Man made climate change

Status
Not open for further replies.
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!
 
Last edited:
JonathanM said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
denso13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
nwgs said:
Like the scientists/actors who spout climate drivel on the news.
Click to expand...
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.
 
denso13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
denso13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
aveatry said:
Yep all in the name of saving the planet.
Click to expand...
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
 
denso13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
what you think our sun has been a constant throughout time ?
 
denso13 said:
So, what do you think is actually wrong, scientifically, with what the research shows?
Click to expand...

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

So I’ll leave it there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top