wat, pangea= Antarctica was in the middle... It's obvious that humans do have an effect, even if it's a minor one. Why does it really matter if we do or if we don't? Does that take away from the fact that we are still polluting the **** out of our continent and just wasting our resources?
Just from reading the name, if you think this is a non-laughable "nonprofit" group, you should self-lobotomize (if you haven't already) I suggest drugs. You'll enjoy.
I did notice the name of the non-profit and chuckled. Both sides of the debate use hyperbole and propaganda. Obviously the plants-need-CO2 guys are going to latch on to anything anti global warming. Here is a better source for the letter http://www.livescience.com/19643-nasa-astronauts-letter-global-warming.html. After digging a little further it looks like some rocket scientists and astronauts don't like the fact that the director of the GISS is an environmental activist that is making global warming out to be catastrophic when the scientific evidence does not back it up.
Because you cowardly avoid me because you cannot logically defend your points. That's clear to all who see your posts. When challenged, humans must either fight or take flight. You choose to take flight.
But you've never actually posed an actual challenge of any kind, to anyone on this board. Everyone kind of pities you. The fat 7th grader says he is better at basketball than Kevin Durant... that is not a "challenge." That is "cute," and depending on the 7th grader's age (e.g. 34 or so), "kind of sad." Also, no surprise here, but you completely misunderstand "fight or flight." It's a description of low-brain-stem panic, and it's interesting you see that as the only available options for a human being. One might even say... telling. Good day, brah.
To get back on topic: Dataset have been altered and skewed, the impact of CO2 greatly exaggerated, and it all doesn't matter one bit because of the fundamental economic truths: It's a hell of a lot cheaper to adapt to any likely climate change than to try to stop it by lowering out carbon dioxide output. Anything we do will be more than offset by China - and things like the production of windmills are far more polluting than a nice first world natural gas power plant. And the scientific truths: Any continuous data series shows very little warming. Warmth has always been good for the human race, and cold has always killed us off. The end of the current inter-glacial - like many of the same groups were predicting in the 1970s - is much more likely and much more dangerous than runaway global warming. The fear-mongers try to sell the it all based on feedbacks....but if these feedbacks were true, they all would have happened several times in the past 6000 years when the earth was a couple degrees warmer than it is now. And this one cultural truth: People have always been predicting the end of the world as we know it...but never have so many profited so much from it.
Interesting (at least to me) that my employer, one of the largest oil/gas producers/marketers in the world, is on record as stating climate change is real and fossil fuels are a major contributor.
The liberal pile on technique at its finest, complete with an insulting cuss word. Tells me all I need to know.
Heh - do they also do trading? I won't mention any company names, but many oil companies were poised to make beaucoup money off of carbon trading. The CAGW advocates trumpet oil money as funding skeptics, but the truth is that many big oil companies very publicly fund the CAGW organizations and research. It's an easy call - they are huge and can position themselves to profit from it, and in the atmosphere of the last 10 years, it's also the correct public relations play. I couldn't tell you what they really believe - and they won't tell you either.
You can't be serious right? Do you know the science behind global warming? What the Ozone is? What its microbiological make-up is? What the essence of global warming is?
Yes, I know all of that. Except for the microbiological make-up part - that sounds like pseudo-scientific jibber jabber. I pity the fool who thinks that scientific research is never impacted by rent-seeking and politics and grant money. Since you asked: The science behind global warming: CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere, trending from 0.03 to 0.04% of it. It is also commonly measured in ppm, as in it currently exists in approximately 350-375 ppm as measured at the monitoring station at Mauna Loa. The theory is that for each doubling of CO2 in our atmosphere, we will see a certain amount of warming of the atmosphere. The amount of warming is subject to a tremendous amount of conjecture, mainly because we live in a very complicated world that can't be modeled by computer accurately and the scientists supporting AGW have yet to put forward any proof or make any valid predictions regarding how much warming we will see. Every prediction they have made has failed. Some people believe that you will get about 1 degree of warming per doubling, some believe that you will get up to 6 degrees, but the IPCC has published numbers ranging from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. The higher end of the spectrum is based purely on fears of positive feedbacks. (which, as I have mentioned before are unlikely if you look at the history of the earth) I believe that it is closer to 1 degree because of a couple things: we have been coming out of the little ice age, so temperatures have been naturally going up, and the temperature record has been corrupted by UHI and the moving of thermometers from rural to urban locations. What do you believe the temperature sensitivity of the earth to a doubling of CO2 is? What damage do you think has currently been done by global warming?
Hmmm, I should refrain replying to people who pass off terms like AGW and (maliciously) flawed dataset. Who was it that took part in this quote: [rquoter]When will we have concrete proof for global warming? When we're all dead[/rquoter]
Why do some people act like they are trying to save the planet, when in reality they are trying to save humans? The planet will be fine. As George Carlin said, the PLANET (4 billion years) will shake us off like a dog with fleas.
Accurate. Although it seems misleading to state these numbers without also mentioning that this is higher than CO2 levels have been in the last 800,000 years. Or that the level is a 36% increase since the 1750s. We are confusing things now. The science behind global warming is essentially proven fact, i.e., the infared absorptive capabilities of heteronuclear molecules are well known. Additionally, the evidence for global warming is also factual – mean temperatures have consistently been increasing on a global scale (about 1 degree from 1906-2006, IIRC). This is mimicked in the troposphere and, to a certain extent, in the oceans which act as the planet’s heatsink. The theory is really more about the cause of the CO2 increase and the warming trend, and what it means for the future. For the record, 96-98% of active, publishing climatologists agree with the consensus position. There is a great deal of conjecture. Feedback loops, water vapor, methane output and degradation in the atmosphere are just some of many factors that are difficult to model in a coherent fashion. For example, water vapor amplifies existing warming trends, but it cannot cause them; it is a feedback, not a forcing. You can't increase the average water vapor content of the atmosphere without first raising its temperature — otherwise, any excess water vapor would quickly precipitate back out. That's why you need forcings like long-lived greenhouse gases, solar irradiance, etc. Additionally, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has less of an effect the more you add, because the adsorption bands start to saturate. This gives rise to the well known logarithmic relationship (Beer-Lambert law) between CO2 concentration and its radiative forcing. But it is nowhere near full saturation, which is why the curve is logarithmic rather than asymptotically constant. This is verified in laboratory experiments, in line-by-line radiative transfer codes, and IIRC in satellite observations of the atmosphere. These are just some of the complexities (arguably, the interaction with the ocean is far more important, and far more cumbersome). Anyhow every prediction has absolutely not failed. The IPCC presents a “range” of predictions, depending on the model sensitivity utilized. I think the range was from 1-6 degrees C or so for the rest of this century. Obviously, this is not a testable prediction at this point, but there are other studies…for example, Hansen’s 1981 article in Science. Hansen’s team correctly predicted (within 30%) the change in global mean temperature, even given rather thorny unknowns such as the role of aerosols. (And, it should be noted, they predicted low) There are feedbacks. Some are positive (the aforementioned water vapor for example or permafrost thawing), some are negative (e.g., radiative cooling) and some are mixed (clouds). All are scientifically possible, depending on the circumstance. And some dramatically outweigh others. Even at 1 degree your liable to see vast changes in the next decades. I presume you read the paper or watch the news, but the arctic has certainly borne the brunt of the effects (as predicted, I should point out – higher latitudes will warm the most). Glaciers have been receding, and the ocean is warming (~.2 C or so). But piddling over “observable damage” is as much a red herring as the “Plants need CO2” coal-industry-backed baloney that orchestrated the silly NASA letter. Future effects of even small changes in climate are more important, with tundra and coral reefs being major victims. Coral reefs are sensitive to even 0.75C shifts in water temperature, for example. Sea levels rising has been discussed repeatedly, but another aspect is acidification (CO2 absorbed into the ocean forms carbonic acid). This will seriously screw with ocean ecology – especially for crustaceans, whose armor will dissolve faster than it can be replaced (National geographic had an article on this not too long ago). This list can go on and on. But google’s just a click away. In summary - I'm not saying you're wrong exactly. I'm more just putting out the other side of the conjecture. I hope you were as sincere as your posts came across - it's been a while since I posted in these sorts of threads...it can get very repetitive and frustrating.
Others have answered most of this post more ably than I could but I can't let this one pass. Really? You think the record heat and extended drought that Texas suffered the last few years was good? Global warming doesn't mean that everywhere heats up uniformly. Some places will heat up far more than they do now. Some places will actually get colder. It also doesn't mean that weather patterns remain largely the same just that its warmer so I can wear shorts in March in Minnesota. Warming will mean that some places will suffer more drought, some more storms. The problem though is our civilization has developed with fairly regular climate patterns. If climate patterns change due to a warmer overall planet it is very uncertain what will happen to climate patterns. Places that are breadbaskets now could be deserts and vice versa.
