2015 Was the Hottest Year on Record, by a Stunning Margin

[The Berean]

bring back the ice age! :sibbie:

Here you go! :banana:

.

 

[ok doser]

i'll see your vanilla ice and raise you the manhattans!

...

 

[Stripe]

There were two logically possible options. Either you recognize the warming trend that's continued for the past several decades, or you don't. It's the excluded middle. You have to fall to one side of it or the other, if only be default.

Remember when I said you have no chance of contributing anything of value to this conversation? Introducing the fallacy of begging the question was not the way to counter that prediction.

You have not established a warming trend and you are doubling down on the error of saying I agreed that your idea of a warming trend is accurate.

As I say, Darwinists are only here to make sure the argument continues so the science is sidelined.

They hate a rational discussion.

 

[elohiym]

http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/#sealevelrise

Most of the world’s coastal cities were established during the last few millennia, a period when global sea level has been near constant. Since the mid-19th century, sea level has been rising, likely primarily as a result of human-induced climate change.

Solution: Do what the Netherlands has been doing for a couple thousand years with dikes, pumps and polders... or move.

 

[ok doser]

the last few millennia, a period when global sea level has been near constant

:freak:

ummm.....


no

 

[rexlunae]

Can you list specific technologies?

Photovoltaics, wind, wave, geothermal, maybe nuclear. Electric cars. Trains. Building cities for bikes and walking instead of cars. (I'm looking at you, LA).

Investment in clean technology has been going on for decades now. I live in Silicon Valley and there are quite a bit of clean tech companies in the area.

California has been ahead of the rest of the country, and the world. In most of the country, most energy is still coming from coal or natural gas.

But IMO a more immediate solution is for people to change their habits. It can start with people recycling as much as they can. Can you imagine if everyone recycled how much of a difference that would make? People can stop buying so many plastic products. People can stop driving so much and either take public transportation or ride a bike to work.

Agreed. But there's still a need for cleaner ways of doing the same things we've been doing. Also, eating less meat.

But many people tend to be lazy and are not willing to change easily. Agricultural polution is also a major problem. Agriculture feeds the world but it also produces a huge amount of pollution the affects the global climate.

Yup. I guess part of the question is whether it's easier to attack the problem by changing the habits of 7 billion individuals, or a relative handful of companies than produce the goods and services consumed by those 7 billion.

Well, that's a different problem. But the younger generations seem to take it more seriously. I had an interview last year with a startup 3D printing company. As I walked around I noticed a lot of younger people. I walked by an area where there must have been about 30-40 bikes. And this was a company with less than 100 employees.

That's impressive. I would love to bike to work some days, but I'm pretty sure I would die in traffic.

 

[rexlunae]

Remember when I said you have no chance of contributing anything of value to this conversation? Introducing the fallacy of begging the question was not the way to counter that prediction.

I recall you trying to dismiss what I was saying. I took it just as seriously as it warranted, which was not at all.

You have not established a warming trend and you are doubling down on the error of saying I agreed that your idea of a warming trend is accurate.

Read a book. You don't need to be that intellectually lazy. The warming record is a matter of public record, is documented in any number of places, and I have no intention of repeating it here for your amusement. My comments presumed a certain level of familiarity with the subject matter going in. If you find yourself lost, feel free to educate yourself before piping up.

 

[rexlunae]

You are assuming that human production of CO2 is significant enough to make a difference.

No, I'm not. That's why we take measurements. We have theory, we make predictions, and then we test them. Huge difference.

I happen to believe that human activity is having a direct effect on the weather patterns, since humans have been working out how to do that since the 1950s.

However, the insignificant effect of CO2 production is not a factor that needs to be worried about and is definitely not a factor that justifies destroying major economies in order to combat to no effect.

That puts you at odds with nearly everyone who studies it professionally.

 

[elohiym]

Photovoltaics, wind, wave, geothermal, maybe nuclear.

Not so long ago, a tsunami destroyed a nuclear power plant and the world is still dealing with the ramifications. Shouldn't you be looking at closing all those nuclear plants in coastal regions because of the alleged threats from global warming, if not the ever present threat of tsunami destruction?

Electric cars.

Force me to buy an electric car?

Building cities for bikes and walking instead of cars. (I'm looking at you, LA).

Do you want goods delivered by car and truck or by rickshaw?

Also, eating less meat.

That only creates more smug.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That puts you at odds with nearly everyone who studies it professionally.

So, just because I am not paid to promote a lie, you think I am wrong?

 

[rexlunae]

The amount emitted by humans falls far short of the amount emitted by natural causes.

Is the amount of carbon emitted by humans greater or less than 0?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

The greenhouse gas that creates the most effect is H2O, and humans emit a negligible amount compared to natural causes.

Again, is the human contribution greater or less than 0?

The only greenhouse gas that has even a minimal portion emitted by humans is CO2, where humans emit only 4% and natural causes emit 96%.

That's not true. We also emit methane, about 60% of the total output (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html). And CFCs, in addition to being harmful to the ozone layer, are also massively powerful greenhouse gases. And some others. And that 4% matters. It's 4% that wasn't part of the previously established equilibrium of the carbon cycle.

There is no way to prove that humans are emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses.

That's just plain goofy? What would stop us from measuring it?

 

[Stripe]

I recall you trying to dismiss what I was saying.

:BRAVO:

Perhaps with time and counseling, you'll get over yourself.

Read a book. You don't need to be that intellectually lazy. The warming record is a matter of public record, is documented in any number of places, and I have no intention of repeating it here for your amusement. My comments presumed a certain level of familiarity with the subject matter going in. If you find yourself lost, feel free to educate yourself before piping up.

You've come full circle, ya full retard.

Go back and reread my first post to you.

 

[rexlunae]

So, just because I am not paid to promote a lie, you think I am wrong?

It's more because I don't think you know what you're talking about, but feel free to process that however you get the most reassurance.

 

[rexlunae]

:BRAVO:

Perhaps with time and counseling, you'll get over yourself.



You've come full circle, ya full retard.

Go back and reread my first post to you.

It was barely worth reading the first time.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Is the amount of carbon emitted by humans greater or less than 0?

It is too negligible to matter.

We also emit methane, about 60% of the total output (http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html).

Yes, some environmental morons are now claiming that our herds of cattle are causing global warming.
So, how much methane was produced by the 30 million American bison that used to roam America?

And CFCs, in addition to being harmful to the ozone layer, are also massively powerful greenhouse gases.

CFCs are dangerous, but the "greenhouse gas" effect is negligible.

That's just plain goofy? What would stop us from measuring it?

You are being goofy.
There is no way to prove that humans are emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses.

Here is what we can measure:

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin.
Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
source​

Since water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect and is clearly of natural origin, the remaining 5% is relatively insignificant.

Only 3.298% of that remaining 5% can be attributed to human activity (carbon dioxide CO2, methane CH4, nitrous oxide N2O, and miscellaneous other gases CFC's, etc.).

Doing the math shows that 0.1649% of the "greenhouse gasses" in the atmosphere can be attributed to humans, assuming (incorrectly as it turns out) that 100% of those gasses remain in the atmosphere.

That is very far from proving that humans are emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses or that the greenhouse gasses emitted by humans have any effect on the climate.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's more because I don't think

Yes, you have proven that you don't think

you know what you're talking about

Yes, I do know what I am talking about.

 

[Stripe]

It was barely worth reading the first time.

Which proves the point: You have nothing of value to contribute.

 

[rexlunae]

Yes, some environmental morons are now claiming that our herds of cattle are causing global warming.

If you'd read the link, you would have learned that it's a lot more than cow farts. To say nothing of fossil fuel production.

So, how much methane was produced by the 30 million American bison that used to roam America?

That's a good question. What do you think? But, likely less than the 40 million cows kept for food and dairy in the US alone.

CFCs are dangerous, but the "greenhouse gas" effect is negligible.

The effect is huge, much higher than either CO2 or water vapor. But the concentration is a lot lower, because these chemicals are exclusively synthetic.

There is no way to prove that humans are emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses.

I still don't see why you think that. We can, and do measure emissions. We can measure the warming potential of different chemicals. What's the problem?

Here is what we can measure:

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin.
Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
source​

I haven't seen any estimates that the contribution of water vapor is that high. Looks more like 60-85%. It's certainly responsible for most of the greenhouse effect, but a large portion of that is natural, and necessary for life. However, it also enhances the impact of other greenhouse gases, because the atmosphere can hold more water as the temperature rises.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...te-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Since water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect and is clearly of natural origin, the remaining 5% is relatively insignificant.

Even if the non-water-vapor portion of the warming were only 5% (it's not), it would be significant.

Only 3.298% of that remaining 5% can be attributed to human activity (carbon dioxide CO2, methane CH4, nitrous oxide N2O, and miscellaneous other gases CFC's, etc.).

Doing the math shows that 0.1649% of the "greenhouse gasses" in the atmosphere can be attributed to humans, assuming (incorrectly as it turns out) that 100% of those gasses remain in the atmosphere.

That is very far from proving that humans are emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses or that the greenhouse gasses emitted by humans have any effect on the climate.

It's also not consistent with actual climatologists' numbers.