ejrmaine Loc: South Carolina

green Loc: 22.1749611,-159.646704,20

here's a new study that destroys the deniers main argument, the so-called "pause".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/04/noaa-challenged-the-global-warming-pause-now-new-research-says-the-agency-was-right/?utm_term=.d07880cee023

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

I did read the article.
That's interesting. I never read one argument of "Climate change deniers" saying that any trend existed at all.
I'm sure there are....That's not the "Manmade Climate change of significance skeptic" who I identify myself as
No one that I know classifies themselves as a "Climate Change Denier".
That's you(the Washington Post) trying to label someone with an extreme label in an attempt to discredit them.
The scientist all acknowledge that the climate is changing.
I haven't seen one article that says how much is caused by man, not one.
I haven't read anywhere where C02 a green house Gas that is 400ppm is dangerous to man nor 4000ppm
I haven't read anywhere where CO2 makes up more than .05 percent of Green house gases
Water Vapor makes up 95 precent of Green house gases.

Nowhere do the climatologist and scientist in Video2 dispute what the Newspaper the "Washington Post" says.

You greenees make a huge mistake. You make a leap.
You want a policy that will effect and kill millions to save the planet.
You only acknowledge the good that something may do and refuse to acknowledge the bad it will do.
The effects of not producing energy makes people starve....cut down their rain forest for fuel because they can't use fossil fuels, coal.....
Look on Google maps at the Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Hint. The side that is baron because they burnt down all their trees for fuel is Haiti.
The other one with the Green Rain forest that uses fossil fuels is the Dominican Republic.

Here is another interview with three more climatologist that disputes your "Great Barrier Reef" Destruction myth.
All three are climatologist. They don't seem to have and agenda to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

2 quarts a day. As scientist say.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

[quote=PalePictures]I see. When something doesn't follow your ideas it's slanty, and you can show me a scientist that lives in a trailer that's poor that can prove it,
or tell me there are 2500 scientist(half of which are not scientist at all) at the IPCC that are funded by the IPCC to convince me that there political motivation is of the truest intent and that only deal in statistics......

************

What you are overlooking is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. You need to consider the time scale: Geologic the vs human time. The aricle below from wikepedia, refers to time in terms of 800,000 years to 20 million years for natural forces to produce the changes in the atmosphere that have occurred in approx. 150 years or in other words, since the start of the industrial revolution. If natural forces alone were causing the increase in CO2, it would happen at a much, much slower pace.

The following from Wikipedia:

The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century,[4] to 399 ppm as of 2015.[5] The present concentration is the highest in at least the past 800,000 years[6] and likely the highest in the past 20 million years.[7] The increase has been caused by anthropogenic sources, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[8] The daily average concentration of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013.[9] It is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating.[10][11] An estimated 30–40% of the CO2 released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes,[12][13] which contributes to ocean acidification.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

Could be . another sciences guy explained it like this , coal is the worst just as different liquids in a drinking glass ,the crap in the air finds its own levels in the
atmosphere and each type of pollution is there and they form a ring ,each a different size around the earth , from what comes out of the tail pipe of your car
to the smells coming out of a garbage dump to the perfume your wife splashes on
To the sweat or your skin .most are harmless ,then there is the fossil fuels of burning ,tons and tons of coal burning day in and day out non stop since man
Started using it . so try o imagine a huge inner tube around the earth and a mile
thick and the stuff of which it's made off is only the microscope small as germs
When it on the earth but when it's high in the air way way way up there it expands
a hundered times it's size , and you can't see it ,but it's there causing a small maginafiing effect on the sun rays that are going through it . and it's getting to be
Bigger inner tube every day that coal is being burned , maybe you have a better
Picture of it now ,that and the glaceres flowing like niagra falls , or the river of no return ,

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

Each poluition has its own level and it's own tube and the coal is the biggest one
and growing

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

[quote=Frosty]

Frosty wrote:
"What you are overlooking is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. You need to consider the time scale: Geologic the vs human time. The aricle below from wikepedia, refers to time in terms of 800,000 years to 20 million years for natural forces to produce the changes in the atmosphere that have occurred in approx. 150 years or in other words, since the start of the industrial revolution. If natural forces alone were causing the increase in CO2, it would happen at a much, much slower pace."

No I am not overlooking that. C02 makes up .05 percent of Greenhouse gases. The amount of C02 could double it probably would not matter. IF you want to save the Rain Forest you would be pro CO2 C02 is not the primary cause of warming. No one can show one statistic that says it is. Now if you want to make the argument that water vapor which makes up 95 percent of green house gases that would be a valid argument. Nothing you can do about that.
If the Oceans are getting more acid and it is affecting coral The Gulf of Mexico should have a problem growing coral....It doesn't Lower sea levels have contributed more to the destruction of coral. Warming actually helps coral in many areas. Including Australia.. See Video 3 from a climatologist.
You can map perfectly the rate of C02 rise by planet temperature over 5 million years. It's always the same. Planet temperature rise leads C02 by 800 years. Its almost a perfect match.
Warming causes C02 levels to get higher. The argument was lost over C02 causing Drought and Hurricanes and Ice Melt and now the warmers are trying to convince everyone its damaging the oceans by making them more acid.
The original premise failed....Bait and switch....
The Ice is melting the oceans are getting more acid the C02 is increasing everyone knows that.
So you now want to make policy that kills millions of people claiming that you maybe saving millions of people.
I have no problem building more nuclear power plants. The government has regulated them out of existence.
So you want the world to start burning wood again for fuel. Go take a look at Haiti on google maps. It's the one that's real easy to identify because they cut down all their trees for fuel.
Solar doesn't "cut it" and never will. Wind is a joke. You want to see 100,000 Wind mills taking up 100's of square miles in your back yard?.. and you still won't have enough energy.
Let's say C02 has some percentage of increase in warming. current estimate is .05 percent. Now how much of that is man made and how much of that is by the U.S....No scientist can answer that because the more solar winds the hotter we get....the hotter we get the more C02 from the sun. History proves that out. Temperature increases lead C02 levels for all recorded history ....by let me repeat....800 Years.
We are not going to slow down the C02 increases no matter what we do. The sun may very well make that happen.
You can't control the sun or the solar winds, or the earth wobble.
You can prevent people from starving today by allowing them to produce energy the most cost efficient way..
You need to watch video 2. You do not understand the argument I am making.
1) Yes C02 is increasing.
2) Yes Sun contribute to C02
3) Yes man is contributing to C02 Rise
4) Yes there is a direct relationship between CO2 and temperature.
5) Yes historically temperature has led C02 Rise by 800 years.
6) yes in the big picture historically C02 levels of 400PPM are low.
7) Yes we don't know how much our planets C02 effects warming. It makes up only %.05 of greenhouse gases
8) Yes it does effect people today when their energy consumption is reduced....Look at Haiti.
9) and finally Yes. We do not know how much a reduction in C02 by any and all countries will affect global warming.

The planet changes and always will.
So we need to kill people now and hope that if we reduce our emissions that people may not die later. That is the result of "Green" Government policy. Regulation.
How many people you kill now is not measurable. You can't measure how many people you kill because you prevent people from producing energy. That number, although you can't count it, is real.
Just look at a map of Haiti...and you wonder why they are starving?
Africa has no modern developed power grid. Wind and solar is not economical and even if it was you starve people in the next 50 years to stop a maybe the planet doesn't begin to cool again. and maybe we can do something about it. and maybe are oceans will rise or fall..
Change in the planet and climate is going to happen.
1000 years ago, before the little ice age 600 years ago, was a golden era of growth. That's when all the cathedral in Europe were built. That's when there were vineyards in the north of England.
It was warmer then than it is now. So you still want to kill people in order to save the world from a maybe inevitable destruction?
When you look at the really big picture your argument which is just statistics doesn't hold water.
Wiki on climate is great on statistics. They're not the best at using logic, objectivism, or reason.

The "Climate change Deniers" are not really climate change deniers at all.
To me the people who believe that C02 level increases by man( say that again "CO2 level increases by man") would substantially make any impact( lets say that again.."would substantially make any impact") have the weakest argument.
The statement.... CO2 produced by man is insignificant as a percentage of total increase in global warming which includes Ocean Acidification.... is a stronger argument.
The statement that... Regulation has unkown consequences that are not measurable but substantial.... is a fact.
Again. You're killing people now by regulation(Unmeasurable) to supposedly save people in the future which is also(Unmeasurable). It can't even be measured if you will save people in the future with regulation to help curb C02 emissions.

btbg

You guys must be able to figure out that PalePictures has a point. CO2 is a relatively small portion of total greenhouse gas. There is pretty compelling evidence that CO2 does indeed lag behind temperature change as well.

However, his big point is that fossil fuels have significantly benefited civilized society. All government regulation comes with a cost and with unforeseen consequences. If you were to eliminate all human caused CO2 emissions tomorrow it would be centuries before anyone would see a major change in temperatures, if they even do then. In addition, there would be tremendous cost to humanity, especially in developing countries.

Add in that the climate change treaty that we are trying to sign on to assigns a disproportionate responsibility to the United States. What do you think that the policy would do to our economy and your lifestyle? It certainly won't be positive.

Climate change is absolutely happening. The debate isn't about that. The debate is what will the consequence of that climate change be, and what if anything can man do to limit change?

We don't know, and probably never will since science can only observe what happens. We can't try one thing on one part of the planet and another thing on a different part and then see which works best. PalePictures point is that none of us really know how much man is contributing nor if the change is going to be positive or negative for the majority of the planet. None of us know. It's all computer models. How much personal cost are you willing to give in the hope that policy might make a difference? If you look at Al Gore, the great climate change spokesperson, apparently not much since his house uses way more electricity than normal and his personal jet makes a lot more co2 then if he flew commercially. If things are really as dire as he has claimed why is he doing that? It's pure hypocrisy. I don't know if the global warming alarmists are right or wrong. I know that in the 70s the claim was that we were entering a new ice age. What will they decide next? We don't know. Are you willing to stake your future that the scientists are right? I'm not, at least not yet.

dirtpusher Loc: tulsa oklahoma

Climate change been happening for eon's. Did burning fossil fuels cause the ice bridge between Russia an alaska to melt?

drainbamage

drainbamage

While I appreciate your efforts and respect your views, I just would like to point out that living here in the Finger Lakes region of New York, and enjoying the Great Lakes and Niagara Falls.....I am glad that the melting glaciers have carved out so much beauty that I can enjoy in my lifetime. It's been cold. It's been warm. We call it "climate", but all it is, really, is "weather". I am enjoying the effects of climate change very much here. The Grand Canyon comes to mind, as well as the Rocky Mountains and The Alps.

How can man be blamed for how the planet is carved by natural phenomenon.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

[quote=PalePictures]

Frosty wrote:
"What you are overlooking is the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. .........

PalePictures wrote:

No I am not overlooking that. C02 makes up .05 percent of Greenhouse gases. The amount of C02 could double it probably would not matter.

Frosty says:
You say you are not overlooking the rate of increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere that I pointed out but then go and completely ignore it.

*********

PalePictures wrote:

You can map perfectly the rate of C02 rise by planet temperature over 5 million years. It's always the same. Planet temperature rise leads C02 by 800 years. Its almost a perfect match.......Warming causes C02 levels to get higher. .........
.........Let's say C02 has some percentage of increase in warming. current estimate is .05 percent. Now how much of that is man made and how much of that is by the U.S.... .............Temperature increases lead C02 levels for all recorded history ....by let me repeat....800 years.

Frosty says:

Nature has things going correctly, the horse is in front of the cart. Ocean temperatures increase years ahead of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This is due to the solubility of CO2 in water. Co2 is more soluble in cold water than in hot water. As ocean temperatures rise the water cannot hold as much CO2 so it is released into the atmosphere.

Then along comes mankind. He starts burning fossil fuels thus releasing tons and tons of carbon that nature locked away in the earth in the form of coal, oil and gas. Now the cart is ahead of the horse........the increased levels of CO2 gas is preceding the increase in ocean temperatures. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing due to man at a vastly faster rate than when nature does it. This increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing the atmospheric and ocean temperatures to rise. When the ocean temperatures rise, the water cannot hold as much CO2 and releases it to the atmosphere......thus exacerbating the problem.


**************

PalePictures wrote

Wiki on climate is great on statistics. They're not the best at using logic, objectivism, or reason.

Frosty says:
You down play wikepedia as as source but offer no source references yourself.


***************

PalePictures wrote:

The "Climate change Deniers" are not really climate change deniers at all.
To me the people who believe that C02 level increases by man( say that again "CO2 level increases by man") would substantially make any impact( lets say that again.."would substantially make any impact") have the weakest argument.

Frosty, from TIME magazine:

"If you are a skeptic, you talk to other researchers, you look at the data. If you’re in denial, you simply reject everything that’s being published.”


********

PalePictures wrote:

The statement.... CO2 produced by man is insignificant as a percentage of total increase in global warming which includes Ocean Acidification.... is a stronger argument.


Frosty from, "wikepedia":

Carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space.

The news that CO2 is near 400 ppm for the first time highlights a question that scientists have been investigating using a variety of methods: when was the last time that CO2 levels were this high, and what was the climate like back then?

Frosty, from, " climatecentral.com":

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important trace gas in Earth's atmosphere currently constituting about 0.04%, i.e. 400 parts per million (ppm), of the atmosphere.[1][2] Despite its relatively small concentration, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and plays a vital role in regulating Earth's surface temperature through radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect.[3] Reconstructions show that concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have varied, ranging from as high as 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 ppm during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

This was a double post

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Frosty,
You might want to read this...Just so you're current.
It came out Jan 4th, 2017
It pretty much says what I've been saying.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

We have a disconnect in understanding.

Apparently you didn't read all my post.
Temperature levels were higher than they are today 1000 years ago. It was called the golden age. That's when all the cathedrals were built in Europe and there were vinyards in the north of England.
Looks like they may be able to grow Grapes again in the North of England in another 50-100 years.
600 years ago was the little Ice age.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb07ddce57970d-pi

You might want to worry more about a "Younger dryas cooling that occurred 15,000 years ago believed to be caused by lack of Solar winds. In that case we better be pumping out all the C02 we can.