Climate Alarmists Are So Uneducated

[John F Kennedy III]

Too baked?

No, I'm out

Runner ups:

 

[John F Kennedy III]

One issue these whack scientists never touch on is weather testing, chemtrails or geo-engineering.

It's like telling one side of the whole story. We will never know the truth until we touch on
these non-sexy topics.

True. I'm thinking about putting together a post about this tomorrow.

 

[Origanalist]

No, I'm out

Dammit Jim.

 

[Tpoints]

If global oxygen levels are decreasing and CO2 levels are increasing, then planting the world with industrial hemp will at least be a good start because it will eat CO2 and produce Oxygen.

any plant could do it.

So tell us, how much more or faster does hemp do it compared to other plants? And how much would we grow to have a noticeable effect?

 

[Tpoints]

Actually, it is the sun and it has nothing to do with the brightness but with the electrically charged particles thrown out (the misnamed "solar wind"). Its all about plasma.

Source? Specifically, I am asking for a source that attributes every warming trend to your plasma claim. (if you cannot provide that, show me your best).

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Source? Specifically, I am asking for a source that attributes every warming trend to your plasma claim. (if you cannot provide that, show me your best).

He has to prove something he didn't say?

 

[Tpoints]

He has to prove something he didn't say?

He didn't say all warming is attributable to plasma? Ok then, so he must be able to tell me which ones are not, and what they are attributable to.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Source? Specifically, I am asking for a source that attributes every warming trend to your plasma claim. (if you cannot provide that, show me your best).

With the researchers’ new knowledge, it is now clear that here is a correlation between the Sun’s varying activity and the formation of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere. Initially, the researchers have demonstrated that there is a correlation, and they will therefore now carry out systematic measurements and modellings to determine how important it is to the climate.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/...ation-via-solar-magnetic-activity-modulation/

 

[Tpoints]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/...ation-via-solar-magnetic-activity-modulation/

I don't see anywhere in this that says "the sun is more responsible for global warming than CO2" or "because it's the sun, reducing CO2 will never have any effect". (Tell me that wasn't what you were suggesting)

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

I don't see anywhere in this that says "the sun is more responsible for global warming than CO2" or "because it's the sun, reducing CO2 will never have any effect". (Tell me that wasn't what you were suggesting)

Are you fucking serious? Have you, in all this time, not been told that water vapor is the primary "greenhouse gas"?

 

[Tpoints]

Are you fucking serious? Have you, in all this time, not been told that water vapor is the primary "greenhouse gas"?

Primary in what way? Abundance by volume? abundance by weight? Contribution to warming? Sure, I've HEARD people say it, I never heard somebody who knows what they are talking about when I ask what they mean by "primary" (I hear it for methane too).

 

[John F Kennedy III]

The title of this thread gets proven on every single page. Let's aim for 100 pages. Somebody is bound to learn something.

 

[adisongrace]

As I have always said I'm not discounting that climate change exists nor am I saying we don't contribute
to holes in the ozone. However, we will never know the primary cause without testing all variables. That's just
freaking elementary scientific method.

 

[Antischism]

This is one of those topics that I disagree with the majority of the board on. It's easy to cherry-pick specific people with uneducated opinions and paint an entire group of people as being uneducated as a result, huh? I believe global warming/climate change is naturally occurring and happens in cycles, but I'm also not going to dismiss humans and industrialization as a contributing factor like so many seem to enjoy doing. Instead of taking an extreme left or right position, I'd rather keep an open mind and do the research. Al Gore is so 2006 and I'm so over the complete dismissals. Forget about Al Gore; this isn't about him.

Sometimes it feels like people just adopt these unwavering beliefs because it's a talking point/position brought up by whichever group or person they currently follow. It's like they have to adopt it and find ways to argue against logic in order to be more "pure." I'm not specifically calling anyone in this thread out, but it's something I've noticed in many camps including the Marxists, L/libertarians and conservatives.

 

[Origanalist]

This is one of those topics that I disagree with the majority of the board on. It's easy to cherry-pick specific people with uneducated opinions and paint an entire group of people as being uneducated as a result, huh? I believe global warming/climate change is naturally occurring and happens in cycles, but I'm also not going to dismiss humans and industrialization as a contributing factor like so many seem to enjoy doing. Instead of taking an extreme left or right position, I'd rather keep an open mind and do the research. Al Gore is so 2006 and I'm so over the complete dismissals. Forget about Al Gore; this isn't about him.

Sometimes it feels like people just adopt these unwavering beliefs because it's a talking point/position brought up by whichever group or person they currently follow. It's like they have to adopt it and find ways to argue against logic in order to be more "pure." I'm not specifically calling anyone in this thread out, but it's something I've noticed in many camps including the Marxists, L/libertarians and conservatives.

It would be a lot easier to do minus the hysterics and calls for quantum leaps in government control held up as the solution. Red flags pop up all over the place.

 

[Antischism]

It would be a lot easier to do minus the hysterics and calls for quantum leaps in government control held up as the solution. Red flags pop up all over the place.

That, I can definitely agree with.

 

[Origanalist]

That, I can definitely agree with.

That and the fact that it has been debated for a long time with many cries of impending doom. Does anybody recall the 70's and predictions of impending global catastrophy?

This has been debated here since 1799.........

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-First-Great-Global-Warming-Debate.html

 

[Antischism]

That and the fact that it has been debated for a long time with many cries of impending doom. Does anybody recall the 70's and predictions of impending global catastrophy?

This has been debated here since 1799.........

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Americas-First-Great-Global-Warming-Debate.html

That's all well and good, but if you're going to make any sort of argument for or against global warming whether it's a naturally occurring cycle or predominantly caused by man (or more logically, only exacerbated by mankind to a certain extent), you have to look at years of data and current scientific studies. At worst, it's still too inconclusive to say how big of an impact we've had through the continuous and increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

 

[Origanalist]

That's all well and good, but if you're going to make any sort of argument for or against global warming whether it's a naturally occurring cycle or predominantly caused by man (or more logically, only exacerbated by mankind to a certain extent), you have to look at years of data and current scientific studies. At worst, it's still too inconclusive to say how big of an impact we've had through the continuous and increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

I don't entirely write the whole thing off, let's just say I'm a little jaded by the boys who cried wolf.

 

[vienna]

Sounds like most people here don't understand the Carbon cycle very well.

When a plant intakes C02, it uses the CO2 along with H20, O2 and sunlight to produce starch and sugar compounds. These compounds are used for a variety of things, such as building the structural cells of the plant. When a plant dies, a small amount of O2 and much of the H20 are the first molecules to be released. Followed soon after by nitrogen and the last remaining H2O. When you look at a tree trunk that has been laying on the forest floor for over 10 years, what specifically are you looking at? You are looking at a big block of carbon. And where did all those carbon molecules that make up the wood and bark come from? It came from the orginal CO2 molecule!

If all the C02 (but more specifically carbon) as released back into the air as soon as a plant died, we would have no soil to grow plants in! What constitutes really good soil? Besides for a host of other things, the main ingredient is a lot of organic matter. This organic matter is made up of mostly carbon based compounds that have their origins from CO2. Sure, EVENTUALLY the same amount of carbon that a plant took in will be released back into the air BUT this would take decades. When a plant community is in equilibrium with it's surroundings it will accumulate FAR more carbon in the soil than it releases back to the atmosphere.

Planting trees will do way more for the regulation and reduction of carbon than trying to curb CO2 emissions ever will

in the end you just confirmed what was said initially. that the system is in balance.
so whether there is a time delay of releasing the co2 or not wont change the fundamental principal of the system.