Tkman117
Posts: 1353
Joined: 5/21/2012
Status: offline
|
Several 2013 and even 2014 papers on arctic &/or antarctic sea loss:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EGUGA..1511328B
http://epic.awi.de/32562/
http://epic.awi.de/33243/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EGUGA..15.5914G
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1236.short
quote:
I have no problem acknowledging that sea ice varies. And that temperature varies. The burden that alarmists haven't met is
a). proving it is the catastrophe proclaimed (at .0075 degrees per year that seems a bit alarmist, don't you think?)
b) proving that is caused by CO2 - not some other process
c) proving that its not normal variability.
These questions have been answered and can be answered. They will be answered by papers and research done over the last decade or so because we do no need recent data to provide such answers, so if you dismiss them you are displaying a sense of willful ignorance. Also there is no such thing as proving anything in science, you need to understand that. Science provides the most likely possibility, not proof of anything, and because of this these theories are tested and retested over and over and over. We can only come to the most accurate conclusions with the data we have, and just because uncertainties exist, doesn't mean we reject the idea outright, it means we take steps to fix and improve on the data.
Answer to a) These are several papers listing the future health impacts of climate change, of which rising tides are a major one. Several island nations have already left their homes due to rising tides, so even though you're not being impacted now health wise, someone else is. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-21/kiribati-climate-change-destroys-pacific-island-nation#p2 With increased CO2 concentrations, the oceans take up more CO2 from the atmosphere, becoming more acidic as carbonic acid forms. This screws up the chemistry of the ocean and has been documented very well in the past, and as there is no other increased/abnormal source of CO2 in this world, the logical answer is that we are to cause. Since lo and behold, human industry runs on gas and CO2 is its baby. It's not all about the warming, you don't seem to understand that, there are other factors involved with climate change. Decertification, human expansion, animal extinctions due to various industries (either as a by product or as a source of income). They all apply to changes in this world's chemistry, not just heat.
http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/QwPqRGcRzQM5ffhPjAdT/full/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163834
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673606680793
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811270900615X
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/19/7752.short
http://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2013/02/07/09031936.00074712.short
Answer to b) You are right, climate change is not caused by JUST CO2, but also by other greenhouse gases. A prominent one being Methane: CH4, and water vapour: H2O (which when it forms clouds also reflects sunlight, largely negating its property as a main greenhouse gas but it nonetheless still contributes to keeping the atmosphere warm). These qualities are very clear in these chemicals, and can be understood in the following publication: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/good-plant-design-and-operation-onshore-carbon-capture-installations-and-onshore-pipe-5
Without a greenhouse effect on this planet, we'd be as cold as mars. But if the greenhouse effect gets away on us, we will turn into a world like Venus. CO2 is one of several chemicals that keeps the earth warm, and CO2 is a major chemical that is released upon the burning of fossil fuels. The logic is sound and the science is sound. When you release a chemical which has worked, for several billion years, to keep the earth warm enough to support life, then pumping more of it into the air will simply increase the amount of molecules capable of absorbing and radiating infrared radiation, which is the "heat" part of the electromagnetic spectrum. And yes, there are other chemicals that contribute to a greenhouse effect on this world, and CO2 is one of them, and because it is released upon the burning of fossil fuels, it's the one that is taking the focus of the scientific community. Humans produce roughly 30 billion tons of CO2 yearly, 130 times that of volcanoes on a given year. We can also determine where most of the CO2 comes from by taking air samples and determining what isotopes of carbon exist within the CO2, making them a kind of marker to determine where the CO2 came from, and most of the time it's industry/car/anything that burns gas. Naturally, the normal CO2 is absorbed by plants and the oceans, but now that there is abnormal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it acts as a kind of surplus. The plants can only take in so much CO2 just as we can only take in so much O2, the oceans are taking up a good deal of CO2 and as stated before, it's acidifying the oceans to a dangerous degree that could eventually impact fisheries, and the remainder of the CO2 stays in the atmosphere and does as it properties allow it to do, absorb radiation and warm the atmosphere.
Answer to c) This report is very useful for explaining why current climate change is not a normal phenomena. http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/good-plant-design-and-operation-onshore-carbon-capture-installations-and-onshore-pipe-5
In the many climate proxies that have been examined, we have never seen a trend of this calibre before in all of history. Sure, we may have only started recording weather and climate in the last hundred years or so, but there is evidence world wide for past climates. Ice cores, tree rings, etc. What was the major difference between now, when their is an abnormal trend in climate change, and in the past when the world was rather periodic in it's changing climate? The answer is humans. Intelligent beings never existed on this planet before, and if they did, we would have found evidence in the climate proxies that have been examined.
Going back to your history explanation about me not understanding history and how changes in temperature have occurred in the past. you are correct, the temperatures have changed. But I assume you've seen this graph examining your medieval warming period, no? http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png
Yes, it comes from a climate change website, but in this case it is irrelevant where it comes from as long as you take what it says into consideration. The graph shows various studies, in different colours, that examine past climate using climate proxies (which I have explained above), and how that even though there was the medieval warming period, and a little ice age, it pales in comparison to the "hockey stick" we see before us today. There are outliers of course, but the trend is clear and hard to dismiss unless you have a different piece of evidence to lay on the table.
< Message edited by Tkman117 -- 1/13/2014 8:15:31 AM >
|
RE: 0 + 0 - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread