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.
Gasses, yes. You don't hear the media talking about the other greenhouse gases, particularly, methane. Too much focus on CO2, which your link does. Anyways...
What does your graph exactly prove though? How do we know it's coincidence that this warming started during the industrial revolution based solely looking at historical data? Which is what this link is arguing.
You didn't answer my question:
So what do you think the outcome is of releasing gigatons of greenhouse gases annually that took tens to hundreds of millions to form as fossil fuels at a pace that is far greater than the planet can process? What is that outcome?
this warming period DID NOT start with the industrial revolution, it started more than 12,000 years ago with the end of the last glaciation period. stop looking at the short term, and look at the long term, and recognize that the planet has been cooling for 4.5 billion years.
as for your question, the planet will adapt as it always has. remember this planet has been through at least four mass extinctions, bombardment by comets and meteors, been encased in ice at least twice, the last time was 700 billion years ago, among many other things. and this planet is still here.
and the amount of CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere it a very small amount compared to the whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
The earth has been cooling overall.... speaking of not seeing.
thank you. you have started to open your eyes, now look further and realize that this interglacial period is cooler than the last one, and by a substantial amount, about 10 degrees F as i recall. this is beyond the margin of error by the way. so until we have warmed up to a higher temperature than the highest of the last interglacial period, you cannot claim that man is the cause of this round of warming. now if the temperatures in this interglacial period rise about 13 degrees f, that would take it out of the margin of scientific error, THEN i would say that you are very possibly correct and that man is responsible. but until then, you argument is rubbish.
Wrong again.
I am not twisting anything.
We are being told that there is a 97% consensus that man is causing bad things to happen to the climate by emitting Co2 and that we don't have much time to act. We keep being told the "science is settled" and the "debate is over".
The science isn't settled on the entire topic of our planet's climate..... Which is why we would keep studying it....
Quote:
Based on that premise, it is reasonable to ask why we are still doing research that points to the same conclusions when our time, money and energy would be better spent on solutions.
Not this again.... Are you really pulling this "for the sake of argument" routine again? I prefer to have discussions based in reality.....
Quote:
Your gravity example is a completely false analogy.
We aren't being told that there is an imminent danger regarding the emissions of Co2 and gravity.
The BILLIONS of dollars spent YEARLY on climate research isn't to simply advance our scientific knowledge like we do with gravity or the migration patterns of the monarch butterfly, it's because we are being told that there is an imminent crisis and we have to act fast.
We study the climate because it's important and relevant to us.
Quote:
Unless and until we are told that gravity and/or monarch butterflies are an imminent threat to life as we know it , I'm going to venture a guess that whatever tax dollars we spend researching them are a micro-fraction of what we spend on AGW.
Once again, this is like a doctor telling his patient he is 97% sure or ..let's say 97% of his esteemed colleagues are sure that the patient has a serious disease that is advancing fast and time is of the essence. Instead of treating the disease or instead of spending 100% of their effort on treating the disease, they decide to continue to run more tests and studies that come to the exact same conclusion over and over again.
Nope. I'm talking about adding more knowledge.
Quote:
I know you personally aren't convinced this is an imminent threat but that's what the politicians and many of the scientists as well as the IPCC are telling us. Many others here believe it is as well. What I can't understand is, if someone believes in AGW and believes that it IS imminent and WE DO have to act fast, I can't understand why there is no outrage that we aren't spending 110% of our effort on solutions instead of more research that only says the same
thing over and over again.
I can't understand why you keep making that flawed argument.
this warming period DID NOT start with the industrial revolution, it started more than 12,000 years ago with the end of the last glaciation period.
Huh?
Quote:
stop looking at the short term, and look at the long term, and recognize that the planet has been cooling for 4.5 billion years.
Well certainly, if your baseline is molten lava ball of a planet.
Quote:
as for your question, the planet will adapt as it always has. remember this planet has been through at least four mass extinctions, bombardment by comets and meteors, been encased in ice at least twice, the last time was 700 billion years ago, among many other things. and this planet is still here.
That's not the issue. The planet will march with or without us. However, you seem to be implying there are negative consequences to releasing that much greenhouse gases annually.
Quote:
and the amount of CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere it a very small amount compared to the whole.
And how much arsenic does it take, relative to the size of an average male to completely shut down the system? Don't be fooled by details like that, it's way more complicated.
Quote:
thank you. you have started to open your eyes, now look further and realize that this interglacial period is cooler than the last one, and by a substantial amount, about 10 degrees F as i recall. this is beyond the margin of error by the way. so until we have warmed up to a higher temperature than the highest of the last interglacial period, you cannot claim that man is the cause of this round of warming. now if the temperatures in this interglacial period rise about 13 degrees f, that would take it out of the margin of scientific error, THEN i would say that you are very possibly correct and that man is responsible. but until then, you argument is rubbish.
nice graph DV, but it just goes to prove my points. you are trying to show that a small period of time is greater than the whole, and it isnt. you have also shown that the earth is in a general cooling period overall. nice try but your "evidence" does not support your position.
The science isn't settled on the entire topic of our planet's climate..... Which is why we would keep studying it....
Are you seriously this dense or are you just being obtuse for the sake of starting a pissing contest?
How many times do I have to explain this?
The AGW alarmist side has been claiming two things...
1) The theory that man emitting Co2 is doing bad things to the climate has a 97% consensus, the science is settled and the debate is over.
2) That we are required to act fast before it is too late because time is of the essence.
So, if I were to take those two statements at face value and if I believed in them, it leads me to wonder why do we need to continue studying this (and reaching the same conclusions time and time again), if the debate is over and the science is settled? Does it make a difference if we have 50 ice core studies that show it's mankind's fault instead of 15? What's the point?
You might actually have an argument if the AGW crowd wasn't constantly saying the debate is over and the science is settled.
I have no trouble understanding the value of continuing to study something to increase our scientific knowledge, however, we are being told that there is no more debate or question about the matter and that time is of the utmost essence. So with those two caveats, I don't see how they think they have the LUXURY of continuing to do studies that just show it's man's fault. They should be doing studies about how to create cleaner energy or to protect cities from sea level rise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Not this again.... Are you really pulling this "for the sake of argument" routine again? I prefer to have discussions based in reality.....
Yes, it's no secret that I do NO buy into the AGW alarmist mindset. I am trying to understand it, that is why I say "for the sake of argument". In order to say otherwise would mean that I believe the AGW alarmism and I do not. I am trying to understand the mindset of those who do regarding this endless cycle of more research that just shows the same results while they tell us that "Rome is burning" and we have act fast.
You also asked if I have a carbon tax where I live.
No, I do not.
So what?
So because something has not yet happened that I disagree with, I shouldn't be concerned about it?
I shouldn't give a crap about billions of dollars in tax money being pissed away on the climate alarmism industry each year?
There have been a lot of threads about climate change so I was curious to see where people stand on this. I tried to cover all viewpoints and since the poll questions are limited to 150 characters, these were the original questions...
1) Our understanding of climate science is not advanced enough to truly predict what will happen but we need to motivate the public and the politicians towards doing the right thing with economic policy and environmental policy. This also represents the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world, while limiting capitalism.
2) I believe in the science as well as the professionalism of the scientists who tell us that we need to act fast and that this is a dire emergency. This crucial effort is being actively stymied by deniers who are paid off or influenced by corporate and big oil interests. Conservative political views as well as strict religious views also sway people to deny the science.
3) I think it’s an important problem but don’t necessarily buy into all of the alarmism and the fear mongering. Clean energy and reducing pollution are important goals so even if the science is shown to be wrong, we are doing the right thing.
4) This is a natural cycle. The climate always changes. It’s hubris to think that we can significantly change the environment as it has changed many times and much more dramatically in the past when mankind and industrialization were not as much a factor.
5) The scientific community has been largely corrupted by politics, activism, greed and dogma. I think the basic science is sound but the data gathering and dissemination is subject to manipulation and cherry picking in order to paint a specific picture and to motivate action. There is an active effort to marginalize and diminish skeptics as well as an active effort to subvert the scientific process in favor of dogma and consensus over blind, impartial science.
6) This issue is nothing more than a smokescreen to raise taxes, reduce or destroy capitalism and promote socialism.
Since it's a complex issue with lots of opinions, multiple choice has been turned on in case one of these views does not entirely represent your stance.
I believe the earth heats and cools periodically and there has been no heating for over 18 years.
Whatever AGW argument that might have had merit has been corrupted by politics and therefore the data is suspect and not to be believed.
actually the data isnt as suspect as some make it out to be, yes some fo the temperature data was corrupted, but it isnt about the data so much as the conclusions that the alarmists are coming to when they read the data. and its the conclusions that have become politicized.
You'd think they would have learned from 10 years ago..
Quote:
"Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
None of that has happened."
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.
