Started By
Message
re: Coldest days ahead in years....
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:05 pm to greygatch
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:05 pm to greygatch
quote:
Even the smallest increases have large effects.
Check the diagram on page 3 of this: LINK
250 years ago, before humans even began contributing to CO2 concentrations, the atmosphere was at about 280 ppmv.
500 million years ago, the Earth's atmosphere had OVER 7,000 ppmv of CO2, and yet the Earth fell into a 5 million year long ice age.
430 million years ago, the atmosphere had almost 5,000 ppmv of CO2 concentration, and yet it fell into a nearly 10 million year ice age.
Between 330 million and 270 million years ago, the atmosphere had around 500 to 700 ppmv of CO2, and we had 60 million year long ice age that blanketed the entire Earth (snowball effect).
Today, we have 400 ppmv of CO2. And in the 250 years of human contribution to CO2, it's only gone up 120 points from 280 to 400. And that includes natural causes, which account for nearly half. So humans have caused an increase of 70 ppmv in CO2 concentration in our entire contributing existence.
70 ppmv. Even though we had ice ages when the Earth had over 7,000 ppmv, and you're concerned about the 70 we've added in 250 years?
Come on, get real.
This post was edited on 1/6/14 at 3:07 pm
1
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:05 pm to greygatch
quote:
That's what science is you fricking dip shite. 90+% of scientists provide mounds of evidence.
But paranoid and delusional fricktards think its propaganda.
I tell you what. Rather than asking you to explain your first sentence up there, Sparky, I'll just let you hyperventilate some more.
The more hot air the better, iyam.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:11 pm to greygatch
quote:
There is a 90+% consensus on the idea that humans are contributing to global warming. In real academia, amongst experts, this is not really an issue.
LINK
To say these scientists are lying to support some kind of agenda is absolutely crazy beans.
There is no question that "scientists" are lying to support their agenda. That's been proven. The amazing thing is that, when the manipulating of data was uncovered, the "scientists" - instead of running the fraudsters out of academia with tar and feathers - circled the wagons and decided it was okay, mainly because the huckster's hearts were in the right place.
So spare me your 'righteous scientist' B.S. This issue has gotten political, personal and emotional with the warmists, and scientific objectivity be dam*ed.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:14 pm to BeefDawg
quote:
70 we've added in 250 years
In 2009, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0387%,[11] or 387 parts per million (ppm).[1][12] At the scientific recording station in Mauna Loa, the concentration reached 0.04% or 400 ppm for the first time in May 2013,[13][14] although this level had already been reached in the Arctic in June 2012.[15] There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppmv which roughly follows the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO2 concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins and reach a minimum in October when the quantity of biomass undergoing photosynthesis is greatest.[16]
Sir Brian Hoskins of the Royal Society said that the 400ppm milestone should "jolt governments into action".[17] The National Geographic noted that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is this high "for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history",[18] and according to the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab, "it's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this, and we're still in trouble."
Also, we've added 70 ppmv in the past 50 years.
This post was edited on 1/6/14 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:16 pm to greygatch
quote:
In the US? That's adorable. Try global emissions, and remember, these are long-lasting emissions.
You're quoting metric tons rather than parts per million by volume.
Go educate yourself on the total volume of our atmosphere vs the volume of CO2. I've already posted the numbers, but go do the research yourself to make sure I'm being honest. I promise you will then understand how insignificant our contributions are.
Also, ask yourself why it is when the Earth had almost 20x more CO2 concentration NATURALLY in the atmosphere, we had numerous fluctuations from extreme cold to extreme high, ice ages to mass meltings and back to ice ages again.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:21 pm to GoldenDawg
quote:
There is no question that "scientists" are lying to support their agenda. That's been proven. The amazing thing is that, when the manipulating of data was uncovered, the "scientists" - instead of running the fraudsters out of academia with tar and feathers - circled the wagons and decided it was okay, mainly because the huckster's hearts were in the right place.
What in the absolute frick, man.
Show me evidence of this massively synchronized liberal conspiracy, please.
Humans suck sometimes, I'll give you that. But to think that most people just manipulate their data to serve an agenda is too much for me.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:24 pm to greygatch
quote:
What in the absolute frick, man.
Show me evidence of this massively synchronized liberal conspiracy, please.
Humans suck sometimes, I'll give you that. But to think that most people just manipulate their data to serve an agenda is too much for me.
Scientists manipulating data - especially climate data - is new to you?
SOMEONE GET THIS MAN SOME INTERNET ---- STAT!!!!!
Keep up the hyperventilating my man - the earth could use a little more heat at the moment.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:24 pm to greygatch
FWIW, before he died, John Denver was testing c02 scrubbers placed on Sharks that he would then drop in to a large tornado....unfortunately, the plane carrying the load never made it and his dream became a cheap SciFi "B" flick with Tara Reid.....global warming is Tara Reid's fault,,,f#ckin sl$t!
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:27 pm to greygatch
Not going to really join this conversation because I'm getting too lazy to do all the research and fact-checking that I used to do in the old days when I would debate everything up and down, but I will say that the human nature cannot be trusted.
When looking at the results of studies, you can often times glean more information from who paid for the study than what the study says in its conclusions.
When looking at the results of studies, you can often times glean more information from who paid for the study than what the study says in its conclusions.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:27 pm to redandblackattack
quote:
unfortunately, the plane carrying the load never made it and his dream became a cheap SciFi "B" flick with Tara Reid
Flick?
Documentary, you mean.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:28 pm to greygatch
quote:
Also, we've added 70 ppmv in the past 50 years.
You realize that CO2 is also created naturally, right? It's not just man-made.
For instance, about 280 million years ago, a super-volcano erupted and CO2 poured in to the atmosphere, pushing concentrations up to 140,000 ppmv.
Oddly enough, we had 10 million more years of the great ice age.
350x CO2 concentrations compared to what they are now, and yet the climate stayed virtually the same for 10 million more years.
But yeah, 70 ppmv, we gotta worry about that, don't we.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
ot going to really join this conversation because I'm getting too lazy to do all the research and fact-checking that I used to do in the old days when I would debate everything up and down, but I will say that the human nature cannot be trusted.
When looking at the results of studies, you can often times glean more information from who paid for the study than what the study says in its conclusions.
How dare you impugn the integrity of researchers.
Personally, I am relieved that those researchers in Scotland have determined that Scotch will prolong my life, and the researchers in Louisville that assure me Bourbon will do the same.
Now apologize.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:30 pm to GoldenDawg
yes yes...you are correct, it's just difficult to type Tara Reid and documentary in the same sentence...
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:31 pm to redandblackattack
quote:
yes yes...you are correct, it's just difficult to type Tara Reid and documentary in the same sentence...
Yet you just did it.
Well done, sir.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:33 pm to redandblackattack
You guys are right. NASA, MIT, Cal Tech, the AAAS, the Royal Society, the APS, the ACS, the IPCC....
They're all liars.
They spend 8 years specializing in their fields, acquiring math and critical thinking skills learning to use science to gather as much objective data as possible.
THEN they get a job to study what they've been training to do most of their adult life only to have the majority of them lie about it to advance their own fields and spread liberal lies.
Good thing you guys have common sense! Phew! We were almost duped by the conspiracy of an academic consensus.
They're all liars.
They spend 8 years specializing in their fields, acquiring math and critical thinking skills learning to use science to gather as much objective data as possible.
THEN they get a job to study what they've been training to do most of their adult life only to have the majority of them lie about it to advance their own fields and spread liberal lies.
Good thing you guys have common sense! Phew! We were almost duped by the conspiracy of an academic consensus.
This post was edited on 1/6/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:34 pm to redandblackattack
I find this whole conversation very entertaining,,,my course of study deals greatly with the properties of C02, how it's dissolved, transported, released, scrubbed...transfused,,etc.etc... Please continue this conversation,,,makes class much more tolerable...
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:35 pm to BeefDawg
I do. That's why the graph was measuring emissions, not total CO2 in the atmosphere.
So again, humans have added roughly 70 ppm to the atmosphere since 1960.
Am I reading the graph wrong?
So again, humans have added roughly 70 ppm to the atmosphere since 1960.
Am I reading the graph wrong?
This post was edited on 1/6/14 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:35 pm to greygatch
quote:
You guys are right. NASA, MIT, Cal Tech, the AAAS, the Royal Society, the APS, the ACS, the IPCC....
Their all liars.
They spend 8 years specializing in their fields, acquiring math and critical thinking skills learning to use science to gather as much objective data as possible.
THEN they get a job to study what they've been training to do most of their adult life only to have the majority of them lie about it to advance their own fields and spread liberal lies.
Good thing you guys have common sense! Phew! We were almost duped by the conspiracy of an academic consensus.
Glad you feel that way. And since I've spent 20 plus years practicing law, I'm guessing you will meekly accept my views on the Constitution without debate.
What a good little sheep you are.
Posted on 1/6/14 at 3:38 pm to greygatch
quote:
Am I reading the graph wrong?
I guess I am.
Page 3 of 5
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News