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.
Let them give us an accurate measure of CO2 in the atmosphere today and a prediction as to what it is in five years based on a calculation that will also match up to past years using the same measurements. In five years, let's see how it compares.
That wouldn't prove it was anthropogenic. Once the climate starts to warm, natural sources begin to move from sinks to to sources like the atmosphere at a greater rate.
Carbon dioxide is released. It is sort of cool because we can actually tell where the CO2 came from based on the Oxygen isotopes. Well, for the longer lived stuff we use the O16:18 isotopes, for quick cycling we use carbon isotopes.
The CO2 from ice will be different from fossil fuels and very different from the oceanic CO2 in terms of isotopic ratios.
So, are they still greenhouse gases? If so, do they also cause warming?
That wouldn't prove it was anthropogenic. Once the climate starts to warm, natural sources begin to move from sinks to to sources like the atmosphere at a greater rate.
It should prove they know enough to make accurate predictions, correct?
Let them give us an accurate measure of CO2 in the atmosphere today and a prediction as to what it is in five years based on a calculation that will also match up to past years using the same measurements. In five years, let's see how it compares.
Edit: You've added to your response since my quote.
Two things:
1. Chicken and the egg. As global temperatures increase, more CO2 is released naturally.
2. The climate is so complex and has so many feedbacks, that it is most likely too complex to understand the impact.
Yes, CO2 can be forced, or it can do the forcing. This is why your example of "proof" wouldn't actually prove anything, since we have already started warming.
Now as for 2, that is just an appeal to ignorance. They said the same thing about things like plate tectonics and many other theories. Besides half a million research projects on anthropogenic climate change means it is getting less and less complex all the time. And its complexity does not mean it is impossible to determine its cause.
It should prove they know enough to make accurate predictions, correct?
All that would tell us how good one particular model is. It wouldn't remotely point to what the cause is. If the cause is anthropogenic (and it is btw) than accurate modeling is a goal, not the point on which we determine the cause.
I mean do you wait for your doctor to predict how big your tumor is going to get before you stop smoking?
All that would tell us how good one particular model is. It wouldn't remotely point to what the cause is. If the cause is anthropogenic (and it is btw) than accurate modeling is a goal, not the point on which we determine the cause.
I mean do you wait for your doctor to predict how big your tumor is going to get before you stop smoking?
If he tells me that it's a settled diagnosis the tumor came from cell phone usage, I might consider another doctor.
All that would tell us how good one particular model is. It wouldn't remotely point to what the cause is. If the cause is anthropogenic (and it is btw) than accurate modeling is a goal, not the point on which we determine the cause.
I mean do you wait for your doctor to predict how big your tumor is going to get before you stop smoking?
There's also the issue of when to start acting. You can wait around for more evidence to accumulate (as if we haven't accumulated enough to cause concern) - but at some point you have to accept that it's happening, and that we should probably change our ways to mitigate its effects. We're already going to have nasty negative effects down the line, no matter what at this point, but we can at least make things a bit less bad if we start acting now by taking this issue seriously.
All of this obfuscation and sowing of doubt in the conversation just serves to make us less and less proactive in dealing with this issue.
Thankfully, the USA as lead by Trump is becoming an outlier on this issue. The rest of the world will continue on without us (at least for now), and hopefully they take more of a lead on this discussion and in creating action. China and India alone can have huge impacts (because they are huge countries) if they reduce their emissions in serious ways.
So, are they still greenhouse gases? If so, do they also cause warming?
Is CO2 still a greenhouse gas based on its isotopic ratio? Yes. But its cool because we can take samples of air from the atmosphere and determine where that CO2 came from.
That is relevant to assigning cause. There has not been a statistically significant increase in atmospheric CO2 from ice sources, well as of 2015 that was true. The ocean is the big scary when it comes to outgassing CO2, we are already seeing signs of it degassing O2 which is easier to observe. Since they are both soluble according to Henrys law, CO2 should start degassing as well.
But again, what does that have to with determining the cause of the current climate change?
There's also the issue of when to start acting. You can wait around for more evidence to accumulate (as if we haven't accumulated enough to cause concern) - but at some point you have to accept that it's happening, and that we should probably change our ways to mitigate its effects. We're already going to have nasty negative effects down the line, no matter what at this point, but we can at least make things a bit less bad if we start acting now by taking this issue seriously.
All of this obfuscation and sowing of doubt in the conversation just serves to make us less and less proactive in dealing with this issue.
Thankfully, the USA as lead by Trump is becoming an outlier on this issue. The rest of the world will continue on without us (at least for now), and hopefully they take more of a lead on this discussion and in creating action. China and India alone can have huge impacts (because they are huge countries) if they reduce their emissions in serious ways.
I don't know enough about policy to give a seriously informed opinion. I do know a bit about mitigation since it was something I was lucky enough to work on as an undergrad. There are some seriously worthwhile techniques regarding sequestration that we could use right now. It would be worth our while to consider some of them, like iron fertilization, and to get out in front of any policy about sequestration.
I forgot to add that I am personally (not professionally) uncomfortable with China rather than the US taking a leadership role on so called "green" energy. Eventually fossil fuels will run out, green energies are inevitable and it seems short sighted to let someone else benefit from the patents and building the infrastructure that everyone will eventually need to turn to.
There's also the issue of when to start acting. You can wait around for more evidence to accumulate (as if we haven't accumulated enough to cause concern) - but at some point you have to accept that it's happening, and that we should probably chance our ways to mitigate its effects. We're already going to have nasty negative effects down the line, but we can at least make things a bit less bad if we start acting now and taking this seriously.
All this obfuscation and sowing of doubt in the conversation just serves to make us less and less proactive in dealing with this issue. Thankfully, the USA as lead by Trump is becoming an outlier on this issue. The rest of the world will continue on without us (at least for now), and hopefully they take more of a lead on this discussion.
Nobody will change their ways and much of the AGW crowd says people shouldn't have to change their lives.
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.
