Arctic ice grew by a third

Saipanne

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Has one a way of swapping all the nitrogen on earth to carbon dioxide ? I will look forward to the explanation on how we will breath over 90% carbon dioxide.

Yes, continuously putting it into our atmosphere. Pretty straightforward.

darkpagandeath

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Conversely, you can either think you're part of a movement defending freedom from governments and do-gooders...or acknowledge you're a stooge for Big Oil.

I'm neither, That plane will be flying to its destination empty me paying carbon tax will not effect that.

darkpagandeath

Saipanne wrote: »

Yes, continuously putting it into our atmosphere. Pretty straightforward.

And we would all die before the heat got to us without environment suits.

Saipanne

darkpagandeath wrote: »

And we would all die before the heat got to us without environment suits.

Best to leave it as it is, then. :rolleyes:

darkpagandeath

Saipanne wrote: »

Best to leave it as it is, then. :rolleyes:

Nah making a false comparison between two plants can lead to issues. Being about 40 million kilometres closer to the sun would be the issue.

Saipanne

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That 40 million kilometres comes nowhere close to explaining the difference.

He knows that. I'm calling shenanigans.

Edgarfrndly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nah making a false comparison between two plants can lead to issues. Being about 40 million kilometres closer to the sun would be the issue.

No it wouldn't. The larger issue with respect to Venus is the about of how dense its atmosphere is, and the huge amount of carbon dioxide in it.

How do we know this is the larger issue? Because we can estimate the habitable zone of any given star, and hypothesize under optimal conditions, which planets could support life. Venus rests just on the edge of our habitable zone.

Another experiment would be to analyse the disparity in temperature between Venus and Mercury. Venus is much hotter than Mercury, despite Mercury being 60 million km closer to the sun at its perihelion.

kneemos

Saipanne wrote: »

He knows that. I'm calling shenanigans.

That's the trouble with climate scare mongers,take one similarity and claim yes this must be the cause.

Saipanne

kneemos wrote: »

That's the trouble with climate scare mongers,take one similarity and claim yes this must be the cause.

A blind man will not thank you for a looking glass.

darkpagandeath

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

No it wouldn't. The larger issue with respect to Venus is the about of how dense its atmosphere is, and the huge amount of carbon dioxide in it.

How do we know this is the larger issue? Because we can estimate the habitable zone of any given star, and hypothesize under optimal conditions, which planets could support life. Venus rests just on the edge of our habitable zone.

Another experiment would be to analyse the disparity in temperature between Venus and Mercury. Venus is much hotter than Mercury, despite Mercury being 60 million km closer to the sun at its perihelion.

Jesus, If you replace our nitrogen with carbon dioxide the heat build up would not kill us first it would be the unbreathable atmosphere. It's plainly ridiculous comparing the 2. Just going look look carbon dioxide is not very helpful.

Saipanne

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Jesus, If you replace our nitrogen with carbon dioxide the heat build up would not kill us first it would be the unbreathable atmosphere. It's plainly ridiculous comparing the 2. Just going look look carbon dioxide is not very helpful.

Do you know what is also unhelpful? Cherry picking and pretending to not understand.

Shenanigans.

darkpagandeath

Saipanne wrote: »

He knows that. I'm calling shenanigans.

Please tell the rest of us how we would breath carbon dioxide ?

Edgarfrndly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Jesus, If you replace our nitrogen with carbon dioxide the heat build up would not kill us first it would be the unbreathable atmosphere. It's plainly ridiculous comparing the 2. Just going look look carbon dioxide is not very helpful.

I was comparing the temperature of Mercury and Venus, not Venus and Earth. I was alluding to the cause of Venus' surface temperature, and why an increase in carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is problematic.

You made the claim that it was Venus' proximity to the Sun that was the cause of its high surface temperature. I highlighted that despite being 60 million km further away from the Sun, Venus is much hotter than Mercury.

Do you understand now, or do I need to elaborate further?

Saipanne

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Please tell the rest of us how we would breath carbon dioxide ?

I'd be the bigger fool to continue this charade...

darkpagandeath

Saipanne wrote: »

Do you know what is also unhelpful? Cherry picking and pretending to not understand.

Shenanigans.

care to explain how we would breath carbon dioxide at the levels on Venus ? One does know at what percentage we would die off at ?

Saipanne

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I was comparing the temperature of Mercury and Venus, not Venus and Earth. I was alluding to the cause of Venus' surface temperature, and why an increase in carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is problematic.

You made the claim that it was Venus' proximity to the Sun that was the cause of its high surface temperature. I highlighted that despite being 60 million km further away from the Sun, Venus is much hotter than Mercury.

Do you understand now, or do I need to elaborate further?

I'll take a punt. He won't understand.

darkpagandeath

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I was comparing the temperature of Mercury and Venus, not Venus and Earth. I was alluding to the cause of Venus' surface temperature, and why an increase in carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is problematic.

You made the claim that it was Venus' proximity to the Sun that was the cause of its high surface temperature. I highlighted that despite being 60 million km further away from the Sun, Venus is much hotter than Mercury.

Do you understand now, or do I need to elaborate further?

Yes having an extremely dense atmosphere made up primarily of carbon dioxide does create a run away greenhouse effect. But if you started to do that on earth it would be unbreathable before we would all die off due to the heat.

darkpagandeath

Saipanne wrote: »

I'll take a punt. He won't understand.

Care to answer the question that's been respectably asked ? no I wonder why.

PopePalpatine

kneemos wrote: »

That's the trouble with climate scare mongers,take one similarity and claim yes this must be the cause.

What an utterly vapid response.

Saipanne

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Care to answer the question that's been respectably asked ? no I wonder why.

Because you're not worth having a discussion with.

darkpagandeath

Saipanne wrote: »

Because you're not worth having a discussion with.

:pac: so that would be a no on telling us how we would breath carbon dioxide.

Edgarfrndly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes having an extremely dense atmosphere made up primarily of carbon dioxide does create a run away greenhouse effect. But if you started to do that on earth it would be unbreathable before we would all die off due to the heat.

So there's the two extremes in your eyes - we either live blissfully, or die off due to unbearable heat and unbreathable levels of carbon dioxide? There's no problematic area in between, where there's increased drought, increased sea levels, traumatic shifts in climate?

I think you're wilfully and deliberately engaging in red herrings to avoid discussing the issue at hand.

darkpagandeath

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

So there's the two extremes in your eyes - we either live blissfully, or die off due to unbearable heat and unbreathable levels of carbon dioxide? There's no problematic area in between, where there's increased drought, increased sea levels, traumatic shifts in climate?

I think you're wilfully and deliberately engaging in red herrings to avoid discussing the issue at hand.

Venus is a dead world closer to the sun, Mars is a Dead world further out from the sun. The earth is currently habitable.

Edgarfrndly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Venus is a dead world closer to the sun, Mars is a Dead world further out from the sun. The earth is currently habitable.

That doesn't address my point. Not even remotely.

Here's a question. If Earth's carbon dioxide levels increase by 10%, will it have an effect on our climate? It's a yes or no answer, just incase you were wondering.

darkpagandeath

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

That doesn't address my point. Not even remotely.

Here's a question. If Earth's carbon dioxide levels increase by 10%, will it have an effect on our climate? It's a yes or no answer, just incase you were wondering.

Yes probably, Any idea how much ? What affect ? Is it on the lease of the earth to remain habitable ? Where is the extra 10% coming from ?

kneemos

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What an utterly vapid response.

True do.

The_Valeyard

kneemos wrote: »

Saw it yesterday...burn books.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

book burnings?

Only books on Tax law & regulations,

we cant go around burning books lads! This isnt Fahrenheit 451,

Edgarfrndly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Yes probably, Any idea how much ? What affect ? Is it on the lease of the earth to remain habitable ? Where is the extra 10% coming from ?

It was an hypothetical question, using an arbitrary figure to get you to admit that an increase in carbon dioxide will cause a shift in climate.

Thank you for finally joining the discussion.

FYI: It has increased much more than that, you can view the data here: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

The J Stands for Jay

If I have 100 things and lose 50%, I then have 50 things. If after that the number of things I have increases by 50%, I then have 75 things.

I have a 50% increase, but am still sad due to having less things.

Samaris

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

That doesn't address my point. Not even remotely.

Here's a question. If Earth's carbon dioxide levels increase by 10%, will it have an effect on our climate? It's a yes or no answer, just incase you were wondering.

Yes. Results will be variable dependent on where the CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere, the heat and environment, etc.

But as I've tried to explain to darkpagandeath before, there is no blasted number to indicate "how much effect". It just doesn't work that way in a complex system.

topper75

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Conversely, the "climate change skeptics" are either bravely defending freedom from greedy governments, or they're a respectable front for greedier fossil fuel companies.

Or maybe we conspired to add on ice when there was no human CO2 dropoff to correspond to it.

Oh how I wish I had the power to be the former.

jungleman

It's a good article.

Ice and earth have a complex relationship, and one cool summer doesn't mean a thing (as the article acknowledges). Oxygen isotope analysis over the last 150,000 years show fluctuating global temperatures, and that the last interglacial period was actually 2 degrees C warmer than today. There have been periods in time where there has been no ice on the planet whatsoever. Over the last 2.5 million years there have been 40 glacial/interglacial periods on earth. It's just a ridiculously complex and fluctuating relationship.

People who don't understand climate change always use this complex relationship to say "hurrr durrr, global temperatures fluctuate over time, there is so such thing as climate change/global warming". Climate change is real, whether the US, China & India want to believe/admit it or not.

darkpagandeath

Samaris wrote: »

Yes. Results will be variable dependent on where the CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere, the heat and environment, etc.

But as I've tried to explain to darkpagandeath before, there is no blasted number to indicate "how much effect". It just doesn't work that way in a complex system.

Exactly, if we replaced the 1% of other gasses in the atmosphere with carbon dioxide we have no idea what would happen.

darkpagandeath

jungleman wrote: »

It's a good article.

Ice and earth have a complex relationship, and one cool summer doesn't mean a thing (as the article acknowledges). Oxygen isotope analysis over the last 150,000 years show fluctuating global temperatures, and that the last interglacial period was actually 2 degrees C warmer than today. There have been periods in time where there has been no ice on the planet whatsoever. Over the last 2.5 million years there have been 40 glacial/interglacial periods on earth. It's just a ridiculously complex and fluctuating relationship.

People who don't understand climate change always use this complex relationship to say "hurrr durrr, global temperatures fluctuate over time, there is so such thing as climate change/global warming". Climate change is real, whether the US, China & India want to believe/admit it or not.

Who said climate change is not real ? Man made climate change is completely different.

Samaris

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Exactly, if we replaced the 1% of other gasses in the atmosphere with carbon dioxide we have no idea what would happen.

Not to the extent that you demand as proof. We can see fairly well what the results are, but you demand numbers that don't exist. You may as well be insisting that distance does not exist because how long is a piece of string.

darkpagandeath

Samaris wrote: »

Not to the extent that you demand as proof. We can see fairly well what the results are, but you demand numbers that don't exist. You may as well be insisting that distance does not exist because how long is a piece of string.

Then how are they certain it's man's input ? all they can say is the climate is changing and carbon dioxide looks like the best cause. And then link that to man.

jungleman

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Who said climate change is not real ? Man made climate change is completely different.

My post might have been a bit ambiguous there. I was referring to climate change deniers using natural global ice/temperature fluctuations to deny man made climate change. Or even to incorporate natural processes into man made climate change denial.

topper75

jungleman wrote: »

It's just a ridiculously complex and fluctuating relationship.

People who don't understand climate change always use this complex relationship to say "hurrr durrr, global temperatures fluctuate over time, there is so such thing as climate change/global warming". Climate change is real, whether the US, China & India want to believe/admit it or not.

But not too complex for these 'scientists' to measure the effect of 150 years of coal and oil use?! Laughable.

When your opponents begin with hurr durr, you know you have them beat.

Of course climate changes, but before I believe that man-made emissions can outdo volcanoes and other natural sources of CO2, I'll need to see a few better summers around this neck of the woods.

Edgarfrndly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Then how are they certain it's man's input ? all they can say is the climate is changing and carbon dioxide looks like the best cause. And then link that to man.

Because we can analyse the amount of Co2 man is introducing to Earth's atmosphere.

So what we can say is that humans are increasing the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere. We can also say that increased Co2 alters Earth's climate.

Therefore we can say that humans are increasing the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere and it is altering Earth's climate.

kneemos

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Because we can analyse the amount of Co2 man is introducing to Earth's atmosphere.

So what we can say is that humans are increasing the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere. We can also say that increased Co2 alters Earth's climate.

Therefore we can say that humans are increasing the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere and it is altering Earth's climate.

You can't say how much is natural and man made.

karma_

topper75 wrote: »

But not too complex for these 'scientists' to measure the effect of 150 years of coal and oil use?! Laughable.

When your opponents begin with hurr durr, you know you have them beat.

Of course climate changes, but before I believe that man-made emissions can outdo volcanoes and other natural sources of CO2, I'll need to see a few better summers around this neck of the woods.

Better weather? That's not how it works. Your stance is one of pure ignorance and you revel in it. The FACT is that man IS having an adverse affect on climate and the facts back this up.

Your position is doubly foolish when you consider the gambit you enter into, for there are no do overs for this.

It would be better for you to educate yourself on such matters, even just a little before you allow your ignorance to infect others.

Wright

Thanks Obama.

Edgarfrndly

topper75 wrote: »

But not too complex for these 'scientists' to measure the effect of 150 years of coal and oil use?! Laughable.

When your opponents begin with hurr durr, you know you have them beat.

Of course climate changes, but before I believe that man-made emissions can outdo volcanoes and other natural sources of CO2, I'll need to see a few better summers around this neck of the woods.

We don't need to outdo anything. All we need to do is imbalance the ratio of CO2 output, to Earth's natural methods of controlling CO2. As for better summers - that has no bearing on global climate data.

Samaris

topper75 wrote: »

But not too complex for these 'scientists' to measure the effect of 150 years of coal and oil use?! Laughable.

When your opponents begin with hurr durr, you know you have them beat.

Of course climate changes, but before I believe that man-made emissions can outdo volcanoes and other natural sources of CO2, I'll need to see a few better summers around this neck of the woods.

You are looking for the wrong thing. Firstly, it is very hard to ascribe a specific small-scale variable to overall change in the system. Secondly, it is quite easy to find out what our emissions are like and compare them to volcanic emissions and other sources. You need to be looking at variability on a global stage and then in regions.

I'm afraid that just sometimes, while "hurr durr" is exceptionally lazy arguing, it doesn't actually mean that you have them beat, just that you've successfully driven someone who's researched an argument into a frustrated fit.

May or may not apply in this case though.

Edgarfrndly

kneemos wrote: »

You can't say how much is natural and man made.

You can estimate it based on fossil-fuel use, calculate the impact of deforestation - along with an array of other data, to give you a good picture of how much humans are contributing to the current levels of co2.

You can also analyse the levels of co2 over a large period of time, and look at the dramatic increase in it upon the introduction of fossil fuel use.

So there's many things we can say.

jungleman

topper75 wrote: »

Of course climate changes, but before I believe that man-made emissions can outdo volcanoes and other natural sources of CO2, I'll need to see a few better summers around this neck of the woods.

CO2 doesn't quite work like that. I'd be more concerned about rising ocean temperatures, particularly surface temperature.

kneemos

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

You can estimate it based on fossil-fuel use, calculate the impact of deforestation - along with an array of other data, to give you a good picture of how much humans are contributing to the current levels of co2.

You can also analyse the levels of co2 over a large period of time, and look at the dramatic increase in it upon the introduction of fossil fuel use.

So there's many things we can say.

but you can't say how much it contributes to climate change and how much is natural change.

Edgarfrndly

kneemos wrote: »

but you can't say how much it contributes to climate change and how much is natural change.

Once again, we can estimate how much by looking analysing the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere in contrast to our climate at any given point in time.

I think you're attempting to argue on the premise that because we cannot precisely state "how much" - that we cannot at all make an educated estimation of how much.

And if that is your argument, it's not a very compelling one I'm afraid.

ScumLord

kneemos wrote: »

but you can't say how much it contributes to climate change and how much is natural change.

You probably can't say for certain how much of the current CO2 levels are down to human exploitation but the fact is we can get a fair idea of how much CO2 is produced naturally and how much CO2 is produced by human activity. We can see what CO2 levels have been like for thousands of years with ice cores. Volcanos are also an obvious source of data, we can instantly see the effects of large CO2 dumps into the atmosphere. We can't assume that a volcano has an affect on the environment and that we somehow won't have an effect doing the same thing over a prolonged amount of time.

While these are guesses, they're highly educated guesses.

fiachr_a

President Higgins now saying that deniers should go away. That man knows about as much about climate change as he does good poetry.