Bananas.org

Welcome to the Bananas.org forums.

You're currently viewing our message boards as a guest which gives you limited access to participate in discussions and access our other features such as our wiki and photo gallery. By joining our community, you'll have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Go Back   Bananas.org > Other Topics > Tiki Hut
Register Photo Gallery Classifieds Wiki Chat Map Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Tiki Hut All other posts go here. Banana jokes, travel stories, anything else you would like to chat about.


Members currently in the chatroom: 0
The most chatters online in one day was 17, 09-06-2009.
No one is currently using the chat.

Reply   Email this Page Email this Page
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-17-2014, 04:02 AM   #461 (permalink)
<div style="font-style: italic;">&lt;div style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt; div style=&amp;amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;gt; Plant alchemist&amp;
 
caliboy1994's Avatar
 
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 19
Name: Andreas
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,276
BananaBucks : 210,113
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 1,457 Times
Was Thanked 2,126 Times in 1,133 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Also, record-breaking heat and drought in my state is causing wildfires out of season. Again. Climate change? Yeah, I'm being directly affected by it. Extreme Red Flag Fire Warnings Across Southern California, As Drought And Wind Fuel Fire | ThinkProgress
__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac
caliboy1994 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To caliboy1994
Old 01-17-2014, 09:34 AM   #462 (permalink)
 
Location: Anderson, Indiana
Zone: 5-6
Name: Tim
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 223
BananaBucks : 17,390
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 66 Times
Was Thanked 148 Times in 94 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 154 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

I didn't realize drought regardless of it's season was new. I remember something called The Dust Bowl . . .

Nucular power, now you're talking.

As far as subsidies are concerned, they're all a waste. The new green energy rush would be no where without them. The money dumped into wind and solar far out weigh the subsidies for anything I can think of. Green energy is not profitable. Until a break through like the invention of the transistor is made in the wind and solar energy field, It will only be a waste of money, mismanaged by fat pocket lining bureaucrats looking out for their campaign contributing buddies, not the planet. We all pay more for less and loose.
designshark is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To designshark
Old 01-17-2014, 10:39 AM   #463 (permalink)
<div style="font-style: italic;">&lt;div style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt; div style=&amp;amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;gt; Plant alchemist&amp;
 
caliboy1994's Avatar
 
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 19
Name: Andreas
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,276
BananaBucks : 210,113
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 1,457 Times
Was Thanked 2,126 Times in 1,133 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by designshark View Post
I didn't realize drought regardless of it's season was new. I remember something called The Dust Bowl . . .

Nucular power, now you're talking.

As far as subsidies are concerned, they're all a waste. The new green energy rush would be no where without them. The money dumped into wind and solar far out weigh the subsidies for anything I can think of. Green energy is not profitable. Until a break through like the invention of the transistor is made in the wind and solar energy field, It will only be a waste of money, mismanaged by fat pocket lining bureaucrats looking out for their campaign contributing buddies, not the planet. We all pay more for less and loose.
Drought may not be new, but some recent drought events' scale is new. Take the Amazon droughts of 2005 and 2010, and Australia's unprecedented decade long drought followed by torrential floods.

Also, the thing with green energy is that it USED to be not profitable. Some forms of it, especially solar, are set to become so cheap that they will outcompete everything else within a few years. Solar is already so cheap in Australia that coal plants are being decommissioned and replaced by solar plants. Then again, the specific form of nuclear that I was referring to has the potential to power everything with low levels of waste for thousands of years to come.



And yes, there are a lot of subsidies for fossil fuels. Conservative estimates are about $50 billion/year. Imagine how much cheaper green energy would be compared to fossil fuels (especially coal and oil) if we eliminated all of those. I sincerely think that with the price of solar and wind still dropping, the free market will do its job in maybe a decade or two and fossil fuels simply won't be able to compete.
__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac
caliboy1994 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To caliboy1994
Old 01-18-2014, 03:38 PM   #464 (permalink)
<div style="font-style: italic;">&lt;div style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt; div style=&amp;amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;gt; Plant alchemist&amp;
 
caliboy1994's Avatar
 
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 19
Name: Andreas
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,276
BananaBucks : 210,113
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 1,457 Times
Was Thanked 2,126 Times in 1,133 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Also, FYI:

__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac
caliboy1994 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To caliboy1994
Old 01-22-2014, 05:34 AM   #465 (permalink)
Yug
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Location: Hawaii
Zone: 10-11
Name: Knobby D. Holme
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,458
BananaBucks : 46,477
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 4,004 Times
Was Thanked 1,735 Times in 809 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 465 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Those are what one poster here called "extreme short-term, localized weather events" when they are cold spells, but are 'disasters' and 'proof positive' when they support the 'global warming' delusion. Sounds pretty much one-way to me.
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To Yug
Said thanks:
Old 01-22-2014, 11:58 AM   #466 (permalink)
Laeti vescimur nos subact
 
Funkthulhu's Avatar
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Zone: 5b
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 223
BananaBucks : 21,988
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 163 Times
Was Thanked 330 Times in 145 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

So this guy is really feeling sick and he goes to 100 doctors to ask what the problem is.

Now, the guy is hoping that he's just got a bit of abdominal pain that will go way on its own, because he really doesn't have the time or money to deal with a bigger problem, and he's already sure it's not a serious problem. (don't ask me how he afforded 100 doctors...)

However, every single doctor firmly says that he has appendicitis and that without treatment he is likely to die within the week. All except the last doctor. The last doctor says, "It's probably appendicitis, but I would say there is a 1 in 100 chance it's just something you ate."

The man, seeing that there is a slim chance what he already believes is right goes with the least likely explanation because he has to do nothing about it. Then, 5 days later, he dies. . .

---

A slightly shorter version: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think."
__________________
"Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn"
"In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."
Funkthulhu is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To Funkthulhu
Said thanks:

Join Bananas.org Today!

Are you a banana plant enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Bananas.org is owned and operated by fellow banana plant enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information. Receive all three issues from Volume 1 of Bananas Magazine with your membership:
   

Join Bananas.org Today! - Click Here


Sponsors

Old 01-22-2014, 08:55 PM   #467 (permalink)
<div style="font-style: italic;">&lt;div style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt; div style=&amp;amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;gt; Plant alchemist&amp;
 
caliboy1994's Avatar
 
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 19
Name: Andreas
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,276
BananaBucks : 210,113
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 1,457 Times
Was Thanked 2,126 Times in 1,133 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yug View Post
Those are what one poster here called "extreme short-term, localized weather events" when they are cold spells, but are 'disasters' and 'proof positive' when they support the 'global warming' delusion. Sounds pretty much one-way to me.
Both the recent cold spells and record breaking drought that is affecting my state are consistent with climate change models. Also, you never responded to my logic experiment.
__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac
caliboy1994 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To caliboy1994
Old 01-23-2014, 10:07 AM   #468 (permalink)
Yug
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Location: Hawaii
Zone: 10-11
Name: Knobby D. Holme
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,458
BananaBucks : 46,477
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 4,004 Times
Was Thanked 1,735 Times in 809 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 465 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliboy1994 View Post
Both the recent cold spells and record breaking drought that is affecting my state are consistent with climate change models. Also, you never responded to my logic experiment.
Because your arguments, and your 'game' are tedious. Especially considering that I've already addressed your concerns if you had actually read my posts with anything other than blinders on. So, since you blow off my posts, why are yours any better? Also, you never responded to my comments about a few things, either. For example: the email scandal, cherry picking of temp results. Instead you make unrealistic assumptions.

Here; I'll show you your assumption problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliboy1994 View Post
I have an idea, Yug. Let's play a logic game. So let's assume for a moment that climate change/global warming isn't really happening for whatever reason. And that we take no action. What happens then? Nothing. Everything is the same. Now let's assume that it is not happening and we DO take action. The world economy suffers a bit because of our clamping down on fossil fuels. Developing nations suffer particularly, and countries such as the United States and China who rely heavily on fossil fuels might have recessions due to rapid shifts in the energy economy. But eventually everything turns out fine within a few decades.
First off, your assumption is not logical that the world economy will suffer. China takes care of China. They don't give a shyte about anything/anyone besides their own welfare, and how to further their power/wealth/influence. To them, economics is merely war by other means. If you don't believe that, you are not worth any further discussion of any issue that affects them. (I've worked in areas where I dealt with INTEL of various sorts, so I KNOW what I'm talking about when it comes to them) With that, it will NOT be the world economy that takes a hit, it is ours, the U.S. - because China and India won't play your game. China then becomes the world power as the U.S. slides into third world obscurity. Now our new masters are dictating terms, and guess what? They STILL won't play your game. Now we are totally fcuked, thanks to your little game of fools, and the pollution from China (and others) continues unabated. Meanwhile, algore and his buddies got rich trading these sham 'carbon credits', and we see we have been clearly duped, but now it is too late to put things to right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliboy1994 View Post
Now, let's assume that it IS happening. And we take action. We successfully mitigate the crisis. A few economic setbacks, pretty much the same as stated above, and the damage done so far by climate change has been minimized. Now, let's assume that it is happening and we take NO action. Worldwide economic collapse, sea level rise, mass extinction, and perhaps the collapse of civilization altogether in some areas of the globe that are more vulnerable to climate disruption. Perhaps a billion or so people die within a few decades, and a billion or so more are displaced and become climate refugees. Resource wars, famine, mass migration, and the collapse of many countries' political, social, and economic systems becomes the new norm. This could all potentially happen in this last scenario, it is entirely possible.
Another flaw in your 'logic' based on your assumption (again) that we can 'mitigate' anything. This is because of what I said above: China, and probably India won't play. Their govts only want development. The U.S. may be the only major industrial nation that even listens to the enviro whackos (the brainwashed nuts that want to do anything/everything against global warming) in the first place (probably because we haven't jailed or shot enough of them) which is probably why the scam was begun in the U.S.; where else would you find enough tree-hugger anti-industry 'ohh-noo-we're-killing-the-Earth' idiots to dupe? Try this in China, and you disappear or get shot in the head. Try this in India, and you end up fertilizing a farmers crops.

Also, I won't assume it IS happening, since I don't believe it in the first place. We have had warming periods in the past that have still not been explained if all you go on is the CO2 levels. Also, the email scandal shows they intentionally altered the data with full intent to deceive No-one here has made any attempt yet to determine why they did that - unless they had to because the raw data wouldn't support their argument. They also cherry picked temp readings from built up areas (areas where the heat is reflected instead of absorbed by surroundings, and ignored readings that didn't fit their temp increase agenda. This is not based on assumptions, which you seem rather free with, this was proven to have occurred (and you still have not addressed these items, but instead you ignore them, and then expect me to play YOUR game? again, sounds one-way to me - and still tedious)

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliboy1994 View Post
Let's make another assumption. Assume that we have no way of knowing that climate change/global warming is actually happening. As many distinguished "climate skeptics" argue, the evidence is inconclusive. Now, we have to pick a path to take given the four scenarios above. Take no action, or do something about it. Given the benefits and consequences of each potential scenario, what do you think is the best course of action?
You last assumption is also bogus - we CAN know if it is happening, but it must be based on solid science, not a cadre of agenda-driven (maybe politically motivated, or bribed) conspirators with the proven intent to deceive the world for their personal anti-development beliefs, and others who will profit from trading 'carbon-credits'.

Here is my bottom line: if it even was happening (which I don't for one moment believe), the worst polluter can not be compelled to play along. They are becoming a world power already, and doing what the 'the-sky-is-falling' chicken-little types suggest would hasten their rise to power. Here is my logic: because of this (that they won't play), accept it; you couldn't change it since you can't compel them to comply unless you want to go to war. That war may involve nukes. You think that won't pollute? So... in case that was not clear - you can't affect enough change, accept it, move on to your next 'cause-of-the-moment'.

(will this do until you once-again ignore / fail-to-address these points?)

Last edited by Yug : 07-09-2014 at 07:54 PM.
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To Yug
Said thanks:
Old 01-23-2014, 01:15 PM   #469 (permalink)
Laeti vescimur nos subact
 
Funkthulhu's Avatar
 
Location: Omaha, NE
Zone: 5b
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 223
BananaBucks : 21,988
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 163 Times
Was Thanked 330 Times in 145 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 1 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yug View Post
Here is my bottom line: if it even was happening (which I don't for one moment believe), the worst polluter can not be compelled to play along. They are becoming a world power already, and doing what the 'the-sky-is-falling' chicken-little types suggest would hasten their rise to power. Here is my logic: because of this (that they won't play), accept it; you couldn't change it since you can't compel them to comply unless you want to go to war. That war may involve nukes. You think that won't pollute? So... in case that was not clear - you can't affect enough change, accept it, move on to your next 'cause-of-the-moment'.

(will this do until you once-again ignore / fail-to-address these points?)
Your bottom line is inherently flawed because the science doesn't care what you believe. The facts of global warming have been proven over and over and the fact of anthropogenic forcing is also no longer in any doubt. If we pretend for a moment that your crappy country keeps polluting to get an edge, the environmentally aware countries won't. They rest of the world, without ever lifting a military finger, will end your polluter by enacting carbon-based tariffs and creating their own carbon-friendly industry. Your country dies in economic collapse because nobody buys their stuff and they cannot continue to produce or pollute as they were.
(and btw, I love how your arguments always slide straight into the worst case scenario. "We can't force them to not pollute without NUKES!!! blah blah blah!" Ease up there, man, you'll bust a blood vessel.)
__________________
"Ph'nglui musaglw'nanna Funkthulhu R'Omahaea wgah'basjoo fhtagn"
"In his house at Omaha, dread Funkthulhu plants bananas."
Funkthulhu is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To Funkthulhu
Said thanks:
Old 01-23-2014, 08:58 PM   #470 (permalink)
<div style="font-style: italic;">&lt;div style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt; div style=&amp;amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;gt; Plant alchemist&amp;
 
caliboy1994's Avatar
 
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 19
Name: Andreas
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,276
BananaBucks : 210,113
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 1,457 Times
Was Thanked 2,126 Times in 1,133 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

You want me to not skim over your posts and go through everything you say? Fine.

First point. Chinese officials are already working towards taking action against their own country's carbon emissions and investing heavily in renewable power. YOUR assumption that countries like China and India will never do anything is inherently flawed. It's not like they're immune to the effects of climate change. Parts of China and MUCH of India is going to get drier if this continues. So you think they wouldn't be concerned about it at all? They know it's happening, and that it's a big problem. Since climate change is an issue that affects everyone, it DOES threaten to tank the world economy as well. Yet, it is possible to have an economy that doesn't rely almost exclusively on fossil fuels. You're also forgetting about European countries and their contributions to GHG emissions, which is greater than that of the United States. And THEY are doing things about it too. And of course, the power that the United Nations has to make emissions treaties like the Montreal Protocol (which was a runaway success that halted the destruction of the ozone layer, it is now expected to make a full recovery by 2070). And as Funkthulhu pointed out, carbon tariffs, which countries may resort too if the situation gets particularly bad.

Your statement that the US is the only country that has ever listened to environmentalists is erroneous too. Brazil listened to environmentalists who were protesting deforestation, so they implemented a new satellite monitoring program to track illegal deforestation that ended up cutting deforestation rates in half over the course of a few years. Costa Rica, which is set to become the one of the wealthiest nations (per capita) in the Western Hemisphere, has strict environmental laws and a national park system that allows it to both have a robust, rapidly growing economy and pristine natural beauty and biodiversity. And as I stated above, the European Union is genuinely concerned about climate change and many European countries (notably Germany) are already transitioning their energy economies away from fossil fuels. Maybe you should do your research before saying things like that.

Why is it you think that attempting to transition our economy to something that is better for both the environment and the health of the populace will destroy the country? It calls for investing in new, state of the art technologies and new companies that comprise one of the most rapidly growing industries in the world. I thought investment in something that has so much promise is a good thing? Even if there are economic hardships along the way, the benefit in the end will FAR exceed the cost. It would be great to have no more smog in Los Angeles, but I doubt you've ever had to experience something like that on a daily basis, or have not experienced it in a while, since you live in Hawaii where the biggest problem is exotic species rather than rampant air pollution. And how about being able to generate your own electricity for pennies on the dollar with solar? That would be great too, wouldn't it? No more water pollution from coal mining (see what just happened in West Virginia) or fracking? And no more oil spills? Count me in! I'd love to see what happens to our economy once we make that transition. Cancer rates would probably plummet due to less exposure to toxic chemicals from fossil fuels and air pollution, easing the strain on our healthcare system and making healthcare cheaper. People spend less on medical bills, meaning they have more money to put into consumption. More consumption creates more jobs, on top of the jobs that were created in the new clean energy industry. Those are probably just a few of the effects it would have, on top of less severe climate change, which would have had the potential to cripple the ENTIRE WORLD'S economy. In the end, it would probably end up providing a massive economic stimulus.

Next point. Yes, we have had warming and cooling periods in the past. But these periods have been very strongly correlated with variances in greenhouse gas concentrations. GHG levels go down, average temperature goes down. GHG levels go up, average temperature goes up. You know why? Because greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. This is not rocket science. I don't need to explain this simple concept, the graph will for me.



Now, your last point. You are right. My last assumption was wrong. We CAN know it is happening. And we DO, with 99% certainty. The fact that people like you continue to stick your fingers into your ears and scream "LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!" doesn't change anything. It didn't change anything about the reality of the hole in the ozone layer, it didn't change anything about the reality of the fact that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, it didn't change anything about the reality of Darwinian evolution or the age of the universe. You are not a scientist. You can't prove that it's not happening, but you can believe that it's not happening. You have every right to. Beliefs are just that -- beliefs. I could very well say that I believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, or that injecting heroin cures cancer, or that the world's governments are secretly controlled by alien space leprechauns from Alpha Centauri. That doesn't make any of it true.

It's clear to me that you did a thorough analysis of the logic game I had prepared for you. I'm going to assume for a moment that you are a rational human being, regardless of what you believe. That may or may not be true, but for the purpose of this, I will assume that it is true. If you, a rational human being, decided to play the game, and assess the potential risks and rewards of each situation, your rationale would lead you to only one conclusion. That the best course of action would be to do something about climate change. But it seems to me that you are so closed-minded and dead set on your own belief that it isn't happening that you aren't even willing to ponder it. Either that, or you simply refused to take the challenge because you knew you would have been proven wrong in the end.
__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac

Last edited by caliboy1994 : 01-24-2014 at 03:17 AM.
caliboy1994 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To caliboy1994
Sponsors

Old 01-23-2014, 10:21 PM   #471 (permalink)
 
Location: Baldwin County, AL
Zone: 8b
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 218
BananaBucks : 39,052
Feedback: 1 / 100%
Said "Thanks" 98 Times
Was Thanked 232 Times in 117 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 6 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Well Caliboy, how do you propose we prevent co2 escaping from volcanoes as that is the worst emitter.
CountryBoy1981 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To CountryBoy1981
Old 01-24-2014, 03:08 AM   #472 (permalink)
<div style="font-style: italic;">&lt;div style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt; div style=&amp;amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;gt; Plant alchemist&amp;
 
caliboy1994's Avatar
 
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 19
Name: Andreas
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,276
BananaBucks : 210,113
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 1,457 Times
Was Thanked 2,126 Times in 1,133 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountryBoy1981 View Post
Well Caliboy, how do you propose we prevent co2 escaping from volcanoes as that is the worst emitter.
Another common myth. Humans emit around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 a year. Volcanoes emit about 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, or about 1% of what humans are responsible for. Essentially, volcanoes are a non-issue here.
__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac
caliboy1994 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To caliboy1994
Old 01-24-2014, 10:36 AM   #473 (permalink)
<div style="font-style: italic;">&lt;div style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt; div style=&amp;amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;gt; Plant alchemist&amp;
 
caliboy1994's Avatar
 
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 19
Name: Andreas
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,276
BananaBucks : 210,113
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 1,457 Times
Was Thanked 2,126 Times in 1,133 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Oh, and here you go, Yug. China taking action. Quoted from Wikipedia:

"Climate change mitigation measures

The People's Republic of China is an active participant in the climate change talks and other multilateral environmental negotiations, and claims to take environmental challenges seriously but is pushing for the developed world to help developing countries to a greater extent. It is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, although China is not required to reduce its carbon emissions under the terms of the present agreement.

The Chinese national carbon trading scheme was announced in November 2008 by the national government to enforce a compulsory carbon emission trading scheme across the country's provinces as part of its strategy to create a "low carbon civilisation". The scheme would allow provinces to earn money by investing in carbon capture systems in those regions that fail to invest in the technology.

In 2004, Premier Wen Jiabao promised to use an “iron hand” to make China more energy efficient. China has surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other renewable energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas kilometrage for cars. With $34.6 billion invested in clean technology in 2009, China is the world's leading investor in renewable energy technologies. China produces more wind turbines and solar panels each year than any other country."
__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac
caliboy1994 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To caliboy1994
Old 01-24-2014, 10:47 AM   #474 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: San Diego
Zone: 9-11
Name: Tony
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 18,429
BananaBucks : 522,311
Feedback: 8 / 100%
Said "Thanks" 3,210 Times
Was Thanked 20,570 Times in 7,758 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 2,716 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Mauna Loa, Hawaii
Weekly Mauna Loa
Global
CO2 Movie
Interactive Plots

Contents

Recent Global CO2
Annual Mean Global CO2 Growth Rates
Global CO2 Data

Recent Global CO2
November 2013: 395.92 ppm
November 2012: 393.45 ppm
Global CO2

PDF Version

The graph shows recent monthly mean carbon dioxide globally averaged over marine surface sites. The Global Monitoring Division of NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory has measured carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for several decades at a globally distributed network of air sampling sites [Conway, 1994]. A global average is constructed by first fitting a smoothed curve as a function of time to each site, and then the smoothed value for each site is plotted as a function of latitude for 48 equal time steps per year. A global average is calculated from the latitude plot at each time step [Masarie, 1995]. Go here for more details on how global means are calculated.

The last four complete years plus the current year are shown here. The last year of data are still preliminary, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks.

Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm). Example: 0.000400 is expressed as 400 ppm.

The dashed red line with diamond symbols represents the monthly mean values, centered on the middle of each month. The black line with the square symbols represents the same, after correction for the average seasonal cycle.

The latter is determined as a moving average of SEVEN adjacent seasonal cycles centered on the month to be corrected, except for the first and last THREE and one-half years of the record, where the seasonal cycle has been averaged over the first and last SEVEN years, respectively.

Click for a comparison with recent trends in carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, which has the longest continuous record of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements.
Annual Mean Global Carbon Dioxide Growth Rates
Year ppm/yr Unc. 1959 0.96 0.31 1960 0.71 0.27 1961 0.78 0.27 1962 0.56 0.27 1963 0.57 0.28 1964 0.49 0.27 1965 1.10 0.26 1966 1.10 0.28 1967 0.61 0.34 1968 0.99 0.32 1969 1.32 0.29 1970 1.13 0.32 1971 0.73 0.30 1972 1.47 0.31 1973 1.46 0.31 1974 0.68 0.31 1975 1.23 0.27 1976 0.97 0.28 1977 1.92 0.29 1978 1.29 0.24 1979 2.14 0.26 1980 1.72 0.17 1981 1.15 0.12 1982 1.00 0.08 1983 1.82 0.09 1984 1.25 0.11 1985 1.64 0.08 1986 1.03 0.14 1987 2.71 0.09 1988 2.24 0.09 1989 1.36 0.09 1990 1.17 0.08 1991 0.79 0.09 1992 0.67 0.10 1993 1.22 0.07 1994 1.69 0.12 1995 1.94 0.11 1996 1.07 0.07 1997 1.97 0.07 1998 2.84 0.10 1999 1.34 0.07 2000 1.24 0.10 2001 1.81 0.10 2002 2.39 0.07 2003 2.24 0.10 2004 1.61 0.05 2005 2.42 0.07 2006 1.74 0.06 2007 2.10 0.07 2008 1.78 0.05 2009 1.66 0.10 2010 2.45 0.06 2011 1.71 0.09 2012 2.42 0.09 2013 2.63 0.09

The table shows annual mean carbon dioxide growth rates based on globally averaged marine surface data.

The annual mean rate of growth of CO2 in a given year is the difference in concentration between the end of December and the start of January of that year. It represents the sum of all CO2 added to, and removed from, the atmosphere during the year by human activities and by natural processes. The annual mean growth during the previous year is determined by taking the average of the most recent December and January months, corrected for the average seasonal cycle, as the trend value for January 1, and then subtracting the same December-January average measured one year earlier. Our first estimate for the annual growth rate of the previous year is produced in January of the following year, using data through November of the previous year. That estimate will then be updated in February using data though December, and again in March using data through January. We finalize our estimate for the growth rate of the previous year in the fall of the following year because a few of the air samples on which the global estimate is based are received late in the following year.

The values in this table are subject to change depending on quality control checks of the measured data, but any revisions are expected to be small. The estimates of the global mean CO2 concentration, and thus the annual growth rate, are updated every month as new data come in. The statistics are as follows. If we estimate during a given month ("m") the global average CO2 during the previous month ("m-1"), the result differs from the estimate made (up to almost a year later) when all the data are in, with a standard deviation of 0.57 ppm. For month m-2, the standard deviation is 0.17 ppm, and for month m-3 it is 0.10 ppm. We decided to provide the global mean estimates with a lag of two months. Thus, a December average is first calculated during the following February.

The estimated uncertainty in the global annual mean growth rate varies by year, and has been estimated by a bootstrap technique for 1980 and later. One hundred different realizations of a global network were constructed by randomly picking sites, with restitution, from our existing marine boundary layer sites in the NOAA/ESRL cooperative air sampling network (Conway, 1994). Each member of the ensemble of networks has the same number of sites as the real network, but some sites are missing, while others are represented more than once. An additional condition is that at least one southern high latitude site is present, one tropical and one northern high latitude site, because we have always maintained broad latitude coverage in the real network. Temporal data gaps at individual sites are present in the bootstrap networks. The reported uncertainties are the 1-sigma standard deviations for each year's growth rate of the ensemble members. Pre-1980 the annual growth rate and uncertainty have been calculated from the average of the Mauna Loa and South Pole records (before 1974 as measured by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography), as detailed in Ballantyne et al. (2012).
Data
The complete globally averaged CO2 records described on this page are available.

Globally averaged marine surface monthly mean data
Globally averaged marine surface annual mean data
Globally averaged marine surface annual mean growth rates.

See change log and notes
How to reference content from this page

Ed Dlugokencky and Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL (ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network)
Contact

Ed Dlugokencky, NOAA/ESRL, ph. 303 497 6228, Ed.Dlugokencky@noaa.gov
Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL, ph. 303 497 6678, Pieter.Tans@noaa.gov

Further Reading

A.P. Ballantyne, C.B. Alden, J.B. Miller, P.P. Tans, and J.W.C. White, (2012), Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the last 50 years, Nature 488, 70-72.
T.J. Conway, P.P. Tans, L.S. Waterman, K.W. Thoning, D.R. Kitzis, K.A. Masarie, and N. Zhang, (1994), Evidence of interannual variability of the carbon cycle from the NOAA/CMDL global air sampling network, J. Geophys. Research, vol. 99, 22831-22855
K.A. Masarie, P.P. Tans, (1995), Extension and integration of atmospheric carbon dioxide data into a globally consistent measurement record, J. Geopys. Research, vol. 100, 11593-11610

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earth System Research Laboratory | Global Monitoring Division
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Privacy Policy | Accessibility | Disclaimer | USA.gov
Contact Us | Webmaster
Site Map
sunfish is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To sunfish
Said thanks:
Old 01-24-2014, 10:49 AM   #475 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: San Diego
Zone: 9-11
Name: Tony
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 18,429
BananaBucks : 522,311
Feedback: 8 / 100%
Said "Thanks" 3,210 Times
Was Thanked 20,570 Times in 7,758 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 2,716 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels
Link to this page
What the science says...

When CO2 emissions are compared directly to CO2 levels, there is a strong correlation in the long term trends. This is independently confirmed by carbon isotopes which find the falling ratio of C13/C12 correlates well with fossil fuel emissions.
Climate Myth...

CO2 emissions do not correlate with CO2 concentration
'It is easily demonstrated that there is no correlation between CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over the three years from 1979 to 1982 when CO2 emissions were decreasing due to the rapid increase in the price of oil that drastically reduced consumption, there was no change in the rate of increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 proving that humans were not the primary source for the increase in concentration.' (Telegraph)

To directly compare CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels, both sets of data can be converted to gigatonnes of CO2. The CO2 emissions data is typically expressed in gigatonnes carbon (GtC). One gigatonne is equal to one billion tonnes. This means they've only included the carbon element of the carbon dioxide molecule. The atomic mass of carbon is 12, while the atomic mass of CO2 is 44. Therefore, to convert from gigatonnes carbon to gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, you simply multiply 44 over 12. In other words, 1 gigatonne of carbon equals 3.67 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using our 44 over 12 rule, this means 1ppm = 7.81 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide. Thus the two time series can both be plotted together expressed as gigatonnes of carbon dioxide:


Figure 1: CO2 levels (Green Line - Law Dome, East Antarctica and Blue line - Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions in gigatonnes of CO2 (Red Line - CDIAC).

So putting it all together, Figure 1 is a plot of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (top) versus the total amount of CO2 humans have emitted into the atmosphere (bottom). Several features jump out. Firstly, the similar shape of the curves (dare I say hockey stick shaped). We have correlation but do we have causality?

It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere might have a causality link with the amount of CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, further confirmation comes by analysing the types of CO2 found in the air. The carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.


Figure 3: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr–1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). (IPCC AR4)

Last updated on 14 January 2014 by John Cook. View Archives

Printable Version | Offline PDF Version | Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 1:

jenikhollan at 04:55 AM on 22 May, 2010
The rate of increase of CO2 levels had changed of course even in 1979 to 1982. It fluctuates a lot all the time, as visible from Mauna Loa or global data. This is due to due to the changing fluxes between atmosphere and other pools. A minor signal of yearly variability of human-emitted CO2 is scarcely detectable. A historic discussion of variability of concentration rise is within the Charles D. Keeling autobiography Rewards and penalties of monitoring the Earth from 1998. Excellent images on CO2, fossil fuels and the influences onto CO2 rise anomalies are within his 2005 Tyler Prize Presentation.

A minor correction: Law Dome data have 2455 in its URL (the link within the text pointed to Tayler Dome, 2419).
Response: Thanks for the heads-up, have fixed the link.

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page


[The Consensus Project Website]
The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism
Smartphone Apps
iPhone
Android
Nokia

ę Copyright 2014 John Cook

Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us
sunfish is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To sunfish
Said thanks:
Old 01-24-2014, 10:55 AM   #476 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: San Diego
Zone: 9-11
Name: Tony
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 18,429
BananaBucks : 522,311
Feedback: 8 / 100%
Said "Thanks" 3,210 Times
Was Thanked 20,570 Times in 7,758 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 2,716 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
Filed under:

Climate Science
FAQ
Greenhouse gases
Paleoclimate

— eric @ 22 December 2004 - (Svenska) (Espa˝ol) (Franšais)

digg
7

EmailShare

Note:This is an update to an earlier post, which many found to be too technical. The original, and a series of comments on it, can be found here. See also a more recent post here for an even less technical discussion.

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned. Yet it is quite reasonable to ask how we know this.

One way that we know that human activities are responsible for the increased CO2 is simply by looking at historical records of human activities. Since the industrial revolution, we have been burning fossil fuels and clearing and burning forested land at an unprecedented rate, and these processes convert organic carbon into CO2. Careful accounting of the amount of fossil fuel that has been extracted and combusted, and how much land clearing has occurred, shows that we have produced far more CO2 than now remains in the atmosphere. The roughly 500 billion metric tons of carbon we have produced is enough to have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to nearly 500 ppm. The concentrations have not reached that level because the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere have the capacity to absorb some of the CO2 we produce.* However, it is the fact that we produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb it that explains the observed increase.

Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere decreases.

Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2. One of the methods used is to measure the 13C/12C in tree rings, and use this to infer those same ratios in atmospheric CO2. This works because during photosynthesis, trees take up carbon from the atmosphere and lay this carbon down as plant organic material in the form of rings, providing a snapshot of the atmospheric composition of that time. If the ratio of 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 goes up or down, so does the 13C/12C of the tree rings. This isn’t to say that the tree rings have the same isotopic composition as the atmosphere – as noted above, plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes, but as long as that preference doesn’t change much, the tree-ring changes wiil track the atmospheric changes.

Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios. Because the age of each ring is precisely known** we can make a graph of the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio vs. time. What is found is at no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning. Furthermore, we can trace the absorption of CO2 into the ocean by measuring the 13C/12C ratio of surface ocean waters. While the data are not as complete as the tree ring data (we have only been making these measurements for a few decades) we observe what is expected: the surface ocean 13C/12C is decreasing. Measurements of 13C/12C on corals and sponges — whose carbonate shells reflect the ocean chemistry just as tree rings record the atmospheric chemistry — show that this decline began about the same time as in the atmosphere; that is, when human CO2 production began to accelerate in earnest.***

In addition to the data from tree rings, there are also of measurements of the 13C/12C ratio in the CO2 trapped in ice cores. The tree ring and ice core data both show that the total change in the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere since 1850 is about 0.15%. This sounds very small but is actually very large relative to natural variability. The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%, or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.

For those who are interested in the details, some relevant references are:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
—————————
Notes
*How much they can be expected to absorb in the long run is an interesting and important scientific question, discussed in some detail in Chapter 3 of the IPCC report. Clearly, though, it is our ability to produce CO2 faster than the ocean and biosphere can absorb that it is the fundamental cause of the observed increase since pre-industrial times.
**The development of continuous series of tree rings going back thousands of years by using trees of overlapping age, is known as dendrochronology (see the Arizona Tree Ring lab web pages for more information on this).
***There is a graph illustrating the sponge data posted here. Thanks to F. Boehm for providing this link.
- See more at: RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
sunfish is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To sunfish
Said thanks:
Old 01-26-2014, 09:25 PM   #477 (permalink)
Yug
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Location: Hawaii
Zone: 10-11
Name: Knobby D. Holme
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,458
BananaBucks : 46,477
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 4,004 Times
Was Thanked 1,735 Times in 809 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 465 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Is there a link (demonstrable and directly-proportional) between any of that information and temps?
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To Yug
Old 01-26-2014, 09:26 PM   #478 (permalink)
Yug
 
Yug's Avatar
 
Location: Hawaii
Zone: 10-11
Name: Knobby D. Holme
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,458
BananaBucks : 46,477
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 4,004 Times
Was Thanked 1,735 Times in 809 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 465 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountryBoy1981 View Post
Well Caliboy, how do you propose we prevent co2 escaping from volcanoes as that is the worst emitter.
Giant corks

(and regarding china... talk is cheap; they will pretend to be going along with it just to keep up the appearance of interest)

Last edited by Yug : 01-26-2014 at 09:41 PM.
Yug is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To Yug
Old 01-27-2014, 09:04 PM   #479 (permalink)
<div style="font-style: italic;">&lt;div style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;&amp;lt;div style=&amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&amp;amp;lt; div style=&amp;amp;quot;font-style: italic;&amp;amp;quot;&amp;amp;gt; Plant alchemist&amp;
 
caliboy1994's Avatar
 
Location: Granada Hills, CA
Zone: USDA zone 10a; Sunset zone 19
Name: Andreas
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,276
BananaBucks : 210,113
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 1,457 Times
Was Thanked 2,126 Times in 1,133 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 236 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yug View Post
Is there a link (demonstrable and directly-proportional) between any of that information and temps?
CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere by its very nature, because it absorbs visible light and rereleases in infrared wavelengths (which transfer heat, when you feel heat on your face when you're near a fire it's from the infrared wavelengths). From a logical standpoint, it's easy to say that if you raise CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels in the lower atmosphere, where the weather occurs, things will get hotter on average. There is also evidence from things ice cores, tree rings, and sediments that points to a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 and average global temperatures. Here's the graph again in case you missed it. It's from ice core analysis, which is a very accurate way of measuring long term temperature and atmospheric composition.



And as for the China/India situation, I guess we'll have to wait and see. They are at least making some progress. The free market will make solar cheaper for everyone anyways within a couple of decades.
__________________




"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Find me on Photobucket here:
http://s1061.photobucket.com/profile/musamaniac
caliboy1994 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To caliboy1994
Old 01-27-2014, 10:06 PM   #480 (permalink)
 
Kat2's Avatar
 
Location: Now nesting in Titusville, FL
Zone: 10A or 9B ish. Like it matters?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,153
BananaBucks : 195,553
Feedback: 0 / 0%
Said "Thanks" 2,921 Times
Was Thanked 2,668 Times in 1,322 Posts
Said "Welcome to Bananas" 595 Times
Default Re: Climate change hoax exposed?

Okay, what are all of you who believe in global warning doing to stop it? I've done my part; I recycle, I drive very little (combine trips), flush judiciously and much more. What are you doing to limit your carbon footprint? BTW, I had only 1 child who shops at thrift stores, knows how to take a short shower and follows a simple life despite earning a very good salary while living in a very wasteful area of the country.

I've done my part and still do.

Et tu?
__________________
Kat2 is offline   Reply With Quote Send A Private Message To Kat2
Said thanks:
Reply   Email this Page Email this Page






Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UK climate zones may be useful jmoore Main Banana Discussion 2 08-09-2009 05:42 AM
climate change gardening... 51st state Cold Hardy Bananas 1 07-28-2009 06:21 PM
Change Plantaseeds Other Plants 2 04-05-2009 10:13 PM
Worsleya for change Plantaseeds Other Plants 3 10-21-2008 10:11 AM
sudden move to new climate Zacarias Main Banana Discussion 7 05-27-2008 07:59 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 PM.





All content © Bananas.org & the respective author.