Global climate debate-the facts

What is your definition of significant ?? You stated that human CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to global warming. What percentage of global warming is the result of human CO2 emissions based on science ??

What is your fact based opinion on the climate sensitivity to CO2 ?? What are the benefits of global warming ?? What is the cross over temperature increase where costs exceed benefits ??

 

Posts by usfan in this thread = 2
Facts presented by usfan = 0

 

Let's look at this...

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howhuman.pdf

From the first table in the report:

"FAQ 2.1, Figure 1. Atmospheric concentrations of important long-lived greenhouse gases over the last 2,000 years. Increases since about 1750 are attributed to human activities in the industrial era. Concentration units are parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb), indicating the number of molecules of the greenhouse gas per million or billion air molecules, respectively, in an atmospheric sample.

The chart show an approximate 35% increase in greenhouse gasses TOTALLY attributable to human activity.

Now, the real question is what level of such pollution with render this planet uninhabitable by people?
Do you rally want the answer to that question?

The technology exists to slow and stop this. Solar, nuclear, hydro. Yeah, it involves some sacrifice. Stop driving the Excursion, take a bus, smaller cars, electric cars, smaller homes. And, yet, even the most reasonable of actions is blocked or hindered and the money behind the efforts to stall the solutions? Always from the same places.

What number is "significant" is a question with many answers. How about we pursue a course where human contribution, rather than arguing over its significance, becomes insignificant.

 

So what ?? Since 1750 we have seen periods of warming, cooling, and stable global average temperatures with constantly increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but clearly there is no direct correlation of increasing global temperature and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Again:

What is your definition of significant ?? You stated that human CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to global warming. What percentage of global warming is the result of human CO2 emissions based on science ??

What is your fact based opinion on the climate sensitivity to CO2 ?? What are the benefits of global warming ?? What is the cross over temperature increase where costs exceed benefits ??

 

Since you're unable to acknowledge or possibly understand the facts I'll have to use the TrumpCo approach...

It's caused by man because I said so.

 

It's quite clear who lacks understanding of climate science.

 

I do not claim expertise beyond what scientists have published and what I have observed. What is "quite clear" is that you failed to read even a little bit of the link. So, for your edification, the Introduction:

"Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and out- going infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions."

 

Oh yes, you have proven your lack of understanding numerous times.

 

If you believe that the bold and red statement is correct why then have there been periods of cooling, warming, and stable temperatures with ever increasing CO2 concentration ??

 

Hurtful words those. ^^ Perhaps we can get some answers from at least one of the resident alarmists ??

What is your definition of significant ?? It has been stated in this thread that human CO2 emissions are a significant contributor to global warming. What percentage of global warming is the result of human CO2 emissions based on science ??

What is your fact based opinion on the climate sensitivity to CO2 ?? What are the benefits of global warming ?? What is the cross over temperature increase where costs exceed benefits ??

 

And that is where the AGW hypothesis of correlation is causation falls apart. The entire hoax is based on a premise that increased C02 in the atmosphere equates to increased warming but in the last decade as C02 levels have risen exponentially the warming has slowed if not stopped. Hypothesis failure and in real science you would file it away in the dust bin of history along with the likes of the once widely accepted hypothesis that glaciers caused the scablands in Washington state.

 

There are many factors influencing data from a given point in time. What is inarguable is that since 1750 the human impact greatly exceeds any other impact AND the human impact is causing warming.

 

Might want to check the news...

Each of the last three years set records.

 

Calling people with different opinions a fool is the language of a cult not a science. True science welcomes being questioned and challenged. Pseudo science runs from both and lashes out in rage and assumes a defensive posture

 

The has been warming since the end of the little ice age in the 1800's and human CO2 emissions since the late 40's have contributed but it is very arguable that human CO2 emissions greatly exceed any other factor. This demonstrated by the lack of correlation of global temperature with increasing CO2. As CO2 increases at a steady rate global temperature does not. The economic costs of implementing energy policy to limit CO2 emissions are real and the benefits of global warming are also real but never mentioned. The real world data indicates a climate sensitivity to CO2 of ~ 1 deg C. And economic analyses show net benefits of global warming through a 3 deg C rise. This means that we have ~ 300 years of net benefits from global warming. Implementing energy policies which damage our economy whilst China and India do not results in greater increases in the standard of living in those countries with zero reduction in the global average temperature. In the US we are paying more for energy with zero effect on global average temperature.

 

The last decade has failed to warm as predicted and many in the AGW crowd are labeling it a " pause in warming" and desperately trying to explain it.

 

Question the science. Question it WITH SCIENCE. Show me data indicating the level of greenhouse gasses is decreasing, show me data. Otherwise, you're opinion list nothing more than that of a "flat earther."

 

Sources for your claims are important.

AND

Global temperatures have established records three straight years and no indication this won't be a fourth.

Picture a path. Slightly inclining but nearly flat. At the end of the path is a steep drop. Now set a ball on the path and nudge it, ever so slightly. The ball will roll toward the dropoff. Depending upon factors the ball may slow, speed, or even stop for certain periods. But, unless something is done to stop it, inevitably it will reach the dropoff and, at that point nothing can stop it.

Oil accounts for nearly 50% of the trade deficit
Oil is why we are in ass deep in the Middle East
Whether extracting or burning oil is an environmental disaster

If we moved to use renewables only to replace imported oil how much better would the economy be?
How would our military footprint change if we weren't defending oil fields around the world?

Economic costs? Absent the subsidies for oil a gallon of gas would cost somewhere around $15 per gallon.

 

Records the last three years running. Records covering thousands of years. Looks like YOU got some splainin to do!

 

I and others do that constantly in here, you can scroll through countless threads on the subject.

 

I've presented the sources many times. Look through the other threads in this sub forum.

The myth of tipping points is just that. There is no evidence that will or ever has happened with regard to CO2. It was warmer 1000 years ago and significantly warmer millions of years ago with 8X the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is immoral to restrict the availability of fossil fuels by increasing their prices via gov imposed costs. The US has vast undeveloped fossil fuel resources which Trump will open up to create jobs and wealth for the US. Trade deficits are meaningless. Terrorism is why we are involved in the ME.

 

Ask a specific question, get a...flat earth response.

 

OK, let's not raise the price with some government regulation...let's just have the oil companies, the coal companies pay for the damage they do. Pay for the military used to protect their profits. Pay for the environmental damage done in the extraction and mining.

That will be $14.99 for that gallon of gas.

 

If those companies violate regulations they do pay.

 

Ask specific questions to an alarmist and get no answers but do get insults and personal attacks.

Are there economic benefits to a longer growing season, more arable land, and higher plant growth rates ?? Are there economic benefits to lower mortality from cold ?? Are there economic benefits from more irrigation water ?? Expecting crickets but just maybe .....