Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[Tristren]

... Easier to hold your breath for long times under water?

Ok, but that bit sounds fun.

 

[Lasse]

It is another misunderstanding - that CO2 is the main limited growth factor for the planet. If it should be that – the concentration should be close to O. That the concentration rise (25% since 1950) show only one thing – the input is higher than the deposit in the ocean and in living organisms. Why do you try to have the phosphate close to 0 in your SPS tank?

CO2 is a fertilizer (as phosphorus, nitrogen and others) for plants and if it will limit growth – it’s close to 0.

If we rise the plant biomass to much - Another interesting things happen. The concentration of water vapour will rise in the atmosphere and water vapour is a green house gas as potent as CO2

As I stated before – the CO2 levels has been steady in the atmosphere for a long time. If we start 8000 years ago – the CO2 level has been steady around 180 – 300 ppm – a slow increase from around 1880 to 1950 – and after that a fast increase (last figure I seen is 410 ppm) The famous hockey stick that some people hate because they can´t come around it



Sincerely Lasse

 

[SPSREEFS]

It is another misunderstanding - that CO2 is the main limited growth factor for the planet. If it should be that – the concentration should be close to O. That the concentration rise (25% since 1950) show only one thing – the input is higher than the deposit in the ocean and in living organisms. Why do you try to have the phosphate close to 0 in your SPS tank?

CO2 is a fertilizer (as phosphorus, nitrogen and others) for plants and if it will limit growth – it’s close to 0.

If we rise the plant biomass to much - Another interesting things happen. The concentration of water vapour will rise in the atmosphere and water vapour is a green house gas as potent as CO2

As I stated before – the CO2 levels has been steady in the atmosphere for a long time. If we start 8000 years ago – the CO2 level has been steady around 180 – 300 ppm – a slow increase from around 1880 to 1950 – and after that a fast increase (last figure I seen is 410 ppm) The famous hockey stick that some people hate because they can´t come around it



Sincerely Lasse

You guys want to keep fighting it!! Typical!!! I just posted the video with 3 scientists telling you exactly what's going on. These are independent scientists. Not bought off and doing it for a new grant.
Not government Yahoo's with a Agenda.
We the American people are not NOT paying Europe for it anymore! We don't need to and the American people do not want to.
If you want to think your saving the planet from global warming fine. But you will do it at your own expense!

 

[pirate2876]

Youtube videos and Wikipedia facts. Interesting...

Is the Bible fact?

You guys want to keep fighting it!! Typical!!! I just posted the video with 3 scientists telling you exactly what's going on. These are independent scientists. Not bought off and doing it for a new grant.
Not government Yahoo's with a Agenda.
We the American people are not NOT paying Europe for it anymore! We don't need to and the American people do not want to.
If you want to think your saving the planet from global warming fine. But you will do it at your own expense!

 

[Lasse]

What are you paying us? I do not understand?

Sincerly Lasse

 

[SPSREEFS]

Nothing now.....lol

 

[Lasse]

Before? I do not understand what you mean with the sentes

We the American people are not NOT paying Europe for it anymore!

Sincerely Lasse

 

[samnaz]

It really isn't that big of a surprise that most people believe the man-made theory. The main-stream-media (MSM) has an agenda that they push. They constantly push the man caused theory and never report anything on any other theories. It is only those that care to enlighten themselves through other sources or hear somehow that there is an apposing view point and investigate that don't believe the man-caused theory. I think most people that have been exposed to both theories tend to not believe man has a significant role. But there is simply no exposure to other theories for most people since they stay within MSM lines. The MSM is a very effective brainwashing machine. By presenting only one side of an argument (presented as the whole argument), they sway the masses. Those that don't believe are portrayed as kooks. Never do they have a discussion of the evidence against man-caused, only that there are those that don't believe and that these people also think the Earth is flat.

I 100% believe in climate change and it's not thanks to the MSM (I don't even have cable). I have heard both sides of the argument yet I continue to believe man plays a significant role in climate change based on the scientific evidence. I still have not seen/heard/read about any so called evidence that proves man does NOT contribute to climate change. Can anyone please point me in the direction of said evidence? I honestly do not want to believe we are the problem, but I've only seen evidence from one side.

 

[Waterjockey]

Right. Been discredited by climate deniers. lol

I'll stick with NASA and their conclusion that

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

Well, actually, discredited by scientist who's work was included as part of the 97% who have gone on public record as categorically denying their papers supported that conclusion. Much like several contributing authors to the IPCC reports have asked and even threatened to sue to have their names removed as they did not agree with the summary conclusions.

Policy statements by massive organizations does not necessarily reflect the views of the individuals who belong or work for that organization. In my world, the majority, if not all, of the teacher's unions publicly support certain political parties. My wife is a teacher, and many of our friends and aquaintances are. I know very few that personally support those particular parties, and are quite clear about their disdain.

I think we are going off into the weeds again, but that is the second time you've brought up "NASA", so I throw this out there.

Dr. Roy Spencer's research is currently funded by NASA, NOAA, et al. He is the US science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radar on NASA's aqua satellite, and has been for over 20 years. He was the Senior Scientist for climate studies at NASA. He and Christy essentially developed the satellite atmospheric temperature system we use. He was part of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission. He developed an algorithm to detect tropical cyclones and measure their wind speeds. Has won an exceptional scientific achievement medal from NASA and meteorological societies for his work. He sits on the board of directors for the George C Marshall institute Hardly an crank, or uninformed in the field, but is an ardent "skeptic". He states Quote:" that he didn't believe "catastrophic man made global warming" was occurring. He also criticized climate models, saying "The people that have built the climate models that predict global warming believe they have sufficient physics in those models to predict the future. I believe they don't. I believe the climate system, the weather as it is today in the real world shows a stability that they do not yet have in those climate models." End Quote. He is quite clear in his opinion of the limitations of current climate modeling, he believes natural variation in cloud formation could actually be causing the temperature changes. He has also stated, in criticizing and Inconvenient Truth Quote "For instance, Mr. Gore claims that the Earth is now warmer than it has been in thousands of years. Yet the latest National Academies of Science (NAS) report on the subject has now admitted that all we really know is that we are warmer now than we were during the last 400 years, which is mostly made up of the 'Little Ice Age'" End quote.

John Christy won NASA's exceptional scientific achievement medal for his work on the satellite temperature monitoring program is Alabama's state climatologist. and is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama. He is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and was a lead author of a section of the 2001 report by the IPCC(7) and the U.S. CCSP report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences. He too, is very critical of the catastrophic predictions of huge temperature increases and rising sea levels, and says actual climate changes are not alarming.

So, while I am aware of, and acknowledge my own confirmation bias, and tend to lend more credibility to sources and statements that tend to agree or affirm my position, when I say hundreds of scientists within the field or related fields of Climatology, I'm referring to people who have distinguished themselves in the field, not some unknown cranks who do not work in the relevant industry, give me some credit for vetting sources that I give weight to. I am aware there are extremists on both sides of the debate.

 

[Waterjockey]

I 100% believe in climate change and it's not thanks to the MSM (I don't even have cable). I have heard both sides of the argument yet I continue to believe man plays a significant role in climate change based on the scientific evidence. I still have not seen/heard/read about any so called evidence that proves man does NOT contribute to climate change. Can anyone please point me in the direction of said evidence? I honestly do not want to believe we are the problem, but I've only seen evidence from one side.

You can't prove a negative, it doesn't work like that. Nobody can "prove" people aren't being abducted by space aliens, or that our existence is just someone's dream, for example. And the "burden of proof" for extrodinary claims, lies with whomever is making the claim (I. e., mankind is responsibe for devastating planetary temperature increases...that is an extraordinary claim and the burden of proof lies with those making it).

As far as I know, very few people outright deny the possibility of Anthropogenic Climate change, even I will admit it is possible that we, as a species *may* have some effect on the climate. My position in very short is "not enough data to conclusively support the claim" The disputes lie around how much (if any) effect, the magnitude of the negative consequences (if any), and if we could do anything about it, what, exactly should we do. In Engineering, risk assessment is often part of the job. Magnitude and likelyhood of risk vs cost/resources to mitigate the risk. In my *opinion*, this is similar...is there a risk, how great is the risk, and how much resources should we throw at said risk (assuming you have finite resources to manage all your risks, climate change being just one of many to mankind). So if I was to rate it in that fashion, I would say based on the data thus far, the risk is low, the magnitude is low to medium low, and that we should continue to gather data and monitor...and reassess should additional evidence surface.
Again, I am only stating an opinion, and I have zero qualifications in the field....I just read. ..a *lot*, and do have some critical thinking abilities

 

[Waterjockey]

It is another misunderstanding - that CO2 is the main limited growth factor for the planet. If it should be that – the concentration should be close to O. That the concentration rise (25% since 1950) show only one thing – the input is higher than the deposit in the ocean and in living organisms. Why do you try to have the phosphate close to 0 in your SPS tank?

CO2 is a fertilizer (as phosphorus, nitrogen and others) for plants and if it will limit growth – it’s close to 0.

If we rise the plant biomass to much - Another interesting things happen. The concentration of water vapour will rise in the atmosphere and water vapour is a green house gas as potent as CO2

As I stated before – the CO2 levels has been steady in the atmosphere for a long time. If we start 8000 years ago – the CO2 level has been steady around 180 – 300 ppm – a slow increase from around 1880 to 1950 – and after that a fast increase (last figure I seen is 410 ppm) The famous hockey stick that some people hate because they can´t come around it



Sincerely Lasse

Lassie, there are literally thousands of studies that show plants aquire more biomass under enriched CO2 conditions...the "should be close to 0 comment" has no foundation in experimental evidence. That's like saying atmospheric O2 should be close to zero because of population growth and we're breathing it all. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 for this very reason.
Why would atmospheric water vapour necessarily go up? More dense vegetation means more soil moisture retention because plants transpire *less* moisture to the atmosphere in elevated CO2 environments. This is supported by controlled field studies (actual fields, not greenhouses).

 

[Waterjockey]

@Waterjockey I agree with you in general on your other points. And I struggle to say this in a non-political way, but if you care about those things, the side that doesn't believe in AGW doesn't believe in fixing those things either.

I have heard that claim before. I am not so inclined to paint whole positions with so broad a brush. There are political and financial driven agendas on both sides of the issue. There are those that believe we should be good environmental stewards on both sides, and those that act in a selfish manner on both sides.

 

[Waterjockey]

Right. Been discredited by climate deniers. lol

I'll stick with NASA and their conclusion that

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

Btw, NASA can't seem to agree with it's public face on many topics. Take sea level rise for example. I took these screenshot from two different NASA sites, minutes apart. One talks about rapid sea rise, provides links to newspaper articles describing the typical doom and gloom scenario...the other shows data of sea levels falling for the last two years. Which NASA site are we to believe?

 

[Pmj]

I have heard that claim before. I am not so inclined to paint whole positions with so broad a brush. There are political and financial driven agendas on both sides of the issue. There are those that believe we should be good environmental stewards on both sides, and those that act in a selfish manner on both sides.

It's obviously a generalization, but being realistic... good luck on that being on the agenda any time soon. Full disclosure, I wish there was more parties to allow for more nuance such as this.

 

[Lasse]

Lassie, there are literally thousands of studies that show plants aquire more biomass under enriched CO2 conditions...the "should be close to 0 comment" has no foundation in experimental evidence. That's like saying atmospheric O2 should be close to zero because of population growth and we're breathing it all. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 for this very reason.
Why would atmospheric water vapour necessarily go up? More dense vegetation means more soil moisture retention because plants transpire *less* moisture to the atmosphere in elevated CO2 environments. This is supported by controlled field studies (actual fields, not greenhouses).

Yea – it will do that – if there is enough of phosphorus, nitrogen and other nutrient in the soil. Lack of one of them will stop the growth process. And in natural environment – it’s a lack of nitrogen in the first place but even phosphorus is a limited factor. All farmer around the world should be glad if you was right because when they do not need to fertilizes their soil. The first green revolution of the world start with the Haber–Bosch process back around 1910. To get use of the rising CO2 concentration around the world – you need to fertilize (with N and P) all of the worlds green areas first.

“More dense vegetation means more soil moisture retention because plants transpire *less* moisture to the atmosphere in elevated CO2 Environments. This is supported by controlled field studies”

I´m not sure of that – a link to the controlled experiment could help. It´s true that the evaporation from the soil itself will be lower but that is not the major pathway for water vapor transport to the atmosphere linked to plants. The major pathway is the plant itself and the plants system for transporting nutrients from the roots up to the production areas (often the leaves) This is done with water that will be transported by a force referred to as capillary action. The plants have not a return system for the water – instead it leave the plant as water vapor. As an example a large birch (a northern common tree) can transport 2 – 500 liters of water out to the atmosphere a sunny day. You can test this by yourself with your pot plants. Water the soil, take some plastics over the soil itself (not over the plant) and check after some sunny days.

However – in water CO2 can be a limited factor for growth because the gas form of the CO2 complex have a low solubility in water – that’s the reason why I will do some experiment with CO2 gas and my own aquarium in the future. The limited effect of CO2 in water every reefer see every day in its aquarium when the pH swing according to the photosynthesis. In freshwater aquarium (with surplus of all other nutrients) – the normal concentration of the CO2 (gas form) level is limited for plant (and algae growth). So I can give you right in that – the rising CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is good for freshwater aquarists . In saltwater envorniment - theorethical - the higher CO2 level can favour algae growth (including outbreak like red tide)

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

Btw, NASA can't seem to agree with it's public face on many topics. Take sea level rise for example. I took these screenshot from two different NASA sites, minutes apart. One talks about rapid sea rise, provides links to newspaper articles describing the typical doom and gloom scenario...the other shows data of sea levels falling for the last two years. Which NASA site are we to believe?

You must be kidding...... In the years the rise has been steady and show a rise of 80 mm. The last two years it has been more or less steady - mayby sunk with 0.01 mm - therefore the trend is not true. You can´t be serious

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

In an earlier post you said that we should Google you reference Roy Spencer. I did. And I got a lot of interesting results. I still believe the same as 97 % of all climate scientist in the world.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Btw, NASA can't seem to agree with it's public face on many topics. Take sea level rise for example. I took these screenshot from two different NASA sites, minutes apart. One talks about rapid sea rise, provides links to newspaper articles describing the typical doom and gloom scenario...the other shows data of sea levels falling for the last two years. Which NASA site are we to believe?

Sorry, I don't see conflicting statements ( all I see is a single graph), but there is zero debate that sea level is rising slowly. Folks might debate the future, or the exact amount it has risen based on different types of measurement methods, but the past 100 years showing a rise are not seemingly in debate.

As I mentioned earlier, that does NOT mean it is rising everywhere relative to the local land because local land can be rising or falling. It also does not mean it rises at the same rate all the time.

 

[Waterjockey]

It's obviously a generalization, but being realistic... good luck on that being on the agenda any time soon. Full disclosure, I wish there was more parties to allow for more nuance such as this.

I think I have a better understanding of what you are trying to say, without "going there" I wish I could say I disagree with you, but unfortunately I can't.

 

[Tristren]

Btw, NASA can't seem to agree with it's public face on many topics. Take sea level rise for example. I took these screenshot from two different NASA sites, minutes apart. One talks about rapid sea rise, provides links to newspaper articles describing the typical doom and gloom scenario...the other shows data of sea levels falling for the last two years. Which NASA site are we to believe?

Are you referring to the dip highlighted in the red circle in the first image?

If so that seems in line with the overall graph showing a steady increase over time doesn't it? I mean if you look back down the graph there are plenty of dips but the overall trend still seems remarkably clear.

I would also say that, if I were to want to use that bit of data as a counter argument to all of the other sea is rising evidence, I would want a more detailed chart and analysis...