No, man doesn't. "Industrial progress" is killing the planet. I will be dead before the worst hits, but my college age nephews will witness the death of a billion people or more by the time they are my age (71 on March 1).
I don't think so. If you study the ice core record, you'll find that there is a global temperature spike every 100k years or so. We are at or near the height of one of these spikes right now. Industrial waste causes pollution, but I don't think it causes global warming. The causality appears to be the other way around. Warming causes more life, which causes more CO2 production. It's true that we now produce a lot more CO2 since the industrial revolution. But it hasn't caused an equally dramatic rise in global temperature.
The recent CO2 spike has been caused by man. That's not in dispute. What I'm saying is that climate change didn't begin 100 years ago. The planet has been trending warmer for about 20,000 years, long before any industrial revolution or population boom. Such warm periods have helped humans and other life forms flourish and thereby produce more carbon dioxide and methane gas as waste products. In my view, this is one reason why we see a strong but imperfect correlation between temperature and these gases in the ice core records. Temperature affects the amount of life possible on the planet, and the amount of life affects the amount of certain gases in the atmosphere.
But it doesn't just get hotter and hotter. The average temperature fluctuates. Even in the last hundred years, it has gone up some years and down other years, while the CO2 levels have steadily risen. This indicates some other cause for the temperature changes.
I don't know that there is much real dispute that the earth's atmosphere is a "closed system" as that term is generally defined and understood, is there?and systems (closed and protected versus open and exposed).
The definition of a closed system is one where there is a finite amount of matter that cannot be replenished. So, yes, the earth is a closed system The only thing that enters is energy radiated by the sun. The only thing that leaves is heat radiated by the earth. We are steadily reducing the amount of heat that can be radiated by flooding the atmosphere with insulating gases.Uncle Rico wrote: ↑I don't know that there is much real dispute that the earth's atmosphere is a "closed system" as that term is generally defined and understood, is there?and systems (closed and protected versus open and exposed).
How do you support this claim? We only have precise yearly data going back to 1880, and even then the data's accuracy is somewhat questionable prior to recent, satellite-generated information. Even so, going by the yearly data that we do possess, the current rate of warming is not alarming and does not seem to correlate with the rate of CO2 increase. Since 1880 there have been four significant cooling periods (1880-86, 1899-1910, 1942-49, and 1960-66), plus a number of plateaus in the 5-year trend line. Also, it's interesting to note that we dropped to 1880s levels in the 1960s and 70s (~14.1°C), before climbing to the present level (~15.1°C). Additionally, the warming trend rate between 1966 and 2019 (+0.0196°C/year) is not radically higher than the rate between 1910 and 1942 (+0.0156°C/year). So if global warming is significantly impacted by greenhouse gases, how do we make sense of this temperature data when CO2 levels have been on a steep and consistent upward trajectory since the 1800s?
Relative to a shuttered greenhouse, the atmosphere is an open system, because it's exposed to space and natural weather phenomena, whereas a greenhouse's atmosphere is protected from interacting with these other systems.Uncle Rico wrote: ↑I don't know that there is much real dispute that the earth's atmosphere is a "closed system" as that term is generally defined and understood, is there?
Actually lighter gases escape from earth's gravity all the time. But since we're rolling through space, we're also capturing gases at the same time. Also, plants use and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is one reason why we can release so much of it into the air without suffocating ourselves. Another reason is that most CO2 eventually dissolves into the ocean.
It's about a 25% higher rate, I think that's significant. If I gained another 50 pounds (25% increase) I would definitely think something was wrong. If I got a 25% raise instead of 1% I would have a much different reaction.
The analogy to a human also doesn't work. If you were a baby, and you gained only 25% of your body weight in the first year, something is terribly wrong. The point is that you're comparing apples and oranges--not even that, actually, because both are fruits. It's like comparing apples to mountains. With something as large and complex as historical climate changes, I don't think a 25% warming rate change is shocking. You could manipulate the data to get an even higher rate change period, and then you could get negative changes for cooling periods.
Since you want to use NASA here is what they say. The consensus is overwhelming 97%, every one of your points has been addressed if you are truly interested in the science.Sean wrote: ↑How do you support this claim? We only have precise yearly data going back to 1880, and even then the data's accuracy is somewhat questionable prior to recent, satellite-generated information. Even so, going by the yearly data that we do possess, the current rate of warming is not alarming and does not seem to correlate with the rate of CO2 increase. Since 1880 there have been four significant cooling periods (1880-86, 1899-1910, 1942-49, and 1960-66), plus a number of plateaus in the 5-year trend line. Also, it's interesting to note that we dropped to 1880s levels in the 1960s and 70s (~14.1°C), before climbing to the present level (~15.1°C). Additionally, the warming trend rate between 1966 and 2019 (+0.0196°C/year) is not radically higher than the rate between 1910 and 1942 (+0.0156°C/year). So if global warming is significantly impacted by greenhouse gases, how do we make sense of this temperature data when CO2 levels have been on a steep and consistent upward trajectory since the 1800s?
I know this topic often turns into a heated affair, but I'm just interested in the data and making logical sense of it. If CO2 is causing the warming trend, so be it. I have no emotional investment in this debate. I'm well-aware of industry propaganda, as well as environmentalist. But just because an oil company rep or tree-hugger makes an argument, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Besides, I'm not using biased info from either side. I'm basing my argument on the best scientific data from the ice core records and respected authorities like NASA.
Probably not. ?
So in 50 years climate change will be responsible for 1 billion people dying? That alone should reduce emissions enough to stop climate change right in it's tracks!
To complete the quote...RichardK wrote: ↑Look at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6807963/
The carbon budget for 2°C AGW (roughly 10*12 tonnes carbon) will indirectly cause roughly 10*9 future premature deaths
I inserted the "*" as the Tapatalk format does not allow superscripts.
