Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: cuckooold

It is funny how the AGW crowd has jumped on this, let's wait a couple months until the effects of el niño start to wear off.

So why do you accept El Niño (and consequently the science behind it) as real, yet not accept AGW?

There is no proof these dissolving coral reefs were caused by an increase in co2.

www.washingtonpost.com...

The culprit appears to be ocean acidification, a chemical process that happens when carbon dioxide dissolves in the water and undergoes a reaction that lowers the ocean’s pH. When this happens, several consequences can occur, according to the new study’s lead author, Chris Langdon, chair of the University of Miami’s department of marine biology and ecology.

While it’s well established that acidification is bad for coral, previous research had suggested that reefs around the world likely wouldn’t hit this net erosion threshold until closer to mid-century, when carbon dioxide levels were higher.

a reply to: cuckooold

So why do you accept El Niño (and consequently the science behind it) as real, yet not accept AGW?

Are you saying el niño is caused by AGW?

It’s still unclear why the scientists observed such a gradient in the Keys from north to south, with the northernmost corals getting the worst of the deal. According to Langdon, acidity is known to vary from north to south, since colder water is able to hold more dissolved carbon dioxide. But it’s also possible that the northern part of the reef’s proximity to the heavily populated Miami-Dade County could be having a negative impact because of pollution and other human activities, making the corals more vulnerable to environmental stressors

either way it's the fault of humans, right?
But who is going to control this? We hear the same going on for ages with the GBR(great barrier reef), all the scare that it's dying, yet the GBR is in perfect shape.
Sry not buying into this.

originally posted by: notmyrealname

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

...and your point is? Yes they come and go. The fact that humans living on this rock for a very minuscule period of time seem to think that we are the masters of disaster and cause anything on a planetary scale by burning stuff is foolish. Nuclear pollution is far more dangerous than burning coal but somehow no-one is talking about that.

....silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

No, hold it right there. You responded to a cite that mentioned rising sea levels overwhelming islands with a list of islands that were born from volcanic eruptions and then eroded below sea level by the waves because they were basically made from volcanic gravel. There was no equivalence whatsoever. Your list was meaningless and don't pretend otherwise.

Firstly, just because I do not share your and Al Gore's views does not mean that my argument is invalid (which is more than I can say for Al Gore's predictions). You mentioned that rising sea levels is causing island to disappear and I pointed out that new island are also being formed. Yes they are formed by volcanoes; how else do you think land masses are formed? Do you think the drop from the sky?

You can stay in the cult of global warming and you can say that the 'end is nigh' however I simply think that that is not the case. That does not mean that I do not advocate using renewable energy nor does it mean that I don't think humans do not respect the environment enough. As a matter of fact, I own the patent for a waste to product technology that releases NOTHING to the atmosphere and produces activated carbon and diesel fuel (all from waste). I am doing my part; what are you doing besides claiming that the sky is falling and trying to force your new religion on everyone. Solutions walk pontificating about it runs a marathon.

You have to first have an argument for it to be invalid or valid.

What is your argument against climate change?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: cuckooold


Are you saying el niño is caused by AGW?

No, a lot of those who deny AGW accept El Niño.

Why are people willing to believe in the science of El Niño, but not that of AGW?

But who is going to control this? We hear the same going on for ages with the GBR(great barrier reef), all the scare that it's dying, yet the GBR is in perfect shape.
Sry not buying into this.

The thing is, it doesn't matter whether you buy into it or not, it is real, and no, the Great Barrier Reef is not in great shape at all

An aerial survey of the northern Great Barrier Reef has shown that 95 per cent of the reefs are now severely bleached — far worse than previously thought.

Of the 520 reefs he surveyed, only four showed no evidence of bleaching. From Cairns to the Torres Strait, the once colourful ribbons of reef are a ghostly white.

The last time the Earth had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than a million years ago, when modern humans hadn’t even evolved yet.

oh i see so basically this a natural occurence that has happened at least once before,before modern humans and the industrial age even existed,and yet we survived and flourished in spite of it.

originally posted by: Tardacus

The last time the Earth had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than a million years ago, when modern humans hadn’t even evolved yet.

oh i see so basically this a natural occurence that has happened at least once before,before modern humans and the industrial age even existed,and yet we survived and flourished in spite of it.

Uh nooo?

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."
...
"During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

Humans literally didn't exist at a time when CO2 levels were as high as they are today

Humans are primates. Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes. Humans and the great apes (large apes) of Africa -- chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called “pygmy chimpanzees”) and gorillas -- share a common ancestor that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.

humans have cut down 80% of the worlds forest, that alone is enough evidence towards higher Co2 levels in the air

Not only that, but when you remove the trees you remove the shade, which probably heats the world more and dries out the soil.

But the worst is probably all the concrete that soaks up sun during the day and radiates heat out at night.

a reply to: Greven
right, so the last time the levels were this high there were no humans,so that`s proof that that CO2 levels can and have gotten this high without any human imput,involvement or intervention,so maybe this is just a natural cycle,and the fact that we are here now surviving with the levels this high is proof that humans can survive in an atmosphere with 400ppm of CO2.Therefore we can say without doubt that humans could have survived in the atmosphere of 400ppm of CO2 millions of years ago.
we can also say without doubt that 400ppm of CO2 had nothing to do with the fact that humans didn`t exist millions of years ago when there was 400 ppm of CO2.

a reply to: Tardacus

What 'natural cycle' do you suppose existed to raise CO2 levels?

Think harder. What lives on CO2, and what might kill it?

Just like any other organism that becomes sick, the earth too is going to vomit in a deluge-like style; effectively eliminating the sickness from existence.

Only the healthy, selfless humans will survive this purge.

All I can say its all India's fault. They are using outdated and a lot of old vehicles. What am I saying. I blame the West for not giving them proper technology until too late. Ya, If India had less CO2 producing cars we wouldn't be in deep #.

www.ndtv.com...

a reply to: makemap

Any vehicle which burns petroleum produces CO2. It's one of the vehicle emission products which can't really be reduced.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: makemap

Any vehicle which burns petroleum produces CO2. It's one of the vehicle emission products which can't really be reduced.

It can if India goes back to biking. It could also be the factories.

a reply to: Greven

My argument as you call it is that it is very clear that the data that has been the foundation for all the alarmist man made climate change predictions has been artificially manipulated and outright changed to suit the needs and agendas of those who will profit from it. If you think that a few years of human development are responsible then great; I just do not agree. All of Al Gore's predictions have come to be false. Other data shows that our planet is actually cooling. We have not collected accurate scientific data for very long and thus are basing much of our THEORIES on 'global warming' on incomplete data or supposition based upon extrapolation.

...in a nutshell....

a reply to: notmyrealname
What makes it clear that data has been manipulated to suit an agenda?
What predictions did Al Gore make that have "come to be false?"
What data shows the planet is cooling?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Caver78

Is it debatable that we are putting more co2 in the air?

Is it debatable that the entire amount of co2 in the atmosphere is only 0.04 percent?

a reply to: bronco73

No, are you going to come back and say that it is to low to matter?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: notmyrealname
What makes it clear that data has been manipulated to suit an agenda?

Link

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

David Bellamy, botanist.[16][17][18][19]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[20][unreliable source?][21]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[22][23]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[24][25][26][27]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[28][29]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[30][31]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[32][33][34][35]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[43][44][45]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[46][47]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[48][49]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[50]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[51][52][53][54]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[55]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[56][57]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[58][59]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[60][61]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[62][63]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[64][65]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[66]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[67]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[68][69]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[70][71][72]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[73][74][75]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[76][77]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[78][79]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[80][81]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[82][83]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[84][85]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[86][87]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[88][89]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[90][91]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[92][93]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[94][95]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[96][97]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[98][99][100]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[101][102]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[103][104]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[105][106]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[107][108][109]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[110][111]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[112][113]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[114][115][116][117]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[118][119]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[120][121]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[122][123]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[124][125]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[126][127]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[128][129]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[130][131]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[132][133]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[134][135]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[136][137][138]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[139][140]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[141][142]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[143][144]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[145][146]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[147][148]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[149][150][151]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [152][153]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[154][155]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[156][157]
Deceased scientists
This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.

August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[158]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[159]
Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University[160][161]
William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[162][163]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute[164][165][166]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[167]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[159][168]

a reply to: notmyrealname
That does not say that data has been manipulated to suit an agenda. It says those people don't think IPCC models are accurate.
Did you even read it before pasting it?

(Does it really matter what a botanist thinks about climate models?)