The Science of Global Warming - Settled Once and for All

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't even about global warming - the above statements show an embarassing lack of basic logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your sarcasm detector is broken, phil.

The debate is over and science is settled statement is a direct mockery of the cult movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

Obviously, it isn't.

As for the removal of CO2 by weather and weathering effects.....

[ QUOTE ]
Dissolved carbon dioxide dissociates to form weak carbonic acid giving a pH of approximately 5.6 at typical atmospheric concentrations of CO2

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Acid rain accelerates weathering in carbonate rocks and accelerates building weathering

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should write Wikipedia and tell them that the science is settled because you say it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Rainfall is naturally slightly acidic because atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves in the rainwater producing weak carbonic acid.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the most well-known solution weathering processes is carbonation, the process in which atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to solution weathering. Carbonation occurs on rocks which contain calcium carbonate such as limestone and chalk. This takes place when rain combines with carbon dioxide or an organic acid to form a weak carbonic acid which reacts with calcium carbonate (the limestone) and forms calcium bicarbonate. This process speeds up with a decrease in temperature and therefore is a large feature of glacial weathering.

The reactions as follows:

CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3

carbon dioxide + water -> carbonic acid

H2CO3 + CaCO3 -> Ca(HCO3)2

carbonic acid + calcium carbonate -> calcium bicarbonate

[/ QUOTE ]

And here's some more science I have a complete lack of understanding about.

I don't know how these people can put such crap out there on the internet without any basis in "real science" whatsoever.

[Exsubmariner]

It's called sarcasm.

[Exsubmariner]

I find it laughable that your side's knee-jerk reaction here is to try to attack the study as opposed to going out and doing better science to support your position. Telling.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html


[/ QUOTE ]
Priceless. These guys continue to make complete asses of themselves, and one has to wonder what the [censored] a doctor and an anthropologist are doing with literature surveys of subjects they can't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, let's attack the qualifications of the authors (who both have backgrounds in SCIENCE) when they say something that we don't like.


Reminds me somehow of this quote from one of my favorite books.
[ QUOTE ]
A few agents of the thought Police moved always among them, spreading false rumours and marking down and eliminating the few individuals who were judged capable of becoming dangerous..."

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This isn't even about global warming - the above statements show an embarassing lack of basic logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your sarcasm detector is broken, phil.

[/ QUOTE ]
Given your other posts - and your howler below - it's not surprising.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the removal of CO2 by weather and weathering effects.....

[/ QUOTE ]
Idiot: Of course CO2 weathers. You're didn't get it then and you don't get it now. It takes thousands of years to weather out a small quantity of CO2. That's why it's considered a long lived greenhouse gas. If CO2 is effectively removed by rain, please explain this graph. You ignored it last time:

Monthly CO2 trends at the Hawaii weather station
http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Ind...Print=true&


[/ QUOTE ]

From wikipedia:
[ QUOTE ]
The rates of these processes are extremely slow; hence they are of limited relevance to the atmospheric CO2 response to emissions over the next hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the most basic basic stuff; the fact that you don't know it makes it worthless discussing any of this stuff with you.

[LongRedHair]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the most basic basic stuff; the fact that you don't know it makes it worthless discussing any of this stuff with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that's a classic after the total lack of knowledge you displayed about the basics of earths climate and how it works with your "There's really no compelling evidence that we would be heading toward an ice age if not for global warming" comment.

[Phil153]

What the [censored] are you talking about??

You claimed:

[ QUOTE ]
Global warming is a good thing. Without the intervention of us humans over the last couple of hundred years or so we would soon be heading towards an ice age very soon

[/ QUOTE ]

To which I replied:

[ QUOTE ]
"There's really no compelling evidence that we would be heading toward an ice age if not for global warming"

[/ QUOTE ]
You're either stupid or trolling.

[LongRedHair]

I'm talking about the past several million years worth of earths climate history which shows that without any man made effects on the earths climate, the earth would be heading towards its more normal state of an ice age. And before you say 5,000 years isn't "very soon" that also show your lack of understanding of the subject. When your talking about climate cycles of around 100,000 years or so 5,000 years isn't very long at all.

When you say "There's really no compelling evidence that we would be heading toward an ice age if not for global warming" you just ignored several million years worth of very compelling evidence. If you just dismiss and ignore evidence like that how can you have a reasonable discussion.

You are trying to deabte what effect man is having on the climate and what should be done about it but you are totally ignoring what would be happening if man was having no effect on it.

My argument is quite simply. If us humans had never started to use fossil fuels sometime in the next 5,000 years ( give or take a few 1,000's years the cycles aren't perfect ) the earth would start to enter another glacial period. This is what the past several million years worth of earths climate history tells us would happen. IMO 29% of the earths land mast covered in ice would be pretty bad news for the human race. On the other hand if us humans manage to warm the earth up a bit it's just possiable we might be able to break the cycle of ice ages and IMO that would be a good thing.

Now I admit that we don't want to warm things up too much because that could be really bad news too. What the scientific community should doing is figuring out just how much we need to warm things up to us humans can live happily ever after or at least until the sun blows up but that's another problem for later.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about the past several million years worth of earths climate history which shows that without any man made effects on the earths climate, the earth would be heading towards its more normal state of an ice age. And before you say 5,000 years isn't "very soon" that also show your lack of understanding of the subject. When your talking about climate cycles of around 100,000 years or so 5,000 years isn't very long at all.

When you say "There's really no compelling evidence that we would be heading toward an ice age if not for global warming" you just ignored several million years worth of very compelling evidence. If you just dismiss and ignore evidence like that how can you have a reasonable discussion.

You are trying to deabte what effect man is having on the climate and what should be done about it but you are totally ignoring what would be happening if man was having no effect on it.

My argument is quite simply. If us humans had never started to use fossil fuels sometime in the next 5,000 years ( give or take a few 1,000's years the cycles aren't perfect ) the earth would start to enter another glacial period. This is what the past several million years worth of earths climate history tells us would happen. IMO 29% of the earths land mast covered in ice would be pretty bad news for the human race. On the other hand if us humans manage to warm the earth up a bit it's just possiable we might be able to break the cycle of ice ages and IMO that would be a good thing.

Now I admit that we don't want to warm things up too much because that could be really bad news too. What the scientific community should doing is figuring out just how much we need to warm things up to us humans can live happily ever after or at least until the sun blows up but that's another problem for later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a mini-ice-age might be just the perfect thing to slow down human population growth and keep the Earth from getting even more horribly polluted. I really wouldn't mind seeing it as long as it doesn't turn into a full-blown Ice Age. Cold weather is good for the soul, too. People also fight more in the heat, so colder weather might have a pacifying effect on populations and nations.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."


[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the study (according the article, it's not even published yet - ever heard of peer review, genius? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]), but you would expect most climate change papers to be neutral. That's because the point of scientific papers is not to wax lyrical about the topic; it's to discuss and present frameworks, data, examine specific effects, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, skepticism is a key part of science. This is why it's so hard to believe that there's a consensus among "scientists."