Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: JimRockford

Quote: AZDuffman

Meanwhile the believers just let the scientists do their thinking for them. I have yet to hear one say more than "the scientists said....."

Bring a scientist on here and I will say the same I have always said.

I will repeat that the skeptics I have seen tend to be far more informed than the believers. No believer I have met knows how much CO2 in the atmosphere. But they can sure keep saying "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD" all day.

CO2 concentration is about 420 ppm, about 50% higher than before the industrial age; higher than the human species has ever experienced; a level not seen for about 3 million years.

Meaning not even 0.05%. Think about how little that is.

Quote: JimRockford

Quote: AZDuffman

Meanwhile the believers just let the scientists do their thinking for them. I have yet to hear one say more than "the scientists said....."

Bring a scientist on here and I will say the same I have always said.

I will repeat that the skeptics I have seen tend to be far more informed than the believers. No believer I have met knows how much CO2 in the atmosphere. But they can sure keep saying "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD" all day.

CO2 concentration is about 420 ppm, about 50% higher than before the industrial age; higher than the human species has ever experienced; a level not seen for about 3 million years.

Just a thought to ponder. At the beginning of the last ice age before the world started to cool a lot of ice would have melted so you don't have that ice in the CO2 record. When the ice started building again the it was cooling not warming and the ice formed then would reflect the cooling level of CO2. It seems that we would not know from the ice reading what the high for CO2 was since friggin ice wasn't forming then. Basically the bulk of the ice in the ice record was formed during ice ages hardly an unbiased record.

Quote: kenarman

I don't think either of us will be around long enough to find out if you are right.

I think that is probably correct but it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it will happen.

Quote: DRich

I think that is probably correct but it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it will happen.

It just means we have to agree to disagree unless any markers go to our surviving family.

Quote: kenarman

It just means we have to agree to disagree unless any markers go to our surviving family.

We don't need to bet, I am always right.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: JimRockford

Quote: AZDuffman

Meanwhile the believers just let the scientists do their thinking for them. I have yet to hear one say more than "the scientists said....."

Bring a scientist on here and I will say the same I have always said.

I will repeat that the skeptics I have seen tend to be far more informed than the believers. No believer I have met knows how much CO2 in the atmosphere. But they can sure keep saying "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD" all day.

CO2 concentration is about 420 ppm, about 50% higher than before the industrial age; higher than the human species has ever experienced; a level not seen for about 3 million years.

Meaning not even 0.05%. Think about how little that is.

Is it surprising that trace amounts of a substance can have a large effect on a system? If the amount is too small to matter then maybe no one should care if there was zero CO2 in the atmosphere.

Quote: DRich

We don't need to bet, I am always right.

Want to bet?

Quote: kenarman

Quote: JimRockford

Quote: AZDuffman

Meanwhile the believers just let the scientists do their thinking for them. I have yet to hear one say more than "the scientists said....."

Bring a scientist on here and I will say the same I have always said.

I will repeat that the skeptics I have seen tend to be far more informed than the believers. No believer I have met knows how much CO2 in the atmosphere. But they can sure keep saying "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD" all day.

CO2 concentration is about 420 ppm, about 50% higher than before the industrial age; higher than the human species has ever experienced; a level not seen for about 3 million years.

Just a thought to ponder. At the beginning of the last ice age before the world started to cool a lot of ice would have melted so you don't have that ice in the CO2 record. When the ice started building again the it was cooling not warming and the ice formed then would reflect the cooling level of CO2. It seems that we would not know from the ice reading what the high for CO2 was since friggin ice wasn't forming then. Basically the bulk of the ice in the ice record was formed during ice ages hardly an unbiased record.

You’d have to take that thought to a real climate scientist, not me. But it is my understanding that even in the warm cycles there was winter ice formation in Antarctica, at least for the last 800,000 years. It appears to me that even skeptics accept the ice core data as valid.

Quote: JimRockford

Quote: kenarman

Quote: JimRockford

Quote: AZDuffman

Meanwhile the believers just let the scientists do their thinking for them. I have yet to hear one say more than "the scientists said....."

Bring a scientist on here and I will say the same I have always said.

I will repeat that the skeptics I have seen tend to be far more informed than the believers. No believer I have met knows how much CO2 in the atmosphere. But they can sure keep saying "FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD" all day.

CO2 concentration is about 420 ppm, about 50% higher than before the industrial age; higher than the human species has ever experienced; a level not seen for about 3 million years.

Just a thought to ponder. At the beginning of the last ice age before the world started to cool a lot of ice would have melted so you don't have that ice in the CO2 record. When the ice started building again the it was cooling not warming and the ice formed then would reflect the cooling level of CO2. It seems that we would not know from the ice reading what the high for CO2 was since friggin ice wasn't forming then. Basically the bulk of the ice in the ice record was formed during ice ages hardly an unbiased record.

You’d have to take that thought to a real climate scientist, not me. But it is my understanding that even in the warm cycles there was winter ice formation in Antarctica, at least for the last 800,000 years. It appears to me that even skeptics accept the ice core data as valid.

But did that ice melt in the Antarctic summer? If not there has to be a 800,000 year continuous build up of ice in the Antarctic.

You could drop a bag of the hottest coals on solid ice and you would create a small hole. But lowering the overall temp a couple tenths of a degree on a mountain side can cause loosening of the ice/snowpack combined with the overall weight causing an avalanche.

In answer to "can a small change cause a major problem." Sure can.