NASA's time lapse video of 20 years of earth just proves global warming is a lie right?

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
a reply to: dan121212

Earth and the Cosmos run in cycles. Always has and always will. I don't doubt that Man's activities pollute and hurt the Earth as far as the species' that inhabit it, but as far as temperatures, that is something that rises and falls all of the time. I believe many of the answers may lie more in space than just here on Earth as well.

Our science is limited, but we can try to work with mother nature if we tried a little.

originally posted by: SRPrime

In terms of C02, we have less in the post industrial age than we had pre-industrial age.

Not in the age in which human civilization evolved. That's what matters to humans: what can support a good standard of living for 10 billion people, now, on the Earth we have now?

We're floating somewhere around 400ppm, back when Dinosaurs walked the earth, it was 5,000ppm. Last I checked, dinosaurs weren't factory producing plastics. This on the other hand is very basic math. 400ppm is drastically less than 5,000ppm.

Indeed, but lots of other things were different then, like no humans, entirely different ecology, continents in different places, and the Sun being less hot than now. What that past history does say is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose concentration has major influence on the climate, but past geology is not necessary to predict that, only experimentally verified laws of physics.

What matters now is the climate beneficial to human civilization of 10 billion people.

Also, plants naturally scrub C02.

While they are alive, but then they die, and the carbon is re-released. The way to get rid of it permanently is to bury it in rocks in a fashion totally separated from the ecosystem. This is known as 'coal'. Since we can't make coal, it's best to keep the coal that's there staying there.

C02 is not at all a problem right now and anyone who thinks it is, isn't being objective. Even if C02 was high, than the cause isn't industry, it's deforestation.

Both of them are true, but the amount of CO2 from fossil fuels is larger and more significant.

The fact that there hasn't been any real observable permanent temperature changes over the last 100 years should pretty much prove to anyone that AGW is a hoax. We've seen temperature variance, sometimes cooler, sometimes hotter, but no static trend.

This is observationally false. It is hotter now, and clearly so, than any time in the last 100 years.

Before AGW it was "Global cooling"

There was never any scientific consensus on the strength or future of global cooling. There is now scientific consensus on global warming because the evidence and data is much stronger now after decades of observations and scientific progress.

-- there was more carbon in the air back then,

There was less CO2 in the air back then. There was more low level pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, but that is hazardous to health in various immediate ways and it is good to get rid of it.

than there is now with all the pushes for Green tech, but suddenly it's carbon that's warming us???

It hasn't been 'sudden', the understanding of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is literally over a century old in science. Scientists were always sure about that.

Aerosol pollution can have short-term local cooling influence. CO2 as a greenhouse gas is a warming influence. Both are predicted by laws of physics.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
I don't see the cows caring - so why should we?

I jest.

What bothers me is the lack of education on this topic. The amount of people that hear "global warming" and immediately believe humans are to blame and there is no other cause.

There can be lots of causes for that. That's what scientists have been looking at for many decades, extensively, before it ever became a public issue. Now scientists know, there is no other explanation for observations other than a major human influence through the increase of the greenhouse effect. That effect has clear signatures well beyond just warming as do other competing potential influences which have their own signatures.

The current concern and attribution comes as a consequence of long-term experimental measurements. Not mere guesses.

If you want to explain it differently, you need stronger evidence and theory than the evidence and theory currently known. Evidence: clear, consistent experimental data and physical explanation. Not a "I don't believe in it".

We need to educate people on the earth's history and it's cyclical nature. The world has been both hotter and cooler than it is now over the years, long before man was being toxic... in more ways than one.

Indeed, and those changes were all a consequence of physics. That physics is still working today as it always has, and we can learn about it.

Although good sense, no amount of recycling will stop the earth doing what she wants.

That's right: increase greenhouse gases while keeping the same input, and the Earth gets hotter. Note that the greenhouse effect is essential for life, without it, Earth is a frozen snowball. The natural greenhouse effect is necessary to explain the most basic parameters of the Earth, so its truth is clearly evident, and thus increasing that has a direct causal influence on the planet, like every other law of physics which has an influence on the planet.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Got it, you clearly have zero clue about greenhouse gases and impact. You saw something somewhere that said CO2 bad, and just ran with it.

Don't bother looking into methane, cfc's, hfc's, or hcfc's at all because it's all some mumbo-jumbo garbage.

It's all about CO2. And how it's among the worst greenhouse gases ever according to you.

GO SCIENCE!

Science says that there are other greenhouse gases than CO2 with their own dynamics and human influences. Scientists are looking at those too, and have been for decades. However, CO2 is the single largest contributor (over 50% on its own) and one of the most long-term difficult because of the geological residence time.

originally posted by: CalibratedZeus
The problem is this is only 20 years. 4 billion year old Earth and we think we understand what is going on with it in 20 years.

We understand those 20 years a hell of a lot better than almost all of those 4 billion years, because we have scientific instruments and understanding and observations on the entire planet. Don't denigrate the understanding that scientists have now on chemistry and physics.

We're not predicting 4 billion years in the future, only 100. They don't look too good.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: CalibratedZeus
The problem is this is only 20 years. 4 billion year old Earth and we think we understand what is going on with it in 20 years.

We understand those 20 years a hell of a lot better than almost all of those 4 billion years, because we have scientific instruments and understanding and observations on the entire planet. Don't denigrate the understanding that scientists have now on chemistry and physics.

We're not predicting 4 billion years in the future, only 100. They don't look too good.

Exactly, and we seem to be into a denial state!

a reply to: Zelun

Given that few people live near Sahara, but many people live in the mid latitude regions which will have their far greater agricultural production disrupted, it's not a good tradeoff.

Note that extremely hot areas, whether dry or wet, are not strong economic producers, the mid-latitudes are. Better crops and much better fish.

originally posted by: hutch622
Here is another vid showing the arctic ice melt .

Amazing how you post compelling evidence of sea ice decay....yet get little attention/stars, while those who post crap that goes aling with tge OP's narrative get a ridiculous amount of stars/attention.

a reply to: SRPrime

You might have a point about higher atmospheric CO2 in the Cretaceous if CO2 were the only factor involved in climate and it didn't have a rampant greenhouse affect. But it isn't. There is also a correlation between solar output and how the CO2 levels affect the Earth. Solar output was lower during the Cretaceous which means that had that 5000 ppm dropped to just 3000 ppm, you would have had glaciation in excess of what we saw at the end of the Pleistocene.

The continents were still one massive land mass, there was one massive ocean, different types of vegetation scrubbing CO2 and less weathering of geologic formations which scrub CO2. Past CO2 levels alone do not contradict its impact on warming climates, in fact they support and confirm the close coupling of CO2 and climate. Then theres the slightly inconvenient part where saying "when dinosaurs walked the earth" because they did so for almost 200 million years whereas Homo Sapiens Sapiens have been here for perhaps 300 Ka and the Genus Homo for only a little over 2 million in total.

At the end of the day, modern humans are producing more CO2 than all of earths volcanoes and this will affect climate in unprecedented ways as these conditions have never existed in our geologic history. It's an intellectually dishonest comparison at best.

Current levels are 400 ppm with it expected to rise to 600 ppm by the end of this century. By the time it gets to 800 ppm its calculated that we will see an average global increase of 6' Celsius/11' Fahrenheit. This increase is at a rate of 10,000x faster than it occurred during the Cretaceous. The earth had time to adjust when this occurred slowly in the past. Over 1000's of years. Currently we're looking at a larger increase in just a few hundred years.

At the rate it is increasing now, the earth will not be able to adjust as it did in the past. So no... this isn't "not a big deal". This is a huge deal.

a reply to: peter vlar

Humans are volancoes. Always destructive in all ways.

a reply to: InTheLight

You won't get an argument from me on that assessment of humanity.

quite interesting www.youtube.com...

a reply to: dan121212

Why?


Here's a little advice, take it or leave it. Assuming that you think a link which you post has some relevance, it's a good idea to post a little about it, in your own words. Otherwise it might be ignored.

a reply to: dan121212

Do you work for a petrochemical company or come from a company that links its currency against the price of oil.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: peter vlar

Humans are volancoes. Always destructive in all ways.

i used to think that way, then i realized i was only seeing a narrow slice of our existence and even then coming to a solid conclusion is impossible. for example take a look at whatever home you live in and the property around it. it probly doesnt resemble anything like the natural environment that should be there, but inside this small parcel of land u most likely have a plethora of species of plants, maybe some grass, trees, fruit bearing plants etc. all these things most likely would not be capable of existing in such a density without human intervention and within this lil plot of land youll find a plethora of animals surviving off this environment youve provided. ants, beetles, birds, squirrels, raccoons, opossums, etc. even our sewage which we find disgusting feeds a plethora of life forms. we use these lifeforms to treat the water and make it safe for use or disposal. so the more i look the more i feel like i cant come to a conclusion on whether or not our existence is negative or positive, it just is.

a reply to: TheScale


You must not live in or near any urban 'environment'.

From the news blogs direct into my inbox, arctic sea ice grows year on year, I remember the report of the Arctic sea ice research ship being trapped in ice in the north west passage, in summer !

a reply to: Phage

i don't sugar coat it, i posted a link in a thread that that the link is about. dont click it if you dont want to wow!! did say its interesting so ofc its about the thread. pointless posting it otherwise

a reply to: pikestaff

Artic ice grows every year?

Did you conveniently ignore this?

a reply to: jrod

seems legit lol dont even look real haha