Global Warming

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Xringer

Saying that "Global Warming is not a political subject" and also saying it's
"Settled Science" and there can be no debate about it.?.

That kinda makes it a taboo subject that can't be discussed.?. At all.?.

Well, I just want to make one last comment before I unsubscribe from this thread..

If it's really "Settled Science", and we have all the facts nailed down solid..
Can we now stop spending so much taxpayer's money on GW 'studies'??

Can we divert that money to a program that might divert asteroids from impacting the earth??
МЕТЕОÐ*ИТ ЧЕЛЯБИÐ�СК - YouTube
Since that's a danger that even us non-asteroid-scientist can understand.

We already do. With the said, the likely costs of anthropomorphic climate change are viewed as greater than the costs of an asteroid impact by most.

We can probably divert an asteroid in years to decades, but minimizing the impacts of and coping with the changes associated with climate change will take decades to centuries.

[ecomodded]

Oh no more stupid redirect.

Ya really think a Asteroid strike is over rated ? Not sure how many people hold that belief. If I had to guess I would say your all alone on that one.


It's not just nuke'n the Asteroid, Its detecting it that is the real issue.
We need more then bombs, All that space around us is much harder to monitor then one would think, at first glance. I will try to find some info on the subject, I already know we are far from even being close to being able to do that, from my research in the past..

Of around 180 worldwide, Australia bears the scars of more than 30 major impact craters.

Evidence of huge asteroid impact in the outback
The asteroid would have caused a global catastrophe.
Further research may reveal it to be older and possibly closer to the Late Devonian extinction event 360 million years ago.
AND
On Friday, a 45m-wide asteroid – 2012 DA14 – passed just 34,000km from Earth, closer than the distance of the Moon.

Evidence of huge asteroid impact found in outback - Australian Geographic

[ecomodded]

Originally Posted by Exeric

Creeky, you're right that there is a substantial portion of the population that thinks like that here. Fortunately we do not all think that way. Americans in many ways have been dumbed way down in the last several years due to the elimination of the fairness doctrine in media around the 80s and the change to news being made a part of the profit center in media.

A large part of the paranoia of the right comes from the constant drumbeat of a "liberal media" to the illiterati of our nation. This isn't even slightly true but it serves to cow the media from being critical of many of the bogus arguments and data coming from the right wing in the USA. So we don't get a balanced news media in the USA which creates distorted views like Ecomodded's views. You can see it in ecomodded's bringing up Al Gore, a hated symbol to the right, to try to rally the troops. It really is unfortunate that Eco continues to push a right wing agenda on a web discussion group that should be not be dedicated to politics but to impartial data and science.
Global Warming is not a political subject and associating the actual science of it, (not the policy regarding it), with politics degrades all of science. This isn't something that is at all new to humankind. It's happened through all human history when people didn't like what they heard, even though what they heard might be correct.

EDIT: Mr Eco resides in Canada so he has no excuse unless he's listening to too much to Mr. Murdoch's media outlets. Actually, in general its a good idea to just turn off the TV and read a good work of literature or a good (non-political) science book.

Let me bring you up to speed with reality.

I have in fact not watch TV for the last 9 years.

I actually used my own mind, my own search queries on the internet, to educate myself.

We are so not alike. I think it upsets you.

You my friend have been wrong at all of your attempts of insulting me.
Wrong as in off base. Its no wonder you believe what you do. Clueless ?
or just following the herd ? I just don't know in your case.

There ya go a direct reply to your childishness remarks.
I hope you can understand why I should bring it to your attention.
Truth is i feel sorry for you, and your weak assumptions.
Up to speed now ?

[ecomodded]

I hope we can put an end to insults right here right now.
And get on with more relevant and important discussion.

NASA is not doing enough to complete a mandated search for Earth-threatening asteroids and comets because the space agency is not receiving enough money for the problem, according to a National Research Council report.

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | More funding needed to meet asteroid detection mandate

[Xringer]

Originally Posted by ecomodded

I hope we can put an end to insults right here right now.
And get on with more relevant and important discussion.

NASA is not doing enough to complete a mandated search for Earth-threatening asteroids and comets because the space agency is not receiving enough money for the problem, according to a National Research Council report.

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | More funding needed to meet asteroid detection mandate

Sadly we can't afford to fund either of these problem areas..
Maybe China will take the challenge. But at the rate they generate CO2.?. Maybe not.
Not sure if they will be interested in space, after their customer are all in the poorhouse..

The USA as we know it, is just about ready for the scrapheap of history...

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly. - YouTube
Links to info sources and charts etc.
There Will Be No Economic Recovery, Prepare Yourself Accordingly - Freedomain Radio

[Daox]

Please keep things civil guys. Discussion is good, insults are not acceptable.

[Exeric]

Daox, I agree. I'll try to do better.

Eco Ok, let's keep this civil. Lets get back to your first principal argument for saying that global warming is a natural cycle. You referenced a chart showing concentrations of CO2, and other atmospheric gases, that were hidden in ice cores going back approx 600,000 years. In that chart there was a cyclic rise in CO2 levels approx every 125,000 years going back the last 350,000 years or so. You argued that according to that chart we are right on schedule and presumably will be quick to return to lower more usual CO2 levels quickly.

The interesting thing to me, and I'm sure to you, is that the chart shows CO2 levels that currently peak at the level of past CO2 peaks: about .03%. In reality the current level is .0392% according to the NOA. This is a level about 33% higher than any previous peak in the last 350,000 years. This just does not agree with an unbroken series similar peaks. The timing does appear to agree.

The point I'm making is that the timing only appears to agree because we are at a point in time were the data ends. Charts often break out of their recurring cycles and create new patterns as new data comes in. The world is not a static cycle machine and patterns change with the fullness of time. The CO2 level is now accelerating past any previous peak in the last 600,000 years and this acceleration coincides with the burning of carbon sequestered fuels by man.

What is your counter argument?

[ecomodded]

Please do post a link to your findings of 33% higher Co2 now then anytime in the last 350 million years.
Don't stop there Post another link that reports the Co2 levels for the last 1 million years.

I could use that material if you want to further the discussion.
I Don't want to miss your important facts or waste my time trying to disprove Someones baseless musings.
I already posted information on that, in the form of a Chart. I did not see a 33% increase anywhere. Or do you mean 3.33% 0.33% do tell.
Do enlighten me.

[Exeric]

Here is the link, also in post 15:

http://co2now.org/images/stories/dat...-noaa-esrl.pdf

Both your chart and the table of CO2 values above are referencing numbers by PPMV. I read that as Parts Per Million by Volume of atmosphere. If you look at the latest findings in the above tables the most recent data in 2012 shows a number of 393.82 parts per million of CO2 by volume of atmosphere. By the usual math that equates to a CO2 level of .039% in the atmosphere.

The chart you referenced showed a current level of below 300 ppmv in the atmosphere or .03% of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is incorrect. So the CO2 is accelerating far above any previous cycle in that chart. I'm not giving any new information here. I'm just repeating and elaborating the information from post 15 that I've already offered. Technically that increase in percentage is 31.33% from the approx previous peak of 300 ppmv to the current 394 ppmv.

EDIT: Restating, the current CO2 peak is at least 1.31 times any of the previous peaks in the last 600,000 years. So I guess I was incorrect in saying the current level is 31% above previous. The proper wording is that the level now is 131% of any previous peak.

[ecomodded]

That is not helpful at all.
Its like Believing The Prosecuting Lawyer should send a man to prison, without a trial. That provided nothing,To me.
So you are standing behind Your Governments findings. And I should as well, I take it.
I`m sorry, it just does not work for me. How about from a source a little More Impartial, instead of from Somewhere where they have nothing to lose & everything to gain.
Think about it.
I suggest something from the Private Sector.
Where they Have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming

The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming | Watts Up With That?