"The Earth Climate has always changed..."

Because though it is a viable option it is irrelevant if the entire world is a carcinogen. I am not going to sweat the Chinese competition issue much is where I was going with that. I am very much sweating the pollution in the world and the rampant consumerism that is driving it.

 

\

1. PDF of Hansen's Abstract.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

2. The graph is about temperature and current temps are below plot C accounting for no increase from 2000 on. Plot A was based on a yearly increase of 1.5ppm and current yearly increase is greater than 1.5ppm. They may be off but the data still stands. Average rate of chance 2001 to 2010 = 1.9 http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/noaa-mauna-loa-co2-data.html

3. HadCRUT4 only shows a 0.25 to 0.46 increase from 1988 to 2010. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/time_series/hadcrut4_annual_ns_avg_smooth.txt

Oops. Guess you should know what you are talking about before you display your ignorance.

 

OK, here is the human cycle: Humans emerge from the jungles, during the Holocene Epoch, make a vast but deeply corrupt civilization, and a lot of clowns get up on the podiums of human media, arguing about what happened and what is going to happen, when we already know that every time CO2 went up, partly as fast as it is rising, in concentration, today, the Earth suffered a mass extinction event.

That is EVERY TIME. Humans have tapped into this phenomenon, having evolved people who are either too greedy or too stupid, or BOTH, to move some positive personal or group agenda. So humans will probably suffer mass die-offs, within a couple of generations.

See FUKUSHIMA? See 23 similar reactors, operating in the lower 48? Humans can easily make die-offs into extinction, for all kinds of life, particularly the human form. Once again, greed and stupidity play a large part.

You have deflected my description of CYCLIC CO2 MEDIA, to some sort of cycle, which humans will not survive, for the development of SEQUESTERED CO2 MEDIA, by greedy people. Cyclic CO2 media is CO2-neutral biomass.

Your cycle leads to die-offs and extinctions, very soon. Your introduction of China and India or any other BRICS nations other than Russia is deflection, since Russia exports petroleum, while Siberia melts and burns, to out-gas CH4 and CO2. Then again, Brazil makes sugar-ethanol and has a the largest rain forest. Go ahead and throw BRICS.

Of course, this forum could be in Russian or Portuguese or Chinese or Afrikaans or Hindi or whatever. You are deflecting, to try to postulate a cycle, which does not exist, but for human determination, to destroy all life. Hey, if the OP is how you get'r'done, that's how you get all of us.

 

No I am not. Hell from what I understand one earth fart (methane release from the Gulf of Mexico region) and everything man has done to pollute the atmosphere with CO2 is moot! There were oceans here and the fact is we are at the end of an ice age; the oceans shall return. The polar caps are going to go and there is nothing we can do about it. The carbon cycle will continue. Yes we have influenced it but what is a few hundred years in geological time? Nothing.

 

Which confirms exactly what I stated. Hansen's graph, right there on page 9347, predicts a rise of 0.7C from 1988-2010 for scenario A, and 0.4C for scenario B.

No. Actual temps are above scenario C.

No. Actual greenhouse forcings ended up being about halfway between scenario B and C. It's nowhere near scenario A. You're cherrypicking brazenly, by looking only at CO2 and deliberately ignoring all other greenhouse gases, even after I specifically point out that issue.

So a good match to Hansen, in other words.

Why this obsession with a 24-year-old prediction that turned out to be pretty good? It's like screaming hate at Isaac Newton because Newtonian mechanics wasn't the final answer to everything.

 

Let's have a look, at the consistent cycle, of climate, which shows how CO2 and temperature are related, over hundreds of thousands of years, which also suggest the operation of Milankovitch cycles, which are based on variations, or orbital and radiance factors, between the Sun and the Earth:





See how temperature and CO2 do the dos-y-dos, up and down, consistently? Maybe one leads, marginally, but since CO2 is the main GREENHOUSE GAS, CO2 is described as the main forcer, of climate variability.

CO2 determines the general trend, with solar energy and proximity. Temperature is also affected by albedo, or reflectivity, as ice melts or gathers.

See that red CO2 line, going UP, on the right side of the graph? That means the climate cycle isn't going to happen, guy! We aren't on the merry-go-round, moving slowly, toward re-glaciation, over 80K years or so.

THIS is the prevailing cycle, if you want to be on a cycle. What will happen is something entirely different.

As the perennial ice melts, the average temperature cools. But this won't go on, forever. More water and heat are building, in the climate system, with more extreme weather events, evident. But we aren't where we are going, since the ice caps haven't melted! As the heat sinks of the Earth FAIL, we won't be cooled, the GHG concentrations will all go off the hook, and temperatures and sea level will REALLY start to go up.





This graph shows AVERAGED global temperatures, with a five-year average plot, to show trends, which are going to ACCELERATE, so high-temp records out-number low-temp records, about 2-1, in 2000, but they will be at 20-1, 2050, and 50-1, 2100.

Your cycle is BROKEN, and you are falling, but you haven't gone SPLAT, which is what is going to happen, to you.

See the funny commercial, with the turtles, including junior, who boo-boos? He's a little slow, but eventually, he boo-hoos!








Notice "major volcanic events." What may happen is some meteorite may slam into the Earth, forcing plumes out, on the opposite side of the Earth. Of course, once the GHG concentration has risen, temperatures rise slowly, but perennial ice melts, and then the ice albedo fails, which lets more energy gather, with H2O, in the climate system.

Somebody gets too much heat, somebody gets too much precip, and meanwhile, the CO2 gets picked up, by rainwater, which can start at pH 7, in a cloud, to fall, at pH 5.5. The cold melts are pH 7, and they also cause relative acidification. All the desirable sea life dies, while warming kills all desirable fresh-water life.

The food web fails, and heavier lunar tides force volcanic and seismic events, even if a meteorite strike does not happen! Of course, we have Fukushima in Japan and 23 similar reactors, on the mainland US. We can all get dead, while you fall off your no longer evident cycle, and try to endure MASS EXTINCTION EVENT 6.

HEY! Your cycle go boo-boo! Figure it out, before you go splat! FYI, I ride, so I'm trying to help you. You don't seem to be acquainted with flat tires or 'getting off' or anything, dude! Let me assure you, cycles is, as cycles does.

 

You miss the fact that with Hansen's prediction of CO2 rise that the temperature is supposed to be greater than plot A and it is less than plot C. Go figure you haven't gotten that yet.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

Go back. It is natural! Your post shows it as natural. We can not stop it.

 

Now you're just babbling.

We get it. One of the edicts of your political cult is that you can never, under any circumstances, admit that some dirty liberal was correct. Hence, instead of admitting you got snookered, we see you doubling down on "stupid." Good luck with that.

 

"Forest fires happen naturally! Therefore, all forest fires must be caused by natural cycle! It's impossible for humans to cause forest fires!"

"Species go extinct naturally! Therefore, all extinctions must be caused by a natural cycle! It's impossible for humans to cause extinctions!"

"Climate change happens naturally! Therefore, global warming must be caused by a natural cycle! It's impossible for humans to cause global warming!"

All of those statements are equally stupid for exactly the same reason.

 

What is stupid is thinking that you or anyone else can play God. It is the way of things. It is a cycle that can not be stopped. You and your kind really over estimate your significance in the big scheme of things.

If we stopped all pollutant output we would still need to find a way to collect all the elements of the 100% natural carbon cycle. We would have to immediately stop all manufacturing, mass food production and go back to a natural society that is 100% agrarian. People would die in the billions! So either way we will have a reckoning.

 

"I don't want to believe it's true, therefore it can't be true!"

Being you weren't reasoned into that position, you can't be reasoned out of it, so there's no point trying. Just recognize that you're in a steadily shrinking minority of quasi-religious cultists, rejecting any evidence that contradicts your cult's beliefs.

That makes no sense at all, at least to people who understand how an equilibrium system works.

No, that's your strawman. Have fun with it, since it seems to comfort you, but there's no need for anyone else to address it.

 

What have I rejected? I mean really. I accept your facts as facts where the research is concerned. It has happened before and it is happening again. The central US was a sea! A good bit of our land was under water. We know it was much hotter even without your studies as the fossil evidence (both plant and animal) supports it.

You have false hope there and that is your fallacy.

And this: That makes no sense at all, at least to people who understand how an equilibrium system works.

You discount that it is a natural cycle? Yes humans have interfered with the carbon cycle but get with it. It will come to an end! People generally claim straw man when they have failed (due to incompetence or ignorance) to present anything to rebut what has been said.

I guess it is hard to argue with someone who is not in denial about reality and is also not (*)(*)(*)(*)ed fool enough to raise themselves to the level of God thinking they can actually change nature. But hey keep up the good work! Don't let me slow you down. I will work hand in hand with you to clean up the (*)(*)(*)(*) mess no matter if I agree with you. I am here as are my children so I would love to help you clean things up. It starts at home.

Change your shopping habits!
Grow a garden!
Get a motorcycle and leave the car at home!
Drive the car for milage that means no cruise control!
...

Join me!

 

Your rant is wingnuttier than a flying fruitcake. My post claims CO2 has never risen, faster, we also have CH4 and industrial GHGs, and this always leads, to a mass extinction! Which post shows the red line on the right side of the Pleistocene-Holocene record is "NATURAL?" You are in the realm, of the remarkably unobservant, who think to keep chanting, as if that will make the debate genie make your rant look compelling, with some sort of forum-magic, in a bottle.

The 2009 Science Daily article is in my favorites, in both my browsers. It also states, if you'd read it:

This interesting article still doesn't get to the coral record, which shows every time CO2 concentration goes up PARTLY as fast, as atmospheric concentration is rising, today, the Earth suffers a mass extinction event. Also, this doesn't note how CH4 and industrial GHGs are off the hook, or that extinctions are projected, at 100x normal. Catch up.

It does note CO2 will go up, but it is a 2009 article, so it doesn't predict CO2 will get well over 1000 ppm, which it is headed for. You might want to at least read some article you link to. It's the sciencey thing to do.

 

You appear to be missing the fact that this is a 28 year old prediction that was limited by the then extent of knowledge and technology

 

Why would you presume I did not read it? Look I am a realist here and the fact is we are all going to die and the Human species will end one day.

 

Hmmmm - so why not do drugs and party all night long?? Why not just open a vein now??

 

Strawman fallacy. Why not just shoot yourself in the head? Yep, great thinking there.

 

Hey lets clean up what we can and make our home a cleaner and better place for the next dominant species. You know if I were a lib my words would be cheered. You may not be able to accept that a Conservative free thinker can present more compelling reasons; justifiable reasons that can be proofed, for cleaning things up than you can.

You are so busy sticking your head up your ass that you miss the opportunity to form an allegiance on commonality.

 

Right now the market is cleaning up the air without government intervention and that is why CO2 is the lowest it has been in 20 years. Go figure.

 

The government has intervened though. Look at all the jobs and industry we have lost. NAFTA and other trade agreements as well as over regulation have moved the pollution away. Liberals believe in out of sight out of mind. If there is an issue throw other peoples money at it.

 

Oh, I get it. This thread is a RAMBLE. OK, so ramble, from thought to thought, from fixation to fixation, like a complete unknown, being unknowable, but rambly.

Straw liberals, ramble that. Other peoples' money, check ramble.

You know, Archer, if you weren't just rambling up straw bags, I'd agree with some of what you have to say, about media liberals and NAFTA. But you have no direction, for your rants, since your premise wavers, and your rants ramble.

You have to admit, WE ARE NOT ON A NATURAL CYCLE. You can't ramble your way out of this admission. Go ahead and concede, and I'll get back to the other threads, to whatever degree that seems appropriate.

 

Really? Read this, from May 31, 2012:

http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/arcticCO2.aspx

http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0531-hance-400-ppm.html

June 2, 2012:

http://www.countercurrents.org/leahy020612.htm

June 3, 2012:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981373609

---------------------

I don't see any plan, to cut corruption OR the carbon footprint, of known corruption.

The US plays a whole load of dirty tricks, powered by fossil fuel over-consumption, which sets the trend, worldwide. Dirty deeds ARE NOT dirt cheap. Costs pile on, after prices are paid, and obligations are incurred.

Crime pays, and so does time. Corrupt courts continue any old case, made by crooked cops, so attorneys can get a paycheck, to pay for that Mercedes and gas in tank. Privately run prisons proliferate.

Another thing proliferates, which is dis-information, invited by all kinds of media liberals, like Al Gore, who wouldn't go so far, as to admit we are in the early stages of a mass extinction event, which ALWAYS HAPPENS, whenever CO2 goes up, rapidly, since he gets money, from controversy. Other media persons, including media scientists took their cue, from Gore's balk, so a load of them are advocating carbon trading, and another load advocates natural gas.

Your post FAILED, Hoosier. CO2 already is passing 400 ppm, and this will be the concentration, before 2016, since more rain will fall, given a lot of melted ice, in the climate system. Some of this rain will pick up NO2 or SO2, to make nitric acid or sulfuric acid rain, but ALL the rain, which falls will pick up CO2, on the way down, to make carbonic acid, which will make any of the rain which falls on the order of pH 5.5.

CO2 is not being exchanged, except to kill all kinds of animals, which it always does, despite any liars or media gadflies, who are not thorough, so they encourage dialogue, between gadflies and liars, and some of us may end up caught in the middle.

CO2 is up, more than ever, and dying time is here. Oh, you thought it was LYING time. No. It's DYING time.

 

Nope that ain't it. You refuse to work with someone toward a common goal because their beliefs and reasons for trying to reach that goal are not the same as yours. This is the issue with the government today.

 

I refuse to "work," with a straw man, without a name? At least give your straw man a name, so I can say, OK, Mr.Scarecrow, today, we are gonna go out and shoo the crows, from the hemp field. Sound reasonable?

Can you name your straw government, or does that take all the fun, out of the cornfield, which should have been a hempfield?