Real climate change?
- Thread starter trunole1
- Start date
- Status
Here you go:
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause."
Evidence
Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...
climate.nasa.gov
So I should trust the opinion of a government agency over real climate scientists?Here you go:
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause."
Evidence
Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...
No doubt the earth is in a slight warming cycle. Blaming it on manmade C02 is silly. Did you even watch the videos? How long has NASA even existed? How are they funded? Fill a balloon with C02. Does it go up or down?
Unequivocal evidence that human activity is the principal cause? Unprecedented rate?
Greta and Al agree with NASA! LOL You?
Proof that the predicted models are correct?
I'm not a climate scientist. I'm not qualified to answer those questions but you can ask NASA.
You should absolutely trust the opinions of climate scientists. The vast majority believe human activity is causing climate change.
"Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change."
Scientific Consensus
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
climate.nasa.gov
Last edited:
How long are you gonna argue with yourself?
As long as there exist those that believe scientific facts/theories are decided by a vote?
Burning fossil fuels has driven climate change, and now climate change is costing people their health and increasingly their lives, says a new report from the prestigious medical journal the Lancet. The eighth annual Lancet Countdown, an international analysis that tracks nearly 50 different health-focused issues affected by climate change, calls for an immediate wind-down of fossil fuel use.
"We're currently at 1.14 degree Celsius of global indicator heating, and we're already seeing climate change claiming lives and livelihoods in every part of the world," says Marina Romanello, a scientist at University College, London, and the lead author of the report. "The impacts are happening here and now. However, these impacts that we're seeing today could be just an early symptom of a very dangerous future unless we tackle climate change urgently."
"We're currently at 1.14 degree Celsius of global indicator heating, and we're already seeing climate change claiming lives and livelihoods in every part of the world," says Marina Romanello, a scientist at University College, London, and the lead author of the report. "The impacts are happening here and now. However, these impacts that we're seeing today could be just an early symptom of a very dangerous future unless we tackle climate change urgently."
these impacts that we're seeing today could be just an early symptom of a very dangerous future
Or they could be part of an actual climate pattern that occurs naturally over long periods of time. Do we have data from 10000, 100000 or a million years ago to confirm?
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.I'm not a climate scientist. I'm not qualified to answer those questions but you can ask NASA.
You should absolutely trust the opinions of climate scientists. The vast majority believe human activity is causing climate change.
"Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change."
Scientific Consensus
It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...
Radware Bot Manager Captcha
iopscience.iop.org
Last edited:
What % of C02 is manmade compared to that produced by nature? Don't confuse air pollution with CO2
which can't be seen.
Last edited:
Activists often prompt science based studies which can then lead to essentially science based legislation, rulings, etc..
Rachel Carson was a leader in banning of DDT.
Ranchers alongside Los Angeles freeways raised awareness that led to banning lead additives in fuel.
The Cuyahoga River “burning” helped lead to the Clean Water Act.
Communities disappearing in South Louisiana are one of the leading indicators of sea rise, though much of their issue also includes channelization of the Mississippi and carbon extraction projects.
The frequency of quick strengthening of coastal storms is related to warming waters. The increased damages from said storms is related to loss of coastal plant communities, increases in hardened structures, and seaside development.
Asking if we have data going back eons is an answer that we all already can answer. Pretending that man’s actions aren’t directly leading to widespread human migration, worsening storms, water shortages, and shifting of arable lands is a crime against current and future mankind, flora, and fauna.
Rachel Carson was a leader in banning of DDT.
Ranchers alongside Los Angeles freeways raised awareness that led to banning lead additives in fuel.
The Cuyahoga River “burning” helped lead to the Clean Water Act.
Communities disappearing in South Louisiana are one of the leading indicators of sea rise, though much of their issue also includes channelization of the Mississippi and carbon extraction projects.
The frequency of quick strengthening of coastal storms is related to warming waters. The increased damages from said storms is related to loss of coastal plant communities, increases in hardened structures, and seaside development.
Asking if we have data going back eons is an answer that we all already can answer. Pretending that man’s actions aren’t directly leading to widespread human migration, worsening storms, water shortages, and shifting of arable lands is a crime against current and future mankind, flora, and fauna.
Holy crap....20 years later, 20 years
Last edited by a moderator:
What percentage produce by nature is SEQUESTERED CO2?
Five bucks says that if he/she does know what the carbon cycle is, he/she doesn't understand it.
Last edited:
Is that when your rims get covered in brake dust and you clean them off?
Solution.....ceramic brake pads.Is that when your rims get covered in brake dust and you clean them off?
Holy crap...hey Einstein, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 20% in just the last 42 years. Why do you think that is?
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, and I learned about the 536 volcanic eruption and it's affects in MULTIPLE classes.
It's obvious that co2 levels in the atmosphere has risen since reading started in the late 50's. There have been questions of the location of these measurements right next to a volcano, but the readings have increased from near 320 to 420 ppm. Here's the question though. When comparing these rises to earlier periods they use ice core samples. Those are two different readings. Is there ice core samples from 60 years ago? Can they compare readings? According to ice core samples there have been variations in c02 going back 800,000 years so when comparing then to now wouldn't it be practical to compare apples to apples? You seem to be up to speed on the matter.
I'll pay a carbon tax as soon as India and China ( the world's two biggest polluters) start paying one.
Amazing how dire GW / climate change / ice age is to the US and Europe isn't it? ( Hint- they have the most money and the most people who stand to gain from a carbon tax).
Until those two start paying, well, good luck fellas.
Amazing how dire GW / climate change / ice age is to the US and Europe isn't it? ( Hint- they have the most money and the most people who stand to gain from a carbon tax).
Until those two start paying, well, good luck fellas.
The volcano had NOTHING to do with the measurements, because there was NEVER a spike during eruptions...and that was just the FIRST place to start CO2 measurements. And the ice cores only can give us measurements just a few decades after the industrial revolution
This thinking is exactly why are species is screwed...oh and the US by far has put the most CO2 into the atmosphere
Last edited:
Since you are so persistently CO2 curious, consider this a holiday gift. Enjoy: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf
Pass, but all plant life would love it even though Al, Leonardo, and Greta disagree. lol
Personally, I like food. You?
Oh and thanks for the heads up just another reason to never wear a mask.
Last edited:
Why do you keep asking others questions when you won't answer those asked of you?
Probably because the answer is very little since most dead plant life in forests seldom gets buried (sequestered)
Now you answer my questions? lol
Last edited:
To those that live in fear of climate change to ease their troubled souls,,, A short video that explains the real origin of those fears,
Last edited:
? short story in Maine a warehouse where I stored my car changed to a pot indoor growing farm.
They installed CO2 generators outside to bring in extra CO2 for the plants. Why?
Classic? 1991 4 door Honda Civic station wagon.
Last edited:
Because they can add nutrients (namely nitrogen and phosphorus) and water, which are limiting factors out in the wild.
I'm not a scientist to whom you're addressing your questions. But, you're also not a scientist to whom is Reed directed questions.
- Status
