Greenland Melting at Record Rates !! - In 1930

I didn't read all the posts because it will just be a repete of the same stuff.

But here goes...the reason man is responsable for global warming can be found in one simple equation. That is the process called photosynthesis.

Plants take carbon out of the atmosphere and make food with the help of the sun. They give back O2 and make sugar

6CO2 + 6H2O...add light and the green stuff....and you get sugar C6 H12 O6 and 6 molecules of O2 are given off.

Plants also take this sugar and arrange it into cellulose. When cellulose gets real old it turns into coal and oil.

When man burns the coal and oil...cuts down the trees...this carbon has to go somewhere. It goes into the air we breathe. It also traps sunlight (in the form of short wave infrared radiation) in the atmosphere. This heats the earth like a greenhouse.

But what reall bothers me is every summer here in the Northern Hem. is the Antartic ice is increasing B.S.

Of course it is increasing...it is winter down there!...but there is less and less of it from year to year.

Just think clearly about it.

And changing climate rarely helps farmers because they have adapted their methods to the climate and changes mess everything up.

You get early warm periods then frost...so you guess at planting.
You get early rains then dry... or visa versa.

Or worst yet... no rain.

 

And this thing about records...once upon a time these dudes broke the 4 min. mile and set a record.

When someone went even faster they set a new record....see how that works?

So...if 2012 set an ice melting record it would be logical to assume it is melting even faster than it did in the past....therefore a record.

 

And if it was 120F in the winter, your train of logic would still conclude that more warming is better, because warming ended the ice age. You train of logic leads to absurd results, and is clearly totally absurd. A rational person would look at drawbacks and benefits of warming (as we do), instead of mindlessly declaring warming must always be good.

And we know the factors that caused those previous cycles to occur. None of those factors are at play now. Only one factor -- greenhouse gases -- explains the current observed warming. If your "side" could come up with a reason for the current warming that doesn't involve greenhouse gases, they'd get some respect. None have done so successfully, and only a bare few have tried and failed. Most, like you, prefer to simply handwave about magic mystery cycles that have no discernable cause.

Your statement was dumb. It's like claiming that since that last car crash wasn't statistically representative of the previous history of the car, he didn't really get drunk and drive it into a telephone pole. I mean, how do we know the car didn't drive itself into a pole many times in the past?

We know the guy drove the car into the pole. We know greenhouse gases are increasing temps. We don't need a perfect history to see these things. We have the direct evidence now. We can see the outgoing IR radiation closing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands. We measure the goesin/gousout heat imbalance. Greenhouse gases are causing warming, and we are putting the greenhouse gases there.

And EVERYTHING is today because the world cooled down from a ball of magma, therefore all cooling is good!

Hey, it's your idiot argument, so you must accept it.

You directly stated Canada has benefited from _recent_ climate change. Keyword "recent". Your words, right above. I asked for evidence. From your lack of response, I will take it you have no such evidence.

Incorrect. Humans in northern europe did better, but northern europe is not the world. North Africa was once the breadbasket of Rome. Arabia was much more lush. Thriving civilizations existed in Africa, in southwestern north america. The world warmed, and those civilizations died. Warming helps some, hurts others. A rational person recognizes that, instead of blindly proclaiming that warming is always good.

While I'm sure you enjoyed making up the peculiar stories about what I really believe, you should probably just allow me to tell you what I think. Much simpler, less guesswork involved.

So, let's get back to that point you worked so hard to evade. The infrastructure of human civilization is designed around the current climate. A changing climate would require mass migration, something impossible in the current fully occupied world and political climate. Canada is not going to open the doors to half of Bangledesh. You can't just handwave that away, being it involves a lot of death and trillions of dollars. Handwaving away such a thing is not rational or moral.

Being sane, moral and rational, I say those deaths and trillions of dollars wasted should be avoided if possible. Can you explain why you find my position to be irrational? Is it your contention that the deaths and trillions of dollars wasted is a desirable thing?

I also pointed out that it's immoral to advocate for warming, take the benefits of it, and then tell those who are screwed from it "Tough luck! It all evens out, so accept your fate!". I was taught to take responsiblity for my actions. Since you're pushing for warming, shouldn't you take responsibility for it? Accepting a refugee family would be one such method.

 

Of course it messes everything up. Farmers like certainty just as much as business does. And they have dealt with change before, and no matter how much they disliked it, they adapted before, and will do so again. My guess is, when faced with different conditions in the future, some will quit, and some will adapt and go on.

 

I think it's all a little overdone. I believe that it's true that we, as humans, increase the temperature of the earth, but our affect isn't significant. The earth gets warmer and cooler naturally due to effects beyond our control. I can't imagine that automobiles brought us out of the ice age.

 

I didn't say warming must always be good. I said mankind has profited handsomely by it in the past, and am implying that warming alone is not reason enough to declare game over.

I am aware of what WE are doing. I am also aware of what the planet has done, all by itself, as part of the natural order of things. And that includes a changing climate far beyond the range of what humans have seen during our recorded history.

My "recent" comes from the perspective of geologic time. Warmers focus only on the super recent (and in some cases, only the recent they like). I enjoy a wider perspective.

Apply your straw men to others. You are exactly correct...except I would venture that CHANGE helps some, and hurts others. Some are good at adapting. Some are not. This applies to any current warming, or cooling, trends, as well.

Morality is hardly a requirement for the survival of our species, rationality is expected from all dealing with the science involved in these issue, excluding those who think it is settled of course, and by definition therefore don't understand it.

Change is change. Sometimes it is nice, quiet, cheap and well understood. Some times, it is not.