Good morning, and Happy Sunday! Here were my top five favorite political cartoons this week. Be sure to vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
by Bob Gorrell at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
by Nate Beeler at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Odd timing to be posting two cartoons on climate change – how many people have now died in India do to the crazy heat wave? Over 2000?
Fewer than the 2003 heat wave in France…
Hopefully it doesn’t climb to that level.
EGV,
“Crazy heat wave”? What’s crazy about a heat wave?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_Eastern_North_America_heat_wave
#1 actually made me laugh out loud, so I’ve got to vote for it this week.
EGV 10:55am
Hopefully not though sadly deaths from heat waves are not an unusual occurrence in India.
http://qz.com/415201/with-over-1800-dead-this-is-indias-deadliest-heat-wave-since-1979/
Mary
Yes, there have been heat waves in the past.
Those who study this (which doesn’t include either of us) say that these are becoming, and will become more commonplace.
When these happen, people die. They might not be a preborn baby, but their lives still should be important.
So people think Obama is a hypocrite because he thinks we should do things to try to save these lives, while he doesn’t work to save the lives of preborn babies in the US.
Fair criticism.
It is an equally fair criticism then to label folks on this site as hypocrites if they believe prebabies should be born, yet lives lost to storms/rising temperatures are just a price of capitalism.
Silly Ex-
Those cartoons aren’t about climate change. They’re about BO’s blundering incompetence at foreign policy. They are mocking BO’s comments to the US Coast Guard graduates that climate change is an “indisputable” threat to our national security.
I’m surprised…well no I guess I’m not surprised you fell for it.
I hope you take this the right way Ex. I’m not just trying to be critical of you here. But for someone who claims to be a Christian, you seem to be pretty clueless with respect to what God is doing in the earth.
Natural disasters will continue to increase in frequency and intensity as we approach the end of the age. They are the earth’s birth pangs. While we are admonished by the Good Book to be good stewards of our environment, we have to recognize that God is sovereign and He is shaking the earth and no amount of environmental regulations, no matter how wacky, are going to change that.
In addition to natural disasters, we are seeing evil men becoming worse and worse, even as God’s people burn brighter by His grace (see Isaiah, 2 Timothy and Proverbs). It’s all part of God’s plan of redemption for mankind, to offer a clear choice between good and evil.
In fact even BO’s abysmal performance in foreign policy is all part of His plan. BO’s lack of strength, courage and conviction and his projection of weakness as a leader is emboldening evil around the world and exposing Islam to be the demonic, murderous false religion that it is.
The GOP is not God’s party. He is not a republican. Neither party is perfect. However, when you look at the ungodly and the wicked lining up to support the Democratic party, you really need to think twice before you cast a vote for them. Especially if you fear God and you don’t want to go to hell.
Supporting pro-abortion politicians could be very hazardous to your eternal well being. If you’ve got innocent blood on your hands, if you’re a murderer of children, or one who supports them, it’s not going to go well for you on Judgment Day.
EGV,
More commonplace as compared to what, where and when? How long is the history of recorded heat waves? Are these the same geniuses that predicted an impending ice age over 30 years ago??
Ed H,
We are inclined to think the history of the planet began when we were born. Natural disasters have long been part of the planet’s history. For the most part they went unrecorded. Whether or not they are increasing, or we are just more quickly or better informed, remains to be determined. I’m inclined to think its the latter.
People can make of them what they want. Climate change or Divine wrath. I just see them as an ongoing part of earth’s natural cycle. The forces of nature are something we will never fully understand.
They are mocking BO’s comments to the US Coast Guard graduates that climate change is an “indisputable” threat to our national security.
Ed, we see some pretty wacky stuff here, from time to time. ;)
While there are things happening on the earth that are undeniable, I would say that hyperbole about the “threat that climate change is to our national security” could well be overblown and downright silly.
However, Obama’s speech really wasn’t loony-toons, he wasn’t pounding the table about global warming and national seecurity, rather, he mentioned decreasing sea ice, rising water levels and the increased power and effect of storms due to that. He said that by 2100, sea level is forecasted to rise another 1 to 4 feet. This is indeed significant.
I don’t think he said “indisputable threat.” The only instance of “indisputable”, as far as I can see, is here:
“The science is indisputable. The fossil fuels we burn release carbon dioxide, which traps heat. And the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been in 800,000 years. The planet is getting warmer. Fourteen of the 15 hottest years on record have been in the past 15 years. Last year was the planet’s warmest year ever recorded.”
Hi Doug,
“Global warming” is far from indisputable. Just do some googling. Why do you think its now called “climate change”? Bingo. Because no one knows what the he%% is going on. Since the climate will change, as it has done for eons, its the safest way to go. Its like saying that something is causing the sun to rise in the morning. You can’t go wrong.
Also, its “hottest years on record”. What about the eons before we had any records?
Hey Mary,
I appreciate your comments and perspective. I’m not sure if you ever heard of a minister by the name of David Wilkerson. The story of his mission to New York city was told in a book and subsequent movie called The Cross and the Switchblade. (fun fact: Wilkerson was played by Pat Boone and gangster Nicky Cruz was played by Erik Estrada)
Anyway, Wilkerson was a voice for Christian revival for many years. God gave him a prophetic dream in the early ’70’s which he wrote about in his book The Vision. In it he describes our country’s (and the world’s) deepening slide into moral decay. In fact, I can’t think of a better example of our societal depravity than abortion. God knows and loves every child He creates. And for the human race to kill over 42 million babies every year, one out of every 5 children conceived, is barbaric. It reveals our true sinful nature.
This is why God is trying to get our attention with natural calamities to try and get us to turn back to Him and repent that He might bless us again. If He was to bless us in our sin, He would be reinforcing our bad behavior and we would die in our sin and be eternally lost.
Anyway, that’s what I believe. Someone did a short video with excerpts from Wilkerson’s prophetic dream compared to current events almost 4 decades later…interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Wd037tmJM
Hey Doug,
I must confess I didn’t listen to the speech or read the transcript. I based my comment on the title of the ABC piece, “Obama Calls Climate Change an ‘Indisputable’ Security Threat”.
And I’m not denying that global warming is an issue. But from what I’ve read, methane is a much larger contributor to global warming than CO2, by a factor of 15.
What I am saying is that God is really, really smart. He knows the number of hairs on everyone’s head on the planet. He can hear everyone pray at the same time. There isn’t a sparrow that falls to the ground that He doesn’t see. He created the universe with the words of His mouth.
Again, really smart.
So I believe that there is a supernatural cause and effect with respect to natural calamities that is behind the natural cause and effect.
Someone is trying to get our attention.
Hi Ed H
I respect you and your beliefs. I have a hard and fast rule that I never discuss or debate religious belief either here or elsewhere.
Thank you for your response and the link.
Always enjoy the funnies…some are not funny but eye opening!
Ed –
“Those cartoons aren’t about climate change. They’re about BO’s blundering incompetence at foreign policy. They are mocking BO’s comments to the US Coast Guard graduates that climate change is an “indisputable” threat to our national security.”
—Incompetence at foreign policy? I suppose everybody has the right to their opinion – I for one am glad that we aren’t in a hurry to jump into every conflict that presents itself. Do you feel we should put boots on the ground against ISIS? What specific foreign policy issue do you feel is being botched, and how should it be handled?
I hope you take this the right way Ex. I’m not just trying to be critical of you here. But for someone who claims to be a Christian, you seem to be pretty clueless with respect to what God is doing in the earth. Natural disasters will continue to increase in frequency and intensity as we approach the end of the age. They are the earth’s birth pangs. While we are admonished by the Good Book to be good stewards of our environment, we have to recognize that God is sovereign and He is shaking the earth and no amount of environmental regulations, no matter how wacky, are going to change that.
—So you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth – we’ll have more storms and earthquakes and such, so we should just kick back and do nothing – but when it comes to abortion and the evil that will continue to grow, now you preach action. I can’t tell if you are saying we should just ignore regulation that will try to combat climate change – you seem to be saying that, and while there are some that agree with you, there are many legitimate Christians and organizations that think differently than you – so to claim that you have the only ‘true’ Christian view on this is simply wrong.
In addition to natural disasters, we are seeing evil men becoming worse and worse, even as God’s people burn brighter by His grace (see Isaiah, 2 Timothy and Proverbs). It’s all part of God’s plan of redemption for mankind, to offer a clear choice between good and evil.
In fact even BO’s abysmal performance in foreign policy is all part of His plan. BO’s lack of strength, courage and conviction and his projection of weakness as a leader is emboldening evil around the world and exposing Islam to be the demonic, murderous false religion that it is.
—This gets back to the classic argument that I think conservatives blame Obama most for not putting out quickly enough the fires they started. Many out there believe that ISIS is traced back to the foreign policy of the Bush administration – so again, to pretend that one party is the fault of all evil in the world, and one is some blessed party that can do little wrong – I think that’s just some brainwashing that has happened.
The GOP is not God’s party. He is not a republican. Neither party is perfect. However, when you look at the ungodly and the wicked lining up to support the Democratic party, you really need to think twice before you cast a vote for them. Especially if you fear God and you don’t want to go to hell. Supporting pro-abortion politicians could be very hazardous to your eternal well being. If you’ve got innocent blood on your hands, if you’re a murderer of children, or one who supports them, it’s not going to go well for you on Judgment Day.
—Yikes – adding words to the Bible are you? Seems like there’s some verses you should look at regarding adding to the text – maybe a read through Galatians would be a good way to spend your afternoon.
So thanks for the odd collection of thoughts. I think you are saying the world is going to end anyway, so let’s just let a bunch of people die in heat waves – but golly gee, while there isn’t a perfect party, don’t vote Democrat or you’re going to hell.
And we wonder why people are leaving the Church…
Mary
Do some honest study out there – you’ll find the information you need.
EGV,
I have already, very extensively so. Thank you.
Hopefully you will as well.
#1 is the only one with any link to reality.
No clown car is big enough so I hear they’re preparing a bus.
It’s like watching a contest to see who can be the most stupid.
Wanna share a few Mary? The funnies aren’t that funny.
Share a few what??
Studies. You said you had done so extensively.
OK. Now you’ve got to admit this is funny!!
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/04/cow-farts-really-significantly-contribute-global-warming/
Reality,
EGV meant to mean look into the subject, you know study something. I responded that I have studied the subject, looking into various sources of information.
Mildly amusing. And very supportive of the existence of climate change.
I’d say Ex-GOP has looked into the subject. Properly.
Reality, 7:30PM
Mildly amusing. And very supportive of the existence of climate change.
Yes, amusing indeed.
So despite having done ‘extensive’ study that bit of frippery is all you have? And it is supportive of the existence of climate change.
Reality,
I’ve done a lot of my own research on the internet. That “frippery” is obviously something you take very seriously. I think its hilarious.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more funny,
http://phys.org/news/2008-07-cow-backpacks-methane-gas.html
Hope all that gas doesn’t render Flossie airborne. You thought birds were bad!
Like my grandma always said: If we didn’t laugh we’d cry.
I’ve done a lot of my own research on the internet. – mostly trying to find amusing pieces about cow wind apparently.
That “frippery” is obviously something you take very seriously. I think its hilarious. – obviously you are quite wrong, again. I think it’s hilarious that you consider these articles are indicative of a lack of climate change.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more funny, – did you read the article?
Hope all that gas doesn’t render Flossie airborne. You thought birds were bad! – who thought birds were bad? Old Joe or whatever his name is?
Reality,
I’ve done a lot of my own research on the internet. – mostly trying to find amusing pieces about cow wind apparently. – Come on Reality, lighten up. You complained the funnies weren’t very funny so I thought I’d lighten things up for you. Besides, you seem to take this piece very seriously…at least in one post. In the next its “frippery” So which is it?
I don’t consider them indicative of climate change. I think this whole “man made” climate change is a crock. I think its indicative as to how ridiculous people can get. You’re the one who said it supports the existence of climate change.
Yes I read the article. I don’t know what’s more funny, the picture or the article. Poor Flossie. How would you like to walk around with that thing on your back and a tube ….well you know.
LOL. I’m making a joke about bird poop. Usually hits a newly washed car, or the top of your head. Imagine if Flossie is rendered airborne! Just a little lightheartedness Reality.
Big Joe, his name was. He is long deceased.
I’ve done a lot of my own research on the internet. – mostly trying to find amusing pieces about cow wind apparently. – Come on Reality, lighten up. – it didn’t surprise me :-)
You complained the funnies weren’t very funny so I thought I’d lighten things up for you. – well you have done that, just like I thought you would. You haven’t produced anything which demonstrates that your ‘extensive’ study covers anything of note.
Besides, you seem to take this piece very seriously…at least in one post. In the next its “frippery” So which is it? – I said ‘mildly amusing’ not ‘very seriously’. You do know the difference?
I don’t consider them indicative of climate change. – so you didn’t read them properly?
I think this whole “man made” climate change is a crock. I think its indicative as to how ridiculous people can get. You’re the one who said it supports the existence of climate change. – because I read them.
Yes I read the article. I don’t know what’s more funny, the picture or the article. Poor Flossie. How would you like to walk around with that thing on your back and a tube ….well you know. – so you accept some aspects of what the source you provided says but not others.
LOL. I’m making a joke about bird poop. Usually hits a newly washed car, or the top of your head. Imagine if Flossie is rendered airborne! Just a little lightheartedness Reality. – so much for ‘extensive’ study. LOL.
Reality
You complained the funnies weren’t very funny so I thought I’d lighten things up for you. – well you have done that, just like I thought you would. You haven’t produced anything which demonstrates that your ‘extensive’ study covers anything of note. – Glad to know I’ve made you smile. Unreal what passes for science these days, wouldn’t you agree?
Reality, 7:30PM
Mildly amusing. And very supportive of the existence of climate change. – See Reality, you did take the article seriously in this post. So what is it? Frippery or serious?
I don’t think they support the argument of climate change at all. I think the whole thing is nonsense. You’re the one who can’t seem to make up his mind.
LOL. I’m making a joke about bird poop. Usually hits a newly washed car, or the top of your head. Imagine if Flossie is rendered airborne! Just a little lightheartedness Reality. – so much for ‘extensive’ study. LOL. – Good heavens man you take things much too seriously!!
You complained the funnies weren’t very funny so I thought I’d lighten things up for you. – well you have done that, just like I thought you would. You haven’t produced anything which demonstrates that your ‘extensive’ study covers anything of note. – Glad to know I’ve made you smile. – pretty much in the manner I thought you would :-)
Unreal what passes for science these days, wouldn’t you agree? – sometimes. I find the ability to discern useful.
Mildly amusing. And very supportive of the existence of climate change. – See Reality, you did take the article seriously in this post. So what is it frippery or serious? – I asked for a demonstration of your ‘extensive’ study and all you produce is a mildly amusing article which underneath it all supports the claims for climate change.
I don’t think they support the argument of climate change at all. I think the whole thing is nonsense. – they do.
You’re the one who can’t seem to make up his mind. – that’s patently false.
LOL. I’m making a joke about bird poop. Usually hits a newly washed car, or the top of your head. Imagine if Flossie is rendered airborne! Just a little lightheartedness Reality. – so much for ‘extensive’ study. LOL. – Good heavens man you take things much too seriously!! – not your claims of having undertaken ‘extensive’ study :-)
Reality,
Unreal what passes for science these days, wouldn’t you agree? – sometimes. I find the ability to discern useful- But not all the time apparently.
I asked for a demonstration of your ‘extensive’ study and all you produce is a mildly amusing article which underneath it all supports the claims for climate change. – Come one Reality, is it frippery or serious?
I don’t think they support the argument of climate change at all. I think the whole thing is nonsense. – they do. – So you do consider this article to be serious and not frippery?
You’re the one who can’t seem to make up his mind. – that’s patently false. – So is it frippery or serious???
But not all the time apparently. – says someone who doesn’t always know what the source they provide actually says. Cute.
Come one Reality, is it frippery or serious?…….So you do consider this article to be serious and not frippery? – the article is serious. Your attempts to present it as something else is what’s frippery. So much for your claims of ‘extensive’ study.
So you have nothing which demonstrates that you have undertaken ‘extensive’ study.
I asked you for sources from your ‘extensive’ study which leads you to deny global warning.
All you have provided is two sources which you find amusing whilst they actually support claims of global warming.
Your meaning of ‘extensive’ appears to really mean frippery.
Reality,
Come on, you know I presented it as something funny, I even said so. The “seriousness” of the articles is what makes them so hilarious…. that cow with the back pack was a hoot. Just when you think it can’t get anymore ridiculous….poor Flossie gets picked on. Ever wonder how the planet survived the dinosaurs??
I’ve done what even you can do Reality. Look at all sides of this supposedly “man made” climate change argument. Its on the internet, all you have to do is a little googling. I assume I don’t have to tell you how.
Let me help you Reality,
Google: climate change is not man made- About 76 million results.
Google: global warming is a hoax- 927.000 results
Take your pick.
Plenty of research material out there on both sides of the argument.
Mary, you can see in the back of a book called, Look What Happened While You Were Sleeping. There are 5,000 signatures from world renown scientists who have signed a petition regarding climate change.
Don’t bother too much with Fantasy. She’s not too serious, unless of course you want to see what the Fantasy version of reality is, then she can certainly make sense.
Thank you COA,
I have spent so much of my life listening to prophecies of impending doom that I’ve learned just to look for the nonsense and enjoy, i.e. the cows.
First we were entering another Ice Age. Then we were going to roast. Now they are playing it safe with “climate change”. Which is like arguing that human activities will cause sunrises. The climate has been changing since the dawn of creation.
Ed H: from what I’ve read, methane is a much larger contributor to global warming than CO2, by a factor of 15
Ed, I don’t think that’s correct, as stated. Equal amounts of carbon dioxide and methane do differ widely as far as preventing the radiation of heat – methane is roughly 25 times better at it.
Yet we produce a lot more carbon dixoide than methane, some 8+ times as much, and methane “goes away” in the atmosphere over a period of years, while CO2 really doesn’t – it’s always being produced and consumed in the world’s land, ocean, and atmospheric systems, a process that’s quite in balance until we add in the CO2 from human activities, largely from the Industrial Revolution to the present time.
Not to say that methane isn’t a big deal – it certainly is.
Mary: “Global warming” is far from indisputable.
No, Mary, it’s not. We don’t know all of what the end-results will be and there is some debate about exactly how much is due to human activity, but that the world has been warming is not in doubt, and that we have an effect on it isn’t, either.
Why do you think its now called “climate change”?
Doesn’t matter – same thing.
Since the climate will change, as it has done for eons
It’s not been like it’s been “for eons,” it’s cranked up really fast. The earth’s production and absorption of greenhouse gases are quite in balance, until we humans add all of our production.
It’s like a person who burns 2000 calories a day. If they eat 2000 calories, their weight will stay the same. If they eat 2500 calories a day, they will gain roughly a pound a week.
CityOfAngels: a book called, Look What Happened While You Were Sleeping.
Heh – you talk about “fantasy” and “not too serious” – well there you go. Terry Colafrancesco is the author. Total fruitcake alert. And a money-grubbing, wanna-be-cult-leader, at that.
Come on, you know I presented it as something funny, I even said so. – indeed. And still nothing which denotes any ‘extensive’ study on your behalf.
Ever wonder how the planet survived the dinosaurs?? – what was their total body mass compared to cattle? How much methane did the grass-eaters amongst them produce? What about the meat-eaters?
I’ve done what even you can do Reality. Look at all sides of this supposedly “man made” climate change argument. Its on the internet, all you have to do is a little googling. I assume I don’t have to tell you how. – no, you don’t need to tell me how. But perhaps you could do a bit better at it.
Climate change is man-made – about 78 million results.
Global warming is real – about 56 million results.
I have spent so much of my life listening to prophecies of impending doom that I’ve learned just to look for the nonsense and enjoy then you’d just love reading some of the stuff COA comes out with.
First we were entering another Ice Age. Then we were going to roast. Now they are playing it safe with “climate change”. – yep, you really haven’t undertaken much ‘extensive’ study.
Doug,
Its called “climate change” because the great thinkers have no clue what’s going on. Over 30 years ago we were entering an ice age, now we’re going to roast.
Its been speculated that a major climatic catastrophe is what sent our ancestors out of Africa.
In the mid 12th century I believe it was, the planet went through a warming trend, one that was very beneficial, followed by a mini ice age. Now how did that happen? All those humans in the SUVs I bet.
Doug how long have weather patterns and climatic activity actually been recorded? Check it out.
Reality,
You really need to lighten up.
Well Reality, by all means do some very serious analysis of dinosaur um…gases. LOLLL. This only gets funnier.
I think I’ve done quite well. I don’t take analysis of cow expulsions too seriously, unlike some people, so that’s a good sign.
You got all those results! See, I told you this isn’t settled science. Lots of opinions, research, and articles out there. Millions in fact. Pro and con.
No, actually I was reading the nonsense the great thinkers and geniuses were coming up with. You know, like gas packs on cows.
I’ve just lived a long time. The “climate crisis” has been ongoing and the great thinkers don’t know any more now than they did then. So “climate change” is the way to play it safe.
Mary: Its called “climate change” because the great thinkers have no clue what’s going on. Over 30 years ago we were entering an ice age, now we’re going to roast.
Mary, past talk of a cooling world was more isolated media articles, rather than any meaningful data trends or predictions from peer-reviewed scientists.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
There is always somebody who says the world is coming to an end, because they’ve figured it out from the Bible, Numerology, etc. Likewise, what does it really matter if “somebody” says the world is entering a cooling phase now? Or if they said it 10 years ago? Or 20 years, or 30, or 40?
40 years ago, the scientific consensus was that we didn’t really know enough to predict. That’s not the way it is now.
For whatever talk of cooling there was in the 1970s, there was no leading body of science that said it was a concern. That’s not at all the way it is now with global warming.
Its been speculated that a major climatic catastrophe is what sent our ancestors out of Africa.
This is another “so what?” thing. Sure – there have been changes in the past. Nobody is claiming they were caused by human activity, though, and it really has nothing to do with the greenhouse gas effect.
In the mid 12th century I believe it was, the planet went through a warming trend, one that was very beneficial, followed by a mini ice age. Now how did that happen? All those humans in the SUVs I bet.
How it happened was very slowly, and in lesser degree than what we have now. Yes – there is a decent argument to be made that in the couple thousand years preceding 40 or 50 years ago, the warmest period was somewhere in there – in the 12th century as you say, or from 950 to 1250 A.D. overall. And that from there we went down in temperature to a low in the 1600s. Even at the extremes of all those times, we are talking about a shift in global temperature that is a fraction of one degree Celsius above or below the temperature average for the period – barely above a half a degree to the peak in that “warm period” and roughly 0.6 degrees below average at the bottom of the “little ice age.”
For the warm period, there, temperatures averaged below what we recorded from 1960 to 1990, and significantly below what we’ve found since 1980 – when worldwide instrumentation has been much improved.
The earth has warmed before, but it is the rate of change that is most anomalous, thus far, since 1960. I have seen it described as a thousand times faster than what has occurred in the past, and ten thousand times faster than what would occur naturally. This is not to say the ‘sky is falling,’ and I’ll make another post about that – since I’ve got another link, in this case to a picture.
Doug how long have weather patterns and climatic activity actually been recorded? Check it out.
For just the last blink of an eye, so to speak, during our tenure on this planet, Mary. : )
For one given place, in England there have been records kept on temperature since the mid 1600s, for a global basis it would be since the mid 1800s, and for ocean temperatures, only since 1980 or so as a comprehensive view of what’s going on globally.
However, we are able to see what past temperatures and gas concentrations have been from sediments, ice cores, etc. It’s not voodoo – we can directly analyze gas trapped in ice from past times, for example, and we can calculate what the temperature was from the ratio of oxygen and hydrogen isotopes present.
Mary: The “climate crisis” has been ongoing and the great thinkers don’t know any more now than they did then. So “climate change” is the way to play it safe.
We definitely know more now than we did then, whether the “then” was 1970 or 1900 or 1700. We know enough to say what is happening and what is likely to happen.
http://i1377.photobucket.com/albums/ah56/porkloin1/Temperature_zpszxuogpz0.png
Average temperature, last couple thousand years. We can go back roughly 750,000 years, using ice cores, to get a good idea of what global temperatures have been.
It’s not like the “climate crisis” has been ongoing for a long time. What has happened in the last 50 years is clearly anomalous – and this is confirmed not just by the last 2000 years, but by the last three-quarters of a million.
Now, thus far, I don’t think it’s such a bad deal, overall. Plants, which use carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, are growing better than they did before.
I don’t like hot weather – uncomfortably hot – but during my lifetime the temperature increase isn’t enough for me to notice – it’s totally overwhelmed by local variation.
It sucks to be on a really low-lying island in the ocean, or in a coastal area that’s prone to flooding, but for me global warming isn’t a big deal, to this point, anyway.
I can see some pretty bad things happening, due to a warming world – droughts and water shortages, increased disease (changing conditions in some areas – less winter times with below-freezing or below-zero weather to kill off harmful organisms), rising water levels and storm damage, acidification of the oceans – and, admittedly very speculative on my part – other changes in ocean water, making for changing plankton and/or algae growth, potentially altering the oxygen production, there.
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-06-01-1433186271-3495921-danzcolorplus6373-thumb.jpg
Hi Doug,
So you acknowledge then that past climatic changes and catastrophes were…gasp…acts of Mother Nature?? I understand major volcanic eruptions have led to disruption of the climate and weather patterns. But how can that be?? You acknowledge that our measurement of the climate and weather has been just the “last blink of the eye” of the planet’s history, a planet billions of years old?? Doug you are making my argument!
Yes the impending ice age was a crock, but people believed it. The media ran with it. Scientists continue to disagree concerning the climate, despite what they supposedly “know”. Global warming has suddenly become “climate change”. Why do you suppose that is? Can’t the great thinkers be very specific? Or do they have to play it safe? Keep in mind these are the same clowns that can’t give you an accurate weekend weather report, but they can predict what will happen in 50 years.
Actually the global warming that occurred in the 1200s was a welcome relief. After all people didn’t have central heating so cold weather was pretty miserable. The mini ice age that followed, I understand it was after a volcanic eruption, was catastrophic. People froze and starved. Too bad they didn’t use fossil fuels, they may have had a better chance at surviving.
Doug the supposed great minds can’t even agree on what is happening or if it is. Can anyone define what the climate is supposed to be? What is the “normal” climate? Temperatures, seasons, weather patterns. Has the climate we’ve long considered normal just an aberration? A “blink in the eye” of the planet’s history? What about the forces of nature, the sun, the axis of the earth? All are factors. Always have been, always will be.
I remember reading how our primitive ancestors would throw sticks and rocks and shout at the moon during an eclipse hoping to “save” the sun and presto, they succeeded! Or so they thought. Our modern day great thinkers shove a hose up a cow’s rear and put a balloon on its back and presto, they will stop “climate change”. Or so they think. Some things never change.
Doug for billions of years this planet has survived far worse than anything humans can dish out. Asteroids, ice age, droughts, perpetual volcanic eruptions, earthquakes. When the human race finally disappears, earth will still be here, giving us the middle finger.
The “climate change” defenders – funnier than the “Sunday Funnies”!
Predictions and models are not facts. Impossible to make a prediction guaranteeing what the weather/climate related conditions will be 100 years from now. NOT SCIENTIFIC. Especially NOT scientific to ever say “The science is settled”.
For someone who claims to have done ‘extensive’ study on this, who claims that climate change is bunkum, you’ve not provided one source which demonstrates what you claim Mary. Just mildly amusing articles which actually support the concept of climate change. And you even missed the point of what they were doing! So funny.
Reality,
I have posted where you can find all kinds of sources, up to several million. Why would you settle for one source from me? You can research as easily as I can and have. I don’t rely on just one source Reality, I read many of them.
I’m glad you agree the article was amusing. I thought it was a hoot. These are the great thinkers of climate change. What better way to support my argument. In the meantime Reality, just hope those cows don’t take flight. Heck with all the methane they supposedly produce….
Yet you can’t produce even one which supports your position.
The articles do not support your argument, that’s the point.
Mary
As long as you are consistent – there is WAY more evidence of climate change than there is of birth control causing abortions, or of a 21 week old preborn baby feeling pain – so as long as you are skeptical/against all three, then you are consistent and not political.
Reality,
What’s the relevance of my picking just one when there are millions? Go to google and take your pick. Review many of them.
The articles do a great job of pointing out just how absurd and laughable these climate change “scientists” have become. That was my point. Even you agree they were amusing.
EGV,
I have no doubt there is climate change. When hasn’t there been? I’m saying I don’t believe for a minute it is “man-made”. The climate is controlled as it has been for eons, by the forces of nature.
So, no sources.
Amusing yes. But if you thought they rendered anything absurd or laughable then it seems you must not have understood them.
Yes Mary – and there is much higher scientific consensus that man has something to do with it – so as long as you are skeptical of all three – all is good.
Reality,
No, millions of them.
Well if you can’t see anything absurd and laughable about a hose up a cow’s hinder and a gas pack on its back….
Google: climate change is not man made- About 76 million results. – I went through them all. It turned out that about 77% of what appeared actually stated that it is man-made.
Google: global warming is a hoax- 927.000 results. – of which approximately 76% stated that the claims of it being a hoax are a hoax.
So you didn’t understand why it was done?
EGV,
Where is it carved in cement that I have to be skeptical of all three? Scientific “consensus” has a long history of being so much hooey.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/
Reality,
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural
Goodness, I should have said google “climate change is natural and not manmade”. Hopefully these 100 reasons will make it easier for you.
The European Foundation? Seriously? LOL! 100 reasons to laugh.
Come on Reality,
Don’t be such a poor sport.
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-06-01-1433186271-3495921-danzcolorplus6373-thumb.jpg#sthash.Auelc8oa.dpuf
Ha! Good one, Joshua. ?(????)
Mary: So you acknowledge then that past climatic changes and catastrophes were…gasp…acts of Mother Nature?? I understand major volcanic eruptions have led to disruption of the climate and weather patterns. But how can that be?? You acknowledge that our measurement of the climate and weather has been just the “last blink of the eye” of the planet’s history, a planet billions of years old?? Doug you are making my argument!
No, Mary – not making your argument. Of course there were past climate changes, and there’s no good argument to be made that it was human activity that caused them. It does not change the fact that we have temperature records for about 750,000 years, and that we know that since the Industrial Revolution, we have increased the earth’s greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in very real meaningful measure, and that – all other things being equal, which at the current time they are – this makes for a warming world.
Yes the impending ice age was a crock, but people believed it. The media ran with it. Scientists continue to disagree concerning the climate, despite what they supposedly “know”. Global warming has suddenly become “climate change”. Why do you suppose that is? Can’t the great thinkers be very specific? Or do they have to play it safe? Keep in mind these are the same clowns that can’t give you an accurate weekend weather report, but they can predict what will happen in 50 years.
There was no “great thinker” in the 1970s saying an ice age was coming. The fact is that we didn’t know enough to say, one way or another, at that time – and that is what the position of major scientific organizations was. Heck, we can find people, right now, who pretend the world has not warmed up, comparatively very, very fast, in the past 100+ years, and especially since the 1960s. So what? It doesn’t matter. There have been people making predictions for thousands of years – the returns of messiahs, etc. Doesn’t matter – saying that “somebody was wrong before,” has no bearing on current events.
While there may be some scientific disagreement on the amount of the warming that is due to human activity, there is no sensible disagreement that human activity is having some effect.
Actually the global warming that occurred in the 1200s was a welcome relief. After all people didn’t have central heating so cold weather was pretty miserable. The mini ice age that followed, I understand it was after a volcanic eruption, was catastrophic. People froze and starved. Too bad they didn’t use fossil fuels, they may have had a better chance at surviving.
A “welcome relief”? Heh – at the very top of that warming, the average global temperature was only up about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the average of the previous hundreds of years – would not have been perceptible.
After that volcanic eruption you mention – Mount Tambora has a huge eruption in 1815, and puts a crapload of gases and particulates in the atmosphere – the following year, 1816, becomes known as “The Year Without a Summer,” though this was in localized areas of the world – primarily western Europe, New England and what we now call Atlantic Canada. Globally, the temp. only went down about 1 degree Fahrenheit, but in those localized areas there were frosts through the summer and bad crop failures.
Such could happen again, and (of course) it would be independent of human activity, unless we somehow caused the eruption.
Doug the supposed great minds can’t even agree on what is happening or if it is.
With due respect, that’s just plain silly. The warming is not in doubt, not at all.
Can anyone define what the climate is supposed to be? What is the “normal” climate?
Everything is relative to the past (of course). The climate is the sum total of many influences (again, of course). What is different this time around is the extreme rapidity of the temperature rise, and the extreme rapidity of the increase in concentration of certain gases in the atmosphere, due to human activity.
Temperatures, seasons, weather patterns. Has the climate we’ve long considered normal just an aberration? A “blink in the eye” of the planet’s history? What about the forces of nature, the sun, the axis of the earth? All are factors. Always have been, always will be.
None of that speaks to what we are observing – the fast temp. and gas gain.
I remember reading how our primitive ancestors would throw sticks and rocks and shout at the moon during an eclipse hoping to “save” the sun and presto, they succeeded! Or so they thought. Our modern day great thinkers shove a hose up a cow’s rear and put a balloon on its back and presto, they will stop “climate change”. Or so they think. Some things never change.
No, they really don’t think that, now.
Doug for billions of years this planet has survived far worse than anything humans can dish out. Asteroids, ice age, droughts, perpetual volcanic eruptions, earthquakes. When the human race finally disappears, earth will still be here, giving us the middle finger.
That certainly doesn’t refute anything I’ve said.
j sable: The “climate change” defenders – funnier than the “Sunday Funnies”!
Heh – then you are either willfully bent on ignoring the facts that we do know and/or incapable of understanding those facts.
Predictions and models are not facts.
Sure, but in no way does that mean that there has not been an anomalous, exceedingly rapid, rise in temperature in very recent history, nor does it mean that human activity has not significantly altered atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse gases” in the past 130 years or so.
Impossible to make a prediction guaranteeing what the weather/climate related conditions will be 100 years from now.
So what? Who do you see saying that they guarantee what global temperatures will be 100 years from now? There are many models – and granted that they deal in probabilities, not certainties – said models covering a range of temperatures, and in the end only one temperature will be exactly right.
However, we do have some certainties – that human activity has increased the “greenhouse gases” in the air, and that we have a world with an “infrared absorbing atmosphere,” i.e. it can absorb heat, and that it absorbs more heat as the concentration of the greenhouse gases increase.
NOT SCIENTIFIC. Especially NOT scientific to ever say “The science is settled”.
So what? In no way does it have to be entirely “settled” to note what has happened in the past, what is happening in the present, and to make logical predictions for the future.
Doug,
An interesting article in Huffington Post. Hardly a bastion of right wing thought.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html
I found these other articles that also address the points you raise.
http://www.napsnet.com/pdf_archive/34/50144.pdf
http://www.climatechangechallenge.org/News/Featured-Articles/bellamy_climate_change_not_man_made.htm
By the great thinkers I am not referring to the ice age chicken littles, I am referring to the global warming ones. You know, the ones who put gas bags on cows.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural#sthash.5lMKthpb.dpuf
Mary, that’s a political campaign organization, and among those “100” it’s easy to see outright lies, obfuscations, things that are inapplicable, etc. The blind stupidity of whoever put that fakery together is astounding.
Best example of that last bit, IMO, is #88: Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
Heh – proving the point about human activity.
Doug,
Then I will assume your have sources to dispute everything that is said. Please post them.
Not quite so fast Doug. CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise. Oh?? How much have they changed and why? Is this a suggestion that there are natural causes other than man? It increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution…according to one source I have seen that period began from the late 1700s to the early 1820s, so we can say close to 200 hundred years give or take, but the CO2 growth rate has only been constant for the past 25 years!?
Heh- Proving what Doug?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/global-cooling_b_4413833.html#sthash.cbN0pyBJ.dpuf
Mary, there are outright lies and obfuscations in that one.
temperatures peaked in the late 1990s and have since plateaued at those levels.
False. Even though they “cherry-picked” 1998 since it was a very short-term peak in temps, 2005 was hotter, and the hottest period over 12 months was June 2009 to May 2010.
Moreover – and here is where we see frequent obfuscation among those who pretend that things aren’t warming up – to focus on air temperature is missing almost all of the real deal. The little bit of air close to the earth’s surface is not a huge deal when we look at overall global temperatures. The ocean is the Big Kahuna, the 800 *ton* gorilla in the room, here. I haven’t checked on this since the last time we were talking about global warming, but as I recall, the oceans have about 4000 times the thermal mass of the entire atmosphere.
There have been year-to-year pauses in the rise of global air temperatures, but the oceans have continued to warm, and that’s the real deal.
Doug,
Just because temperatures plateau doesn’t mean you won’t have fluctuations. Some years are hotter, or colder than others. I’ve noticed that my entire life. I remember some very brutal winters, and very mild ones, same with summers. I’m sure you do as well. This proves what?? I’ve never known a time when weather was consistent, even before we had this ‘man made” nonsense.
Doug there are other factors. The sun for one. The axis of the earth for another. Cloud cover, ocean currents. One of my sources pointed out that the climate is just too complex to be controlled by one factor.
Then I will assume your have sources to dispute everything that is said. Please post them.
Mary, anybody with a modicum of logic and understanding will see that list is a bunch of baloney.
For example:
#1 – False. First of all, for human activity to be warming up the world, it is not necessary that 100% of the current warming to be caused by humans. That is falsely misstating the argument.
Second, it is physical fact that our world has an ‘infrared absorbing atmosphere’ (this can be proven mathematically, i.e. were that not the case, the world would be a good bit cooler ~ 59 or 60 degrees Fahrenheit as I recall) – that there are “greenhouse gases” that absorb heat and slow the radiation of heat is not at issue, nor is there any doubt that we have increased the atmospheric concentration of those gases.
#2 – Meaningless. Does not matter. So what?
#3 -Outright lie. The “Medieval Warm Period” was cooler than the past few decades.
Doug,
Sources?? Also, that’s 3 out of 100.
Just because temperatures plateau doesn’t mean you won’t have fluctuations. Some years are hotter, or colder than others. I’ve noticed that my entire life. I remember some very brutal winters, and very mild ones, same with summers. I’m sure you do as well. This proves what??
It doesn’t prove anything germane to our discussion. Short-term air temps. are not the real deal, here.
I’ve never known a time when weather was consistent, even before we had this ‘man made” nonsense.
The “nonsense” is not understanding what is happening, and how fast it’s happening.
Doug there are other factors. The sun for one. The axis of the earth for another. Cloud cover, ocean currents. One of my sources pointed out that the climate is just too complex to be controlled by one factor.
Nobody is saying only one thing has input – that too would be falsely misstating the argument. Yet nothing you mention there has been changing even remotely enough to account for the recent warm-up.
The change in solar radiation – the “approaching Maunder Minimum,” etc. – this has come up before, and the change is really very small.
Ocean currents (and temps) are a huge factor, HUGE. But as yet the currents have not really deviated from we have observed in the past few centuries. Not to say they can’t change – and this is one of the more-scary possible aspects of a changing climate. The “ocean conveyor belt” or thermohaline circulation – if it were to stop or slow down markedly, could markedly change some local areas. Parts of eastern Canada and Ireland, for example, are the same latitude, but Ireland is like 36 degrees Fahrenheit warmer in winter. Amazing difference. Shut off the Gulf Stream, which brings warm water up into the North Atlantic, and what happens?
The full title should be “100 Unsupported Reasons Why Our Little Climate Change Denial Organisation Thinks That The Only Climate Change Happening Is Naturally Caused.”
Doug,
What about the sun?? What about the earth axis? What do we do about those?
http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-phase/EARTHCLIMATE.htm
As I said the climate is considerably complex.
Reality,
I will assume you have a source to back up what you say.
Sources?? Also, that’s 3 out of 100.
Mary, it’s the first 3. Do you seriously maintain that it’s necessary to go through all 100? When a political campaign organization is behind it, and it’s printed in a tabloid magazine (would you accept a list of 100 if the ‘Weekly World News’ printed it, following issues with the ‘Batboy’ or “Missing Baby Found Inside Watermelon” or “Dick Cheney is a Robot”?) and the first ones (even, really, any single one) are demonstrably false, what point is there to pretending that the whole thing isn’t a bunch of BS?
“Sources?” Good grief, the logic is self-evident:
“#1 – False. First of all, for human activity to be warming up the world, it is not necessary that 100% of the current warming to be caused by humans. That is falsely misstating the argument.”
I cannot believe you are actually disputing that.
“#2 – Meaningless. Does not matter. So what?”
Same deal. There is nothing germane to the discussion there.
“#3 -Outright lie. The “Medieval Warm Period” was cooler than the past few decades.”
You can google “Medieval Warm Period” for one thing.
Doug,
Certainly. And sources would help.
Doug you have to understand that it isn’t adequate to simply say that you don’t like a source. That doesn’t prove it wrong. If you dispute what it says, you need to present a counter source.
Mary: What about the sun?? What about the earth axis? What do we do about those?
What about them? There’s nothing there that explains the recent rapid rise in temperatures.
I will assume you have a source to back up what you say. – sure, here you go – http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural#sthash.Mkh7qvGa.dpuf
Doug,
It explains that the climate is considerably complex. Clouds, the sun, the earth axis, ocean currents. Any notion that we influence the climate is absurd.
CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise. Oh??
Mary, yes, of course. You cannot tell me that anybody even remotely interested in this discussion does not know that historically, there have been changes in the CO2 levels from natural causes, and more recently, from human activity.
How much have they changed and why? Is this a suggestion that there are natural causes other than man?
There isn’t any natural change to speak of, in the time period we are talking about, i.e. since the Industrial Revolution.
Burning fossil fuels is almost all of it, for us. 93% or 94% with around 6% from burning non-fossil fuels.
Historically, for the CO2 levels to change a given amount, it took 100 to 400 years (actually, a tad longer). We are changing it that much every year.
It increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution…according to one source I have seen that period began from the late 1700s to the early 1820s, so we can say close to 200 hundred years give or take, but the CO2 growth rate has only been constant for the past 25 years!?
First, 10:55 p.m. I lost a whole century – said “130 years” when it should have been 230. I threw out 100 years with the warming seawater.
Yes, the CO2 rate of change was increasing, and has leveled off in the past few decades, at around 2 ppm per year. It’s actually not been constant, i.e. from 1995-2004 it averaged 1.9 ppm per year, and then from 2005-2014 it averaged 2.1 ppm per year.
– – – –
Best example of that last bit, IMO, is #88: “Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.”
“Heh – proving the point about human activity.”
Heh- Proving what Doug?
Proving that it’s human activity and not “natural causes.”
Mary: Doug you have to understand that it isn’t adequate to simply say that you don’t like a source. That doesn’t prove it wrong. If you dispute what it says, you need to present a counter source.
Mary, for #1 and #2 that is not true. For #3, the “Medieval Warm Period” was cooler than our recent past years, and googling will confirm that.
#1 and #2 are just a matter of logic.
Mary: It explains that the climate is considerably complex. Clouds, the sun, the earth axis, ocean currents.
So what? Not the issue. Nothing there that would even cause a small fraction of the observed temperature increase.
Any notion that we influence the climate is absurd.
That’s just plain silly. We are what is left, and the greenhouse gases have been going up demonstrably.
Doug,
So we agree there are natural fluctuations in CO2 levels and have always been. How do we know for certain what is natural and what is human? Also, is there a bigger polluter than old Mom Nature who for eons has spewed volcanic toxins into the stratosphere, caused “natural” forest fires that release tons of CO2, and pollutes the oceans with oil(gasp!! fossil fuel!) seeping from beneath the ocean floors? Mom Nature always has and continues to make us look like rank amateurs when it comes to pollution and spewing toxins into the atmosphere, yet our piddling two centuries of industrialization is going to influence the forces of nature? Oh and let’s not forget an asteroid strike or two, though Mom Nature can’t be blamed for that. Give her credit though, the planet survived and continued to flourish.
Billions of humans have spewed CO2 into the atmosphere since the dawn of creation, as well as animals and plants… and they continue to and will continue to for centuries to come.
Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels- Earth did experience a warming trend at this time, one that was a welcome relief. I saw on a TV special they were even growing grapes in England. The point is it did so on its own with no help from humans. Cyclic perhaps? Or maybe it was the result of human exhaling! Which do you think it was Doug?
Proving that it’s human activity and not “natural causes.” – No, it doesn’t prove natural causes weren’t also involved. Or that humans were exclusively the cause.
Still can’t give me any sources I see.
Doug, the complexity of our planet and the forces that shape our climate ARE the issue. Even scientists cannot agree among themselves. Forces of nature that we can’t even comprehend, much less control, are what rule. We are at their mercy, they are not at ours.
Mary: So we agree there are natural fluctuations in CO2 levels and have always been.
Yes, but again – we are changing the concentration, in one year, as much as nature does in 105 to 420 years, and we are doing it year-after-year.
How do we know for certain what is natural and what is human?
There are no other factors that explain the rise in CO2 concentration in the last 230 years or so, other than our burning of fossil fuels.
Also, is there a bigger polluter than old Mom Nature who for eons has spewed volcanic toxins into the stratosphere, caused “natural” forest fires that release tons of CO2, and pollutes the oceans with oil(gasp!! fossil fuel!) seeping from beneath the ocean floors? Mom Nature always has and continues to make us look like rank amateurs when it comes to pollution and spewing toxins into the atmosphere, yet our piddling two centuries of industrialization is going to influence the forces of nature? Oh and let’s not forget an asteroid strike or two, though Mom Nature can’t be blamed for that. Give her credit though, the planet survived and continued to flourish.
None of that changes the fact that the earth’s production and consumption of greenhouse gases are in balance. It is our addition that is building up in the atmosphere.
Billions of humans have spewed CO2 into the atmosphere since the dawn of creation, as well as animals and plants… and they continue to and will continue to for centuries to come.
Well, no, not since the “dawn of creation,” i.e. we weren’t around when the world was made. And it’s only when we started burning fossil fuels in earnest that we really started making a difference.
Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels- Earth did experience a warming trend at this time, one that was a welcome relief. I saw on a TV special they were even growing grapes in England. The point is it did so on its own with no help from humans. Cyclic perhaps? Or maybe it was the result of human exhaling! Which do you think it was Doug?
It was a cyclic thing, but once again – very gentle and gradual, and entirely consistent with what we see going back 750,000 years. Most unlike the anomalous, unnaturally fast rise in temperatures of late.
“Proving that it’s human activity and not “natural causes.”
No, it doesn’t prove natural causes weren’t also involved. Or that humans were exclusively the cause.
Here it is, in its entirety: 88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.
Again, this is a baloney list, appearing in a tabloid, and this particular one is very poorly-written (as anybody can tell). Due to that “Whilst” the sentence ends up not really making sense.
It is true that both humans and nature can cause changes in carbon dioxide concentration in the air. As far as “throughout history,” prior to the Industrial Revolution, it is nature, not humans that was doing it, and very, very slowly compared to the effect of humans after the Industrial Revolution.
To say that the CO2 content has risen since the Industrial Revolution does not bolster the claims of the article. It is just a given, and everybody knows it. Nothing is presented that would explain a non-human or “natural” cause for it.
To say that the growth rate has now been constant (if it were strictly true, which it’s not quite) also doesn’t support the claims of the article – it would just be an observation of the rate of change, once again not presenting any ‘natural’ explanation for it.
What we are left with is our burning of fossil fuels as the cause, and a rate of change that’s decidedly ‘unnatural.’
http://i1377.photobucket.com/albums/ah56/porkloin1/CO2%20levels_zpsbkcbqamq.png
The current level is over 400 ppm.
Mary: Still can’t give me any sources I see.
Well of course I can, but most of what I’ve been saying is common sense. That certain gases absorb heat in our atmosphere is a known thing – nobody with any sense would argue against that.
That we’ve burned fossil fuels and put a meaningful amount of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” into the air is the same way – it’s really not at issue.
Doug,
We are just not going to agree. As far as I’m concerned you give the human race too much credit.
Also, while you claim the statements listed are false, you fail to provide any sources to back up your claim, though you certainly have had ample opportunity.
Also, you fail to “explain away” points I have raised. The eons of pollution and destruction courtesy of Mother Nature. Pollution and destruction that continues to this day and will continue until the end of time. You don’t address the natural forces that influence the climate over which we have no control, i.e. the sun, ocean currents, and earth axis. The “greenhouse” gas CO2 is a natural gas essential to life on this planet.
You continue to argue that compared to what the earth has survived, even flourished in spite of for billions of years, a few centuries of industrialization by humans, less than a blink in the eye of earth history, is bringing the great forces of nature to their knees and forcing a change of climate. Please Doug that’s laughable.
Can you even tell me what a “normal” climate is?? What are temperatures supposed to be? How long should each season be? What’s too much snow or not enough rain? Have we been living in climate aberration for centuries? One that we mistook for “normal”?
Sure I can believe “climate change” is going on. Why not? It has for eons. A catastrophic climate change is believed to have triggered the migration of our ancestors out of Africa. I bet it forced them to give up their SUVs as well.
As far as I’m concerned you give the human race too much credit.
Mary, there is no other reasonable explanation for the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, other than human activity. There is nothing else even remotely close to being believable.
Also, while you claim the statements listed are false, you fail to provide any sources to back up your claim, though you certainly have had ample opportunity.
You can easily verify that the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than today, globally. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=31
I quote: “The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, ….globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.”
With the others that I mentioned, they are either outright false statements or they present no logical proof at all that the current warming is natural.
When something is immediately observable to be logically faulty, why in the world would you think that “a source” would be needed to dismiss it?
An example: Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
This is a “so what?” deal, here – a meaningless statement in view of what we are considering. It does not matter what happened before the Industrial Revolution. It can be seen – as in that picture I linked to – that the earth’s production and consumption of carbon dioxide were in balance beforehand, that only very slight and gradual changes in the concentration in air – for thousands of years – occurred, there being due to ‘nature,’ a greatly different thing compared to human activity after the Industrial Revolution.
The statement is logically faulty, and it amazes me that people don’t see through such, instantly. The statement takes 4.5 billion years of history, and lamely attempts to downplay what has happened in the last 230 years. The latter time is 5 millionths of one percent as long.
It’s like noting that Big Louie has gained about a hundred ponds in the past couple years, as he’s been eating 500 more calories per day than what he’s burned. To this, Louie replies, “But I’ve been eating for 66 years, overall.”
Any sane person will instantly see that Big Louie has no meaningful logical point to make there, and the same for that tabloid list.
Here is another one: In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
Now how in the world would that prove that “climate change is natural”? In this case the statement is true – almost surely we’re not going to have enough windfarms to make much of a dent in CO2 emissions. Yet that does not at all address the known facts about how our atmosphere works, nor the known fact that we’ve increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Mary: Also, you fail to “explain away” points I have raised.
You have not raised any points that matter, here.
The eons of pollution and destruction courtesy of Mother Nature. Pollution and destruction that continues to this day and will continue until the end of time.
The answer is that it does not matter what happened through all the eons. In the here and now, we have an anomalous temperature gain, and there is nothing even close to a reasonable explanation for it other than human activity.
You don’t address the natural forces that influence the climate over which we have no control, i.e. the sun, ocean currents, and earth axis. The “greenhouse” gas CO2 is a natural gas essential to life on this planet.
Of course I’ve addressed them – they have been in balance, and it is human activity that accounts for the rapid change we’ve seen lately. You seem to be pretending that just because there could be other climactic influences, that it necessarily means we are not affecting things. That is demonstrably false, and it’s also immediately logically fallacious.
Once again – Louie eats 2500 calories a day, and burns 2000. He’s gaining roughly one pound a week. Your argument is saying, “He’s been eating 2000 calories or more a day since he was a teenager,” as if it’s a meaningful statement with regards to the change we observe. It’s not.
You continue to argue that compared to what the earth has survived, even flourished in spite of for billions of years, a few centuries of industrialization by humans, less than a blink in the eye of earth history, is bringing the great forces of nature to their knees and forcing a change of climate. Please Doug that’s laughable.
What’s laughable is your mischaracterization of things. Nobody is saying that Nature is being brought to its knees. We are having a significant effect on the earth, that is all.
Can you even tell me what a “normal” climate is?? What are temperatures supposed to be? How long should each season be? What’s too much snow or not enough rain? Have we been living in climate aberration for centuries? One that we mistook for “normal”?
A “normal” climate is what we had prior to the Industrial Revolution. Very slow temperature changes and very slow changes in CO2, et al, in the atmosphere. Now we have a very fast temperature change and a very fast change in levels of those gases in the air.
Sure I can believe “climate change” is going on. Why not? It has for eons.
Not like what’s going on now, it hasn’t.
A catastrophic climate change is believed to have triggered the migration of our ancestors out of Africa.
Has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Yes, things have happened in the past.
Actually, I don’t think climate is now thought to have provoked our ancestors leaving Africa. There were some wicked droughts that would have killed off a bunch of people, resulting in smaller, more isolated groups within Africa. Later, when things got better as far as the supply of water, it was then that we find evidence of modern humans moving away from Africa – staying close to the sea and in warm weather for the most part.
Doug,
So it doesn’t matter what has happened and continues to happen. The havoc Mother Nature has wreaked and continues to is of no relevance. Natural forces are of no relevance. Climatic changes in the past are of no relevance. How very convenient.
As for the Industrial Revolution, the culprit may not have been fossil fuels, but rather the marked increase in human population!
http://classroom.synonym.com/did-industrial-revolution-affect-human-population-size-7995.html
On the eve of the industrial revolution the world population was 750 million. Just after 1800 it reached 1 billion.
It is now 7 billion.
Could this account for some of your numbers Doug?
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1998/7/98.07.06.x.html
And humans do what?? Bingo. Expel CO2 with every breath. Humans also strip the land to build houses and farm, cutting down the forests that absorb the CO2.
But there’s another factor you never knew Doug. Termites. Yep, you read that right.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/12/termites-produce-co2-year-living-combined/
Now termites have been on this planet for how many millions of years, likely longer than man, and those little buggers are the ultimate CO2 machine!
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/31/us/termite-gas-exceeds-smokestack-pollution.html
And we pick on the poor cows!!
So you see Doug it may well just be forces of nature. Termites, decaying plants, all of which have been around longer than humans, and certainly longer than the use of fossil fuels. Plus the fact there are now 7 billion exhaling people on the planet, not all of whom use fossil fuels. Oh, and about 4,000 species of termites!
Moderator,
Please take me out of moderation!!
These global warming loons are a hoot.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/blizzard-house-global-warming/2013/03/06/id/493466/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/global-warming-snow-hits-cairo-for-the-first-time-in-100-years/
Hi ts,
My one source points out that the widespread clearing of land is what is providing the termites with an abundance of food. Widespread clearing of land comes with increased human populations. Plant respiration and decay adds many more times the CO2 to the environment than do the termites. When has there never been decaying plants? Probably even more so with the widespread clearing for land.
The forces of nature at work. As they have been since the dawn of creation.
Hopefully poor Flossie and Buttercup will now be left in peace.
What? You still don’t understand what the articles that you cited about measuring the methane produced by cows were about?
So it doesn’t matter what has happened and continues to happen.
Mary, nobody said that. Mother Nature could throw us a curveball at any time, like another Mt. Tambora-sized volcanic eruption. It is reasonable to think that that would have an observable and substantial effect on the climate, and of course that would be a ‘natural’ thing, not due to human activity.
For now, though, it’s not happening. ‘Nature’ continues to be very steady-state as far as climactic stuff. It takes quite a lot to “move” things to an appreciable extent. There have been several moderate-sized volcanic eruptions since we’ve been able to very accurately monitor the gas concentrations in the atmosphere, for example, and while they’ve provided little blips – Mt. Pinatubo cooled things down, temporarily, due to lots of sulfur dioxide being emitted – there’s been no “havoc” from Nature.
The havoc Mother Nature has wreaked and continues to is of no relevance. Natural forces are of no relevance.
As long as the “steady-state” continues, then no, it’s not relevant because there’s no havoc being wreaked.
Climatic changes in the past are of no relevance. How very convenient.
It’s not “convenient,” it’s just physical fact, it’s the truth about how things are. It does not matter what happened before – since the Industrial Revolution, human burning of fossil fuels has had a large cumulative effect.
As for the Industrial Revolution, the culprit may not have been fossil fuels, but rather the marked increase in human population!
“Did the Industrial Revolution Affect Human Population Size?” Well of course it did. It’s still the burning of fossil fuels that is the lion’s share of the change in atmospheric concentration in the time period we’re talking about, not the raw number of people on earth.
On the eve of the industrial revolution the world population was 750 million. Just after 1800 it reached 1 billion.
It is now 7 billion.
Could this account for some of your numbers Doug?
Nobody is arguing what the world’s population is, Mary. Of course the number of people on earth affects things here – in general, the more people there are, the more fossil fuels get burned.
And humans do what?? Bingo. Expel CO2 with every breath. Humans also strip the land to build houses and farm, cutting down the forests that absorb the CO2.
Sounds like a general argument that we have too many people on earth. As far as us breathing, all the carbon in our bodies comes from plants, either directly or indirectly – it’s part of the natural carbon cycle. Like many other living organisms, we breathe CO2 into the air, and plants take it out of the air. Human production of CO2 from other sources than breathing is much, much higher than what we breathe out.
The initial stripping of trees from land does indeed constitute a net source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the US, it’s different – “since 1990 land use, land-use change, and forestry activities have resulted in more removal of CO2 from the atmosphere than emissions. Because of this, the Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) sector in the United States is considered a net sink, rather than a source, of CO2 over this period.”
That’s from this site: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/lulucf.html
Doug,
Maybe in the US it is different, but for much of the world, the more people there are the more land that gets cleared, as people, especially in poor countries, try to eke out a living or just need a place to live. They are also not likely to be using fossil fuels or driving SUVs. Their transportation is more likely to be a source of CO2 and methane though.
Also, there are the termites, 3 quarters of a ton for every human on earth, and they have a feast on the land that is cleared. The more they feast the more they produce methane and CO2.
Termites that just feast on the woodbeams of your house are also producing plenty of CO2 and methane. I hope you have a concrete house Doug. If not, you’re contributing to “climate change”.
We also have 7 billion CO2 and methane producing humans!
Also there will always be rotting vegetation, whether land is cleared or not, the CO2 expulsion of which surpasses the termites.
Sorry Doug but CO2 is just part of the cycle of life on this planet. Mother Nature produces it in abundance and has for billions of years. The planet is still here. The forces of nature still control the climate. We haven’t frozen or cooked yet. Well wait, we did have an Ice Age, a climatic disaster that is theorized to have driven our ancestors out of Africa, a warming trend, and a mini ice age. Must have been those blasted termites!
The climate will continue to do what its always done for reasons we will likely never understand or will always be debated by scientists.
In the meantime, I will be happy to just get an accurate weekend weather report.
Planned Parenthood can start a ‘green friendly’ environment campaign offering farmers free bovine BC and abortions
But there’s another factor you never knew Doug. Termites. Yep, you read that right.
Now termites have been on this planet for how many millions of years, likely longer than man, and those little buggers are the ultimate CO2 machine!
Mary, that iceagenow site you linked to is one of those “junk science” things. They make statements without any references or even scientists named. The other site you mentioned – the NY Times one – shows how false the iceagenow one is, i.e. Now researchers report that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world’s smokestacks.
Okay, for now we will go with that “twice as much figure.” That clearly shows that iceagenow is lying about Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.
I also think there are problems with some of the stuff said in the NY Times article – the math does not add up, i.e. if termites produce 2 times as much as the smokestacks, and then “plant respiration and decay added 10 to 15 times as much carbon dioxide to the air as termites,” then we’d already be up to a total of between 22 and 32 times as much as from fossil fuels. The true figure is about 26 times as much, so there would be no room left for all the rest of ‘natural’ sources.
However, not a huge deal, in my opinion.
And we pick on the poor cows!!
So you see Doug it may well just be forces of nature. Termites, decaying plants, all of which have been around longer than humans, and certainly longer than the use of fossil fuels. Plus the fact there are now 7 billion exhaling people on the planet, not all of whom use fossil fuels. Oh, and about 4,000 species of termites!
No, there’s no “it may well just be forces of nature.” We can tell where the carbon dioxide comes from. There are different isotopes of carbon and they appear in different amounts, depending on what the source is, i.e. heavier isotopes tend to come from the ocean and land, the atmosphere has isotopes more “in the middle” and then fossil fuel burning gives us the lighter isotopes.
Just as oxygen isotopes can show us what the temperatures were when ice cores were formed, so can carbon isotopes reveal the source of carbon dioxide.
Termites may well be a major source of CO2, but it’s still part of the natural carbon cycle, with termites eating plant material from plants that took CO2 out of the air. Atmospheric carbon, in carbon dioxide is becoming “lighter” over time in its isotopic signature, showing us that burning fossil fuels is the largest source of added CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.
Sorry Doug but CO2 is just part of the cycle of life on this planet.
Indeed, Mary, but that does not mean that we cannot have an impact on the climate via our own production of CO2, etc. From the evidence, it’s easy to see that we are.
Mother Nature produces it in abundance and has for billions of years. The planet is still here.
And Mother Nature consumes it in abundance, and that seems to frequently be what warming climate deniers forget. Mother Nature has been in balance, on that score, for a long time. It is the human burning of fossil fuels that has things out-of-balance, i.e. the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is rising fast.
The forces of nature still control the climate.
No they don’t, not to the exclusion of human activity. We can tell where most of the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from, and it’s from the burning of fossil fuels.
We haven’t frozen or cooked yet. Well wait, we did have an Ice Age, a climatic disaster that is theorized to have driven our ancestors out of Africa, a warming trend, and a mini ice age. Must have been those blasted termites!
And again – it’s now not really thought that it was climate that drove people out of Africa.
Doug,
You seriously think humans can control the temperature of the planet.
lol. And you call it ‘settled science’…
Gee whiz, this spring has been unusually cold when I get up in the morning…maybe I ask the farmer next door to add some beans to the cow feed.
Settled science…lol…Al Gore keeps coming to mind.
Doug said, “Mother Nature has been in balance”
“we have an anomalous temperature gain”
Doug, as Mary has said, what is balanced? What is anomalous? What defines the normal climate? Yes I have read your sources, but considered with all sources on climate, it is difficult to discount that any warming could be the result of normal glacial-interglacial periods.
There is no “normal”. Interglacial periods last 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the Holocene glaciation ended some 12,000 years ago. To what do we compare current temperatures and rates of temperature change? 100 years ago? 10,000 years ago? How about to the Little Ice Age 500 to 1000 years ago?
It appears that while the media focuses on climate “deniers” they fail to look at climate “ignorers” who ignore our climate has been fluctuating for the entire history of the earth.
Yes, that means many people with PhDs would be ignorers, conveniently ignoring facts that interfere with receipt of federal dollars. If one doesn’t believe that many in academia are driven more by money than by objective science, then that is a true denier. The largest atmospheric science professional society in the US, the American Meteorological Society, has issued statements that accomplishing its objectives of spreading its message of global warming theory “…will require increased levels of federal investment”.
TS: You seriously think humans can control the temperature of the planet.
Truthseeker, you and many other people have a rather extraordinary talent for misstating things.
That we can and do have some effect is not the same thing as “controlling the temperature” as you stated – apparently to the exclusion of all else.
We cannot negate or exclude natural forces, but we certainly can alter the sum total of nature combined with the result of our actions. “Nature” cannot prevent us from cutting down trees, nor from killing off tens of thousands of species, nor from putting a lot of gases into the atmosphere.
lol. And you call it ‘settled science’…
You say that because you are not aware of what we do know.
It is a given that our atmosphere has gases in it that absorb heat.
It is a given that the more of those gases present in the air, the more heat is absorbed (a logarithmic, not linear, relationship), and the less radiated off.
It is a given that human activity has produced a significant amount of greenhouse gases in the past 230 or so years.
It is a given that without human activity, nature’s production and consumption of greenhouse gases have been very much in balance for thousands of years.
It is a given that human activity is responsible for most of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the air since the Industrial Revolution – we can tell that the origin of the carbon dioxide is mostly from the burning of fossil fuels by the isotopic signature of the carbon atoms.
This is not saying that “we rule over Nature,” it’s saying that we have tipped the balance enough to have readily observable effects. Nature could throw in a trump card here, like a massive volcanic eruption putting enough sulfur dioxide into the air (especially the upper atmosphere where rain won’t remove it), where the sulfur dioxide ends up producing compounds that reflect solar radiation. Enough of that stuff, and the world cools down.
Gee whiz, this spring has been unusually cold when I get up in the morning…maybe I ask the farmer next door to add some beans to the cow feed.
I imagine you know how faulty that is, to start with.
Localized “cold” conditions don’t negate long-term trends of rising world temperatures.
If it gets unusually warm later this year, are you going to reverse your take on things?
Of course not – because you’re not looking at facts, you’re predisposed to accept almost any argument, examples, blogs, opinion pieces or studies which claim to refute global warming.
Doug said, “Localized “cold” conditions don’t negate long-term trends of rising world temperatures.”
Exactly Doug, well said, just as localized “hot” conditions like the heat wave in India don’t support long-term trends of temperature.
Eric TL: Doug, as Mary has said, what is balanced? What is anomalous? What defines the normal climate? Yes I have read your sources, but considered with all sources on climate, it is difficult to discount that any warming could be the result of normal glacial-interglacial periods.
Eric, what is balanced is the production and consumption of gases in the atmosphere that affect how warm the earth is, before we factor in the gases from human activity. What is balanced (or exceedingly constant) is the amount of solar radiation received. It would be different if there were some identifiable and meaningful change in ‘nature’ during the time period under discussion, a change that would explain the temperature rise.
The rapid rise in temperature of late is not at all a “normal interglacial period.”
To this point in time, the raw increase in temperature could be the result of nature in such a time, but the rate of the warming does not at all fit, there.
There is no “normal”. Interglacial periods last 20,000 to 50,000 years, and the Holocene glaciation ended some 12,000 years ago. To what do we compare current temperatures and rates of temperature change? 100 years ago? 10,000 years ago? How about to the Little Ice Age 500 to 1000 years ago?
Oh yes there is a “normal” for interglacial periods. As you note, we’ve got 12,000 years of history going already in the current one. We can go back and see the temperature changes for roughly 750,000 years via ice core samples, enabling us to see what happened over many interglacial cycles.
The ending of the “Little Ice Age” was quite localized – in the eastern US it coincides fairly well with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. I don’t think that matters – a warming world is a warming world, regardless of what the exact beginning temperature was.
It appears that while the media focuses on climate “deniers” they fail to look at climate “ignorers” who ignore our climate has been fluctuating for the entire history of the earth.
Is that really the argument, though? Anybody who says the earth’s temperature hasn’t fluctuated in the past is full of crap, obviously. What stands out now is just how fast things are changing.
There is also a difference between warming and cooling. It’s easy to bring on a relatively fast cooling event, as with a volcanic eruption – particulates physically block solar radiation, and volcanic chemicals form compounds which also block/reflect heat from the sun.
Heating is tougher – easiest way I know is to put a lot of new water vapor in the air, but what would we have – vast numbers of undersea volcanoes?
Yes, that means many people with PhDs would be ignorers, conveniently ignoring facts that interfere with receipt of federal dollars. If one doesn’t believe that many in academia are driven more by money than by objective science, then that is a true denier. The largest atmospheric science professional society in the US, the American Meteorological Society, has issued statements that accomplishing its objectives of spreading its message of global warming theory “…will require increased levels of federal investment”.
Ugh. I’m not for increased federal investment. Good grief – have to laugh….
You’re right that many people are saying stuff for money, these days. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there is no good explanation for the fast temperature change being due to natural causes.
Eric TL: just as localized “hot” conditions like the heat wave in India don’t support long-term trends of temperature.
Yes, no doubt. Really, the air temperature close to land is not necessarily any big deal at a given time. The world’s oceans are the main thing, here – that water is a thermal mass 4000 times as large as the entire atmosphere, if I remember correctly.
With the seas warming up, air temperature can diverge both up and down. Air staying relatively cool could be the case for years, even decades, without altering the long-term scenario of a warming world.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/22/oceans-warming-so-fast-they-keep-breaking-scientists-charts
My opinion – the warming ocean thing has just gotten started. The “new heat” hasn’t gotten to the bottom of most seas yet, it’s only the top half or so. While there is ‘untouched” water left to undergo initial heating, it gives a place for heat to go without it further heating the upper layers.
Of course it’s not purely so simple – the heat won’t be evenly mixed in, regardless, and the top of the oceans is what receives the heat first. Fascinating stuff.
I’m not saying that global warming is all bad. Also don’t think it’s worth it for the US to spend much money on it, when most of the world won’t be doing that.
I wish I could go forward in time and see what happens….
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/06/04/climate-change-brings-needed-rain-to-africa/
Doug,
I am as concerned as you are that species are dying out and I want to be a good steward to the earth and I agree with your statement that the oceans are the most important in this respect. But the oceans are effected a lot more by chemicals (and in the case of Fukishima radiation) than they are by airborn particles.
But the oceans are effected a lot more by chemicals (and in the case of Fukushima radiation) than they are by airborn particles.
Truthseeker, I don’t think we are arguing, there. Good post, man – I saw that you’d replied and expected to just continue the same debate…
Aside from the questions about global temperature, it does bum me out – our effect on the oceans. There is physical pollution:
http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/?ar_a=1
There’s also chemical pollution – and this is really what scares me the most. If we substantially alter the growing conditions for plankton, for example, that could potentially have some truly bad consequences.
Your link about better rain for parts of Africa – yeah, “climate change,” per se, has good aspects as well as bad. In general, a warming earth means our temperate and growing zones move toward the poles, and some former growing areas get hotter and drier, less productive.
Fascinating stuff.
Doug,
Why can’t you just accept the fact that CO2 is part of the cycle of life on this planet, and that Mother Nature produces more of it than humans can ever hope to? Also, that it has absolute squat to do with the climate?? Its a safe bet to cry “climate change” because the climate will likely change. In my own lifetime I have seen sharp contrasts between the yearly winters and summers. Some were brutal, some were mild. Weather never remained consistent from year to year and no one expected it to. Now it signals impending doom.
Some interesting info on the climate in eons past.
http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html
Google yourself, if you can find a source that disputes anything I have posted, by all means post it. If you can find info that termites aren’t far greater polluters than humans, post it.
Wetlands produce more CO2 than all human activity combined…yet you won’t hear environmental wackos screaming for the elimination of the wetlands.
Good heavens my friend, don’t get bummed out over the oceans. Again we don’t hold a candle to Mother Nature.
http://www.livescience.com/5422-natural-oil-spills-surprising-amount-seeps-sea.html
Mary: Why can’t you just accept the fact that CO2 is part of the cycle of life on this planet, and that Mother Nature produces more of it than humans can ever hope to?
Mary, I do and she does, and I’ve never said differently and that’s not the argument. Do you not see that you are not refuting what I’ve said? Do you not see that you are not addressing the debate, there?
Also, that it has absolute squat to do with the climate??
Wow – now this is what I do not understand. You are simply wrong there, just flat-out wrong, and even the scientists who downplay the amount that human activity affects it do not argue as you are – they know how our atmosphere works.
Its a safe bet to cry “climate change” because the climate will likely change. In my own lifetime I have seen sharp contrasts between the yearly winters and summers. Some were brutal, some were mild. Weather never remained consistent from year to year and no one expected it to. Now it signals impending doom.
That has nothing to do with the discussion. Honestly, you are so sensible about some things, like the Duggars; is this really the same ‘Mary’?
You are saying that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has nothing to do with the climate. That’s like saying we don’t take in oxygen and breath out carbon dioxide. It’s physical fact.
if you can find a source that disputes anything I have posted, by all means post it.
Mary, your own sources contradict each other. I already mentioned this. The iloveco2 site is made by outright liars, aimed at those too gullible to know any better. The “termites make ten times as much stuff” is total BS. June 4, 2015 at 12:10 am – I already mentioned this:
“Mary, that iceagenow site you linked to is one of those “junk science” things. They make statements without any references or even scientists named. The other site you mentioned – the NY Times one – shows how false the iceagenow one is, i.e. “Now researchers report that termites, digesting vegetable matter on a global basis, produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world’s smokestacks.”
Okay, for now we will go with that “twice as much figure.” That clearly shows that iceagenow is lying about “Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.”
And then you post a link to another site that does the exact same thing. iloveco2 is pure BS. There are no scientists given as references, there’s nobody standing behind the outright lies and half-truths and massive illogic.
Back in 1982, one article appears in ‘science’ magazine, and to this day we have fruitcakes making blogs about it, although “two times” doesn’t sound impressive enough, so they pump it up to “ten times.”
Wetlands produce more CO2 than all human activity combined…yet you won’t hear environmental wackos screaming for the elimination of the wetlands.
Not anymore than they’d scream for the elimination of the oceans, and plants and animals on earth, as it’s all the same thing here, it’s all part of the land/plants/ocean/atmosphere system wherein the carbon dioxide production and consumption are in almost perfect balance.
Good heavens my friend, don’t get bummed out over the oceans. Again we don’t hold a candle to Mother Nature.
There is plenty to get bummed out about, when you consider some of humanity’s effects on the planet. However, Mary, I’m really not too bummed-out. I don’t see imminent real danger to us from the oceans, and while the pollution is horrible in some places, it’s not like it directly impacts me, hardly ever.
I’m also not bummed out about the world warming. It’s a fascinating thing, and I wish I could “fast-forward” beyond what will be the end of my life, to see what happens.
Doug,
If you do any serious googling you will be well aware that scientists hotly debate whether or not human activity has any effects on the climate.
Doug again you criticize my sources as false,etc. yet you provide nothing to dispute what they say or prove them wrong. I would think that would be very easy to do. That’s how it works and you have had ample opportunity to prove my sources inaccurate…which you haven’t done.
Mother Nature always maintains a perfect balance? Well she doesn’t have a great record when it has comes to the climate. The Ice Age comes to mind. Or should I say ice ages.
http://unmaskingevolution.com/11-iceages.htm
And no one really knows why they begin or end.
Again Doug, put your mind at ease about our planet. Yes we must be good stewards, and my family ribs me no end about my fanatical recycling and composting, but the planet has long survived far worse than anything the human race can dish out. We will destroy ourselves, yes. The planet will go on as it always has. The dinosaurs were wiped out, the planet recovered. Volcanoes and tidal waves destroyed civilizations and wiped out people. The planet kept going. Civilizations have been abandoned only to be reclaimed by the planet as they are covered with jungle or layers of dirt.
Just keep in mind that humanity will never hold a candle to Mother Nature when it comes to pollution. C02 and “pollution” is produced in far greater abundance in nature than it is by man.
As for global warming my source predicts another Ice Age in about 23,000 years, so be very careful what you wish for my friend! The gods punish humans by answering their prayers, and you might be reincarnated in time to enjoy the ice! :)
Doug,
If you think termites are bad, just wait until you read about the volcanoes.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/long-invisible-research-shows-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
Try as we might Mother Nature always beats us to the punch!
If you do any serious googling you will be well aware that scientists hotly debate whether or not human activity has any effects on the climate.
Mary, not really that humanity “has any effects.” More that the disagreement is over just how much effect we do have. Remember – we are talking about actual scientists here.
That is also a good bit different from stating that carbon dioxide “has absolute squat to do with the climate.”
I thought we were gonna have to call for the men in the white coats for a minute, there.
Doug again you criticize my sources as false,etc. yet you provide nothing to dispute what they say or prove them wrong. I would think that would be very easy to do.
Indeed it is easy, and I’ve done so. You cannot quote me or reply to what I’ve said. Your own presented sources have contradicted each other, and contain many total falsehoods – falsehoods identifiable by logic alone. What more do you need?
Mother Nature always maintains a perfect balance?
No, nobody told you that.
Here is what I said: “it’s all the same thing here, it’s all part of the land/plants/ocean/atmosphere system wherein the carbon dioxide production and consumption are in almost perfect balance.”
Nature has some changes in air carbon dioxide from time to time. It averages out to between 105 and 420 years for Nature to change the CO2 content by 2.1 ppm. I’m using 2.1 ppm because that’s how much human activity is altering it now.
2.1 ppm by itself is no biggie. But with us doing it year after year, the cumulative effect is quite large.
Well she doesn’t have a great record when it has comes to the climate. The Ice Age comes to mind. Or should I say ice ages.
And no one really knows why they begin or end.
Nature does just fine with “ice ages.” They are a gradual thing.
As for the cause, let’s look at a graph of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature:
http://i1377.photobucket.com/albums/ah56/porkloin1/CO2%20and%20Temperature_zpszj18wlqc.png
Again Doug, put your mind at ease about our planet. Yes we must be good stewards, and my family ribs me no end about my fanatical recycling and composting, but the planet has long survived far worse than anything the human race can dish out.
Mary, I’m not worried “about the planet,” per se. And thank goodness – that would really suck, to have that state of mind. If I have a concern, it’s really a near-term human one, for the people affected by rising water levels and droughts.
We will destroy ourselves, yes.
Here you and I are quite a bit in agreement. But you can’t agree that we put out enough CO2 to make a difference on earth?
If you think termites are bad, just wait until you read about the volcanoes.
Try as we might Mother Nature always beats us to the punch!
Mary, why would this matter, at all? Given the “new figure” of 600 million tons per year of CO2, that’s less than 0.08% of the total CO2 from land and sea sources. We know that for a very long time, nature’s production and consumption of CO2 has been in almost total balance. What does it matter if we now allocate a tiny fraction of one percent more to volcanoes, and that same amount less to other natural sources?
Doug,
Indeed we are talking about actual scientists, and if you did any serious research you would realize they do not all agree as to what is going on with the climate, if anything is going on, and what if anything mankind has to do with it.
I still maintain CO2 has absolute squat to do with the climate. I have told you the natural forces that do control the climate, and we have no control over them.
Please point out the falsehoods and sources backing your claims.
I know no one said “perfect balance”. I was pointing out that Mother Nature doesn’t always do it right, especially where the climate is concerned.
About the termites. An abstract from Science Nov. 1982
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563.abstract?sid=ecbb2a97-081d-494f-a327-9aaacab08a5f
Nature does “fine” with Ice ages? That’s my point. The earth survives. Its humans and animals that found it pretty miserable and struggled, often unsuccessfully, to survive. Also if CO2 and nature were in total balance, would we have had ice ages? Assuming of course CO2 had anything to do with the climate. Wasn’t it pointed out that scientists couldn’t be sure what caused or ended ice ages?
Can I agree the CO2 we put out makes a difference? Why would it? The CO2 put out by nature far exceeds anything we do.
http://www.politicalforum.com/australia-nz-pacific/258634-natural-co2-emissions-completely-swamp-manmade-co2-emissions-our-atmosphere.html
Rotting vegetation, termites, wetlands, volcanoes, animal and human activity, the forces that control the climate: the sun, clouds, earth axis, and ocean currents. Good grief Doug its all too incredibly complex. That we piddling humans have any influence or control over the climate is absolutely laughable.
Mary: Indeed we are talking about actual scientists, and if you did any serious research you would realize they do not all agree as to what is going on with the climate, if anything is going on, and what if anything mankind has to do with it.
Mary, “doing serious research” is not linking to tabloid stuff, as you have done. Before we get to the matters of real, scientific disagreement, we find that our atmosphere does have heat-absorbing gases in it, that climate is linked to the amounts of those gases in the air, that human activity has produced those gases in significant amounts, and that the recent increase in them is mostly due to human activity, rather than nature; we can tell this from the isotopic signatures of the gases, carbon dioxide being one perfect example.
I still maintain CO2 has absolute squat to do with the climate.
In that you are simply and entirely wrong. That’s like saying it does not matter how much heat we receive from the sun – you are denying physical fact.
I have told you the natural forces that do control the climate, and we have no control over them.
More accurate to say there are natural forces that affect the climate, and that we have no control over those forces. No argument there. The fact remains that while natural forces have the potential to affect the climate more than what, thus far, has been the effect of human activity, the last few thousands of years have not had any examples of that, i.e. nature has been quite “steady state,” while the change has been due to human activity – the exceedingly fast and anomalous increase in greenhouse gases and temperature.
Please point out the falsehoods and sources backing your claims.
This is at least the third time this has been explained to you: you gave one source – the link to the NY Times article (this one has some actual scientists and research behind it) – saying that termites “produce more than twice as much carbon dioxide as all the world’s smokestacks.”
You then also linked to the “iceagenow” and “iloveco2” sites that say “ten times as much.” Obviously, somebody has to be lying, here. Is there any doubt that it’s the latter two sites?
You are doing what I said to Truthseeker, at one point – “you’re not looking at facts, you’re predisposed to accept almost any argument, examples, blogs, opinion pieces or studies which claim to refute global warming.”
Mary: I know no one said “perfect balance”. I was pointing out that Mother Nature doesn’t always do it right, especially where the climate is concerned.
The very question that you and others have brought up applies here. There is no one “right,” there, and nobody is saying there is (not if they have any sense, anyway).
Mother Nature has been doing it in a very steady manner for hundreds and thousands of years now – this is one thing we do know. We are what has made most of the difference, lately, and this is even before we get to pronouncing it for better or for worse.
Nature does “fine” with Ice ages? That’s my point. The earth survives. Its humans and animals that found it pretty miserable and struggled, often unsuccessfully, to survive.
Nobody said the earth “is not going to survive.”
Also if CO2 and nature were in total balance, would we have had ice ages? Assuming of course CO2 had anything to do with the climate.
Again, not a perfect balance, not a “total balance.” There have been changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases and other gases in the air, in the past. Given that the sun’s output is quite constant, this is one of the main causes of heating and cooling for the earth. The difference between those times and now is the rate of change.
In the very long-term, there have been other factors as well – the tilt of the earth, versus our view to the sun, is one. The relative difference in the position of the earth in its elliptical orbit of the sun, versus the time of year on earth, is another (the “precession of the equinoxes”).
Wasn’t it pointed out that scientists couldn’t be sure what caused or ended ice ages?
Who said that? Changing global temperatures are what does it. In the very long term, as above, there are things that account for it – it’s how much of the sun’s energy the air, land and sea absorb.
Can I agree the CO2 we put out makes a difference? Why would it? The CO2 put out by nature far exceeds anything we do.
The raw amounts put out by both nature and humanity do not matter, here. What causes change in temperature, here, is a change in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
If it was nature alone that was increasing that concentration so fast, then the change in temperature would be due to nature. In our current case, the changing concentration is due to human activity, while nature’s production and consumption stay very much in balance.
Once again, the analogy with weight. Nature is “eating 2000 calories per day” and burning “2000 calories a day,” so to speak. Or, 20,000 calories in and out. We are eating 500 calories per day, with no offsetting consumption. No matter how great the in/out balance from nature is, we are resulting in weight gain – or, with respect to the climate, we are resulting in temperature gain.
Doug,
Serious research means you are willing to keep an open mind and look at various sources. The websites I link to also list scientific sources and articles. You can also do your own googling. If you did you would discover that scientists, including one I sourced, Murry Salby, challenge the conventional wisdom concerning human caused climate change. This is by no means settled science. The debate goes on.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04/17/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-rips-manufactured-consensus-human-influence-is-not-dominating-over-natural-climate-variability/
The NY times referred only to smokestacks. The two websites I posted referred to humans. Neither has to be lying. Also, you have yet to post links that either is. So if you want to truly discredit my sources, it should be easy. So far you have not.
Also Doug, if the earth’s temperature is even increasing is subject to debate. Where’s the heat that was generated?? Where’s it going? Looks like Mom Nature steps in again.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/why-the-globe-hasnt-warmed-much-for-the-past-decade-15788
Just one of many theories you will find out there.
In the meantime Doug, let’s hope we don’t go the way of the Sahara desert.
http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/how-earths-orbital-shift-shaped-the-sahara/
Did CO2 or humans have anything to do with this??
Mary: Serious research means you are willing to keep an open mind and look at various sources. The websites I link to also list scientific sources and articles.
No, Mary, not when it comes to stuff like the “Termites emit ten times more CO2 than humans” baloney and sites like iloveco2 and iceagenow, as you presented. Those sites don’t even pretend to have scientific backing. They just took the one report from 1982 that said “twice as much,” and they deliberately inflated it to “ten times as much.” That is the kind of mentality we find among those who deny that the climate is warming and that humans have an effect on it. Note that below, Dr. Curry does not contest those points.
You can also do your own googling. If you did you would discover that scientists, including one I sourced, Murry Salby, challenge the conventional wisdom concerning human caused climate change. This is by no means settled science. The debate goes on.
I suspect that once again, this is mischaracterizing the debate, but let’s see…
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/04/17/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-rips-manufactured-consensus-human-influence-is-not-dominating-over-natural-climate-variability/
Okay, not too bad – most of what Dr. Curry says is sensible, I think, though deliberately vague at need. Let us note that that includes, “Yes, carbon dioxide does have a greenhouse effect.” Ahem – of course it does. That website has cherry-picked the comments to display, and it takes somewhat careful reading and thought to see what is going on.
The few places where I disagree with her:
‘[Humans do] influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don’t think it’s a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.
It depends on what she means by “natural climate variability.” If she means that “the climate has varied more, in the past, than what our effect on it has been, thus far,” then yes, that is true – because she is comparing hundreds of thousands (or millions of years) with the comparatively incredibly short time span since the Industrial Revolution began.
In other words, “in theory, nature could affect climate more than what we’ve done, so far.” That is true.
However, nobody is asserting the opposite. What is being asserted is that in the past 200+ years, we’ve upset the balance of greenhouse gas production versus consumption, while nature has maintained the same course there – things being very much in balance – that it had for the preceding thousands of years. To say that “nature could affect it more than humans” is one thing. To note that “in the present time, humans have made the difference, going back 200+ years” is another, and I don’t think Dr. Curry would argue with that. Naturally, this website does not bring up such questions for her.
– – – – –
The collapse of the consensus on cholesterol and heart disease– that one collapsed overnight. I can only hope that sanity will eventually prevail with the climate problem as well.
Very poor example there. The rise in CO2, etc., is undeniable, regardless of any talk of heart disease. It’s not like things are going to change “overnight,” there. Heh.
– – – –
The carbon dioxide that humans are putting into the atmosphere does have a warming tendency, but it’s not clear that [CO2] is going to dominate with the other things that are going on with the sun or volcanic eruptions or deep ocean circulations – the things that contribute to natural climate variability. Those are the things that could really surprise us.
This is no argument against what I’ve been saying nor what most people who note the increase in global temperatures and the increase in greenhouse gases are saying.
Yes, things could change with the sun (incredibly unlikely) or with volcanic eruptions (unlikely but not impossible, looking at history) that could surprise us and change things. But they haven’t happened in the past 200+ years, and until such time as they do, the warming-climate argument stands.
– – – – –
Yes the temperature is warming; Yes, humans are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and Yes, carbon dioxide does have a greenhouse effect. But that doesn’t tell us whether human caused climate change is dominating over natural climate change and that is where the big debate is about.
CO2 has gone from about 180 ppm to 400 ppm now. There is no reasonable natural explanation for this, *in such a short time* – that is what she is not addressing. During the time period we are talking about – since the start of the Industrial Revolution, it is human activity that has made most of the difference.
The NY times referred only to smokestacks.
Which means the burning of fossil fuels. There is nothing else that even remotely compares to how we put greenhouse gases into the air.
The two websites I posted referred to humans.
Same thing, as above.
Neither has to be lying.
Of course they do, and they both are. They don’t even pretend to have scientific backing. Neither mentions any scientific sources for the claim about termites – and of course not, for then it would be easy to discredit the sites (as if they aren’t patently false, from the get-go). They took that one report from 1982 and its “termites produce twice as much” and they changed it to “ten times as much.”
Tomorrow, if some goof blogs that termites produce “20 times as much CO2 as humans,” are you going to give us a link?
Also, you have yet to post links that either is. So if you want to truly discredit my sources, it should be easy. So far you have not.
When websites deliberately lie, like that, it does not take “other sources” to confirm it. And, – the NY times site you posted already did it, anyway.
Also Doug, if the earth’s temperature is even increasing is subject to debate. Where’s the heat that was generated?? Where’s it going? Looks like Mom Nature steps in again.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/why-the-globe-hasnt-warmed-much-for-the-past-decade-15788
Where’s the heat going? That website answers it pretty well:
The answer, according to a new paper in Geophysical Research Letters, is that a lot of it is being stored in the deep ocean, more than a half-mile down. “We normally think about global warming as what we experience on the Earth’s surface,” said co-author Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in an interview. If extra heat is temporarily stored elsewhere thanks to natural climate variations, we won’t necessarily notice it.
But sooner or later it will inevitably emerge, which means that the current slowdown in warming may well be balanced by a period of rapid warming in a few years — nobody knows how many — from now. Scientists have always said that global warming would proceed in fits and starts, not in a smooth upward trend in temperatures. This study offers one specific explanation of why that happens.
Doug,
Those are not the only sites on the planet for heaven’s sake. Do your own research and check out individual researchers like the ones I have listed. Also, the NY Times may not have had it right. I can only find an abstract, not the full article. I did find this list that mentions by 10 greater and more than 2 times greater. It says nothing about smokestacks, no idea where the NY Times got that unless it was in the full article.
http://termitedetector.com/detection.cfm
The 10 times number refers to all fossil fuels burned in the world in a year.
The greater than 2 times number as mankind does burning fossil fuels in a year.
They are saying essentially the same thing, but the greater than 2 times could well be close to 10, could it not? I don’t see either statement negating the other.
This is what Dr. Curry said about CO2
Curry on impact of CO2: “The carbon dioxide that humans are putting into the atmosphere does have a warming tendency, but it’s not clear that [CO2] is going to dominate with the other things that are going on with the sun or volcanic eruptions or deep ocean circulations – the things that contribute to natural climate variability. Those are the things that could really surprise us.”
Yes it does have a warming tendency, but lead to climate change?
Dr. Curry goes on:
The so-called 97% consensus is about fairly trivial things: ‘Yes the temperature is warming; Yes, humans are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and Yes, carbon dioxide does have a greenhouse effect. But that doesn’t tell us whether human caused climate change is dominating over natural climate change and that is where the big debate is about.
Then there is Dr. Salby:
Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University and he has been researching CO2 in our atmosphere.
He has come to the conclusions that,
It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He’s been a visiting professor at Paris, Stockholm, Jerusalem, and Kyoto, and he’s spent time at the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia.
Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It’s not just that man-made emissions don’t control the climate, they don’t even control global CO2 levels.
The higher levels of CO2 in recent decades appear to be mostly due to natural sources. He presented this research at the IUGG conference in Melbourne recently, causing great discussion and shocking a few people. Word reached the Sydney Institute, which rushed to arrange for him to speak, given the importance of this work in the current Australian political climate.
The ratio of C13 to C12 (two isotopes of carbon) in our atmosphere has been declining, which is usually viewed as a signature of man-made CO2 emissions. C12 makes up 99% of carbon in the atmosphere (nearly all atmospheric carbon is in the form of CO2). C13 is much rarer — about 1%. Plants don’t like the rarer C13 type as much; photosynthesis works best on the C12 -type -of-CO2 and not the C13-type when absorbing CO2 from the air.
Prof Salby points out that while fossil fuels are richer in C12 than the atmosphere, so too is plant life on Earth, and there isn’t a lot of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels. (Fossil fuels are, after all, made in theory from plants, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to tell their “signatures” apart). So if the C13 to C12 ratio is falling (as more C12 rich carbon is put into the air by burning fossil fuels) then we can’t know if it’s due to man-made CO2 or natural CO2 from plants.
Essentially we can measure man-made emissions reasonably well, but we can’t measure the natural emissions and sequestrations of CO2 at all precisely — the error bars are huge. Humans emits 5Gt or so per annum, but the oceans emit about 90Gt and the land-plants about 60Gt, for a total of maybe 150Gt. Many scientists have assumed that the net flows of carbon to and from natural sinks and sources of CO2 cancel each other out, but there is no real data to confirm this and it’s just a convenient assumption. The problem is that even small fractional changes in natural emissions or sequestrations swamp the human emissions
Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blo…ls-not-humans/
So you can see Doug, far from settled science.
Do I think climate change is going on? Very possibly. But I attribute it to the forces of nature over which we have no control.
Those are not the only sites on the planet for heaven’s sake.
Well, Mary, they were 2 of the 3 you presented that mentioned termites, and – honestly – they are transparently false. Anytime you see claims like that where they don’t even try to back them up with scientists or studies, you know the deal.
Hey – if there was a “beware global warming” website that pulled the same baloney, I would be just as hard on them.
Termite Detection Systems, Inc. = good grief, they are an advertiser on one of those two goofy sites, i.e. zero credibility. Who is to say they are not the provider of that site, behind the scenes? Nobody, from what the site discloses.
The 10 times number refers to all fossil fuels burned in the world in a year.
Again – there is no scientific proof presented for this, at all. They could as well say 20 times, or 200 times, or 10,000 times with the same amount of credibility. Anybody can say anything, without proof – it does not matter what such sites say.
The greater than 2 times number as mankind does burning fossil fuels in a year.
the nytimes link you presented tells us it’s from a Science magazine article – so let’s go there (how hard is this, really?) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/218/4572/563.short
And we see the figure of “5 x 10 to the 16 power grams of carbon dioxide” which is 55.1 gigatons. It is also noted in the study that this is not a steady-state termite production, but an increased one due to deforestation. Obviously, the normal termite production is lower.
Human production of CO2 is 29 gigatons (in 2007), the source being the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report AR4, in 2007.
Okay, 55.1 is not quite twice 29, but in 1982 the human production was a little lower, so to say twice or even slightly more than twice may have been accurate. But any talk of “ten times” as much is obviously a total lie.
Again – this is not a natural thing for termites – it’s dependent on deforestation. Once that has run its course in a particular place, the termite CO2 production will decline to normal levels, or even below it – if, as is the case in the US – we are actually “foresting” through tree management, versus deforesting.
Even to take the inflated figures that apply from deforestation, “twice” or close to it is accurate.
They are saying essentially the same thing, but the greater than 2 times could well be close to 10, could it not? I don’t see either statement negating the other.
Nonsense. No scientist is going to go anywhere near such foolishness. Whether the real figure is exactly twice, at the current time, or slightly below or above it, the talk of “ten times as much” remains total made-up fakery.
Mary: Curry on impact of CO2: “The carbon dioxide that humans are putting into the atmosphere does have a warming tendency, but it’s not clear that [CO2] is going to dominate with the other things that are going on with the sun or volcanic eruptions or deep ocean circulations – the things that contribute to natural climate variability. Those are the things that could really surprise us.”
Yes it does have a warming tendency, but lead to climate change?
What do you think the climate change we are talking about is? It’s warming.
Dr. Curry goes on:
The so-called 97% consensus is about fairly trivial things: ‘Yes the temperature is warming; Yes, humans are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and Yes, carbon dioxide does have a greenhouse effect. But that doesn’t tell us whether human caused climate change is dominating over natural climate change and that is where the big debate is about.
Already dealt with this: “CO2 has gone from about 180 ppm to 400 ppm now. There is no reasonable natural explanation for this, *in such a short time* – that is what she is not addressing. During the time period we are talking about – since the start of the Industrial Revolution, it is human activity that has made most of the difference.”
Professor Murry Salby is Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University and he has been researching CO2 in our atmosphere.
Mary, that’s one guy, and he’s since been fired for falsifying stuff.
For JoNova to be paraphrasing him is suspect. In any event, in the past 4 years, nobody is taking him seriously, and here’s a good response to some of the errors he makes:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html
Doug,
Human production of CO2 is 29 gigatons (in 2007), the source being the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report AR4, in 2007. –
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/bgc-systems/pmwiki2/uploads/Site/sanderson_1997.pdf
The summary. According to the IPCC in 1994 the global net co2 at 220Gt/year. Termites in this study were found to contribute 2% of the total CO2. It was stressed that this was not negligible and that the number of species studied for CO2 is less than 1%. Consider there are several thousand species.
Doug warming is not climate change. As Dr. Curry points out any number of natural factors can and do effect the climate. Dr. Salby also points out that humans are not a factor.
Before you disregard Dr. Salby
http://www.principia-scientific.org/scientist-fired-by-university-for-exposing-the-truth-about-climate-fraud.html
Lest you think there is any tolerance for those who dare to question global warming:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/21007-senator-prosecute-climate-realists-under-anti-mafia-rico-law
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-21/opinion/ct-perspec-climate-0521-20140521_1_climate-scientists-climate-change-climate-debate
Moderator,
You need to take me out of moderation!
Good grief Doug,
Mother Nature strikes again…
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3084/pdf/fs2009-3084.pdf
Doug,
Another factor in the 20th century has been the settling of the Amazon region in South America. The massive deforestation and settling of this area by non indigenous people. They are burning and clearing trees, giving the termites an ongoing feast, and very possibly also contributing to the increased CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest
Largest Cities in the Amazon:
The bulk of the human population in the Amazon Basin is found in a cities which have emerged from the surrounding rainforest to become significant population centers. Outside the cities and towns, the Amazon is sparsely populated.
City Country Urban Population
Belem Brazil 1,912,600
Manaus Brazil 1,524,600
Iquitos Peru 349,300
Macapa Brazil 301,600
Porto Velho Brazil 292,000
Santarem Brazil 192,300
– See more at: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/a
Also Doug, Dr. Salby is just “one guy”? So was Galileo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Doug as far as I’m concerned science should be about debate, disagreement, exchange of ideas and research, opposing opinions, new information and ideas. It should be ongoing and never ending, never “settled”.
I find it very frightening that those who dare question the “global warming” status quo are equated with mobsters and Holocaust deniers. What are the global warming supporters so afraid of?
Doug 5:48PM
But sooner or later it will inevitably emerge, which means that the current slowdown in warming may well be balanced by a period of rapid warming in a few years — nobody knows how many — from now. Scientists have always said that global warming would proceed in fits and starts, not in a smooth upward trend in temperatures. This study offers one specific explanation of why that happens.
Sooner or later it will inevitably emerge.
May well be balanced
Nobody knows how many
Sounds like speculation to me Doug.
“Human production of CO2 is 29 gigatons (in 2007), the source being the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report AR4, in 2007.”
Mary: According to the IPCC in 1994 the global net co2 at 220Gt/year. Termites in this study were found to contribute 2% of the total CO2. It was stressed that this was not negligible and that the number of species studied for CO2 is less than 1%. Consider there are several thousand species.
Mary, have you entirely turned your back on logic and mathematical sense?
Take the 2% you mentioned and the 220 Gigatons per year you mentioned, and make some sense of what the sites you previously linked to referenced, as far as multiples of human production attributed to termites. You cannot do it, not even remotely.
The only reasonable thing you’ve presented about termites is the stuff from 1982. And yet again – termites’ CO2 production is part of the natural cycle on earth, which is very much in balance – the CO2 the termites give off was atmospheric CO2 not long ago, before it was taken up by the plants which the termites are presently eating.
Doug warming is not climate change.
That’s just plain silly.
As Dr. Curry points out any number of natural factors can and do effect the climate.
“Can” does not matter when they are not, in fact, doing it. During the past 200+ years, they have not been doing it, not to the extent that the buildup in greenhouse gases is responsible for.
Dr. Salby also points out that humans are not a factor.
Dr. Salby demonstrates massive confusion in his preposterous claims. What he has said plainly shows that he’s not talking about stuff he knows.
Salby: “I think it’s a pitfall that people look at the ice proxy of CO2 and take it literally. It’s not atmospheric CO2, and I don’t believe it’s CO2 that was even in the atmosphere when that piece of snow was layed down”
Absolute silly nonsense. Dr. Curry, for example, would laugh her butt off at this clown. He just doesn’t understand this stuff.
Salby was not fired for his pretend-work on climate science, he was fired because he fabricated time sheets to fraudulently get money.
He had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money, due to his “irregular” way of doing things. : P
Mary: Mother Nature strikes again…
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3084/pdf/fs2009-3084.pdf
Mary, so what? The very first sentence says: Self-ignited, naturally occurring coal fires and fires resulting from human activities persist for decades in underground
coal mines, coal waste piles, and unmined coal beds.
So it’s not just nature, it’s human causes too, and even then – so what? Are we talking about significant amounts, compared to other causes?
Mary: Another factor in the 20th century has been the settling of the Amazon region in South America. The massive deforestation and settling of this area by non indigenous people. They are burning and clearing trees, giving the termites an ongoing feast, and very possibly also contributing to the increased CO2.
Heh – well yeah, no question about it. This is due to human activity.
To the extent that we are reducing the CO2 absorbing plant mass on earth, it does indeed have an effect. The plants take CO2 out of the air, and if we whack a bunch down, and the termites chew the up and put the CO2 back into the air, then there would be a net increase – as the lesser number of trees won’t take up quite as much CO2 in the future.
But it’s a “one-shot” deal, i.e. once it’s done and the termites get done chewing on an area, then things are back to normal, or – depending on what crops are raised in the area, it may go to a net CO2-absorbing basis, rather than just once again being in balance.
The overall effect of this is small, compared to the month-in, month-out burning of fossil fuels, which never stops and has gone on for 200+ years – this is a continuous deal and it has no compensating factor like that for the termites (the termites put out CO2 that was recently in the air, to begin with).
Mary: Also Doug, Dr. Salby is just “one guy”? So was Galileo.
Salby is, apparently, just one idiot. However, any one person, even if sensible, or any one report or study, really does not make for settling anything – science hardly ever works that way.
Doug as far as I’m concerned science should be about debate, disagreement, exchange of ideas and research, opposing opinions, new information and ideas. It should be ongoing and never ending, never “settled”.
I find it very frightening that those who dare question the “global warming” status quo are equated with mobsters and Holocaust deniers. What are the global warming supporters so afraid of?
There are goofy people on both sides of the debate. What I see is an enormous amount of foolishness – denying what scientific things we *do* know, i.e. the way our atmosphere works as far as absorbing solar radiation, the amount of greenhouse gases that humanity has put into the air, etc.
There are plenty of things that are a mystery – I grant you we don’t know where it’s all going. I’m not saying the world is coming to an end, nor that as a country the U.S. should even be doing anything – I don’t know if it’s worth it.
“But sooner or later it will inevitably emerge, which means that the current slowdown in warming may well be balanced by a period of rapid warming in a few years — nobody knows how many — from now. Scientists have always said that global warming would proceed in fits and starts, not in a smooth upward trend in temperatures. This study offers one specific explanation of why that happens.”
Sooner or later it will inevitably emerge.
May well be balanced
Nobody knows how many
Sounds like speculation to me Doug.
While there are some things, there, that we don’t know, and hence pronouncements on them would indeed be speculation, the heat gain does give us some ‘inevitable’ stuff. The heat just doesn’t go away by magic.