4 seasons have been completely normal. I hear the news tell me believe in global warming, then everytime i go outside for 40 years, reality tells me dont believe global warming.

But I also recognize that localized weather is not global climate.

Well, the climate doesnt appear to be effecting the weather. And if it dont effect the weather then the climate isnt changing all that much.

They do. Just slower, and more importantly, these are factored into the deviations scientists have observed from the norm.

There factored into the norm huh? They have factored there co2 with the orbit cycles?

I go into this in more detail later on, but we are in an extinction level event:

Holocene extinction - Wikipedia

Extinction risk from global warming - Wikipedia

Im gonna quote from extinction risk first below then respond.

The scientific consensus in the 2014 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report is that:

A large fraction of both terrestrial and freshwater species faces increased extinction risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors, such as habitat modification, over-exploitation, pollution, and invasive species. Extinction risk is increased under all RCP scenarios, with risk increasing with both magnitude and rate of climate change. Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of climate change during the 21st century. Lower rates of climate change will pose fewer problems.

— IPCC, 2014

Notice the words "faces increased extinction risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors,

These are still only assumotions and predictions. This is not objective evidence. Its subjective. They even admit other stressors.

In one study published in Nature in 2004, between 15 and 37% of 1103 endemic or near-endemic known plant and animal species will be "committed to extinction" by 2050

Again, more predictions. Predictions arent proof. In fact im aware of a prediction they made in 1989 for 2000 and it did not happen.

Other researchers, such as Thuiller et al.,[4] Araújo et al.,[5] Person et al.,[6] Buckley and Roughgarden,[7] and Harte et al.[8] have raised concern regarding uncertainty in Thomas et al.'s projections;

See that? Admitting uncertainty in the projections.

In 2008, the white lemuroid possum was reported to be the first known mammal species to be driven extinct by man-made global warming. However, these reports were based on a misunderstanding. One population of these possums in the mountain forests of northern Queensland is severely threatened by climate change as the animals cannot survive extended temperatures over 30 °C. However, another population 100 kilometres south remains in good health

Notice it corrects the assumption of a species going extinct by global warming? Based on a misunderstanding.

According to research published in the January 4, 2012 Proceedings of the Royal Society B current climate models may be flawed because they overlook two important factors: the differences in how quickly species relocate and competition among species. According to the researchers, led by Mark C. Urban, an ecologist at the University of Connecticut, diversity decreased when they took these factors into account, and that new communities of organisms, which do not exist today, emerged. As a result the rate of extinctions may be higher than previously projected.

More admission from the article. Modeks may be flawed. And relocation and compitition of species they admit.

Yet, deforestation of areas such as the Amazon have a huge impact on disrupting the Carbon cycle. Not only does it remove the trees, but also changes the soil composition (another carbon pool), and when a forest becomes farmland or--possibly worse--urbanized, you have an area no longer taking in Carbon but releasing it and possible even trapping heat.

Ya, but there is SO many trees in the world. Theres just so many. Its mind bogling how many trees there are. We cant wrap our head around how many.

I dont have enough time to respond to more, nor is it fruitful for our discussion to make posts too big. So, ill give you this for now.

 

[Lyndon]

If you don't think climate change is effecting the weather, you must be living in a cave or something!!

 

[Jollybear]

If you don't think climate change is effecting the weather, you must be living in a cave or something!!

Why is the weather for my whole life NORMAL weather?

Your telling me to defy my experience and my own eyes!