global warming - it's real, dummies!

WilliamAC1230
Yet another example of the climate alarmists bad track record
pretzel2

no william wrong again, a few populations increased, overall the numbers have been decreasing, and eventually yes, they will die off because they can't hunt, or they will mate with grizzlies and live on as a hybrid. don't believe that dog expert who runs a blog.

Senior-Lazarus_Long

No they haven't.

wickiwacky
WilliamAC1230 wrote:
Co2 is plant food!!! Billions of us exhale it everyday!!! Co2 levels in the past have been higher than they are now!!! If the world was going to end because of co2 it would’ve happened already!!! 

 

You have been told more than once that humans exhaling co2 does NOT contribute to co2 levels and it has been explained to you why. 

The fact that you still parrot this nonsense is an indication you are not very bright. Hence we can give your speculations about as much credence as we would give to a 5 year old child. 

Elroch

Even if it wasn't for the fact that human exhalation of CO2 is part of the biological carbon cycle, where carbon gets 100% recycled from the atmosphere, this would be about 10 times less than the CO2 emissions produced by other means.

To put it another way, if we had ten planets to grow as much food on as is produced in the entire world, that would nicely offset human CO2 emissions. Unfortunately we don't.

What we do need in the long term is to be producing only as much CO2 as can be 100% recycled, which obviously requires a very major reduction. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 50% since the industrial revolution, largely due to the irreversible burning of fossil fuels.

Cubronzo

Global Warming exists for sure. Look at all the data. Look at the weather patterns. Come on people, this isn't Advanced Trigonometry

Ziggy_Zugzwang
WilliamAC1230 wrote:
Hey pretzel. Polar bear populations have been increasing for the past ten plus years due to new over hunting laws being put into place. Didn’t someone tell us that they were going to all die off because of man made global warming?

William. These AGW people on here are either people persuaded by the authority of mainstream media memes or shills who may be benefiting from the AGW nonsense. They are immune to reason but have a fantastic stamina for trotting out straw-men and ad hominems.

Senior-Lazarus_Long

Polar bear populations have dropped drastically in the last 100 years,because of man made global warming.

 

Senior-Lazarus_Long

Forty percent. That’s the stunning population loss for polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea. The news comes from a new study linking the dramatic decline in this polar bear subpopulation in northeast Alaska and Canada to a loss of sea ice due to climate change.

How does climate change affect polar bears so dramatically? Polar bears rely on sea ice to access the seals that are their primary source of food as well as to rest and breed. With less sea ice every year, polar bears and many other ice-dependent creatures are at risk.

Today’s study, published in Ecological Applications, analyzed data on polar bears in northeast Alaska and the Northwest Territories and documented a 40 percent population loss between 2001-2010 from 1,500 to 900 bears.

An urgent need to address climate change

Climate change is the main threat facing polar bears. But we also know the effects are being seen around the world. Now is the time we must speak up and demand global action.

“This is a clear warning sign of the impact a warming Arctic has on ice-dependent species like the polar bear,” said Dr. Pete Ewins, WWF’s Senior Species Officer in Canada. “Given this subpopulation is at the edge of the range, it’s no surprise to see this happening so soon.”

Added Margaret Williams,  Managing Director of WWF’s Arctic Program, “Here are concrete numbers to show us that the impacts of climate change are happening now. We need to change course if we want to stop further habitat loss and ensure resilient wildlife populations, both in the Arctic and around the world.”

WilliamAC1230
The only reason polar bear populations wer decreasing was because they wer being over hunted. Since then laws have been put into place and they’ve been increasing over the past ten plus years. If you stand to gain trillions of dollars in a global carbon tax then of course your going to say it’s because of global warming
WilliamAC1230
@ wicki. Yes I’ve read the article you posted about exhaling co2. All it said was that billions of people breathing out co2 constantly on a daily basis doesn’t add to the co2 already in the atmosphere. Which sounds nuts
WilliamAC1230
It’s just my humble opinion that some of you on this thread are falling for pseudo science with an agenda behind it. I think that we can all agree that we care about the planet we live on. That’s probably all we have in common when it comes to this particular debate
WilliamAC1230
Oh and also that big oil companies are corrupt. Something else most of us on here agree with
wickiwacky

Yes William - it would seem nuts if you have no understanding of what you are talking about. I'm no expert but at least I understand the basics. And no Ziggy - I'm not a shill - I just have an opinion like everyone else. Except mine is based on data and the years of research and understanding of experts who are not politically motivated but seek the truth about an issue.

Your opinion has no data to back it up - just some vague theories by people who are either politically or financially motivated. 

wickiwacky

Big oil is not corrupt. The CEO and senior execs have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profits. If they don't do that they get replaced. That is why governments have to have the ability to control the bigger picture. Same as how tobacco companies are not allowed to advertise at sporting events or childrens tv progs, For the future health of the nations governments have to have some power over corporate interests. Even most dyed in the wool conservatives agree this is so. If you don't agree then it's an indication you have extremist views. 

Dsmith42

Anyone here who hasn't read William Jevons' treatise "The Coal Question" really needs to.  The harm in capping CO2 emissions is that it would enslave all mankind, and that's too high a price, no matter how good the weather is.  The problem with alternative energy is the same as it was in 1865 (I wouldn't believe this, either, if I hadn't read the book, but I have, so I know).

 

Also on the point of Jevons, it's sunspots, it's always been sunspots, and it will always be sunspots.  You can actually SEE the 11-year sunspot cycle on the chart at the start of this thread.  The late 20th century is known to be the most active solar activity period in the last 8,000 years, and these sorts of events have always been associated with global warming around this magnitude.

 

The problem with the science (besides the fact that it's state-sponsored for purposes of state-empowerment) of Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) is that is makes numerous assumptions that don't hold up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny.  For example, the "climate models" are radiative-dominated, but the primary mode of heat loss from Earth's surface is convective.  The water cycle alone accounts for 70%.  The other problem is that their one "positive feedback", planetary albedo (surface reflectivity) is linear, countered by two quadratic (second order, namely convection and conduction) and one fourth-power (radiative) NEGATIVE FEEDBACKS.  As we all know, higher-order modes dominate as temperatures rise, so the warming potential is very limited, even failing to account for the fact that open polar ocean (the vogue scare tactic of the day) is MORE REFLECTIVE than sea ice, because the sun angle is always low in the high latitudes.  This is a negative feedback to climate change being PURPOSELY misrepresented as a positive feedback.

 

Don't take other people's word for it.  Learn the science for yourself.  There's plenty of garbage being thrown around on both sides of this argument, but if everyone's full of it (and by and large, they are), it's a lot better not to side with the folks trying to enslave humanity (and that's the AGW folks, sorry to say).

 

William Jevons wanted to find a way to limit fossil fuel consumption, too, for much the same reasons we're talking about today.  However, after taking a hard look at all of the facts, he had no choice but to conclude that any government action independent of free market forces would ultimately be ineffective, and would do mankind untold harm in addition.  But again, don't take my word for it - read his book.

wickiwacky

@Dsmith you are using a book published in 1865 to criticise modern knowledge and understanding. 'Bout says it all really.

At that time it was not known that warming would be a problem - faced with current knowledge Jevons might well have a different view. In fact you are being dishonest by saying the Coal Question was anything to do with AGW. Really his main concern was that coal might run out - and that didn't exactly pan out did it?

And your sunspots speculation is just incorrect as well. 

pretzel2

big oil is definitely corrupt, and ceo's have no duty to maximize profit if it means committing fraud. william, you have no clue what you are talking about. do you think you can do brain surgery? play better than magnus? why on earth would you think you know more than experts in a field? no, a carbon tax that is revenue neutral doesn't make anybody rich. really, you spout so much nonsense it's hard to keep up with it.

Senior-Lazarus_Long

87654321

Humans do add to emissions via both upper and lower body activity, however the amounts are not considered all that significant when viewed against our 'supply and support' issues. Land clearance, dwellings, agriculture, livestock, infrastructure, transport.