myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 402, 403, 404 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376

PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
To reduce the problem to simple terms -

1) The geological record indicates that the majority of the earths geological history (600+ million years) had atmospheric temperatures and CO2 levels, with the sole exception of the later Carboniferous period, in excess of those of today. This state of affairs can therefore be considered to be the earth norm, given our distance from the sun. (Venus a furnace - Mars frigid.)

2)Our current Quaternary period, following the recent Ice-Age which could be said to have declined about 100,000 years ago, is stated to be cooler, and CO2 impoverished compared to the norm of the last 600+ million years.

3) The climate change lobby insist the earth is warming, with rising CO2 levels, and rising sea levels, along with melting ice-caos..

To me, with my geological hat on, this indicates that the earth is bouncing back to its default condition, or NORM.

The obvious point, to me, is, if the ice caps are going to disappear, and the sea levels rise as a result of this reversion to the norm, how could it have been any different for the previous 600+ million years? Logically it couldn't have been.

Humans will have to adapt and cope with the natural forces of nature. After all, life evolved and flourished on earth throughout the whole 600+ million years of far hotter temperatures.


It is clear that what humans will have to adapt to in this instance is not the forces of nature, but the result of human activities. Human beings evolved in a period when CO2 levels did not exceed 280ppm. According to ice core records for the past 400,000 years, the fastest gain of 100 ppm of CO2 took 7,500 years. Human inputs of CO2 have added 120 ppm in about 150 years.

http://oncirculation.com/the-basics/climate-change/how-much-carbon-dioxide-have-we-emitted/

https://youtu.be/kQ9hPl9dl98

The danger is that changes to sea level, rain and vegetation patterns may take place faster than we can adapt. With a global agricultural system that is straining to keep up with world human population, and major concentrations of that population in coastal areas, it seems prudent to greatly reduce CO2 emissions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you Pointster that out of control human population growth (predicted by the U.N. to increase by an extra 2.4 billion in just another 35 years time) is the major adaptation problem the human race will face, from the temperature and CO2 rise (assuming it does take place). It certainly won't be peaceful!

Yes, our present evolutionary state mostly took place in the lower temperature and CO2 concentrations of our post glacial world, but surely, there is no medical reason to suggest we could not cope and thrive in a hottrer, highrer CO2 environment?

Our evolutionary ancestry in early humanoid form dates back perhaps as far as 10 million years or more. (Pre Ice-Age.) and our original and very early line of ancestry began just after the great Permian mass global extinction. (Asteroid strike, and mass extinction of over 90% of all life on earth at that time.)

I would be surprised if we have fully evolved out the robust genetics that allowed our progress in the first place.

If the human race does fall, it will not, in my opinion, be from genetic inability to adapt, but from conflict and all fighting (nuclear weapons) over living space, and depleting resources, in the resultant difficult environment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Move the people (if it really becomes necessary) and STOP PAYING FOR THEIR FLOOD INSURANCE AND increase CO2 output (to increase plant growth). Cheaper, quicker, and the hell with China and India if they refuse to cooperate.

And here we go again: if it isn't AGWAlarmism, it's overpopulation, or police targeting blacks, or the car or oil industry suppressing 100 mpg technology, or ADD vs inoculations. or genocidal drinking water additives, or faked moon landings, or Bush and the Jews bringing down the World Trade Center, or saturated fat, or cholesterol, or ... It just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on zzzzzzzzzzz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300

PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile, Obama was in Alaska renaming Mount McKinley to Denali, and lamenting global warming. Also today he made a desperate plea to Congress requesting dozens of icebreakers . How ironic.... Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You noticed that also, after BHO's dire speech yesterday about how global warming is going to change everything (mac's talking points?), you'd think he would have ordered jet skis, surfboards, and all kinds of water pleasure craft, to take advantage of the coming tropics to the Alaska area.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scottwerden



Joined: 11 Jul 1999
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't post here often but I am curious about the ongoing debate. A couple of comments and then I will leave you all to it...

I am not sure there is any more debate about global warming. At this point it is pretty much accepted fact by most people who are in a decision making position, i.e., states, countries and their governments who set policy, make laws, and sign treaties. People who still deny human caused global warming are pretty much a non-entity, politically at least. So, if you are on that side of the fence, right or wrong, you are pretty much relegated to the fringe. Sorry about that, but that is how these things work. It is not who is right, it is who has the ability to sell his/her point to the people who matter.

My personal feeling is that is if there is any remaining debate, it is not whether there is warming and ocean acidification, it is to what extent it is human caused. But even with that said I think the evidence is compelling that human caused or not, or whether it is inevitable in the context of natural geological time-scale climate change, is really a moot point. The point is, we are basically facing a very difficult period for humanity. I tend to think we are screwed and can waste lots of time pointing fingers, but the die is cast. It is what it is, and it ain't pretty. Yes, we will survive, but life will be far different for future generations. If we are the cause of that, shame on us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is hard for me to fathom that 7 billion humans like specs of sand could cause a substantial climate change. The vastness of our oceans forests and atmosphere are huge compared to our little life forms.

The sky is not falling. it seems that there will be an awful lot of opportunity if warming continues. Instead of trying to swim upstream, we should enjoy the ride downriver to the next meadow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:28 am    Post subject: nt Reply with quote

Try paying attention in math courses. Too late? Try reading the many explanations on this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scottwerden wrote:
I am not sure there is any more debate about global warming.

Of course not. Its promoters flatly, aggressively, publicly refuse to debate it.

scottwerden wrote:
At this point it is pretty much accepted fact by most people who are in a decision making position, i.e., states, countries and their governments

Yep ... just like they endorse low fat diets, an often deadly fallacy instigated by ONE prejudiced loudmouth named Ancel Keys and forced down the throats of the gullible, nutrition-naive politicians
scottwerden wrote:
who set policy, make laws, and sign treaties.
Tens of millions have since eaten their way into diabetes as a direct result.

scottwerden wrote:
People who still deny human caused global warming are pretty much a non-entity

Or so the promoters and their totally debunked, fictional, and outright fraudulent "97% consensus" lie would have the gullible and uninformed masses believe.

scottwerden wrote:
. It is not who is right, it is who has the ability to sell his/her point to the people who matter.

On that you are dead right, and THAT is the primary global danger of AGWA.

scottwerden wrote:
My personal feeling ...

This isn't, or SHOULDN'T be, about personal feelings, or politics, or who's getting their research grants denied. It SHOULD be about science, just as nutrition guidelines should be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17749
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Sep 07, 2015 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The magnitude of human change. Bard will not pay attention. From the University of Wisconsin.

Quote:
In the 1990’s, humans added 8.0×10 to the 15th power grams of carbon (10 to the 15th grams of carbon = 1 PgC) to the atmosphere each year, primarily by burning fossil fuels (6.4 PgC/yr) and clearing land in the tropics (1.6 PgC/yr). The ocean took up 28% of this carbon, and the land absorbed 32%. Only 40% remained in the atmosphere to cause climate warming.
Natural processes are significantly damping the rate of carbon accumulation in the atmosphere.

From 2000-2008, humans added 9.1 PgC to the atmosphere each year, 7.7 PgC/yr from fossil fuels and 1.4 PgC/yr from land use change. There is some evidence that a larger fraction of these recent emissions has remained in the atmosphere (45%, LeQuere et al. 2009).

Future climate warming depends on both the CO2 source from human emissions and the CO2 sink from natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere.


Pretty decent discussion of the basic science here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Energy-and-Environment/Climate-Change---The-Science/

The magnitude of solar flux and human energy consumption, to give you an idea of scale:

Quote:
The total amount of energy that moves through the system is huge. It is on the order of 174 ,000 terawatts (1 terawatt = 1012 watts [energy per time]; 1 horsepower = 746 watts). Almost all of this energy comes to us via solar radiation. The Earth system receives 5000 times more energy from the sun than from the interior of the planet. Thus, although its manifestations are impressive (mountain ranges, earthquakes, volcanoes), the internal energy that keeps up mantle convection and drives the tectonic plates is only a small fraction of the energy that moves through the system. To put it into perspective, the total energy production by humans is about 9.6 terawatts at any given time. Thus, there is plenty of energy in the system. Even if humans were to extract all their energy needs from the solar input, there would still be plenty of energy left to keep the planet going.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/1425chap4.htm

That source has a nifty little energy budget that shows inputs and outputs. A 1959 Scientific American article showing that science was pretty well understood--until the gybester's of the world started getting paid to lie about it to try to preserve carbon market shares. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

Finally, a graph of heat accumulation in the ocean can be found here: http://www.weather.com/science/environment/news/where-global-warming-going-ocean-20140205

Pay no attention to the man in the corner. He is a humbug, not a wizard. There is no such thing as Oz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 402, 403, 404 ... 571, 572, 573  Next
Page 403 of 573

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group