2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by TCassa89, Feb 6, 2019.

  1. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your answer is, you can't. Got it. The question, again, is demonstrate why man made CO2 is more impactful than the 96-7% produced naturally. We know that, for example, C14 isn't always man made. We also know that C12 isn't always man made, and yet the synthesis argument you're making and have cited demands that those conditions are static, which they are not. Your view is simplistic, and doesn't reflect the complexity of the environment around you because the narrative you want to believe in is just as superficial. So, your narrative fails to both describe accurately as well as create a sound predictive tool from which you can authoritatively rely on. Yes, we get it.
     
  2. TrackerSam

    TrackerSam Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    12,114
    Likes Received:
    5,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The February temperature departures from normal were stunning. Several major climate locations averaged 27 to 28 degrees below normal, which were the most extreme in the Lower 48 for a full month since January 1969, according to Alaska-based climatologist Brian Brettschneider.
    Great Falls, Montana, was at the heart of it. The mercury didn't rise above zero on 11 days and dropped to zero or below on 24 nights. Only the first day of the month topped freezing. Its average February temperature finished 27.5 degrees below normal.

    The punishing and unrelenting cold continued into March. On March 3, the low temperature tanked to a bone-chilling minus-32 in Great Falls. Combined with a high of minus-8, the day finished a whopping 50 degrees below normal. The city concluded its longest stretch on record below freezing on March 7.

    A comparison of this historic cold snap to unusual 30-day cold streaks in other parts of the country shows that in most locations, there is no historical record of cold so extreme lasting so long. Only portions of the northern and central Plains into parts of the Midwest have seen anything like it in modern history.

    https://www.lmtonline.com/news/article/Montana-just-endured-one-of-the-nation-s-most-13679719.php
     
  3. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you proposing a bizarre evidence-free conspiracy theory about how the current fast CO2 spike is really from volcanoes? If not, why did you bring up volcanoes?

    That's just a plain stupid argument. Do you understand why it's dumb, or do you need to have it explained it to you?
     
  4. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,251
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From 0.03% to 0.04% is no change, until you get to the fourth decimal point.
    Do you read through a discussion before showing up and dropping a deuce? Another claimed that low 4C could only mean human combusted fossil fuel and that is simply at variance with cold truth of science, Silly!
    It's brilliant, but like a fish has no appreciation for diamonds, so your inability to perceive its beauty reflects more on you than anyone else.

    Thanks for sharing!
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
  5. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow, you stink at math, and at common sense.

    It was a simple question. Why are you running from it?

    Are you saying that volcanoes caused the last century's CO2 increase? Yes or no? You brought the topic of volcanic CO2 up, so it's curious that you're running from your own topic.

    Seriously, what are you babbling about?

    The Unibomber also thought his Manifesto was underappreciated by mere mortals.

    And it's really dumb to compare sea level rise in a supposedly stable climate to sea level rise during the recovery from an ice age
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
  6. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's hard to take you seriously when you can't understand a simple equilibrium system.

    If I make $1000 a week, spend $1000 a week, and my bank account is $1000, my bank account stays steady.

    If I make $1030 a week and spend $1000 a week, then over a year, my bank account will rise by 156%, due to that measly 3% increase. According to your theory, that 3% change couldn't have had such an effect, so your theory is obviously wrong.

    Yes, they are static, for all practical purposes. Practicality may not matter to you, but it does matter to us.

    The amounts of C14 being created each year is about 10 kg, matched by an equal amount of C14 decay.

    Your view is detached from reality, being how it says kilogram scale changes in the carbon balance are significant in the face of gigaton scale emissions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
    iamanonman likes this.
  7. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,251
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My math is fabulous and my common sense, superb!
    Are you saying volcanoes have no effect on Carbon Dioxide levels, Yes or no? You keep posting on the topic of volcanic CO2 up, are you running from your own topic?
    Then don't compare if you think that's dumb, but then why bring it up as "alarming" if the rate is a measly 1/8th" a year, perfectly expected at this point in an interglacial?
    The Doomsdayers are arguing that we are in a stable climate period, good to know!
    We are still in an ice age, just lucky enough to be in an interglacial, Silly!
     
  8. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,251
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a perfectly reasonable question, why are you running from it?
    Then you need a raise!
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's criticized because of his pseudoscience propaganda. He also thinks it's safe to drink glyphosate.

    And the Daily Mail article alleging that NOAA fraudulently manipulated climate data is fake news.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2019
  10. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, you make ridiculous assumptions here. First, because we understand that the release of naturally occurring CO2 is expanding, your static stasis assertion is baseless. We have LOTS of examples if you need them. A single sub glacial volcano in Iceland, for example was underestimated by a factor of 22X, for example. It's output now more accurately measured, also indicating that it's output was increasing over time. I bet you can guess that it is releasing CO2 12... Seems to be problematic then for your second assertion, again, baseless and a mischaracterization of the actual science.

    So why should we give your assertions credence? You misrepresent the facts in a bullying way, you attribute smug to promote your own vanity, so why? What value to the conversation are you bringing today?
     
  11. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Show us the evidence that definitively proves that all of warming observed today is caused primarily by naturally modulated processes. Show us the evidence that all of the CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of naturally modulated processes.
     
  12. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Among places: the OP.
     
  13. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    great new study out that suggests our current trending is a result of solar radiation. I suppose I won't have to actually cite it for you, because you're good at the googlie...

    More, I think that you'll find that there actually is an answer in that study that responds directly to your assertion of CO2 and its causation and derivation. You should read it. Good for you.
     
  14. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're unable to understand this mathematical thing. lol
    Humans... ADD 3% every year to the atmosphere again and again. That's why the PPM goes up.

    That example shows that you know nothing about the entire subject. There simply is hardly any C14 to be found in the air, hence it has as good as no impact at all on climate change. Hence there is no reason to bring this up, other than spreading disinformation about climate change.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only recent study I could find regarding solar radiation was one in which the authors suggest blocking sunlight could be a viable strategy to mitigate global warming.
     
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or so you thought. As far as the mathematics is concerned, clearly you don't understand logarithmic functions. More, you also don't understand that natural acceleration is also occurring. Your simple stasis model doesn't remotely address this.

    I would point out that scientific data disputes your last assertion, and yes, we do have C14 being generated which (BTW) then is the ONLY method folks have been able to use to differentiate what is "natural" vs Man made, ie burning of fossil fuels which creates C12. but hey, you thought you had a winner there. No chicken dinner for you today.
     
  17. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the buzzer says... EEEEEEEEGHHHHHHH!!!!!.. nope. Try again.
     
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can you provide a hint...like the name of the author or something?
     
  19. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have explained this so many times to you. Why do you still insist that only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man made? How do you account for the 130 ppm increase?

    That's not the only method. In fact there are many different methods in use. The anthroprogenic hypothesis isn't just the best match to reality it is the only match to reality.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Henrik Svensmark
     
  21. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ugg...Svensmark...again? Yes, I know who that is. He's another one of those pseudoscience propagandists.

    Regardless...I'll look it up anyway. I mean that is if it really is a peer reviewed study to begin with.
     
  22. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    or did you really mean to say "peer reviewed" astrophysicist.... I think you're going to own him an apology...
     
  23. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'll give him the apology he deserves when he apologizes for predicting cooling that never happened.
     
  24. notme

    notme Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    42,019
    Likes Received:
    5,395
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing

    Thus although Curry doesn’t understand why so few experts agree with her, it’s easy to see why 96–97% of climate scientists and their peer-reviewed research agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. That’s what the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows. While it’s possible to find one or two flawed papers arguing to the contrary, the balance of evidence is tilted heavily to the side of human-caused global warming.

    It’s about as settled as science gets. In fact, it’s about as settled as the fact that smoking causes cancer, chlorofluorocarbons cause ozone depletion, sulfur dioxide causes acid rain, and DDT is toxic. Although the science is inconvenient for certain industries and the political think tanks they fund (like the Marshall Institute and TPPF), these effects all pose dangers to public health. Climate change perhaps most of all.

    I told you there is hardly any C14 in the air. And it is so. You dragging in C14 as if you understand the subject, shows you're just ranting nonsense without knowing it from sites who are a joke.


    There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: carbon-12, which makes up 99% of all carbon on Earth; carbon-13, which makes up 1%; and carbon-14, which occurs in trace amounts, making up about 1 or 1.5 atoms per 10^12atoms of carbon in the atmosphere.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
     
  25. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,459
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you realize that you just tried to justify your BS about CO2 using a set of studies that only talk about scientific agreement, which are also BS? Seriously? Even I couldn't make you look this bad. Congrats dude. If, you were trying to assert something else, you should at least READ what you're posting before you post it to make sure it says what you think it does. Second citation, did you even read it? Clearly, it doesn't say, or suggest what you think it does. C12 exists because it isn't modern. That is why the half life makes it traceable or a proxy for age. The vast majority of things aren't also air borne, are they? Your cite doesn't differentiate between static Carbon and gaseous airborne, but you didn't read it, so you don't know. Science thinks that because naturally released CO2 is C14 that by identifying what is C12 in the atmosphere tells us what is derivative of fossil fuel consumption. Because it's already half lifed. So measuring C12 in the atmosphere underpins the estimates of human contribution. Clearly, the naturally occurring release of CO2 into the atmosphere produces the same molecules, which cannot be differentiated unless they interact with radiation of some kind like solar of cosmic. Then, you get C14 or derivations of that. Oh, and didn't anyone ever tell you that Wikipedia is generally propaganda? Perhaps you should know that before you cite it again.
     

Share This Page