re: Earth - schematic of historical temperature data

quote:

---

You're asking what the difference is between a tropical rainforest, the Mediterranean forests of California, and the subtropical climate of Louisiana? This is basic, objective stuff if you ever want to learn about it.

---

So again, yet another non-answer which is proving a lot about you. What is the difference, in terms of climate, moron? Plant life creates oxygen. What is the difference in any forest in terms of how oxygen is produced? The only difference is scale and you say that "rain forests should not be touched". Why? They are more vast in acreage and numbers and most are overgrown. The south american rain forests yearly go through wildfires. Hell, there was a bunch of soy lefties whining about amazonian forest fires earlier this year, and were blissfully unaware that this happens EVERY YEAR. Rain forests can, and have been used for clearing/timber acquisition, and it is actually healthier for this rain forest to be utilized for this. This provides resources and money to the local communities, and also provides forest management techniques which mitigates some of the wildfires that occur.

So convince me i'm wrong. The only thing you respond with are quips of , "i mean, dude, you really don't know". You haven't provided facts or any reasonable arguments based on your opinions.

quote:

---

I'm not sure why it is so controversial to say that cutting down rainforests, dumping garbage in the oceans, and burning large amounts of fossil fuels is bad for the environment and is leading to negative consequences for our race.

---

Is someone arguing otherwise?

The bigger question is why should I pay for the sins of China (and to a lesser extent...India)?

I found it interesting that China had a 30 year grace period built in the the Paris climate accords.

quote:

---

Looks like volcanic activity has a strong correlation to global cooling periods

---

One day history will show that Taco Bell contributed more to global warming than the combustion engine.

quote:

---

warmer climate and more CO2 means life thrives.

---

Many ecosystems operate on very narrow ratios. Take a look at coral reefs which are the nursery of the oceans particularly for pelagic animals. They thrive in a very narrow temperature range, increasing the temperature by just a couple of degrees can lead to the most delicate species expelling their zooxanthellae and dying. This causes a nutrient-rich environment in what is otherwise a very low nutrient environment. This causes micro and macroalgae blooms that kill off more of the corals and fish. Yes, there will be hardy species that will live in the new environment but the ecosystem will go from very diverse to much closer to a single species thriving. This assumes the change is too fast for evolution to keep up.

Thriving life does not always mean a healthy ecosystem just look at what species like grass carp and kudzu do to ecosystems they have been introduced to.

quote:

---

What's a matter?

---

The matter is exactly what I said. You are not at all interested in learning anything that contradicts your views.

quote:

---

I posted this argument to you earlier and you have oddly shied away from it.

---

Don't give me that bullshite. You vomit a bunch of shite and expect me to lap it all up?

quote:

---

Currently the earth's atmosphere is made up of:

78% nitrogen
21% oxygen
.93% argon
.04% Co2

Apparently, these levels are too extreme.

---

Nope, not too extreme. Where do you get your "info"?

quote:

---

So, for the climate alarmists, what is the baseline components of Earth's atmospheric make up. What SHOULD they be for us to be in perfect harmony?

---

I'm not an "alarmist", but IMO there's nothing too extreme about the current atmospheric makeup. CO2 levels are well within the natural range currently. But, again, the issue is the rate of change of that level. The earth can only absorb it so quickly, even if it does result in increased vegetation. Who knows at what point things will get out of hand, or if there truly will be a "runaway" point? My question is do you want to find out? Or do you think maybe we shouldn't press our luck?

quote:

---

If America was to stop using fossil fuels, how would Earth's atmospheric makeup change? If we were sold carbon credits, what element of earth's atmosphere would raise/lower? Show me some correlation.

---

I'm not going to get into all the carbon credit and tax bullshite. That discussion will never end. How do you calculate the costs? Is it possible to get close to aligning them given the extreme lag time? How do we internalize those costs?

It's pointless. Better to just keep pushing folks like you to maybe one day realize that we should be mindful of our impact as individuals.

quote:

---

Nope, not too extreme. Where do you get your "info"?

---

Before i give you that information, do you not believe that our atmosphere is made up of those components in those amounts?

quote:

---

The earth can only absorb it so quickly,

---

Based on what?

quote:

---

Who knows at what point things will get out of hand, or if there truly will be a "runaway" point? My question is do you want to find out? Or do you think maybe we shouldn't press our luck?

---

And this is alarmism. "Well i don't know what's going to happen, but i do know it will kill all of us. Do you want to find that out?" That's such illogical and nonsensical emotional argument.

quote:

---

Better to just keep pushing folks like you to maybe one day realize that we should be mindful of our impact as individuals.

---

So, spoken again, like an alarmist. You can't quantify anything. You can't give me a baseline. You can't tell me what Earth is SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE right now. All you can do is bitch and moan, and keep screaming "GLOBAL WARMING" in hopes people like me will stop challenging you?

quote:

---

Shouldn't we know what the rate of change supposed to be before we start claiming the world is ending because of a coal plant in Virginia?

---

You keep flip-flopping between asking about rates of change and appropriate levels of temp and co2, without being clear about what you're asking. I suspect this is intentional because you already have the typical denier arguments loaded up.

Anyway, if you care to listen and learn, all I've said is the rate of change due to OUR inputs should be as close to zero as we can get. And this is measurable when it comes to CO2, we know pretty precisely the proportion that we have added. The carbon cycle does, indeed, handle a certain level of our output in addition to the natural sources. But given that we are clearly increasing the levels in the atmosphere, our rate of output is exceeding the rate at which it can be absorbed.

Does that answer your question regarding CO2?

quote:

---

Did i argue on the contrary?

---

Yes, pretty hard in fact.

quote:

---

We should be good stewards to this land.

---

Uh huh.

quote:

---

But we should also not impede progress that helps communities and people survive in order for some farcical catastrophe that we can't even baseline.

---

I'm just saying be mindful of what we're progressing toward.

quote:

---

I'm testing your knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Give me the facts, chief.

---

You don't seem to care for them, but here goes.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is highly variable and highly local, and it can range from near 0% to around 4%. Air temperature sets an upper limit on the amount of vapor the air can hold (100% RH). Could we possibly generate vapor fast enough to have any impact on average levels? Doubtful. Water vapor is very short-lived, and as soon as 100% RH is reached locally it begins to precipitate out. What is your point with this question?

quote:

---

What are those things?

---

Still playing dumb? Greenhouse gases raise temps.

quote:

---

Provide some facts to backup your arguments.

---

quote:

---

Blah blah blah word vomit.

---

What's a matter? Am I more reasonable than the strawman you're arguing against?

quote:

---

If we are so detrimental to our planet

---

Is this even debatable?

quote:

---

give me the baseline for what our atmosphere should be

---

You keep harping on this "baseline" nonsense as if it's some gotcha. Atmospheric content changes all the time. This is not debatable, and no reasonable person is arguing that we need to shoot for some arbitrary target or baseline as far as atmospheric makeup. Rather, the target should be to NOT change it if we don't have to.

quote:

---

and where it is changing, and the proven correlation to that change to whatever factor you claim is causing that change.

---

Not sure what you're getting at here. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, this is not debatable. We are adding significant amounts of it to the atmosphere, this is not debatable. The only thing people can debate is whether our impact is enough to make a difference, and my argument is how about let's not find out the hard way.

quote:

---

The people of Louisiana should be especially sensitive to the impact of rising sea levels.

---

Serious question:
How are sea levels accurately measured across large areas to a point of precision that operates in millimeters?

quote:

---

It's always hilarious when you realize you can't fight "climate change" unless aggregate demand is increasing requiring more energy output. What a funny conundrum for the people who want full command and control of the economy to fight the sun monster. What's going to be the argument when our output takes a haircut and our emissions are down without draconian tax policies?

This debate hasn't changed in decades. The sciencing left forecasting doom because of population and economic growth.

---

How ironic is it that the biggest contributor of CO2 emissions is the nation with full economic control, and the US which Is relatively “free” in comparison is being told by the socialists that we need to cut back even though our emissions are relatively flat and China’s is on a steep, rising trajectory.

But somehow it’s the US that needs to change as if our reductions would offset the escalating emissions from China and elsewhere.

Then there’s the biggest question of all, why does it matter?