And CO2 is a critical part of the photosynthesis process. Do you know what that means? It means the more CO2 there is, the faster plants will grow, and they will be able to increase their range faster. Want to know an even faster reason why the planet is rising in temperature? It's called the Albedo Effect. One of the reasons why ice ages are so damned cold for so long, is that all that ice reflects a lot of the heat back into space. The more ice on the surface, the greater the albedo. And the albedo percentage has been decreasing for the last 20,000 or so years. To be honest, that is why I tend to laugh at most of the alarmists. They try to point their finger at a single thing and say with absolute certainty that is the cause for everything. That really is childish, as the climate is a very complex thing, and no one thing causes it to rise and fall. They also love to use almost childish names for those that do not agree with them, like "Denier". That is a really fascinating one, and one I have had thrown at me many times. And one I actually laugh at, as it is completely wrong with what my beliefs actually are.
Good Golly Miss Molly. You think I don't understand that climate is a complex issue? Malarky made a claim and I was refuting that ONE claim. I didn't need to go into the Albedo Effect or the Carbon Cycle. I wasn't pointing my finger at a "single thing", I was answering his very specific point. Before you accuse me (again) of not understanding that climate is a complex issue what I'm about to explain is a simplification. There are two reasons for this. 1. I'm not a climatologist so I don't know all of the details 2. The people reading this are not climatologists and they wouldn't understand the details (and would lose interest) even if I provided them. Before Industrialization nature, in regards to atmospheric temperature, had an equilibrium. If CO2 increased then that would tend to help plants grow, increasing the amount of CO2 they took out of the atmosphere until it stopped helping plants grow thus taking less CO2 out of the atmosphere. Humans started industrialization that upset this balance that had been established for thousands of years. Humans upset this balance on BOTH sides of the equation. Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. Faster than the increase in plant growth could keep up with AND deforestation, removing MORE plant life then was being replaced. Because of the delicate balance that was in place human activity didn't need to change either side of the equation by much to cause the whole system to go out of whack. As I pointed out earlier, the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than at any point in human history. We know that for the last 800,000 years CO2 levels have varied between 170 and 300 parts per million (ppm). It is currently over 400 and rising. The albedo is just another part of the whole complex system. Global warming has been INCREASING the rate at which the albedo of earth has been decreasing. Warmer temperatures mean less snow and more ice melt in the polar caps. So on top of the increase in temperature because of disruption of the carbon cycle that temperature increase is reducing the albedo of the planet causing temperatures to increase even more. (this is known as a positive feedback loop) ALL of this is well documented and undeniable. And yet there are those who, for whatever reason, deny these facts. What else would you call such a person except a "Denier"?
Did you even read the post you were responding to? I said "A scientific theory NEVER becomes a fact". It's not about it being "proven". It's about that idea that a Theory is a different kind of information than a Fact. A FACT is an observation A THEORY is an explanation of those observations. Once an explanation reaches the level to be labeled a THEORY that means it has been subjected to rigorous testing and study. Unless something major is discovered that shows that the explanation is wrong then that explanation can be (and is) treated as the right explanation.
Nice. Where did you copy that crap from. Y'all just keep believing in your little totalitarian fantasy and let the rest of us get on with our lives as we see fit.
. . . the CO2 is in our atmosphere. No one compared it to the glass except you. Are you really going to deny that CO2 reflects infrared radiation? That's the level of desperate denialism we are at now? That **** is on par with flat earthers.
Not really a refutation of anything I said. I pointed out that you did not understand the science behind global warming/climate change. I explained the science and your response amounts to "Nu-Uh"
No, a fact is an observation. A Theory is a model that explains the observations. If you're going to argue about scientific terminology you might want to either a. bone up on what you're trying to argue about so you know what you are talking about. b. argue with someone that doesn't understand the topic. Since I DO understand the topic that leaves you with option a.
No, there was not "equilibrium". The planet was warming even then, and had been for around 20,000 years. In fact, at the very time you are discussing, we actually went through a rather radical reversal. You see, in most of the pre-Industrial era we were going through what is called the MWP, or "Medieval Warm Period". And then we went into the Little Ice Age. A period of around 500 years where the ice sheets were actually growing, and glaciers were once again covering villages in Europe. In fact, we only recently finally reached the temperatures that are close to those of the MWP. Now imagine how warm things would be now if not for the LIA throwing most of the planet right back into ice age conditions once again. I find it extremely laughable that you are calling that "equilibrium". It was in fact anything but, and there have been many shifts like this recorded. No, that is what I find absolutely fascinating. That somebody can make such a claim, or others that are completely wrong and actually believe them. Like actually trying to claim we were in "temperature equilibrium", in the era of the start of the Little Ice Age. In fact, want to know what I believe will happen? The planet will continue to warm, because technically we are still in an "ice age". And we have yet to even come close to the temperatures things will reach in a few thousand more years. Expect all of the northern hemisphere to be ice free, and an almost permanent navigable sea around what little may remain of the Arctic ice cap. It may even become a seasonal ice cap. And we know this is typical for the planet. Warm temperatures are the norm, not permanent ice caps. Holy hell, look no farther than plant fossils to see this. At this time, the line that palm trees can survive without human assistance is about the latitude of San Francisco. Yet we have ample fossil proof of giant palm forests in central Alaska. And don't even try to go into "continental drift", at that time the North American plate was farther north than it is now. I swear, most of the alarmists are the biggest luddites I ever met. They believe in a static Earth that never changes, and has always been and will always be as it is right now.
No, I'm well acquainted with the "science" of climate change and I've heard the garbage before from smarter people. "So think of a wall with a bunch of holes in it." Except the atmosphere doesn't resemble a wall at all in any way. It's a gas. There's nothing solid there. And in that massive amount of gas is about 400 parts per million (0.04%) of greenhouse gases that supposedly reflect infrared photons that are supposedly warming the entire rest of the atmosphere (99.96%) that doesn't reflect the infrared photons. And this is the reason we have to start killing vast swaths of people by depriving them of the energy they need to thrive. The whole thing is not only stupid, but fearsomely cruel and savage.
I do not care about your statement. It is devoid of scientific reality. Ignores actual facts and is only your belief that is lacking in any scientific understanding of the history of our planet. There is a reason why I see this current nonsense of AGW more as a religion than science.
Really? Are you denying that there were palm trees growing in Central Alaska? Hell, I myself have collected palm fossils in Idaho, hundreds of miles north of where palm trees can grow today. You see, that is the difference. I actually know and understand what I am talking about. Here, if you want to look at a pretty picture. Welcome to Earth, 45 mya. The Eocene era. If you look, North America is unquestionably farther north that it is today. And during that era, the global temperature was over 10 degrees warmer than today. That is why you had tropical rainforests growing in what would today be at the Arctic Circle. This is a scientific fact, so your bloviating that it is not is wrong. In fact, throughout the history of our planet permanent ice caps are an aberration and not the rule. Our planet has had no ice caps much more often than it has had ice caps. You can call it "rambling" all you want, that is a scientific and geological fact. Oh, and the palm fossils I collected, those are a hell of a lot newer. Those came from what is known as the "Bruneau Woodpile", and date to the late Miocene, about 7 mya. At that time the placement of the continents was almost exactly the same as it is today. Now today, this is what the "palm tree line" looks like. Essentially a line from South Carolina across to California. Now look how much farther north Idaho is. That was within the palm tree line 7 million years ago. That means that even as far north as Idaho, you had almost no snow in the "Lower 48" other than at high altitudes. And climate conditions there would have been more like South Carolina or Georgia than it is currently. You see, that is the difference. This is actually something I have been studying for over 30 years, as I was honestly curious when I first found that fossil and wondered at what kind of conditions could have existed to allow palm trees to grow where there are none at today. And thankfully, my geology teacher did know and helped point me where to look for that data. And this was still when the scaremongers were concentrating on the "Man-Made Ice Age", and he laughed at that and told us we were not entering an ice age but things would only be getting warmer. A fact I still believe. The planet will continue to warm, every single interglacial in the past proves this will be the case.
Where did I ever say that there no Palm Trees in Alaska? The Eocene Epoch (56 million to 39 million years ago) the average temperature of the sub tropic regions was about 80 degrees Fahrenheit which is about 5 degrees warmer than the current average. So, says the scientifically illiterate, that shows the earth had a period that was warmer than the "crisis" temperature we are facing now. Yes, but there are two major differences...the length of the period over which the temperature changed is measured in millions of years...we are facing a crisis where the same temperature change is being measured in hundreds of years Go from 0 to 700 mph over the course of 30 seconds and you feel about 1 g, do it in 2 seconds and you pass out. Second difference, no humans that are dependent on the current climate for survival. .
Can palm trees grow in Alaska now? Can they grow in even the panhandle of Alaska? Can they grow in Washington? Oregon? No cupcake, it was much-much hotter than 5 degrees warmer than today. You have to change Alaska to have the climate of the Los Angeles area today in order to have that happen. And that is a hell of a lot more than 5 degrees. You have to change the climate of Idaho to that of LA 7 million years ago to allow it to support palm trees. And no, it did not change in millions of years. Holy hell, you have no idea the time scales, do you? You just make it all up as you go along, that is obvious. Hell, in the last 500k years we have had 4 major glaciation periods. Where the planet moved back and forth between glaciers covering most of the Northern Hemisphere, to almost no Polar Ice Cap at all. That has happened at least 4 times in the last half-million years. And here you are saying that takes millions of years. As I said, you do not even come close to comprehending the actual science, you are just making it all up as you go along. Too bad for you, real science says you are wrong. Millions of years indeed. It was less than 20,000 years ago that New York City was sitting under a mile thick glacier. So go peddle that "millions of years" nonsense somewhere else.
Oh, so you do not believe in the beliefs of Charles Darwin either then. Cupcake, the planet does not care if humans survive or not. It is going to do what it does, and there is not a damned thing you can do about it. No more than you can do anything about all life on the planet being extinguished in a couple of billion years. The universe, the planet, and our sun do not care if we all live or die. And if we can't adapt to things being warmer, then we should go extinct. However, once again cupcake science shows you are wrong. Our species evolved in an interglacial, and this is our third one. This is actually moving closer to the exact climate that we evolved in. One that is much warmer than what we live in today. Why in the hell do you think as a species and compared to other hominids, we excel in warm climates? Where as we need to protect ourselves in cold climates? Evolution also shows we are evolved and adapted to a warmer climate.
I agree with some of this - for sure. But, they ways we had for dealing with climate change were almost entirely limited to: - move - die Those are not satisfactory today. There are way too many billions of people and we know by personal experience here in the USA that we HATE people who move. We'd rather see them DEAD. One of our amazing new powers is that humans can alter the climate. We should NOT be ignoring that. This power used unwisely is costing us large sums today and will continue to get more expensive over time. In fact, it may force people to MOVE!!
Seriously? Are you in favor of people moving here from Mexico, where they have undergone serious hardship?
