Climate change: Is it for real?

LOL, of course you can't refute the facts. I know a graph of just temperature might be hard for you to follow, but there it is.

 

First of all, there is absolutely no chance of accepting that picture, as it isn't sourced. You need to cite the source of that graph.

Second of all, that does show measurable and continued temperature increases over a period as short as 10 years. Increases of a couple degrees over 50 years would be highly concerning - capable of affecting national security through changes in agriculture and availability of water, for example.

 

if you know the science then where is the experimental evidence that supports the hypothesis of all this man made bull?

Or are you discussing another kind of science called pseudo-science that doesn't require evidence of a hypothesis to get to a theory?

And again, you should go learn the meaning of the word 'evidence'.

To date, you haven't provided any.

 

explain how four degrees F affects national security?

What evidence do you track to say anything about any of this?

 

I find Dr. Judith Curry interesting. She is recognized world wide as a major force in climatology, partly because she tends to see human contribution to warming to be lower than does the vast majority of climatologists. She has been called to testify before congress basically as a respected denier. So, I see her as defining a reasonable lower bound on the impact from warming, with most of science being MORE concerned than is she.


She points out that earth is warming. And, she states that we are not doing enough to head off the impact on water and agriculture (among other things).

If you watch the impact on Europe of refugees from Syria, consider that the stream of refugees from a regional disruption of agriculture could cause many times as many refugees - easily 10 times as many, and with no possibility of returning. Plus, problems with agriculture and water increase the likelihood of revolution including through terrorist methods. Consider Somalia as a model of what could happen in other places. Consider what it would mean for India to have a decrease in agricultural output. This happened there once already - read about Norman Borlaug and dwarf wheat. But, nobody has a new dwarf wheat like solution today, when more than a billion lives are at stake.

Today, China is diverting the course of a river to flow back into China rather than toward South Asia.


Again, this is from a well respected denier - look her up.

 

the facts and evidence i posted, refute your clam

 

and do you have evidence that it is due to 1 to 4 degree warming? Really? Show me.

I can show you through a greenhouse how agriculture thrives on heat and CO2.

- - - Updated - - -

well once you post up said evidence let me know I will see if it refutes my clam. I usually eat clams though.

But I digress, really, show me you evidence. so far, you haven't posted any. I will read it and/or open it I swear on a bible.

 

When you say "where is the evidence" supporting anthropogenic warming, what exactly are you hoping to look at?

The work on figuring out the mechanisms of the climate change that is happening are not as simple as some direct measurement. There is significant logic involved, multiple types of measurement (ground, ocean, different altitudes in our atmosphere), solar output, volcanic output, reconstructions from historic evidence, etc.

Climatologists have been working on this problem for decades. The idea that some civilian could look at those measurements, come up with a new hypothesis and then test that hypothesis is, well, ludicrous.

So, I'm curious what it is that you want to look at.

 

all you're doing is demonstrating how dishonest you are

 

evidence, you know stuff that shows what is is what someone says it is? You know that 20 PPM of CO2 is dangerous. Or that ocean levels are actually up greater than one inch.

Or that the ice in the arctic and antarctic is actually melting away and will be gone.

that there is an actual footprint of man's CO2 as a marker that shows all in the air.

Or some empirical evidence, observed, that actually backs the claims.

That kind of evidence.

BTW, it would be an experiment to prove it.

 

What is it, exactly, that you want to see?

And, no, earth isn't your greenhouse.

Tell me about how CO2 made up for a lack of water in CA. In fact, show me how your greenhouse thrives on CO2 if you turn off the water.

Take me through Somalia and show me how a central government could feed its people, or how a government could succeed when the nation can not feed itself.


You just aren't thinking about agriculture correctly. And, your notion on evidence is simplistic at best.

 

funny how you want me to provide evidence to something you stated and can't prove. Funny, yep that is logical right?

There is no way in anyone's hell you can show climate from CO2 caused anything in CA or any other location of the world. None, nadda, not!!!!

Well if CO2 creates water vapor, which then turn to clouds and clouds turn into storms then I'd say we're covered for the rain.

 

Are you saying weather is now global warming? Cyclical drought in California has nothing to do with CO2 and the longest drought in California lasted for 200 years.

 

CO2:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Seal level: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410170
Arctic ice: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/climate-ice-seaice-extent-trend-sep14.png
from: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml

Isotopes of carbon mark the source of concentrations in the atmosphere and oceans. So, yes we know that CO2 from human consumption of gas/oil/coal has made a significant difference in the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/

 

I didn't ask you for evidence.

I GAVE you evidence.

And, your progression from CO2 to rain covers us for understanding you are clueless about chemistry.

 

No, I am very definitely NOT confusing weather and climate.

However, CA is a model for what can happen when water is scarce. So is Somalia.

AND, climate change IS leading toward water scarcity in specific regions, so it is interesting to see the impact of water shortages.

 

I'm sure it takes a while to look at the links I provided, but I do expect a response.

 

Global warming is supposed to increase humidity and rain. Look at the Equator. Lots of clouds and daily rain. In fact, it affects the northern latitudes more than the equatorial latitudes so look for increased arable land and more rainfall as the north warms. The dry latitudes are determined by the Hadley Cells and if anything, they will just shift a small amount.

 

I think it's for real.

 

It's about as real as it gets.

We will continue to experience bigger and stronger storms.

This last Hurricane that struck Mexico was the strongest on record as it had the lowest barometric pressure ever measured in such a storm.

Thankfully it lost a lot of it's strength before it hit major population centers but if a storm like that hit the U.S. East Coast...it would be a disaster of epic proportions.

AboveAlpha

 

Basically due to El Nino which has never been connected with global warming. In fact they are understood to happen on about a 7 year cycle but are not fully understood. Very little if any ocean warming is caused by the atmosphere. Think of the heat content of the atmosphere compared to the ocean and it is like a gnat against a mack truck. The oceans are known to be warmed by the sun and what affects that the most is cloud cover, also something not fully understood. What affects El Nino and La Nina events are weather patterns. The El Nino is the warm water normally pushed towards Asia flows back toward the West coast due to weak westerly winds which causes warmer waters on the west coast and dampens the colder ocean upwelling.

 

You have (predictably, perhaps) cited all sorts of abstruse statistics, while ignoring the central point, viz.: There has been a negligible amount of global warming since the latter part of the nineteenth century. (For more on this, see post #65 in this thread. However, I predict that you will continue to ignore it...)

Translation: Anyone who does not march in lockstep with the leftists--who (supposedly) have a "mountain of evidence" on their side--is just plain "stupid"...

More statistics, in support of a theory, which lacks much real-world evidence.

Tu quoque--which is a Latin term--literally means, "You, too." Or, "You're another."

It is a means of deflection. Specifically, the user of this argument intends to direct the focus away from himself (or herself, as the case may be), and toward his (or her) opponent.

 

Climate change is real. It is an scientific fact, not hypothesis that the climate is changing and following its natural cycle. What is only hypothesis, not science fact is whether humans can alter its course.

 

climate scientists say you're wrong


Global Warming Science

The science is clear. Global warming is happening. We are the primary cause.

Scientists know that certain gases trap heat and act like a blanket to warm the planet. One of the most important is carbon dioxide (CO2), which we release into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels — oil, coal, and natural gas — to generate electricity, power our vehicles, and heat our homes.

As we overload our atmosphere with carbon dioxide, more and more heat is trapped — and Earth steadily warms up in response. How do we know? The scientific evidence is overwhelming.


The planet's temperature is rising

Trends in temperature readings from around the world show that global warming is taking place.

Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with more than half of that increase occurring over only the past 35 years. The pattern is unmistakable: The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998 and every one of the past 37 years has been warmer than the 20th century average.

Carbon dioxide levels are increasing in the atmosphere

Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have been taken continuously for more than 50 years. The data show that CO2 levels have steadily increased every year. Today they are 25 percent higher than in 1957.

What's more, scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at any point since our distant ancestors began migrating out of Africa 800,000 years ago.


Increased CO2 is the primary driver of global warming

CO2 absorbs heat reflected from the Earth’s surface — heat that would otherwise pass freely into space. The CO2 then releases that heat, warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

As CO2 levels increase, the pace of warming accelerates. Satellite measurements confirm that less heat is escaping the atmosphere today than 40 years ago. Though other heat-trapping gases also play a role, CO2 is the primary contributor to global warming.

The climate has changed many times in the geologic past due to natural causes — including volcanic activity, changes in the sun’s intensity, fluctuations in Earth's orbit, and other factors — but none of these can account for the current rise in global temperatures.


We are responsible for the increase in CO2

Scientists can conclusively identify that human activity is responsible for the observed increase in CO2. How? The carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, natural gas, and oil has a unique chemical “fingerprint" — and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere bears that signature.

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.VgsCrUvIrJw

 

We are responsible for the increase in CO2
Who is we are?

What is the volume we are responsible for?

Do you have any evidence to support that statement?

Some test conducted that shows a difference between natural CO2 and human CO2? You have that? link that puppy right up here dude.