Global Warming Revisited

[LuckyNumber7]

It's important to consider things on a geological timescale.

Noting that temperatures are going up above expectation over the last century doesn't mean a whole lot unless you consider things on larger timescales.

[Cancer45]

I just find this article with the title saying that Global Warming "Pause" Extends to 17 years 11 months, so I really haven't read the article yet but wanted to share with you guys. I'm going to try and read it tonight at work and do some research. But I would like to see what you guys think.


Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months | Climate Depot

[LuckyNumber7]

Question... does anyone know the rate that CO2 should be entering the atmosphere in the present day, human activity aside?

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Question... does anyone know the rate that CO2 should be entering the atmosphere in the present day, human activity aside?

That's the $64,000 question

[LuckyNumber7]

Can you answer it?

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Cancer45

I just find this article with the title saying that Global Warming "Pause" Extends to 17 years 11 months, so I really haven't read the article yet but wanted to share with you guys. I'm going to try and read it tonight at work and do some research. But I would like to see what you guys think.


Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months | Climate Depot

A. Climate Depot is run by Marc Morano, who has worked for Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe, who are both climate change deniers. He has no scientific background and the funding for the site comes from a think tank that is funded by ExxonMobil and Chevron. It's an incredibly horrible and biased source to use.

B. To specifically refute the claims in the article, here's an article: http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-w...n-16-years.htm. The warming trend has continued, but most of the heat generated is trapped in the ocean. The original article only talks about surface temperatures, which have remained mostly flat over the past 15 years. But the past decade was still the hottest on record for surface temperatures and when you look at ocean temperatures, those continue to rise. All the trapped heat is still continuing to build up in the oceans.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

I'm gonna leave this here:

New Climate Change Study Just 400 Pages Of Scientists Telling Americans To Read Previous Climate Change Studies

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new...ault:2:Default


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[cedarwood]

Originally Posted by Moser

I'm not sure where you read your journal articles, but deforestation and erosion are huge topics in climate science.

I guess I was thinking about the politicians being the mechanics (or maybe the media)? From what I can see, they're pretty much focused on global warming over the other two. The pictures of drought and desertification are usually coupled with discussions of global warming, as if THAT'S causing it.

but human-influenced desertification far predates modern fossil emissions. It's caused largely by unsustainable agricultural practices. It's always been worse in drylands , but with the advent of modern technology and fossil fuel powered agricultural technologies , desertification is even creeping into more temperate climates with higher amounts of rainfall.

All the fossil fuels and emissions standards in the world are never going to be enough to compensate for the damage done by farming drylands like California as if they are temperate climates with ample rainfall.

Continue to talk about fossil fuel emissions while pumping aquifers dry, salting the soils, destroying soil structures with over tillage, monocropping, and pesticide use.

How is focusing primarily on fossil fuel emissions helping any of these problems?

Agro chem companies own the federal government on both sides and love that all of the discussion in America is about global warming instead of changing unsustainable agricultural practices. Meanwhile, there are places in the world, sometimes in the Third World, where people are changing the way agriculture is practiced and implemented from the top down.

It's Permaculture. It's a design science Focused on real solutions , which are sustainable , improve soils , reduce human inputs- like pumping in water and chemical fertilizer, reduce human labor. these systems are being implemented on small-scale and on massive scales like the loess plateau in China.

http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P0...roject?lang=en

US politicians are never going to talk about this stuff because they're owned by Monsanto and the like. I guess we can keep obeying them and let
them tell us what the conversation really needs to be about.

But there are real solutions , and they're being used in other places by people groups and nations with nowhere near our modern technologies , education, resources, or capital. Holistic systems designed for sustainability.

[the iron horse]

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge."

Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’ - The Washington Post

[bono_212]

Numbers 35:33-34 NKJV

So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.’ ”

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge."



Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’ - The Washington Post

Do you think we should still be examining whether or not the science behind gravity is settled? Or the science behind germ theory? Should we be having a debate over whether the laws of thermodynamics are correct?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[cedarwood]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

Do you think we should still be examining whether or not the science behind gravity is settled? Or the science behind germ theory? Should we be having a debate over whether the laws of thermodynamics are correct?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Is there any scientific debate on gravity? Really? Is climate change and its causes (directly linked to human behavior) as apparent as gravity ? There are actual scientists who have problems with all the assumptions made about climate change.

I know that you're replying to a pretty inflammatory post, but you can't equate the study of dynamic, planetary climate systems with the study of gravity.

The article is not unreasonable in questioning the president's statement. It was a very political statement , and somewhat ridiculous. Honestly, I don't expect less from politicians on either side, but it is what it is.

Again, though California is dryer than much of the country, we are farming it more heavily than any other state basically. We're adding tons and tons of petroleum-based fertilizers and pumping aquifers dry.

If we continue to do this, are carbon credits really going to make a difference? Is driving a Prius really going to make a difference when large-scale unsustainable farming practices continue? Enough talk of raeping the earth with fossil fuels in the AIR. Desertification by human agriculture far predates carbon emissions.

Keep listening to Barack Obama, the Republican Party, and Monsanto. They all loved this conversation, because they can keep on doing the same old thing. Meanwhile we're destroying our greatest resource from the ground up .

[DaveC]

Guys, is the Sun really the center of the Solar System? Scientists have been saying this for 472 years and nobody has made them back this up lately. Isn't it time we revisit this "theory"? After all, it's only a "theory", if it were really true then it wouldn't be just a guess like "theories" really are and would be promoted to "law" by now right, cause that's totally how science works.

 

Actually the Sun is not technically the centre of the solar system, it's one focus of each of the elliptical orbits of 8 planets and a bunch of other rocks and isn't in the actual centre of anything. Just want to be sure to clarify so some yobo doesn't come along and miss the point whine about my post

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge."



Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’ - The Washington Post

I would also like to add, since you seem to be objecting to the "climate change is a fact" portion of the statement, are you then arguing that the climate is not changing at all, or that it's not caused/worsened by human activity?

I was under the impression that the debate over climate change occurring at all was pretty well settled to "hell yes the climate is changing" (which makes Obama's statement factually correct, in which case you're just looking for some reason to bash him and are nothing more than trolling), whereas the idea of if its related to human activity is still (in the minds of the ignorant/incompetent/uneducated, anyways) up for debate (in this case, if this is indeed what you are trying to argue, your post is completely and utterly irrelevant to this point which means you're just looking for a reason to bash Obama and are nothing more than trolling).

Please, elaborate.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by DaveC

Guys, is the Sun really the center of the Solar System? Scientists have been saying this for 472 years and nobody has made them back this up lately. Isn't it time we revisit this "theory"? After all, it's only a "theory", if it were really true then it wouldn't be just a guess like "theories" really are and would be promoted to "law" by now right, cause that's totally how science works.

Sadly, I know someone who doesn't believe in heliocentrism. And the reason is, quite literally, because the Bible tells him so.

It still blows my mind.

[bono_212]

I'd like to know which verse that is.

[Diemen]

I've never actually discussed it with him (we're not that close anyway, but I've seen it in his facebook posts), because I like him well enough outside of that, and figure that if he still believes, in this day and age, that geocentrism is correct, that dinosaurs never existed, that evolution isn't a thing, and that the Earth is only 6000 years old, well, no rational evidence is going to sway his mind now.

[DaveC]

Can you also ask him please where exactly the four corners of the Earth are so that my plane does not fly off the edge on my next vacation? Thanks.

I can't imagine at all how he jives the fact that we have satellites in space and have landed on the moon with those ideas. Although most likely he probably is one of those nutbars who is convinced it was all faked. That's a topic for another evisceration thread, though.

I really hope someone comes in here and tries to seriously debate that at some point, it would be so much fun

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Sadly, I know someone who doesn't believe in heliocentrism. And the reason is, quite literally, because the Bible tells him so.



It still blows my mind.

That's the kind of person NASA needs to send to the sun if you ask me.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

That's the kind of person NASA needs to send to the sun if you ask me.

Or maybe a slowly degrading solar orbit so he can see for himself how fake heliocentrism really is.