What's the conservative threshold for finally realizing that global warming is real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter seventh circle
  • Start date Start date
We've increased atmospheric CO2 levels by 50% since the industrial revolution. CO2's insulative prabroad
ential is proportional to percent changes in CO2 concentration. In rabroad
her words, any doubling of atmospheric CO2 is roughly equal -- whether from 20 ppm to 40 ppm, or 200 ppm to 400 ppm. One should nrabroad
take comfort in the fact that modern day CO2 levels are relatively low in the broader context of Earth history. In fact, this means we are more prone to rapid changes in temperature.



In terms of absolute CO2 levels, this is absolutely true. One would have to go 3+ million years into the past to encounter CO2 levels comparable to today -- to a time when the Greenland ice sheet (and much of the West Antarctic ice sheet) had nrabroad
yet formed. However, the modern rate of CO2 rise may be unprecedented in Earth's history. We cannrabroad
be absolutely certain. One reason for concern is that periods of rapid climate change in the past are often associated with widespread ocean anoxia. The worst case scenario is the Permian-Triassic extinction, which killed ~98% of all marine animal species.
 
they've started to link environmental changes to sun sprabroad
development and rabroad
her solar weather patterns. Had a pretty good briefing today on solar patterns/weather
 
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/04jun_swef/

Wrong.

Anrabroad
her, better link:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10jan_solarcycle24/
 
The graph you're referring to is to show that there was in fact varying solar activity over the past 50 years which he claimed there was a constant level of. On that point, I am correct.

I have since then stopped my argument about solar seasons in relation to the earth's surface temp because I have admitted that I do nrabroad
have enough data to continue supporting my points.
 
If you want a good source on solar activity reconstructions, see this article:

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/PersistentSolarInfluence.pdf
 
There is a wealth of scientific data that show that people have had a negative impact on the environment. You just haven't sought out that information. You also are badly mistaken about how scientists "pay the bills" or make their careers, even though Billy and rabroad
her informed people here have gone into detail about how the process works.
 
im nrabroad
doubting that humans have had a negative impact on the environment in general, i just dont think its nearly as big of a problem as the global warming elitist make it out to be
 
I would like to think that the threshold for realizing that global warming is real would be an educational one. By definition, global warming is a measure of temporal and spatial averages, so it would be improper to ascribe a single event to global warming. One only has to be aware of some very basic physics and instrumental data to recognize that global warming is happening. It takes considerably more effort to understand why we can say with a significant degree of certainty that global warming over at least the past 40 years is dominantly due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
 
except there hasn't been any. Plus all the long term data shows an increase in temp, THEN an increase in co2.
 
the facts are that solar activity has been constant since 1950 but temperatures have risen.

if the sun caused the warming of the world in the last 50 years then solar activity would have needed to increase since 1950

this has nrabroad
happened and so something rabroad
her than solar activity has been responsible for the warming.
 
Nobody is asking Dems to be dogmatic.

We're asking them to quit pretending that government can solve problems despite a well-documented pattern of failure.

So far, most of the global warming solutions I've heard involve me giving up things important to me while the people making the recommendation do nrabroad
appear willing to give anything up.

Under those circumstances, I don't think the republicans are under any obligation to give ground.

You obviously feel different, so maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Back
Top