LOL it ain't the same. The Climate has been changing for millenia without our help.
And yes, there are no drowning and starving polar bears, you cannot navigate the northwest passage, New York island has not been inundated, we have no record numbers of hurricanes, and........ the polar ice cap is still there after 13 years of propoganda, and it's cousin, the Antarctic ice cap is growing.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: LOL it ain't the same.
It's the same tactics, the same propaganda companies, and even the same people attacking the scientific community in order to protect profits. This isn't bias, it isn't politics, it isn't theory, it's historical fact.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The Climate has been changing for millenia without our help.
Changing with our help and without our help are not mutually exclusive.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And yes, there are no drowning and starving polar bears
Conservation efforts have helped to rebound their numbers, however climate change is effecting wildlife in the Arctic. We have scientific evidence of polar bears looking longer and harder for food: "The timing of migration showed a trend towards earlier arrival of polar bears on shore and later departure from land, which has been driven by climate-induced declines in the availability of sea ice." Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: you cannot navigate the northwest passage
Really?
In 2007 you could: "The Northwest Passage, through the channels of the Canadian Archipelago at bottom left, opened for the first time in human memory, this melt season. The Northern Sea Route, to the right around the coast of Siberia, remained blocked by a large mass of ice." Source.
In 2008 you could: "This is the second year in a row that the most direct route through the Northwest Passage has opened up." Source.
In 2010 you could: "Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route were open for a period during September." Source.
In 2011 you could: "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for August 2011 reached the second lowest level for the month in the 1979 to 2011 satellite record. Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea route appear to be open" Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: New York island has not been inundated
Sea levels are rising and are accelerating in the last 20 years. Note that half of sea level rise is just from the water expanding from being heated. We haven't begun to see future melted Antarctica's contribution. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: we have no record numbers of hurricanes
Hurricanes are not the only weather the planet has. Extreme events ARE on the rise. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: the polar ice cap is still there after 13 years of propoganda
Do you declare a target intact after you put 100 rounds through it? Yeah the Arctic is still there, but it's fading fast.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: and it's cousin, the Antarctic ice cap is growing.
Sea ice is growing, but glacier ice is shrinking in Antarctica. The reason for the sea ice expanding in Antarctica is likely melting glaciers. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: peace.
Notice how I provided actual scientific sources to substantiate my opinion? You should try that. You should also not misrepresent cherry picked data from legitimate scientific sources when you do not endorse their actual scientific opinion of what the data empirically represents.
When you look at the big picture, the evidence is clear and obvious: Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-10-2013).]
IP: Logged
02:39 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9704 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Perhaps we can convince the entire population to hold their breath for 10 seconds every hour to reduce the rate of co2 released into the atmosphere by 4 hours per person . Multiply that by the earth's human population and finally we're talking about real numbers It would certainly out perform the increases in miles per gallon from 8mpg in the 80's - 20mp today. Hell it may even ellipse meager reductions in factory emissions and contaminate release levels that have occurred in the past 30 years.
Thats the problem, People want to act like we haven't done enough but after 30 + years and with all the Efforts that have been made - the results is starting to suggest your wrong.... time to look for the real solution instead of the same old tires that we've spent 30 years wearing the tread of off.
Originally posted by jmclemore: Perhaps we can convince the entire population to hold their breath for 10 seconds every hour to reduce the rate of co2 released into the atmosphere by 4 hours per person . Multiply that by the earth's human population and finally we're talking about real numbers
I looked into this theory to see what the actual numbers would be. If you average the results from the links below, the human population would need to be 102 BILLION people breathing just to exceed current human emissions. We haven't even hit 7 billion people yet. Source 1 Source 2
But that was math just for fun of knowing. Anyone who suggests the above doesn't know how the carbon cycle works.
The CO2 humans exhale comes from burning food for energy inside our bodies. There is zero net contribution to greenhouse gas emissions because you're returning CO2 to the air that was already there to begin with. They call this the carbon cycle: you exhale CO2, plants absorbs it, a cow eats the plants, and you eat the cow, you exhale CO2. There's a major difference between exhaling CO2 that was already in the air at one point and digging carbon up out of the ground and adding it directly to the atmosphere which increases CO2's concentration. Source.
quote
Originally posted by jmclemore: Thats the problem, People want to act like we haven't done enough but after 30 + years and with all the Efforts that have been made - the results is starting to suggest your wrong....
Originally posted by jmclemore: Thats the problem, People want to act like we haven't done enough but after 30 + years and with all the Efforts that have been made - the results is starting to suggest your wrong.... time to look for the real solution instead of the same old tires that we've spent 30 years wearing the tread of off.
All the efforts that have been made?
China and the USA are the largest emitters of CO2. In 2007 they emitted 6.538 and 5.838 billion tonnes respectively, over 42% of global emissions.
Neither country has committed to a reduction of their total emissions by 2020.
Both countries expect their emissions to rise for at least the next 20 years.
quote
(Reuters) - China led a rise in global carbon dioxide emissions to a record high in 2012, more than offsetting falls in the United States and Europe, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Monday.
Worldwide CO2 emissions rose by 1.4 percent to 31.6 billion tons, according to estimates from the Paris-based IEA.
China is the biggest emitter and made the largest contribution to the global rise, spewing out an additional 300 million tons. But the gain was one of the lowest China has seen in a decade, reflecting its efforts to adopt renewable sources and improve energy efficiency.
In the United States, a switch from coal to gas in power generation helped reduce emissions by 200 million tons, bringing them back to the level of the mid-1990s.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-10-2013).]
LOL it ain't the same. The Climate has been changing for millenia without our help.
And yes, there are no drowning and starving polar bears, you cannot navigate the northwest passage, New York island has not been inundated, we have no record numbers of hurricanes, and........ the polar ice cap is still there after 13 years of propoganda, and it's cousin, the Antarctic ice cap is growing.
peace.
Right, few people deny the concept of climate change, but the rational ones deny human influence on it beyond a slight local influence ( like smog and acid rain )
Works for lots of people who don't care about others the environment or the future, there are lots of selfish people around.
Or the ones that don't buy into the nonsense about us harming the environment.. It really has nothing to do with being selfish. The selfish are the ones that believe and try to control to stunt growth.. The rest of us want everyone to advance and grow.
Edit: Now while i don't buy it for a moment there is always the chance that we could be wrong, but don't confuse being wrong with intent.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 07-10-2013).]
IP: Logged
06:18 PM
jmclemore Member
Posts: 2395 From: Wichita Ks USA Registered: Dec 2007
Originally posted by newf: All the efforts that have been made?
China and the USA are the largest emitters of CO2. In 2007 they emitted 6.538 and 5.838 billion tonnes respectively, over 42% of global emissions.
Neither country has committed to a reduction of their total emissions by 2020.
Both countries expect their emissions to rise for at least the next 20 years.
From the EPA
quote
Born in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution, EPA was established on December 2, 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. Since its inception, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people.
I humbly apologize they have been active since 1970 . They have been protecting the environment for 40 years. After 40 years and trillions of dollars, I think after 4 decades it safe to say they are a waist of time and resources.
according to your your quote above We Agree.
Why would we or China for that fact be stupid enough to look back on 40 years of EPA (an American Agency) failures, Agree to run into the same wall expecting better results? A: $$$$$ to all this environmentalist dependent upon the tax dollars secreted (like a freak's river) from the Government Teets.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 07-10-2013).]
Agree to run into the same wall expecting better results? A: $$$$$ to all this environmentalist dependent upon the tax dollars secreted (like a freak's river) from the Government Teets.
Sea ice is growing, but glacier ice is shrinking in Antarctica. The reason for the sea ice expanding in Antarctica is likely melting glaciers. Source.
That is not what the articles says. It is talking about ice shelfs which stretch out into the ocean.
In the fall of 2010 Antarctica had the 3rd highest sea ice area on record.
The Arctice ice field has thickened not thinned.
The Polar bears aren't encroaching on human settlements because they can't find food. They are encroaching because they are over populated.
There are more polar bears now than 20 years ago. The bears are territorial. When the biggest baddest bear drives them off, they go looking for easier pickings like dumps.
The chuncks breaking off the Greenland glaciers are due to growth, not melting.
You are quoting the online library, wikipedia, and various lobby groups and apologists for the global warming movement.
This is today's scan of the Arctic Ice Field
Notice the comparison to 2010
I'm not seeing a shipping lane in either during July. If one opens for a month in September, that is not viable for commerce.
Why pump out the usual propoganda? It isn't true. It isn't even real science.
Arn
IP: Logged
07:23 PM
jmclemore Member
Posts: 2395 From: Wichita Ks USA Registered: Dec 2007
The only propaganda taking place in global warming is to support the crap science that allegedly supports global warming (human caused, that is). This I a CLASSIC case of propaganda. Endless news stories about bad weather, dying polar bears, and the need to take immediate action or we will all die. The solution - more taxes and regulations.
Given that most of your posts on this forum are on this particular subject, I'd bet you are a shill for the propagandists.
Proving Global Warming is not the same as proving Anthropogenic Global Warming. The earth has been much hotter, and much cooler than today. CO2 levels have been much higher and lower than today.
Do we try to stop the earth's geologic cycles, or just the man made portion? How do we quantify how much is the man made portion?
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: In 2007 you could: "The Northwest Passage, through the channels of the Canadian Archipelago at bottom left, opened for the first time in human memory, this melt season. The Northern Sea Route, to the right around the coast of Siberia, remained blocked by a large mass of ice." Source.
In 2008 you could: "This is the second year in a row that the most direct route through the Northwest Passage has opened up." Source.
In 2010 you could: "Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route were open for a period during September." Source.
In 2011 you could: "Arctic sea ice extent averaged for August 2011 reached the second lowest level for the month in the 1979 to 2011 satellite record. Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea route appear to be open" Source.
You're offering observations. Fine. Now, how are you arriving at the conclusion that the cause of these events is AGW? It says the first time in "human history" not the first time in history. Did it happen before? What was the driver then? Is that driver in effect today?
Post hoc ergo propter hoc?
IP: Logged
11:37 PM
PFF
System Bot
Jul 11th, 2013
jmclemore Member
Posts: 2395 From: Wichita Ks USA Registered: Dec 2007
Originally posted by Formula88: Proving Global Warming is not the same as proving Anthropogenic Global Warming . . .
Why do so many climate scientists believe that the currently observed global warming is largely an effect of greenhouse gas emissions (chiefly, carbon dioxide) from human activities?
Here is a brief (one page) summary of the major arguments. A few short, simple paragraphs. No satellite photos, data plots or tables of numbers. Hardly a complete explanation, but it could serve as a source of key words and phrases for anyone who wants to search for more detailed reports using Google (Bing, etc.)
This dates from November of 2009, but I don't think that the arguments have changed in any fundamental way since this text was posted.
It has always amazed me that people who claim to be green, don't swash their butts after taking a dump instead of using toilet paper.
It has always amazed me that folks who have no use for the Environmental Protection Agency don't breathe in air directly from their vehicle engine's exhaust manifold and don't drink H2O from the nearest source of untreated water.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-11-2013).]
IP: Logged
07:38 AM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
I worked in industry as an environmental engineer starting in the early 80's. The EPA was new, they were starting to regulated water discharges, waste disposal, and air emissions.
There was a definate need for controls, as the "science" of the times was not good, for example in the 70's I was taught in college Geology class that the earth would "filter out" any contaminates and keep the ground water pure.
Early efforts by the EPA brought great results, cleaner air, much cleaner water, and vastly improved disposal practices and disposal facility design criteria and siting. Noticeable improvement across the country, especially concerning water quality.
However, todays EPA is not the same EPA as it was in the beginning. True to form for any governmental entity, it must grow, garner more power and authority or it will cease to be. EPA has done this and become a political entity rather than a science based regulatory agency. They are now nothing more than an attack dog for the Progressives (in both parties).
IP: Logged
08:06 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Why do so many climate scientists believe that the currently observed global warming is largely an effect of greenhouse gas emissions (chiefly, carbon dioxide) from human activities?
Here is a brief (one page) summary of the major arguments. A few short, simple paragraphs. No satellite photos, data plots or tables of numbers. Hardly a complete explanation, but it could serve as a source of key words and phrases for anyone who wants to search for more detailed reports using Google (Bing, etc.)
This dates from November of 2009, but I don't think that the arguments have changed in any fundamental way since this text was posted.
Good read. The only thing they said that leads credence to the AGW theory is that scientists can differentiate between manmade CO2 and naturally occuring CO2. I'd love to know more about that process, but taken at face value, that's pretty good.
Here's the problem with most typical arguments.
quote
First, we know that burning coal, oil, and gas releases heat-trapping carbon dioxide, or CO2. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily climbing as we burn more.
Now, change a few words...
quote
First, we know that urination releases liquid into the ocean that causes sea levels to rise. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that urine levels in the ocean have been steadily climbing as more people go to the beach.
Yes, it's a silly argument. It is; however, just as scientifically valid.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 07-11-2013).]
Perhaps we can convince the entire population to hold their breath for 10 seconds every hour to reduce the rate of co2 released into the atmosphere by 4 hours per person .
Well that would mean alot less hot air around these forums thats for sure.
IP: Logged
08:39 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Good read. The only thing they said that leads credence to the AGW theory is that scientists can differentiate between manmade CO2 and naturally occuring CO2. I'd love to know more about that process, but taken at face value, that's pretty good.
Here's the problem with most typical arguments.
quote
First, we know that burning coal, oil, and gas releases heat-trapping carbon dioxide, or CO2. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily climbing as we burn more.
Now, change a few words...
quote
First, we know that urination releases liquid into the ocean that causes sea levels to rise. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that urine levels in the ocean have been steadily climbing as more people go to the beach.
Yes, it's a silly argument. It is; however, just as scientifically valid. . . . No, it's not. People releasing urine into the ocean or wherever is part of an active hydrologic cycle that rapidly removes the water content of that urine (after it evaporates into the atmosphere) in the form of precipitation--maybe thousands of miles away from where the urine was released, but removed from the atmosphere, nonetheless. The people drank water before they released it as urine, and most of the water that they drank came from recent atmospheric precipitaton, driven by evaporation from the surface of all the bodies of water (oceans, lakes, rivers, swimming pools) where they could be releasing their urine. The hydrologic cycle is largely a closed loop.
Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels--a very different cycle, altogether.
Works for lots of people who don't care about others the environment or the future, there are lots of selfish people around.
The media wants you to puppet their insults. They want you to think a certain way. For example If you believe T shirts made overseas are made by people who would be better off without the T shirt company in their country, just dont buy those shirts. I think telling people who dont see it that way that they are selfish and only care about themselves really wont help change their mind. They may believe earning a comparatively high wage within that country to make T shirts is better than digging through waste for food. The media also wants you to tell people who dont like what Obama is doing that they are racists. But I'm not saying their are no selfish people at all, or there are no racists at all.
I worked in industry as an environmental engineer starting in the early 80's. The EPA was new, they were starting to regulated water discharges, waste disposal, and air emissions.
There was a definate need for controls, as the "science" of the times was not good, for example in the 70's I was taught in college Geology class that the earth would "filter out" any contaminates and keep the ground water pure.
Early efforts by the EPA brought great results, cleaner air, much cleaner water, and vastly improved disposal practices and disposal facility design criteria and siting. Noticeable improvement across the country, especially concerning water quality.
However, todays EPA is not the same EPA as it was in the beginning. True to form for any governmental entity, it must grow, garner more power and authority or it will cease to be. EPA has done this and become a political entity rather than a science based regulatory agency. They are now nothing more than an attack dog for the Progressives (in both parties).
raygun bush1 and BuSh2 all appointed their guys to run EPA as they didNOT want too much cost to the CORPrats from EPA rules the EPA shifted to a bureaucracy mostly annoying small biz that was done by the GOP leaders with malaise of forethought
The media wants you to puppet their insults. They want you to think a certain way. For example If you believe T shirts made overseas are made by people who would be better off without the T shirt company in their country, just dont buy those shirts. I think telling people who dont see it that way that they are selfish and only care about themselves really wont help change their mind. They may believe earning a comparatively high wage within that country to make T shirts is better than digging through waste for food. The media also wants you to tell people who dont like what Obama is doing that they are racists. But I'm not saying their are no selfish people at all, or there are no racists at all.
I'm understand your point however I am not calling people who by shirts from a 3rd world country selfish. I am calling people who admittedly care for themselves above others selfish.
I think many media outlets have an agenda and that agenda usually is money. Your point about Obama is lost on me I don't see much evidence in the media I tend to frequent.
IP: Logged
10:31 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
You have a thesis on a car forum. Nice. You missed the point. Yes, I know it's a different cycle, however those statements don't take into account the total cycle. A lot of the "science" only focuses on what they want to report and ignores the rest.
Did you know water is a primary ingredient of acid rain? Do you conclude water is bad, then? If you ignore the rest, it certainly sounds like it. What's ignored is as important as what's reported.
IP: Logged
10:55 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Fossil fuel emissions are actually closing a carbon cycle from hundreds of millions of years ago, when the organic sediments that turned into gas, oil and coal were originally laid down on seabeds and lakebeds. Those were periods when the geologic and fossil evidence indicates that the earth was much warmer and atmospheric CO2 was significantly more abundant. By closing this carbon cycle with the widespread use of fossil fuels, homo sapiens is on track to recreate climates that are similar to those prehistoric greenhouse environments. But as a species, we are not well adapted to greenhouse conditions because we did not evolve from primates during the last couple of million years under such conditions.
I don't think that warm, acidic oceans are a promising inheritance for our future descendants.
And that's not even the half of it..
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-11-2013).]
IP: Logged
11:16 AM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Originally posted by 2.5: Do you think this would occur even if we produced zero emissions beginning today? Do scientists?
Speaking for myself, I think that the planet would not be likely to experience disruptive global warming during the next thousand years if atmospheric CO2 could be stabilized at the current level, or not too far above. I suspect that many climate scientists would agree, or they wouldn't be arguing for reductions in the use of fossil fuels.
Even if all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were instantly eliminated, as of today, the planet would still continue to warm over the course of the 21st century because of the CO2 that is already in the lower atmosphere. But I think that would not be the kind of disruptive global warming that we are on track for (by 2100), based on current and projected fossil fuel consumption.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-11-2013).]
IP: Logged
11:31 AM
84fiero123 Member
Posts: 29950 From: farmington, maine usa Registered: Oct 2004
Speaking for myself, I think that the planet would not be likely to experience disruptive global warming during the next thousand years if atmospheric CO2 could be stabilized at the current level, or not too far above. I suspect that many climate scientists would agree, or they wouldn't be arguing for reductions in the use of fossil fuels.
Even if all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were instantly eliminated, as of today, the planet would still continue to warm over the course of the 21st century because of the CO2 that is already in the lower atmosphere. But I think that would not be the kind of disruptive global warming that we are on track for (by 2100), based on current and projected fossil fuel consumption.
the planet goes threw cycles, heating and cooling, we had the ice age and then it melted, how are we going to stop the planets normal cycles is beyond me, we can't control the weather in one local area what makes anyone think we could control the entire planet? it is all part of the planets circle of life, we are just flees on it and what we do have very little to do with what it has planed for us. get over this trying to control global anything we are just here for the ride.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
IP: Logged
11:48 AM
jmclemore Member
Posts: 2395 From: Wichita Ks USA Registered: Dec 2007
Carbon dioxide (CO2) : Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane (CH4) : Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid
The EPA places co2 at the top of it's emissions chart. Based on their statement on co2 emissions (and there understanding of the carbon cycle) it appears they do not include human breath as an emission source. So the Idea that co2 emissions could be reduced by holding our breath (as sarcastic as it was meant) at least has some potential merit as an offset.
quote
What results are you talking about? & All the efforts that have been made?
The EPA has been active for 40 years and spent trillions of dollars. If your saying there has been no results or efforts by the US to effect climate change in a positive way, then you guys are saying the EPA has done nothing and had no real effect. Not me.
quote
it has always amazed me that folks who have no use for the Environmental Protection Agency don't breathe in air directly from their vehicle engine's exhaust manifold and don't drink H2O from the nearest source of untreated water.
Hopefully you are amazed that people who care about the environment think the problem is worse not better and that there has been no effort by us to improve it.... I'm sure the people at the EPA think they are doing a good job, making an effort and difference in our environment.
quote
In response to the "failings" of the EPA....... I worked in industry as an environmental engineer starting in the early 80's. The EPA was new, they were starting to regulated water discharges, waste disposal, and air emissions.
Thank you for your work..... My comments were not a slam on the EPA. It was a contrast to what was being said about the effectiveness of our efforts to improve the environment. For 40 years we've been hearing that the environment is bad. There is a lot of truth behind that claim that is irrefutable. But after 40 years, we should be level minded enough to acknowledge the gains we have made. My assertion was that emissions from automobiles have improved (greatly) with the introduction of catalytic converters and the removal of lead from gasoline. In addition to that, the mpg improvements from 8-12 mpg to 18-35 mpg (achieved before hybrids) are themselves great improvements. other emission control devices and leaner fuel mixtures have also contributed to huge reductions in emissions. No doubt we could do more. But it's getting a bit absurd when the narrative would have us believe it's worse today than 40 years ago.
IP: Logged
12:31 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Fossil fuel emissions are actually closing a carbon cycle from hundreds of millions of years ago, when the organic sediments that turned into gas, oil and coal were originally laid down on seabeds and lakebeds. Those were periods when the geologic and fossil evidence indicates that the earth was much warmer and atmospheric CO2 was significantly more abundant. By closing this carbon cycle with the widespread use of fossil fuels, homo sapiens is on track to recreate climates that are similar to those prehistoric greenhouse environments. But as a species, we are not well adapted to greenhouse conditions because we did not evolve from primates during the last couple of million years under such conditions.
I don't think that warm, acidic oceans a re a promising inheritance for our future descendants.
And that's not even the half of it..
That sounds a lot like the carbon cycle for trees. They consume CO2 when growing, and when they die, whether they burn or decay, release that CO2 back into the atmosphere. That's considered a carbon neutral cycle.
