And this tells you what? How does this support your view at all? The small bit of stuff due to humans isn't small. And considering it's appeared in such a short time makes it super important.
This is an excerpt from the book Conservation Biology.
The book is written by a whole slew of people, pm me if you want the full reference information mannyOur contemporary climate represents the end of an interglacial period. For unknown reasons, glacial-interglacial cycling stopped about 10000 years ago and temperatures have remained relatively stable, varying by only 1 degree celsius. Over that time, atmospheric carbon levels shifted only about 10% until the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, the increase of 0.6 [I can hear it already, "But 0.6 isn't that much, im conservative so it has to be true"-CBF] since 1910 represents a large and sudden [bolded by me-CBF] change compared to natural variations over the past 10000 years. Further, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 36% since 1910--from 280ppm to 380 ppm--which is significantly outside the bounds of natural variability over the past half million years. Like withdrawing money long stored in a huge bank vault, the Industrial Revolution has allowed these carbon deposists to once again circulate in the worlds "carbon economy."
So besides Manny insisting that everything I say does not officially prove man made climate change, useruser posting graphics that can easily support either view, conservative bs, and timvp slandering me, I haven't seen one legitimate post saying that there is not man made climate change going on.
Even those of you who dont believe its going on admit the earth goes through cycles and this is just an effect of that. The point is, this current rate of 'cycling' is unprecedented.
All I'm asking for are studies to show how humans are incresing the effects or the root cause of Global Warming.
look these up
IPCC. 2001a. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.
Karoly, et. al. Detection of a human influence on North American climate. Science 302:1200-1203.
Stott, P.A. 2003. Attribution of regional-scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30:1728.
I trust cbf
just like if I was talking about Hodges Mitc ...
The point of those graphics was to point out to you that humans are most certainly not the greatest contributors to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by a long shot, which is what you were suggesting earlier in this thread.So besides Manny insisting that everything I say does not officially prove man made climate change, useruser posting graphics that can easily support either view, conservative bs, and timvp slandering me, I haven't seen one legitimate post saying that there is not man made climate change going on.
I don't disagree that the humans put in the air can't possibly be damaging...that would just appear to be common sense. But how significant is it really that it would change entire cycles of the earth's climate? Or is this whole concept of global warming just science trying to justifiy man's egocentric tendency to think he can actually manipulate or make any difference whatsoever in the power of nature?
yeah cbf dont be so full of yourself
That wasn't directed at CBF...that was actually a thought I've harbored ever since I got pulled under by the under-tow the last time I went swimming at the coast.
If not taking time to point out something so fundamental as WATER VAPOR means that i was implying humans were the chief cause of ALL CO2 in this planet, then yes, you are absolutely right.
You seem to be an efficient googler. Why not look up the time periods and rates of these 'cycles' you seem to know so much about. Then compare that to the time period and rate of this 'cycle' we are seeing right now.But how significant is it really that it would change entire cycles of the earth's climate?
Then you will see the significance.
Anyone who thinks mankind has an effect on nature is not egocentric, but educated.
Or i guess it was just coincidence that extinction events happened around the same time periods of man's migration into every new continent/island
My, my...aren't we testy this evening?
How's that for scientific?
And btw, if it were that obvious and the evidence was that irrefutable, there wouldn't be these arguments, now, would there?
Anyone who thinks John Kerry or Hillary's "jobs and the economy" will reduce fossil burn is not egocentric, but educated.
Or i guess it was just a coincidence that extincition events happend because of man's migration using barney's foot powered suv. Everyone knows that bam bam was a polluter too on the new continent/island.
lol, so what do you want to do about it cbf?
if you added "and people read that much" then you'd be absolutely rightMy, my...aren't we testy this evening?
How's that for scientific?
And btw, if it were that obvious and the evidence was that irrefutable, there wouldn't be these arguments, now, would there?
Well, if Wilma would have quit turning the ing a/c down to 65...we could all still have garbage disposals that talked back.
Yea the Kilowatt consumption was real high before the last ice age. You know with the alien reactors and stuff... And all the lighting at Fred flinstones bowling alley.
well the only logical thing to do in these times is to impose (or 'suggest' a la George W Bush) stricter regulations
or try to get people to actually admit its going on
who do you think he would listen to more? you or mookie?? or boutons?
Donald
a major impedement of the whole process is getting scientists to translate their scientific jargon to layman's terms, without losing any emphasis and meaning, so that the officials can understand it
Not even that....this issue has become so damn partisan it gets harder and harder to find anything but biased editorial-type crap, and I don't have that much time to sift through it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got someone I've got to go globally warm up
damn, you're speaking in leaps and bounds. this is a problem that, if fixed, wont be fixed in our lifetime... which is convenient, because the effects of this problem wont be felt in our lifetime either... looks like we dont have much to worry about eh?
Not even that....this issue has become so damn partisan it gets harder and harder to find anything but biased editorial-type crap, and I don't have that much time to sift through it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got someone I've got to go globally warm up
Nothing you and I ever said on this page was ever remotely partisan until you just said that.
Heres some advice
When reading about global warming, try reading an actual published paper from scientific literature. Now I just have to wait until you insist all scientific literature is partisan and political as well
or try googling without using the words words "W" "conservative" "liberal" "limbaugh" and you just may get something non-partisan
what about Circus Charlie XII?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
