Global Warming: A historical perspective

[Philosophy Explorer]

I've been thinking about with all the talk about global warming, what would constitute a smoking gun? What would make for definite evidence?

It's NOT melting ice and glaciers from Greenland and Antarctica. It's not flooding such as occurred over 100 years ago in China that killed over 900,000 people.

The concern should be rising sea levels. Since 1880 sea levels have risen 8.3 inches
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise)
Also the Industrial Age started in 1760 which doesn't coincide with rising sea levels.

That's the record. You should give the Wikipedia article a good read for rising and declining periods of sea level.

As far as predictions go, they're only predictions that are far from a science. I remain unconvinced,

PhilX

[Dubious]

I'm convinced that releasing millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year will have consequences; knowing what greenhouse gases do, there's little doubt as to what those ramifications are.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[FlashDangerpants]

I've been thinking about with all the talk about global warming, what would constitute a smoking gun? What would make for definite evidence?

It's NOT melting ice and glaciers from Greenland and Antarctica. It's not flooding such as occurred over 100 years ago in China that killed over 900,000 people.

The concern should be rising sea levels. Since 1880 sea levels have risen 8.3 inches
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise)
Also the Industrial Age started in 1760 which doesn't coincide with rising sea levels.

That's the record. You should give the Wikipedia article a good read for rising and declining periods of sea level.

As far as predictions go, they're only predictions that are far from a science. I remain unconvinced,

Are you contesting the laws of physics that cover which wavelengths of light are captured by carbon dioxide? Or are you contesting the measurements that show the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have grown substantially?

Is it your claim that since 1760 the same amount of carbon dioxide has been emitted every year? Of course it wasn't, in the first hundred years of coal power, usage was way below what it would come to be in the second, and petroleum and diesel were unknown outside the laboratory. So naturally all those carbon emitting fuels got used in much greater quantities after all the extra machinery to burn them had been invented than before that point. This should be fucking obvious, but here's a picture to help you out anyway.


The industrial revolution, as of 1760, was more of an agrarian revolution, and even that only occurred in a few places (Britain,Belgium, some parts of France). There were only a very small number of powered factories in the world in that era, and those were not powered by coal, but by water wheels. Steam engines were used to pump water from mines, and that was about it in the 1760s.

It wasn't until around a century later that steam ships fully replaced sail boats for trade and warfare. The first steam powered train line only got built in 1825, and it took decades for even Britain to be fully covered by rail, let alone all the far flung corners of the Earth (such as America where the golden spike that marked the completion of the first trans-continental train line was driven into the ground in 1869). The observant might notice that the motor car, and the jet engine both came along significantly later still, and those use up quite a lot of fossil fuels too. Same goes for the air conditioning unit, television, the washing machine and the vacuum cleaner which all use electricity that tends more often than not to come from coal, gas or oil.

[Philosophy Explorer]

I've been thinking about with all the talk about global warming, what would constitute a smoking gun? What would make for definite evidence?

It's NOT melting ice and glaciers from Greenland and Antarctica. It's not flooding such as occurred over 100 years ago in China that killed over 900,000 people.

The concern should be rising sea levels. Since 1880 sea levels have risen 8.3 inches
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise)
Also the Industrial Age started in 1760 which doesn't coincide with rising sea levels.

That's the record. You should give the Wikipedia article a good read for rising and declining periods of sea level.

As far as predictions go, they're only predictions that are far from a science. I remain unconvinced,

Are you contesting the laws of physics that cover which wavelengths of light are captured by carbon dioxide? Or are you contesting the measurements that show the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have grown substantially?

Is it your claim that since 1760 the same amount of carbon dioxide has been emitted every year? Of course it wasn't, in the first hundred years of coal power, usage was way below what it would come to be in the second, and petroleum and diesel were unknown outside the laboratory. So naturally all those carbon emitting fuels got used in much greater quantities after all the extra machinery to burn them had been invented than before that point. This should be fucking obvious, but here's a picture to help you out anyway.


The industrial revolution, as of 1760, was more of an agrarian revolution, and even that only occurred in a few places (Britain,Belgium, some parts of France). There were only a very small number of powered factories in the world in that era, and those were not powered by coal, but by water wheels. Steam engines were used to pump water from mines, and that was about it in the 1760s.

It wasn't until around a century later that steam ships fully replaced sail boats for trade and warfare. The first steam powered train line only got built in 1825, and it took decades for even Britain to be fully covered by rail, let alone all the far flung corners of the Earth (such as America where the golden spike that marked the completion of the first trans-continental train line was driven into the ground in 1869). The observant might notice that the motor car, and the jet engine both came along significantly later still, and those use up quite a lot of fossil fuels too. Same goes for the air conditioning unit, television, the washing machine and the vacuum cleaner which all use electricity that tends more often than not to come from coal, gas or oil.

You've missed my basic point so how do I say this nicely? I don't give a rat's ass about greenhouse gases. Why? Because it's mainly theoretical based on indirect evidence. The only evidence I'll consider legitimate is sea level which has only risen about 8 inches over the past 130 years which is direct evidence. As far as predictions that the rate of sea level rising will accelerate, that's only a prediction.

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

I've been thinking …

That's a bit of a bold claim.

It's NOT melting ice and glaciers from Greenland and Antarctica. ...

Of course not as they're melting because it's getting colder. Don't forget the North Pole.

[FlashDangerpants]

You've missed my basic point so how do I say this nicely? I don't give a rat's ass about greenhouse gases. Why? Because it's mainly theoretical based on indirect evidence. The only evidence I'll consider legitimate is sea level which has only risen about 8 inches over the past 130 years which is direct evidence. As far as predictions that the rate of sea level rising will accelerate, that's only a prediction.

Your aproach to evidence, the known laws of physics, and countless observational data points renders this thread ineligible for a forum about philosophy of science. Find a forum for the philosophy of transparent wishful thinking, and put it there.

[Philosophy Explorer]

You've missed my basic point so how do I say this nicely? I don't give a rat's ass about greenhouse gases. Why? Because it's mainly theoretical based on indirect evidence. The only evidence I'll consider legitimate is sea level which has only risen about 8 inches over the past 130 years which is direct evidence. As far as predictions that the rate of sea level rising will accelerate, that's only a prediction.

Your aproach to evidence, the known laws of physics, and countless observational data points renders this thread ineligible for a forum about philosophy of science. Find a forum for the philosophy of transparent wishful thinking, and put it there.

You're unable to refute me and I reject your suggestion.

PhilX

[henry quirk]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

[Philosophy Explorer]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/

Did you see this in the report?:

"Their press office must be asleep at the wheel, because they don’t provide a link to the report listed in the press release. And I can’t find it anywhere searching for the title."

PhilX

[FlashDangerpants]

You've missed my basic point so how do I say this nicely? I don't give a rat's ass about greenhouse gases. Why? Because it's mainly theoretical based on indirect evidence. The only evidence I'll consider legitimate is sea level which has only risen about 8 inches over the past 130 years which is direct evidence. As far as predictions that the rate of sea level rising will accelerate, that's only a prediction.

Your aproach to evidence, the known laws of physics, and countless observational data points renders this thread ineligible for a forum about philosophy of science. Find a forum for the philosophy of transparent wishful thinking, and put it there.

You're unable to refute me and I reject your suggestion.

PhilX

Don't be absurd. The causal link between industrial activity and rising sea levels is global warming driven by greenhouse gas emissions. To attempt to discuss rising sea levels, and disprove any link with industrial activity without taking greenhouse gas emmissions into account juat because you don't happen to give a rat's arse about those is pathetic.

I don't need to refute any argument you are making, you are not making a coherent argument at all. You will also continue not to make one, because you are not bright enough to see the problem.

The nonsense about only accepting direct evidence is absurd. Gravity is never directly measured but you don't pretend that makes it imaginary do you?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Your aproach to evidence, the known laws of physics, and countless observational data points renders this thread ineligible for a forum about philosophy of science. Find a forum for the philosophy of transparent wishful thinking, and put it there.

You're unable to refute me and I reject your suggestion.

PhilX

Don't be absurd. The causal link between industrial activity and rising sea levels is global warming driven by greenhouse gas emissions. To attempt to discuss rising sea levels, and disprove any link with industrial activity without taking greenhouse gas emmissions into account juat because you don't happen to give a rat's arse about those is pathetic.

I don't need to refute any argument you are making, you are not making a coherent argument at all. You will also continue not to make one, because you are not bright enough to see the problem.

The nonsense about only accepting direct evidence is absurd. Gravity is never directly measured but you don't pretend that makes it imaginary do you?

As I said, it's not direct evidence. Direct evidence trumps theoretical evidence every time.

Better start posting your so-called evidence elsewhere,

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/ice-c ... -not-high/

[gaffo]

I've been thinking about with all the talk about global warming, what would constitute a smoking gun? What would make for definite evidence?

It's NOT melting ice and glaciers from Greenland and Antarctica. It's not flooding such as occurred over 100 years ago in China that killed over 900,000 people.

The concern should be rising sea levels. Since 1880 sea levels have risen 8.3 inches
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise)
Also the Industrial Age started in 1760 which doesn't coincide with rising sea levels.

That's the record. You should give the Wikipedia article a good read for rising and declining periods of sea level.

As far as predictions go, they're only predictions that are far from a science. I remain unconvinced,

PhilX

what are you not convinced about? you affirm the 8 inches above!

we have 100 feet to go - as we had 30 million years ago.

shit happens, global warming is occuring - due to man's actions imo - but even if not due to man, it is still happening.

good for canada, most coastal cities will have to be abandoned, and will be............along with the economic costs.

[gaffo]

I'm convinced that releasing millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year will have consequences; knowing what greenhouse gases do, there's little doubt as to what those ramifications are.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

no doubt

[gaffo]

I've been thinking about with all the talk about global warming, what would constitute a smoking gun? What would make for definite evidence?

It's NOT melting ice and glaciers from Greenland and Antarctica. It's not flooding such as occurred over 100 years ago in China that killed over 900,000 people.

The concern should be rising sea levels. Since 1880 sea levels have risen 8.3 inches
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise)
Also the Industrial Age started in 1760 which doesn't coincide with rising sea levels.

That's the record. You should give the Wikipedia article a good read for rising and declining periods of sea level.

As far as predictions go, they're only predictions that are far from a science. I remain unconvinced,

Are you contesting the laws of physics that cover which wavelengths of light are captured by carbon dioxide? Or are you contesting the measurements that show the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have grown substantially?

Is it your claim that since 1760 the same amount of carbon dioxide has been emitted every year? Of course it wasn't, in the first hundred years of coal power, usage was way below what it would come to be in the second, and petroleum and diesel were unknown outside the laboratory. So naturally all those carbon emitting fuels got used in much greater quantities after all the extra machinery to burn them had been invented than before that point. This should be fucking obvious, but here's a picture to help you out anyway.


The industrial revolution, as of 1760, was more of an agrarian revolution, and even that only occurred in a few places (Britain,Belgium, some parts of France). There were only a very small number of powered factories in the world in that era, and those were not powered by coal, but by water wheels. Steam engines were used to pump water from mines, and that was about it in the 1760s.

It wasn't until around a century later that steam ships fully replaced sail boats for trade and warfare. The first steam powered train line only got built in 1825, and it took decades for even Britain to be fully covered by rail, let alone all the far flung corners of the Earth (such as America where the golden spike that marked the completion of the first trans-continental train line was driven into the ground in 1869). The observant might notice that the motor car, and the jet engine both came along significantly later still, and those use up quite a lot of fossil fuels too. Same goes for the air conditioning unit, television, the washing machine and the vacuum cleaner which all use electricity that tends more often than not to come from coal, gas or oil.

You've missed my basic point so how do I say this nicely? I don't give a rat's ass about greenhouse gases. Why? Because it's mainly theoretical based on indirect evidence. The only evidence I'll consider legitimate is sea level which has only risen about 8 inches over the past 130 years which is direct evidence. As far as predictions that the rate of sea level rising will accelerate, that's only a prediction.

PhilX

so what is your point? co2 is up 1/3 since pre-industrialization..............it was 400 percent higher 30 million yrs ago and life continued.

it is unlikely to get that high again in the next million yrs - even if you burn all coal - but we can get 1/4th there and see a 100 ft rise in 1000 yrs.

cities on the coasts will have to be abandoned, and we will have to deal with this eventuality when it comes in a thousand years....t will be slow and first seen in places like Bangledish within a century - seeing how they will deal with it will be a help for the rest of us.