forums.rs

Forums

Climate Change: Not Just CO2

Quick find code: 23-24-60-62485114

of 53
PlNK FLOYDx

PlNK FLOYDx

Posts: 7,195 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I didn't read everything cause I am tired. But I don't know if the carbon from fossil fuels is really a problem.

Again, I haven't looked up anything or done research. But as far as I know, the percent we release isn't even that significant when looking at how much is released in volcanic eruptions.

One thing we can do is stop deforestation, and use our land more wisely. Though moving towards green technology isn't a bad thing, I don't support oil.

14-Jul-2011 19:36:27

Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Posts: 2,557 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Pink Floydx, it's good to do research on it. I've done a lot of research on it as well and I'm still not certain on the subject.

But what we are releasing in the atmosphere is quite a lot. Concentrations of CO2 have grown significantly since we started measuring them about 60 years ago.

At volcanic eruptions, mainly aerosols are being released into the atmosphere, which have a cooling effect because they block sunlight. Aerosols break down relatively quickly compared to CO2, which is much more stable.






PhishyNick:
"So like why do we have all these people covering up climate data and manipulating numbers? (proved from emails sent in 'climategate')"

I suppose you're referring to the infamous hockeystick curve by Mann et al.
Indeed, because of climategate it appears that there has been manipulation with the numbers. They used a lot of tricks to 'prove' climate change and even get this paper peer reviewed.

Later other (independent) scientists have tried reproducing the graph. On these graphs we still see a dramatic warming over the last 150 years, which is to be expected, although there is also a warm period in the middle ages, about as warm as it currently is. However it seems we are not yet at the top of our current warm period with 2010 being one of the warmest years ever, so warming is likely to continue and temperatures will probably exceed that of the middle ages. And that is most likely because of the CO2 emitted.

14-Jul-2011 20:58:53 - Last edited on 14-Jul-2011 21:07:18 by Abbem 20

Roh Sanguine
Apr Member 2014

Roh Sanguine

Posts: 3,055 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Climate change by CO2 is a reality,

--

No its not. There has been an 800 year lag between temperature and CO2 levels.

So once again, if you want to deny that climate change is real please find somewhere else to do it. We are past that
--

That line is an insult to the scientific process. With creationalists, you can prove them wrong using a live experiment. Same with the the flat Earthers, 9/11 truthers. I prove them wrong, I don't say were past that. Too bad the proponents are unable do that.

We may not be the causation, but, increasing the risks of climate change is something which we are doing and can be prevented easily.
--
Like emiting 3% of total global CO2 if it even is the cause which its not.

Later other (independent) scientists have tried reproducing the graph. On these graphs we still see a dramatic warming over the last 150 years, which is to be expected, although there is also a warm period in the middle ages, about as warm as it currently is. However it seems we are not yet at the top of our current warm period with 2010 being one of the warmest years ever, so warming is likely to continue and temperatures will probably exceed that of the middle ages. And that is most likely because of the CO2 emitted.
--

Read "What is the hockey stick debate about" by Ross McKitrick and then read 'Bias and concealment in the IPCC: The Hockey Stick Affair and its implications". It refutes these individual scientists too.

20-Jul-2011 00:05:49

Abbem 20

Abbem 20

Posts: 2,557 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Read "What is the hockey stick debate about" by Ross McKitrick and then read 'Bias and concealment in the IPCC: The Hockey Stick Affair and its implications". It refutes these individual scientists too.

----------

I know the hockeystick curve was indeed fraudulent and that it can not be used as 'proof' for climate change. Even though it was peer-reviewed, the authors reviewed each others papers. Main point of this fraud was to get rid of the warm medieval period. There is historical evidence for this warm period, so a reconstruction should at least show this.

Still, even without the scientists behind the hockeystick curve you need to come up with some really good evidence to contradict the results of lots of research.


So far, it does not seem like the warming has stopped. Sceptics may point out that warming has indeed stopped and in doing so like to pick 1995 as starting year (which was a peak just before 1998) and 2008 (a bottom year) as ending year.
Picking 1992 and 2010 instead, you will notice that warming is still continuing.

20-Jul-2011 16:58:01 - Last edited on 20-Jul-2011 17:14:24 by Abbem 20

Quick find code: 23-24-60-62485114 Back to Top