Climate and Weather

[espola]

Pick out of context? LMAO! Not ONCE did that article provide an example of anyone denying climate change. What the article says is that republicans are dangerous and so are experts that challenge any narrative we want to believe or push ourselves.

Questioning and denying something aren't the same thing, are they?

Not once?

"Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, is perhaps one of the most well-known climate deniers in the U.S. Congress. He famously brought a snowball to the Senate floor in 2015 to argue that global warming was a hoax because it was still cold outside. This simplistic understanding of climate change ignores the difference between weather and climate and the fact that global warming refers to long-term trends, not individual weather events."

There's once.

 

[dad4]

Are you aware of the position of some climatologists that we are still exiting the previous ice age? It looks like you have backed yourself into a corner with blinders on and refuse to look anywhere except where you want to. That's not very scientific...

Graph of CO2 levels from the last several ice ages:



Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

"exiting an ice age" looks like the uphill bits in the yellow line. It happens every 50K-100K years, and never takes you above 300ppm CO2.

Now, is it possible that the human-caused climate change is overlaid on top of the end of an ice age? Sure. But that doesn't mean the tail end of the "ice age ending" factor is even close to the scale of the "burning a shit load of coal" factor.

 

[watfly]

Who said it's only one variable?

They take different greenhouse gases, measure their IR reflectivity, monitor them in the atmosphere, and use that to get an estimate for how much we should care about methane, CO2, refrigerants, and so on.

We know there are several variables. CO2 is just the largest, because there is so much of it.

Natural variables also exist, but they are considerably smaller. (This is why natural climate changes have been 25 times slower than the current climate change. The natural factors are not strong enough to cause a rapid change.)

Fair points. But I don't know that just because there is a lot of something means its the cause. It takes a lot of sugar to change the flavor of a cake vs just a little vanilla.

No question that man has a significant impact on the environment. But if time is of the essence, what is the feasible solution (ie economically, socially etc) that will dramatically reduce CO2 emissions in the short term? I still come back to nuclear energy, although that still would take a few decades and right now there is no appetite for it.

 

[Multi Sport]

Graph of CO2 levels from the last several ice ages:

View attachment 18029

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

"exiting an ice age" looks like the uphill bits in the yellow line. It happens every 50K-100K years, and never takes you above 300ppm CO2.

Now, is it possible that the human-caused climate change is overlaid on top of the end of an ice age? Sure. But that doesn't mean the tail end of the "ice age ending" factor is even close to the scale of the "burning a shit load of coal" factor.

Do you know what LGM is? I mean without having to Google it..

 

[Ellejustus]

That's true... but in the time I've been here I've yet to read him deny it.

^^^^^^So True Bro^^^^^^

 

[dad4]

So what have you read that is proven that convinces you a warmer plant is catastrophic?

Look at a map of the world. Count all the cities which are on coastal floodplains.

That's a lot of infrastructure to lose to sea level rise.

You could try to protect it all like Venice and New Orleans. That's expensive, too.

The other thing to remember is that the current path eventually runs out. There is a global temperature at which we can't grow food. "Add 100 ppm every century" is not a viable option.

That means the question is not whether we switch energy sources, but when.

 

[Slobodan]

Wow, and I thought we were forum buddies. Without sarcasm, I'd have nothing.

You and I use it because we're funny. Fudd uses it because he's a douche.

 

[Ellejustus]

Look at a map of the world. Count all the cities which are on coastal floodplains.

That's a lot of infrastructure to lose to sea level rise.

You could try to protect it all like Venice and New Orleans. That's expensive, too.

The other thing to remember is that the current path eventually runs out. There is a global temperature at which we can't grow food. "Add 100 ppm every century" is not a viable option.

That means the question is not whether we switch energy sources, but when.

Now all we need is Espola to "like" for the Trifecta. It's good to see all three of you at the forum again. Let's all start chatting about climate change for a change. I will bring back crush if you three ask for the return crush. I actually spoke to crush just the other day and he said that he will come back if called to duty. For the record, I believe the climate is changing all the time and I believe weather is very unpredictable, just like the ocean. For example, Laguna has been June gloom all summer. Little rain this week. The water is getting warm now but all summer it was cold dad. Water Temperature changes all the time. Maybe too many people are peeing in the ocean now to warm it up?

 

[Slobodan]

Not once?

"Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, is perhaps one of the most well-known climate deniers in the U.S. Congress. He famously brought a snowball to the Senate floor in 2015 to argue that global warming was a hoax because it was still cold outside. This simplistic understanding of climate change ignores the difference between weather and climate and the fact that global warming refers to long-term trends, not individual weather events."

There's once.

You lost me at "a republican". Why is political party relevant in a subject like this, Fudd? And I don't see any facts in there about denying climate change. Do you? I see name calling. "This simplistic understanding..." shows me the article was written by tree hugging, layer wearing libtards.

 

[Multi Sport]

Graph of CO2 levels from the last several ice ages:

View attachment 18029

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

"exiting an ice age" looks like the uphill bits in the yellow line. It happens every 50K-100K years, and never takes you above 300ppm CO2.

Now, is it possible that the human-caused climate change is overlaid on top of the end of an ice age? Sure. But that doesn't mean the tail end of the "ice age ending" factor is even close to the scale of the "burning a shit load of coal" factor.

Do you know what LGM is? I mean without having to Google it..

I thought as much...

 

[dad4]

I thought as much...

LGM?

Until you bother to define your terms, I will assume you mean “Let’s Get Married”.

No thank you. You’re not my type.

 

[espola]

LGM?

Until you bother to define your terms, I will assume you mean “Let’s Get Married”.

No thank you. You’re not my type.

It's obviously Lawyers, Guns, and Money -- the new baseline tactic for trumpies.

 

[Multi Sport]

Graph of CO2 levels from the last several ice ages:

View attachment 18029

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

"exiting an ice age" looks like the uphill bits in the yellow line. It happens every 50K-100K years, and never takes you above 300ppm CO2.

Now, is it possible that the human-caused climate change is overlaid on top of the end of an ice age? Sure. But that doesn't mean the tail end of the "ice age ending" factor is even close to the scale of the "burning a shit load of coal" factor.

Do you know what LGM is? I mean without having to Google it..

And..

 

[Multi Sport]

LGM?

Until you bother to define your terms, I will assume you mean “Let’s Get Married”.

No thank you. You’re not my type.

It's not my term. You appear to be lacking in your knowledge when it comes to the graph you posted. Maybe it shouldn't come as a surprise to me. Richard likes all your post, and like Richard, you are depending too much on Google.

You're doing your best to appear kmowlegable in a subject that you're not. Kinda like Richard claiming to be a Cryptographer... I threw him a basic term that any Crytographer worth his salt would know and he failed.

To your credit, you haven't claimed to be a climatologists, but that makes it even more puzzling. You talk about science and facts and yet you know no more then a eight grader doing a report and using Google as his source.

I threw you a big fat softball and you swung and missed. I know I know.. You'll do a quick online search to back up your facts. But do yourself a favor.. use a different search engine.

Enjoy your evening. Hope your team wins.

 

[Multi Sport]

It's obviously Lawyers, Guns, and Money -- the new baseline tactic for trumpies.

Do you like salt with your hash? Still no?

And it looks like you also fail the LGM test. But I already knew you would. Now go and spy on all the foreign visitors like Russia does. Or post something about urinal habits. And you really troll D4 a lot...

 

[Multi Sport]

Look at a map of the world. Count all the cities which are on coastal floodplains.

That's a lot of infrastructure to lose to sea level rise.

You could try to protect it all like Venice and New Orleans. That's expensive, too.

The other thing to remember is that the current path eventually runs out. There is a global temperature at which we can't grow food. "Add 100 ppm every century" is not a viable option.

That means the question is not whether we switch energy sources, but when.

Do you think that measuring atmospheric CO2 on top of a volcano will provide reliable data for us to go off of?

 

[dad4]

LGM?

Did you actually have a point? I thought you were just showing off your ability to copy an acronym from some video you watched.

If you have a point, make it.

 

[Multi Sport]

LGM?

Did you actually have a point? I thought you were just showing off your ability to copy an acronym from some video you watched.

If you have a point, make it.

Touchy..

You posted the graph, not me. Not my fault you're posting stuff that you don't understand.

Do you believe that measuring atmospheric CO2 on top of a volcano will provide reliable data for us to go off of?

Can you answer that question? It's an easy one.

 

[dad4]

Touchy..

You posted the graph, not me. Not my fault you're posting stuff that you don't understand.

Do you believe that measuring atmospheric CO2 on top of a volcano will provide reliable data for us to go off of?

Can you answer that question? It's an easy one.

If the volcano is releasing too much CO2, then the answer is no. That volcano is active. You and your equipment will stop functioning when it erupts. Next life, choose a more geologically stable site for your observatory.

What’s with the stupid gotcha questions? If you actually have a brain, engage it. You’re acting like a kid on a school bus who wants to prove he’s smart.

I have given you an argument: Glacial cycles take far more than 200 years to do anything. Therefore, the last 200 years of warming is not a normal glacial cycle.

Agree with it, or come up with a counterargument.

 

[espola]

If the volcano is releasing too much CO2, then the answer is no. That volcano is active. You and your equipment will stop functioning when it erupts. Next life, choose a more geologically stable site for your observatory.

What’s with the stupid gotcha questions? If you actually have a brain, engage it. You’re acting like a kid on a school bus who wants to prove he’s smart.

I have given you an argument: Glacial cycles take far more than 200 years to do anything. Therefore, the last 200 years of warming is not a normal glacial cycle.

Agree with it, or come up with a counterargument.

"Gases from Mauna Loa’s crater, which is 4 miles (6 kilometers) away from the observatory, can temporarily raise the amount of CO2 in the air. Prevailing winds generally prevent volcanic gases from reaching the observatory, but when the wind is light, it can happen. However, the influx of volcanic CO2 is immediately noticeable because the readings jump upward sharply, and by amounts far larger than normal seasonal fluctuations. These brief spikes are not included in the final data because they’re caused by short-term, local variations, and they don’t reflect the long-term average that the observatory strives to measure."

How Do We Know Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Measurements Don't Include Volcanic Gases? - NASA Science

In Brief: The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, and all around the world. NASA also measures CO2 from space. Data from around the planet all shows the same upward trend. The longest record of direct measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov