97% and Climate Change

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
We are discussing climate change. A completely different political platform. Unless your sole purpose was to lump it all together to further your own political bias. You wouldn't do that... would you? :think:

no, for many here at TOL the ability to ignore the real world is based on their need for a literal Genesis.
 

Quetzal

New member
I can find the articles easily, but they have no usable information. For example the first quote in your link (a blog, not proper research!) above is from a politician ("If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.").

If we could get down to 65% of current emissions then we will substantially have solved the CO2 emissions problem, so what point was the unqualified politician trying to make? Jolly statements to cheer the voters?
Important point to bring up. A blog entry is not the same as a peer reviewed research paper.
 

JosephR

New member
we burn stuff,,, alot of stuff.... it goes up in the air... its black,,smut...

it lands on ice covered land,,its dark,,black,,it attracts more heat then the white or clear snow/ice.....

IT DOES AFFECT THE CLIMATE :)

gota love science..
 

brewmama

New member
we burn stuff,,, alot of stuff.... it goes up in the air... its black,,smut...

it lands on ice covered land,,its dark,,black,,it attracts more heat then the white or clear snow/ice.....

IT DOES AFFECT THE CLIMATE :)

gota love science..

None of that has anything to do with CO2.
 

JosephR

New member
None of that has anything to do with CO2.

it doesnt have anything to do with Pi. or Chaos Math either..It doesn't have anything to do with civil rights..I could go on and on....

the statement still holds true..even if it dont have anything to do with other things not relevant,,but really it does...but thats science,,who cares about that stuff..
 

chair

Well-known member
Man-made global warming is the biggest con game in the history of mankind. What isn't fabrication is blatant lies. It's simply a fraud to redistribute wealth. God said:

Genesis 8:21-22 KJV And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Is this the real topic here? That there can't possibly be global warming, since God said so?
 

Quetzal

New member
None of that has anything to do with CO2.
It most certainly does. In regards to burning stuff, let's look at something relatively common that we burn:
About 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol. About 22.38 pounds of CO2 are produced by burning a gallon of diesel fuel
Source.
 

brewmama

New member
It most certainly does. In regards to burning stuff, let's look at something relatively common that we burn:

Source.

The point is that soot, black stuff on the ice, etc, may be a problem, but CO2 is what the powers that be focus on, not the pollution. At least be consistent.
 

Quetzal

New member
The point is that soot, black stuff on the ice, etc, may be a problem, but CO2 is what the powers that be focus on, not the pollution. At least be consistent.
Follow me here. Excessive CO2 can be categorized as... poll...u...tion. In fact, the very definition of pollution is: introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Come on, do you even try to understand the topic or do you just make posts to hear yourself talk?
 

brewmama

New member
Follow me here. Excessive CO2 can be categorized as... pol...u...tion. In fact, the very definition of polution is: introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Come on, do you even try to understand the topic or do you just make posts to hear yourself talk?

As has been explained numerous times, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is necessary for life on earth, and the spurious attempts to MAKE it a pollutant is the whole point of this discussion, which YOU are the one unable to follow or make any cogent argument for.
 

Quetzal

New member
As has been explained numerous times, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is necessary for life on earth, and the spurious attempts to MAKE it a pollutant is the whole point of this discussion, which YOU are the one unable to follow or make any cogent argument for.
I didn't say CO2 was a pollutant. I said excessive CO2 is a pollutant.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
I didn't say CO2 was a pollutant. I said excessive CO2 is a pollutant.

During the last climate optimum, the temperature was 1-2 degrees Celsius higher than our current temperature and CO2 levels were 3000 ppm higher than our current 400 ppm.

We are not in a climate optimum now, and we still have 3000 ppm additional CO2 that can be added to the atmosphere before CO2 can even be considered a pollutant.
 

Quetzal

New member
During the last climate optimum, the temperature was 1-2 degrees Celsius higher than our current temperature and CO2 levels were 3000 ppm higher than our current 400 ppm.

We are not in a climate optimum now, and we still have 3000 ppm additional CO2 that can be added to the atmosphere before CO2 can even be considered a pollutant.
How do you define climate optimum? Who supports this definition? Where did it come from? When?
 

Quetzal

New member
During the last climate optimum, the temperature was 1-2 degrees Celsius higher than our current temperature and CO2 levels were 3000 ppm higher than our current 400 ppm.

We are not in a climate optimum now, and we still have 3000 ppm additional CO2 that can be added to the atmosphere before CO2 can even be considered a pollutant.
Also, not surprising, your statistics aren't accurate. Note the concentration of CO2...

Holocene_Delta_T_and_Delta_CO2_Full.jpg
 

genuineoriginal

New member
How do you define climate optimum? Who supports this definition? Where did it come from? When?

I am not the one that defined it.
_____
Climatic Optimum
Warmest period during the Holocene epoch. This period is dated from about 5,000 to 3,000 BC. During this time average global temperatures were 1 to 2° Celsius warmer than they are today.
_____​
_____
climatic optimum
noun
1A set of climatic conditions which are most favourable for a particular species or for human comfort and health ( rare ).
2 Palaeontology and Archaeol. any of various historical or (usually) prehistoric periods characterized by comparatively warm and dry conditions compared to the preceding and following periods, specifically (also Climatic Optimum) such a period which occurred in northern latitudes in the early Holocene, after the last glaciation (approx. 9000 to 5000 years ago, but varying with location).
_____​
_____
HOLOCENE CLIMATIC OPTIMUM

The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.
This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about two millennia ago.

GLOBAL EFFECTS
The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia). The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south. The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes. Tropical reefs tend to show temperature increases of less than 1 °C; the tropical ocean surface at the Great Barrier Reef ~5350 years ago was 1 °C warmer and enriched in 18O by 0.5 per mil relative to modern seawater. In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average.
Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than present. Research indicates that the Arctic had substantially less sea ice during this period compared to present.
Current desert regions of Central Asia were extensively forested due to higher rainfall, and the warm temperate forest belts in China and Japan were extended northwards.
West African sediments additionally record the "African Humid Period", an interval between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African monsoon by changes in summer radiation resulting from long-term variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun. During this period, the "Green Sahara" was dotted with numerous lakes containing typical African lake crocodile and hippopotamus fauna. A curious discovery from the marine sediments is that the transitions into and out of this wet period occurred within decades, not millennia as previously thought.
In the far southern hemisphere (e.g. New Zealand and Antarctica), the warmest period during the Holocene appears to have been roughly 8,000 to 10,500 years ago, immediately following the end of the last ice age. By 6,000 years ago, the time normally associated with the Holocene Climatic Optimum in the Northern Hemisphere, these regions had reached temperatures similar to those existing in the modern era, and did not participate in the temperature changes of the North. However, some authors have used the term "Holocene Climatic Optimum" to describe this earlier southern warm period as well.
_____​
 

gcthomas

New member
So CO2 levels are much higher now that I'm the climatic optimum period - is that what you were trying to tell us? (or did you just life for rhetorical effect, GO?)
 

Quetzal

New member
So CO2 levels are much higher now that I'm the climatic optimum period - is that what you were trying to tell us? (or did you just life for rhetorical effect, GO?)
He is trying to argue the opposite with no evidence to support himself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top