You don't have any evidence, climatologists gathered that data.. you know the people you dismiss out of hand now. The vast majority of the climate science community think there is enough evidence to point to man made climate change. Unless you have a PhD in science I would just listen to them.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Charlie Marlow_rivals363743
- Start date
- Status
You don't have any evidence, climatologists gathered that data.. you know the people you dismiss out of hand now. The vast majority of the climate science community think there is enough evidence to point to man made climate change. Unless you have a PhD in science I would just listen to them.
If our planet is around 70% water wouldn't that in fact cause a dramatic rise in the greenhouse effect in a short period of time?
But we do have 5 or 6 ice ages that we came in and out of and that shows a distinct climate change that is not man-made. Other forces were at work.
Well heck I just had an epiphany of sorts. What if this kind of solar event doomed Mars? At that time we were probably a turning ball of molten rock. People tend to forget things that happened in the universe happen on on a scale of millions of years. Just look at the storm that's been raging on Jupiter? Now what if we had one of these solar events happen during a warm period and not an ice age? Can you say hello Mars! Well I think I just ruined my day but we probably won't know for a 500,000 years.
Let me educate some of you. 500,000 years in the terms of our solar system isn't even a drop in the bucket in the ocean. Basically we would be experiencing our doomsday event and it's going to happen in a blink of an eye.
You're not getting off that easy professor. If a solar event on the sun is causing the greenhouse effect on our ocean bearing planet what can we do about it and what is the long term effect?
Last edited:
I guess we need some liberal Professor to come save us for you to not get your panties in a bunch...
Here's a chart the ice core researchers have provided for us:
In every case where the slope is positive, emission > absorption. So were humans messing up the environment hundreds of thousands years ago? Probably not, yet there were cycles of net increases in atmospheric CO2. So in the past, the "camel's back" has been broken multiple times, but this time it is our fault?
Not being facetious, I contribute to CO2 emissions, you contribute to CO2 emissions. Is my contribution or the collective human contribution significant, I don't know. Is our human contribution impact to global warming floating closer to 0% or closer to 100%, I don't know. Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion (pro or anti), I do not have to choose a side. I choose to let the experts work it out (this does not include celebrity scientists that are not climatologists).
Personally I am dubious of most things that come from "scientists." That is not to say they are all wrong or lack credibility but they are part of a community that tend to run along the same rails. For years, evolution was taught as a theory and was treated as such in text books. Over a period of time, it is now taught as fact, in most cases. The formation and the age of the earth itself have been debated for years and the prevailing "theories" that people allegedly had evidence of are no longer the mainstay of the formation of our planet. I watch and read "scientific" articles often and I am amazed at how these people put the pieces together in a convenient pattern that fits their narrative. Never mind there needs to be clear evidence - that is secondary. There is no reasonable explanation for dinosaurs and their extinction that anyone can actually prove - all are theories and once a theory is formed there needs to be evidence gathered to support it. Was it in Tennessee where human tracks and dinosaur tracks were found together - many of these are conveniently ignored because they do not fit a "scientific" narrative. The latest craze is to have a telescope power enough to go back and find the tiny particle (God Particle or something like that) that started all of this. Sheez, now there is something to hang your hat on if you are one to trust things by faith. For me personally, it takes more faith to believe in all of the separate theories rather than a Creator. That is just me, I am a simple man.
I don't think Global Warming is even the tag line now - it is climate change. I thought the warming part was taken out and replaced to account for the storms and violent weather patterns which BTW, have always existed. In our local paper they do the 100 years ago theme and I am amazed at how many tornadoes there were 100 years ago in this area and how deadly they were. This way they are not caught in the trap of only suggesting warming is a problem but all weather is a problem because it is change and severe. We have always had earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, storms, hail, wind, typhoons, tropical storms and the like but they are much more publicized now.
I also get a kick out of how we know the temperatures of different parts of the country a few thousand years ago. We have good reason to question the placement and interpretation of data collected today and seem to take for granted the temps in Egypt during the building of the Pyramids or what was going on in upper Mesopotamia.
I do believe we need to be better stewards of the planet, no question. God (if you believe in Him) created one planet for us to live on. He told Adam and Eve to subdue it and rule over it. Man can cause plenty of problems with chemicals and erosion alone, not to mention the supposed climate change due to a variety of issues. There is every blame from cars, to coal to ground squirrels causing the problem. The reality, is, just living as a human we are probably all guilty and Al Gore can fly all over in his jet to espouse his views and make millions on it. Don't think for a second this is not about money or control - it certainly is - it always will be and has been from the start.
We overreact to a problem and create more problems. Bio fuels seemed like a good idea - grow some corn and supplement the oil from the ground and you save energy and the earth. Wrong - the costs to grow and produce the ethanol is more than the value of the product produced. Only government subsidies make wind energy viable. Read some information about Europe, they are struggling with wind power.
Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled football information.
I don't think Global Warming is even the tag line now - it is climate change. I thought the warming part was taken out and replaced to account for the storms and violent weather patterns which BTW, have always existed. In our local paper they do the 100 years ago theme and I am amazed at how many tornadoes there were 100 years ago in this area and how deadly they were. This way they are not caught in the trap of only suggesting warming is a problem but all weather is a problem because it is change and severe. We have always had earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, storms, hail, wind, typhoons, tropical storms and the like but they are much more publicized now.
I also get a kick out of how we know the temperatures of different parts of the country a few thousand years ago. We have good reason to question the placement and interpretation of data collected today and seem to take for granted the temps in Egypt during the building of the Pyramids or what was going on in upper Mesopotamia.
I do believe we need to be better stewards of the planet, no question. God (if you believe in Him) created one planet for us to live on. He told Adam and Eve to subdue it and rule over it. Man can cause plenty of problems with chemicals and erosion alone, not to mention the supposed climate change due to a variety of issues. There is every blame from cars, to coal to ground squirrels causing the problem. The reality, is, just living as a human we are probably all guilty and Al Gore can fly all over in his jet to espouse his views and make millions on it. Don't think for a second this is not about money or control - it certainly is - it always will be and has been from the start.
We overreact to a problem and create more problems. Bio fuels seemed like a good idea - grow some corn and supplement the oil from the ground and you save energy and the earth. Wrong - the costs to grow and produce the ethanol is more than the value of the product produced. Only government subsidies make wind energy viable. Read some information about Europe, they are struggling with wind power.
Ok, now back to your regularly scheduled football information.
I have been a weather and climate fanatic for more than 30 years. I read multiple articles a day regarding global warming, paleoclimatology, the affects of the milokavitch cycles, the effects of gasses from land and sea in different eras and locations based on plate tectonics.
I have read from scientists that are alarmists, paid off, activists and those that are sincere.
Based off the information I have read, we are in big trouble. True we haven't hit the 'set carbon budget' to take us past 2c of warming, however, we have set off some feedback loops that will take is beyond that limit.
I am a big believer that we are past the safe zone and a carbon capture process is now a requirement to save civilization. Feedback loops from several tipping points have already been breached. This is why you dont see me advocating. Because I've already accepted humanities destiny. It will take a few decades, but we're already f#&$ed.
I have read from scientists that are alarmists, paid off, activists and those that are sincere.
Based off the information I have read, we are in big trouble. True we haven't hit the 'set carbon budget' to take us past 2c of warming, however, we have set off some feedback loops that will take is beyond that limit.
I am a big believer that we are past the safe zone and a carbon capture process is now a requirement to save civilization. Feedback loops from several tipping points have already been breached. This is why you dont see me advocating. Because I've already accepted humanities destiny. It will take a few decades, but we're already f#&$ed.
Here's a chart the ice core researchers have provided for us:
In every case where the slope is positive, emission > absorption. So were humans messing up the environment hundreds of thousands years ago? Probably not, yet there were cycles of net increases in atmospheric CO2. So in the past, the "camel's back" has been broken multiple times, but this time it is our fault?
Not being facetious, I contribute to CO2 emissions, you contribute to CO2 emissions. Is my contribution or the collective human contribution significant, I don't know. Is our human contribution impact to global warming floating closer to 0% or closer to 100%, I don't know. Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion (pro or anti), I do not have to choose a side. I choose to let the experts work it out (this does not include celebrity scientists that are not climatologists).
Well, Earth's contribution isn't a constant as you have correctly surmised. But it generally is below the saturation level and so the atmosphere has been able to maintain the CO2 below the 300 mark during interglacial periods. Until recently. GHG levels go up as the atmosphere warms and goes back down as the atmosphere cools. The current atmospheric regime has been incredibly stable for the past million years+ and any warming/cooling has been caused by the Milankovitch cycles (basically cyclical variations in Earth's orbit, tilt, etc) If you overlay the Earth's temperature with those graphs, you would see the clear correlation.
The Milankovitch cycles can explain the recent increase in temperature that we have seen. But that is an incomplete sentence because the time element has been left out. The Milankovitch cycles can explain the recent increase in temperature that we have seen OVER THE COURSE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. It cannot explain the increase in temperature that we have seen over the span of several decades. It can only explain +/- 0.05 degrees C in that time frame. Something else is causing it other than 'that's just what the Earth has always done.'
This is my point, people claim scientists have agendas so they can't be trusted but the only reason we know of any "ice age" is because scientists measured it and then reported it. Now the majority of climatologists are saying it is man made and it is real. I get it, science cant prove everything, but until humans are ready to give up technology (science) maybe we should listen to what the majority of them say. Engineering and medicine use the scientific method. It just tickles me that all these people driving around SUV's and microwaving sweet potatoes and taking heart medication turn around and deny scientific theory. And I am not calling you out or saying you are like that, maybe you are a yam guy.
1. A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.
2. I highly doubt it, you benefit from science on a second by second basis. Have a smart phone? Theologians didn't invent it. Use a calendar? Science again my friend! You agree with scientist all the time and trust in the work scientists have done, every day of your life. There are just some things that you don't agree with because they may interfere with your belief system like say evolution. But here is the rub, you could never disprove the Theory of Evolution and it is getting really hard for even really smart people to defend the notion that we are NOT the cause of global temperature change.
Real science takes years of unbiased collection of data and you let the data speak for itself. We can't even predict the weather out two weeks with any certainty. The earth is getting warmer but we don't know why. That's where the science goes out the window. Then we're left with filling the blanks with using the SWAG Method... Scientific Wild *** Guess.
At some point you should go take some classes on the subject if you're that full of burning questions. The ability of your lack of understanding to outlast somebody's patience for explaining it to you does not make you correct.
Technically aren't we still coming out of our last ice age? Modern day humans have only been around for 200,000 years and we are a very delicate species. We probably wouldn't of been able to survive 65 million years ago with the high Co2 and warm environment. But I digress... IT'S THE WATER! That what gives us life is what will be our undoing. That's why I bring up Mars. Our future is destined to play out like Mars.
Wrong direction. Our future looks like venus. Scientists predicts that life on earth has no more than a billion years on the earth. The sun is slowly expanding and eventually will get too hot and the final runaway climate event will be triggered once we hit a global average of 180f.
Mars was covered in water. Probably at a higher percentage then the earth or so we think. It's atmosphere is almost completely Co2 yet the water is gone? Why? The greenhouse effect will reach a point where it produces more then it can recycle and it will start compounding itself till it's fuel(water) is gone. It might take hundreds of millions of years but it will happen.
I believe that man can still survive the current major extinction event, but i am not confident enough to say we will or wont. There is going to be a terrible era of dying coming soon. I honesty dont see how we continue surviving much longer than that anyway. We are so destructive.
Everything is a variable except the Sun and the water on our planet. The sun is a fusion reactor that has immense power and we are at its mercy. Sometimes the answer is as plain as day yet we choose to ignore it. We have had cataclysmic natural disasters happen to our planet yet it was able to rebound. But the one thing we can't rebound from is the Sun. The Goldie Lock's zone we find ourselves in is just an illusion. It won't last in the universe and we should be grateful.
Last edited:
We couldn't pump enough Co2 into the atmosphere even if we wanted to. The planet naturally is better at it then we are. It's the variables(asteroid, volcano, Sun event, etc.) along with the water and the Sun that will do our species in long before the planet is destroyed.
There's a lot of crap that goes down during an abrupt climate shift event. I can talk about this for hours. Most notable is the speed of which these things happen, too fast for adaptation, ocean acidification, extreme weather events and conflicts that arise from it. That is in short, there's a lot of literature that breaks these down further.
In general, this is correct, in practice, there are theories based on a best guess. Having all of the data does not always produce the same answers for everyone. Why would there be so much disagreement or change of thinking over time?
Ladies and gentlemen... the right wing of American politics.
It's taught as an explanation of a natural phenomenon for which we have extremely strong evidence... like cell theory, or molecular theory, or the theory of relativity. Students who are taught science correctly should understand that nearly everything they're told in class is our best understanding and explanation of whatever topic, and is subject to change. Evolution shouldn't need special attention in that regard.
That's not how science works.
I think they might have found them here:
But seriously, I imagine you're thinking of the Paluxy River: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluxy_River
These things you're talking about aren't "separate theories." They build on each other. It's like math. One doesn't say, "I get that 2+2=4, but I'm not buying that 2*2=4." Similarly, one should not say "I understand genetics and natural selection, but evolution is just unbelievable." Algebra requires arithmetic. Climate change theory requires understanding of more basic concepts of climatology.
At the same time, it's ok to admit that we don't yet have all the answers or that our information is imperfect. The difference between scientists and "simple men" of faith is that scientists choose to pursue further information, or answers that fit better, while religious individuals default to divine power to explain what they can't understand. Fortunately, as we learn more as a species, we attribute fewer and fewer phenomena to magic.
Don't hold your breath. You're not even 'in the ballpark' with commentary you're posting about this topic. I'm certainly not going to waste my time continue to respond with the posts you're offering up.
Seriously??? That's your comment? So how much grant money have you pocketed from the government?
I expect to carry on an adult conversation but if some are going to act like a 13 year old girl who's all stuck-up and conceited then you get what you get.
I guess if me and my colleagues were making billions of dollars off of fake industry I wouldn't say anything either.
The simple truth is they don't know for sure. They're just guessing that it's man-made.
The simple truth is they don't know for sure. They're just guessing that it's man-made.
For climate science research? Zero dollars.
FYI - public academic researchers aren't 'pocketing' money. The money is used to support their research laboratories. An extremely tiny fraction of a federal grant might be used to fund their salary concurrently with university funding for teaching/service. Another piece of evidence that illustrates you have no idea what you are talking about.
Last edited:
No reason for me to participate in this thread any more.
Some posters were saying that the "scientists do agree", so I decided to look. There could be a few or a lot of climatologist opinion polls, I just looked at the results from a couple. The majority agreed that humans are playing a significant role (or is it roll?, ah who cares), I'll just call it around 90% agreed. So, I'll accept that, they're the experts not me.
- Status