Truth. Traffic lights don't go up until a kid on a bike gets hit by a car.
Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Global warming
- Thread starter mishka
- Start date
Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app
LONGBOARDR
Member
Plot 1b was taken from an updated data set from the Global Carbon Project, below shows the growth rate. Causality for a physical process applies even when considering a linear operation such as rate of growth. Meaning if humans are causing the CO2 growth, we should have some of the fossil fuel rate of growth in the CO2 emission data set.
If what you are trying to state is that we should see a comcomitant increase in CO2 with emission, then I disagree and the first plot you posted from Keenan et al ., 2016 makes this exact point and was the purpose of the research. CO2 removal from the atmosphere by either terrestrial or oceanic sinks are not linear, are variable with time and based on plot 1b which you provided are increasing. Thus the decrease in the fraction of emitted CO2 remaining in the atmosphere. Remember though, CO2 concentrations are still increasing, it was the rate of increase that slowed.
Just one in a myriad of challenges we face in trying to understand climate forcing agents.
Cheers
witch hobble
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2009
- Messages
- 774
- Points
- 18
So much stoke in this thread.
SkiFanE
New member
Yup, when Trump needs to take a water limo from his Fifth Ave perch, maybe he'll have second thoughts about the hoax perpetuated by Chines and lying scientists.
dlague
Active member
The reality, Trump in his lifetime will never see that. Neither will anyone here. That is part of the problem I guess. If the clues are real, not saying they are not, then they are not visible enough where personal sacrifice is involved.
I am a neutral party in this cat fight. We think we know enough about our planet but we really do not.
Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
It's definitely part of the problem. I'm tired of being told I'm going to die from Global Warming next Tuesday (at approximately 10am).
FWIW, the irony is every time you get a "respected" source making these hyperbolic alarmist claims, it actually hurts the cause of the people who passionately believe in man-created Global Warming, and that's it a big problem.
SIKSKIER
New member
I watch the science channel all the time.I dont know how many "How the universe works" programs I've watched along with many similar shows on that and other networks with shows like NOVA.Love them and cant get enough.Its facinating seeing how much you dont know.My point is,if you watch and learn from these shows you find out there is a million times more things in our solar system that can and do effect whats happening here on Earth.I suggest anyone with an opinion watch these and make up your own mind on what the probability is that its mainly us changing the climate.I think its a huge stretch.
Last edited:
wtcobb
New member
Can we hit this thread with a car?
kartski
New member
I can't say too much about the Science Channel, I only get Broadcasts and Internet TV. I heard the History Channel doesn't have a lot of History. TV has Sponsors and the Sponsors have influence on content. If Global Warming has been a big deal since the 90's, nobody has clued in Network News. They don't cover it. Hear any questions in the Presidential Debates? I did use to watch Nova for Science but they mostly seem to cover Nature stuff now. Notice at the start of Nova that they are brought to you by contributions by the Charles and Melinda Koch Foundation? I'll read stuff on the Internet, I also follow Link to see if they really support the Post and if someone can't provide Links, they have all the authority of a Drunk at the bar. They might be right, but I would bet one way or the other.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
You don't remember Bernie Sanders claiming it's the biggest threat to America's national security (not an Onion story by the way, he really said that)?
Jully
Active member
Please
jack97
New member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,513
- Points
- 0
The water level rise is a hoax..... but not made by the Chinese. I see a straight line with no acceleration, especially when emissions kicked in around 2000.
benski
Active member
The water level rise is a hoax..... but not made by the Chinese. I see a straight line with no acceleration, especially when emissions kicked in around 2000.
So sea levels rose over 1.5 feet.
bdfreetuna
New member
The graph also suggests exactly no impact from human activity.
moresnow
Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2008
- Messages
- 477
- Points
- 16
To be fair, he didn't just make it up.
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/612812
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Well, 2 things on that:
1) He said Global Warming is the #1 most serious security threat America faces. Not nuclear weapons, not ISIS, not China, not other terrorism, not cyberwarfare, not Russia, not 101 other fairly obvious things.
2) It's a completely moronic statement, dopey "Congressional request" DOD statement or not. And it's not even serious, it's meant as an excuse to ferret funding away from Defense (which has a large budget and the Obama administration hates), to Climate Change matters (which the Obama administration supports).
dlague
Active member
Well we do not have to worry about the Obama part of the story!
Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app
benski
Active member
Its based on the fact that global warming could cause large natural disasters, and doubts that will be deadly terrorism or nukes. He probably doubts any of todays leaders will actually Nuke another country.
LONGBOARDR
Member
The water level rise is a hoax..... but not made by the Chinese. I see a straight line with no acceleration, especially when emissions kicked in around 2000.
Good evening,
Key word for the data presented is inertia.
We would all surely agree that an increase in CO2 at around year 2000 will not translate in an immediate increase in air temperature.
There is a significant lag time and a prominent change in the slope of the line you are looking for is not going to happen
Next there is the lag in the two mechanisms that cause sea level rise, ice melt and thermal expansion of ocean water.
More inertia and lag on even a longer time scale.
The part of sea level rise that freaks a lot of scientists is that even if CO2 and other forcing agents were to stabilize the rise will continue for quite awhile. physics at work.
BTW I agree that there are lots of people exploiting climate change for their own purposes, political, economic etc.
Nowadays scientists are told we have to communicate better, unfortunately it is often through filters that have their own agenda.
Time to sharpen my edges for the fresh ice this weekend and keg the new batch of beer.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
And similar illogical pacifists like Neville Chamberlain were in "doubt" that Adolph Hitler would actually invade sovereign European countries.
