attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:32 pm
Serendipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:33 am
I stand by my statement -on correction to use stored 'hydrocarbons', the CO2 being released from man's activity over the past 100-200 years via burning millions of years worth of stored
hydrocarbons at the current rate required for our energy requirements, is obviously going to affect our climate.
Obvious? Is it obvious because the co2 concentration of the atmosphere may increase from 0.04% to 0.05%? Since it's so obvious, describe for me how such a minuscule amount of gas could have any measurable effect against that of the sun, which can hold 1.3 million earths and is only 8 light-minutes away.
You do understand that what the Sun does is out of our control right?
Yes, of course, we cannot tax the sun into submission.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on-Sp0UPN1Q
On that point:- Since 1978, solar irradiance has been measured by satellites. These measurements indicate that the Sun's radiative output has not increased since then, so the warming that occurred in the past 40 years cannot be attributed to an increase in solar energy reaching the Earth.
TSI data back to the 1600s
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/fil ... tion-1.png
There you can see a dip that coincided perfectly with the little ice age.
But you have to understand that there are many other large variables at play, such as our position within the galactic arms which determines cosmic ray bombardment, the earths waning magnetic field strength of late, and ozone depletion which blocks UV rays that are 40x more energetic than IR for which co2 is responsible.
CO2 is the most insignificant of the lot, both because it's in such minute concentration and because it affects only low-energy IR light.
According to an EPA scientific study published after 2007, the concentrations of CO2 and methane had increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750. These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.
That sounds really scary, but co2 concentration is 0.04%.
By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[2] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
So if it has increased by 100%, then it used to be 0.02%. Whoop-de-doo!
Double it again to 0.08% and it's still nothing.
Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.
Yup, and it's still insignificant.
Serendipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 am
I don't think I need to, the unbiased not $$$ hungry scientists have made the case
How do you know anyone has made a case if you cannot personally verify it? You're being gullible.
Trusting in unbiased widely verfied scientific studies renderes me gullible does it?
How do you know the studies are verified if you haven't verified it? Yes, you're gullible.
Most publish research is wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
A couple top comments:
Kai Widman
1 year ago
I feel like everyone in the world needs to watch this video. There's so much crap out there an no one ever thinks past what they want to hear. This should help.
888 upvotes
NurseKillam
5 months ago
Interesting. I am adding this video to my research courses. My students don't always understand why we need to be critical of research.
120 upvotes
Serendipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 amand I'm happy to stick with their overwhelming evidence.
That you haven't examined, and certainly not given it an objective examination, I'm sure.
Who are you to claim I have not examined the scientific studies?
The only way you can maintain your position is if you have not examined the research.
Serendipper wrote: ↑Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:10 amThe cuckoo science of the deniers is based on a dollar\political agenda.
Even if that were true, it's irrelevant.
No it's not since I and my offspring have got to share the damned planet with a bunch idiots that think increasing the use of 'fossil fuel' is having no bearing on climate change.
Motivation is irrelevant to truth.
If I made a lot of money proclaiming smoking is bad, does that mean smoking is good because I have a profit incentive? Drug companies are making more money than the GDP of small countries, so does that mean drugs are bad? Not only are you demonstrating ignorance of the scientific mechanisms at play, but you are also showcasing your inability to think logically and critically. I hope somehow your kids are able to outgrow what you're teaching them.