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.
It will change but humans will have no impact. Its sheer arrogance to assume the human produced 1/10th of one percent of all the total emissions emitted that humans will actually do more than what natural forces do on a regular basis.
Ah so when volcanoes produce the same emissions it can cool the planet..... when humans produce those emissions.... no effect. Got it!
Edit:
To the bolded..... why would human emissions need to do more than what natural forces? I think you are confused. The natural forces plus our emissions plus cutting down forests and rain forests, etc. exacerbate the problem.
ANTHROPOGENIC= PEOPLE
GLOBAL= THE ENTIRE PLANET
WARMING = AN INCREASE IN TEMP
So no..... if you accept AGW then you accept that human actions are affecting the climate....... CAGW refers to the severity of the consequences.
What is the significance of that contribution? We are measuring "global" changes in temps that are very small and fall within the range of natural variability. So while the science of AGW can be reasoned to be sound, it does not establish causation to a given systems change.
Significance is important here and that has not been established. CAGW is a wild assumption that is not even remotely supported due to the fact that AGW as it concerns its position can't even begin to bring support to it.
You are jumping the gun to a given conclusion and loosely relating the issues in order to develop support for the latter. It is one of the problems with the field at the moment.
The whole issue of climate change is trying to control and prevent what we can. We can't stop volcanoes or the sun, but we can use our resources more efficiently.
The whole issue of climate change is trying to control and prevent what we can. We can't stop volcanoes or the sun, but we can use our resources more efficiently.
If the contribution of those resources is insignificant to the process, why bother? That is why significance is important. I am a big fan of my efforts bearing fruit and if they do not, it is pointless to put effort. If mans contribution of C02 has little effect on the system because C02's role is an insignificant driver of the system, then demanding man handicap themselves would be a useless gesture.
John L. Daly (31 March 1943 – 29 January 2004) was an Australian teacher and self-declared "Greenhouse skeptic."
Not a climatologist, and your "paper" isn't a paper, it has more in common with some kid's Geocities site dedicated to New Kids on the Block or something. I asked for papers showing the previous research to be a lie (not an error or mistake, I'm waiting for proof of fraud as claimed) and the current research. Why did you link to a blog by a self-proclaimed expert instead?
I'll make this simple. If you wouldn't use it as a reference in a doctoral thesis, I'm not interested.
What is the significance of that contribution? We are measuring "global" changes in temps that are very small and fall within the range of natural variability. So while the science of AGW can be reasoned to be sound, it does not establish causation to a given systems change.
Significance is important here and that has not been established. CAGW is a wild assumption that is not even remotely supported due to the fact that AGW as it concerns its position can't even begin to bring support to it.
You are jumping the gun to a given conclusion and loosely relating the issues in order to develop support for the latter. It is one of the problems with the field at the moment.
It seems we keep getting muddled in these semantics and quite frankly I'm not going to get into another circular argument with you. What you think AGW is, is different than what I think AGW. If you want to hold onto the notion that AGW simply states CO2 is component of warming and that is it, then fine. Seems pretty disingenuous to me.
Lastly, you should check out the biological aspect of this. It is surprising the migration of "warmer climate" fungi and "pests" to cooler climates. Apparently nature is reacting. Take the big picture view instead of focusing just on CO2.
If the contribution of those resources is insignificant to the process, why bother? That is why significance is important. I am a big fan of my efforts bearing fruit and if they do not, it is pointless to put effort. If mans contribution of C02 has little effect on the system because C02's role is an insignificant driver of the system, then demanding man handicap themselves would be a useless gesture.
My hometown:
Climate change is a long term issue from emissions, but there are certainly a lot of short term benefits from using our resources more efficiently.
Lastly, this "handicap" business is just extreme rhetoric. America's Clean and Water Air Act didn't handicap our nation.
Measure the amount volcanos emit and then what humans emit.
Then get back to me.
How about you check it out yourself.... the information is out there. Then you get back to me because I am not doing your homework.
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.
