FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Climate change and America's military

Climate change and America's military

(10:52) America's military grapples with threats from a changing environment driven by climate change.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (25 days ago)

Funny how these men are so certain that climate change IS happening and yet the orange baboon who is polishing the chairs in the White House with the seat of his huge pants says it's not happening. It's a real conundrum who to believe.

Original comment

Funny how these men are so certain that climate change IS happening and yet the orange baboon who is polishing the chairs in the White House with the seat of his huge pants says it's not happening. It's a real conundrum who to believe.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (24 days ago)

In science, there is no belief. Leave belief to the religious people.

Scientists should have proof that makes it clear but all they have is a consensus of scientists that say it's true. They did take measurements around the world so it's clear that there is an average rise in temperature but the question is if it's the cause of human activity.

Couple questions: What percentage of the climate change is human caused and what percentage is natural? If humans were not on the planet, what year would we need to get to in order to have today's current climate? If animal populations were left uncontrolled, would there be more or less methane in the atmosphere?

Original comment

In science, there is no belief. Leave belief to the religious people.

Scientists should have proof that makes it clear but all they have is a consensus of scientists that say it's true. They did take measurements around the world so it's clear that there is an average rise in temperature but the question is if it's the cause of human activity.

Couple questions: What percentage of the climate change is human caused and what percentage is natural? If humans were not on the planet, what year would we need to get to in order to have today's current climate? If animal populations were left uncontrolled, would there be more or less methane in the atmosphere?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (21 days ago)

What percentage of the climate change is human caused and what percentage is natural? In the past few decades, solar activity has been declining, yet temperatures on Earth are still rising. So I would say pretty much all of the warming is caused by human activity.

If humans were not on the planet, what year would we need to get to in order to have today's current climate? Human activity before the Industrial Revolution was probably not significant enough to have a measurable effect on the climate, so probably around the late 1800s. 2 main things affect the climate on the timescales we are talking about - solar activity and the composition of the atmosphere. Solar activity since the 1970s has been declining, but temperatures are rising because since the Industrial Revolution, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and methane by 250%. Both of these gases are powerful greenhouse gases - that means they trap heat that would otherwise be released into space.

If animal populations were left uncontrolled, would there be more or less methane in the atmosphere? Less. If there were no humans around, there would be 1.5 billion fewer cows. And fewer pigs, chickens, dogs, cats etc. Animal populations would then be controlled naturally, basically survival of the fittest. Also, huge carbon sinks like rainforests would not be cut down to grow crops to feed animals. And of course there's the transportation, refridgeration and winter heating that all increase the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Let me ask you: If human activity is NOT warming the climate, then what is?

Original comment

What percentage of the climate change is human caused and what percentage is natural? In the past few decades, solar activity has been declining, yet temperatures on Earth are still rising. So I would say pretty much all of the warming is caused by human activity.

If humans were not on the planet, what year would we need to get to in order to have today's current climate? Human activity before the Industrial Revolution was probably not significant enough to have a measurable effect on the climate, so probably around the late 1800s. 2 main things affect the climate on the timescales we are talking about - solar activity and the composition of the atmosphere. Solar activity since the 1970s has been declining, but temperatures are rising because since the Industrial Revolution, we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and methane by 250%. Both of these gases are powerful greenhouse gases - that means they trap heat that would otherwise be released into space.

If animal populations were left uncontrolled, would there be more or less methane in the atmosphere? Less. If there were no humans around, there would be 1.5 billion fewer cows. And fewer pigs, chickens, dogs, cats etc. Animal populations would then be controlled naturally, basically survival of the fittest. Also, huge carbon sinks like rainforests would not be cut down to grow crops to feed animals. And of course there's the transportation, refridgeration and winter heating that all increase the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Let me ask you: If human activity is NOT warming the climate, then what is?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (21 days ago)

Your words "pretty much" and "probably" don't instill much confidence. You seem like you're sure on the third one but I haven't seen any proof of anything you said.

We are currently in the tail-end of an ice age. There's still a little ice left. The average temperature of the planet has been 25c for most of the history while life existed on the planet. It's only 16c now. But you want to say that humans are 100% the cause of the increase and there is absolutely zero cyclical cause of the increase. (rolling eyes)

Regarding your solar activity has decreased comment. Read this and weep: "Now, an international team of researchers led by Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory at the University of Oulu, Finland, may have the answer. They examined meteorites that had fallen to Earth over the past 240 years. By analyzing the amount of titanium 44, a radioactive isotope, the team found a significant increase in the Sun's radioactive output during the 20th century."

Original comment

Your words "pretty much" and "probably" don't instill much confidence. You seem like you're sure on the third one but I haven't seen any proof of anything you said.

We are currently in the tail-end of an ice age. There's still a little ice left. The average temperature of the planet has been 25c for most of the history while life existed on the planet. It's only 16c now. But you want to say that humans are 100% the cause of the increase and there is absolutely zero cyclical cause of the increase. (rolling eyes)

Regarding your solar activity has decreased comment. Read this and weep: "Now, an international team of researchers led by Ilya Usoskin of the Sodankylä Geophysical Observatory at the University of Oulu, Finland, may have the answer. They examined meteorites that had fallen to Earth over the past 240 years. By analyzing the amount of titanium 44, a radioactive isotope, the team found a significant increase in the Sun's radioactive output during the 20th century."

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (21 days ago)

Oh, it's you again, still frozen in the ice age. How disappointing. We've been through this before. Let me remind you. The warming we are experiencing cannot be attributed to ice age cycles because they cycle over many thousands of years. They are caused by the changing Earth's orbit around the sun while wobbling on its axis.

We are talking about the warming in the last 40 years, when the sun's activity has dramatically dropped. LINK The study you cite found an increase of solar activity until the 1970s, then it dropped but global temperatures have continued to rise. LINK

Let's summarise:

1. We know it's not ice age cycles because they cycle over many thousands of years, not the 40 years we are concerned with here.

2. We know the sun has been cooling in the last 40 years - see New Scientist article linked above.

3. We know humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere by adding greenhouse gases - CO2 by 40%, methane by 250% etc.

So what do you think is causing the temperature rise?

Original comment

Oh, it's you again, still frozen in the ice age. How disappointing. We've been through this before. Let me remind you. The warming we are experiencing cannot be attributed to ice age cycles because they cycle over many thousands of years. They are caused by the changing Earth's orbit around the sun while wobbling on its axis.

We are talking about the warming in the last 40 years, when the sun's activity has dramatically dropped. LINK The study you cite found an increase of solar activity until the 1970s, then it dropped but global temperatures have continued to rise. LINK

Let's summarise:

1. We know it's not ice age cycles because they cycle over many thousands of years, not the 40 years we are concerned with here.

2. We know the sun has been cooling in the last 40 years - see New Scientist article linked above.

3. We know humans have changed the composition of the atmosphere by adding greenhouse gases - CO2 by 40%, methane by 250% etc.

So what do you think is causing the temperature rise?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (21 days ago)

What do you mean "it's you again"? Of couse it's me. I posted a message, you replied, I responded to your reply. Having trouble keeping up with the conversation already?

In the link you provided: ""During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level , but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained."

Where does it say the sun has been cooling? I read that it has stabilized at a high level.

Let me ask you this. If I take a pot of water that is currently just above freezing at 1C and put a flame under it but do not increase the temperature of the flame at any time in the experiment. Question: will the water temperature increase, decrease, or remain the same?

I'm using the flame analogy above to help you understand if the sun remains the same temperature "at a high level" what could happen on Earth.

Original comment

What do you mean "it's you again"? Of couse it's me. I posted a message, you replied, I responded to your reply. Having trouble keeping up with the conversation already?

In the link you provided: ""During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level , but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained."

Where does it say the sun has been cooling? I read that it has stabilized at a high level.

Let me ask you this. If I take a pot of water that is currently just above freezing at 1C and put a flame under it but do not increase the temperature of the flame at any time in the experiment. Question: will the water temperature increase, decrease, or remain the same?

I'm using the flame analogy above to help you understand if the sun remains the same temperature "at a high level" what could happen on Earth.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (21 days ago)

The sun has been cooling according to this New Scientist article from 2013. LINK

To answer your water heating question - the water temperature will increase until it reaches an equilibrium where the heat input from the flame equals the heat loss of the water from the pot. At that point the temperature will stabilise.

What do you think would happen if I put a lid on the pot, slowing down the heat loss from the water? That is the effect of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

How can increasing greenhouse gases NOT warm the planet? After all, that's what greenhouse gases do.

Original comment

The sun has been cooling according to this New Scientist article from 2013. LINK

To answer your water heating question - the water temperature will increase until it reaches an equilibrium where the heat input from the flame equals the heat loss of the water from the pot. At that point the temperature will stabilise.

What do you think would happen if I put a lid on the pot, slowing down the heat loss from the water? That is the effect of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

How can increasing greenhouse gases NOT warm the planet? After all, that's what greenhouse gases do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (21 days ago)

Interesting that you found another article that now states the sun is cooling. Scientists apparently don't all agree then. If scientists cannot agree, how can the public believe what they are telling us?

Yes, the water temperature will increase -- just like the planet is increasing. Has nothing to do with the heat source increasing. It can remain constant and still increase whatever it is heating. Now you know your science about the sun cooling or staying the same, or whatever you think supports your argument doesn't mean anything.

You can also say that the atmosphere is protecting us from the sun. If it wasn't there, we would be like Mars today. Mars' atmosphere is very thin so most of the water that was on the planet evaporated. Our magnetic field is also protecting us from the heat of the sun. Most of the dangerous radiation is diverted away from us because of our iron core. You can visually see it in the north called the Aurora Borealis. Has anyone done research to determine different radiation levels throughout the years? Seems they are concentrating a lot on CO2 without looking at other causes.

Our current ice age began 2.6 million years ago. We are in the Holocene period which started 11,700 years ago. The period of warming ended about 5,500 years ago but there was a slight warming period from the 10th - 14th centuries and then followed by another little ice age from the 14th century to the mid 19th century which was a period of cooling. It only makes sense that we get back to our pre-ice age temperatures whether you go back to the 10th century or before the 2.6 million year period when it started.

Did the sun cool down 2.6 million years ago and that's what caused the current ice age? Did all the animals get together and stop burning fossil fuels and reduce the CO2 emissions so that caused the ice age? Think outside the CO2 mindset and you tell me what caused our current ice age.

You do know, I hope, that there have been at least 5 major ice ages in the history of the planet. We are in the 5th one called Quaternary. Seems very cyclical to me. I'm pretty sure the sun's output hasn't changed much during all this time. There must be other causes to these ice ages like a meteor impact or something. What do you think? What does the science think? Well, they don't know either but they have hypothesis of it being astronomical, atmospheric composition, plate tectonics, and/or ocean currents.

So now that you understand where we are in the current ice age, do you care to try again and let me know when you think the planet would have recovered from this ice age if humans were not on the planet? What year would it be? What year will it be now that humans are on the planet when all the ice is gone? I bet you can't answer it. If the scientists knew everything, that would be a simple question to answer.

Original comment

Interesting that you found another article that now states the sun is cooling. Scientists apparently don't all agree then. If scientists cannot agree, how can the public believe what they are telling us?

Yes, the water temperature will increase -- just like the planet is increasing. Has nothing to do with the heat source increasing. It can remain constant and still increase whatever it is heating. Now you know your science about the sun cooling or staying the same, or whatever you think supports your argument doesn't mean anything.

You can also say that the atmosphere is protecting us from the sun. If it wasn't there, we would be like Mars today. Mars' atmosphere is very thin so most of the water that was on the planet evaporated. Our magnetic field is also protecting us from the heat of the sun. Most of the dangerous radiation is diverted away from us because of our iron core. You can visually see it in the north called the Aurora Borealis. Has anyone done research to determine different radiation levels throughout the years? Seems they are concentrating a lot on CO2 without looking at other causes.

Our current ice age began 2.6 million years ago. We are in the Holocene period which started 11,700 years ago. The period of warming ended about 5,500 years ago but there was a slight warming period from the 10th - 14th centuries and then followed by another little ice age from the 14th century to the mid 19th century which was a period of cooling. It only makes sense that we get back to our pre-ice age temperatures whether you go back to the 10th century or before the 2.6 million year period when it started.

Did the sun cool down 2.6 million years ago and that's what caused the current ice age? Did all the animals get together and stop burning fossil fuels and reduce the CO2 emissions so that caused the ice age? Think outside the CO2 mindset and you tell me what caused our current ice age.

You do know, I hope, that there have been at least 5 major ice ages in the history of the planet. We are in the 5th one called Quaternary. Seems very cyclical to me. I'm pretty sure the sun's output hasn't changed much during all this time. There must be other causes to these ice ages like a meteor impact or something. What do you think? What does the science think? Well, they don't know either but they have hypothesis of it being astronomical, atmospheric composition, plate tectonics, and/or ocean currents.

So now that you understand where we are in the current ice age, do you care to try again and let me know when you think the planet would have recovered from this ice age if humans were not on the planet? What year would it be? What year will it be now that humans are on the planet when all the ice is gone? I bet you can't answer it. If the scientists knew everything, that would be a simple question to answer.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (17 days ago)

"Interesting that you found another article that now states the sun is cooling" Actually, that was the first link in my previous comment. Scroll up to check if you can be bothered.

The warming we are experiencing is not the result of ice age cycles. The rise in temperature is far too fast. Ice age cycles act over many thousands of years. Over a few decades, the effects are negligible. Watch this video, which was on BoreMe a while ago, to understand about ice ages. LINK

If you watch the whole video, you'll learn that we are actually in a cooling period in the ice age cycle. So that totally blows your theory out of the water.

So now that we know ice age cycles are definitely not responsible for global warming, let me ask you this: Why does increasing CO2 by 40%, and methane by 250%, NOT warm the planet, when both gases are powerful greenhouse gases?

Original comment

"Interesting that you found another article that now states the sun is cooling" Actually, that was the first link in my previous comment. Scroll up to check if you can be bothered.

The warming we are experiencing is not the result of ice age cycles. The rise in temperature is far too fast. Ice age cycles act over many thousands of years. Over a few decades, the effects are negligible. Watch this video, which was on BoreMe a while ago, to understand about ice ages. LINK

If you watch the whole video, you'll learn that we are actually in a cooling period in the ice age cycle. So that totally blows your theory out of the water.

So now that we know ice age cycles are definitely not responsible for global warming, let me ask you this: Why does increasing CO2 by 40%, and methane by 250%, NOT warm the planet, when both gases are powerful greenhouse gases?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (17 days ago)

You say it's the speed we are coming out of the ice age, then it should be easy to answer the questions I had. You didn't answer a single one.

Original comment

You say it's the speed we are coming out of the ice age, then it should be easy to answer the questions I had. You didn't answer a single one.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (14 days ago)

Watch the video about ice ages: LINK Once you understand what causes them, you can answer your questions all by yourself.

You will learn that the current "movement" in terms of ice age cycles, is that we are cooling ie. moving towards the next glacial period. If humans were not around, the climate would be cooling.

Have you watched the video yet? Until you do that, you won't understand why you're wrong.

zzzz

So now you understand why today's global warming has nothing to do with ice age cycles, why do you think increasing CO2 by 40%, and methane by 250%, is NOT what is causing the warming? Maybe you know something climate scientists don't?

Original comment

Watch the video about ice ages: LINK Once you understand what causes them, you can answer your questions all by yourself.

You will learn that the current "movement" in terms of ice age cycles, is that we are cooling ie. moving towards the next glacial period. If humans were not around, the climate would be cooling.

Have you watched the video yet? Until you do that, you won't understand why you're wrong.

zzzz

So now you understand why today's global warming has nothing to do with ice age cycles, why do you think increasing CO2 by 40%, and methane by 250%, is NOT what is causing the warming? Maybe you know something climate scientists don't?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (14 days ago)

Sorry to intrude, but maybe he knows something the climate scientists don't? Isn't climate science agnostic? What do they really know ? Isn't it all.... ah never mind.

Original comment

Sorry to intrude, but maybe he knows something the climate scientists don't? Isn't climate science agnostic? What do they really know ? Isn't it all.... ah never mind.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (13 days ago)

You are confusing 'climate science' and 'climate scientists'. Climate science is agnostic - the possibility that global warming is an expression of god's wrath is not ruled out.

Climate scientists commit to the current version of climate change theory - that global warming is caused by human activity changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Original comment

You are confusing 'climate science' and 'climate scientists'. Climate science is agnostic - the possibility that global warming is an expression of god's wrath is not ruled out.

Climate scientists commit to the current version of climate change theory - that global warming is caused by human activity changing the composition of the atmosphere.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (13 days ago)

Thinking about it a bit more, I don't think climate science is agnostic. Climate science is a subset of science. Climate science commits to established scientific theories, like the quantum effect that causes CO2 to trap heat.

But science itself is fundamentally non-committal. The underlying principle is that the knowledge we have is only as good as the best evidence so far.

Original comment

Thinking about it a bit more, I don't think climate science is agnostic. Climate science is a subset of science. Climate science commits to established scientific theories, like the quantum effect that causes CO2 to trap heat.

But science itself is fundamentally non-committal. The underlying principle is that the knowledge we have is only as good as the best evidence so far.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (13 days ago)

That gave me a chuckle! It’s fun to watch you try to reconcile your conflicting opinions without giving away an inch of ground.

So let’s get this straight; science is non-committal but subsets can be committal, right? The greenhouse effect is also considered part of a ‘mainstream science’ subset of science – is mainstream science committal, or is that one of the non-committal subsets? What about physics? Fluid dynamics?

Feel free to take some more time to think about it.

Original comment

That gave me a chuckle! It’s fun to watch you try to reconcile your conflicting opinions without giving away an inch of ground.

So let’s get this straight; science is non-committal but subsets can be committal, right? The greenhouse effect is also considered part of a ‘mainstream science’ subset of science – is mainstream science committal, or is that one of the non-committal subsets? What about physics? Fluid dynamics?

Feel free to take some more time to think about it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (12 days ago)

You still failed to answer the two simple questions:

When do you think the planet would have recovered from this ice age if humans were not on the planet? What year would it be?

What year will it be now that humans are on the planet when all the ice is gone?

Original comment

You still failed to answer the two simple questions:

When do you think the planet would have recovered from this ice age if humans were not on the planet? What year would it be?

What year will it be now that humans are on the planet when all the ice is gone?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (11 days ago)

When do you think the planet would have recovered from this ice age if humans were not on the planet? You didn't watch that video did you? The answer is there, but I'll summarise.

Right now we are in a warm period of the Quaternary ice age that began about 2.5 million years ago, heading towards the next glaciation (cold period) within the Quaternary period. If humans did not exist, the climate would be cooling, reaching the the coldest period in 25,000 to 50,000 years before it warms up again. These cycles are caused by a combination of factors that include the Earth's orbit around the sun, the Earth's tilt and wobble, and Jupiter's and Saturn's orbits.

Also, we don't "recover" from ice ages. Ice ages last much longer than warm periods.

What year will it be now that humans are on the planet when all the ice is gone? That depends on what humans do. If we keep adding billions of tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every year, then probably not very long. On geological time scales, pretty much instantly.

If you look at the whole picture, it's easy to see why humans are responsible for the warming today. 2 factors dictate the climate, the heat from the sun and the composition of the atmosphere. The ice age cycles are caused by the movement of planets, so only affect the heat from the sun. Because orbit changes cycle over tens of thousands of years, even hundreds of thousands, they cannot account for the rapid temperature change we have had - 1C in 100 years.

The sun also has its own cycles. There's an 11 year cycle for something, can't remember exactly what. And there are other cycles as well. In the 20th century, the sun's output did rise, and so did the temperature of the climate. But since the 1970s, the sun's output has been reducing yet the temperature has continued to rise. So global warming today is not caused by more heat coming from the sun, because less heat is actually coming from the sun.

The other factor that affects the climate is the composition of the atmosphere. Many things can affect the atmosphere, like an asteroid strike, over active volcanos; global algae bloom, nuclear war etc. The atmosphere has dramatically changed in the last 100 years, or at least the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 has increased by over 40%. Methane by 250%. Both are powerful greenhouse gases, meaning they trap heat.

So there you have it, It's those pesky greenhouse gases that done it.

Original comment

When do you think the planet would have recovered from this ice age if humans were not on the planet? You didn't watch that video did you? The answer is there, but I'll summarise.

Right now we are in a warm period of the Quaternary ice age that began about 2.5 million years ago, heading towards the next glaciation (cold period) within the Quaternary period. If humans did not exist, the climate would be cooling, reaching the the coldest period in 25,000 to 50,000 years before it warms up again. These cycles are caused by a combination of factors that include the Earth's orbit around the sun, the Earth's tilt and wobble, and Jupiter's and Saturn's orbits.

Also, we don't "recover" from ice ages. Ice ages last much longer than warm periods.

What year will it be now that humans are on the planet when all the ice is gone? That depends on what humans do. If we keep adding billions of tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every year, then probably not very long. On geological time scales, pretty much instantly.

If you look at the whole picture, it's easy to see why humans are responsible for the warming today. 2 factors dictate the climate, the heat from the sun and the composition of the atmosphere. The ice age cycles are caused by the movement of planets, so only affect the heat from the sun. Because orbit changes cycle over tens of thousands of years, even hundreds of thousands, they cannot account for the rapid temperature change we have had - 1C in 100 years.

The sun also has its own cycles. There's an 11 year cycle for something, can't remember exactly what. And there are other cycles as well. In the 20th century, the sun's output did rise, and so did the temperature of the climate. But since the 1970s, the sun's output has been reducing yet the temperature has continued to rise. So global warming today is not caused by more heat coming from the sun, because less heat is actually coming from the sun.

The other factor that affects the climate is the composition of the atmosphere. Many things can affect the atmosphere, like an asteroid strike, over active volcanos; global algae bloom, nuclear war etc. The atmosphere has dramatically changed in the last 100 years, or at least the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 has increased by over 40%. Methane by 250%. Both are powerful greenhouse gases, meaning they trap heat.

So there you have it, It's those pesky greenhouse gases that done it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (11 days ago)

You specified a year for the first question but not the second. Not a problem. I knew you couldn't do it.

So what I understand you're saying is that the planet would be going deeper into it's current ice age if humans did not exist. That is absolutely incredible that you think that considering scientists say we are in the 4th and final period of the ice age and we are coming out of it. That 4th period started 1.8 million years ago which is about 1.6 million years before humans existed.

Regarding your comment that the sun's output has decreased is just false. As a guest, I cannot post links but you should try to read this: LINK dot space dot com/2942-sun-activity-inc reased-century-study-conf irms.html

Summary: The energy output from the sun has increased significantly during the 20th century and over the past few decades, it has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level.

Maybe you can help me out here. Where I live it's still winter for about 6 more weeks and it gets cold. If I want to warm up my house, what ppm of CO2 should I increase my house to? That seems a cheap and affordable way to heat my house this winter and the next. I can buy dry ice by the pound or even buy it by the gas container at 20 pounds or more. It's around $35 which is cheap compared to heating fuel. If it's around 400 ppm today, should I increase it to 500 or 600? Which would give me the most bang for my buck without becoming toxic to the people living in the house?

Original comment

You specified a year for the first question but not the second. Not a problem. I knew you couldn't do it.

So what I understand you're saying is that the planet would be going deeper into it's current ice age if humans did not exist. That is absolutely incredible that you think that considering scientists say we are in the 4th and final period of the ice age and we are coming out of it. That 4th period started 1.8 million years ago which is about 1.6 million years before humans existed.

Regarding your comment that the sun's output has decreased is just false. As a guest, I cannot post links but you should try to read this: LINK dot space dot com/2942-sun-activity-inc reased-century-study-conf irms.html

Summary: The energy output from the sun has increased significantly during the 20th century and over the past few decades, it has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level.

Maybe you can help me out here. Where I live it's still winter for about 6 more weeks and it gets cold. If I want to warm up my house, what ppm of CO2 should I increase my house to? That seems a cheap and affordable way to heat my house this winter and the next. I can buy dry ice by the pound or even buy it by the gas container at 20 pounds or more. It's around $35 which is cheap compared to heating fuel. If it's around 400 ppm today, should I increase it to 500 or 600? Which would give me the most bang for my buck without becoming toxic to the people living in the house?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (10 days ago)

I wish you'd just watch that video about what causes ice ages, then I wouldn't have to waste my time explaining it to you.

The Quaternary ice age has had many glaciations, that's like little ice ages within the main ice age. LINK If humans were not around, the climate would be cooling towards the next glaciation reaching the coldest years in 25,000 to 50,000 years time before slowly warming again. The cooling is so slow it cannot account for a 1C temperature change in 100 years - and of course, it is COOLING, not warming.

So what about the sun's output? Here's the space.com article you referred: LINK In it, it says: "The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present. During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency towards increasing temperatures" This article was published in 2006.

Now turn to the New Scientist article that was published in 2013. com/article/dn24512-solar -activity-heads-for-lowes t-low-in-four-centuries/ The article begins with: "The sun’s activity is in free fall ..."

Now with both articles in mind, space.com's 2006 article and New Scientist's 2013 article, take a look at this graph that shows solar activity compared to global temperatures since 1880: LINK

Factor in the dates of the articles, and you can see quite clearly what they are referring to. You can also see that something else is up the temperature.

So we now know it's not ice age cycles, and it's not the sun's output, what about that 40% increase in CO2? Why do you think increasing greenhouse gases won't warm the planet when greenhouse gases trap heat?

Original comment

I wish you'd just watch that video about what causes ice ages, then I wouldn't have to waste my time explaining it to you.

The Quaternary ice age has had many glaciations, that's like little ice ages within the main ice age. LINK If humans were not around, the climate would be cooling towards the next glaciation reaching the coldest years in 25,000 to 50,000 years time before slowly warming again. The cooling is so slow it cannot account for a 1C temperature change in 100 years - and of course, it is COOLING, not warming.

So what about the sun's output? Here's the space.com article you referred: LINK In it, it says: "The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present. During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency towards increasing temperatures" This article was published in 2006.

Now turn to the New Scientist article that was published in 2013. com/article/dn24512-solar -activity-heads-for-lowes t-low-in-four-centuries/ The article begins with: "The sun’s activity is in free fall ..."

Now with both articles in mind, space.com's 2006 article and New Scientist's 2013 article, take a look at this graph that shows solar activity compared to global temperatures since 1880: LINK

Factor in the dates of the articles, and you can see quite clearly what they are referring to. You can also see that something else is up the temperature.

So we now know it's not ice age cycles, and it's not the sun's output, what about that 40% increase in CO2? Why do you think increasing greenhouse gases won't warm the planet when greenhouse gases trap heat?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (10 days ago)
Latest comment:

I am not planning on watching a video for you to answer a question. If you give me the answer and then a link to where you got it, I might review the link to make sure you got the reference right. But so far you have not told me what year it will be when all the ice is expected to be melted.

Regarding the sun's output, seems the scientists are having trouble deciding on what facts they want to use. First they say it has increased and then stabilized at the high level and then now a different site shows that it decreased slightly. Until the scientists can agree, the public isn’t going to believe them.

This reminds me of how ancient civilizations believed in many gods: Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Ares, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, etc. Romans had similar gods with different names. Eventually they changed to believe in Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christianity, etc. With so many groups believing in such different religions, no wonder why people are becoming atheists. The people cannot agree on one correct religion just like the scientists cannot agree on the reasons for our current ice age. I used this as a basis for becoming an atheist myself. I started to think about my religion and how I knew it was the right one. Ask any Muslim and they will tell you theirs is the one true religion. So will Christians. They both cannot be right so I did my own research and now I’m an atheist.


No matter what you say, you will not convince me that the temperature rise only occurred within the last 100 years because that’s the whole point of the Quaternary period. The last 1.8 million years has all been about coming out of that ice age and the glaciers melting. So it is a long time, much longer than humans have been around so saying the temperature rise is too quick doesn’t encourage me to believe you.

I do think increasing greenhouse gases can trap heat. That’s not what I have been discussing. I asked simple questions about dates you think it would have been when all the ice is melted if humans never existed and then the same question now that we are here. You proposed a guess on the first part but not the second. CO2 can actually be good for the planet as that is what plants need for sustenance. They breathe that in, keep the carbon, and exhale oxygen. Maybe if we would stop the deforestation, that might help the global temperature of the planet. Ever think of that as being one of the causes?

You never answered how much PPM I should target for the inside of my house during the winter to keep me warm. You did say that CO2 has a warming effect so I’m interested in how I can use that property of CO2 to warm my house instead of burning fossil fuels to heat my house. I can buy CO2 real cheap.

You keep saying 40% but that’s meaningless. The current PPM is nothing like what it used to be in the past way before humans existed but you keep saying 40% in some way to shock me. Now if you said it’s 40% higher than the highest ever throughout the history of the planet, then I’d say you’re onto something.

Original comment
Latest comment:

I am not planning on watching a video for you to answer a question. If you give me the answer and then a link to where you got it, I might review the link to make sure you got the reference right. But so far you have not told me what year it will be when all the ice is expected to be melted.

Regarding the sun's output, seems the scientists are having trouble deciding on what facts they want to use. First they say it has increased and then stabilized at the high level and then now a different site shows that it decreased slightly. Until the scientists can agree, the public isn’t going to believe them.

This reminds me of how ancient civilizations believed in many gods: Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Ares, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, etc. Romans had similar gods with different names. Eventually they changed to believe in Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Christianity, etc. With so many groups believing in such different religions, no wonder why people are becoming atheists. The people cannot agree on one correct religion just like the scientists cannot agree on the reasons for our current ice age. I used this as a basis for becoming an atheist myself. I started to think about my religion and how I knew it was the right one. Ask any Muslim and they will tell you theirs is the one true religion. So will Christians. They both cannot be right so I did my own research and now I’m an atheist.


No matter what you say, you will not convince me that the temperature rise only occurred within the last 100 years because that’s the whole point of the Quaternary period. The last 1.8 million years has all been about coming out of that ice age and the glaciers melting. So it is a long time, much longer than humans have been around so saying the temperature rise is too quick doesn’t encourage me to believe you.

I do think increasing greenhouse gases can trap heat. That’s not what I have been discussing. I asked simple questions about dates you think it would have been when all the ice is melted if humans never existed and then the same question now that we are here. You proposed a guess on the first part but not the second. CO2 can actually be good for the planet as that is what plants need for sustenance. They breathe that in, keep the carbon, and exhale oxygen. Maybe if we would stop the deforestation, that might help the global temperature of the planet. Ever think of that as being one of the causes?

You never answered how much PPM I should target for the inside of my house during the winter to keep me warm. You did say that CO2 has a warming effect so I’m interested in how I can use that property of CO2 to warm my house instead of burning fossil fuels to heat my house. I can buy CO2 real cheap.

You keep saying 40% but that’s meaningless. The current PPM is nothing like what it used to be in the past way before humans existed but you keep saying 40% in some way to shock me. Now if you said it’s 40% higher than the highest ever throughout the history of the planet, then I’d say you’re onto something.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (11 days ago)

the LINK part is just w w w

Original comment

the LINK part is just w w w

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (19 days ago)

Crickets chirp in the distance....

Original comment

Crickets chirp in the distance....

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
RoF - EPA now says global warming is good
RoF - EPA now says global warming is good
The downhill of winter sports
The downhill of winter sports
Chris Tapper fact-checks Trump's climate change claims
Chris Tapper fact-checks Trump's climate change claims
Why a record cold winter doesn't disprove global warming
Why a record cold winter doesn't disprove global warming
Cape Town will run out of water on April 22, 2018
Cape Town will run out of water on April 22, 2018