interesting read on climate change...

[Headholio]

You're 100% correct... Indeed we're on a warming cycle; just like many before our time. And the co2 is indeed up (35% if that's the figure), but I believe that's an effect of the warming cycle; not the reverse. It could be argued all day, but the fact remains that 1 cow farting for one day, produces more fluorocarbons than 100 car air conditioners ruptured and releasing Freon R12; totalling 300 lbs of R12. (UCLA chemistry ieee paper c. 1985). And by one calculation; one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gasses than all industry of all mankind in the entire 20th century (another Left calculation disputes that, so it may or may not be one way or the other).

The bottom line is that we're in a warming cycle, and whatever will be will be, and I'm not going to give up my life & livelihood to try to fight Mother Nature, and anyone who does, has my blessings... I just don't want their views to stop me from moving ahead.

Charles

Warming and cooling cycles of the past are pretty well understood by understanding volcanic activity, solar activity, earth orbit variations etc. Slight changes cause a cascade of events that result in positive feedback to warming or cooling that accelerates the change. These things can be modeled mathematically.

Never in history has change occurred so fast, and the reason is known, and fits the model. Man's activities are forcing the change. The change we are seeing right now is unprecedented in history.

Your idea that a warming trend is causing an increase in CO2 instead of the other way around does not make sense. CO2 emissions are known. It is not a natural event. We know where the CO2 is coming from. Emissions. And the increase causes positive feedback such as the oceans becoming less able to absorb the CO2.

 

[binö]

Look at the link to the graph above (I can't get it to display). You can see how much temperatures have risen over the last century. The trend is undeniable. From year to year, the black line is a zig zag as annual averages go up and down. Taking 5 year averages makes the red line smoother but still there are natural ups and downs over time. You can see a downward zig in the mid seventies before it zags back up and zigs back down in the 80's etc, and again in 2000 the zig is turning to a zag. To see the overall trend you need to see the big picture.
If 2013 is cooler than 2012 was, it would make no sense to say the earth is now cooling. It would just be part of the natural variability, and would say nothing about the overall trend.

The article you posted Bino is just talking about trying to understand the cause of those zigs and zags. Fine tuning the model to be able to predict smaller changes over shorter periods of time. So in that sense, yes there are many things unknown. But the fact that climate change is real is not disputed, and the fact that is man made is not disputed. That is not said or implied in the article.

not disputed what are you talking about it is majorly disputed.
like i said before i respect your obvious knowledge, but how can a science minded bro like yourself be so resolute about something being beyond debate? that doesn't strike me as a very scientific thought process and IMO hurts your arguments.

 

[nydj66]

not disputed what are you talking about it is majorly disputed.
like i said before i respect your obvious knowledge, but how can a science minded bro like yourself be so resolute about something being beyond debate? that doesn't strike me as a very scientific thought process and IMO hurts your arguments.

Scientists who live in ivory towers can assign statistical certainty and say something is 95% certain and so there is a 1/20 chance it could be false. That leaves room for debate.

Us engineers who have to make things work in the real world know that when enough evidence points in one direction, you're best off going with the odds.

The fact that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas is not a theory by some environmentalist; it is a demonstrable fact. You can prove it over and over again in the laboratory. No one disputes that.

We know we're taking massive amounts of Carbon out of the ground that's been stored for hundreds of millions of years and burning it to produce Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. No one disputes that.

AND, we can measure that the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased right in pace with the burning of fossil fuels. No one disputes that.

Given all those facts, you would predict that the average global temperature would increase with increasing Carbon Dioxide levels. And indeed, we have plenty of evidence that is happening.

So anyone who looks at the evidence and states with authority, "There is no such thing as man-made climate change" must have a political reason to do so. Because any reasonable person would conclude that we very likely are causing the climate to change.

It is also very likely that the United States will not bear much of the cost of this climate change so there is no incentive to sacrifice to prevent it. That's the political reality.

 

[Headholio]

not disputed what are you talking about it is majorly disputed.
like i said before i respect your obvious knowledge, but how can a science minded bro like yourself be so resolute about something being beyond debate? that doesn't strike me as a very scientific thought process and IMO hurts your arguments.

I'm just looking at the evidence. I will also say that the link between cholesterol and heart disease is not disputed. that doesn't mean you can't find some whacked internet article to the contrary, it just means that the data is in, has been analyzed and the conclusion is obvious. Studies continue to be done, and they always support the hypothesis.

I already posted the facts from Science magazine. 10 years of studies. 928 papers. 0 disputing AGW. How can you call that majorly disputed?

People are sucked in by political talk. Listen to talk radio and there is a dispute. But look at science, and there is no dispute.

 

[Headholio]

Consider also, that there is not 1 major scientific institution in the world denying the reality of AGW. International acadamies of science from every industrialized nation, every scientific organization in this country and around the world.

That is not what a debate looks like.

 

[75th]

So anyone who looks at the evidence and states with authority, "There is no such thing as man-made climate change" must have a political reason to do so. Because any reasonable person would conclude that we very likely are causing the climate to change.

This. Its amazing that, with all the knowledge at your fingertips via the interwebs, folks are still conditioned to live in the fox news / weekly standard bubble.

The debate about whether or not we are having an impact is long over. What we can debate, however, is how much of an impact we are having and what the most viable solutions would be. The folks in the aforementioned bubble, however, arent willing or capable of having that type of conversation.

 

[Headholio]

Only in your world can government get credit for developing fracking. They steal billions of dollars out of the fossil fuels industry every year -- and not just in income taxes. They impose excise taxes on their sole raw material (crude) and then they place excise taxes on their products as well.

Government was too busy wasting time on hairbrained pet projects from the green lobby to even notice the rapid advances in fracking as of late. My only hope is that the government idiots will stay out of their way and let them actually collect the gas.

Yep that's my world. Its called reality. Walk towards the light Plunkey. You clearly don't understand governments impact on all sorts of fundamental scientific research, that private industry has no motivation to perform. Government can, has and will continue to reshape our energy usage.

The government steal from the oil companies? You are truly crazy. Exxon made 41 Billion last year and paid 13% tax. And to top it all off, they did it by selling one of this country's natural resources, and degrading our natural environment. Asking for 13 percent cut seems to be an extremely generous deal the American people are giving them.

 

[75th]

Yep that's my world. Its called reality. Walk towards the light Plunkey. You clearly don't understand governments impact on all sorts of fundamental scientific research, that private industry has no motivation to perform. Government can, has and will continue to reshape our energy usage.

The government steal from the oil companies? You are truly crazy. Exxon made 41 Billion last year and paid 13% tax. And to top it all off, they did it by selling one of this country's natural resources, and degrading our natural environment. Asking for 13 percent cut seems to be an extremely generous deal the American people are giving them.

That 13% is stealing dontchaknow.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Let the tide rise. Let the sun fall. Let the air carbonize. The earth now heaves.

That's poetic.

 

[binö]

Scientists who live in ivory towers can assign statistical certainty and say something is 95% certain and so there is a 1/20 chance it could be false. That leaves room for debate.

Us engineers who have to make things work in the real world know that when enough evidence points in one direction, you're best off going with the odds.

The fact that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas is not a theory by some environmentalist; it is a demonstrable fact. You can prove it over and over again in the laboratory. No one disputes that.

We know we're taking massive amounts of Carbon out of the ground that's been stored for hundreds of millions of years and burning it to produce Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. No one disputes that.

AND, we can measure that the level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has increased right in pace with the burning of fossil fuels. No one disputes that.

Given all those facts, you would predict that the average global temperature would increase with increasing Carbon Dioxide levels. And indeed, we have plenty of evidence that is happening.

So anyone who looks at the evidence and states with authority, "There is no such thing as man-made climate change" must have a political reason to do so. Because any reasonable person would conclude that we very likely are causing the climate to change.

It is also very likely that the United States will not bear much of the cost of this climate change so there is no incentive to sacrifice to prevent it. That's the political reality.

do you concede their would be political reasons to take the opposite tack? imo the distrust of politicans and their motives has contributed to this debate