Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Originally posted by fianna
Yeah your preaching we are all going to die from some carbon dioxide and IM CRAZY.

You my friend need to check yourself... Come up with some real proof.

Generally speaking, destabilization of subsea permafrost means that it fails to further prevent methane leakage from seabed deposits of methane stored in the ESAS," said Shakhova. "This provides the global carbon budget with a previously unconsidered and very specific type of methane source."

Unlike other terrestrial and marine sources, which gradually release methane as it forms, the shelf is emitting methane that has accumulated in seabed deposits for hundreds of thousands of years and until now was restricted by permafrost, says Shakhova.

"As methane has been permanently originating in the seabed since it was formed, these deposits are huge and emissions of this ready-to-go methane to the water column only depend on occurence of migration pathways (provided or not provided by permafrost)," she said. "These emissions could be non-gradual, sudden, more or less massive, they could even be abrupt."

The methane released from ESAS does not become oxidized by microbes as it passes through the water column, unlike methane released from the oceanic hydrate deposits found at depths of more than 700 m. "In the ESAS this bio-filter does not work because the water is very shallow – mean depth is less than 50 m – and there is just not enough time for oxidation," said Shakhova.

"Moreover, Arctic shallow hydrate deposits are three times more sensitive to warming than oceanic deposits," said Shakhova. "This means that three times less energy (provided by warming) is required to destabilize them compared to deep oceanic hydrates."

The release of 1% of the methane stored in these hydrates would be enough to cause catastrophic warming.

iopscience.iop.org...

reply to post by Nathan-D


*lulz*

And you wonder why I'm condescending. Clearly I have no other choice.

It is just painful to watch how much you butcher simple concepts and reinterpret everything around sheer blind stupidity to make it fit your preconceived beliefs.

So I am going to explain this one last time. If you honestly can't understand this - then good luck in life, because I'm pretty sure a determined 12 year old could get it - and that's not me being condescending, that's just how much I apparently have to slow it down for you so you stop skewing everything into some mashed up version of what you want it to be.

So imagine you have a pool.

You want to keep that pool clean, so it is constantly cycling water by way of a drain (sink) and a pump (source). To keep the overall water level stable, your drain removes water at the same rate that the pump adds it in (equilibrium). So say every hour 1/5th of your pool gets removed (i.e. replaced by new water). This means each water molecule has an average lifetime of 5 hours in the pool, right?

But now you decide to see what happens when you add your garden hose to the pool as well. You start pouring more water in, and so your source becomes larger than your sink. What do you think happens next? Your water level goes up.

Rocket science, this ain't.

Now - because there is more water, there is also more water pressure - so the sink will actually adjust slightly and drain a little faster. But if it can't adjust fast enough to meet the rate of the new pump/garden hose combo then you still have an overall imbalance, and thus you have accumulation.

So imagine you initially had 10000 litres of water in the pool, and therefore every hour you drained 2000. Let's say for every litre you accumulate, the drain rate increases in the same sort of proportion. So if you added 10000 more your rate would increase by 2000. So for 20000 total litres - your new drain rate is now 4000 litres per hour (notice therefore how your average lifetime is still 5 hours). But until you at least reduce what's coming out of the hose, your source is still gonna be greater than your sink and so overall it will accumulate.

So now turn the hose off. Does this mean all the excess water will just disappear in 5 hours, because that's the lifetime of a water molecule?

No.

Because even though your sink is now greater than your source, the sink rate itself is still a function of the total volume. So if your source versus sink has a surplus of -2000 litres per hour at 20000 litres, it *should* only take 5 hours to get back to the original 10000 - if it remained constant. But that means after 2.5 hours you should also be down to 15000. Except look at what happens at 15000: your sink rate is now only 3000 per hour so your net is only -1000. Therefore it will still take yet another 5 hours to get rid of the last 5000. The same problem will happen at 12500 and 11000 and so on, and in fact technically you'll never reach the original 10000 because you'll always be another 5 hours away.

But notice at any given point the average lifetime of a water molecule is still 5 hours.

So this is an oversimplified but reasonably apt analogy for why some excess CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for 10, 20, 50, 100+ years even though the "lifetime" of any individual molecule may be only 5.

This is also basically how things like exponential decay and logarithms work - so if you want to understand why going from 3000ppm to 5600 is the same as 300 to 560 then start learning how to think in relatives instead of absolutes.

The only absolute you can think of is this post.

Because if you're planning on writing me some loopy, flawed interpretation of how none of this can be true because it contradicts something you learned on one of your distorted denier blogs, then save yourself the trouble.

This is basic unambiguous mathematics - it is something I happen to have a degree in, and I have no interest in hearing your backwards blog science version of it.

Originally posted by mc_squared

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Talk about lemmings.

I too have researched global warming much much further than most people, and I've given EVERY SINGLE AGW DENIAL ARGUMENT A CHANCE. I really did... and ya know what? Essentially ALL of them proved to be wrong and/or plain ignorant. After going deeper down the rabbit hole than probably most of you... the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has only been strengthened in my mind.

Exactly.

This is what I keep pointing out to everyone of these uber-denier monkeys that tell us how unquestioning and blindly faithful we are to the AGW "religion". Every single day we are here talking to them and debating them we are in fact questioning our faith.

And we don't respond like they do every time their faith is challenged by changing the subject or repeating the same debunked mantras over and over again hoping that will make them suddenly true. We answer and address everyone of these challenges resoundingly with facts and real science and the whole story that they constantly cherry pick and conveniently leave out.

The evidence absolutely speaks for itself on this - and getting truly skeptical about climate science leads to only stronger convictions on it, something the fake "skeptics" can't see because they are so blinded by their egos and their ignorance.

Well said!

Originally posted by Mez353 Of course, I am able to see both sides of the argument, I just think these so called facts come from organisations that I don’t trust as they’re either dictated to or heavily funded by people with an agenda or both.

That means that whatever facts I or anyone else can present, you can come back with "I don't trust anyone who believes in global warming so those facts are not true".

Facts are facts are facts.

The earth is not flat, gravity is real, and global warming is real and caused by man. The facts are there, whether you choose to look at them is your choice.

Originally posted by Clavicula
That you have spent all this time only to arrive at this ill conceived conclusion puzzles me. Maybe you started your investigatioin with a pre concived view. All the propaganda probably hasn't helped either.

There is a term for what you are doing.....it's called projection.

Projection: the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, while at the same time denying that oneself has such feelings, thoughts, or attitudes.

reply to post by The_Liberator


I have a question. I remember reading a few articles about the other planets in our solar system heating up as well. Do you have any information on this? If this is so, it could be a cycle that earth experiences as it travels through our galaxy, through clear space or dust clouds, etc. We might have made an impact ourselves, but it is far more convincing if its a phenomenon that our whole solar system experiences. Haven't we found animals frozen in the permafrost with grass still in their stomachs? The change could have been very swift. Any information on any of this?

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Well first of all we aren't supposed to believe "them" because most of them are probably dead or retired.(although many are still alive, like James Hansen...)

Where can you see the models? Here you go:

globalchange.mit.edu...

Very well written paper. To be expected from MIT.
However the model is done with alot of assumptions.
Remember what happens when you assume.

Your result is only as good as your data.
I'm still skeptical.

And you will remain unconvinced regardless of what evidence I or anyone else could ever present to you.

Any paper or study that concludes that global warming is happening faster than anyone ever predicted and is cause by man, by the nature of the conclusion itself displays liberal bias and is therefore unreliable (in your opinion). That is circular reasoning.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
Yes our planet's atmosphere is being changed on purpose and I suspect, not by human design.

People may flame and ridicule me as crazy, but I've done my job I was sent here to do.

You have all been warned.

Watch the cheesy movie, "The Arrival" and read David Jacob's book, "The Threat".

The taking of planet Earth will be noted in Galactic News Journals as "like taking candy from a spoiled, arrogant and blind baby".

No big war machines, particle beams or Star Wars Invasions...............but a quiet, subversive assimilation, retinkering (yet again) of our DNA and than, when enough of our DNA has been assimilated and there is a majority of the "new human", the final coup de grace, the final changing over of our very atmosphere to allow those "hybrids" to exist and flourish.

Perhaps in retrospect, if by chance this change over from what is now humanity to future human, we lose our ape like aggression, our taste for warfare and blood, perhaps it will be for the better.

But, this may leave mankind with little or no "emotional depth". We will have lost that special "something" that made us human.

Peace.

Interesting post. Of course the problem is that we humans have emitted CO2 at levels unprecedented in a 100 year time frame. So your assumption that "we" are not causing climate change assumes that adding 100ppm CO2 to the atmosphere has little to no effect on temp, which I'm afraid....it does.

Originally posted by felixq78
reply to post by unityemissions

 

If you really want us to take your claims seriously don't show us somebody else's video. SHOW US YOUR RESEARCH.
Nearly all of the scientific community?
If you expect us to take your claims seriously DO NOT distort the facts. The scientific community is fairly divided.
What most people reject isn't the fact that the whole solar system is being warmed up, nor the many problems that humanity has caused resulting in our poisoning of the biosphere. WE KNOW THE BIOSPHERE IS STUFFED!
What many reject is the cure that is being proposed. A GLOBAL CARBON TAX will not fix the problems.
The very same people who propose this tax are aware of the hidden technology that exists and they know that if this technology was exposed to the world we could fix the problems within 5 years, not completely but it would claw us back from the tipping point. Coal and oil MUST GO but they refuse to deal with it and instead claim that this bull# carbon tax will save us, it won't it will destroy economies.

here is my research. (once again....)

This was going to be my original post...

I have been reading ATS for a few months and this is my first post (or thread or whatever you call it). I decided to post it because I feel that you, as open minded people, have a right to know the truth about what is going on regarding global warming. Plus I’m tired of the posts on here that claim global warming is some kind of hoax.

It’s not simply that global warming is worse than you think…rather global warming is about 10,000 times worst than you think.


This post will probably be uber-disturbing to many of you, so if you aren’t a fan of horror movies, or if you are someone who doesn’t enjoy being terrified to the point that you practically soil your pants, I would suggest moving on to another thread and not reading any further.

For those brave souls remaining, here goes….

Before I get started, I ask that you give me about 10 minutes of your time. I realize that is a lot of time to spend on a single thread, but considering the magnitude of what I am talking about, 10 minutes is nothing.

Each link that I am about to present is mercifully brief (the one video I present is about 3 minutes long, and the rest are no more than a few short paragraphs).

I have put quite a lot of thought into this post as I realize I have one shot at convincing you monkeys (myself included) of the dire reality of the situation.

Before I go into just how ridiculously dire our situation is, let us first establish the fact that global warming is real, and not a hoax as many on this board appear to believe.

Exhibit number 1:

(paraphrase of following article) 97 percent of climate scientists say that global warming is real and is a direct result of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by man. The 3 percent that do not subscribe to this theory are far less qualified and included people like Richard Lindzen (google his name to see how he has been proven time and again to be a lying sociopath).

content.usatoday.com...

Exhibit number 2:

The Arctic is melting. 2010 had the 3rd lowest sea ice area but the LOWEST VOLUME EVER RECORDED.

www.youtube.com...

Exhibit number 3.

THIS IS THE BIG KAHUNA PEOPLE!!

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which was previously considered an impermeable cap to VAST amounts of methane is melting and is venting untold amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 20-70 percent more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, depending on the time frame (because it degrades to become CO2 after a few years, depending on its concentration). According to researchers, so much methane is stored in the East Siberian Arctic shelf, that if only 1 PERCENT were to be released, it would cause

climateprogress.org...“catastrophic” warming, practically overnight.

That’s right, IT IS MELTHING NOW PEOPLE…..

Exhibit number 4:

2010 is the hottest year ever so far, with the past decade being the hottest on recorded record, followed by the 90’s, and with the 80’s coming in third place. Russian officials used to joke about global warming…until this last summer when they hit the highest temps ever recorded which started historic fires.
I realize that I only have your attention for another minute or 2, so I would like to

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also melting…. as is Greenland, and so far the warming of our planet has surpassed the worst-case scenario put forth by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) just a few years ago. (remember that Antactica and Greenland are land masses with ice on TOP of them so if they melt, sea level will rise by METERS!!!)


Exhibit number 5:

Ocean acidification is considered the “evil twin” of global warming. CO2 dissolves in sea water to become carbonic acid which is slowly making the ocean inhospitable for the vast majority of marine life. Don’t believe me….then see exhibit number 6.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Exhibit number 6:

Phytoplankton in the worlds oceans have declined by FORTY PERCENT because of global warming and ocean acidification. Phytoplankton is the base of the food chain and if it disappears, we all go extinct.

www.csmonitor.com...

I could go on and on but I’ll leave it at that. If you want more, go here and click around: climateprogress.org...

We have already warmed about a degree since the start of the industrial age, and experts say that anything above 2 degrees would make the earth inhospitable for life as we know it (not to mention Greenland and Antarctica would melt completely meaning bye-bye Miami)

Bottom line….global warming is real, is far more serious than even the worst case scenario projected just a few years ago, and is happening FAR faster than even the most dire predictions. What’s worst…. there is simply nothing we can do at this point to stop it.

In fact, if we were to stop all emissions tomorrow, temps would actually shoot up. Why? Because along with CO2, we are also emitting tiny particles (the ones that form smog) that hover in the atmoshphere and slightly dim out sunlight (it is known as global dimming). This has a cooling effect which has helped to counter the heating effect of CO2.

This means that if we stopped all emissions, CO2 would remain constant while the cooling effect of global dimming would disappear shooting the temperature up worldwide OVERNIGHT.

It is a conundrum for which there is no answer.

Enjoy life while you can.

Originally posted by loner007
dont waste your time trying to convince the masses they are too stupid to understand...

Well said. I couldn't agree more. Don't waste your breath on those too ignorant to fathom empirical evidence. Its too late to bother....enjoy the descent...if that's possible.

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

The entire point of mentioning the logarithmic effect was so one of you doesn't try to once again distort the numbers by saying something like "oh - well in the Ordivician concentrations dropped by 2600ppm, and we are only raising them by 280ppm, therefore that's only 0.00000000003268752% or something so don't worry be happy yaddi yadda"

The lesson is going from 3000 to 5600 is the same as going from 300 to 560.

500 million years ago this had massive consequences, and that was before people were around to rely on crops and live along coastlines. So all the Ordovician denier myth does is actually help support all the alarmist red flags being raised by people like Dan Miller in the OP and make anyone who says "no big - climate's always changin" look like a tool.

And the "centered talk" isn't really about CO2 doubling but about the magnitude of feedbacks.

No. It's about the magnitude of feedbacks centered around a CO2 doubling.

Given this, how could anthropogenic CO2 possibly have accumulated over 70 years as the IPCC postulates since it has an atmospheric-lifetime of about ten years?

Do you understand the difference between accumulation and individual lifetime? Let's say we have a sea monkey aquarium where each sea monkey lives for six months and all the dead ones get buried away inside the little castle next to the scuba guy. If we add the same number of sea monkeys every six months then no, nothing accumulates I suppose - but you've still got a steady number of sea monkeys that wouldn't otherwise be there. But even that's not happening. Because we are adding more and more sea monkeys every six months and the aquarium is getting more and more crowded.

And ok, I know how much you guys love to throw anything you can at the wall and hope it sticks, but seriously - this what you're resorting to now? You think it's just a coincidence that once we started pumping loads and loads of CO2 into the sky, the atmospheric concentration just happened to change in step "naturally"? You think fossil fuel emissions and C13/C12 ratios follow each other so closely entirely by fluke?

This is why you get condescending answers from me. Because I am tired of being patronized with this nonsense. You might want to play it off like you are just being skeptical and open-minded to all possibilities but there is a difference between being skeptical and being rational.

Look at your entire argument: it is completely predicated along this flimsy line of mostly unrelated what ifs and maybes and missing links and hypotheticals and minority opinions that can't hold a candle to the coherent, multiple lines of evidence supporting anthropogenic warming.

So do you think you're not going to convince me in this debate because I'm so stubbornly conditioned to be stuck on CO2, or maybe - just maybe - because your argument just sucks?

It's really quite incredible to me that those of us who are rational and capable of looking at the facts are outnumbered 20 to 1 on this board.

What is up with that? Shouldn't that number be reversed??

How can so many people have the same inability to use reason and look at facts objectively.

Oh, and MC, yes it is frustrating as hell. I used to post on another board that was crawling with skeptics. I decided that it was just pointless arguing with them so I quit. This is the first time in many months that I have decided to once again entertain their nonsense. I'm being reminded with every post I am reading (with a few exceptions) why I decided to stop debating them in the first place, lol.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by ckitch
In the light of all that's been said on here, and all we've been made aware of in other posts, does anyone else, like me, find themselves thinking, that the Illuminati already know this planet is over, and that's why they have done nothing serious about correcting our polluting lifestyle. All they've concentrated on is making vast amounts of money, which presumably they can buy their way out of here with, and leave the rest of us to the collapsing world....

Seems to me that it's too late to correct climate change, or grow back our forests etc. Man is not going to change his ways until it's too late. Have any of us on here? I doubt it. I haven't. I still drive my car and enjoy the same lifestyle as everyone else. And lets not forget, the third world wants a piece of the consumable,commercial capitalist world action, and who can blame them. So when they start polluting at the rate we do... goodnight!

I don't want to sound defeated, but unless mankind sees the error of his ways, as a collective whole, we aren't going to solve this, and it's plane as the melting ice-caps, that the governments and powers that be on this world, are doing jack-sh*t to solve it, probably for fear of being unpopular, or as in line with my post, don't care coz they've already booked their ticket out!

That is a possibility I've considered.

I believe you are correct. However, I believe the reason they aren't doing anything about it now is because top science advisers know there is nothing that can be done. Obama used to be a HUGE global warming advocate, but lately....silence.

What is the point of telling us that an asteroid is headed for earth?

Originally posted by cerberus00
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

I have a question. I remember reading a few articles about the other planets in our solar system heating up as well. Do you have any information on this? If this is so, it could be a cycle that earth experiences as it travels through our galaxy, through clear space or dust clouds, etc. We might have made an impact ourselves, but it is far more convincing if its a phenomenon that our whole solar system experiences. Haven't we found animals frozen in the permafrost with grass still in their stomachs? The change could have been very swift. Any information on any of this?

As to your first point: www.skepticalscience.com...

As for animals found frozen with grass in their stomachs, I have no information on that. However, to the larger point, yes global temperatures can rise very VERY fast (as in within a few years) once enough positive feedbacks kick in.

Once temps reach a certain point, rainforests begin to burn releasing massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, while at the same time removing what was a giant CO2 sink (the rainforest).

Once the oceans become saturated and heat, they can begin to release CO2.

The arctic permafrost (as I keep saying) contains VAST stores of methane which could heat the planet several degrees overnight if released into the atmosphere.

Arctic sea ice become open water which absorbs 80% of the suns rays (as opposed to ice which reflects 80%) heating the oceans further....and further melting the permafrost.

And on and on.

Ice cores show us that climate change does not happen gradually. Instead it flips from a cold state to a hot state and then back, practically overnight.

I believe that runaway global warming has begun and we are on the verge of "flipping" to a hot state because of the positive feedbacks that are beginning to kick in HARD.

reply to post by The_Liberator

1. Global warming is not a hoax, but the premise that it is man made most definitely is. It is obviously a cyclical condition of this planet. The earth has been substantially warmer than this many times previously.
2. It is an undisputed fact that data was manipulated, withheld and massaged to get a desired result. This was done specifically to enable the UN to try to get cap and trade passed, which would be a device for them to "tax the wealthy nations" and redistribute that income to third world countries. Unfortunately, this really means they would pocket 80% of the revenues received, since graft, bribery and exploitation of indigenous peoples is what the UN is all about.
3. Since all of the planets in the solar system are warming, it's clearly not a man made event. Hard lefties like yourself constantly seek out ways to criticize the evolution of man as detrimental to the environment and the planet. The fact is that the United States is much cleaner than it was a hundred years ago. Forests have grown in size, removing much more CO2 than was the case in 1900.
4. Maybe you should get an education before attempting to "educate" others.

reply to post by mc_squared


the drain gets bigger because plants get bigger.... you must have been to smart for that.

so do you have any other stupid analogies?

reply to post by The_Liberator


Yeah it's pretty frightening but ultimately not that surprising. This world is the way it is because the majority of people are incredibly apathetic and stupid and all it takes is a handful of cunning, greedy individuals to exploit them to all hell for it.

People's brains love to take the paths of least resistance so it's not surprising that the denial industry banks on this and uses propaganda like "temperature leads carbon by 800 years - Al Gore liiiiiied!" to get them all on board with their agenda. Nobody wants to listen to the whole story about how CO2 actually functions as both a forcing and a feedback because it sounds like a lot of mental work to them.

So when they have an easy to swallow answer offered up instead - they flock to it like moths to a flame.

But it does scare me how much they still reject the facts even when they sometimes take the time to actually digest them. It's frightening how easily people can be indoctrinated by propaganda. I always thought that was something that only happened during young impressionable childhood years but clearly the denier phenomenon shows it can strike quickly at any age.

Anyway, I'm glad you brought your rationality and mental work ethic to ATS - because despite all the overwhelming looney tune automatons around here, there are also a number of very bright people who totally do "get it". Your OP seems to have brought quite a few out of the woodwork considering most "pro" AGW threads receive only like two flags on top of the usual 3289732475 bitchy comments.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Oh good so now I have giant carbon sucking plants to look forward to in the future as well. Oh well world 4 in Super Mario Bros. 3 was always my favorite...

Plants are a weak overall CO2 sink because they are generally already in equilibrium with their surroundings, not to mention so many of you clueless dolts don't seem to realize that plants themselves also release a lot of CO2:

Photosynthesis and respiration

Besides it's hard to rely on trees as our saving grace when we're real busy chopping them all down:

Biosphere is source, not sink, for carbon dioxide emissions, study shows


So you have any more stupid things you wanna add, or are you done sticking your foot in your mouth?

I see. The academics are always correct, even when attempting to model something as complicated as the Earth's climate. Forgive me for being skeptical, but isn't that an underlying required for real science? Given that we know the earth recently emerged from an ice age, and that it has been warming for thousands, that's right, thousands of years, what is the underlying root cause? We've been using internal combustion engines for approximately the past 130 years. The population of the earth really exploded over the past 4500 years.

Here are the facts. The computer climate models are demonstrably false. Here is an excerpt from an article by Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, David Douglass, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester and S. Fred Singer, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.

"In two research papers in the July 9 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, two of the authors of this article (Douglass and Singer) compared the NOAA record for correspondence with the surface record and the lower atmosphere histories. The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.'s hot-surface history.

This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and on its vaunted climate models. That's because the models generally predict a warming rate that increases with height above the Earth's surface (outside of local polar regions). But neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. When this was noted in the first satellite paper published in 1990, some scientists objected that the record, which began in 1979, was too short. Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.'s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot.

If the U.N.'s models are wrong as one goes up in the atmosphere, then any correspondence between them and surface temperatures is either pretty lucky or the product of some unspecified "adjustment." Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong means everything dependent upon that--precipitation and cloudiness, as examples--must be wrong. Obviously, the amount of cloud in the air determines the day's high temperature as well as whether it rains."

Flawed modeling and manipulation of data, as well as intentional omission and/or deletion of data sets gathered that contradict the current "Global Warming" (or is that "Climate Change"now?) have undermined the credibility of all research in this field. You may have a math degree, which means you're capable of logical thought processes. Why don't you put them to work? I'd love to see this "science" settled, but until researchers are given complete data sets, including temperature readings untainted by non-environmental influences, I'll remain a skeptic. If you choose to castigate me for that, then it is an indicator that you don't have the capacity to remain detached enough to draw non-emotional conclusions. If that's the case, then nothing you have to say has any validity.

The bottom line is this. The planet has been warming a long time. This is beneficial for most mammals. The CO2 emitted by man has not been scientifically proven to have had a major influence on surface temperatures on this planet. This is reality, not your Global Warming fantasy. If you want to make a compelling argument, throw in something relevant, like temperature readings. I'll go toe to toe with you on anything you bring up that's actually seated in real data. Otherwise, STFU.

reply to post by homesalesguy


I see you fail to mention that your quote is from Heartland the anti warming lobby.

So please can you explain this...

Climate models predict that more carbon dioxide should cause warming in the troposphere but cooling in the stratosphere. This is because the increased "blanketing" effect in the troposphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the stratosphere. This is in contrast to the expected effect if global warming was caused by the sun which would cause warming both in the troposphere and stratosphere. What we observe from both satellites and weather balloons is a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere, consistent with carbon dioxide warming:

Source
and we know there is in fact cooling in the stratosphere and warming in the troposphere......

Also from the same source

The tropopause is the atmospheric boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Observations indicate that the tropopause height has increased several hundred meters over the past 3 decades. Santer et al. (2003) investigated the causes of this change and concluded as follows. "Comparable increases are evident in climate model experiments. The latter show that human-induced changes in ozone and well-mixed greenhouse gases account for ~80% of the simulated rise in tropopause height over 1979–1999. Their primary contributions are through cooling of the stratosphere (caused by ozone) and warming of the troposphere (caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases). A model predicted fingerprint of tropopause height changes is statistically detectable in two different observational (“reanalysis”) data sets. This positive detection result allows us to attribute overall tropopause height changes to a combination of anthropogenic and natural external forcings, with the anthropogenic component predominating."

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Originally posted by C0bzz
If for a moment, we assume that global warming is true and that we need a way to lower carbon dioxide emissions quickly. How should we achieve this?

Unfortunately we can't. If we lower emissions, temps will spike up overnight because of the loss of the cooling effect of particulates that help block the sun (known as global dimming). Global dimming has essentially masked the true severity of the problem...

The only solution would be large scale removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. I suppose if we put all our resources into building CO2 scrubbers (as in spent trillions), we could probably solve the problem. We would, of course, also have to stop emitting CO2 ASAP.

What if we stopped all CO2 emissions, but continue to supply the atmosphere only with dimming microparticles, till the CO2 does not return to its natural level and rate of change? I believe the best way would be to spray such microparticles from commercial and military jet liners, masquerading them as contrails. No, people, I know what you think - chemtrails, but if what you say is true, then this would obviously be the most rational course of action.

Maybe add some birth control into the mix for the third world countries which suffer from population explosion, while we are at it.