Actually,the world isn't warming

[ChordatesLegacy]

It is difficult to quantify global warming, particularly anthropogenic (human induced) warming for the burning of fossil fuels and agriculture.

At present the Earth is in an Ice Age, albeit in an inter-glacial and climate stability during such times is rare, either the planet is cooling down with the advance of ice-sheets and glaciers, or warming with the retreat of the ice caps and glaciers, therefore to suggest that there is the possibility of long term climate stability is wrong, major fluctuations in temperature have been occurring for at least 2 million years (present Ice Age) and much longer if you start looking at the geological evidence.

Therefore, trying to quantify anthropogenic effects is difficult, but we do know that CO2 and CH4 amongst other gasses are greenhouse gases, thus it does not take a genius to work out that if these gases build up it the atmosphere it will lead to some anthropogenic global warming.

The questions are

1 Would this warming be bad for the planet?
2 Would this warming be bad for the human race?

Well to answer 1; no, global warming would not be bad for the planet, but would most defiantly be bad for specialised species such as Polar Bears. The planet itself would adjust to the new conditions and create new opportunities for life to evolve. Indeed, it is these major environmental changes that act as catalysts for evolutionary change and diversification.

As far as the Human Race goes, global warming will be very bad for a number of reasons. We have built our civilisations on coastal and flood plains; we constantly follow agricultural growth with human population growth and are using up the mineral and hydrocarbon resources at an alarming rate. So any significant change to climate with impact the human race badly, with the results being famine, drought, flooding of major areas of industry, commerce and human populations, but the worst effect will be conflict for the dwindling resources in which billions will probably die fighting over loaves of bread.

In the long run, assuming the worst case scenario, evolution would have a period of accelerated diversity as species move in to fill the empty space left by the demise of the human race.

 

[Greatcloud]

​

​

Atmospheric Physicist Fred Singer on AGW


Someday, Anthropogenic Global Warming will go down in the history books as one of the greatest scientific frauds ever perpetrated on mankind, and one of the men who will be credited with debunking the theory is Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

What most people don't understand is that the entire theory of AGW is based upon dozens of computer models cranking out doom and gloom predictions. Unfortunately for the doom and gloomers, the computer models don't match reality.

Below is a chart showing the difference between the models and reality. For more information, read Professor Singer's guest column on the website of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research.

http://launchmagonline.com/index.php/Viewpoint/In-Science-Ignorance-is-not-Bliss.html

CO2​

 

[Vene]

Let's assume for a second that you're right, care to explain why coral reefs are dissolving? Care to explain the change in the ocean's pH? That alone is enough reason to cut back on CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions. But this isn't about finding the truth, no, the GW deniers are those who manipulate statistics, present half-truths, and all out lie. Isn't it curious that every major scientific organization thinks that anthropogenic global warming is fact (link)? Tell me, do you really think that you are presenting anything new? If you are, don't waste your time on an internet forum, send your data to a climatologist and/or a peer-reviewed journal. Try Science, Nature or how about the American Meteorlogical Society?

 

[Greatcloud]

Coral reefs are dissolving because the water is hot therefore gaining co2 because of the sun. Also nature is making more co2 , and man is making .5% of it. So its the sun that is the culprit causing heat. Mankind couldn't affect the globe if it tried we are too small and the Earth is too big. It has never been proven we affect the globe as far as heat.Lets look back in time at the suns effect.

So you see hot/cold its always one or the other and its the sun doing it, not us, not in a million years;well maybe by then only time will tell.

 

[Vene]

Coral reefs are dissolving because the water is hot therefore gaining co2 because of the sun. Also nature is making more co2 , and man is making .5% of it. So its the sun that is the culprit causing heat. Mankind couldn't affect the globe if it tried we are too small and the Earth is too big. It has never been proven we affect the globe as far as heat.Lets look back in time at the suns effect.

So you see hot/cold its always one or the other and its the sun doing it, not us, not in a million years;well maybe by then only time will tell.

So, the sun's oscillating light output is responsible for this (link)?

According to your graph there should also be CO[sub]2[/sub] peaks around the years 1800, 1600, 1400, there level of CO[sub]2[/sub] should be just as high at the years 2000 and 1000. Funny how this isn't shown.

By the way, I can explain where the CO[sub]2[/sub] comes from in my graph. It has to do with industrialization and the burning of fossil fuels. The equation for the burning of hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) is as follows (link):

Care to explain how an increase in heat can form CO[sub]2[/sub]? Because the data doesn't fit your hypothesis one bit.

 

[Greatcloud]

Co2 comes from plants grown by a hot sun. All the polluntants and car exhust and everything from man amounts to .5% of all the co2 produced. That is a minecule amount and is highly doubtful of it effecting anything.


CO2

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Coral reefs are dissolving because the water is hot therefore gaining co2 because of the sun. Also nature is making more co2 , and man is making .5% of it. So its the sun that is the culprit causing heat. Mankind couldn't affect the globe if it tried we are too small and the Earth is too big. It has never been proven we affect the globe as far as heat.Lets look back in time at the suns effect.




So you see hot/cold its always one or the other and its the sun doing it, not us, not in a million years;well maybe by then only time will tell.

Increasing the water temperature makes CO2 less soluble in it. If you Warm water containing CO2 it will release the CO2 dissolved.

 

[Greatcloud]

AH , but you forget that when the ocean is heated more seaweed grows , producing more co2. All the while giving off co2.

 

[Vene]

Co2 comes from plants grown by a hot sun. All the polluntants and car exhust and everything from man amounts to .5% of all the co2 produced. That is a minecule amount and is highly doubtful of it effecting anything.


CO2

That is not how photosynthesis works. Plants take in carbon dioxide, they release oxygen. Animals take in oxygen and they release carbon dioxide. And the whole bowing to carbon dioxide thing is very childish. You would accuse biochemists of bowing to water because it is so central to the field. You would accuse chemists of bowing to electrons because so much of it is the movement of electrons. Your explanation doesn't make sense and you haven't addressed why the level of carbon dioxide didn't raise during other periods of solar activity.
And because I can here is the effect that carbon dioxide has with water:
CO[sub]2[/sub]+H[sub]2[/sub]O-->H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub]
H[sub]2[/sub]CO[sub]3[/sub] is an acid, it's also one of the major components in acid rain (which is why acid rain is so prevalent in industrialized areas). This increase in acidity destroys coral reefs. The change in ocean pH also shows that the buffer system has reached its capacity, if it is completely overrun the oceans could very easily become acidic instead of basic. Living things need a very specific pH in which to live. That means it would lead to mass extinction. We humans rely on the oceans for food. It would lead to the starvation of many humans.

But, that doesn't matter to you. You'd rather accuse the world's scientists of worshiping oxidized carbon. After all, if you accepted that we're right and we have the data to back us up, you might feel guilty and have to do something about it. No, it's so much easier to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

By the way, how many climatologists have you sent this data too? Are you busy trying to get this Earth-shattering data to any of the journals I suggested? If not, you better get to work.

 

[Vene]

AH , but you forget that when the ocean is heated more seaweed grows , producing more co2. All the while giving off co2.

That is not how photosynthesis works (link).

Notice how the plants take in carbon dioxide, they don't release it.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

AH , but you forget that when the ocean is heated more seaweed grows , producing more co2. All the while giving off co2.

Plants when growing absorb CO2 and when they stop growing or die and rot they can release CO2. Even then that CO2 is in equilibrium (no net gain) as it originally came from the atmosphere. The CO2 from fossil fuels are from sources that have been isolated from the atmosphere for millions of years and releasing them will result increase in the amount of CO2 within the carbon cycle including the atmosphere.

EDIT: Besides plant growth is not just reliant on temperature it's also very reliant on nutrients in the water; and warming the water can actually decrease the amount of nutrients available.

 

[Baggins]

That is not how photosynthesis works (link).

Notice how the plants take in carbon dioxide, they don't release it.

And with that basic biology lesson we realise we are not dealing, with GreatCloud, with some one who knows what they are talking about just someone who knows how to cut and paste from loopy conspiracy sites.

Imagine expecting to be taken seriously in a debate about global warming when you don't even know how photosynthesis works

The mind truly boggles some times.

 

[plindboe]

Co2 comes from plants grown by a hot sun. All the polluntants and car exhust and everything from man amounts to .5% of all the co2 produced. That is a minecule amount and is highly doubtful of it effecting anything.

In other words, in a period of 100 years, there will roughly be 50% more CO2 in the carbon cycle (when not considering the sedimented carbon). That doesn't sound promising at all!

Of course you would be correct in pointing out that some of this extra CO2 will become bound in biomass, and much will be dissolved into the oceans (which has it's own catastrophic effects as others have pointed out). But we're still dealing with significant athmospheric CO2 increases.

AH , but you forget that when the ocean is heated more seaweed grows , producing more co2. All the while giving off co2.

Algae and plants absorbs CO2 and uses the carbon to build up its own biomass. But what happens when they die? They rot and all the CO2 is released again.

It is true that there will be a larger biomass of seaweed and therefore more carbon bound, and it will certainly help to slow the build up of CO2 down, but will in no way stop it.

We know that there were much larger amounts of CO2 in the athmosphere several millennia ago, so your point that nature will always stabilize the atmosphere levels, is known to be false.

Peter

PS. It's funny how someone (me) who admits to being a GW ignoramus, has to teach someone who considers himself a super expert (Greatcloud) about this rather basic stuff.

 

[Deamiter]

Yeah it's funny when people claim that our CO2 output is 0.5% of total. They utterly ignore that all that natural CO2 output is produced by the death of organisms that took it in just a few years ago. So as others have said, it's silly to claim that more algae generates CO2 because the algae takes in just as much CO2 when its' alive as it releases when its' dead.

In short, the only sources that are NOT in equilibrium are anthropic -- including destruction of carbon sinks like peat bogs and rain forests as well as burning of hydrocarbons.

 

[Bombila]

I often wonder if these climate change deniers have children or grandchildren? I'm getting older. The changes won't likely affect me too badly for what's left of my life. Hey-ho, then! Let the kids deal with the mess we've made, we'll pretend it isn't happening!

Makes one wish there was an afterlife, so they could hear it when their children's children curse their bones.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Typical copy and paster. cant think for themselves. they give data but cant explain it.

 

[Greatcloud]

I ment that when plants rot and die they give off co2.

Co2 has never been proven to cause GW ;the sun has a better track record on that.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The natural inflow and output of CO2 is pretty balanced. as you stated, human activity acounts for 5% of CO2. 5% out of balance is a lot more than you are giving it credit for. all it takes is a few percent, a few degrees and things change.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I ment that when plants rot and die they give off co2.

Co2 has never been proven to cause GW ;the sun has a better track record on that.

The greenhouse effect is a well established phenomenon. and carbon compounds remain THE major greenhouse gas added by human activity and the consequences of human activity (let us not forget the melting permafrost that is releasing CO2 in a gigantic feedback loop).

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I ment that when plants rot and die they give off co2.

Co2 has never been proven to cause GW ;the sun has a better track record on that.

Try watching Mythbusters.