How Bernie Sanders would transform the nation
- Thread starter TBoneJack
- Start date
bravedave
Well-Known Member
A movie producer? Really?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
rises in CO2 cause rises in temps, and vice versa. it is a bit of a vicious cycle, ya see. only an idiot would not know this.
this is basic grade school science. how are you not aware of this?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
dennis prager is a radio talk show host? really?
damn. some people are helpless when it comes to information consumption.
bravedave
Well-Known Member
Requiring the original question be addressed before any supposed redress is hardly "shifting the burden of truth". Your attempt at framing it as so is whats idiotic.
Nobody is denying we are in a period displaying high co2 nor that earthlings are adding to that number.
Nobody said co2 was the only cause. Such a blowhard.
I like the quote you provided also. Note he refers to co2 warming global temps as a "notion". He then follows with weasel words. We admit they are coupled, but with temps rising first.
.CO2 increases predominantly follow global temperature increases. Sorry...not the other way around.
We have had decades of record setting CO2 levels yet the global temps have not budged in15 years.
Whats up with that ?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Do you understand the issue is the rate at which CO2 has been introduced to the atmosphere?
It's not about how much, it's about how fast. You're right, it's true in the past there have been much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and the Earth has seen much higher temperatures, but the natural processes that led to that took thousands - tens of thousands of years. Humanity has done what took the Earth thousands of years to do in less than two centuries. Now hear me when I say this, there is nothing natural that could have done that. It is scientifically impossible.
There is no other valid scientific explanation.
Not GOP
Well-Known Member
400ppm is nothing to be alarmed about. Tornadoes and hurricanes are far below normal levels.
The atmosphere seems to be responding well to this variable gas
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Show me one credible source that says that
bravedave
Well-Known Member
You're right it was hilarious. Its actually over 17 years. Let me guess...your not from this planet, are you?This is hilarious!
And this is too stupid to respond to:
Not GOP
Well-Known Member
There are numerous sources all over the internet that can explain how tornado and hurricane strikes have been much less common.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Hmm, didn't you call me out for an ad hominem? So, look at what you're doing! But really ,David Puttnam stopped being a movie producer in 1998 when he retired to focus on two things: The environment and education. He was also the chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill. So, he actually does know what he's talking about.
Oh this is going to be fun! Because you're using all these old climate denier arguments. CO2 increases predominantly follow... meaning in some cases they don't. However we do know one reason for this is that as the oceans heat up, they release more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. One thing about the argument you just stated is that if we see increased CO2 we know that the global temperature is increasing. See how that works? It's not hard.
But why is this bad? It creates a feedback loop. More CO2 captures more heat causing the oceans to grow warmer which in turn releases more CO2 which captures more heat which causes the oceans to grow warmer which in turn... so on and so forth.
Oh and as far as weasel words? "We had the medieval warm period when it was at least as warm... Then we had a general warming today where none of it was caused by humans." Right, we already know that the Earth does this because of its rotation around the sun, duh no brainer. However, this is not the argument at hand. What the argument at hand is that greenhouse emissions are currently making the climate change much more quickly than it has before.
As far as the argument (that you didn't make) that "CO2 levels were much higher in the past!" Absolutely correct, one of those times was around 4 billion years ago when Earth did not support any life. Another time was when all the life that Earth did support was in the oceans. It's not a conducive environment to humans. Once again, in the long run, the Earth will still be here but whether or not we can survive is the question.
As far as the global temperature not moving for 15 years? Half truth, you know it. If you took the time to research your own assertions you'd see there's ton of information out there on it. Since you seem to not be able to, I'll write it down here for you. That is a weasel statement if I've ever heard one, also, and it's also the same reason why you'd never be able to understand macroeconomics. In the span of the Earth, 15 years is like a millisecond. What we're looking at is an overall trend, and 15 years does not cut it. NOAA for example has been tracking temperatures going as far back as the 1880s and comparing them to todays temperatures. You're probably trying to quote something Steve Goreham the executive director of Climate Science Coalition of America when he said "Global surface temperatures have been flat for 16 years." However this is not true. NOAA data shows that in 2012 the surface temperature was 0.47F higher than it was in 1997 over land, and 0.11F higher on the ocean. This is an increase in temperature. Even if the temperatures increase by 0.1F or 0.01F that's still an increase. Moreover, Steve Goreham's claim used data beginning in 1998 when El Nino was about, so it was an already exceptionally hot year, thus every other year subsequently will look cooler in comparison, or if there's another exceptionally hot year about the same. As far as the past 15 years 2000-2015? http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php?_ga=1.70699733.450084631.1441936288 You can go there and put in the data yourself and you will notice that there has been an average rise of temperatures over the 15 years of ~0.142C.
Once again, we know that the Earth goes through cooling and warming periods. That's not what we're worried about when we say man-manned global warming. What we're worried about is the effect that we have on the environment and that we're causing this warming period to approach much more rapidly and this could be absolutely detrimental to the survival of many species including our own. Most of these cooling and warming periods happen over hundreds if not thousands of years. This one is happening over the span of a hundred years and there really is no other explanation than we're the cause.
QED.
If you have a tumor in your leg and go to an oncologist and he tells you it's a tumor, are you going to go to 100 oncologists, have 97 tell you it's a tumor, then go to a dentist who tells you it's not a tumor and believe the dentist?
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
Oh also the Greenpeace dude says that the Pleistocene ice age is still going on. It's not. I asked a friend of mine who's a PhD in geology, pleisotecene is an epoch that lasted 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago.
Edited to add: Oh FFS, Patrick Moore in his video says "If you call someone a climate change denier it's absurd and mean-spirited... It's mean-spirited because if they call you a climate change denier they are automatically linking you with Holocaust deniers." Well that's a huge leap.
He's choosing his words very cleverly. I feel like I just watched something out of 1984. The point where he goes "It's a bit arrogant to predict the weather." Well, duh, that's why it's a prediction. Predictions are not 100% accurate. Any meteorologist will tell you this. I mean, really stop the fucking presses and get out the pitchforks, the weather man was wrong!
When the overwhelming majority of scientists who study this agree that there's a problem, are you really going to just go "Well this one dude said so, guess it means all those other scientists are wrong." If this is your thought process, please tell me so, because I'm going to tell you straight up: You're a complete and utter moron who's a waste of air. The amount of electrical input that goes into your synapses firing is a waste of electrical energy.
Edited to add: Oh FFS, Patrick Moore in his video says "If you call someone a climate change denier it's absurd and mean-spirited... It's mean-spirited because if they call you a climate change denier they are automatically linking you with Holocaust deniers." Well that's a huge leap.
He's choosing his words very cleverly. I feel like I just watched something out of 1984. The point where he goes "It's a bit arrogant to predict the weather." Well, duh, that's why it's a prediction. Predictions are not 100% accurate. Any meteorologist will tell you this. I mean, really stop the fucking presses and get out the pitchforks, the weather man was wrong!
When the overwhelming majority of scientists who study this agree that there's a problem, are you really going to just go "Well this one dude said so, guess it means all those other scientists are wrong." If this is your thought process, please tell me so, because I'm going to tell you straight up: You're a complete and utter moron who's a waste of air. The amount of electrical input that goes into your synapses firing is a waste of electrical energy.
Last edited:
Not GOP
Well-Known Member
It's all in the same post. You claim that co2 is having negative affects on the atmosphere.
I'm simply explaining, that you don't know the effects, or that the effects or good or bad. And which effects they are.
Except now you know about hurricanes and tornadoes. Less people are having to lose their homes and having their entire communities wiped out.Should we blame co2, or say it's a non factor because it doesn't push your green agenda?
pnwmystery
Well-Known Member
1) CO2 is not great for the atmosphere and we know this. It's observable. One way to observe it is using your own thought experiment. Go into a greenhouse, jack it with CO2, seal it up, let it sit at that CO2 for a while, and then go back in. Is it hotter than the ambient temperature around it? Yes, yes it will be hotter in the greenhouse than it is outside.
2) CO2 is not the only contributing factor. There are other ones. What we're worried about here is our own CO2 emissions and that they might be higher than what the Earth can take in such a short time. Do you understand this?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You made the claim "400 PPM is nothing to be alarmed about", you have not cited a credible source for that claim because there is no credible source for that claim. 400 PPM has increased the average temperature of the Earth .7°C in 135 years which is unprecedented and absolutely something to be alarmed about according to all the experts.
You don't know what you're talking about.
bravedave
Well-Known Member
It is more than one guy. Would you like video of others, drama queen? Looks like my firing synapses struck a nerve...I know this by the length of your edit and its total irrelevance. Your's just kicked up dirt.