Global Warming Catch-All Thread (greenhouse gas, greenhouse, best, Australia)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that we can safely agree that there has been global warming since the Little Ice Age of 1400-1800. And, yes, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen at the station on Mauna Loa in Hawaii, where they first documented the rise since, when?, 1959.
But other than that, there are scientists on BOTH sides of the issue. Most, however, seem to take the middle ground: we are not sure how much humans have caused the changes currently being seen.
Hold on there. This statement makes it sound like the scientific community is divided. They are not. There is virtually 100% agreement among active climate scientists that anthropogenic global warming is a problem. What's the middle ground when the vote is 97-3?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
Years ago, I talked with Dr. Sherwood Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. I was writing a paper on the energy balance of trees and needed some information from him. He believed that the increasing CO2 levels would cause plants to become more productive, which would ameliorate the issue to a great extent. Thus, as a private citizen scientist, he did not believe that global warming was that big of an issue. But, as director of a U.S. gov't agency, he probably could not make that an official policy statement of his laboratory.
Years ago some people thought that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
This arguing back and forth is useless.
No one can prove humans have been the major factor in the warming of the globe since the Little Ice Age.
No one can prove that humans have not been a major factor. But it is less likely.
Ever seen a volcanic eruption? Those are major factors!
The problem is that climate is looooonnnnggggg term, and we are only recently measuring things. Really, 1959 is just yesterday in geological/climatological time. Give me some data from 1400.
The question can be reduced to a simple matrix:
on one axis is the cost of being wrong
on the other axis is the probability of being wrong.
The cost of doing nothing and being wrong is staggering. If you look at how much human population is within the area that will be flooded and then calculate the cost of dealing with that..... Can you imagine a Katrina in NY, Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston, Jacksonville, Mobile, New Orleans, Houston, Corpus Christi, Sand Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle? What's the cost of moving all these cities 50 miles inland?
The crop producing areas will all shift way North. The productive agricultural areas of the United States now may look more like northern Mexico. Tropical diseases will become endemic in the United States. etc etc etc.
The cost of taking action and being wrong, might be a few $100 Billion, or it might even be negative. What's the cost of breaking the strangle hold that OPEC has on our economy by mandating 50-75 mpg cars? It's a net savings. Moving to a significant fraction of renewable energy in our electricity mix has been estimated in a very rigorous analysis to be less than 1¢/kWh.
Balance the two, assign probabilities to the 97-3 split in scientists about the reality of global warming and tell me doing nothing makes any sense what-so-ever?
No, Omaha Rocks; of course they don't/can't stop planting or harvesting based on the weather... who would? It simply keeps them advised of the production levels (both in ND and elsewhere) the what, the why, and what they can expect next week, next month, or during harvest and storage times. It lets them know what their neighbors across the state or around the world are dealing with in production. If this looks like a bad year for hay in some areas, they will know what to expect when their haying time comes. It is just another tool to plan, not like some fanatical adherent to the signs of the moon - "oops, can't plant today, bad moon sign!"
Are you saying that 100% of scientists accept that humans are the MAJOR factor in climate change? Not a factor, but THE MAJOR factor. (Or is it 97%?)
Likewise, are you claiming that this or that association accept that humans are the MAJOR factor in climate change? Not a factor, but THE MAJOR factor?
Please give me references that human action is a more important factor in climate change than, say, volcanos.
Moderator cut: No flaming
For my part, I have BSc and MSc in hydrology and hydraulic engineering, and years of work and teaching experience. I say that because I would like to discuss these issues with other scientists, Moderator cut: No flaming
Are you saying that 100% of scientists accept that humans are the MAJOR factor in climate change? Not a factor, but THE MAJOR factor. (Or is it 97%?)
A question undeserving an answer. The relevant questions have been answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
Likewise, are you claiming that this or that association accept that humans are the MAJOR factor in climate change? Not a factor, but THE MAJOR factor?
Why does this matter? Even if forest fires are not the major cause of deforestation we still want to stop them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
Please give me references that human action is a more important factor in climate change than, say, volcanoes.
Moderator cut: No flaming
Moderator cut: No flaming
Moderator cut: No flaming
A question undeserving an answer. The relevant questions have been answered.
Why does this matter? Even if forest fires are not the major cause of deforestation we still want to stop them.
You're claiming to be a researcher. What's the relative difference between anthropogenic CO2 and volcanic CO2?
I'm an engineer. You questions don't sound like a researcher's questions, they sound like Republican Party line. For whom did you vote in 2000, 2004, 2008?
Well, I've tried to avoid responding to your posts, but in this case I can't help myself.
A question undeserving an answer. The relevant questions have been answered.
I'm an engineer. You questions don't sound like a researcher's questions, they sound like Republican Party line. For whom did you vote in 2000, 2004, 2008?
My question is very relevant. Are you saying that 100% (or 97%) of scientists claim that humans are the MAJOR factor in climate change, or just one of the factors? Very relevant. If you can't see the relevancy then there is no more point in entertaining your postings.
In fact, your claim about 97 or 100% of the scientists is purely bogus. You can provide no reputable references to that number. What are they agreeing on? That the climate changes? Oh, I see, 97 of 100 scientists agree that the climate changes. The other 3 are republicans.
I agree with you on some of your postings, but you make the argument from this side look really bad with your bogus and unsubstantiated claims.
Moderator cut: No flaming
Granted a lot of scientists agree that humans are one of the major factors in climate change but probably not the MAJOR factor.
Before I drink your purple kool-aid, I would like to know what the following scientists have to say:
Interesting approach when all your "arguments" have been shredded. What about the article you posted? What do you think it supports?
Arguments shredded?
An actual scientist asserts that it is highly likely that the solar cycles have far more to do with global warming than anything else. And you claim some sort of victory?
Actually the correlation between global climate change deniers and the Republican Party appears to be about 1.0. Of course many of you now claim to be "Independents." LOL
What a ridiculous post. Of course the climate changes. Nobody disputes that. We have an Ice Age. It warms up. We have another ice age. It warms up again. On and on.
I have yet to meet a republican that denies that the climate changes.
My question is very relevant. Are you saying that 100% (or 97%) of scientists claim that humans are the MAJOR factor in climate change, or just one of the factors? Very relevant. If you can't see the relevancy then there is no more point in entertaining your postings.
Read the survey! 97% of scientist who are actively researching and publishing on climate change agreed with the proposition that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
In fact, your claim about 97 or 100% of the scientists is purely bogus. You can provide no reputable references to that number. What are they agreeing on? That the climate changes? Oh, I see, 97 of 100 scientists agree that the climate changes. The other 3 are republicans.
I agree with you on some of your postings, but you make the argument from this side look really bad with your bogus and unsubstantiated claims.
And what is with your constant baiting about republicans and christians?? You obviously have a chip on your shoulder regarding those two groups. Get over it; deal with your personal issues privately; please don't drag your inability to get beyond some past hurt onto internet forums.
Where do you think the denial of this is coming from. It's not the scientific community. You'd know that if you had read the survey!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak
Granted a lot of scientists agree that humans are one of the major factors in climate change but probably not the MAJOR factor.
Before I drink your purple kool-aid, I would like to know what the following scientists have to say:
For the record, I voted for Ralph Nader in 2004. So how now brown cow? How are you going to label me??
2000? 2008?
I have read what the legitimate contrarian scientists say and I appaud them for their efforts. I hope they continue their work. That's how science is improved.
Let's take the most credible contrarian view, Lindzen. He acknowledges that temperature is increasing. He acknowledges that CO2 is a GHG. He takes issue with the models. He's undoubtably correct. We will find the models incorrectly forecast the impact of anthropogenic GHGs on climate. The problem is that we don't know whether the impact will be greater or less. Furthermore if the modesl are close to correct or conservative, we don't have the luxuary of waiting until we further refine them to get started.
There are a large number of low cost or even negative cost policy initiative that will reduce our GHG production. Things like raising the CAFE standard will actually save us money as well as reduce GHG emissions. I buy wind generated electricity and this summer it's cheaper than the brown stuff. What's the downside to moving ahead on low-cost/no-cost policy matters?
An actual scientist asserts that it is highly likely that the solar cycles have far more to do with global warming than anything else. And you claim some sort of victory?
What are you smoking? What are you drinking?
Perhaps you will highlight the section in the article that makes such a statement.
It is a tautology that the Sun is the dominant factor in the Earth temperature. What we are asking is what is making the temperature increase?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
