Man made climate change

[JonathanM]

One of the most interesting parts of the diagram for me are the ones labelled emitted by surface and back radiation. More radiation is emitted back to the surface of the earth from the atmosphere, than is received at the surface from the sun!

 

[denso13]

That is what I have been after all along! Have you ever seen a diagram like this? It's pretty complicated, but I think I've eventually got my head around it.

Your perseverance is admirable but tinfoil hatters fundamentally believe that scientists lie. They believe it is a conspiracy, big brother is making it all up simply to tax people more.

Trying to have a reasoned argument with them is impossible. No matter how much evidence there is.

 

[ajohn]

The current global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%). This is an increase of 50% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, up from 280 ppm during the 10,000 years prior to the mid-18th century. The increase is due to human activity.

The aspect that doesn't get much attention. It could be responsible for a significant portion of the 50% increase and has been going on for a very long time.
Land use change, principally deforestation, contributes 12–20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Forest degradation (changes that negatively affect a forest’s structure or function but that do not decrease its area), and the destruction of tropical peatlands, also contribute to these emissions. As a result of deforestation and degradation, some tropical forests now emit more carbon than they capture, turning them from a carbon ‘sink’ into a carbon source. For example, the south-eastern part of the Amazon Rainforest is now considered a net carbon source

 

[JP_]

Your perseverance is admirable but tinfoil hatters fundamentally believe that scientists lie. They believe it is a conspiracy, big brother is making it all up simply to tax people more.

Trying to have a reasoned argument with them is impossible. No matter how much evidence there is.

I believe there are essentially two types of climate change denier:

1. Those who have shares, pension funds etc with heavy weightings in energy, oil and the like. They are retired, or close to retirement, and don't want to see their investments plummet

2. Creationists (mostly the American camp) who refuse to believe that the earth is more than 6000 years old, and say the world is the way god wants it, and who are we to criticise that.

Anybody who has no invested interests in the energy industry, or belief that the world was created by magic in the recent past, tends to accept that the scientists are probably right, and we're all screwed.

 

[denso13]

Like the scientists/actors who spout climate drivel on the news.

The science is sound. We could discuss why you think it isn't and what is wrong with their findings but no, gut feelings it is.

 

[JonathanM]

Your perseverance is admirable but tinfoil hatters fundamentally believe that scientists lie. They believe it is a conspiracy, big brother is making it all up simply to tax people more.

Trying to have a reasoned argument with them is impossible. No matter how much evidence there is.

It has still been a useful exercise for me. I don't usually come across these sorts in real life. My conclusion is that they are mainly a bunch of cowards, who don't have the courage to put their ideas to the test. The only exception was @berty3000, who for all our disagreements, was always up for an honest (and full throated) discussion.

 

[nwgs]

The science is sound. We could discuss why you think it isn't and what is wrong with their findings but no, gut feelings it is.

As above I’ve debated, put graphs, charts and links up.

I either get barred from the thread, the posts get deleted or the thread gets locked.

There’s no point in putting any effort in.

I’ll say it’s a load of complete nonsense and leave it there.

 

[denso13]

As above I’ve debated, put graphs, charts and links up.

No you haven't.

I’ll say it’s a load of complete nonsense and leave it there.

I wish you would.

 

[denso13]

In fact he basically stated it

That I report rule breaking? Yes I do.

If you don't want threads locked then don't break the rules. Simples...

 

[denso13]

As above I’ve debated

So, what do you think is actually wrong, scientifically, with what the research shows?

 

[denso13]

Are you a good citizen denso?

Not by your meaning of the phrase. I use my heating and appliances a lot more than you...

 

[ajohn]

Yep all in the name of saving the planet.

The thing that struck me about timber is the fact that more extensive use coincides with other aspects such as the industrial revolution. There used to be no thought what so ever about cutting it down. Also as I have had an interest in various timber the number that have essentially disappeared, not just from the tropics as well. Used up.

Rain forest does have a difference. It's been known for rather a long time now that reduction causes climate change. Nothing to do with CO2 but relates to the microclimate they form.

Deniers - can't even accept measurements of the CO2 levels in the air

 

[gas112]

That's the point. It is the recent rate of change that is causing concern, not cosmic rays which have been around since day 1.

what you think our sun has been a constant throughout time ?

 

[denso13]

what you think our sun has been a constant throughout time ?

No.

 

[nwgs]

So, what do you think is actually wrong, scientifically, with what the research shows?

I’ve all ready stated it’s not worth my time as the information gets removed.

So I’ll leave it there.