Global warming :: is it just a 'chinese hoax' like trump told us or is it serious?

For example?  Your definition of 'responding' is not the same as mine.  Just quoting obscure stuff to promote an agenda and to stir folks up that do not believe this scam, is not responding the way I define it.

I would rather there be discourse and answering of questions about supposed facts and sources he quotes and not just going on to the next point he wants to criticize in the same manner or simply posting some obscure quote about every single thing being caused by Man-Made Global Warming.  

I see it like this;

Has the earth been warming? Yes

Is it all because of man? No

Has man contributed to the warming? Yes

Will ending fossil fuels end the warming? No

Will ending fossil fuels help slow the warming. Yes, to some extent, if all other things remain the same. (Volcanoes, sun output, asteriods, you name it)

Will warming cause castostropic events? Hard to say. Many such events throughout history without the warming. IMO, doubtful.

Man on earth numbering in the billions no doubt causes change. Kennedy Jr says our water feminizes males. Working my life in the water industry I would say Yes it can. Endocrin disruptors (birth control) pass into our drinking water. Studies have found male carp in Lake Mead to have smaller sex organs and lower sperm counts than they should. And just like the water we add to the air and create concrete heatsink cities. So yes, to some degree we add to the heat.

To jump off the deepend and scream the sky is falling is bit crazy. Every event now is climate change fault. How long this insanity lasts will be the question.

Mid Michigan's August is halfway there. Right now it ranks 39th out of 53 years of data. The next 15 day forecast looks like it will stay there. That will be in the top 17% of the coldest Augusts.

Makes you say hmmmm?

@UNIMAN

 Has man contributed to the warming? Yes

Why do you say that?  Have you studied it yourself?  Or do you think you are overwhelming bombarded by this narrative and so just assume man has affected it to an amount that even matters.  No one can tell if man has done it, to what amount?  It is such a very, very small amount that it should not be considered a concern that would induce every government to start spending a vast amount on something they cannot control to any extent and at what sacrifice.  

They just have slowly worn people down with this scam and unprovable nonsense in order to grab control over money and promote their agenda.

If you really study all sides you will see Man has the very least affect -- by far.  

Will ending fossil fuels help slow the warming. Yes, to some extent, if all other things remain the same.

Why do you say this for sure?  What if all the other factors stay the same or increase?  Their are studies that show if we stopped every single fossil-fuel activity and went back to the Stone Age -- when the other factors are in motion the warming cannot be slowed, let alone stopped.

It is not like we would be regulating volcanoes, El Niño, sun activity, etc. by stopping our activities.

Will warming cause castostropic events? Hard to say.

If this were the case these whackos would have no problem drawing a direct correlation.  They base everything on assumptions and inference in their opinions and modeling.  They could be able to explain why hurricanes have not increased, why they have not intensified, etc.  They are wrong on all of their conclusions because they do NOT take into account ANYTHING but Man's activities. BECAUSE that is what they want to control.

Man on earth numbering in the billions no doubt causes change.

Of course, no one disputes that.  Everyone wants a nice clean environment.  These things we can control.  BUT they do not concentrate on these areas.  They could put together an effort to clean the plastic out of the oceans, etc. with all of this money they are taking in on this scam.  Control what you can control -- concentrate on that.

To jump off the deepend and scream the sky is falling is bit crazy. Every event now is climate change fault. How long this insanity lasts will be the question.

Absolutely, they just do not want to admit their whole premise is wrong.

@UNIMAN

 I am not knocking you in particular.  It is obvious you are not duped by this. 

I simply post that to say I think they are slowly wearing people down on this issue (just as they have done on other issues) to the point where folks grudging concede small points just to appease them and, almost, hedge their own opinions. 

I think more folks should stand firmly before they overrun everyone with this nonsense.  You can see this in many other issues. 

@UNIMAN

 Besides, they are very arrogant to just assume they know what the Earth's temperature should be.

Who are they to say it should be 56 or 57?

Would the benefits of 58 or 59 and the added growing seasons etc. outweigh the negatives?  They refuse to consider all of this.  

What happens if you go back to a time when it is colder and you have less farmland to grow and shorter seasons BUT more people to feed?  Their answer is always simple, there are too many people anyway.

Climate change skeptics deny truth and science.  Vast majority of scientists agree only man-made greenhouse effect can explain current warming.  United nations IPCC concludes human activities are responsible for almost all of the increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.  Burning of fossil fuels account for 75% of greenhouse gases.  90% of carbon emissions which remain in atmosphere for centuries and have increased 250 times faster than from natural sources after last ice age.   Isotope evidence links atmospheric carbon to synthetic chemicals with a higher warming potential than natural gases. 

Although carbon dioxide comprises a tiny fraction of atmosphere, it has a huge impact on global warming.  Since carbon dioxide can accumulate higher up in atmosphere, it is more effective than water vapor in trapping heat from Earth surface.  As more carbon dioxide traps more heat, temperature increases to evaporate water and melt ice.  Normally, oceans and lands work as a huge sink that stores carbon dioxide instead of a source of atmospheric carbon.  But as heat increases, stored greenhouse gases are released to compound problem.  So small changes in carbon dioxide can have big effects on global warming.

@thirdperson

 Climate change skeptics deny truth and science.

No sir.  They use it better than the ones that are promoting the SCAM.  You still have not gone back and researched answered the questions about CO2 GHGs and 97%.

No need to keep repeating your nonsense if you cannot answer questions about it. 

@thirdperson

 Although carbon dioxide comprises a tiny fraction of atmosphere, it has a huge impact on global warming. 

 Give the comparative numbers and the expectations.  If you had done your homework like I asked you to do this would be easy to grab. 

@thirdperson

 potential

Never use this type of wording without empirical numbers to back it up, then you would not have to use ambivalent terms like 'potential'.

@thirdperson

 Normally, oceans and lands work as a huge sink that stores carbon dioxide instead of a source of atmospheric carbon. 

Show the comparative numbers with normal fluctuations and influences, i.e. El Niño, volcanoes, sun and shifting ocean currents. 

     @thirdperson

@Raiders22

 I always try my best to look at things objectively. Yes most have gone off the deep end. It is the ole give an inch they'll take a mile. I am more experienced in water not climate. Using man's impact to water I relate it to atmosphere. We have to have some impact. Never do I say "primary cause", "catostropic consequences", etc. 

The problem today is wading through the bullshit trying to find a bit of truth. The very fact this narative is posted in the Politics Section says it all. 

Speaking of truth; What have satilites found to be one of the biggest contributors of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere since at least 2009?

Answer; Tropical Rain Forests.  

NASA; 

For as long as we can remember, we’ve talked about Earth’s tropical rainforests as the ‘lungs’ of our planet,” he said. “Most scientists considered them to be the principal absorber and storage place of carbon dioxide in the Earth system, with Earth’s northern boreal forests playing a secondary role. But that’s not what’s being borne out by our data. We’re seeing that Earth’s tropical regions are a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, at least since 2009. This changes our understanding of things.”

Measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the tropics are consistently higher than anything around them, and scientists don’t know why. 

Now we have more than five years of data, and we see that the tropics are always a source (of carbon dioxide), in every season. In fact, the only time we see significant absorption of carbon dioxide in the tropics is in Africa during June, July and August. So that’s half the story.

We’re seeing northern mid- and high-latitude rainforests becoming better and better absorbers for carbon dioxide over time. One possible explanation for this is that the growing season is getting longer. Things that didn’t used to grow well at high latitudes are growing better and things that were growing well there before are growing longer. We’re seeing that in our data set. We see that South America’s high southern latitudes — the so-called cone of South America — are also strong absorbers for carbon dioxide.

Impacts from agricultural activities also seem to be changing, he says. During summer in the U.S. upper Midwest, scientists are seeing an intense absorption of carbon dioxide associated with agricultural activities. The same thing is being observed in Eastern and Southern Asia. The strong absorption of carbon dioxide across China is erasing all but a thin strip of fossil fuel emissions along the coast, with Central China now functioning as a net absorber of carbon dioxide during the growing season. Thanks to the development of big, sophisticated computer models combined with wind and other measurements, we’re able to quantify these changes for the first time.

So yes, as Happer said, plant growth is enhanced by CO2 and it adapting to the increases. 

Then if you stroll through the climate extremists news you find that deforestation, fires, and droughts are the cause of rain forest carbon release. Yet NASA clearly stated; scientists don’t know why. 

Not absorbing it is one thing, releasing it to the atmosphere is another.

A billion tones a year!

@UNIMAN

Show me where deforestation acts as a carbon release. This doesn't make sense to me. Sincere question, not a counter argument.

@StumpTownStu

 Lots of reading on this.  But this makes it somewhat concise:

https://earth.org/how-does-deforestation-affect-the-carbon-cycle/

Yet, through human interventions – first and foremost deforestation – the carbon cycle is facing a loss in balance, with more carbon gases released into the atmosphere under the clearance of forests.

Yet, as a result of persistent deforestation and a sharp increase in wildfires, the Amazon has been converted into a source of carbon, and is now emitting a greater amount of carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. Forest fires produce three times more carbon than the forests can absorb, thus creating a negative loop. As Yadvinder Malhi – a professor of ecosystem science at the University of Oxford – explains: “If our sink is disappearing” – argues Malhi – ”you’re losing the service that the biosphere provides.”

This is just an example of how human interventions have interfered with the balance and stability of the carbon cycle. Through a technique called slash-and-burn – a farming method that involves the cutting and burning of plants in a forest or woodland – the carbon stored in trees is released, returning back to the atmosphere. Soil, without trees or vegetation, will also become a large source of accumulated carbon emissions, especially when the soil is rich in partially decayed organic matter known as peat. Without forest cover, previously inundated peat soil is left exposed and wil gradually oxidise and decay. During these processes, huge amounts of carbon stored in the soil are released back into the atmosphere.

It sort of seems counterintuitive at first, but makes sense when you think about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/28/deforestation-emissions-far-higher-than-previously-thought-study-finds-aoe

But there is huge evidence that the CO2 is not the cause but the effect of warming. 

The media has led people into believing that curbing carbon emissions is key to stopping warming.  It is not.

Once normal cycles get going, El Niño, volcanoes, sun, ocean currents, etc.  The CO2 starts to rise.  It is a lagging effect of warming and not the other way around.

For example, once the oceans start to warm they release more CO2, etc.

Actually it doesn't make sense to me either. And I do not agree.

NASA said scientists don't know why. Fires are pretty obvious. If fires were the cause it would be only during a fire. Winds would carry the smoke and CO2 to other areas, it wouldn't just hang over the forests for long periods of time. Do the fires burn continuously? I don't think so. 

NASA is saying the forests are releasing to the atmosphere CO2. They don't know why. 

Others have tried to answer that question with deforestation, fires, and droughts. To me deforestation would reduce absorbance, not release CO2. Droughts would do the same. Fires would be a short duration in the overall timeline. Like NASA, I don't have an answer.

@UNIMAN

 In a way it is not that complicated.  You subtract things that absorb CO2 by slashing trees.  You increase CO2 emissions by burning.  Then you have way more than natural amounts of decay producing and releasing CO2, etc.

What I'm curious about is what actual mechanism in felling a tree leads to carbon release. It's obvious with fire but simply felling a tree? Decomposition? Are they speaking of the emissions from the equipment used in logging? There's some cog missing is this story that while unimportant to the overarching point is extremely interesting to me.

@StumpTownStu

 The tree starts to rot and decay even if most is burned and releases that stored carbon.  Of course all living things have carbon, etc.  They are holding it while alive, etc.

I think if you look at net, which some studies do.  They take into account the vehicles, burning, decaying, AND the offset of what would be absorbed, etc.

@StumpTownStu

 This pdf link explains; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjN0-SxmOSAAxUDmokEHU8BD40QFnoECCgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fs.usda.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FForest-Carbon-FAQs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2sGVO0E6cdZEIYPxdELP70&opi=89978449

So I see airplane studies show areas deforested more than 30% (they ommit how much more than 30%. Hate that.) show 10 times more carbon dioxide than those areas that are 20% or less deforested.

So decay is likely the top culprit it seems.

I'm aware. That's why I mentioned that it could be decomp. The thing is, while most rainforests are cleared for the planting of cash crops, or for raising cattle, some of those South American hardwoods have value. So those probably are simply left to decay. And frankly, the decomp of a healthy tree takes incredibly long. Much longer than much plant matter or for animals. So my guess is their calculations account for the burning of some of the felled timber. It's the only thing that makes scientific sense.