- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:05 pm to Iosh
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:05 pm to Iosh
quote:
CO2 is not a primary contributor to our warming at the moment either. Solar energy is a much greater contributor than all of the greenhouse gasses combined.
If that's the case then warming should've peaked in 1960.
So if the biggest factor that determines the temperature of our planet is not responsible, then whats next?
Earth's reflectivity?
quote:
Natural changes in reflectivity, like the melting of sea ice, have contributed to climate change in the past, often acting as feedbacks to other processes.
Volcanoes have played a noticeable role in climate. Volcanic particles that reach the upper atmosphere can reflect enough sunlight back to space to cool the surface of the planet by a few tenths of a degree for several years.[2] These particles are an example of cooling aerosols. Volcanic particles from a single eruption do not produce long-term change because they remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than GHGs.[2]
The recent role of reflectivity
Human changes in land use and land cover have changed Earth’s reflectivity. Processes such as deforestation, reforestation, desertification, and urbanization often contribute to changes in climate in the places they occur. These effects may be significant regionally, but are smaller when averaged over the entire globe.
In addition, human activities have generally increased the number of aerosol particles in the atmosphere. Overall, human-generated aerosols have a net cooling effect offsetting about one-third of the total warming effect associated with human greenhouse gas emissions. Reductions in overall aerosol emissions can therefore lead to more warming. However, targeted reductions in black carbon emissions can reduce warming.
Nope the 2nd biggest factor has a net cooling effect.
Ok lets try the 3rd factor: greenhouse gasses.
quote:
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas and also the most important in terms of its contribution to the natural greenhouse effect, despite having a short atmospheric lifetime. Some human activities can influence local water vapor levels. However, on a global scale, the concentration of water vapor is controlled by temperature, which influences overall rates of evaporation and precipitation.[2] Therefore, the global concentration of water vapor is not substantially affected by direct human emissions.
The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor but it is controlled by temperature so there is not a lot we can do there.
The next biggest factor is clouds, but unless we find George W Bush's weather machines we can't touch that.
So that means we are left trying to alter 20% of the 3rd biggest factor affecting our climate in order to prevent climate change. If we cut our emissions to meet the Paris Climate Accords goals we would go from 400ppmv to about 280ppmv. That means if the Paris Climate Accords were 100% successful we would decrease CO2 levels by 25%, which means we would the total reduce greenhouse gas affect by 5%.
If reducing the 3rd largest contributor to earth's warming by 5% will solve the problem, then it wasn't much of a problem to begin with. If it won't solve the problem what is the point of the Paris Climate Accords, a carbon tax, or any of the other solutions to global warming?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:07 pm to WeeWee
quote:We're doing a lot right now. Just, you know, in the "up" direction.
The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor but it is controlled by temperature so there is not a lot we can do there.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:08 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:So Iosh posted a graph intimating "natural influences" are in process of taking us to reglaciation.
here is natural influences vs man made
Should we not attempt top counter that?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Our emissions at 1900 levels were sufficient to "counter" it. Now we're cranking things up to Eemian levels and not stopping any time soon.
Should we not attempt top counter that?
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So Iosh posted a graph intimating "natural influences" are in process of taking us to reglaciation.
Should we not attempt top counter that?
He did no such thing you are just hung up on that.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:12 pm to Iosh
quote:
We're doing a lot right now. Just, you know, in the "up" direction.
Just checking back in. You may have missed my question, so I'll ask again.
What, exactly, are you afraid of? What real life changes do you fear people will have to endure in the next 100 years if nothing changes?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:13 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
are you waiting to get me with the haha humans contribute 3 percent to global warming.
No, its not a gotcha question. I don't know the answers.
Is it all CO2, mostly CO2, or is CO2 negligible when it comes to global warming? Something in between?
I know we pump a lot of water vapor into the atmosphere. I know the solar system is reportedly warming, as are the other planets. I know that cities are warmer than forests, which has to factor in to some degree.
I just don't trust politicians who focus on CO2, but I don't know how it compares with other factors, either.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:15 pm to Iosh
quote:But Iosh, you understand better than 99% of posters on this board the theoretically declining effects of collective CO2 forcing at increased atmospheric concentrations.
Because the rate matters more than the direction
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:16 pm to llfshoals
quote:
'm guessing you stopped before you got to the Ordovician/Silurian periods where co2 levels were 4000ppm, not 400. One of the most severe glacial cooling/warming periods in history. 4000ppm very cold kills your theory. Lest you think it was just once, look at the Jurassic cooling period also.
you do understand that historical glaciations occurr when the salinity of the ocean changes due to melting ice waters entering the equation, which then affects the movement of warm waters to drive weather patterns.
4000ppm was the progenitor of that glaciation not some spurious outlier concentration
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:16 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:What I find amusing is that he is now conceding the point that anthropogenic CO2 causes warming (the original topic of this thread) and is now just saying "well it's a good thing because frick glaciers."
He did no such thing you are just hung up on that.
I'd make more of this concession except it's one he's made many times before and like those times, it will disappear and he'll go right back to occupying the "CO2 does nossing, Lebowski" bailey the next time someone starts an AGW thread while I'm at court or at the gym and not there to slap around his ice core GIFs.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:17 pm to jrodLSUke
quote:
I just don't trust politicians who focus on CO2, but I don't know how it compares with other factors, either.
watch the video, the guy that makes them is outstanding at explaining climate arguments. take 20 mins while you eat dinner and watch it.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:18 pm to Iosh
quote:Counter what?
Our emissions at 1900 levels were sufficient to "counter" it.
Is your claim "emissions at 1900 levels were sufficient to counter" return to glaciation???
How so?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:19 pm to llfshoals
quote:
It will take thousands of years in a worst case scenario for your dire prediction to happen. Thousands of years to adjust, by which time with any luck man is off this rock.
It would naturally but us fools know we are beyond that now.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Yes, which is why I don't think there will be runaway warming absent some exotic and unlikely hypothesis like the clathrate gun. But the saturation point is pretty far off. Certainly far off enough for lots of bad shite to happen to us (and by us I mean civilization built and adapted around a Holocene climate).
But Iosh, you understand better than 99% of posters on this board the theoretically declining effects of collective CO2 forcing at increased atmospheric concentrations.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:21 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:Except that would imply far lesser impact over land masses like Northern Russia and North Central Canada
you do understand that historical glaciations occurr when the salinity of the ocean changes due to melting ice waters entering the equation
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:22 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I don't think it's particularly hard to understand. If emissions had been maintained at 1900 levels they would have resulted in a much slower CO2 rise and therefore a much more gradual temperature increase, but still faster than the pace indicated by the ice cores.
Is your claim "emissions at 1900 levels were sufficient to counter" return to glaciation???
How so?
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:23 pm to Iosh
quote:So what is the issue?
Yes, which is why I don't think there will be runaway warming absent some exotic and unlikely hypothesis like the clathrate gun.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:27 pm to Dale51
quote:I'm intentionally missing your questions. You've made about half a dozen replies to posts I made replying to other people, usually asking a question that's (1) easily searchable (2) not relevant to the point I was answering. I answered a few, but instead of starting a two-sided conversation with me, you kept butting in on still more replies to different posters.
You may have missed my question, so I'll ask again.
It's pretty clear your understanding of this is a level below the other skeptics in this thread so I'm replying to them. Take whatever you're asking me, put it in a google search, and add "site:skepticalscience.com" at the end. The answers you get there will likely be similar to the ones you get from me.
This post was edited on 3/9/17 at 5:28 pm
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:27 pm to Cruiserhog
quote:
The general public, the layman has no comprehension for geologic time scales.
modern human civ has been around for 200 years, human agriculture for 7000.
'the best' temperature for the Earth is the average temp at which the most species can thrive in their niches. Why would we concern ourselves with geologic timescales of millions, 10's of millions of years when we need to mitigate our environment for relatively immediate context.
I agree with that 100% but we can't predict that accurately enough to really plan for the distant future (>50 years). Here are the issues that will affect us in < 50 years though.
1. Issue #1: Sea level rise
2. Issue #2: Food supply
3. Issue #3: Water supply
4. Issue#4: Extreme weather
5. Issue #6: Energy
The left's solutions either do not address those issues, drive the costs of addressing those issues through the roof, or they flat out make them worse. For example, Pres Obama proposed a $10/barrel tax on oil and he wanted to use the $$$ to fund solar and wind projects. Thats great but it would have made energy costs higher because obviously oil would have been higher and even with subsidies wind and solar are more expensive forms of energy. Example #2 California needs water to ease the burden of droughts, environmentalist are delaying the state's desalination projects by upto a decade with lawsuits they know they will lose and forcing California to dump a shite load of drinking water into the ocean to save the endangered algae.
Posted on 3/9/17 at 5:29 pm to Iosh
quote:In terms of predictability associated with cyclical aspects of Ice Age climate demonstrated via ice core studies, how in the world would "1900 levels" of "CO2 rise" prevent a return to glaciation?
I don't think it's particularly hard to understand.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News