If climate change folks want to be taken more seriously, stop making stupid #$@ articles like this.

[Guy Threepwood]

Who do you think is funding this massive conspiracy to convince the world that climate change is a reality?

ever pay taxes?

 

[Thief]

http://news.yahoo.com/report-world-run-breathable-air-unless-carbon-cut-210604512.html



Give me a break!

we live in a spherical petri dish.

I heard one scientist (sorry I forgot the name) make report.....
the sum of chemistry on this planet can support only 9billion people.

climate change is simply speeding us to a quicker end.
the end is near!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thief]

as for climate change .....
can anyone bring up the infra-red satellite photos taken when such tech first started.....
compared to more recent photos

I saw this once on tv.

the plush forest around the equator is almost gone.
the temp is going up as the green stuff disappears.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There really is no "x-pounds of carbons = y-increase in temperature."

Absolutely there is. a doubling of CO2- all things being even- would equate to roughly a 1 degree increase in ave global temps. there is fairly good agreement here (scientifically) on both sides. Because that's the direct forcing of CO2

If this ever happened this would be overwhelmingly weighted towards the coldest regions and times, because the GH effect is a form of insulation- i.e. the poles, in winter, at night- reducing overall temp contrast and hence net energy available to global weather systems.

Everything else relies 100% on hypothetical computer simulated feedback loops- to take over where our miniscule replenishing/recycling of atmospheric CO2 leaves off. They generally rely on water vapor feedback, not CO2, don't take my word for it, ask a climastrologist.

There is no known scientific mechanism by which one or two molecules CO2 in 10000 air can have any significant direct effect on our weather.

IT does have an effect on plants though, the planet is already slightly greener because of our replenishing of the nutrient which drives photosynthesis, which makes Earth green.

The greatest catastrophe in all of this is having to mow our lawns slightly more frequently

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Absolutely there is. a doubling of CO2- all things being even- would equate to roughly a 1 degree increase in ave global temps. there is fairly good agreement here (scientifically) on both sides. Because that's the direct forcing of CO2

Funny that you, with your obvious lack of scientific education, would claim such a thing when climatologists do not. But you have been proven wrong, time and time again, over multiple threads, but you still go on about the same stuff about how only a "few molecules" won't make a difference (even though just a small amount of many different things can make a profound difference) and that the scientific community does not agree with global warming (even though well over 90% do, and you have been shown lists of those that do).

 

[Twilight Hue]

we live in a spherical petri dish.

I heard one scientist (sorry I forgot the name) make report.....
the sum of chemistry on this planet can support only 9billion people.

climate change is simply speeding us to a quicker end.
the end is near!!!!!!!!!

It seems the only science being put out is the conditions by which our potential end comes about. There seems to be no readily available information by which shows situation as it stands. Like present quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at this very moment coupled with what the accumulated estimates of greenhouse producing organisms and natural sources are putting out, so that the main source of all this can be identified.

I would think estimating thresholds and it's effects would require as well, identification and measuring of various sources so that it can be identified and pointed out specifically as behind the problem itself.

Apocalyptic scenarios and conditions are not enough. You need more than that. Dosent help a whole lot if there is no actual real world data available that can be measured and tested to show it's the actual case with any particular source that it's enough to effect the earth atmosphere to that extent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IT does have an effect on plants though, the planet is already slightly greener because of our replenishing of the nutrient which drives photosynthesis, which makes Earth green.

There is no way it's "greener" because we are killing off the green. We have far less acres of forests, of jungles, of anywhere natural and there is no place on Earth left untouched by industry. We even now have massive garbage patches in our oceans because of our industry, consumption, and just not giving a **** about the Earth. If we truly cared, this would not happen:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That lighter in the body of the albatross pretty much sums up climate change as a whole: we give not one single **** about what we do to the environment, we don't give one single **** about what it does to us, and we all flip each other the bird as we go on our culturally prescribed ways of destruction, extinction, suicide, and murder.

 

[Kirran]

ever pay taxes?

So all governments are in on this?

 

[Thief]

It seems the only science being put out is the conditions by which our potential end comes about. There seems to be no readily available information by which shows situation as it stands. Like present quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at this very moment coupled with what the accumulated estimates of greenhouse producing organisms and natural sources are putting out, so that the main source of all this can be identified.

I would think estimating thresholds and it's effects would require as well, identification and measuring of various sources so that it can be identified and pointed out specifically as behind the problem itself.

Apocalyptic scenarios and conditions are not enough. You need more than that. Dosent help a whole lot if there is no actual real world data available that can be measured and tested to show it's the actual case with any particular source that it's enough to effect the earth atmosphere to that extent.

I get that....
the documentary I saw was two hour special about the ten worst scenario of extinction.

the one fellow spoke for only a moment and his perspective was straightforward.
given the amount of chemistry in the sphere we live in.....and the amount of such that supports human life.....
9billion is top end.

Have you seen the old movie.....Soylent Green?

 

[Thief]

That lighter in the body of the albatross pretty much sums up climate change as a whole: we give not one single **** about what we do to the environment, we don't give one single **** about what it does to us, and we all flip each other the bird as we go on our culturally prescribed ways of destruction, extinction, suicide, and murder.

did see a photo in National Geo....
a woman in the foreground was drawing water from a stream....as it has been in her Chinese villages for ages.....
and in the background..... a large factory.

China doesn't have an EPA

 

[Thief]

has anyone seen....An Inconvenient Truth....
narrated by Al Gore

 

[metis]

has anyone seen....An Inconvenient Truth....
narrated by Al Gore

Yes.

 

[Thief]

Yes.

well?.....did you believe any part of it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

did see a photo in National Geo....
a woman in the foreground was drawing water from a stream....as it has been in her Chinese villages for ages.....
and in the background..... a large factory.

China doesn't have an EPA

China doesn't have it and we're trying to get rid of it. It may be an inconvenience for some people in various areas, but the inconveniences are better than the alternative.

 

[metis]

well?.....did you believe any part of it?

Most of it was quite accurate, but on such matters one does not "believe"-- either one accepts the overwhelming evidence that what climate scientists the world over have stated is true or they just ignore the obvious and believe that the talking-heads at Fox are much more knowledgeable about such matters.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So all governments are in on this?

the I in IPCC stands for 'intergovernmental'- Hardly a conspiracy theory is it?! that word suggests some sort of concealment of a group agenda.

e.g.

10's of thousands of qualified independent skeptics, being secretly paid off by evil oil companies to destroy the planet.. that would be a conspiracy theory

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Funny that you, with your obvious lack of scientific education, would claim such a thing when climatologists do not. But you have been proven wrong, time and time again, over multiple threads, but you still go on about the same stuff about how only a "few molecules" won't make a difference (even though just a small amount of many different things can make a profound difference) and that the scientific community does not agree with global warming (even though well over 90% do, and you have been shown lists of those that do).

they do, I promise you, ask one. the theory relies on hypothetical simulated feedback loops, largely concerning water vapor, cloud formation, not CO2 directly- this is pretty basic stuff if you scratch the surface.

It's not a 'few' molecules- in fact it is slightly over ONE molecule CO2 in TEN THOUSAND of air-

You can at least do this math yourself

current levels approx. 400ppm.
minus 275 pre-industrial
= 125 per million or 1.25 in 10,000

No sane climatologist contends that the direct forcing of this tiny addition of CO2 can trap significant heat directly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's not a 'few' molecules- in fact it is slightly over ONE molecule CO2 in TEN THOUSAND of air-

You've been lowering your number.

No sane climatologist contends that the direct forcing of this tiny addition of CO2 can trap significant heat directly.

But climatologists almost nearly unanimously agree that our carbon emissions, industrial and living habits, and our practice of burning fossil fuels are indeed causing the Earth to warm up. So am I supposed to believe that all of these people are not sane, or believe that they probably know what they are talking about because they study the subject, they are well schooled in the subject, and have access to information and data that those outside of their field do not?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You've been lowering your number.

But climatologists almost nearly unanimously agree that our carbon emissions, industrial and living habits, and our practice of burning fossil fuels are indeed causing the Earth to warm up.

I agree with this also

albeit in a relative sense (1998 was the peak), but yes the world is technically very slightly warmer today than it would have been without our contribution of CO2.
As my house is when I light a candle


And if you look at the questions behind those 90+% consensus headlines, they are usually similarly technical definitions which most skeptics would technically agree with- Hollywood disaster movie scenarios are another thing entirely.- that's where science ends and journalism, politics, ideology takes over

The Ordovician ice age had >1000% of the 'atmospheric CO2 pollution' we have today. It's simply not a primary driver, the only casual correlation ever observed is that CO2 lags temps by about 900 years.
Not the other way around, even if the opposite correlation can be suggested when you zoom out on the chart far enough, as Al Gore did in his movie

So am I supposed to believe that all of these people are not sane, or believe that they probably know what they are talking about because they study the subject, they are well schooled in the subject, and have access to information and data that those outside of their field do not?

99% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, 99% of cryptozooligists believe in Big Foot, and they should know, they're the experts right? they've studied the evidence far more than we have!

Does this mean we must accept their superior opinions?

I don't think they are insane either, they just have a different perspective, they read the evidence differently, and yes they go in with the hope of supporting certain conclusions - that's the nature of humanity coalesced into like minded thinking

Would you not agree at least in principle- that this is the reason the central point of science is NOT having to take anybody's word for it?