Climate change would swamp Trump’s border wall

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That still doesn't mean that climate change isn't having an impact.

OK, you go ahead and keep embracing that politically motivated association falacy that exists purely to separate workers from their money in the form of more government taxation to fight a goddamned boogieman... I'll; just stay over here with my friends sanity and science.

The science is pretty simple, and it says we're warming the Earth.

Don't group the science with the political / economic solutions.

Out of a estimated 100 million scientist exist on the planet at this time. So this is the question how many climatologist are there? Estimates are between 10,000 to 50,000(thats being generous)

So 0.005 percent of TOTAL SCIENTIST believe in AGW we can estimate right?

Far from a consensus. but thats ALL SCIENTIST who arent in consensus.

Apparently climate scientist think they can speak for everyone huh?


Once again th eargument over warming due to CO2 falls flat. Water vapor trapped forms clouds,and those in turn reflect light back actually causing a cooling effect with rain and shade. Also RAIN washes/scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. But this part of the cycle is glossed over to influence people to think we have a problem.

What is this lunacy?

Who cares - about belief or consensus?

Look at the really simple physics involved.

Water vapor is short-lived in the atmosphere. I don't know where you get the 'scrub CO2 out' bit.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee

Natural variation would mean we should be cooling, last I checked.

We're warming, though.

Your valiant efforts to distract and question are failing. The public has turned against you. Pick another beach to die on.

Oh no....what would anyone do if the public turned against them? I could find some newly exposed land, fresh from the permafrost, to plant all the craps that im going to give.

Seriously, if the only way you can sway people to think just like you is to ridicule them....it doesn't do much for making me want to agree.

I have a long history with this particular poster about this particular subject. You are jumping into a pit you simply don't understand.

How about this, you too answer the very simple reasoning behind why CO2 is causing warming:

originally posted by: Greven
Physics are pretty much settled:
-Stefan-Boltzmann law says Earth should be 255 Kelvin throughout the atmosphere
-The surface is 288 K.
-33 K difference between S-B law and observation
-Atmospheric observations explain this - temperature decreases ~6.5 K per 1km above surface, up to tropopause
-The tropopause is the boundary (9-17km depending on latitude, closest at poles and furthest at equator) between the troposphere (lower 75% of all atmospheric molecules) and stratosphere (about 20% of the remainder)
-The atmosphere is clearly redistributing heat (infrared radiation) to the surface.

This is all uncontroversial. What some seem to think is controversial is the mechanism by which this observation occurs - greenhouse gases, whose radiation absorption bands were observed by a 1970 satellite:

This is really easy stuff to understand. It's a lot harder to figure out a solution that doesn't involve millions of deaths. A self-inflicted humanitarian and ecological crises; the fossil fuels that propelled our exponential population growth may well kill us.

You did want 'not ridicule' now didn't you?

a reply to: Greven


And this -Stefan-Boltzmann law has been observed on other life bearing planets?

a reply to: burgerbuddy
Given that we have not found any other life-bearing planets as-of-yet, clearly not.

It is, however, an irrelevant distinction. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not magically not apply to planets that have life on them.

If you can prove otherwise, you have the makings of a great paper.

a reply to: Greven

Blah blah blah read my link i posted 2 pages back. the co2 is not the problem here it makes up 0.8 percent even at these levels of the atmosphere. Termites produce more Co2 than all humans combined.

a reply to: yuppa
It seems you are not interested in facts, given your dismissive attitude.

Also, termites do not produce more CO2 than humans. At this point I've gone over things like this so often, I can just quote myself:

originally posted by: Greven
Additionally, termites produce an estimated 3.5 +/- 0.66 gigatonnes of CO2 annually. A gigatonne is 10^9 tonnes, so ~3,500,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Humans produced 26.8 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2003, while volcanoes average 200 million tonnes of CO annually. The U.S. alone produces far more CO2 than termites - over 5 billion tonnes of CO2 annually for the last twenty years.

I dare say that source is engaging in propaganda, wouldn't you agree?

a reply to: Greven

No its you who will not listen to reason. you didnt even read th elink i posted a few pages back. coudnt have really because it took me 15 mins to properly read it. anyone who believes that crap you posted is a fool and deserves a darwin award.

a reply to: yuppa
You don't seem to have understood that I have seen this false claim before, because it's a very frequent one.

You also don't have any reply other than to call me wrong, how sad.

How is what I posted crap - because you say so? Because some random website you read on the internet claims something else?

Note that the link within the link that you linked to contains this:

According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.

Yeah, that's all it says. If you read the published article I link to it gives you figures to work with. You clearly didn't read that one, yet accuse me of not reading what you linked.

You should perhaps refrain from participating in discussions if you cannot handle them.

a reply to: Greven

With regards to C02, whats the IPCC say?
Natural sources in total?
Man made sources in total?

a reply to: D8Tee
See this, everyone else reading this thread?

This poster refuses to engage with my question. I posit that this is because this poster knows that the physics behind CO2-induced warming cannot be refuted.

It is well-known that natural annual CO2 emissions total more than human annual emissions. It is also well-known that, minus human emissions, natural CO2 sinks were keeping up with natural emissions.

You know this, so you're asking a question you already have answers for. Post them yourself.

However, the only reason to bring it up is to deflect - as usual. This, bigfatfurrytexan, is what I mean by history with this poster.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee
See this, everyone else reading this thread?

This poster refuses to engage with my question. I posit that this is because this poster knows that the physics behind CO2-induced warming cannot be refuted.

It is well-known that natural annual CO2 emissions total more than human annual emissions. It is also well-known that, minus human emissions, natural CO2 sinks were keeping up with natural emissions.

You know this, so you're asking a question you already have answers for. Post them yourself.

However, the only reason to bring it up is to deflect - as usual. This, bigfatfurrytexan, is what I mean by history with this poster.

How many times have you posted that set of graphs and how many times has it been responded to?

Do you throw a fit each time someone does not respond to you?

Might need meds if that is the case.

A greenhouse gas is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. The primary greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.

Happy now?

The IPCC 2001 estimations (Table 3) of total sources and absorption of CO2, the IPCC gives Natural sources as 770,000 MMT and Anthro sources as 23,100 MMT for the 90s.

Another way of looking at that is that 97 out of 100 C02 molecules agree, they are not man made.

a reply to: D8Tee
Many times posted - the graph and additional information. 0 times responded to that I have seen.

Precisely, greenhouse gases alter the energy balance of the Earth's (and other planets') atmosphere. This is a big reason for why Venus is so much hotter than Mercury, despite Venus being further away and much more reflective than Mercury.

What are you talking about with 'far from the factors in climate change' here?
What about the IPCC reports?

e: haha nice personal attack you've edited in. It's perfectly fair to call out someone for not responding to questions and only asking them.

a reply to: Greven

From the IPCC Second Annual Report

Was it man made C02 back then?

3.6.3
Rapid Cimate Changes in the Last 150,000 Years
The warming of the late 20th century appears to be rapid, when viewed in the context of the last millennium (see above, and Figures 3.20, 3.21). But have similar, rapid changes occurred in the past? That is, are such changes a part of the natural climate variability? Large and rapid climatic changes did occur during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period which started about 10,000 years ago (Figure 3.22). Those changes may have occurred on the time-scale of a human life or less, at least in the North Atlantic where they are best documented. Many climate variables were affected: atmospheric temperature and circulation, precipitation patterns and hydrological cycle, temperature and circulation of the ocean.

a reply to: D8Tee
Are you now arguing that the increase in CO2 levels that pretty well correspond with our emissions are natural?

Again I can just quote myself at this point...

originally posted by: Greven
...here's some math for you:
Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm), November 2014: 397.27 ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, November 2015: 400.16 ppm = e
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2014 (a * (c / b) * d): 3,106.7812 Gt = f
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2015 (a * (c / b) * e): 3,129.4654 Gt = g
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (g - f): 22.6842 Gt

That's only a partial representation of humanity's estimated emissions for the year, since the biosphere is still acting as a net sink.
...
So, let's look at historical data
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million, 2000 mean: 368.80 ppm = h
Atmospheric CO2 parts per million, 2010 mean: 388.58 ppm = i
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2000 (a * (c / b) * h): 2884.2134 Gt = j
Atmospheric CO2 mass, November 2010 (a * (c / b) * i): 3038.9036 Gt = k
Atmospheric CO2 mass increase (k - j): 154.6902 Gt
An increase of 15.46902 Gt/yr (2000-2010). Compare that with the 22.6842 Gt/yr increase from 2014-2015.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

FALSE
Climate change isn't causing the Rio Grande to flood more, situational flood control devices combined with development in the contributing runoff areas that have reduced the infiltration rates around the river are causing the river to flood more. Easily resolved with rudimentary civil engineering that includes restoration of upstream wetlands to increase infiltration capacity, better management of reservoirs and holding dikes along the river, and elimination of flood and backwash irrigation in the Rio Grande Valley. They can also increase the aquafer recharge program El Paso has been using for 20+ years, in which excess water is pumped back into the upper aquafer to replace the water pumped out by all of the wells in the area.

When the Spanish first named the Rio Grande, they named it such because it was over a mile wide in many areas. Over many decades of development, man has artificially constrained the river (or what's left of it when it isn't raining) and developed in the river's natural braid plain. Back when the river's only human inhabitants were the indians, the river was a hell of a lot more meandering and vast during the rainy season than it is today. Climate change has nothing to do with it, but piss poor planning and a poor understanding of overland hydraulics 50+ years ago has everything to do with it.

Much better explanation of why the river is flooding.

Seems there is a trend to link everything under the sun to climate change and it's simply not the case.

Why does this have to be a physical wall to begin with. We have the tech to monitor our border with drones and other things. All we need is the man power which we have and the willingness to want to do it. Building a physical wall is just down right ridiculous when a lot of what's coming from the south is by way of tunnels. A wall won't stop that.

As long as the enemy to the wall is imaginary and not real, let's just build it.

originally posted by: Greven

I have a long history with this particular poster about this particular subject. You are jumping into a pit you simply don't understand.

Report posts that you feel are bad manners. But carrying a beef from one thread to another....

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Man made climate change, not just climate in general. I don't know anyone who disputes that climate shifts over time. Claiming we're responsible is a different story.

Pretty sure the wall is going to require all kinds of maintenance for a variety of reasons. I'm just glad we're dealing with natural flooding vs a flood of taco vendors and housemaids

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Greven

I have a long history with this particular poster about this particular subject. You are jumping into a pit you simply don't understand.

Report posts that you feel are bad manners. But carrying a beef from one thread to another....

Maybe try answering the question. Seems odd that you continue this instead of dealing with the important science.

Anyway, I'm simply returning the favor.