Earth's Warming began before the Industrial Revolution

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,339
Reaction score
2,558
Points
113
Have I ever said that?

I think they are the main cause but I couldn't say they are the only cause because I don't know that.
Science knows the human contribution to reasonable precision. If folks like Mennosota cared about reality, they'd Google it and learn instead of listen to RW talking heads, almost none of whom know the least bit about science but have great talent at propagandizing the gullible masses with misinformation. Some of us have posted long posts in long threads on this subject, and it's clear gullible folks like Mennosota would rather ignore the facts and accept an alternative reality that "feels better" to them than the inconvenient truth that humans are this planet's main threat.

Here: I Googled the phrase "How do we know human contribution to global warming", and this was the first main hit. If you want to know why we know human contribution is significant, Mennosota, educate yourself on C-13 isotope signatures. Thank you in advance for educating yourself enough on this subject to stop adding more threads that imply things that are demonstrably false. Enough.

.
 
Last edited:

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,182
Reaction score
4,891
Points
113
Yet, the earth was already warming before the Industrial Revolution. Us little insects on this vast planet can effect it in small ways, but on the scale of entire global warming humans are a very small reason for why the earth's climate is changing.
I suggest that the current propaganda is presented mostly for economic reasons as new robber barons arise. (Elon Musk)...

Your not very smart. Global warming/Greenhouse effect is very basic science it is not in doubt. I have explained it with a simple analogy before but you want to live in denial....
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,339
Reaction score
2,558
Points
113
Have I ever said that?

I think they are the main cause but I couldn't say they are the only cause because I don't know that.
The earth's temperature is a collection of different inputs and outputs. Human activity is a rather small input compared to the natural forces around us, but that doesn't mean we are insignificant, and science has overwhelmingly shown that we are a significant contributor to global warming. In particular, we are the main cause of global warming over the past several decades, amongst an otherwise relatively slowly fluctuating global temperature.

A simple analogy to the heat balance of the earth is a bathtub, where the heat input and output are represented by the water coming out of a faucet and that going down the drain, respectively. Let's say the bathtub is half full, and the rate of water being added is essentially equal to the rate of water going down the drain such that the height of the water in the tub is essentially at a steady state. (That was the condition of the earth prior to somewhere around the 1960s or 1970s, when greenhouse gas concentrations were last approximately equal to that without human influence.) It stays that way for a long, long time (relative to the lifetime of a human being), with very small, slow fluctuations. Then a human comes along and turns up the faucet just a teeny tiny bit. The rate of water going into the tub is now very, very slightly greater than that exiting the tub. What happens? Very slow accumulation of water (heat). That's what's going on.

We are affecting the heat balance at the earth's surface by adding to the greenhouse gas concentrations, and this entraps a bit more heat. The temperature of the earth reacts over time to this imbalance, resulting in slow warming. This will continue so long as the temperature of the earth continues to react to changes in the greenhouse gas concentrations. The basic science behind this is not difficult to understand, the basic science is backed up by a tremendous amount of ever-growing evidence, and I continue to be perplexed that anyone could be fooled into believing otherwise. But if I've learned anything over the past twenty years of my life, it's that a strong portion of human beings on earth would rather believe superstition over facts and evidence.
 
Last edited:

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
22,527
Reaction score
6,376
Points
113
Your not very smart. Global warming/Greenhouse effect is very basic science it is not in doubt. I have explained it with a simple analogy before but you want to live in denial....
Pssst.... we don’t call it Global Warming anymore. It changed to Climate Change. I’m trying to remember why???
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
28,788
Reaction score
7,191
Points
113
Try as I might, I cannot find the study referenced in the OP's article. They didn't link to it, so I searched. I can't even find a journal that's just called Quaternary Sciences.

I found Journal of Quaternary Science https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10991417 but the article doesn't seem to be there.

I found Quaternary Science Reviews https://www.journals.elsevier.com/quaternary-science-reviews/ but the article doesn't seem to be there.

I found Quaternary https://www.mdpi.com/journal/quaternary but the article doesn't seem to be there.

I searched for Tao Shichen and found this list of his(?) publications, but nothing since 2019: https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/?q="Tao,+Shichen"&search_field=author

Anyone else find the actual paper itself?
Couple things are causing the confusion.

1) I believe the journal is called Quaternary Research. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research

No idea why they made a mistake on the name. But the link appears to be a Chinese paper? Not sure if they have English fluent authors or just have it translated afterward?

2) in the usual Chinese (Asian) way, Tao Shichen has the family name first. Which is backwards from what we’re used to. So I believe you’ll find his citations like “S. Tao”.
 
Last edited:


cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,339
Reaction score
2,558
Points
113
Pssst.... we don’t call it Global Warming anymore. It changed to Climate Change. I’m trying to remember why???
Seriously, don't do this. This is a talking point of propagandists and fools. If you really want to know the origins of the term "climate change", Google it. The origins aren't anything like what you think they are.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,339
Reaction score
2,558
Points
113
Couple things are causing the confusion.

1) I believe the journal is called Quaternary Research. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/quaternary-research

No idea why they made a mistake on the name. But the link appears to be a Chinese paper? Not sure if they have English fluent authors or just have it translated afterward?

2) in the usual Chinese (Asian) way, Tao Shichen has the family name first. Which is backwards from what we’re used to. So I believe you’ll find his citations like “S. Tao”.
It doesn't matter. See my posts in this thread. The author of the OP is being fooled into believing something that science is not saying.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,182
Reaction score
4,891
Points
113
Pssst.... we don’t call it Global Warming anymore. It changed to Climate Change. I’m trying to remember why???

Maybe because the effects will go far beyond warming. Hopefully some of them are good, like Maralago getting wiped away by a Cat 5...
#brightside
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
10,462
Reaction score
1,756
Points
113
Your not very smart. Global warming/Greenhouse effect is very basic science it is not in doubt. I have explained it with a simple analogy before but you want to live in denial....
You haven't even read the peer reviewed findings in the OP. You speak like a lemming following the pied piper. When one volcano erupts there is more greenhouse gases placed into the atmosphere than all human activity combined. Give nature some credit for simply doing what nature does.

Now, if we want humans to have cleaner air to breathe (and we should) we should clean up our air. If we want clean water, we should clean up the water. This is smart conservation. We should do these things. But, to claim humans are massively responsible for the earth warming is a farce.
 



Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,182
Reaction score
4,891
Points
113
When one volcano erupts there is more greenhouse gases placed into the atmosphere than all human activity combined.

False

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
 
Last edited:

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,339
Reaction score
2,558
Points
113
You haven't even read the peer reviewed findings in the OP. You speak like a lemming following the pied piper. When one volcano erupts there is more greenhouse gases placed into the atmosphere than all human activity combined. Give nature some credit for simply doing what nature does.

Now, if we want humans to have cleaner air to breathe (and we should) we should clean up our air. If we want clean water, we should clean up the water. This is smart conservation. We should do these things. But, to claim humans are massively responsible for the earth warming is a farce.
Of course I read it, and it doesn't imply what you think it does. What it contributes to is the science behind longer-scale warming and cooling patterns, i.e., what the earth would be experiencing without very significant human influence. The longer-term "warming" patterns shown centuries ago are nothing at all like the pattern shown today, and were influenced by humans minimally due to our relatively small footprint on the atmosphere at that time.

Did the authors of that article make a claim that stated that human are not affecting climate now? Yes or no?

Your last paragraph is absurd and proves just how little you understand the world around you.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
10,462
Reaction score
1,756
Points
113
Of course I read it, and it doesn't imply what you think it does. What it contributes to is the science behind longer-scale warming and cooling patterns, i.e., what the earth would be experiencing without significant human influence. The pattern shown centuries ago is nothing at all like the pattern shown today, and was influenced by humans minimally. Did the authors of that article make a claim that stated that human are not affecting climate now? Yes or no?
No, which is why you shouldn't either.
Humans play a minimal role in the earth's climate.
 





cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,339
Reaction score
2,558
Points
113
You're still behind me so I'm good.
Yeah I'm done here. Keep making a giant fool of yourself, though. From the idiotic implications of your opening post to everything else you've posted here, you expose yourself as nothing but a simpleton.
 


justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
14,208
Reaction score
4,696
Points
113
Couple things are causing the confusion.

1) I believe the journal is called Quaternary Research. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research

No idea why they made a mistake on the name. But the link appears to be a Chinese paper? Not sure if they have English fluent authors or just have it translated afterward?

2) in the usual Chinese (Asian) way, Tao Shichen has the family name first. Which is backwards from what we’re used to. So I believe you’ll find his citations like “S. Tao”.

Here's the latest issue and I can't find it in here:

 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
10,462
Reaction score
1,756
Points
113
Yeah I'm done here. Keep making a giant fool of yourself, though. From the idiotic implications of your opening post to everything else you've posted here, you expose yourself as nothing but a simpleton.
And you are a moron so I still stand above you. :drink:
 

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
11,001
Reaction score
1,904
Points
113
Maybe because the effects will go far beyond warming. Hopefully some of them are good, like Maralago getting wiped away by a Cat 5...
#brightside
That threat certainly didn’t scare off Barry or Unity Joe from buying beachfront properties. Maybe they aren’t true believers?
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
11,182
Reaction score
4,891
Points
113
That threat certainly didn’t scare off Barry or Unity Joe from buying beachfront properties. Maybe they aren’t true believers?

You think I give a shit about them?

God I hate morons...
 

Texas-Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
2,618
Reaction score
102
Points
63
The discussion about climate change IMO is less about whether it happens and more about what to do about it. As always, modifying human behavior to deal with it will hurt the poor the most; am I wrong? I would think to truly make a difference, the cost of basic goods will go up significantly, meaning how many will die as the cost of food, energy, etc, rises beyond their ability to attain it? And forget about America, what happens to the poor of the world as the cost of cheap American grain goes up?

Last week the facility I work at was put on notice that our natural gas suppliers can't honor their deliveries because of the cold front. In fact, they're doubting they can make their deliveries to all of their residential customers. Who will suffer the most from us shutting down the coal plants? Do you think they'll give a fuck about global warming when their heat goes out?

We should be worrying about over population way, way more than global warming.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,339
Reaction score
2,558
Points
113
The discussion about climate change IMO is less about whether it happens and more about what to do about it. As always, modifying human behavior to deal with it will hurt the poor the most; am I wrong? I would think to truly make a difference, the cost of basic goods will go up significantly, meaning how many will die as the cost of food, energy, etc, rises beyond their ability to attain it? And forget about America, what happens to the poor of the world as the cost of cheap American grain goes up?

Last week the facility I work at was put on notice that our natural gas suppliers can't honor their deliveries because of the cold front. In fact, they're doubting they can make their deliveries to all of their residential customers. Who will suffer the most from us shutting down the coal plants? Do you think they'll give a fuck about global warming when their heat goes out?

We should be worrying about over population way, way more than global warming.
What to do about it was always the question we should have been debating in politics. But the QOP and RW media decided it was easier to keep their rich oil and gas buddies happy and keep all their cash flowing easily if they could attack the science itself and try to delegitimize it, create doubt about the science itself. It worked. If the QOP is good at anything it's knowing how to fool rubes.

This Frontline is excellent:
Climate of Doubt | Watch S2012 E21 | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site

Other great stuff from Frontline:
As UN Sounds Alarm on Global Warming, Revisit FRONTLINE’s Recent Climate Reporting | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site
 
Last edited:

Texas-Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
2,618
Reaction score
102
Points
63
What to do about it was always the question we should have been debating in politics. But the QOP and RW media decided it was easier to keep their rich oil and gas buddies happy and keep all their cash flowing easily if they could attack the science itself and try to delegitimize it, create doubt about the science itself. It worked. If the QOP is good at anything it's knowing how to fool rubes.

This Frontline is excellent:
Climate of Doubt | Watch S2012 E21 | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site

Other great stuff from Frontline:
As UN Sounds Alarm on Global Warming, Revisit FRONTLINE’s Recent Climate Reporting | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site
The fundamental question remains. Let's put it another way, how many millions (billions) do we kill to combat global warming? Your first link said 1.5 Celsius. 1.5 celsius, are you serious? We're fucked.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,146
Reaction score
4,289
Points
113
The discussion about climate change IMO is less about whether it happens and more about what to do about it. As always, modifying human behavior to deal with it will hurt the poor the most; am I wrong? I would think to truly make a difference, the cost of basic goods will go up significantly, meaning how many will die as the cost of food, energy, etc, rises beyond their ability to attain it? And forget about America, what happens to the poor of the world as the cost of cheap American grain goes up?

Last week the facility I work at was put on notice that our natural gas suppliers can't honor their deliveries because of the cold front. In fact, they're doubting they can make their deliveries to all of their residential customers. Who will suffer the most from us shutting down the coal plants? Do you think they'll give a fuck about global warming when their heat goes out?

We should be worrying about over population way, way more than global warming.
And yet we freak out about COVID killing people in nursing homes. We freak out about everything. By design.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
28,788
Reaction score
7,191
Points
113
Here's the latest issue and I can't find it in here:

That's Jan 2021 issue. I could easily be wrong about the journal. The SCMP article seemed pretty specific about a Feb 5 publishing date.

Based on this schedule: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/quaternary-science-reviews/issues
and on this being the "latest" issue of JQS: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/10991417/2021/36/1

I'm not sure which of these, if any, makes the most sense.

Possible JQS does, as then it would simply be a matter of leaving the "Journal of" off the name. And if they were doing another issue about a month after the Jan 4th issue, then the Feb 5 date would make sense too. But wouldn't it be up on the site by now??


Anyway, Sichen Tao most definitely is a researcher in this area. See for example:
http://www.oceanography.lsu.edu/liu/paleoecology_web/index_files/members.html
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Shichen-Tao-2072009569

Now in that second link, it does point to this, in a completely differently named journal:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/global-and-planetary-change/vol/197/suppl/C

And where you'll find the following paper with Tao as a co-author:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818120302885


Is this the one?? The abstract doesn't seem to be saying what the SCMP article is talking about.
 

Plausible Deniability

Coffee is for closers
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
952
Points
113
And yet we freak out about COVID killing people in nursing homes. We freak out about everything. By design.
It's much, much easier to control people who are conditioned to live in fear. COVID, climate change, it's all about fear and power. Plain and simple
 


Texas-Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
2,618
Reaction score
102
Points
63
Why isn't Greta screaming about over population, which is the much bigger problem? None of anything will matter as we add billions to the world population. None of it.
 

ecoperson

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
509
Reaction score
490
Points
63
Why isn't Greta screaming about over population, which is the much bigger problem? None of anything will matter as we add billions to the world population. None of it.
Finally someone who is willing to talk about over-population... much of the world's problems can be traced to too many people needing a finite number of resources. I sure don't have the answers for how to realistically address over-population but I fully agree that it has to be part of any conversation. Climate change... check. Endangered species and habitat destruction... check. Pollution and poverty... check.

We've been able to engineer our way out of our over-population problems thus far but there is truly a carrying capacity on this planet if we hope that it functions in any natural way and we should take steps towards addressing this.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
28,788
Reaction score
7,191
Points
113
What to do about it was always the question we should have been debating in politics. But the QOP and RW media decided it was easier to keep their rich oil and gas buddies happy and keep all their cash flowing easily if they could attack the science itself and try to delegitimize it, create doubt about the science itself. It worked. If the QOP is good at anything it's knowing how to fool rubes.
I think some people believe with all their heart that climate change/green tech is a giant conspiracy to kill off the wealth of petro businesses and their owners since they're conservatives, so it is their duty to try to fight that by killing off the science of climate change.

Don't really need to go much father than this thread to see it.
 




Top Bottom