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.
And that claim has been proven...You just don't accept the proof.....I thought you said you had an open mind....I should have known better.
My post was intended to refute the "hasn't warmed in 17 years" myth, nothing more.
I have an open mind, but the proof hasn't been provided.
Look at it like this. Can you say with certainty that the Earth will be hotter next year? Can you say with certainty it will be hotter in ten years? Can you say with certainty it will be hotter in a hundred years? Can you say with certainty that the heating that has occurred is not from natural variation?
I am not talking about "the odds", I'm talking about certainty. If you cannot say with certainty, then you have no proof of anything.
It is certainly true that we have proof that the Earth is warmer today than it was during the little ice age. There is no proof that the Earth will ever warm ever again. This is what I mean by proof.
The point is, proof comes from facts, not assumptions/predictions/opinion. Global-warming relies not on proof or facts, it relies on probabilities derived from the evidence that we have. These probabilities change constantly as we find more evidence to support our theories.
When it comes to what you think will happen in the future, nothing can be called "proof" or "fact", because the future is simply unknown. Everything that you think will happen in the future is simply your opinion.
Now, when I form my opinion, I like to imagine it like this. If I had a million dollars and I could go to Las Vegas and bet on timelines and effects of climate-change, where would I put my money? Well, I obviously would place my money on what I think is "most probable".
The most probable future is a warmer future, period. But that warming is most likely small, and the only negative effect of that warming will be sea-level rise. Which I would put at about a foot of sea-level rise by 2100. That would be enough where some sea protections might be necessary in specific areas to protect against storm surges. But not enough of a rise to endanger any populated areas.
Basically, nothing "drastic" needs to be done in any of our lifetimes. If and when something actually needs to be done in the future, I am convinced that the science will be more refined and more clear, and the technologies necessary will be available. In fact, if we were to figure out how to make a better battery, this entire discussion will end up being a complete waste of time because we would basically abandon oil anyway.
My position effectively is, everything is going to be just fine, there isn't any rush, nothing needs to be done, and if you try to do anything prematurely and without sufficient evidence, then at best it will do more harm than good, and at worst it will completely backfire.
I have an open mind, but the proof hasn't been provided.
Look at it like this. Can you say with certainty that the Earth will be hotter next year? Can you say with certainty it will be hotter in ten years? Can you say with certainty it will be hotter in a hundred years? Can you say with certainty that the heating that has occurred is not from natural variation?
I am not talking about "the odds", I'm talking about certainty. If you cannot say with certainty, then you have no proof of anything.
It is certainly true that we have proof that the Earth is warmer today than it was during the little ice age. There is no proof that the Earth will ever warm ever again. This is what I mean by proof.
The point is, proof comes from facts, not assumptions/predictions/opinion. Global-warming relies not on proof or facts, it relies on probabilities derived from the evidence that we have. These probabilities change constantly as we find more evidence to support our theories.
When it comes to what you think will happen in the future, nothing can be called "proof" or "fact", because the future is simply unknown. Everything that you think will happen in the future is simply your opinion.
Now, when I form my opinion, I like to imagine it like this. If I had a million dollars and I could go to Las Vegas and bet on timelines and effects of climate-change, where would I put my money? Well, I obviously would place my money on what I think is "most probable".
The most probable future is a warmer future, period. But that warming is most likely small, and the only negative effect of that warming will be sea-level rise. Which I would put at about a foot of sea-level rise by 2100. That would be enough where some sea protections might be necessary in specific areas to protect against storm surges. But not enough of a rise to endanger any populated areas.
Basically, nothing "drastic" needs to be done in any of our lifetimes. If and when something actually needs to be done in the future, I am convinced that the science will be more refined and more clear, and the technologies necessary will be available. In fact, if we were to figure out how to make a better battery, this entire discussion will end up being a complete waste of time because we would basically abandon oil anyway.
My position effectively is, everything is going to be just fine, there isn't any rush, nothing needs to be done, and if you try to do anything prematurely and without sufficient evidence, then at best it will do more harm than good, and at worst it will completely backfire.
Basically, chill out man, its not a big deal.
There is definitive proof that we are pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the planet can account for. C02 causes the greenhouse effect and drives climate change. In the last 50 years alone C02 levels have increased by 100ppm.
The fight over climate change is very similar to the fight over lead 60 years ago. Some people never learn.
Some people learn, but then forget. There wasn't such a kerfuffle from the right regarding acid rain or CFC's. Reagan and Bush I respectively had the sense to listen to reason. James Inhofe, on the other hand, points to scripture as proof that the world's scientists are faking their results. He's the former Chairman of your Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Thanks for that. I'm not a scientist but I can look at the alarming unpreceded rapid spike in C02 levels and see that it's an issue. Sure like the report says C02 levels have been higher in the DISTANT past. But introducing the amount of C02 at the rapid rate at which humans are is clearly an issue.
Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm.
The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.
There is definitive proof that we are pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the planet can account for. C02 causes the greenhouse effect and drives climate change. In the last 50 years alone C02 levels have increased by 100ppm.
I agree with everything you said except one thing which is only partially true. "C02 causes the greenhouse effect and drives climate change."
It should actually say "CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has an effect on climate."
So if we rewrite what you wrote properly it would say this...
There is definitive proof that we are pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the planet can account for. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has an effect on climate. In the last 50 years alone C02 levels have increased by 100ppm.
Now, if you read what you and I just collaboratively wrote together; What information can be extracted from it?
All that can be ascertained from that statement is that CO2 has increased 100ppm in 50 years and it is largely because of human activity. But what does that even mean?
Does temperature always rise when CO2 levels go up? Look at the entire geologic temperature record compared to the CO2 record. If you did, you will recognize that not only does temperature not always go up when CO2 levels go up, but from the models, when temperature and CO2 levels seem to go together, in many cases temperatures rise hundreds of years before CO2 levels rise.
In fact, looking at just the temperature and CO2 records, you can make a much better argument that CO2 rises because temperature rises and not the other way around.
This is a graphic contrasting Earth's temperature to CO2 concentrations(this is a pretty standard graphic, you've probably already seen it).
If you look back at even the Jurassic period about 150 million years ago, CO2 concentrations were about seven times greater than they are today. It was certainly warmer then, but over the next ~100 million years CO2 levels fell more than 2,000 PPM(we are currently at ~400 PPM) without any reduction in temperature.
For that matter, regardless of CO2 concentrations, global temperatures seem to peak at about 22 C(most likely because of feedbacks from increased cloud cover). The actual primary regulator of climate, is water. While water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas. Thin high-altitude clouds will trap the sun's heat in(positive feedback), while low-altitude clouds reflect the sun's heat out(negative feedback).
It is actually IMPOSSIBLE to know if increasing the CO2 by 50 PPM or 100 PPM or 1000 PPM will increase global temperatures. Increased CO2 could change total cloud cover and wind patterns, which could actually lower temperature. Is that likely? No. But it isn't impossible either.
The point is, I agree that a warming is likely. But there isn't enough evidence that CO2 will cause the kind of temperature increases that many are predicting. As many have noted, CO2 levels have risen considerably in the last couple decades with no increase in temperature. Many have blamed it on ocean current changes, and that could certainly be what is happening. But if it is, then the current hiatus could last another 15 years or more.
Why can't we just stop fighting about global-warming until the Earth actually starts warming again? I mean, if the Earth isn't warming during that period of time, is it really going to hurt anything to just wait?
The truth is, the reason why the global-warming debate won't go away in that course of time, is because the global-warming debate basically has absolutely nothing to do with global-warming. This debate is nothing more than a proxy for environmentalism, a hatred of fossil fuels, and the potential for huge profits by special-interests who get to play us all against each other.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 09-11-2014 at 01:50 PM..
Reason: copyright violation
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.
