Research sho there is no scientific debate about climate change

[fredtoast]

(04-17-2016, 05:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That correlation of CO2 and temperature is not something I am disputing.  As for the ice, I beg to differ. Ice starting forming on Antarctica about 40 million years ago, so less than 1% of Earth's history is potentially contained in the ice sheet there. The highest estimate I have seen for the Arctic sea ice pack has been 4 million, so we're dealing with less than 0.1%.


This is actually very interesting and I had no idea about this.


I did look at one graph that showed periods within the last 400 million years with higher CO2 levels. Now, I can get behind the idea that what has occurred has been more rapid or has been caused by means beyond mother nature. But the claim that we are dealing with unprecedented CO2 levels on Earth is false based on that information. The chart you provide puts it at 400 ppm where this chart:


has some estimates putting it in the thousands.

Again, more playing devil's advocate here than anything else.

The chart Beaker posted only went back 650 thousand years.  Looks like the numbers from his chart is about the same as yours for that period.

I am no ancient history expert.  Were there even any animals on earth 200 million years ago?

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2016, 01:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The chart Beaker posted only went back 650 thousand years.  Looks like the numbers from his chart is about the same as yours for that period.

I am aware of that. I pointed that out in my previous post when I stated that the graph only goes back that far and his statement was that CO2 levels haven't been this high in the history of the earth. But what was on his graph was a tiny fraction of that.

(04-18-2016, 01:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am no ancient history expert.  Were there even any animals on earth 200 million years ago?

Yes. Mammals had even started to make an appearance by then, roughly 225 million years ago.

[Bilbo Saggins]

(04-17-2016, 01:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/26/climate_change_denial_james_delingpole_tells_it_like_it_isn_t.html

[McC]

(04-16-2016, 05:26 PM)Beaker Wrote: That might be the major problem...listening to politicians instead of looking at the actual science.

Well, politicians are the ones in charge of implementing change.  If they aren't on board, the science doesn't even matter.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-17-2016, 04:36 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Bros. The senator from Oklahoma had a snowball on the senate floor. In February!! Imagine that... Climate change is a hoax.

Forget the fact that
"Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Last year was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average."
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

And forget the fact the two warmest years on record happened to be 2014 and 2015.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

Senator Bro Science from Oklahoma had a fricking snowball in February. Shit is a myth.

Can you imagine where we'd be if we didn't ban incandescent light bulbs?

[SteelCitySouth]

(04-18-2016, 05:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Can you imagine where we'd be if we didn't ban incandescent light bulbs?

That snowball would only be half the size.  However still available for use as an argument against grounded science.  

[Beaker]

(04-18-2016, 03:28 PM)McC Wrote: Well, politicians are the ones in charge of implementing change.  If they aren't on board, the science doesn't even matter.

But we shouldnt be taking our info from politicians. What is going to get them on board is people listening to the science, then clamoring for a change.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-18-2016, 06:05 PM)Beaker Wrote: But we shouldnt be taking our info from politicians. What is going to get them on board is people listening to the science, then clamoring for a change.

Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere for quite a while. There is just nothing to replace them. From what I understand, according to the scientists we are approaching irreversability. Maybe after the dust has settled, the new climate will be better for humanity. I mean if everything that is predicted comes true, the Earth won't be destroyed. Just changed.

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2016, 10:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Fossil fuels aren't going anywhere for quite a while. There is just nothing to replace them. From what I understand, according to the scientists we are approaching irreversability. Maybe after the dust has settled, the new climate will be better for humanity. I mean if everything that is predicted comes true, the Earth won't be destroyed. Just changed.

It's no coincidence that humanity came into being and thrived in an ice age. The climates that have occurred on Earth have sustained particular types of life once it appeared. We are still many years away from humanity being killed off, but the shift towards a different climate will see drastic population declines and likely eventual extinction. Again, it's a ways off, but that is what will occur.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-18-2016, 11:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's no coincidence that humanity came into being and thrived in an ice age. The climates that have occurred on Earth have sustained particular types of life once it appeared. We are still many years away from humanity being killed off, but the shift towards a different climate will see drastic population declines and likely eventual extinction. Again, it's a ways off, but that is what will occur.

Just a shift of population centers. I don't recall even the worst case scenarios I've read that would lead to extinction or near extinction. Before even modern conveniences such as central heating and AC people have lived in places as cold as northern europe and. as hot as the Sahara.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-18-2016, 11:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just a shift of population centers.  I don't recall even the worst case scenarios I've read that would lead to extinction or near extinction.  Before even modern conveniences such as central heating and AC people have lived in places as cold as northern europe and.   as hot as the Sahara.

That shift of population centers is already working out well.  With all the Christian acceptance of others and all 

[SunsetBengal]

(04-18-2016, 06:05 PM)Beaker Wrote: But we shouldnt be taking our info from politicians. What is going to get them on board is people listening to the science, then clamoring for a change.

But, where do most of these scientists get their money?

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 12:21 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: But, where do most of these scientists get their money?

Some comes from private corporations.

Some comes from private university funds.

Some comes from the government.

[fredtoast]

(04-18-2016, 11:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just a shift of population centers.  I don't recall even the worst case scenarios I've read that would lead to extinction or near extinction.  Before even modern conveniences such as central heating and AC people have lived in places as cold as northern europe and.   as hot as the Sahara.

But the climate change could have a massive impact on food production.  It would not get bad enough for all of mankind to starve, but when food become scarce we might kill each other out fighting over it.

And since coastal areas are generally the most densely populated there would also be huge conflicts over land if they are forced to re-locate.  Another good reason for humans to start wiping each other out.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 02:00 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But the climate change could have a massive impact on food production.  It would not get bad enough for all of mankind to starve, but when food become scarce we might kill each other out fighting over it.

And since coastal areas are generally the most densely populated there would also be huge conflicts over land if they are forced to re-locate.  Another good reason for humans to start wiping each other out.

If all of the predictions are true, then that surely will happen for decades or centuries.  But if they are true, it's already a done deal.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2016, 11:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just a shift of population centers. I don't recall even the worst case scenarios I've read that would lead to extinction or near extinction. Before even modern conveniences such as central heating and AC people have lived in places as cold as northern europe and. as hot as the Sahara.

Not in the long run. Climate change, whether a result of our own hands or not, will eventually lead to the extinction of mankind on Earth. Short term, yes, we would do our best to survive and most would. But, as food production has already been pointed out, our inefficiency with regard to food globally would cause significant problems for us, especially with the rate the population is growing. There are a lot of changes that would need to occur and people aren't willing to make them now, at a time where we can actually work on what needs to be done without it being as dire of a situation.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 10:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not in the long run. Climate change, whether a result of our own hands or not, will eventually lead to the extinction of mankind on Earth. Short term, yes, we would do our best to survive and most would. But, as food production has already been pointed out, our inefficiency with regard to food globally would cause significant problems for us, especially with the rate the population is growing. There are a lot of changes that would need to occur and people aren't willing to make them now, at a time where we can actually work on what needs to be done without it being as dire of a situation.

Like I said, it's already a done deal.  CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries, and with temps lagging, eliminating all fossil fuels today would not stop the warming.  Of course fossil fuels will still be burnt, and reducing them by these low numbers will do nothing seeing as reducing them by 100% would still result in temps rising.  Then we have the methane being released in the Arctic which is worse than CO2.  Then we have the oceans eventually releasing stored up heat and CO2.  The leaders are better off preparing everyone for the new world.  The old one is going to disappear.

[Belsnickel]

(04-19-2016, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said, it's already a done deal.  CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries, and with temps lagging, eliminating all fossil fuels today would not stop the warming.  Of course fossil fuels will still be burnt, and reducing them by these low numbers will do nothing seeing as reducing them by 100% would still result in temps rising.  Then we have the methane being released in the Arctic which is worse than CO2.  Then we have the oceans eventually releasing stored up heat and CO2.  The leaders are better off preparing everyone for the new world.  The old one is going to disappear.

I agree, to an extent. I definitely think we need to be looking at other sources of renewable energy because continuing to use fossil fuels in the way we do will only further exacerbate the situation if they are playing a part in it. The reasoning that it's going to happen anyway so why try to make those changes is just absolute laziness.

As for our leaders preparing us for what is to come, we absolutely do need to. However, the "leaders" we have don't even want to admit it is happening, so they aren't willing to make those sorts of changes.

[fredtoast]

(04-19-2016, 10:47 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Like I said, it's already a done deal.  CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for centuries, and with temps lagging, eliminating all fossil fuels today would not stop the warming.  Of course fossil fuels will still be burnt, and reducing them by these low numbers will do nothing seeing as reducing them by 100% would still result in temps rising.  Then we have the methane being released in the Arctic which is worse than CO2.  Then we have the oceans eventually releasing stored up heat and CO2.  The leaders are better off preparing everyone for the new world.  The old one is going to disappear.

Reducing carbon output at this point can help keep things from getting as bad as you claim.  In fact I heard this exact same argument made about fluorocarbons and the hole in the Ozone.  But that problem is fixing itself since we changed our behavior.


I have often wondered what tack the deniers would take when they are eventually proven wrong.  Now I know.  They will admit that man is contributing to climate change, but they will just say that it too late to make any difference.

"Why get people to stop smoking when we can just sell them all iron lungs."

[*michaelsean*]

(04-19-2016, 11:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree, to an extent. I definitely think we need to be looking at other sources of renewable energy because continuing to use fossil fuels in the way we do will only further exacerbate the situation if they are playing a part in it. The reasoning that it's going to happen anyway so why try to make those changes is just absolute laziness.

As for our leaders preparing us for what is to come, we absolutely do need to. However, the "leaders" we have don't even want to admit it is happening, so they aren't willing to make those sorts of changes.

I'm not talking about not doing things out of laziness, but rather about people deluding themselves.  Do what you will if it makes you feel better.  The things about switching sides in an argument, is all of your pride is washed away.  Both sides argue as much as wanting to be right as for the truth.  Once that pride of being right is gone, then you are far more open to the reality, and the reality is this planet is going to change dramatically and nothing is stopping it.  So drive your Prius and put on your solar panels, but be ready.  Really make sure your children are ready.