(01-30-2012 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Does anyone know of something like Dropbox where I can drop this Understanding Global Climate Change for people to download? The file is too Big for Dropbox. It's created by NASA and there's two Chapters including animations that I think would be helpful here. It goes into detal how we know the CO2 levels of the past and where they are at today. They measure temp by using Isotopes of Oxygen. CO2 levels have NEVER been higher than they are today and next year they will even be higher. So on and so forth. I'm sorry Torch but there is no debate here. Show any link where CO2 levels have been higher. You won't find it.

I think he's more questioning the relevance of the high C02 levels on climate change, not if they're high....

System Interactions and how cascades of events can cause subsystems to react differently is hardly anti-science. It's rooted in fundamental meteorology. Many changes are unpredictable and trying to piece together the nature of those changes are extremely hard to forecast. What we do know is the trajectories, and those trajectories do not paint a bright future for generations to come.

I think he's more questioning the relevance of the high C02 levels on climate change, not if they're high....


No unfortunately we can't even agree on this.


The Earth's CO2 concentration has been higher, much higher at times, in the past.


Torch you won't find a reputable source to agree with you on this.



but............................ I'm happy here. From this topic we raise awareness. Maybe you thought that CO2 levels have been higher. This in and of itself raises awareness. That's what we need here. And Bull all of that mumbo jumbo about what temps have been in the past. They use Isotopes of oxygen. It's actually a very reliable thermometer.

(01-30-2012 01:10 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What we do know is the trajectories, and those trajectories do not paint a bright future for generations to come.

Why do you feel that these trajectories leading to climate change or global warming is bad? No hyperbole please.

(01-30-2012 01:15 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think he's more questioning the relevance of the high C02 levels on climate change, not if they're high....


No unfortunately we can't even agree on this.


The Earth's CO2 concentration has been higher, much higher at times, in the past.


Torch you won't find a reputable source to agree with you on this.



but............................ I'm happy here. From this topic we raise awareness. Maybe you thought that CO2 levels have been higher. This in and of itself raises awareness. That's what we need here. And Bull all of that mumbo jumbo about what temps have been in the past. They use Isotopes of oxygen. It's actually a very reliable thermometer.

Nat Geo ran an article about three months ago about times when CO2 was higher. Nat Geo is on the global warming bandwagon.

So many things to look up. I have a link here that says Hurricane's Level 4 and 5 on the Safir Simpson scale have increase 80% in the last 35 years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full



Why do you feel that these trajectories leading to climate change or global warming is bad? No hyperbole please.


Here's the things I worry about. We fight wars today over oil. Wars in the future will be over freshwater. Where it rains today may become arid. Tropical diseases will become a problem in ever increasing areas. Food webs could collapse. One very simple example. Birds migration habits have evolved over time. Insects come out two weeks earlier than the birds arrive. Plants bloom before pollinators arrive. Those are a few examples off the to pof my head. Think of coastal areas and where populations are. Think of the coastal areas with 3 m of more water. There wouldn't be a Miami. LeBron would have to take his talents to another beach.

Link George?

Here's a chart that says we have never been higher. It reads we are close to 400 ppm.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science..._fig1.html


It's not even close. It's scary to me that you can't even get people to agree on this. If I'm reading it right that chart goes back 600,000 thousand years.

(01-30-2012 01:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Link George?

I read the paper copy at home. Maybe it is available online. It was a length piece.

(01-30-2012 01:07 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Does anyone know of something like Dropbox where I can drop this Understanding Global Climate Change for people to download? The file is too Big for Dropbox. It's created by NASA and there's two Chapters including animations that I think would be helpful here. It goes into detal how we know the CO2 levels of the past and where they are at today. They measure temp by using Isotopes of Oxygen. CO2 levels have NEVER been higher than they are today and next year they will even be higher. So on and so forth. I'm sorry Torch but there is no debate here. Show any link where CO2 levels have been higher. You won't find it.

I think he's more questioning the relevance of the high C02 levels on climate change, not if they're high....

Especially since historically (ice core history) CO2 levels *LAG* climate change not lead temperature change. There is also Henry's law to consider.

(01-30-2012 01:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:07 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Does anyone know of something like Dropbox where I can drop this Understanding Global Climate Change for people to download? The file is too Big for Dropbox. It's created by NASA and there's two Chapters including animations that I think would be helpful here. It goes into detal how we know the CO2 levels of the past and where they are at today. They measure temp by using Isotopes of Oxygen. CO2 levels have NEVER been higher than they are today and next year they will even be higher. So on and so forth. I'm sorry Torch but there is no debate here. Show any link where CO2 levels have been higher. You won't find it.

I think he's more questioning the relevance of the high C02 levels on climate change, not if they're high....

Especially since historically (ice core history) CO2 levels *LAG* climate change not lead temperature change. There is also Henry's law to consider.

I don't trust any Law named after a guy named "Henry"...I know one. Read dbag. What does "Henry's" law state?

(01-30-2012 01:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So many things to look up. I have a link here that says Hurricane's Level 4 and 5 on the Safir Simpson scale have increase 80% in the last 35 years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5742/1844.full

Simply a matter of reporting. We didn't have satellites capturing info on every typhoon until about 35 years ago.

Dangerous fallacy.

(01-30-2012 02:04 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:07 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Does anyone know of something like Dropbox where I can drop this Understanding Global Climate Change for people to download? The file is too Big for Dropbox. It's created by NASA and there's two Chapters including animations that I think would be helpful here. It goes into detal how we know the CO2 levels of the past and where they are at today. They measure temp by using Isotopes of Oxygen. CO2 levels have NEVER been higher than they are today and next year they will even be higher. So on and so forth. I'm sorry Torch but there is no debate here. Show any link where CO2 levels have been higher. You won't find it.

I think he's more questioning the relevance of the high C02 levels on climate change, not if they're high....

Especially since historically (ice core history) CO2 levels *LAG* climate change not lead temperature change. There is also Henry's law to consider.

I don't trust any Law named after a guy named "Henry"...I know one. Read dbag. What does "Henry's" law state?

At a constant temperature, the amount of a gas that dissolves in a given liquid is proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.



Kh is henrys constant which changes with the solute, the solvent and the temperature.

So when water gets warmer the amount of gas that stays dissolved in solution (in this case CO2 in the Ocean) lowers and because that CO2 has to go somewhere it goes into the air.

(01-30-2012 01:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Here's the things I worry about. We fight wars today over oil. Wars in the future will be over freshwater. Where it rains today may become arid. Tropical diseases will become a problem in ever increasing areas. Food webs could collapse. One very simple example. Birds migration habits have evolved over time. Insects come out two weeks earlier than the birds arrive. Plants bloom before pollinators arrive. Those are a few examples off the to pof my head. Think of coastal areas and where populations are. Think of the coastal areas with 3 m of more water. There wouldn't be a Miami. LeBron would have to take his talents to another beach.

Mach, each and every one of these things have already happened, often in concert with worse changes, for millions, if not billions of years, over the history of the earth. People, animals, the planet adapts. Evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest.

And yet, here we are. In fact without dramatic climate change in years past, there may be no humanity at all....

Please don't go on about rising water levels. If water levels rise, people will simply move.

(01-30-2012 01:15 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I think he's more questioning the relevance of the high C02 levels on climate change, not if they're high....


No unfortunately we can't even agree on this.


The Earth's CO2 concentration has been higher, much higher at times, in the past.


Torch you won't find a reputable source to agree with you on this.

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=...us+climate

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbon...imate.html



That wasn't hard

If you want to discuss historical geology and the precision of today's measurements in relation to actual conditions, I'm probably not your guy, other than to say that we don't have a solid way of validating any of them. I think all of these studies suffer from the same limitations, so I'd be surprised that 600K years ago had better results than 100M.

(01-30-2012 02:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(01-30-2012 01:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Here's the things I worry about. We fight wars today over oil. Wars in the future will be over freshwater. Where it rains today may become arid. Tropical diseases will become a problem in ever increasing areas. Food webs could collapse. One very simple example. Birds migration habits have evolved over time. Insects come out two weeks earlier than the birds arrive. Plants bloom before pollinators arrive. Those are a few examples off the to pof my head. Think of coastal areas and where populations are. Think of the coastal areas with 3 m of more water. There wouldn't be a Miami. LeBron would have to take his talents to another beach.

Mach, each and every one of these things have already happened, often in concert with worse changes, for millions, if not billions of years, over the history of the earth. People, animals, the planet adapts. Evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest.

And yet, here we are. In fact without dramatic climate change in years past, there may be no humanity at all....

Please don't go on about rising water levels. If water levels rise, people will simply move.

Uh...No. We'll grow gills and use dirt as money.

(01-30-2012 01:10 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  System Interactions and how cascades of events can cause subsystems to react differently is hardly anti-science.

It is when you claim dire predictions that aren't demonstrated but simply are backed by "it could happen."

Quote: What we do know is the trajectories, and those trajectories do not paint a bright future for generations to come.

This statement shows you don't understand chaos theory.

I wonder if we could have something like Megaupload hoast it then you guys could upload it. Anybody have any ideas. It's like 221 MB I think.

Torch I don't think I have ever claimed dire consequences. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. I just don't see how someone can deny it happening. Also, the people who study it think we should be concerned. That's enough to warrant at least my attention.

Your chart Torch. Even for zones of accuracy. Yes I guess it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that during the time period when plants took to land C02 levels were higher. But since plants have evolved and animals began to walk on land C02 levelas haven't been higher. So just for arguments sake. In the LAST 600,000 years C02 levels havent been higher.

(01-30-2012 04:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I wonder if we could have something like Megaupload hoast it then you guys could upload it...

Missed the news?