Snowbound

[colourwheel]

 

And truth depends on lot on your perspective. There are a fair few folks out there in the world (scientists), that disagree with the whole global warming thing. The temp has risen a little over a degree in 150 years. it's not like that has never happened before. Look at historical data. (and I am NOT talking just the last 150 years or so that we have been keeping track.) The time frame the global warmists keep screaming about is not even an eyeblink in the overall scheme of things.

 

Ya but scientists have found that, by drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now.

Other scientists have analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years

 

That means that in the entire history of human civilization, CO2 levels have never been this high.

Edited November 30, 2014 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

Um, No. Not even close. Look here.

[colourwheel]

You are missing the point regardless of what research you look at. Human civilization did not exist since the last time CO2 levels have ever been as high as they are now.

[Aurielius]

I believe that Hey You's and my position is a lot simpler to defend than our erstwhile Green's, we do not purport to be in sole possession of the truth. We maintain that the jury is still out due to conflicting evidence. The concept that since something is settled in their own mind it hence becomes de facto 'the truth' is intellectual arrogance.

"Satire is usually the correct counterpoint to hubris". ~ Horace

[colourwheel]

Just because there is conflicting evidence does not mean a case is dismissed. The fact still remains that CO2 levels are at an all time high in recent history and continues to rise to the point the planet will be an uninhabitable environment for us to live on.

 

Take the Ozone layer for instance. From 2000 to 2013, ozone levels went up 4 percent in the key mid-northern latitudes at about 30 miles high. The improvement appears to be due to a successful 1987 ban on the use of chemicals used in aerosols and refrigerants. Just imagine it is possible we could do the same by lowering the net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity since it is a net increase of an approximate of 9 gigatons per year that the land and oceans won't take up which is causing our planet to globally warm by the average temperature.

Edited November 30, 2014 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

You are missing the point regardless of what research you look at. Human civilization did not exist since the last time CO2 levels have ever been as high as they are now.

So what is your point? The CO2 levels are highest they have been since humans have been around? ok, So what? That does not prove anything. CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past, and the earth was still quite habitable.

 

I would also point out that humans have been around for just slightly longer than an eyeblink of time, as far as geological history is concerned. CO2 levels have fluctuated dramatically, just in the last 300 million years or so. The fact that they are increasing again now does nothing to prove your case for global warming.

 

And here I am again....... preaching to deaf ears....... I must have a masochistic streak a mile wide. :)

[Aurielius]

sigh....OK once more for the record. Conflicting evidence means no conviction of our client (mankind). I'm willing to concede that Colorwheel is a true believer (Zealot Class), unfortunately she is not willing to concede that we honestly do not agree with her conclusions and have already done our research and come to a viewpoint that is not in line with hers. I think it would be moot to quote Einstein's saying about altered expectations of a repeated experiment...so I'll simply allude to it. :facepalm:

[kvnchrist]

What is being missed here is the end game. Where all this hysteria is leading. What will happen if we do do something as opposed to if we don't do anything. The trouble is reality has a pesky way of revealing the irony and intellectual ignorance of those who work so hard to prove or disprove things that in the end become wholly moot.

 

If we do nothing and nothing happens, does that exonerate the deniers or will the true believers simply say It's happening more slowly than they visualized? If we do everything and nothing happens, does that exonerate the true believers or was it that nothing was going to happen in the first place?

 

Even if we do or don't do something and something does happens, what change will this make in the minds of those on either side?

[colourwheel]

 

 

You are missing the point regardless of what research you look at. Human civilization did not exist since the last time CO2 levels have ever been as high as they are now.

 

So what is your point? The CO2 levels are highest they have been since humans have been around? ok, So what? That does not prove anything. CO2 levels have been significantly higher in the past, and the earth was still quite habitable.

 

This might shock you but most of the planet right now is uninhabitable for humans. The interior of Antarctica is uninhabitable. The highest mountain ranges is also largely uninhabitable. Over most of the Earth's oceans are uninhabitable, The layers of the atmosphere above the troposphere is uninhabitable. The interior of the Earth is uninhabitable of us as well. The van Allen belts in the exosphere is extremely uninhabitable. Some deserts are marginally habitable but most of them are not. Why would we want to even put at risk at losing what little of the earth has to offer for us to live on?

 

Past natural climate change proves that the climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. When the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. right now, CO2 is imposing an imbalance of energy due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate is sensitive to CO2.

 

 

 

Even if we do or don't do something and something does happens, what change will this make in the minds of those on either side?

 

Nothing, really. People in general will believe what they want to in the end, even when faced with a contradicting reality.

 

 

What is being missed here is the end game. Where all this hysteria is leading. What will happen if we do do something as opposed to if we don't do anything.

 

For one thing a better environment for our children to live in. Hopefully teaching them that we only have one planet to live on so we should take care of it as best as we can when we can actually do something to help better it.

Edited November 30, 2014 by colourwheel

[HeyYou]

And those areas you mentioned were uninhabitable previously, throughout history, (unless you go back far enough that those landmasses were closer to the equator.... but, mankind was even a twinkly in some mammals eye at that point.) so that particular argument is meaningless. Of course, there was a time when the Sahara was lush forestland too....... but, the Earth was warmer then.....

 

Everyone looks at global warming as a disaster. That isn't necessarily the case. Longer growing seasons, expanded arable areas, and a selection of other benefits would go along with a warmer climate. Michigan could become tropical again. That really wouldn't hurt my feelings. But, by the time that happens, I will be long dead.