Posted on 06/10/2013 3:55:03 AM PDT by GreaterSwiss
I was at my coworker's party this weekend. The conversation turned to global warming in which everyone couldn't handle I disagreed with them. I believe climate change happens (it happens 4x a year!) but it's not conclusive that humans are doing it and science is about theory.
They believe it's fact and EVERY scientist agrees. They also said since there was a geologist professor in the room, whatever they say is true. They couldn't handle when I told them that weather measurements were not sterile(put near exhaust fans), manipulated, etc. Or the UN's report which greatly exaggerated it a few years back. They thought that some scientists (especially free of grant money) disagree with humans as a cause is BS. Some coworkers got visibly upset that I wouldn't do everything possible just in case.
I asked them what it would take to change their view, and only if scientists unanimously came forward, since they aren't experts. However my issue is them ganging up on my view. How do I get them to leave me with my view (not change it) as it's obvious they won't change theirs.
I really believe it's a religion for some people.
The seasons are not the climate.
Global warming is indisputable. 12 000 years ago there was two miles of ice on my land.
What’s a lie is that variations over centuries in average locality temperatures are abnormal. There is no warmist alive who can articulate a null hypothesis that doesn’t amount to “climate is invariant absent human use of hydrocarbons”.
Since we know from many sources that locality average temperature and humidity change over time, and change a lot, the warmist null hypothesis is falsified, and that’s really the end of discussion.
That is true, but there is a great deal of coherence in the "thicker blanket" analogy of CO2. Are your friends warmer at night with a thicker blanket? Sure, that's not a religion, just a fact. The salient issue is how much warmer. Even counting the 80's and 90's warming, some of which was known to be solar, the world is warming 1.3C per decade according to satellite, the best measurements we have.
See http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ Lately the rate is more like 1C per decade. That is a benign rate of warming and like I said before, the ocean cycles and solar slump currently point towards cooling. It is likely that we will see that chart roll over.
One more thing to add to address chicken little fantasies. Lots of "extreme" weather events have no trend or even a downward trend. The trend in strong tornadoes is down over the last 50 and the last 100 years. We are in the longest period on record without a najor hurricane hitting the US (although that is mostly luck). All those facts and more can be easily found with google (just add WUWT to your key words).
If global warmists really really believed in the catastrophic future which awaits us they would be screaming for nuclear energy and getting the waste stored in the mountain in Nevada. They say carbon dioxide will ruin the world, but they cannot support energy production which produces no CO2.
The same thing applies to the production of natural gas through fracking. If the world is being destroyed by CO2 then there should be a monumental push from the left for fracking...but there is none.
I conclude that global warming is political because they always choose the wrong side of an issue where the real CO2 emissions could be reduced.
I also discuss how there is no turning back on energy use throughout the world. The global warmists want to focus on what the west must do to reduce emissions, but even if the west reduced their emissions by 50% it does not matter because the third world is just getting a taste of the beneifts of cheap energy and there is no turning back. The warmists never seem to be outraged at the emissions coming from India, China , Brazil or Russia.
I heard Rush talk about this once and went to the NASA/NOAA websites to look at it. Frankly, I’d be especially curious at how that 7100 Mt number you cite is determined.
Additionally, I also mentioned the amount of particulates and other matters introduced which also could have an effect if one is to believe the meteor/dinosaur connection.
Lastly, what is the comparison of the 7100 Mt number with the flora of the earth?
I’m not disputing you, but I’d like more than just that one number.
No need to “gang up” when what you believe is really true.
And people don’t get emotional about reality. They get emotional about beliefs.
Simple, ask them what caused the Earth to warm up and come out of the last Glaciation period? Or the one before that?
Ask them if they know whether we are in an Ice Age now. The answer is, Yes.
I just tell ‘em I’m against “faith-based” science amd leave it at that.
The comparison you asked for is 7100 Mt versus 150,000Mt of natural CO2 flux. But that needs to be carefully qualified. The natural flux is bidirectional and it is huge because of the plant growth and die-off in the northern hemisphere each year. That also coincides with ocean warming because the earth is closer to the sun during the NH winter and there is much more ocean to be heated in the SH.
So think of it this way: as we recovered (naturally) from the Little Ice Age, the oceans warmed about 1C and that would have added 5-10ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere. Instead the oceans have turned from a net source to a net sink of CO2 and we have seen a 110 (and still rising) rise in CO2. That is the manmade flux backing up in the atmosphere.
I did a simple model once and found that if we stopped emitting CO2, the levels would fall half way back to preindustrial levels in less than 40 years. That's the ocean absorption at work. The extra algae produced in the CO2-rich water will produce more oxygen. The whole biosphere is a big unknown in the CO2 equation.
Thanks,
It is tough to get a good handle on this question. I’ve seen estimates on the web on the level of Pinatubo released CO2 all the way from your number (42Mt) to 6 gigatons (Wiki).
Insecure simpletons have no respect for proper boundaries because they must have constant validation for their delusions.
But if the blanket is only a few nanometers thicker does it matter? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to water vapor, a much more effective greenhouse gas, is insignificant and its increase over two or three decades is tiny.
The earth may be warming right now. It may cool in the future. Humans are simply uninvolved as a causative agent in either process.
It may not. The mean path for an IR photon emitted from the earth's surface is something like 50 meters before it hits a CO2 molecule. At that point the CO2 warms neighboring molecules (mostly O2 and N2). As you say water vapor performs that in far greater quamtity. But in cold dry air the CO2 may be comparable, and the distance of that path means that the CO2 blanket is real, as thin as it might be.
The real argument over CO2 boils down to this: is water vapor the controlling factor for earth's equilibrium temperature and everything else follows? Or does the slight CO2 warming cause a bigger increase (by 2 or 3X) in water vapor.
Everything I know about weather leads me to the former. It is the distribution of water vapor (whether it is even or uneven) that determines the equilibrium temperature. Ultimately the control is solar activity controlling the jet stream and other weather phenomenon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.