Is Climate Change real or a Hoax

[Jollybear]

You have been shown quite a bit of evidence and you waved it off. This indicates that at best you do not understand the evidence.

Let's start at the beginning. Do you understand the Greenhouse Effect?

Correct me if im wrong, the greenhouse effect means plants are growing more easy due to more co2?

 

[Jollybear]

If we don’t know about consensus, why did you post a video form YouTube saying the consensus of 90% of scientists saying global warming is a threat is wrong?

I dont care about consensus. I believe scientists signed that paper that says human caused has issues.

But, i dont care. I care about evidence, not consensus. Screw consensus.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Correct me if im wrong, the greenhouse effect means plants are growing more easy due to more co2?

Incorrect. The green house effect is the warming of the atmosphere due to "greenhouse gases" retaining more solar radiation, leading to increased warming.

Further, while it IS true that plants inspire CO2, to much atmospheric CO2 kills them, so the PRATT talking point "but plants are happier with more CO2, so more CO2 is a good thing is misleading, at best. Can plants suffer from CO2 poisoning?

 

[siti]

Correct me if im wrong, the greenhouse effect means plants are growing more easy due to more co2?

Wrong. More CO2 in the atmosphere does have a 'fertilization' effect on plant growth...but, the limiting factor in plant growth is usually not CO2 availability, its availability of nitrogen. The 'greenhouse effect' is a result of increased CO2 (and other gases) in the atmosphere, and not the cause of it. The greenhouse effect is a natural feature of the atmospheric cycles and increasing the levels of CO2 causes the surface temperature to rise which - depending on the circumstances in different places - may add stress by increasing evaporation of water from soils. In any case, any increased growth induced by increased levels of CO2 would probably be short-lived because the enhanced growth of one year's crop will deplete other soil nutrients (esp nitrogen) more quickly and less will be available for subsequent years...which means more dependence on artificial fertilization of soils...

So its kind of true that plants grow better if there's more CO2, but it really doesn't help.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So its kind of true that plants grow better if there's more CO2, but it really doesn't help.

Only to a certain point. Like most things, there is a range where CO2 is good for plants, but outside that range, to little or too much, it becomes deleterious.

 

[siti]

Only to a certain point. Like most things, there is a range where CO2 is good for plants, but outside that range, to little or too much, it becomes deleterious.

Correct! It is complicated.

CO2 toxicity levels for plants is way above current atmospheric levels but problems start at much lower levels than that...plants on elevated CO2 levels are a bit like athletes on steroids - short term gains in apparent bulk and performance offset by serious and ongoing health problems...from what I have read (and can recall) plants in increased CO2 atmospheres do get short term fertilization effects - but they also grow thicker leaves, and in some cases growth is ultimately stunted because - for some reason they also become less effective at absorbing nitrogen - even if the nitrogen is there. Thicker leaves are bad because the lower surface area to weight ratio makes them less efficient at absorbing CO2 - which presumably pushes the equilibrium back towards slower growth anyway - but impairment of nitrogen absorption is potentially lethal - and the worst of it is that both these problems not only impact on crop production, but also on the earth's ability to absorb CO2 - so its potentially yet another runaway scenario that will only really correct itself when the causes of elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are eliminated from the cycle. The only question is whether that elimination is by our choice.

 

[Jollybear]

Incorrect. The green house effect is the warming of the atmosphere due to "greenhouse gases" retaining more solar radiation, leading to increased warming.

Further, while it IS true that plants inspire CO2, to much atmospheric CO2 kills them, so the PRATT talking point "but plants are happier with more CO2, so more CO2 is a good thing is misleading, at best. Can plants suffer from CO2 poisoning?

Ok, so, when gasses get trapped in the atmaspher, does they release somehow?

 

[siti]

Ok, so, when gasses get trapped in the atmaspher, does they release somehow?

The gases are the atmosphere...that is part of the atmosphere...the problem with 'greenhouse gases' is that they trap heat within the vicinity of the surface of the earth - which is essential to life on earth - without any 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere, life would be impossible because it would be far too cold...but with too much of them in the atmosphere, it gets hotter and hotter - like inside a greenhouse on a hot day - and if it gets too hot...well that's bad too. The whole thing is a finely balanced cycle in which carbon (for example) and nitrogen (for another) and water (yet another) are distributed between being held at the surface - in plants, soils, oceans, animals etc. and being released into the atmosphere...the problem at present is that by burning carbon (coal, oil, wood...etc.) at increasing rates, and by having inordinate levels of livestock and intensive mono-cropping agricultural activity, humans are releasing carbon into the atmosphere as CO2 at a much faster rate than it can be reabsorbed by plants. That is why the levels in the atmosphere are increasing. And that, in turn, causes the atmosphere to absorb more heat and the surface temperature to increase...when that happens, everything changes - the water cycle, the ocean currents, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events...etc. And all of these are obviously potential threats to humanity.

 

[Prometheus85]

Yes, but we are overdue for an ice age. You are ignoring that.



That is what is inconclusive. We don't know where the natural warming/cooling ends and man made begins, because the cycle has been delayed.

We are overdue for an ice age, that’s true. But climate Change is stalling it.

Greenhouse gases began warming the world’s oceans in the early 1800s, Scientists generally regard the later part of the 19th century as the point at which human activity started influencing the climate. The natural cycle isn’t going to end hence the term "natural" the natural cycle is still happening, but it plays such a small role because of human activity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct me if im wrong, the greenhouse effect means plants are growing more easy due to more co2?

No. Not at all. Without CO2 in our atmosphere it would be much colder. Without the greenhouse effect the average temperature of the Earth would be about -18 C or 0 F. So CO2 is not a bad thing. The problem is that too much can be just as bad as too little.

It is not a hard concept to understand but you will need some background first. Without greenhouse gases our planet would follow the Stefan Boltzmann Law:

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

This is not at all controversial since the law can be easily tested in the lab. And we can measure how much energy hits the Earth and its albedo. That allows us to calculate what Earth's temperature "should" be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, so, when gasses get trapped in the atmaspher, does they release somehow?

Heat that is reabsorbed is radiated in all directions. What that means instead of going out into space some of it goes back to the Earth with a net result that the Earth is warmed.

 

[Prometheus85]

I dont care about consensus. I believe scientists signed that paper that says human caused has issues.

But, i dont care. I care about evidence, not consensus. Screw consensus.

If you don’t care about consensus, why did post that video titled "what about the 97% consensus"? I Also I provided evidence saying scientists that signed the petition was false propaganda. But apparently you still wanna argue from ignorance.

 

[Enoch07]

Greenhouse gases began warming the world’s oceans in the early 1800s, Scientists generally regard the later part of the 19th century as the point at which human activity started influencing the climate.

To be fair that's also only when reliable records were able to be kept, around 1850. The data before that is "iffy" and the further you go back the less reliable it is. Which still begs the question where does nature's changes end and mans changes begin.

That is the question that nobody can honestly answer at this point. Regardless, reducing pollution and taking better care of the planet is just prudent, regardless of who or what is causing climate change.

Just need to find better ways to incentivize folks to do it other than screaming the sky is falling.

 

[Prometheus85]

I dont care about consensus. I believe scientists signed that paper that says human caused has issues.

But, i dont care. I care about evidence, not consensus. Screw consensus.

You keep saying all u care about is evidence. Well a few people on this thread provided you with evidence and all u keep doing is dismissing that evidence. Now I don’t know why you continue to maintain your viewpoint, in spite or perhaps because of the evidence to the contrary. Or maybe it’s because your completely ignorant when it comes to climate change.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ok, so, when gasses get trapped in the atmaspher, does they release somehow?

... no... that's kind of the problem.

To clarify, the gasses aren't "trapped", it's solar radiation that is trapped. The atmosphere is a mix of gases, with different gases in different quantties. Various geological, atmospheric and biological systems have kept the different gasses within a stable homeostatic range for a very long time. The problem is that for the past 200 years, humans have been burning fossil fuels at a rate in excess of what the natural systems can absorb, and as a result, various greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the most obvious one, have increased way outside of the normal ranges, and the more CO2 there is, the more it effects the climate, and the more it effects the climate, the less able the natural systems are able to deal with it.

The atmosphere is largely a closed system. What CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there, until it gets absorbed by photosynthesising organisms, and absorbed into the ocean (which causes other problems, like increasing ocean pH, which effects calcifying organisms like shellfish and coral, killing them and dissolving their hard tissue, which leads to, you guessed it, further CO2 release and increased ocean acidification Ocean acidification | biochemistry)

previously the cycle has had natural peaks and troughs, but always with a stable range. We've dumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that atmospheric carbon is wildly outside the stable parameters of the natural cycle. See below:

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Or maybe it’s because your completely ignorant when it comes to climate change.

Thinking that the greenhouse effect was something to do with plant growth, and the question asking if gasses are "released somehow" does rather suggest a fairly basic ignorance on the subject. I know it can be frustrating, but it's important to try to stay patient and educate ignorant people, rather than the instinctive reaction to mock them. We don't know @Jollybear 's background. Maybe there's a legitimate reason he's never been exposed to this information before. As long as he is politely asking questions, I'll do my best to try to answer them in a reasonable, digestible fashion.

 

[ChristineM]

New MIT data suggests it may be too late

Mathematics predicts a sixth mass extinction

 

[Jollybear]

You keep saying all u care about is evidence. Well a few people on this thread provided you with evidence and all u keep doing is dismissing that evidence. Now I don’t know why you continue to maintain your viewpoint, in spite or perhaps because of the evidence to the contrary. Or maybe it’s because your completely ignorant when it comes to climate change.

Im no expert on climate, niether are you, so i have every right to be skeptical and ask questions. And evidence before all my questions are answered is no evidence at all.

 

[Jollybear]

The gases are the atmosphere...that is part of the atmosphere...the problem with 'greenhouse gases' is that they trap heat within the vicinity of the surface of the earth - which is essential to life on earth - without any 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere, life would be impossible because it would be far too cold...but with too much of them in the atmosphere, it gets hotter and hotter - like inside a greenhouse on a hot day - and if it gets too hot...well that's bad too. The whole thing is a finely balanced cycle in which carbon (for example) and nitrogen (for another) and water (yet another) are distributed between being held at the surface - in plants, soils, oceans, animals etc. and being released into the atmosphere...the problem at present is that by burning carbon (coal, oil, wood...etc.) at increasing rates, and by having inordinate levels of livestock and intensive mono-cropping agricultural activity, humans are releasing carbon into the atmosphere as CO2 at a much faster rate than it can be reabsorbed by plants. That is why the levels in the atmosphere are increasing. And that, in turn, causes the atmosphere to absorb more heat and the surface temperature to increase...when that happens, everything changes - the water cycle, the ocean currents, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events...etc. And all of these are obviously potential threats to humanity.

A green house has walls and a door.

The atmaspher dont have walls. So, how do you know the heat gets "perfectly" traped?

 

[Jollybear]

... no... that's kind of the problem.

To clarify, the gasses aren't "trapped", it's solar radiation that is trapped. The atmosphere is a mix of gases, with different gases in different quantties. Various geological, atmospheric and biological systems have kept the different gasses within a stable homeostatic range for a very long time. The problem is that for the past 200 years, humans have been burning fossil fuels at a rate in excess of what the natural systems can absorb, and as a result, various greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the most obvious one, have increased way outside of the normal ranges, and the more CO2 there is, the more it effects the climate, and the more it effects the climate, the less able the natural systems are able to deal with it.

The atmosphere is largely a closed system. What CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there, until it gets absorbed by photosynthesising organisms, and absorbed into the ocean (which causes other problems, like increasing ocean pH, which effects calcifying organisms like shellfish and coral, killing them and dissolving their hard tissue, which leads to, you guessed it, further CO2 release and increased ocean acidification Ocean acidification | biochemistry)

previously the cycle has had natural peaks and troughs, but always with a stable range. We've dumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that atmospheric carbon is wildly outside the stable parameters of the natural cycle. See below:

View attachment 31086

Atmosphere is largely a closed system "until" you say?

So, the heat is not truely traped?