Climate Change and the human influence
Moderator: Moderators
-
TheBeardedDude
- Scholar
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:06 pm
- Location: Connecticut
Climate Change and the human influence
Post #1There are numerous studies that show how and why climates change, and there are numerous studies that show the causal connection between greenhouse gases and climate change as well as the link with humans. So, my question is, do you accept that climates change and/or that humans influence climate change?
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #31
This appears to disagree with the claim that CO2 is distributed "relatively equally across the globe".Willum wrote:
Why also then, is climate change more pronounced in the Northern Hemisphere, when CO2 is distributed relatively equally across the globe?
In fact, it seems to paint a picture of a clear correlation between CO2 content and relative climate change statistics.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #32
[Replying to post 31 by Neatras]
Needs more explanation.
Polar ice melt is far more pronounced at the North Pole than the South. We're only starting to get reliable stats for recession in the South, whereas the North has lost several latitudes of ice.
(Which also decreases albedo, because all the white snow is not reflecting, instead all that Sunlight is strongly absorbed by land and ocean)
If you read above, there is a good outline of why temperature is a poor indicator of climate change, whereas polar ice is a better one.
Needs more explanation.
Polar ice melt is far more pronounced at the North Pole than the South. We're only starting to get reliable stats for recession in the South, whereas the North has lost several latitudes of ice.
(Which also decreases albedo, because all the white snow is not reflecting, instead all that Sunlight is strongly absorbed by land and ocean)
If you read above, there is a good outline of why temperature is a poor indicator of climate change, whereas polar ice is a better one.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #33
[Replying to Neatras]
Oh, I get it now...
You are calling a difference of 11ppm, or 0.0011 percent difference a significant difference. I'd call that relatively equal. I was only seeking to avoid rabbit holes.
One should expect some variation. CO2 is absorbed by plants, and transported from equator to pole, being devoured along the way, as well. It's solubility changes with temperature, colder water absorbing more, and so on.
Oh, I get it now...
You are calling a difference of 11ppm, or 0.0011 percent difference a significant difference. I'd call that relatively equal. I was only seeking to avoid rabbit holes.
One should expect some variation. CO2 is absorbed by plants, and transported from equator to pole, being devoured along the way, as well. It's solubility changes with temperature, colder water absorbing more, and so on.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #34
[Replying to Neatras]
Did you know you can't trust Mona Loa CO2 counts?
It's on top of an active volcano. An increasingly active volcano.
I know, they use special Al Gore rythms and other dance music to compensate, but it begs the question, why there?
It is poor science to add a variable to your measurement, when there are plenty on inactive mountains. Indeed the wilds of Canada, Pennsylvanian, Siberia and so on would do better.
Or, I strongly advise buying your own CO2 meter. You will see that you can't so much as stand within 2 meters of one without corrupting the count, and you will be able to see CO2 rise and fall with traffic in the morning. (I live at the nexus of three metropolis, and I watch it vary from a low of 366ppm to a high of 406 ppm).
You will be able to see, that, inside your house CO2 is 3-4x greater than outdoors, and perform experiments based on this phenomenal concentration difference.
Did you know you can't trust Mona Loa CO2 counts?
It's on top of an active volcano. An increasingly active volcano.
I know, they use special Al Gore rythms and other dance music to compensate, but it begs the question, why there?
It is poor science to add a variable to your measurement, when there are plenty on inactive mountains. Indeed the wilds of Canada, Pennsylvanian, Siberia and so on would do better.
Or, I strongly advise buying your own CO2 meter. You will see that you can't so much as stand within 2 meters of one without corrupting the count, and you will be able to see CO2 rise and fall with traffic in the morning. (I live at the nexus of three metropolis, and I watch it vary from a low of 366ppm to a high of 406 ppm).
You will be able to see, that, inside your house CO2 is 3-4x greater than outdoors, and perform experiments based on this phenomenal concentration difference.
