Democratic hopefuls say eating less meat will help the climate.

[variant]

First of all, the measurement of the CO2 hundreds of thousands of years ago is done using methods of looking back in the past. The current measurements are done using completely different methods. In order to compare measurements, it would be best to use the same methods to get results that are consistent.

The measurements are consistent up until about 1970. Ice core sampling. Current measurements are done by sampling the atmosphere. Do you have reason to think these methods don't work?

 

[variant]

Yep. Cities are not the reason we are going thru a warming cycle.

That would be wetlands, the oceans and bogs/swamps

Again, that would be wetlands, the oceans and bogs/swamps. And termites produce more methane that all other creatures.

Do we have more wetlands bogs and swamps then?

How about water vapor? Did you know humidity is trending on a rise? It is due to the strength of the sun's rays by the way. No human involvement even capable of influencing it.

We also know solar magnitude, It's not currently at maximum or strengthening.

Radiance data:
https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/web/40264_web.jpg

 

[Aldebaran]

The measurements are consistent up until about 1970. Ice core sampling. Current measurements are done by sampling the atmosphere. Do you have reason to think these methods don't work?

Core samplings indicate an amount of CO2 deposited on a small surface over a long period of time. Atmospheric samplings can be skewed depending on exact location. Cities are more likely to have a higher concentration than a forest. Same goes for climate temperature measurements. Again, cities will have more heat absorbing surfaces and therefore give higher readings.

 

[variant]

Core samplings indicate an amount of CO2 deposited on a small surface over a long period of time. Atmospheric samplings can be skewed depending on exact location. Cities are more likely to have a higher concentration than a forest. Same goes for climate temperature measurements. Again, cities will have more heat absorbing surfaces and therefore give higher readings.

You don't think we check stuff like that?

People who take measurements for a living, don't know how, and it somehow lines up perfectly with your preconceived beliefs?

 

[LostMarbels]

Do we have more wetlands bogs and swamps then?

I'm not going to answer that if you cannot explain the impacts from drought, rewetting and floods. Why? Because the way you write sounds condescending as all get.

We also know solar magnitude, It's not currently at maximum or strengthening.

Great... do you know why I asked about water vapor?

Yeah, can we not argue just for the argument please? If your not going to read my post I'm not going to continually try and explain what I'm saying. Im not going to feel bad if you ignore me or do not respond. I posted you information, and made another post touching on that information. I never said the sun's rays are strengthening. Our protections from the sun are in a weakening period.

 

[variant]

I'm not going to answer that if you cannot explain the impacts from drought, rewetting and floods. Why? Because the way you write sounds condescending as all get.

I don't consider it condescending to be incredulous to someone who explained a 100ppm increase in CO2 levels by referring to wetlands.

I think you would have to have more wetlands rather than say, fewer as is actually observed.

Great... do you know why I asked about water vapor?

Because you don't understand why water vapor would be produced with more heat.

What about water vapour? | Climate Change Connection

Yeah, can we not argue just for the argument please? If your not going to read my post I'm not going to continually try and explain what I'm saying. Im not going to feel bad if you ignore me or do not respond. I posted you information, and made another post touching on that information. I never said the sun's rays are strengthening. Our protections from the sun are in a weakening period.

You said water vapor is increasing because of the strength of the suns rays, so I figured you thought the sun had increased rather than decreasing in intensity.

Feel free to ignore me like you ignore data you don't like.

 

[HannahT]

That’s why he said today’s GOP.

Oh yeah - the old dirty air and water thing. Like anyone would enjoy that, and NOT have to live with that themselves. lol!

 

[LostMarbels]

Because you don't understand why water vapor would be produced with more heat.

What about water vapour? | Climate Change Connection

You don't even realise you proved what I was getting at do you?

"The increase in water vapour in the atmosphere, because water vapour is an effective greenhouse gas, thus contributes to even more warming: it enhances the greenhouse effect.

Water vapour is often discussed and recognized as being an important part of the global warming process. The water vapour feedback process is most likely responsible for a doubling of the greenhouse effect when compared to the addition of carbon dioxide on its own (3)."

 

[variant]

You don't even realise you proved what I was getting at do you?

"The increase in water vapour in the atmosphere, because water vapour is an effective greenhouse gas, thus contributes to even more warming: it enhances the greenhouse effect.

Water vapour is often discussed and recognized as being an important part of the global warming process. The water vapour feedback process is most likely responsible for a doubling of the greenhouse effect when compared to the addition of carbon dioxide on its own (3)."

View attachment 262955

Humidity is increasing because temperature is increasing.

It helps the feedback loop along with carbon dioxide and is absolutely part of the problem of pumping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

If this was because of the "suns rays" we might expect to see the sun actually putting out more energy.

Instead:

 

[LostMarbels]

Humidity is increasing because temperature is increasing.

It helps the feedback loop along with carbon dioxide and is absolutely part of the problem of pumping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

If this was because of the "suns rays" we might expect to see the sun actually putting out more energy.

Your not figuring anything else known to be ongoing into your equation tho. You seem to be saying that nothing else in creation can influence our weather, climate, or earth more than humans. Not the sun. Magnetic poles. Not even changes in currents. The only force capable of destroying the earth is mankind.

 

[variant]

Your not figuring anything else known to be ongoing into your equation tho. You seem to be saying that nothing else in creation can influence our weather, climate, or earth more than humans. Not the sun. Magnetic poles. Not even changes in currents. The only force capable of destroying the earth is mankind.

We know hundreds of things that influence CO2 and temperature, just none that have changed to the extent that they pumped an extra 100ppm into the atmosphere more than the maximum observed over the last 800,000 years.

The sun could definitely warm the earth by 1 degree C but we would observe something more like the sun getting hotter and putting off more energy. You could get volcanic activity that was well above normal but again we don't. The magnetic fields have changed regularly every 200,000 years or so, so they are also in the graph I already showed you.

Earth’s magnetic field now flips more often than ever

It's not so much that that I don't believe that anything else COULD do what you're saying is happening, just that we don't have any reason to believe they are. Where as, we do have good evidence of all that extra CO2 we pump into the atmosphere directly.

 

[LostMarbels]

We know hundreds of things that influence CO2 and temperature, just none that have changed to the extent that they pumped an extra 100ppm into the atmosphere more than in the maximum over the last 800,000 years.

I don't know how to get you to look at everything rather than look at them individually. Individually none of these factors become a problem until they are all compound on top of each other. Everyone is fixated on co2.

I have no doubt people are contributing. But regardless of how you veiw it this is a natural process that has happened many times before in the earth's history. The world is not going to blow up. All life, and mankind is not going to cease to exist. And we cannot stop what is coming.

 

[variant]

I don't know how to get you to look at everything rather than look at them individually. Individually none of these factors become a problem until they are all compound on top of each other. Everyone is fixated on co2.

Well, we would have to explain the CO2 increase some other way to say it isn't human caused.

I have no doubt people are contributing. But regardless of how you veiw it this is a natural process that has happened many times before in the earth's history. The world is not going to blow up. All life, and mankind is not going to cease to exist. And we cannot stop what is coming.

We actually have 0 precedent for this quick of a CO2 increase.

So, the "it's all going to be fine" approach is a bit like sticking your head in the sand.

 

[LostMarbels]

Well, we would have to explain the CO2 increase some other way to say it isn't human caused.



We actually have 0 precedent for this quick of a CO2 increase.

So, the "it's all going to be fine" approach is a bit like sticking your head in the sand.

I dont think all is going to be fine. I think it is naive to think we can control a natural phenomenon rather than prepare for it. Like somehow mankind is the all powerful ruler of the earth. Were not in control of this thing, Were just in its path.

 

[variant]

I dont think all is going to be fine. I think it is naive to think we can control a natural phenomenon rather than prepare for it. Like somehow mankind is the all powerful ruler of the earth. Were not in control of this thing, Were just in its path.

In this case I don't think we're capable of controlling even ourselves, to our detriment.

 

[LostMarbels]

In this case I don't think we're capable of controlling even ourselves, to our detriment.

Were not. I agree with you there. Look, the climate is changing. I'm not denying that. I just do not believe we are in control of this cosmos. A lot of record breaking everything, even in the heavens has been occuring. We are not in control of it, and to think that we are the only 'thing' that can either cause or stop our own destruction is a bit naive in my point of veiw.

I mean what kid of megalomania is it that mankind thinks it is the only force in all of existence that can create or destroy its own existence. Are we realy that powerful? Do we realy have everything figured out and in our own control?

 

[Gigimo]

If you forgot, this discussion is about eating less meat to protect the environment.

I didn't forget a thing fewer people mean less meat is being eaten, 2+2=4

 

[Gigimo]

If doing things like raising cattle on a farm adds so much to our impact on the environment, then what is nature doing to itself by having millions of deer, elk, buffalo, horses, etc. multiplying in the wild all by themselves without any regulation?

You're straying away from the talking point of the day so don't be surprised by the castigation or the silence. I'm assuming they weren't briefed about the amount of pigs/chickens consumed either.

 

[hislegacy]

What?!!? No Bacon?!?!?!

sorry, yeah i had salad also

 

[KCfromNC]

Well, the 'fake' magazine covers are actualy from NASA among other published scientists.

No they weren't.