03 Sep 19
@Grandmaster-bater
It is well known methane is far worse, some 25 times worse greenhouse gas but it has one good side. It disappears in about 100 years or so. CO2 won't go away and the levels of CO2 are already at a high not seen for millions of years.
The real problem with methane is both the arctic thawing out which releases a LOT of methane and the methane ice on the bottom of oceans, it those oceans heat up that methane ice turns to gas, not sure just why it is some kind of solid, you would have to ask Ponderable that one, he is a chemist and member of mensa so he would know. I know it's not just frozen methane because that takes some minus 300 F or so. It has to be some kind of organic trap for the gas I assume. Anyway they are accumulating on the ocean floors around the world and some of them aready giving off Methane. But there are other GHG's also like NO2, nitrous oxide, flourinated gasses, freon and such, less of a problem now but NO2 is still emitted by farming. Even water is a greenhouse gas, the more h20 the more warming of the atmosphere.
04 Sep 19
5 edits
@grandmaster-bater saidWe ALL already knew this and nobody denies it. This above is often one of the more stupid straw man arguments used against climate scientists, NONE of who ever moronically argue that the sea level was never higher millions of years ago or that there was never climate change millions of years ago when people weren't around. None of those facts would contradict man causing climate change in modern times.
In the last 3 of the last 4 interglacial periods sea levels were HIGHER than they are now. As were temperatures. Climate change is happening but has happen previously when we were not around.
If you read those scientists that are not funded by 'interested parties'-who are generally saying they same things as those who are not.
it makes more interesting reading.No, not "more intersting" because they are are generally saying the same things.
For example. The previous sea level rises were equal to the amount of fresh water on green land (that will slip into the sea).How would that be relevant? And, no, the scientists that are "not funded by 'interested parties' " won't all be mentioning that as that is far from the most relevant info.
And amazingly this is currently being discussed on BBC news!!!!Not really amazingly. The TV news often discuss irrelevancies and the BBC news, along with the news on every TV chanel, is not too smart when it comes to science. In fact, they are pretty stupid and ignorant when it comes to science and often misrepresent what the vast majority of scientists are saying often putting words in their mouths they didn't say.
The climate change total focus on cars and CO2 is also misleading as Methane is the bigger threat.No, methane isn't the main threat from man made sources but CO2 is.
As an example of the misleading crap thrown at us. One average flight generates the equivalent of 675 cars ANNUAL CO2 emissions.And this is "misleading" how? Only a really STUPID reader would think that means aircraft are responsible for 675 times more CO2 than cars (if that's what you are implying? ) and few readers are THAT stupid! -so NOT misleading.
But car's and CO2 are the devil.Extremely few people, including scientists, would be stupid enough to deny that cars are responsible for more CO2 than aircraft and the vast majority of scientists would be perfectly happy to confirm that cars are responsible for more CO2 than aircraft;
https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/blogs/plane-train-or-automobile-which-has-the-biggest-footprint
"...you roughly double your emissions if you cancel your plane reservations and drive across the country instead. If you take the train, then you’ll cut carbon dioxide (CO2) by half compared to the plane. A key reason is that the train (or the diesel bus) may be a big carbon emitter, but it’s designed to carry a lot of passengers, so the per capita emissions are a lot lower. Airplanes are about 3 percent of total global climate emissions. ..."
04 Sep 19
1 edit
@grandmaster-bater saidSimilar to airplanes, two-stroke leaf blowers put the "car is the devil" theory to shame. A half-hour of yard work with a leaf blower is about the equivalent of a years worth of commuting time in an F-150.
In the last 3 of the last 4 interglacial periods sea levels were HIGHER than they are now. As were temperatures. Climate change is happening but has happen previously when we were not around. If you read those scientists that are not funded by 'interested parties' it makes more interesting reading. For example. The previous sea level rises were equal to the a ...[text shortened]... flight generates the equivalent of 675 cars ANNUAL CO2 emissions. But car's and CO2 are the devil.
Are there really legitimate scientists who say that cars are the devil? Please share your info.
05 Sep 19
@metal-brain saidIt's a little difficult to tell online so I'll just come out with it and ask. Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you really not see my point?
You are bringing the bible into it? What are you going to bring up next, Noah's Ark? Adam and Eve?
This is the science forum and I thought you accepted evolution. Do you or don't you?
07 Sep 19
@deepthought saidYou have no point.
It's a little difficult to tell online so I'll just come out with it and ask. Are you being deliberately obtuse or did you really not see my point?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-we-getting-taller/
Not only are you wrong, you used a fictional example.
07 Sep 19
@sonhouse saidNot true at all. Use the sea level data to make your case. If you cannot do that you have no case. Pretty simple.
@Metal-Brain
We talk about sea level rise but you just poo poo any evidence or theory we provide so what is the use? You are a confirmed contrarian and that is pretty much it.
The climate has been warming since the end of the little ice age. It is a natural trend. Man's recent influence is negligible.
13 Sep 19
@metal-brain saidI dunno. This problem seems fixable to me.
Not true at all. Use the sea level data to make your case. If you cannot do that you have no case. Pretty simple.
The climate has been warming since the end of the little ice age. It is a natural trend. Man's recent influence is negligible.
@metal-brain saidRight, so you actually did miss the point. The statement I responded to was:
You have no point.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-we-getting-taller/
Not only are you wrong, you used a fictional example.
The Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they have not become stronger in a warmer climate. They were stronger during the little ice age.This is one instance of a hurricane. Goliath was one instance of a human, albeit mythological. Just as Goliath reportedly being tall is not evidence that humans are getting smaller, the Great Hurricane is not evidence that hurricanes are getting weaker.
@metal-brain p. 28 third post
14 Sep 19
1 edit
@wildgrass saidActually it is sea level rise that we are talking about. That is the name of the thread.
um. climate change. that's what we're talking about.
Climate change has always happened. Ice ages are cyclical. It is natural.
14 Sep 19
@deepthought saidThen one hurricane that happens in the near future that is almost as destructive as the one in 1780 will mean nothing to you if it happens. Right?
Right, so you actually did miss the point. The statement I responded to was:The Great Hurricane of 1780 proves they have not become stronger in a warmer climate. They were stronger during the little ice age.This is one instance of a hurricane. Goliath was one instance of a human, albeit mythological. Just as Goliath ...[text shortened]... humans are getting smaller, the Great Hurricane is not evidence that hurricanes are getting weaker.
@metal-brain p. 28 third post
15 Sep 19
@Metal-Brain
Are you TRYING to be obtuse AND ignorant? You haven't noticed the hurricanes in the last 10 years or so have been VERY destructive? MORE than usual?
15 Sep 19
@sonhouse saidNo.
@Metal-Brain
Are you TRYING to be obtuse AND ignorant? You haven't noticed the hurricanes in the last 10 years or so have been VERY destructive? MORE than usual?
Evidence?