Human carbon release rate is unprecedented in the past 66 million years of Earth's history

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Yet we, the human species, are the primary force behind many if not most of the changes we are observing. To ignore this reality is truly living with one's head in the sand.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Warmer is better, healthier, and more prosperous.

Except when it causes water levels to rise, thus reducing available land space to live on. It's not like THAT'S a precious resource that is harder and harder to come by or anything right?

Hasn't happened. Didn't happen in the Roman Climatic Optimum or in the Medival Warm Period. Both of those warm times were boom times for civilization.

AGW is the only plausible vehicle for totalitarian government. That is everything truthful about AGW. Runaway Gov power is a million times more dangerous than CO2 warming.

So it hasn't happened in the past, thus it cannot happen in the future? This despite that global water levels HAVE been higher in the past (before humans were on the planet).

a reply to: queenofswords

The point is that WE are speeding that schedule up, or even altering it (since we are supposed to be in a cooling period, not a warming one).

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

global warming has slowed but out climate models are wrong

me thinks that s a fair rebuttal. YEs i know Daily mail but put that aside and read the article.

Daily mail didn't link to the study in question... Is the study the one you link next in the post, or is that a different study?

Here is a new study that evaluates the accuracy of climate models:

D.Kutsoyiannis,N.Mamassis,A.Christofides,A.Efstratiadis,􀈱S.M.􀈱Papalexiou
Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering National Technical University of Athens
(www.itia.ntua.gr)

www.itia.ntua.gr...

Or to sum up the study:

"Climatic models generally fail to reproduce the long term changes on temperature and precipitation."

New? Looks like it came out in 2008. But then again you copy pasted those words from this website.
www.skepticalscience.com...
In any case, 2008 was 8 years ago. That's not new at all. At least not for science. Since then we've had 8 years of near record breaking or even record breaking global temperatures every year.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Did you happen to read any of those links?

A few. There is no way you can read all the information and conclude anthropogenic global warming is certain. It's about money and control.

So by few, you meant "the ones I agree with"?

NEw to me then LOL!!. and the part i posted in text and not in a link was a different study. it should still be relevant.

originally posted by: yuppa
NEw to me then LOL!!. and the part i posted in text and not in a link was a different study. it should still be relevant.

Well time moves forward, whether you want to keep up with it or not. 8 years ago, for science, is NOT new.

originally posted by: neo96
Faster than the last time Yellowstone blew it's top?

Or any other super volcano ?

I highly doubt it.

Late to the game...but yes.

I don't think you realize how small volcanoes are compared to the Earth. They can affect the gas balance in the air, but it's short term. Large Igneous Provinces (not supervolcanoes but something else -we call them geologic "traps" as in the Siberian Traps and the Deccan Traps) are another story... however their impact is so great because they're huge (thousands of square miles in area) and they erupt for 10 million years or longer.

The eruption of these things (eleven times that I can think of offhand) also coincide with eleven extinction events including the five largest extinction events around.

One of those things does drastically change the atmosphere... and it's gradual. It also kills off lots of plants which means that less CO2 gets absorbed and converted to O2.

But one volcano... even Mt. St. Helens... (or even ten of them) ... doesn't actually do that much to the atmosphere.

a reply to: airforce47

the main carbon comes from food production. All the farms and methane from cows and other stock. Is a huge concern to accommodate our daily food intake.

i highly recommend watching cowspiracy - very interesting take on this subject - changes your perspective

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
NEw to me then LOL!!. and the part i posted in text and not in a link was a different study. it should still be relevant.

Well time moves forward, whether you want to keep up with it or not. 8 years ago, for science, is NOT new.

Oh but IF the models were correct back then shoudnt it be relevant?

a reply to: yuppa
Hurricane computer models have been wrong in the past, so would you ignore a hurricane warning based on your claim the models have been wrong in the past, so they could be wrong this time?

Besides being fixated on your claim the models are faulty, your reasoning is flawed and are ignoring the science and direct observations that tell us the CO2 levels are rising rapidly.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: yuppa
NEw to me then LOL!!. and the part i posted in text and not in a link was a different study. it should still be relevant.

Well time moves forward, whether you want to keep up with it or not. 8 years ago, for science, is NOT new.

Oh but IF the models were correct back then shoudnt it be relevant?

They are correct. That study was wrong.

Nice post.

More carbon dioxide? more trees, more wheat, more sweet corn, more tomatoes, more lettuce, more potatoes, more plums, more apples, more grass (more beef), more roses, more tulips, how do you like it, how do you like it, more more more...

a reply to: pikestaff

That isn't how it works... what makes you think that is how it works out.

www.guidetothecosmos.com...

oneminuteastronomer.com...
www.wnd.com...

I do not see any definitive evidence that climate change is correlated to, let alone caused by greenhouse gas emissions. If this were the case, with no significant changes in global C02 production, why would temperatures not increase in recent times? As has been said, the data does not fit this story/model. It might be a heart warming story, but it doesn't accurately explain the observable phenomena.

I am of the opinion that changes in the sun account for the biggest effect on Earth's global temperatures.

What I meant was, "if C02 levels are rising, why would temperatures not be increasing in recent times?" To me, the greenhouse gas models doesn't explain the data.

a reply to: twighlightzone

"if C02 levels are rising, why would temperatures not be increasing in recent times?"

The average global temperature has been rising. Or are you looking for a steady rise to match the rise in CO2 levels. That's not how it works.

While CO2 is driving rising temperatures, there are other factors which provide peaks and valleys in the overall trend. The current el nino event is a good example. A big spike in a trend, as the 1998 event was. But it got beat.
www.drroyspencer.com...

Ban all carbonated soft drinks.

The CO2 can be replaced with Nitrogen

Nitrogenated drinks are creamy and better then carbonated drinks./

originally posted by: ANNED
Ban all carbonated soft drinks.

The CO2 can be replaced with Nitrogen

Nitrogenated drinks are creamy and better then carbonated drinks./

Sucked in by the marketers and those awesome tiny bubble videos.