Summer Arctic Ice

fbrissette · May 21, 2014

dlague said:
Based on historical patterns we will go into another ice age in about 1500 years.

The biggest factor for generating CO2 - volcanoes.

Volcanoes and movements in continental plates contributed to high amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

there are many other natural events that can generate much much more than humans can.

We currently are in the middle of a solar cycle where higher levels of solar radiation are being recorded

View attachment 12665

All of the above have been studies in great details by scientists more knowledgeable than any of us on that board. And by an overwhelming majority, they all say that the earth is warming and that we are the main cause.

Graphs: Do note that CO2 concentration has now reached 400ppm. It puts things into a different perspective when you add ALL of the relevant data doesn't it ? The above graph shows CO2 evolution until pre-industrial age (1800).

dlague · May 21, 2014

fbrissette said:
All of the above have been studies in great details by scientists more knowledgeable than any of us on that board. And by an overwhelming majority, they all say that the earth is warming and that we are the main cause.

Graphs: Do note that CO2 concentration has now reached 400ppm. It puts things into a different perspective when you add ALL of the relevant data doesn't it ? The above graph shows CO2 evolution until pre-industrial age (1800).

The point being that the Earth has warmed before - there just weren't any people around who think they can prevent it! It will eventually cool again. There are lots of natural events that will have there own impact.

So I guess we should resort back to the 1800's (sarcasm)! We all know that we are creatures of comfort, adventure and entertainment, so I do not seeing us slowing down any time soon!

Cannonball · May 21, 2014

dlague said:
The point being that the Earth has warmed before - there just weren't any people around who think they can prevent it!

You're right, we (mostly) can't prevent warming from the causes that have created it in the past. But we can prevent it from at happening at our own hand. I can't prevent the fact that I'm going to die some day, but that doens't mean I'm inclined to accelerate by smoking 3 packs a day.

dlague said:
We all know that we are creatures of comfort, adventure and entertainment, so I do not seeing us slowing down any time soon!

That was the mentality of previous generations as the dumped crap into our waterways. Now we are paying through the nose to clean it up. Can't we learn from history? Or are you cool with passing the next problems on to your kids to deal with?

twinplanx · May 21, 2014

Puck it said:
Bingo, I have always said that we should not be dumping crap into the enivronment but let's not destroy people's lively hood too. .

Seriously? If some makes there "lively hood" by destroying the environment, I say FUCK THEM! I do not wish to share my planet with such people. I don't care if there broke & can't drive there fat kids to the bus stop in there giant SUVs...

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk

dlague · May 21, 2014

twinplanx said:
Seriously? If some makes there "lively hood" by destroying the environment, I say FUCK THEM! I do not wish to share my planet with such people. I don't care if there broke & can't drive there fat kids to the bus stop in there giant SUVs...

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk

If some makes there "lively hood" by destroying the environment, I say FUCK THEM!

You made this out to be a fat and broke person issue.

I think we should cancel all concerts, close all theaters, stop attending professional sports, shut down ski areas, people should not be able to travel, recreational power boating banned, we should live close to our relatives, etc. My the economy would come tumbling down! I am being sarcastic of course, but livelihoods are affected by everything we do! Next time you are skiing say that to a liftie!

twinplanx · May 21, 2014

^right, cause thats what I meant. Eye roll

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk

fbrissette · May 21, 2014

dlague said:
The point being that the Earth has warmed before -

At the rate at which we are changing our environment (and this includes a lot of things in addition to climate change), the fact that the earth has warmed before may soon be irrelevant. With exploding demographics and pollution, we are presently conducting a real-time experiment on earth's resilience. Never before have changes occurred so rapidly besides large asteroid impacts. We cannot control natural changes but the rate of change is slow and gives plenty of time for adaptation. However, we can control the fast pace human-induced change, and this can be done without 'wrecking the economy'. Will it cost money ? Yes. But we managed to do it for water and wastewater treatment, for hazardous waste, air pollution and CFC's, and improving our standard of living at the same time. Should we lose sleep over it ? No. But the longer we wait to act, the more complex and the more expensive it will be.

dlague said:
So I guess we should resort back to the 1800's (sarcasm)! We all know that we are creatures of comfort, adventure and entertainment, so I do not seeing us slowing down any time soon!

We can keep and improve our standard of living and live in a sustainable planet. Nobody wants to go back to the 1800's. But first we have to admit that our current ways are not sustainable.

jack97 · May 21, 2014

fbrissette said:
At the rate at which we are changing our environment (and this includes a lot of things in addition to climate change), the fact that the earth has warmed before may soon be irrelevant. With exploding demographics and pollution, we are presently conducting a real-time experiment on earth's resilience. Never before have changes occurred so rapidly besides large asteroid impacts. We cannot control natural changes but the rate of change is slow and gives plenty of time for adaptation. However, we can control the fast pace human-induced change, and this can be done without 'wrecking the economy'. Will it cost money ? Yes. But we managed to do it for water and wastewater treatment, for hazardous waste, air pollution and CFC's, and improving our standard of living at the same time. Should we lose sleep over it ? No. But the longer we wait to act, the more complex and the more expensive it will be.

Where is the cause that co2 has increased temps in the last 18 years? It has remain flat! Where is the cause that co2 has accelerated sea level rise since the 1800s? seas level rates have been constant!

In the US, congress will debate if we should appropriate 600 billions dollars where some would go to the UN for more climate studies. I would rather we use that for real research on alternate fuel and perhaps world education to keep things our the pants.

jack97 · May 21, 2014

fbrissette said:
All of the above have been studies in great details by scientists more knowledgeable than any of us on that board. And by an overwhelming majority, they all say that the earth is warming and that we are the main cause.

haha... that opinion is from the IPCC and Cook's paper. Both are flaw since they polled like minds, the questions and the review process had a significant bias.

More scientist are starting to take into account natural causes for the warming. The only ones clinging to the AGW are the ones who wants to use their flaw models because they have a vested interest in it.

fbrissette said:
Graphs: Do note that CO2 concentration has now reached 400ppm. It puts things into a different perspective when you add ALL of the relevant data doesn't it ? The above graph shows CO2 evolution until pre-industrial age (1800).

yes it does.....it possible we can tolerate more co2 and man could have lived in an environment with more co2 than this arbitrary number of 400 ppm. US submariners live in prolong conditions where the co2 levels are no more than 7000 ppm, I trust that these are safe levels because essentially they have the finger on the trigger to make mankind very unpleasant. I have seen similar reports and study that NASA astronauts breathe in the same levels.

Like other measurements; temps and sea level rate, the Mauna Loa co2 rates have not significant increased in the past 20 to 30 years.

fbrissette · May 21, 2014

jack97 said:
More scientist are starting to take into account natural causes for the warming.

????????? Natural causes of warming have been taken into account since the very beginning of climate change research, way way before the IPCC even existed. In the 5th assessment report there are roughly 150 pages of text with dozens of references devoted to natural causes.

jack97 said:
US submariners live in prolong conditions where the co2 levels are no more than 7000 ppm

WTH has this got to do with AGW ? 1000 ppm CO2 is normal in office spaces and well tolerated. I doubt your 7000 ppm figure very much if at atmospheric pressure.

jack97 · May 21, 2014

fbrissette said:
????????? Natural causes of warming have been taken into account since the very beginning of climate change research, way way before the IPCC even existed. In the 5th assessment report there are roughly 150 pages of text with dozens of references devoted to natural causes.

.

taken into the context that co2 is not the driver nor the dominate cause for AGW. Observations is proof this now.

There are more papers that are exploring natural causes. Even Trenberth is wondering if the ocean has eaten his global warmth.

fbrissette said:
WTH has this got to do with AGW ? 1000 ppm CO2 is normal in office spaces and well tolerated. I doubt your 7000 ppm figure very much if at atmospheric pressure.

AGW alarmist are concern that we exceeded 400 ppm and all life as we know will change for the worst. That number was the last tipping point number by these alarmist.

I recalled then congresswoman Boxer ranted and raving having to breathing 1000 ppm when she was prolly the main cause of it.

Cannonball · May 21, 2014

jack97 said:
it possible we can tolerate more co2 and man could have lived in an environment with more co2 than this arbitrary number of 400 ppm. US submariners live in prolong conditions where the co2 levels are no more than 7000 ppm, I trust that these are safe levels because essentially they have the finger on the trigger to make mankind very unpleasant.

People enjoy 105 degree hottubs too. WTF does that have to do with climate?

jack97 · May 21, 2014

Cannonball said:
People enjoy 105 degree hottubs too. WTF does that have to do with climate?

magic 400 ppm came up. that's has been another tipping number. that's the reason for the fAck.

dlague · May 21, 2014

The problem is - no one can predict with any accuracy which natural causes will have significant impact. A few good volcanos can be devastating!

i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone

Cannonball · May 21, 2014

jack97 said:
magic 400 ppm came up. that's has been another tipping number. that's the reason for the fAck.

Wow

jack97 · May 21, 2014

Cannonball said:
Wow

haha... best you got?

Cannonball · May 21, 2014

dlague said:
The problem is - no one can predict with any accuracy which natural causes will have significant impact. A few good volcanos can be devastating!

i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone

Actually we can predict with great accuracy which natural causes can have a significant impact. Including the fact that that a few good volcanos can be devastating. We can also predict which human causes can have a significant impact. That whole picture is exactly the point.

jack97 · May 21, 2014

dlague said:
The problem is - no one can predict with any accuracy which natural causes will have significant impact. A few good volcanos can be devastating!

i typed with my i thumbs using AlpineZone

yep, there are natural cycle we still don't know with any accuracy. In addition, the current GCM mainly consider greenhouse gases where some natural cycles such as el/la nino are fudge factors. they can run stochastic sims to account for the variability in the cycle but in the end it's still a guess.

jack97 · May 21, 2014

Cannonball said:
Actually we can predict with great accuracy which natural causes can have a significant impact. Including the fact that that a few good volcanos can be devastating. We can also predict which human causes can have a significant impact. That whole picture is exactly the point.

if that's the case, how come the model predictions are still off target and have not predicted the pause? Even the modelers themselves are saying the simulation's confidence levels will fall off 90% if the pause last longer than 20 yrs.

fbrissette · May 21, 2014

jack97 said:
yep, there are natural cycle we still don't know with any accuracy. In addition, the current GCM mainly consider greenhouse gases where some natural cycles such as el/la nino are fudge factors. they can run stochastic sims to account for the variability in the cycle but in the end it's still a guess.

I am officially impressed ! It takes special skill to get so many things wrong in so little space.

Summer Arctic Ice

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads