Bli med i fellesskapet
RegistrerLogg inn

Man-made We're screwed

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.


Seriously? ANOTHER spurious post without a single citation? Are you a Troll or simply stupid...

1) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that it absorbs infrared light far better than visible light.

2) CO2 is now >390ppm up from ~280ppm 200 years ago most of that increase in the last 100 years

3) Humans now add ~30 Billion tons of CO2 annually; More than enough to cause the increase in CO2 that has been seen.

Simple observations... How can AGW be false?

This is all baby talk, far behind actual research.

Climate science projections depend on positive water and cloud feedback tripling any CO2 effects. All evidence to date shows net negative feedback, tending to stabilize the system, rather than promote catastrophic positive feedback runaway. No system based on positive feedback would have endured even minor to moderate perturbations.

As for "for scientists and academia money is a minor forcing. For the climate change deniers, money is arguably a major forcing," the opposite is true. Try to find documentary evidence of ANY industry or government funding of scepticism. Academics and scientists, by contrast, spend much of their time chasing grants and funding, with Climate Science being a kind of gift from the $$ gods for them. Their research papers often paste on laughable declarations of loyalty to the Cause, even if the results are directly contrary. Then comes the universal begging line: "More research is needed." "by me!" is the unspoken real meaning.

There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere. Most of the greenhouse gas is
water vapor. Greenhouse gases are necessary to even out the temperature.
If you are in a dry area the temperature changes a great deal.
I live near the ocean and the temperature ranges between
40 and 70 during the year. It very seldom freezes here. Also,
I wear a flannel shirt all year long.

The atmosphere is composed of the following:

•Nitrogen (N2) 78.084%
•Oxygen (O2) 20.946%
•Argon (Ar) 0.934%
•Carbon dioxide (CO2) 0.0383 %
•Neon (Ne) 0.001818 %
•Helium (He) 0.000524 %
•Methane (CH4) 0.0001745 %
•Krypton (Kr) 0.000114%
•Hydrogen (H2) 0.000055 %
•There is also a varying amount of water vapor, depending on the altitude and conditions where it is measured.

Also, it appears the CO2 levels rise after the temperature rises.

I own 2 electric vehicles.

2000 Chevy S10 pickup which I converted myself.
2013 Tesla Model M, 60kwh.

-CO2 rises after temperature rises... YES; This is the NATURAL way CO2 fluctuates.

-Then CO2 is a symptom of warming and does not cause warming... NO; The natural warming is triggered by Milankovitch cycles. Many have tried and ALL have failed to show that the Milankovitch cycles are responsible for the MAGNITUDE of natural warming we see between ice ages. The changes in Earths Orbit are too small. Only taking CO2 forcing into account can the MAGNITUDE be explained. Slight warming releases CO2 resulting in further warming until equilibrium is achieved at a higher average temperature.

-CO2 rise in the past was natural... it's natural now. NO; FACT: Humans are adding 30 Billion tons of CO2 annually. FACT: 30 Billion tons is ~5ppmm of Earths atmosphere. FACT: CO2 is rising @2ppm / year.

All comes down to 3 SIMPLE FACTs that have been challenged in the last 9 pages twice.

- (CO2 forcing is irrelevant because water vapor is everywhere)... NO... ever heard of "Rain"? Water comes and goes leaving CO2 to do its thing.

- (CO2 Rise is coming from the seafloor)... what? Does this make sense to anyone?

1) CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" in that it absorbs infrared light far better than visible light.

2) CO2 is now >390ppm up from ~280ppm 200 years ago most of that increase in the last 100 years

3) Humans now add ~30 Billion tons of CO2 annually; More than enough to cause the increase in CO2 that has been seen.

If these three are TRUE explain how AGW is FALSE... CITE YOUR SOURCE.

Yawn. Billions of tons sounds like a lot. Till you realize the actual mass ranges are counted in the trillions, three orders of magnitude larger. Imagining humanity has a control knob is innumerate.

Brian, the argument that a tiny bit of something can't be a bad thing, well, don't ever take a job in forensics please. Cyanide is bad news at 1.5 mg/kg of body weight. For 210Po it is about 1 ng/kg. How many orders of magnitude is that?

Video on Global Warming.

The quiz is amusing... It's like a gunman saying he was innocent because it was the bullet that did the killing. Without CO2 there is no significant climate change. A rise in CO2 can be caused by a slight increase in temperature due to changes in earths orbit... or Billions of bald primates burning carbon-based fuels. CO2 is CO2 wether it's coming from a tail-pipe or the oceans.

Yes, Water Vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas... So to return the the gunman analogy water vapor is the gunpowder but CO2 is the primer. The trigger can be pulled by a variety of things; massive vulcanism (100s of times what we have now), Orbital shifts or burning fossil fuels.

The Discovery Institute? I really am debating creationists...

At least Elon is taking things more seriously...

Ad hom to the end. Truly the lowest form of thought and argument.

Every day, we use 85 million barrels of oil, 19 million tons of coal, and 300 billion cubic feet of natural gas. As you will probably recall, C + O2 = CO2, so burning these fossil fuels creates a lot of carbon dioxide:

This is exactly why CO2 is building up in the atmosphere:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so the extra CO2 warms the planet. A summary of the physics at Just search for "PhysTodayRT2011" once you get there.

The warming of this extra CO2 is on top of natural variations. Scientists study all of the factors that influence the climate; here is a comparison: . The spikes are volcanoes, which have a short-term cooling effect.

The effect of the additional CO2 is a few extra watts per square meter added to earth’s energy balance. Can that tiny amount of extra energy warm the planet? Sure looks like it:

The extra heat can go different places; some of it is melting the ice caps, some of it is going into the oceans, and some is appearing as an increase in surface temperatures. It's important to keep an eye on long-term trends.

Bottom line: our climate is changing and the main cause is human use of fossil fuels. And the fossil fuel barons don't want you to know that.

I love all the junior (read completely unqualified) "scientists" debating a subject for which they no qualifications.... Particularly those deniers regurgitating the Fox News talking points.
To them, I ask, why are you so against considering that client change is real, and why are you so anti-science (other than that you are born-again and think people road dynasaurs).

Rather than pretending you know the minute details and picking and chosing select bits of data that support your position, I would maintain that it makes more sense to rely on your common sense, and the experts. 1. What we are seeing in the world totally makes common sense. 2. Virtually every scientists in the world says this is real and that it is man made.
Yeah, yeah, I know what you're saying, "not ALL scientists agree". Bull shit. A few hacks, supported by big oil, who disagree is not a valid voice in the debate.

These are same "corporate scientists" that said smoking does cause cancer and seat belts don't save lives.

Now, the literature has actually been examined. Despite the meteorologists .....

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.


Only the ignorant think scepticism comes from Fox. Personally, I've never seen a single item on the subject there. But you might have a look at this:

Requires a ½-hr attention span, though. Sorry.

Suppose you found an error in one line of evidence, serious enough to cause you not to rely on it.

There would still be 11 other independent lines of evidence. See the videos from the National Academy of Science.

Who has a half-hour these days. We're all too busy writing fora comments.

Oh, and sometimes I even use a ?

While I don't agree with Brian H about are we getting global warming, I have to ask: is it a bad thing we have it? Really. More heat means more moisture from sea to atmosphere means more rainfall. It changes weather patterns which might cause local problems with crops, you get weird weather phenomenons, some minor species extinctions and some problems with raising sea levels but it also might open up new opportunities and there is one big continent at south pole that is now nearly completely uninhabitable. With good luck it might restore Sahara too

Main problem I see in global warming is that people are stupid and can't see beyond their own navel.

Help me understand why we have this large argument going on in the Tesla Blogs? I think we can all agree on the following two points that make sense to be in this blog:
1. If I was in my closed garage with my ICE car running, I could die.
2. If I was in my closed garage with my (future) electric Model S running, I'm not in danger of death due to exaust.

Now multiply the polution/exaust from ICE by a million vehicles within a large city. What do you think is happening to the air quality? Correct... it's not good for you!

Therefore, it is rather safe to say that going electric is not only wicked cool (yeah, I'm from the Boston region), but better for the local environment, at the least.

That said, I do agree with Brian H's point of view. Though it shouldn't matter when it comes to understanding the benefits of a vehicle like Tesla.

Just be sure you sell your NYC real estate before it is under water and get that villa on Hudson Bay. You'll be fine.

The speaker, Robinson, is responsible for the so called Oregon Petition, listing many people who agree with him. Unfortunately, the list is not trustworthy. Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H, the movie Star Wars, Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe." There are also duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names.

The Discovery Institute where he is speaking is an anti-science group best known for its relentless advocacy for teaching Intelligent Design in school science classes. ID is a pseudo-science form of Creationism. Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have declared that it is unconstitutional to teach it in public schools.

Much of what Robinson said in that 6 year old speech has been disproved, some of it several times over.

If NYC gets underwater. Sea floor sinks from increased water weight, but Earth can't "compress" so that means that ground has to raise elsewhere, that means raising land. It's more complex than just "add melting ice water volume to sea volume" calculation. Some places will get underwater, but not as many as worst simplified calculations show.

Help me undertand why Earth can't compress. I understood otherwise. For instance,

"The crust floats buoyantly in the plastic asthenosphere, with a ratio of mass below the "surface" in proportion to its own density and the density of the asthenosphere. If mass is added to a local area of the crust (e.g. through deposition), the crust subsides to compensate and maintain isostatic balance."

I can't find any references to ground rising elsewhere because someplace subsides.

"With good luck it might restore Sahara too"
It might. Interesting how much conflicting information is coming out about that, even from the same source.

Nat Geo -- … now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

Nat Geo -- In Africa, climate change is exacerbating the desertification of the continent. The Sahara Desert, which covers the majority of northern Africa, is spreading southward at a rate of 30 miles per year. Desertification affects about 40 percent of the continent, and two-thirds of the continent’s arable land could be lost by 2025 if the trend continues unabated. In the region south of the Sahara Desert, 1.5 million hectares of land turn is becoming barren every year, with the Sahara expanding in a southward direction. In some african countries yields from agriculture could reduce by 50% by 2020.

If 75% of earth crust goes down, even a bit, then it causes land to raise elsewhere. Obviously if small area gets more mass and that mass is then distrubted all around the globe, you can't see effect anywhere. Globe volume stays pretty much same. Effect unfortunately might not be fast, in here land still raises slowly from last ice age (couple of mm / year), and raise isn't equal everywhere.

In fact I believe sea level raise is caused more by thermal expansion than ice sheets melting. Thermal expansion doesn't increase mass.

Most recent study says that previous work had seriously underestimated the effect of thermal expansion. Latest says,
Sea level rose 3 mm a year since 1993 = 60 mm
deep thermal ocean expansion about 8mm
glaciers and small ice caps about 13mm
near surface thermal expansion about 18mm
antarctic and greenland melt about 21mm

So, 26mm from thermal expansion, 34 for melt.

hmmmm when was the last time the government ignored scientists that "we know of"?

Can we all say Katrina?


Or what about all the non corrupt scientists and doctors that screamed for so long about smoking.

Drowned out by the corrupt with only one focus: profits above all other organisms. Even above that of their own future generations.

I think the first table found at this link

Total argues against what they are trying to support.

You can clearly see a 5 year cycle of consistent temperature increases.

every 5 years there is a spike. We can see the first one in 2005 which is around 46 degrees. We then see again in 2010 5 years later another spike. Only this time is is 6 degrees higher than the last! Tracking in on average at 52 Degrees for that year.

If this spiking continues and in the trend it seems to be, it is possible the next spike could be 6 degrees higher than the last.

Surfers have been aware of this cycle for many years, and I don't know about you, but I have been around long enough to know that the smog I have seen the past 2 days shouldn't be here.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen