- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Do you check the background of these "scientists"? Many are supported my industry and oil companies.
Regardless of who says what about the climate, pollution is bad. Putting less pollution into the air is good. Wasting finite resources is bad. Recycling is good. There is no reason to not reduce pollution and to not manage our resources better.
The doom and gloom of GW is false.
No one is abandoning regulation of other pollutants to put all our marbles on CO2 pollution. C02 pollution is a priority because of its potential to end life on the planet as we know it. Noise pollution does not.
Interesting.Global temperatures will increase, albeit slightly, but this will still have a very real affect upon our daily lives. For example, the recent snow storm on the East Coast was caused because of warmer water, which was warmed because (perhaps) of El Nino on the West coast (again, not sure about that) or because the water in the ITCZ (Inter-tropical convergence zone) has warmed. The ITCZ is where all hurricanes form, because thats where the water is warmest (relative to other areas on earth's surface), and the conditions just right.
Sorry if that is a bit fragmented, and hard to understand.
Interesting.
Well, I know far less than you on the subject...I'm sorry if I got something wrong, but thats what I've been taught in marine science, and AP Environmental Science. And the logic trains seem pretty well founded to me...
That is mostly true. For the Western, developed nations, weather will simply become more erratic. In undeveloepd countries, like those in Southeast Asia, millions of people will die over a few decades due to stronger seasonal storms, unless the governments can implement better regulation on buildings, and better emergency services.
And the BS about the north pole melting is just crap. That ice is floating, so even if it melts, its weight is already displaced, so it makes no difference.
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
No significant warming the last 15 years.
It was warmer in mid evil times.
Lets take a look at the facts, all this climategate stuff aside.
Since 1900, we have been spewing out more and more CO2, correct?
Now, I fully agree, the amount of CO2 we've thrown out cannot substantially warm the Earth, but it can cause a very small amount of warming, globally. We've also had our ozone layer depleted in certain areas, adding to the amount of energy that reaches the surface of the Earth.
As I've said before, the most dangerous greenhouse gas is water vapor. The amounts that naturally occur through evaporation allow enough heat to remain in the biosphere so live can be sustained. But, when we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as we obviously have, you increase the rate of evaporation very slightly. This in turn releases a tiny bit more water vapor then is the norm for our environment. Because of this, temperatures rise, because more energy is being trapped inside the biosphere. This in turn causes another small increase in evaporation, which forces another increase in temperature.
This is what's known as a positive feedback loop. Its like a human who can't sweat when exercising. Your body keeps heating up, and heating up, and it can't get rid of the heat fast enough. The checks and balances of the environment cannot stop this process.
What ends up happening, is over very long periods of time, temperature increases slowly, but surely. Given the length of time this takes, you could take any 40 year temperature interval, and you wouldn't find the slightest hint of temperature change. Regardless of what the data is saying, this is happening, because, quite frankly, the logic is too sound to be wrong.
These changes won't happen fast enough for them to kill off humans, or to do anything major to effect our way of live. What will happen, however, is other animals won't be able to adapt, because natural selection cannot work at the same pace as the climate change.
This is another problem many people don't understand. A short time for Earth means thousands and thousands of years. In relation to the tim Earth has been around (4.6 billion years) humans have been around for maybe 10,000 years. So, for us, the climate change is going to take a very long time. but we have technology, we have adapted the Earth to fit our needs. Other animals, such as bears, and fish, can't change fast enough to match the pace of global warming.
Do you understand now? It is undoubtedly happening, but not very fast, and probably not fast enough to effect us for a long time to come. The recent snow storm on the East Coast proves this process is taking place, even as we discuss it.
I personally don't know what we can really do about it though. We can try to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but that wouldn't do very much, as it has already started the reaction. We can try to decrease the amount of water vapor, and return it to normal levels, but we would have to pour trillions of dollars into that, and keep water vapor at a steady level for decades to stop this. And even then, if we are even slightly off from the original number, the process will continue, or we might start an ice age because we removed too much water vapor.
That's my take on things, but again, I might be wrong, but that would also mean my books are wrong, and their logic, and they seem pretty solid.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
There, fixed it for you. While I admit Catawba didn't address your points, you also failed to address his. Therefore, you were both in fault. Catawba later addressed it, indirectly. You maintin your position, and have as of yet, failed to address the points brought up by Catawba.
What I'm saying is newly introduced CO2 is bad for the environment, because the atmosphere already has reached a saturation point. While the net effect of this increase in CO2 isn't devastating, it starts a chain reaction. The paleocarbon, which is released from burning fossil fuels, increases the amount of thermal energy stored in the Earth's atmosphere very marginally.
But, this is still a problem, because then this slight increase in energy increases the amount of water which evaporates, because warmer water evaporates faster. This is the problem. By far the most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, which starts its own little (metaphorically speaking) chain reaction, warming, and releasing more and more water vapor through evaporation.
This process also starts with minute increases in methane, or CH4. The difference with the methane, largely released by livestock, is that it isn't a paleocarbon. Therefore, the environment is suited to hold the methane, because it is just being transferred from the livestock to the atmosphere, which is readily transferred into plants.
Do you understand now? Its indirectly the increase of paleocarbons that causes global warming, which leads to, in parts of the world, snow storms of unparalleled ferocity. But thats meteorology. Just ask if you need me to explain that as well.
Too bad there is no real reason to believe this process is having a significant effect on global temperatures. Instead, there is unreliable data and alarmist caterwauling.
I'm sorry if I got something wrong, but thats what I've been taught in marine science, and AP Environmental Science. And the logic trains seem pretty well founded to me...
Really, its a matter of time. The effects will be minimal for most people, especially for the Western countries. For undeveleoped countries, however, the monsoons and floods will wreck havoc.
The Earth has been warmer in the past while CO2 levels were much lower. So, it's fairly obvious that the 100 year warming trend we are seeing can be explained without human CO2 emissions.
Since no one has found a causal link between real-life monsoons and human CO2 emissions, I must assume you are engaging in nothing more than rank speculation.
Look over what I've explained twice (maybe three times) now. The answer is in there. Go ahead and ask if you can't find it.
Again, the answer is in the explanations I gave. If you want me to re-explain it, just ask.
Where does it say how large a part it is?
Sounds like you have a conspiracy theory with co2
Smug teenager,
I understand your explanation perfectly. What you don't seem to understand is that there is currently no way to determine if the process you describe has had a measurable effect on global climate or temperatures. I understand the theoretical implications of your explanation (assuming a linear progression), but there is no real world data to support your inferences.
From,
A person who actually understands science.
Then show me some real world data to support the inferences you have made.
If there is a causal link between human CO2 emissions and monsoons it shouldn't be that hard to find.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?