Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[silkstone]

No, that source is looking exclusively at published articles. It doesn't ask anyone's opinion. I quote:

That's hardly scientific. All that really amounts to is that climatologists are getting a lot of money to research climate change and that shouldn't surprise anyone (pretty much exclusively the only contracts available since the first IPCC report in the early 1990s). Additionally, the criteria they used for categorizing articles has been heavily criticized and there are a lot of garbage references..

It should also be strongly noted that this article is written by John Cook, the founder of Skeptical Science blog. He profits directly from the climate change alarmism (estimated value $21,000) by way of accepting donations. Website was founded in 2007. He published his first book on climate change in 2011. As far as I can gather, he is not a climatologist (has a degree in physics and is pursuing a degree in psychology).

NASA quotes a couple of other research papers too and some conference proceedings. Regardless, Skeptical Science is a well respected blog, not alarmist. It presents straightforward information. Who were the $21,000 worth of donations from and how many donors?

The actual number was 54% (55% call themselves Democrat) and even 60% doesn't constitute an "overwhelming majority." It is simply a "majority." 60% is what got us Obamacare and the outcome of that is far from "peaceful." 55.5% is what got us the slew of recent SCOTUS rulings and those have hardly had "peaceful" outcomes either. You're not going to get "peaceful" unless it is unanimous (100%).

In a block and white issue, 60 to 40% would not be a huge majority, but when there are more than two options, it does become an overwhelming majority. If you ask 100 dinner guests whether they want spaghetti, fajitas, chilli, stir-fry, curry, .... and 60% respond that they want spaghetti, you are gonna be cooking spaghetti. If they were asked about red or white whine and 60% said they wanted red, you'd be buying both red and white wine. It's all about context.

In the context of scientists agreeing on a cause, 60% is a majority.

I put that text in parenthesis for a reason. The original study that looked at extreme weather events, I believe, was performed by NOAA. Out of the four categories they looked at, only one increased (I believe it was flooding). As I pointed out, the good dissenting articles are quickly buried by the noise on the internet for any and everything that supports climate alarmism likely because they get a lot more hits. I'd have to dig through thousands of posts to find it.

There is no green conspiracy in this. That some predictions come true and others do not isn't evidence that climate science is flawed. If all hypothesis' we correct, there would be no science. It's just the basis behind science works. You are looking into an area of research that is related to climate change but vastly different from other areas.

There is the past, then the future. Looking into the past is very easy and it is clear that it is CO2 and driven by human actions. Looking into the future is more difficult and is where more (complex) models come in. That something doesn't happen as predicted does not that any of the science is wrong and it should all be thrown away. It means that the model should be updated with the new data to, hopefully, make better predictions.

Plants are ultimate what puts carbon back in the dirt. Killing off plants contributes to increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2 because less carbon can be removed from the atmosphere on an annual basis. The same also applies to algae and other ocean-based carbon dioxide consuming plants and organisms.

Bioengineering plants can lead to species of plants that excel at photosynthesis (e.g. remove the fruit bearing from a species and devote it all to creating carbon-full root nodules). Farmers could plant those as part of conservation program and disc them into the ground permanently removing a massive amount of carbon from the atmosphere.

Yes! This! This is where the debate should be! What can we do to reduce/mitigate climate change?

Currently, IMHO, the biggest problem is that all the "leading and respected" journals are not really entertaining 2 sides of the argument: its either you are a climate change advocate, or you are an idiot and we will not publish your paper. Unfortunately, this does not lead to a healthy debate. This gap is filled by funding from companies vested in denying climate change (think Big Oil Co.), damaging credibility and allowing strawman arguments.

Unfortunately, it is all the funding from companies and the strawman arguments that are the source of the debate. Do you think that these big companies have not funded their own research into climate change? If there were evidence that it were not man-made, would it not be published?

 

[Fourstaff]

Unfortunately, it is all the funding from companies and the strawman arguments that are the source of the debate. Do you think that these big companies have not funded their own research into climate change? If there were evidence that it were not man-made, would it not be published?

Self serving would be what is expected for big companies (after all, they answer to their shareholders who demands max profits). What I am asking is for a more impartial view, for some perverse reason we are not getting any.

To make matters interesting, Shell is taking "we must cut down CO2 emissions" stance. http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html

 

[FordGT90Concept]

NASA quotes a couple of other research papers too and some conference proceedings. Regardless, Skeptical Science is a well respected blog, not alarmist. It presents straightforward information. Who were the $21,000 worth of donations from and how many donors?

It's a private blog. The $21k figure comes from estimated domain name valuation. "Respected" and "blog" is an oxymoron.

That also doesn't change the fact that is very abnormal for scientific journals to publish a collation of other journals. There is no new research presented--it's everyone else's research. Seriously, if you did what Cook did and submitted it for your graduating thesis, good chance you'd get flunked. The only reason why it was published and why it got so much attention is because the subject matter is extremely popular at the time of publication and among publishers. In publishing it, it added fuel to the politicization fire.

In the context of scientists agreeing on a cause, 60% is a majority.

There, now you're learning. But lets wrap this back into the point above. Natural science cares nothing of percentage of agreement on anything; only provable facts. By so many people dragging this dead beat article into the discussion, they themselves are turning the subject into political science, not natural science. Consensus only proves consensus, not natural science. The natural science, if it exists, is found in the articles supposedly cited (again, note how short the reference list is).

There is no green conspiracy in this. That some predictions come true and others do not isn't evidence that climate science is flawed. If all hypothesis' we correct, there would be no science. It's just the basis behind science works. You are looking into an area of research that is related to climate change but vastly different from other areas.

The only "predications" that came "true" were those that were Nostradamus-like. You know, things like saying glaciers will melt. Well no shit Sherlock. That doesn't take in to account the fact they grow in the winter. It's the cycle that maters, not any singular event. Sure, it trends one way for a while but then it trends the other way for a while. There isn't enough data to make predictions that are remotely accurate and certainly not long term accurate.

Yes! This! This is where the debate should be! What can we do to reduce/mitigate climate change?

Because there is no debate. It's Freeman Dyson's analysis at work (technology is advancing faster than climate change). Here's one of Dyson's articles: Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society (published 2007). Here's one quote that should be brought into this discussion:

There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global.

He is right; the satellites show the bulk of the warming is in the northern hemisphere:

There is significant cooling too though. Here's an excellent quote that explains some of the pattern above:

Everyone agrees that the increasing abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has two important consequences, first a change in the physics of radiation transport in the atmosphere, and second a change in the biology of plants on the ground and in the ocean. Opinions differ on the relative importance of the physical and biological effects, and on whether the effects, either separately or together, are beneficial or harmful. The physical effects are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind-strength and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase “global warming”. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading.

 

[silkstone]

It's a private blog. The $21k figure comes from estimated domain name valuation. "Respected" and "blog" is an oxymoron.

So he didn't receive $21k in donations and isn't profiting from it? NYT and WP praised the blog, that's as close as you are going to get to being praised.

That also doesn't change the fact that is very abnormal for scientific journals to publish a collation of other journals. There is no new research presented--it's everyone else's research. Seriously, if you did what Cook did and submitted it for your graduating thesis, good chance you'd get flunked. The only reason why it was published and why it got so much attention is because the subject matter is extremely popular at the time of publication and among publishers. In publishing it, it added fuel to the politicization fire.

You've never heard of a meta-analysis?

There, now you're learning. But lets wrap this back into the point above. Natural science cares nothing of percentage of agreement on anything; only provable facts. By so many people dragging this dead beat article into the discussion, they themselves are turning the subject into political science, not natural science. Consensus only proves consensus, not natural science. The natural science, if it exists, is found in the articles supposedly cited (again, note how short the reference list is).

Natural science concerns itself with hypothesis and theories (not the same thing) nothing is taken to be a fact in science. Historic climate change is a theory, not a hypothesis.
I'm not sure how it's being politicized by saying 97% of scientists concur that climate change is real and influenced by human activity. The point of the analysis was not to look into the science behind climate change. I don't understand what is wrong with the references, if you understand how referencing works. If you state that xxx said "yyy" then you cite it. It doesn;t tell you anything about the instruments used in the study, whether they are valid or not. That is what the peer-review is for.

The only "predications" that came "true" were those that were Nostradamus-like. You know, things like saying glaciers will melt. Well no shit Sherlock. That doesn't take in to account the fact they grow in the winter. It's the cycle that maters, not any singular event. Sure, it trends one way for a while but then it trends the other way for a while. There isn't enough data to make predictions that are remotely accurate and certainly not long term accurate.

It does take into account the annual cycles.

Other predictions that have come true:
A warming of 0.55C (a little lower at 0.39C, but still statistically significant)
The rise in atmospheric CO2
Drought-prone regions recieving less rainfall
Antarctic ice beginning to crack and crumble
More extreme weather

Using 20-year old, basic models and knowing the computer processing power of the time, it's pretty remarkable that any are correct.

He is right; the satellites show the bulk of the warming is in the northern hemisphere:

There is significant cooling too though. Here's an excellent quote that explains some of the pattern above:

And there in lies the bulk of the problem. Colder areas getting warmer. Less Ice, higher sea level. Less permafrost, higher carbon dioxide.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So he didn't receive $21k in donations and isn't profiting from it? NYT and WP praised the blog, that's as close as you are going to get to being praised.

We have no idea how much he received. Both are leftist publications.

I'm not sure how it's being politicized by saying 97% of scientists concur that climate change is real and influenced by human activity.

You just did it again. Cook examined publications and did not poll climatologists. The rest of what you said there more closely matches Pew Research Center's finding (which you criticized as being funded by "big oil") and the number they come up with is 84%. That's self-identified "scientists" which includes all fields of study.

Again, remember that some 81% of scientists lean liberal and this is reflected in all of the scientists versus public questions asked by Pew. The scientists' perspective, so long as that strong majority remains, will remain skewed to the left. Which brings me back to the point that none of this matters. It's the dogma Dyson talks about.

1) A warming of 0.55C (a little lower at 0.39C, but still statistically significant)
2) The rise in atmospheric CO2
3) Drought-prone regions recieving less rainfall
4) Antarctic ice beginning to crack and crumble
5) More extreme weather

1) Uh, that's my point. The model was wrong. Even Dyson wouldn't argue against a slight increase in warming but what is debated is the significance of it. The models consistently overestimate warming which leads to alarmism. The models are pretty consistently inaccurate at predicting (off by 29% in your figure which is huge). If they published that prediction with a standard deviation of +/-29%, no one would take it seriously.

2) Atmospheric CO2 levels are climbing on pretty much a straight line. Anyone with a straight edge and the line graph can figure that out. Not exactly noteworthy.

3) Not true. Places like Arizona got record rainfalls. The quote I gave from Dyson explains pretty clearly why that is. This is a myth.

4) That is a function of glaciers. Not noteworthy.

5) Already demonstrated that isn't true. The number and severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, and typhoons has been falling. Dyson explains why that is as well (water vapor easily overpowers carbon dioxide and extreme weather occurs where it is hot and moist).

 

[Fourstaff]

Look again at the picture. Look at the poles. Note they don't have a color. Note what that means.

Note says: "Grey areas represent missing data". Based on that map itself, we cannot really tell what is happening in the poles.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Note says: "Grey areas represent missing data". Based on that map itself, we cannot really tell what is happening in the poles.

How did I miss that? It makes sense though because the orbit of the satellites tends to be just north of the equator. I wonder why NASA hasn't launched a satellite that orbits longitudinally to fill in those holes. Dyson's logic dictates that the Arctic should have the largest temperature difference on the entire planet if non-vapor greenhouse gases are to blame. The red blips over Alaska and Siberia suggest that may be the case but missing data is missing data.

 

[Caring1]

He is right; the satellites show the bulk of the warming is in the northern hemisphere:

Coincidence that the bulk of the land mass is north of the Equator and they retain heat more than the oceans.
Australia shows significant warming also on that graphic.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Remember, that image shows average temperature change over 30 years, not actual temperatures. Assuming greenhouse gases (non-water vapor) are to blame for Australia's increase, it is likely due to the Australian Outback being dry. Greenhouse gases could also explain the warming in the Rocky Mountains but it doesn't explain the cooling on the Great Plains.

Europe being hotter is an anomaly but that probably has more to do with currents in the Atlantic Ocean than anything else.

 

[magibeg]

I don't even full understand what everyone is arguing about here anymore. Even the numbers Ford posted shows a scientific consensus on the matter.

The world IS warming. (ie there is more energy entering the system than currently leaving it)

Humans are the cause. This is a done deal lol

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Even the numbers Ford posted shows a scientific consensus on the matter.

Only because they are like-minded individuals. The "heretics" are ignored but that doesn't make them wrong. Consensus doesn't make natural laws.

Even though many countries have done a lot to change the rate of fossil fuel combustion in the past decade, it has had little to no impact on atmospheric CO2. The cause doesn't matter; the actions we take to correct it does (assuming it is even something dangerous at current levels which is extremely debatable).

The world IS warming. (ie there is more energy entering the system than currently leaving it)

And the solutions are actually quite simple. If you haven't read that Dyson article, I recommend you do. All we need to really do is make sure that the carbon agriculture plants take out of the air is committed to the dirt instead of being reintroduced to the ecosystem. He concluded that to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, we only need to grow top soil by 1/100ths of an inch per year. Carbon dioxide is not a bad thing and corn is very, very efficient at removing it from the atmosphere.

Humans are the cause. This is a done deal lol

There are many, many causes. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been in flux since the atmosphere first formed on Earth. We contribute but we aren't the sole cause. We aren't even the majority cause (organic decomposition and oceanic releases are the largest).

 

[P4-630]

Ha ha ha and pigs will fly ( no not in Optica aircraft or pink floyd Ballons)
this is the real World not Telly Tubby land.

Edit
Oh it was reported in the Daily mail and their source was the Onion supported by the huffinton post and the National Inquirer

so it must be true Snigger

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

 

[dorsetknob]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

We're Doomed
where is that Vogon hyperspace bypass construction ship Never one around when you want one

Ps i got my towel and babel fish

 

[magibeg]

Only because they are like-minded individuals. The "heretics" are ignored but that doesn't make them wrong. Consensus doesn't make natural laws.

Even though many countries have done a lot to change the rate of fossil fuel combustion in the past decade, it has had little to no impact on atmospheric CO2. The cause doesn't matter; the actions we take to correct it does (assuming it is even something dangerous at current levels which is extremely debatable).

So instead you're giving an impossible scenario for evidence, because regardless of what evidence is generated you can ALWAYS claim bias. If that is truly your point of view you should never discuss this subject again, because you will never bring anything to the table.

And the solutions are actually quite simple. If you haven't read that Dyson article, I recommend you do. All we need to really do is make sure that the carbon agriculture plants take out of the air is committed to the dirt instead of being reintroduced to the ecosystem. He concluded that to reduce the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, we only need to grow top soil by 1/100ths of an inch per year. Carbon dioxide is not a bad thing and corn is very, very efficient at removing it from the atmosphere.

That only works if we don't use the top soil again. It gets cycled through plants because they take on carbon, die, and as it decomposes it returns to the atmosphere as a gas, usually methane. Dyson's method makes no sense in relation to how the cycle actually works.

There are many, many causes. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been in flux since the atmosphere first formed on Earth. We contribute but we aren't the sole cause. We aren't even the majority cause (organic decomposition and oceanic releases are the largest).

There are indeed many causes, and you are being pedantic or you don't understand the carbon cycle. We are a small part of a cycle as a total but we're introducing carbon that was previously removed from the cycle, that's the issue. The carbon cycle is about 750 gigatons and we're adding about 29 gigatons to the cycle every year. The ocean absorbs about 40% of our emissions (which is part of what is causing ocean acidification). So are you arguing that we're not causing the increase or were you just trying to convolute the issue by mentioning that the actual cycle is (obviously) much bigger than our contribution?

 

[rtwjunkie]

I don't even full understand what everyone is arguing about here anymore. Even the numbers Ford posted shows a scientific consensus on the matter.

The world IS warming. (ie there is more energy entering the system than currently leaving it)

Humans are the cause. This is a done deal lol

You had me up until your last line about Humans. THAT is what has not been proven. Remember, the Earth has heated and cooled by large amounts, thousands of times, and Humans are but a flyspeck on the timeline.

Indeed, if you are so convinced Humans are the cause, I challenge you to give up any use of power, be the first, which means no posting on TPU, no using electronic devices, no using private or public transport to go to work, don't even heat your house with a wood fire. See how silly that is? But that points out the very hypocrisy of Human alarmists...willing to point the finger, but unwilling to take all the necessary steps.

 

[Space Lynx]

Could care less about global warming, with over-fishing, or fish in the Pacific eating too much plastic crap, dead zones of fishing, cattle that is force fed corn lowering the nutritional value, geneticically modified foods lowering the nutritional quality of foods, and a recent study I read last week of the over-consumption of water and how almost half of all water basins are using more water than they can replenish.... I have no doubt humans will have a mass famine, or diluted food supply to not create enough energy for a productive society.

Overpopulation is going to kill humanity unless people begin getting spayed or neutered, not global warming.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-show-how-the-world-is-running-out-of-water/

 

[magibeg]

You had me up until your last line about Humans. THAT is what has not been proven. Remember, the Earth has heated and cooled by large amounts, thousands of times, and Humans are but a flyspeck on the timeline.

Indeed, if you are so convinced Humans are the cause, I challenge you to give up any use of power, be the first, which means no posting on TPU, no using electronic devices, no using private or public transport to go to work, don't even heat your house with a wood fire. See how silly that is? But that points out the very hypocrisy of Human alarmists...willing to point the finger, but unwilling to take all the necessary steps.

Your argument is nonsense.

I can recognize the fact that alcohol is bad for me, prove that alcohol is bad for me, and still drink alcohol. It's about moderation. Who taught you ideas that silly that the world only works in black and white? I'm not even going to get into the ramifications that would occur if this was applied to everything in life.

You tell me to remember that the earth has heated and cooled in the past, do you know why? Did you even put in proper study before you make broad assumptions that everything is normal? Did you ever wonder why CO2 is considered both a cause and historically an amplifier or climate? Did you even know that bit of information I just mentioned?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So instead you're giving an impossible scenario for evidence, because regardless of what evidence is generated you can ALWAYS claim bias. If that is truly your point of view you should never discuss this subject again, because you will never bring anything to the table.

I think it doesn't matter. As I've said repeatedly, we know two things: 1) atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising (CH4 for that matter as well) and 2) global average surface temperature is trending upwards over the past 30 years. There is an undeniable correlation between 1 and 2 but that doesn't prove causation. The only thing debatable is whether or not 1 and/or 2 are even dangerous should current trends continue. We have very little control over 2 (it's very weather-based) so even setting the aforementioned debate aside, is it worth attempting to alter the trajectory of 1? We can't definitively answer that because the prediction models are notoriously inaccurate.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't care what a collation of research papers that contain "global warming" says because it doesn't amount to anything practical. This entire discussion doesn't actually amount to anything practical because I think we all know what we, individually, can do to reduce our individual carbon-dioxide footprint. Biologists (bioengineering plants), physicists (alternative sources of energy), and economists (make alternatives cheaper) ultimately have to find the long term answer. We could reasonably get to a point where we over-control carbon-dioxide as well which would be detrimental to plants.

That only works if we don't use the top soil again. It gets cycled through plants because they take on carbon, die, and as it decomposes it returns to the atmosphere as a gas, usually methane. Dyson's method makes no sense in relation to how the cycle actually works.

Imagine growing a corn crop but instead of harvesting it, we chop it all down and layer dirt on top of it. As all that mass decomposes, most of the carbon should be trapped and next year, you'll have better top soil than you started with while at the same time removing an enormous amount of carbon from the atmosphere.

There are indeed many causes, and you are being pedantic or you don't understand the carbon cycle. We are a small part of a cycle as a total but we're introducing carbon that was previously removed from the cycle, that's the issue. The carbon cycle is about 750 gigatons and we're adding about 29 gigatons to the cycle every year. The ocean absorbs about 40% of our emissions (which is part of what is causing ocean acidification). So are you arguing that we're not causing the increase or were you just trying to convolute the issue by mentioning that the actual cycle is (obviously) much bigger than our contribution?

You've only said that a dozen times and the solution is right above. The carbon original came from plants and we can use plants to control it as well.

The source of carbon doesn't matter. All that matters is whether we need to change it or not. Carbon-dioxide is as natural as oxygen; there's no reason to demonize it.

 

[magibeg]

I think it doesn't matter. As I've said repeatedly, we know two things: 1) atmospheric CO2 is steadily rising (CH4 for that matter as well) and 2) global average surface temperature is trending upwards over the past 30 years. There is an undeniable correlation between 1 and 2 but that doesn't prove causation. The only thing debatable is whether or not 1 and/or 2 are even dangerous should current trends continue. We have very little control over 2 (it's very weather-based) so even setting the aforementioned debate aside, is it worth attempting to alter the trajectory of 1? We can't definitively answer that because the prediction models are notoriously inaccurate.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't care what a collation of research papers that contain "global warming" says because it doesn't amount to anything practical. This entire discussion doesn't actually amount to anything practical because I think we all know what we, individually, can do to reduce our individual carbon-dioxide footprint. Biologists (bioengineering plants), physicists (alternative sources of energy), and economists (make alternatives cheaper) ultimately have to find the long term answer. We could reasonably get to a point where we over-control carbon-dioxide as well which would be detrimental to plants.


Imagine growing a corn crop but instead of harvesting it, we chop it all down and layer dirt on top of it. As all that mass decomposes, most of the carbon should be trapped and next year, you'll have better top soil than you started with while at the same time removing an enormous amount of carbon from the atmosphere.


You've only said that a dozen times and the solution is right above. The carbon original came from plants and there's no reason why we can't use plants to remove it as well.

Dysons solution is not that simple. It's gassing from bacteria breaking down the corn that releases methane which turns into CO2 which would be the problem. You would have to grow the corn, flatten it, sterilize the land or bury it meters deep THEN grow on top of it. In earths history there was actually a carbon crisis once caused by trees. Originally there wasn't anything to break down wood so it caused a massive carbon sink until a type of bacteria formed which could break it down and release it back into the atmosphere.

I like where he's coming from but it won't work. Not to mention we would suffer from the case of treating the symptoms not the disease.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

We can collect methane using tarps and use it instead of oil for energy (also a means to generate profit from the land during the process). The majority of carbon is still in the dirt even after it stops venting gases.

A side benefit to the process is all that moisture the plants collected will find its way back into the natural water cycle instead of being transported to dryer bins where the vapor is vented to atmosphere.


Carbon dioxide is not a disease.

 

[Caring1]

I don't even full understand what everyone is arguing about here anymore. Even the numbers Ford posted shows a scientific consensus on the matter.

The world IS warming. (ie there is more energy entering the system than currently leaving it)

Humans are the cause. This is a done deal lol

Mankind is the cause, urban sprawl and it's associated build up and removal of trees contributes.
Cities retain heat more than flora, as cities grow, temperatures rise also, or at least that is my belief.
If you look at the graphic showing areas of increased heat, it is along coastlines where most population is concentrated.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Your argument is nonsense.

I can recognize the fact that alcohol is bad for me, prove that alcohol is bad for me, and still drink alcohol. It's about moderation. Who taught you ideas that silly that the world only works in black and white? I'm not even going to get into the ramifications that would occur if this was applied to everything in life.

You tell me to remember that the earth has heated and cooled in the past, do you know why? Did you even put in proper study before you make broad assumptions that everything is normal? Did you ever wonder why CO2 is considered both a cause and historically an amplifier or climate? Did you even know that bit of information I just mentioned?

My argument is not nonsense. But for the record, use your eyes and read. I said it was silly, and that silliness had a purpose. To point out your duplicity. You don't get to contribute to the problem that YOU say is human caused, and not curtail the very activities which you think humans are conducting to be the cause of climate change.

And do YOU know the history of the world? You seem more than ready to imply that the world has been an even keeled paradise temperature for hundreds of millions of years that was only changed by the merest blink of an eye of several thousand years of human civilization.

 

[Space Lynx]

We can collect methane using tarps and use it instead of oil for energy (also a means to generate profit from the land during the process). The majority of carbon is still in the dirt even after it stops venting gases.

A side benefit to the process is all that moisture the plants collected will find its way back into the natural water cycle instead of being transported to dryer bins where the vapor is vented to atmosphere.


Carbon dioxide is not a disease.

No, but human tap water even in the States is not recommended to be consumed without being filter, and Brita filters only remove 96% of pharmaceuticals, reverse osmosis/distilled is the only way for a human to drink healthy and pure water which requires more water to produce, I believe it like 3 gallons to every 1 gallon once converted. As I linked a couple posts up, over half the worlds water basins are running out, and I do not believe this is due to global warming, but overpopulation.

Point being, with the watered down food supply, and other health problems cause by a corrupt food system, I really think the discussion in our society should not be so focused on global warming compared to healthy water, when it rains or this vapor method you are talking about occurs, do you think you are getting pure benefits? No, you are getting landfills in every state in America with water draining trickling, drip drip drip, and it enters the water basin streams underground, tap water only has filtered so much. I promise you crop growers don't spend extra money filtering that tap water that the plants consume... and we in turn the plants. xD

Humans will continue to grow sicker and weaker and more tired over the years.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In terms of immediate importance, climate change is so low as to not even register. It's a distraction from things that matter right now like the fact California had to put in place mandatory water conservation measures because of drought. And before someone jumps and says climate change is to blame for that, no, it isn't. Most of the water is used in agriculture and California's climate was never suitable for the amount of agriculture that California has today. California uses aqueducts to bring water to their farmland from other states--water those states should have every right to use (especially Nevada). California is feeling the effects of a century of liberalism (forcing nature to bow to man's whim). California is going to have come to terms with reality sooner or later.


It could be related to overpopulation but the immediate crisis could have been averted through water conservation.

 

[magibeg]

My argument is not nonsense. But for the record, use your eyes and read. I said it was silly, and that silliness had a purpose. To point out your duplicity. You don't get to contribute to the problem that YOU say is human caused, and not curtail the very activities which you think humans are conducting to be the cause of climate change.

And do YOU know the history of the world? You seem more than ready to imply that the world has been an even keeled paradise temperature for hundreds of millions of years that was only changed by the merest blink of an eye of several thousand years of human civilization.

Your argument was complete nonsense in relation to having people drop off the face of the earth who think CO2 is a problem. If I point out that there is a water shortage do i stop drinking water forever? It's an idiotic argument.

I never claimed to know the history of the world, I only wish that people would actually study the subject you talk about. Of course the world has changed, but changes happen for a reason. The important question to ask is "WHY" things change not the fact they do. Whenever the climate changes there is always some sort of forcing behind that change.

This is probably the best explanation of my views:

http://www.generalnonsense.net/showpost.php?p=39031&postcount=1