The Earth's orbit and axis undergo cyclical changes, called Milankovitch cycles after the astronomer who first recognized them. These cycles cause changes to the amount and distribution of sunlight that strikes the Earth, changes that can raise or lower the average temperature of the planet. The result is what's called an "orbital forcing," which can drive long-term climate changes.
In recent history, orbital forcings have controlled the entry and exit to glacial periods. Although the amount of energy from the forcing itself is relatively small, it sets off a variety of feedbacks. Retreating ice sheets give way to open water and vegetation, which can absorb more sunlight and allow carbon dioxide to escape the deep ocean, ultimately causing a rise in greenhouse gasses. As the heating from orbital forcings slowly declines, these processes begin to reverse themselves. A recent study indicates that we were only about 1,500 years away from the onset of the next glacial period.
Apparently not, since that is not what the article is implying at all.
Although the most recent decade (2000-2009) isn't the warmest of the Holocene, it's not too far off. The authors estimate that it was warmer than 82 percent of the decades of the last 12,000 years. "Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend," the authors conclude. And based on records of things like solar output, ocean currents, and volcanic eruptions, there's little indication of anything other than greenhouse gasses that could have caused this sort of reversal.
Given the greenhouse emissions we've already produced, the authors also conclude that we're certain to exceed the warmest decades of the past sometime this century. The only scenario that would keep us from doing so is if we froze emissions around a decade ago. The real question seems to be how much we'll exceed these temperatures by. Continuing along an emissions trajectory similar to the one we're currently on, they suggest, means "by 2100, global average temperatures will probably be five to 12 standard deviations above the Holocene temperature mean."
In other words, it will be dramatically warmer than any point of the entire 12,000 year interglacial period, and no amount of statistical noise could account for the difference.
The ability of Republicans to read something and think it means the very opposite of what is said is truly amazing.
Is it because Republicans are on average sever IQ points dumber? Or is it simply denial given your ideology's many self-contradictions?
Seriously. I'm curious how this happens so often with so many of you.
Humans. Oil is just fossils and decomposed things that become carbon. But remember carbon isn't the only pollutant. You have coal and other things. Its caused by humans.
The paper is saying that it is not humans that are fully responsible. It says that orbital forcings lead to more greenhouse gasses as well. That's what I see.
Greenhouses occur naturally from carbon, at the pace carbon naturally decomposes.
Greenhouses build up faster when we accelerate that process.
The article points out that if it should happen that we were in a warming cycle (which is not known and many believe we should be in a cooling cycle now) but even if we were in a warming cycle, and an extreme warming cycle, it does not come even close to the pace at which the earth is warming.
The article points out that natural causes for the pace of warmth have been eliminated. The only cause left is man-made.
The reason this is important, even outside of the facts that clean energy means more local jobs, less power in the hands of nations like Iran, and less expensive heating and cooling and driving, outside of those common sense things anyone should support less pollution whether they believe in science or think its the most elaborate and pointless hoax in history,
The speed of warmth shifts weather causing flooding in places that we humans are not prepared deal with, it causes droughts in areas where we humans grow our food, it means lost coastline where we humans build houses, and it means warmer oceans and bodies of water killing off species we depend on for food (or our food's food) because evolution of these species cannot adjust fast enough to survive the new temperatures.
So, really there's no reason to be a global warming denier, even for those who think science is evil or whatever.
I don't mind supporting clean energy as long as I don't have to drive a Prius ;)
If flooding destroys coastal buildings, then that would lower the unemployment rate as people are forced to build and move to new buildings. So GW is good for the economy ;)
I personally like warmer ocean water because I hate body surfing in cold water ;)
If food becomes scarce then Americans will lose weight and we wouldn't be considered the obese country of the world ;)
So, really there's no reason to be a global warming denier
How about the fact that China causes massive amounts of greenhouse gasses to be produced meaning that the USA changing by itself would not fix a GLOBAL problem.
Accepting that man made global warming exists is worthless. That is not a solution. You have an entire paragraph on the reasons why the US should switch to clean energy and you skim over it like it is nothing. If you push the agenda that switching to clean energy helps NO MATTER WHAT you could get both sides to agree on something. Instead people like you insist on making sure that silly people like Joe admit that global warming is true because you aren't really interested in solving the problem.
This issue is stupid, why is there fighting over what caused the Earth to be warmer? If pollution is bad let's cut our pollution. If clean energy will free us from oil nations let's move to clean energy. Why does the reason to do things have to be so complicated it is at the global level? Both sides are stupid on this issue.
How about the fact that China causes massive amounts of greenhouse gasses to be produced meaning that the USA changing by itself would not fix a GLOBAL problem.
This is like "Hey, that guy killed someone so me not killing someone isn't going to stop all killings so I should keep killing people." You see how ridiculous the logic is right?
And it is not as if we are powerless in influencing China. Without the U.S. keeping in place, frankly, unfair trading deals, China is not a major economic power at all. Duties based on pollution produced by their manufacturers would quickly improve the the situation. We also have a lot of leverage to get most European countries on board in duties against China based on pollution. For all the of influence we say China has, if they can't sell crap for super cheap to nations like the U.S., they are in trouble.
Accepting that man made global warming exists is worthless. That is not a solution.
It is the first step toward a solution. You cannot push legislation to stop global warming when a large chunk of the country has been misinformed by the oil industry.
You have an entire paragraph on the reasons why the US should switch to clean energy and you skim over it like it is nothing. If you push the agenda that switching to clean energy helps NO MATTER WHAT you could get both sides to agree on something.
I framed my argument within the debate. The debate is on existence of it so I "skimmed' matters that did not pertain directly to existence. Though really a paragraph isn't skimming I don't think, when the entire reply is only like 4 paragraphs.
Instead people like you insist on making sure that silly people like Joe admit that global warming is true because you aren't really interested in solving the problem.
What about trying to convince "silly people like Joe" that global warming is real necessarily means one is not interested in solving global warming? You can both try to convince silly people it is real, and be interested in solving the problem. They are not mutually exclusive. It seems there would be a strong correlation in the exact opposite direction.
This issue is stupid, why is there fighting over what caused the Earth to be warmer? If pollution is bad let's cut our pollution. If clean energy will free us from oil nations let's move to clean energy. Why does the reason to do things have to be so complicated it is at the global level? Both sides are stupid on this issue.
It is precisely because many do not believe in the cause of global warming, that many are not interested in solving the problem. So, when more people are informed we are more likely to take real steps toward clean energy. It is necessary in a large representative republic that a large majority of people want something, especially if what they want means very powerful and influential entities would make a little less money.
Unfortunately 51% isn't even enough due to Congress' new habit of obstruction. So dispelling misinformation is an important part of that.
So now you want to exert you will on other nations. How liberal of you.
legislation to stop global warming
An impossible task because America is not the world. But local legislation can start without having a cause determined for the Earth being hotter
isn't skimming I don't think, when the entire reply is only like 4 paragraphs
7 paragraphs and
The reason this is important, even outside of
This indicates that the first reasons you are about to list are not very important.
So dispelling misinformation is an important part of that
Unless of course it is your misinformation.
The "global warming" deniers have their fingers in their ears and aren't listening. Your side has your fingers in your ears and isn't listening. Neither one of you deserves to be correct.
So now you want to exert you will on other nations. How liberal of you.
Fair trade is a liberal issue, true. Republicans tend to support exploiting humans in other countries for greater profits for global corporations. You are off subject of course, nice try though.
An impossible task because America is not the world. But local legislation can start without having a cause determined for the Earth being hotter
I was speaking specifically of the US, which I make clear. Why you would even try to twist that to mean world legislation I do not know, outside of desperation perhaps because you see how faulty your arguments are becoming. And I never said that the US (so you don't try to twist around my words again) could not have legislation without global warming being an issue, but global warming is an issue and there is no reason it should not be an issue.
What it sounds like is you object to being incorrect about global warming, or you object to others being incorrect about global warming, so you would like me to ignore it. You will notice the title of the debate is More proof Global Warming is a hoax however, so I will not ignore that as the primary issue here.
7 paragraphs and
I notice when someone is loosing a debate as you are, they begin taking snipits of what I say in order to better fit their own argument, which at this point is not even on topic in your case. 7 paragraphs, 4 paragraphs, the point is that the subject is global warming, and so the subject of my response was and is global warming. That there are other reasons besides global warming to pursue cleaner energy does not in any way detract from the validity of global warming as an issue.
This indicates that the first reasons you are about to list are not very important.
It certainly does not.
Unless of course it is your misinformation.
So you are going from agreeing that global warming is true, to now saying that it is not. This supports my point that information about it is important. It does not support your point.
The "global warming" deniers have their fingers in their ears and aren't listening. Your side has your fingers in your ears and isn't listening. Neither one of you deserves to be correct.
Again I'll point you to the title of this debate, and remind you that is the subject.
And being correct or not is not a matter of what one deserves, it is a matter of facts.
I hate to do it, but I will have to pull an Iamdavidh here and just say I am right and you are wrong. You want America to pass legislation to fix global warming. You want America to create legislation for the country to fix the world. I was not trying to twist what you said, just pointing out that America can't fix global warming.
taking snipits of what I say
I knew you would say this because you always say this. I wasn't twisting your words really, it's not like I attacked you because you were wrong about the 4 now did I.
It certainly does not.
It most certainly does to. You don't get to decide how other people read your post, I learned that in my libtard 101 class. Just because it doesn't feel that way to you doesn't mean it doesn't seem that way to everyone else who knows how to read English.
So you are going from agreeing that global warming is true, to now saying that it is not. This supports my point that information about it is important. It does not support your point.
No, this supports my point that you trying to force people to agree with your idea that global warming is man made has caused you to lose support.
And being correct or not is not a matter of what one deserves, it is a matter of facts.
Facts can be twisted, you are good at that.
title of this debate
Apparently you have mountains and mountains of evidence that you are correct yet people continue to want to find holes with global warming. I guess you are winning.
O2 isn't the only gas in our solar system. If CO2 was the only gas we wouldn't have much of a problem. Sulfur is worse. Methane from permafrost is twenty times worse. That is the humans fault. Chlorine especially. That depleted ozone which is O3. If this was due to orbital forcings then global warming would not be that big because plants can handle it. Other gases are up there now and as we industrialized our ppm for carbon increased .
The paper was very clear. In recent history, orbital forcings have controlled the entry and exit to glacial periods. Although the amount of energy from the forcing itself is relatively small, it sets off a variety of feedbacks. Retreating ice sheets give way to open water and vegetation, which can absorb more sunlight and allow carbon dioxide to escape the deep ocean, ultimately causing a rise in greenhouse gasses. Orbital forcings lead to greenhouse gasses. I believe the Earth is far more powerful than the small creatures running around on top of it.
Either way we shouldn't keep creating greenhouse gasses, they don't help us.
"Given the greenhouse emissions we've already produced, the authors also conclude that we're certain to exceed the warmest decades of the past sometime this century. [b]The only scenario that would keep us from doing so is if we froze emissions around a decade ago.[/b] "
At least you seem reasonable with the greenhouse gasses. Although if you admit to these feedback mechanisms then why not admit that humans, through a small change could cause a drastic one?
I read every article posted if I choose to comment on that article, unless the source is something like fox or newsmax or other fringe groups, then I skim and just find sources that aren't actively trying to manipulate.
I like how the pot is calling the kettle black. In your debate where you were being labeled a sexist, you used 2 studies to show that girls do better in school. 1 of the studies was solely describing how boys aren't treated in a way that helps them succeed in school. 1 of those reasons is that they are punished by the women who run the classrooms. The other study said that girls do better in school because school is designed for girls to do better. The conclusion of that study was that school will be updated to the 21st century soon and it will catch up to boys. So you draw the wrong conclusions when you read stuff too.
Sure. Ozone depletion was the scare tactic the scientists came up with in the 90's. No one talks about it any more because the process reversed itself..., all on its own ;)
Well it wasn't a hoax. It happened for real in the 1970's when CFC's filled the air. Now we have a hole. It will fix itself but O3 isn't filling it in. It is other gases. VOC's are in use now.
I can see where my words could be interpreted as the Ozone hole not having existed. I will take this opportunity to clarify.
Did the scientists see a hole in the ozone layer? Yeah. I believe they did.
Do the scientists know conclusively what caused it and how to fix it? Maybe. Maybe not. But it doesn't matter because we as a species do not seem to have the will to collectively do anything about it.
The reason I categorized it as a scare tactic is because I think that the scientists behaved as though they knew more than what they actually did. ;)
-And what makes you think that "the scientists behaved as though they knew more than what they actually did"?
The scientists at that time said that it would be nearly impossible to fix the problem because the Chinese have greatest influence because they have the largest population and they were NOT going to cut back on their use of CFCs because it would stifle their economy. And even without the Chinese...., the hole healed itself ;)
You still don't get my point. We as a species are not willing to collectively do anything about it. People just don't care. If I were to provide you with a link, I would be disproving my argument. I would be showing you that I care. ;)
You are the one claiming that people should care and that you care. If you care so much, why don't you prove me wrong by providing me with a link that details what we did, collectively, as a species, to fix the Ozone layer. ;)
The scientists at that time said that it would be nearly impossible to fix the problem because the Chinese have greatest influence because they have the largest population and they were NOT going to cut back on their use of CFCs because it would stifle their economy. And even without the Chinese...., the hole healed itself ;)
- I asked you for a link for this report. Or is there? ;)
Industrialized countries are permitted to increase CFC production by as much as 15% provided they export to developing countries. In addition, the Soviet Union is permitted to complete CFC production plants under construction. As a result, under the Montreal Protocol, CFC production will actually grow by as much as 15% in the coming decade making the actual decrease only 35%.
Scientists now say that this 35% reduction will not be enough to curtail further ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol was created without the incorporation of the 1988 international team's findings. As a result, it was based on 1986 figures that showed a 1% decrease in ozone, rather than the 3% decrease that was found over the Northern Hemisphere. They say that even if all CFC use were stopped today, the ozone layer would continue to be depleted for the next twenty years.
At last, you manned up. And I must say, it was an interesting article.
However, it did not supported your claims at all
You said:
"The scientists at that time said that it would be nearly impossible to fix the problem because the Chinese have greatest influence because they have the largest population and they were NOT going to cut back on their use of CFCs because it would stifle their economy."
- But the article said:
"China and India, the world's two most populated developing countries, have been hesitant to sign the Montreal Protocol and have asked for an international fund to be set up to help them change over to more expensive, but environmentally safe chemicals...."
"And even without the Chinese...., the hole healed itself ;)"
- But your article said:
"The discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole made it clear that international regulation of ozone depleting chemicals was necessary. After nearly five years of negotiations, the Montreal Protocol was adopted in September 1987. The treaty was developed with the guidance of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and went into effect January 1989"
Which states the the Hole was healed using mankinds efforts to change and not out of natural or divine interventions. And disproves your claims once more