View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GT,
Those folks who say ALL of the current warming is human caused are deniers. They are providing that opinion to other people to "prove " how foolish the opinions others seem.
There is no real human being who believes that dumb idea they thought up.
The real humans are the ones who have written about forest fires, sunspots and other mitigating factors.
That is why posters here are mentioning them.
They read about them, but still like to say "why do you never hear about those things?"
This is human nature. Anyone interested in those mitigating factors need only spend a moment with Google
. We do not do this because climate has become politics. If you are a conservative climate change is fake. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
K.C. ... Your post doesn't make sense.
I pointed out the natural CLIMATE CHANGES in Greenland over the last couple of thousand years (warmer- to cooler- to warmer again- and possibly cooler in the near future) and you accuse me of denying climate change!!
I suggested that those who claim global warming to be SOLELY (and many still do) man made should explain these naturally occurring CLIMATE CHANGE cycles.
Your obsession with politics (conservatives in particular) appears to be preventing you from understanding what is being said. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17749 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Check again GT. KC says that it is just as wrong to say all climate change is due to humans burning fossil fuels as it is to say there is no human-induced warming. He is right. Hysteria from both sides. Meanwhile, the leading expert on sea level rise is Rahmstorf. The abstract from his publication in 2012:
Quote: | We analyse global temperature and sea-level data for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niņo/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low. |
See: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/
I have mentioned that variability several times, it is the science-based (reality based?) explanation for the claim that there has been no climate change for 15 years. I will challenge anyone out there to cite a peer-reviewed study that rebuts Rahmstorf. $100 to your favorite non-religious charity. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm surprised "terrorists", whether Al Qaeda or just anarchist urban ratbags, don't set big wildfires by the hundreds just to harass citizens and government agencies. Just think of their ROI if they invest in a few matches and some automobile fuel (or just hop some trains and toss cigarettes) to set most of the U.S. West on fire. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 Posts: 2643
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My mistake. Sorry Mac/K.C.
I've spent a while trying to make a reasoned response, but feel unable to 'hit the right key.'
I can only come back, like a worn record. to the hope that the coming cooling phase WILL be for real, and WILL be quite marked. That, at least, would stem further sea level rise. One can but hope1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4164
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GT,
You make a good point. Since there is relevant, proven data about the earth's warming and cooling cycles, even in the relatively near past, liberals just seem to ignore those facts. It's always "man made global warming" with no balance to the issue.
I don't know what man's contributions has been, maybe significant or maybe insignificant. I am not ready to buy the "sky is falling" saga at this point in time.
Mac said: Quote: | Techno, however, seems to be grasping at straws with his comment about forest fires. Just two clicks gets you to this conclusion:
Quote:
Although carbon dioxide from forest fires is a small fraction of the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossils fuels, it's still an important issue to study, |
"Grasping at straws"? What does that mean?. I think my point was clear, the media and science to some extent seem to ignore the contributions of forest fires to CO2 levels. I did look for data/articles on the issue before my previous post and found one that said that forest fires contribute 20% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, but I didn't buy that and didn't quote it. I didn't find your posted study. I suspect that with enough searching, you and I can find lots of conflicting "data" and theories. Of course, your post was theory and not data.
I still think my point about man's arrogance is still valid (at least for the liberal side), since there is essentially nothing factored in about the earth's/sun's natural warming/cooling cycles in the left's "sky is falling" claims.
As usual, I am looking for the WHOLE story before I take sides. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | I'm surprised "terrorists", whether Al Qaeda or just anarchist urban ratbags, don't set big wildfires by the hundreds just to harass citizens and government agencies. Just think of their ROI if they invest in a few matches and some automobile fuel (or just hop some trains and toss cigarettes) to set most of the U.S. West on fire. |
Already been thought of, and probably done. This plan was addressed a couple of years back by Islamists and our government. (for those of you who live in England or other wet environs, we don't in the West) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevenbard wrote: | Already been thought of, and probably done. |
Not to the extent I'd expect. It's just so obvious, so simple, so cheap, and such a resource sink. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guys, dontcha think Mother Nature accounted for forest fires? After all, they predate even dinosaurs. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Check me on this but isn't the carbon released in forest fires going to be released anyway when the trees decompose naturally.
Smoke from fires can increase the Earths albedo just like increasing cloud cover from warming. This can be a counter factor against heat gain |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|