Global Warming
- Thread starter Charlie Marlow
- Start date
- Status
We have little effect on the plant when it comes to climate change. One eruption in 1816 caused a world wide effect that we could only dream of enacting.
I hope you didn't pay too much money for your college degree because I think you need a refund.
..............................what?
Last tip for you. Scientists account for natural outputs when consider climate change. So another of your points is moot.
So nature can rebound from a large earth changing eruption in a short amount of time. Yet we are led to believe that man made emissions can't be? Again the earth isn't static. We've experienced long periods of cooling and warming. This cycle is natural. What is happening is natural.
You have no evidence that current trends (e.g., last 65 years or so) are 'natural' - none. Presuming that what is happening right now is fine because something "like this" (whatever that means, exactly) happened in the past is not scientific. But carry on...
But we do have millions of years of evidence that this kind of change has been happening naturally without us being here. That has to at least figure into your equation? And to me that's a large part of the equation.
The problem with your example is that the volcano stopped erupting, it's not still erupting and the earth just got over it.
It also happens that this particular eruption resulted in very significant short-term cooling which was directly attributed the the atmospheric pollution it generated blocking out a significant amount of sunlight. The result was "The Year Without a Summer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
What kind of change, exactly? You're taking a surface-level statement - it's been this hot before - and using it to justify a perspective that's grossly (negligently in my personal opinion) simplified. That isn't to say we should ignore the observation; however, the observation in of itself certainly doesn't justify the conclusion you've drawn.
Last edited:
I'll be honest, I didn't do an exhaustive search. But this is the only published data that I found on naturally occurring vs man-made greenhouse gases. It was published by the US Energy Information Administration circa 2000. It's pretty old considering the topic. There are estimates involved, so I wouldn't take it as gospel but I would consider it a "go-by". The info I see that is more current does not talk about the naturally occurring components, only man-made. It appears to me, that only information on man-made sources is the focus for distribution to the general masses.
The original source can be found here at the eia.gov website.
the problem with the science of climate change is that you need to use the same form of measurements over the years to prove the theory. Scientists today cannot not do this. Thus all the hypotheses are moot. The scientific method is not being used properly. they have to use different ways to measure temperatures around the planet. this was not done even 40 years ago so the measurements will always be off. Using computers to calculate is full of issues because you need to develop equations to do this.
It's a shame the scientists who do this for a living haven't thought of all these flaws that make their life's work instantly meaningless.
I'll be honest, I didn't do an exhaustive search. But this is the only published data that I found on naturally occurring vs man-made greenhouse gases. It was published by the US Energy Information Administration circa 2000. It's pretty old considering the topic. There are estimates involved, so I wouldn't take it as gospel but I would consider it a "go-by". The info I see that is more current does not talk about the naturally occurring components, only man-made. It appears to me, that only information on man-made sources is the focus for distribution to the general masses.
The original source can be found here at the eia.gov website.
No serious scientific study is being done that doesn't consider naturally occurring sources of greenhouse gases (and other contributing factors).
All due respect, this sounds like a scientific description of climate science from someone who is in eighth grade.
Last edited:
In all seriousness, this thread is absolutely fabulous.
Well it's pretty telling when an 8th grader can figure out scientists today aren't using empirical evidence to reach a conclusion. Scientists have their conclusion they're just trying to find the data to justify it. Nothing like a little reverse engineering the evidence for man-made climate change.
If anyone is looking to read about some very nice work in this area I'd suggest the following link. A great person to read who provides strong scientific commentary against the alarmists is Judith Curry (she runs a website). She is a co-author on some, but not all, of the work with Muller who is the leader of the Berkeley team.
http://berkeleyearth.org/
https://judithcurry.com/
http://berkeleyearth.org/
https://judithcurry.com/
Wait - I thought you went to Pius. Does the Catholic Church agree that we have millions of years of evidence?
Yeah, no way the scientists at the University of Cal Berkeley would be biased.
wasn't Judith Curry the one who predicted that we would have a great increase in hurricanes because of global climate change. Still waiting
I agree with your statement. The scientists study and make observations based on the current environment, and then make predictions. It's just my guess, we may be pretty close to agreeing in principle on the subject of global warming. At least close enough to not argue about it. I wouldn't consider myself an armchair climatologist, I just find the subject interesting.
It misses the point of my post though. Not a fact, just my opinion, the general masses are presented with a pie chart of man-made pollution and a graph of greenhouse gases vs earth temperature and told "see what you are doing to our planet". We are left to infer that all temperature changes are a direct result of the greenhouse gases, and that all greenhouse gases are our fault.
I did follow some of your posted links, thank you. TwinsRRUs posted a video from an IPCC scientist and it seems rational to me, but it follows my line of thinking. It's easy to agree with someone who says what you're thinking. Here's TwinsRRUs post:
Learnt something today. Catholic Church doesn't claim to know the age of the Earth, they leave that part to the scientists.
An ad hominem attack and an incorrect statement/question. Shows exactly how much you know, or want to know, about this particular topic.
Read what happened to Curry when she began to question some evidence and assumptions made before the Paris summit.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/...e-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/...e-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/
You literally JUST POSTED that you were recalling she was a poor scientist, i.e., questioning her alleged hurricane research. Now you've used her as your example of persecution. Hilarious.
I agree that all reasonable criticisms should be met with discussions. I think she gets that in the scientific community sans commentary from individuals that most classify as alarmists.
Last edited:
I'll be honest, I didn't do an exhaustive search. But this is the only published data that I found on naturally occurring vs man-made greenhouse gases. It was published by the US Energy Information Administration circa 2000. It's pretty old considering the topic. There are estimates involved, so I wouldn't take it as gospel but I would consider it a "go-by". The info I see that is more current does not talk about the naturally occurring components, only man-made. It appears to me, that only information on man-made sources is the focus for distribution to the general masses.
The original source can be found here at the eia.gov website.
The important thing to note in that table is that: the absorption column > natural column, but the total column > absorption column.
This demonstrates that man's contribution is indeed significant.
What is the farthest back they're pulling data from? So far I've found five years.
Well stand aside, everyone. Red Rover perused the 1985 "G" Volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.
@Archie Graham
Ok Archie, I looked at that data drop you unceremoniously left for us from Berkeley
. I was left wanting to ask...
If the Sun is warming up the other planets wouldn't the natural emission of Co2 from our oceans cause a dramatic rise in our own planet?
Ok Archie, I looked at that data drop you unceremoniously left for us from Berkeley
. I was left wanting to ask...If the Sun is warming up the other planets wouldn't the natural emission of Co2 from our oceans cause a dramatic rise in our own planet?
@Archie Graham
Also...
Wouldn't it cause a dramatic rise in data because it would literally be causing a greenhouse effect. Maybe that is what helped us come out of the multiple past ice ages that we've experienced?
Also...
Wouldn't it cause a dramatic rise in data because it would literally be causing a greenhouse effect. Maybe that is what helped us come out of the multiple past ice ages that we've experienced?
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Report: Brian Ferentz to be hired as offensive assistant at Fresno State- Latest: litespeedhuskerfan
-
-
-
-