Does Science Reveal Truth?

@wildgrass said
It will still be rising though. I think you missed that about the quote I posted. Using the average over the 20th century, sea level should be 3-4 meters higher than it is now if it was rising at the average (1.2 mm) for the past 2500 years.

It hasn't been rising for that long. Pre industrial age temps can be determined by methane and CO2 levels in ice core samples. They both lagged behind temperatures so they are a good gauge of temps when adjusted to the lag time. Using that method I have determined that temperatures bottomed out and started rising at approximately 1800. The industrial revolution was considered to have started at about 1850. Prior to that wood was the main fuel, not coal.

@metal-brain said
I have determined that temperatures bottomed out and started rising at approximately 1800. The industrial revolution was considered to have started at about 1850. Prior to that wood was the main fuel, not coal.

All that would mean at most is that between 1800 and 1850, and also a good while after 1850 because it took a long while for the industrial revolution to burn huge amounts of coal required to measurably effect climate, the temperature rise was at least almost entirely if not entirely natural. That doesn't in any way logical imply there was no significant man made temperature rise sometime well after 1850 and for the same reason why the end of the last ice age being natural doesn't imply that. That's because there is no logical contradiction between the two BOTH being true. If you deny this, state the contradiction between the two...

@humy said
All that would mean at most is that between 1800 and 1850, and also a good while after 1850 because it took a long while for the industrial revolution to burn huge amounts of coal required to measurably effect climate, the temperature rise was at least almost entirely if not entirely natural. That doesn't in any way logical imply there was no significant man made temperature ris ...[text shortened]... iction between the two BOTH being true. If you deny this, state the contradiction between the two...

"That doesn't in any way logical imply there was no significant man made temperature rise sometime well after 1850"

I never said that. All I did was prove the warming trend started before the industrial revolution for the dogmatic people who refuse to believe facts.

Now that you have accepted this warming trend started naturally you can stop arguing man started it and focus on how much man influences warming today. Every fair analysis of sea level rise shows man's influence is less than 50%, not more than 50%.

@metal-brain said
All I did was prove the warming trend started before the industrial revolution

Which is irrelevant even if true since that wouldn't in any way logical imply there was no significant man made temperature rise sometime well after 1850.

for the dogmatic people who refuse to believe facts.

Nobody here would deny the temperature fluctuated and thus sometimes went up before the industrial revolution. These "dogmatic people" don't exist anywhere except in you mind.

Now that you have accepted this warming trend started naturally

-but not finished naturally.

you can stop arguing man started it

I never argued man starting any significant global warming trend JUST BEFORE the industrial revolution although mass deforestation would have had some effect over the longer time period much before then. Science proves much of the warming that came some time AFTER the industrial revolution is certainly man made.

and focus on how much man influences warming today.

If what you mean by "today" is recently, that's what I have done all the long.

Every fair analysis of sea level rise shows man's influence is less than 50%, not more than 50%.

1, The latter studies that use more data from more buoys we showed you show that's false.

2, Even if man caused just, say, 30% of the warming, that still does harm thus we should still do something about that. Your "50%" is completely arbitrary and illogical. Why is that 50% mark significant? If it was 4.999% it wouldn't matter but it is was 50.001% suddenly it matters? WHY? Why shouldn't the critical percentage be over, say, EXACTLY 23.561433% rather than, say, over EXACTLY 50%?

@metal-brain said
It hasn't been rising for that long. Pre industrial age temps can be determined by methane and CO2 levels in ice core samples. They both lagged behind temperatures so they are a good gauge of temps when adjusted to the lag time. Using that method I have determined that temperatures bottomed out and started rising at approximately 1800. The industrial revolution was considered to have started at about 1850. Prior to that wood was the main fuel, not coal.

Makes sense from an anthropogenic perspective, considering all the deforestation that occurred prior to 1800. Changes in land cover are major drivers of climate change.

About 2,000 years ago, 80 percent of Western Europe was forested; today the figure is 34 percent. In North America, about half of the forests in the eastern part of the continent were cut down from the 1600s to the 1870s for timber and agriculture. China has lost great expanses of its forests over the past 4,000 years and now just over 20 percent of it is forested. Much of Earth’s farmland was once forests.

Trees are carbon sinks. Wood burning releases a lot of carbon, and there were a billion people on the planet in 1800.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/deforestation/

@wildgrass said
Makes sense from an anthropogenic perspective, considering all the deforestation that occurred prior to 1800. Changes in land cover are major drivers of climate change.
[quote]About 2,000 years ago, 80 percent of Western Europe was forested; today the figure is 34 percent. In North America, [b]about half of the forests in the eastern part of the continent were cut down fro ...[text shortened]... illion people on the planet in 1800.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/deforestation/

Burning wood just speeds up the carbon cycle slightly. The difference is negligible. Termites release a lot of carbon. More than man, but since it is part of the carbon cycle it doesn't matter. Same thing with burning wood. It would end up in the atmosphere anyway. Wood rots over time.

"Changes in land cover are major drivers of climate change."

Not prior to 1800. It depends where and how much and there was not enough of it to make a difference back then. Besides, there was no increase of CO2 that didn't follow temps as expected. There is no data to back up your claim.

National Geographic is not a reliable source of information. They promote the hurricane myths I have proven false many times on this forum. They have discredited themselves.

"there were a billion people on the planet in 1800."

That is not true. Not even close.

@metal-brain said
Burning wood just speeds up the carbon cycle slightly. The difference is negligible. Termites release a lot of carbon. More than man, but since it is part of the carbon cycle it doesn't matter. Same thing with burning wood. It would end up in the atmosphere anyway. Wood rots over time.

"Changes in land cover are major drivers of climate change."

Not prior to 1800. ...[text shortened]... selves.

"there were a billion people on the planet in 1800."

That is not true. Not even close.

As you've indicated, speeding up the natural cycles (e.g. carbon cycle) creates an unnatural cycle: this is exactly the kind of thing that scientists are warning against. We don't want to do that. We don't want to speed things up. Let's try to keep our current climate... Right?

I'm not citing hurricane data. What does that have to do with it? The evidence is very clear that the eastern US lost hundreds of millions of acres of it's forest cover circa 1800-1850. This is from the forest service website:

https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/major-trends.pdf

p.s. how many people do you think were alive in 1800?

@metal-brain said
Burning wood just speeds up the carbon cycle slightly.

It does more than that when the forests cut down are not replaced with new ones so that there is a net increase in CO2 that isn't necessarily reversed any time soon but rather may persist.
If a forest is cut down but not replaced via either natural or man-made reforestation then that, at least on the local level, isn't a "carbon cycle" because it isn't a "cycle" because the carbon isn't returned into the trees of that land.

@wildgrass said
As you've indicated, speeding up the natural cycles (e.g. carbon cycle) creates an unnatural cycle: this is exactly the kind of thing that scientists are warning against. We don't want to do that. We don't want to speed things up. Let's try to keep our current climate... Right?

I'm not citing hurricane data. What does that have to do with it? The evidence is very clear t ...[text shortened]... //www.fia.fs.fed.us/slides/major-trends.pdf

p.s. how many people do you think were alive in 1800?

That doesn't make any noticeable difference. You don't even know what the population was in 1800. You have been influenced by false info. Stop being a chicken little liar.

@humy said
It does more than that when the forests cut down are not replaced with new ones so that there is a net increase in CO2 that isn't necessarily reversed any time soon but rather may persist.
If a forest is cut down but not replaced via either natural or man-made reforestation then that, at least on the local level, isn't a "carbon cycle" because it isn't a "cycle" because the carbon isn't returned into the trees of that land.

What is your source of information?

@metal-brain said
What is your source of information?

Science.
When a tree is cut down and the wood is either eventually burned or rots, the carbon in it goes into the atmosphere + knowledge of how carbon carbon cycle works.

@humy said
Science.
When a tree is cut down and the wood is either eventually burned or rots, the carbon in it goes into the atmosphere + knowledge of how carbon carbon cycle works.

If it isn't burned it rots. What is the difference if it ends up in the atmosphere either way? The burning of wood is a part of the natural carbon cycle too. It isn't just man that causes forest fires, they are caused by lightning too. Forest fires are natural. Jack Pine is dependent on fire for reproduction. It would not exist without forest fires. The Kirtland Warbler is dependent on the Jack Pine so it would likely go extinct without forest fires. Near where I live they do controlled burning to promote Jack Pine growth.

You clearly do not know how the carbon cycle works.

@metal-brain said
If it isn't burned it rots. What is the difference if it ends up in the atmosphere either way? The burning of wood is a part of the natural carbon cycle too. It isn't just man that causes forest fires, they are caused by lightning too. Forest fires are natural. Jack Pine is dependent on fire for reproduction. It would not exist without forest fires. The Kirtland Warbler i ...[text shortened]... ntrolled burning to promote Jack Pine growth.

You clearly do not know how the carbon cycle works.

The burning of wood is a part of the natural carbon cycle too. It isn't just man that causes forest fires, they are caused by lightning too.

What has that got to do with what I was just explaining to you which was if man cuts down forests that are not then subsequently replaced, this leads to a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
So now you resort to changing the subject.

Forest fires are natural.

Including those that aren't?

Jack Pine is dependent on fire for reproduction. It would not exist without forest fires.

What about trees that do NOT dependent on fire for reproduction and which are simply killed by fire? But all this is besides the point because I NEVER have argued nor think we should necessarily NEVER cut down trees or burn their wood etc. In fact, I have ALWAYS said that we MUST allow of felling of at least SOME trees for the sake of allowing sustainable forestry. Also, I assert the felling of SOME forests is often needed to make room for agriculture and roads and buildings etc. We merely mustn't cut down too many or in a wasteful unsustainable way.

The Kirtland Warbler is dependent on the Jack Pine so it would likely go extinct without forest fires.

Right; So I assert we should generally allow forest fires where and when it benefits the trees that have evolved to depend on fire. So you point is...? I NEVER SAID nor IMPLIED in any way we should NEVER allow some forest fires.

You clearly do not know how the carbon cycle works.

False. And the fact you seem to show anger with my suggestion that if forests are destroyed and not replaced that will not result in an increase in CO2 is an indication that, whether you know how the carbon cycle works, you don't accept what the science says about it.

@humy said

The burning of wood is a part of the natural carbon cycle too. It isn't just man that causes forest fires, they are caused by lightning too.

What has that got to do with what I was just explaining to you which was if man cuts down forests that are not then subsequently replaced, this leads to a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
So now you resort to changin ...[text shortened]... that, whether you know how the carbon cycle works, you don't accept what the science says about it.

"What has that got to do with what I was just explaining to you which was if man cuts down forests that are not then subsequently replaced, this leads to a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?"

How much? Not much back in 1800. How did we get on this subject anyway? Didn't wildgrass start this? Apparently he gave up and you were not so wise.

You are defending a losing argument. People were using cross cut saws and axes back then.

"False. And the fact you seem to show anger with my suggestion that if forests are destroyed and not replaced that will not result in an increase in CO2 is an indication that, whether you know how the carbon cycle works, you don't accept what the science says about it"

You were talking about burning wood, not deforestation. You are trying to move the goal post. Stop being a dishonest creep. People burn wood without deforestation all the time. It is called a selective cut.

You have lost this debate. It is time for you to concede. Burning firewood does not disrupt the carbon cycle. Termites put more CO2 in the atmosphere than all wood burning.

@metal-brain said
"What has that got to do with what I was just explaining to you which was if man cuts down forests that are not then subsequently replaced, this leads to a net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?"

How much? Not much back in 1800. How did we get on this subject anyway? Didn't wildgrass start this? Apparently he gave up and you were not so wise.

You are defending a los ...[text shortened]... od does not disrupt the carbon cycle. Termites put more CO2 in the atmosphere than all wood burning.

WOW! What a list of brand new straw mans! And you accuse ME of being dishonest?
Apparently you moronically cannot read; I just said the exact opposite to some of the above.

You are defending a losing argument.

Nope. I am not defending you straw man arguments. The fact you resort to straw mans is an indication you know you have already completely lost the argument.

You were talking about burning wood, not deforestation.

I was talking about deforestation via burning forests/trees.

People burn wood without deforestation all the time.

Right. I was talking about deforestation via burning forests/trees. Your point? Why you try and change the subject and thus the goal post yet again!? And you accuse ME of moving the goal post?