skadistic
Caomhanach
So you have a source saying its to low?
Those numbers show that man made Co2 is a very small part of the global warning/global climate change/climate crisis.
Environment gets Bushed
- Thread starter Sims2789
- Start date
So you have a source saying its to low?
Those numbers show that man made Co2 is a very small part of the global warning/global climate change/climate crisis.
skadistic
Caomhanach
There isn't one. What is the point you are trying to make?
skadistic
Caomhanach
And a consensus means nothing more then some people agree. That doesn't do a whole lot of good in science.ALL data is flawed. It will never be not flawed. It is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve bias free data (Unless your area of study happens to be counting beans). Take for instance, the size of the Earth. For a long time, we simply didn't have the correct tools or methods to create an accurate judgement about the exact size and shape of the Earth. Over time, that has changed, and now that we can step outside the Earth entirely with satellites, we are only now creating a correct Geoidal map of the Earth, and creating new updates to the global datums. Thing is, the first real surveys were pretty close. Even now, the Clarke ellipsoid from 1866, long used by the USGS and other organisations wasn't too far off. It was wrong, it was skewed, but it was the best available, and it did a pretty good job. The NASA temp records are similar. They had data. Flaws were discovered, the data was updated. Similar conclusions can still be drawn. Science rolls on.
Some doubt can't be used to throw out your entire dataset, particularly when it is irreplaceable.Thats great. Do you even know what data is flawed? Do you know what is based on the flawed data?
Yep, endorsed by just about everyone. It doesn't make it true. But it does make a little thing called Consensus
Ansar
Détente avec l'été
It isn't our fault things are too difficult for you.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7029585&postcount=111
skadistic
Caomhanach
Well slap me around and call me Shirley! Are you hinting with those links that *gasp* the Earth has a tendency to naturally go through cyclical temperature changes??
You're fourth link contradicts your fifth. It claims humans are responsible for 2.5% of greenhouse effect (2.5% of 32 is quite a bit... too high even)
In that case I fail to see what you're arguing about when a link you provided implies that the recent temperature rise is probably down to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere due to human influence.
And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the recent upwards trend is one of them, in fact we'd better hope it's not. If it is then our emissions are only going to exacerbate the problem. We really will be screwed.
Could find one with higher estimates, yes. If you insist I'll drag it up but it would distract from the point I'm trying to make.
As said I am perfectly willing to accept your number for now.
That's a conclusion not an argument. Please tell *how* you arrive at that conclusion from the numbers.
I saw the (edited) OP, and thought, "Ooh, an interesting discussion on Massachusetts v. EPA! Or maybe something about the Bush administration's attempt to ignore the ruling." But, no: just like all the other environmental threads, it turns into "parts per million," "Ayn Rand Society," and "school busing (!) is a bad idea."
By the way, like the creation / evolution debate, no one will ever be convinced of climate change on an Internet message board. Like creation / evolution, it's no longer a question of policy or law or science, but of the individual poster's political identity. He or she is "someone who does not believe in climate change." Once a debate reaches that level, there's no point in trying to convince anyone. Of course, refuting falsehoods posted by one's "opponents" is still important, since noncommitted passersby might read the post and get the wrong idea.
Cleo
By the way, like the creation / evolution debate, no one will ever be convinced of climate change on an Internet message board. Like creation / evolution, it's no longer a question of policy or law or science, but of the individual poster's political identity. He or she is "someone who does not believe in climate change." Once a debate reaches that level, there's no point in trying to convince anyone. Of course, refuting falsehoods posted by one's "opponents" is still important, since noncommitted passersby might read the post and get the wrong idea.
Cleo
That's sort of the idea indeed. I don't think anyone here thinks this will end with skadistic or even anyone else who posted in this thread conceding.
Of course it does. But we're still personally responsible for the changes forced upon others by our pollution.
People get lung cancer, too, naturally. But I'm still responsible to limit the amount of smoke I blow in their faces.
Okay, popquiz. How much of the change in the greenhouse effect are we responsible for?
Pollution morality is about the change in the system offloaded onto others. It doesn't matter how much water is in the atmosphere, we don't change that. We change the CO2, climate consequences occur, we're responsible. If we change things too much, the economies suffer. We're offloading our costs onto others, especially the poorest.
skadistic
Caomhanach
skadistic
Caomhanach
The change that isn't happening? The CO2 is up but the temp isn't. That's because the effect of CO2 on the temp is a very small fraction. Not sure what this "climate consequences " is you speak of since the data doesn't show it. So you cry for the poor who aren't being affected by a dreamed up climate crisis all you want. Man doesn't create enough CO2 to make a change. Man only makes a small amount of the CO2 and CO2 is a very small amount of the warming. And with all the extra CO2 where is the increase in temp? The data doesn't support this.
Oh, quit dancing around. You haven't even answered the points that have been raised and now just reiterate what you have said before.
Please *demonstrate* why your numbers
support your position or concede.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
It does when it's people who have all done research and come to the same conclusion.
And I feel I must address what the others have. The fact that humans only contribute 3.4% of Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere is an absolutely meaningless statistic really. Carbon Dioxide has and will be emitted by animals, the Earth, and the Ocean in the summer, and it will continue to do so. If humans are responsible for a 3.4% increase, that's a HUGE number.
CO2 is an insulation, not a heat source.
Insulation traps heat, so it takes time for it to build up temperature in a system. This is why there are the claims of "even if we stopped polluting today, temperatures would still rise". We've already caused some (minor) changes, hardly anything to care the least about. I certainly don't. The problem is that we're layering on more and more insulation. This will continue to trap more and more heat, foisting consequences onto others (and ourselves).
There are currently heat-buffering systems, too, which are being eaten away. Oceanic ice is going to be a big one, I think.
Man absolutely produces enough CO2 to make a difference. CO2 ppm has risen directly due to our fossil fuel use and temperatures have gone up (lagging, of course) as well. CO2 ppm is going to continue to go up, and temp will continue to rise. And while CO2 is only a small portion of the greenhouse effect, it's going to become an ever-larger portion of the change. And the change is what we either (a) want to avoid or (b) compensate others for. I think a balance is the best path. Reduce the change where it's cost effective. Compensate the victims where it's cost effective. Of course, if we can't compensate the victims, then we can't produce the pollution.
Merkinball
Deity
Which explains why we've kept accelerating our rate of global pollution for the last ten years, and temperatures have remained level, and then dramatically fallen...
Absolutely? Absolutely huh? You're sure about that? I don't think I'd be floating words around like absolutely until we had all of our facts laid out on the table as to just how our climate really works. And I really don't think anybody should be floating words around like "absolutely" until we understand how the heat source really effects our climate either. There's untold factors that we don't even know about that are behind the scenes that haven't been accounted for in one silly little pointless politically driven climate model yet.
It's absolutely silly to point to CO2 increases, unequivocally say that it's entirely our fault, and the authoritatively declare that it is absolutely the culprit. There are way too many (where is DubaiVol?) feedback mechanisms at work in our climate to say such a ridiculous thing.
I still stand by the fact that general environmental destruction of large global ecosystems is a much larger issue than global warming. While the majority of liberal fundies are out busily trying to control more and more people, putting "global warming" at the forefront of the nightly news, and on the front page of news articles and periodicals, we basically ignore much more tangible global ecological issues which DO have a definite impact on the world we live.
So ignore the pacific garbage island. And keep arguing about if a small percentage of a small percentage of a small percentage of increase in a certain greenhouse gas is going to melt the worlds ice by taking an outlier on a huge swath of statistical data. I'm sure we'll be successful.
Also, everyone tosses the word "research" around really liberally around here. Leftists love to toss it around in regards to global warming. Doesn't it bother you people the slightest bit that there is so much money in this? And doesn't it bother you that in order to get research money, you have to publish dooms day articles in scientific journals? Ya know, because if you conduct a study, and it doesn't point to global warming, it won't get published, and you won't recieve further funding? Doesn't this grind peoples gears? Billions of dollars is dumped into "global warming research" that has a singlur end tied to it. An agenda. And if you are a reputable scientist, and come out against the grain, your career is essentially over. Governments don't grant money to these people. Scientists live off of a research grants. And in order to get it, you gotta go with the flow. Seems problematic, and almost like...anti-science.
Ten decades is much too short a time. Even a cursory glance at temperature developements has shown that there have always been large fluctuations, just look at the drop from 98 to 99. Or the fifteen years from 1960 to 1975. And considering that 2005 and 2007 are the record years in global warmth, even though solar activity was low and we were in the cool phase of the El-Nino Cycle I really wonder where you get your numbers from.
Have to somewhat agree. Absolutely is too strong a word - it has to be studied whether the amount we produce is enough. It has and the consensus in the scientific community is that is.
You mean our models with have sucessfully predicted the last few years?
Obviously. But many of them have been studied and it's why they are so cautious with their predictions : you estimates have often a range from +2-+7 degrees or more.
It's not really ridiculous anymore.
Maybe so. Who says that we should ignore anything but GW?
Oh, come on. If you suggest a political bias, how about the right actually trying to avoid any ecological action that might cost money? At least the lefties care about what happens.
Useless polemic.
I don't see why you think there's so much money in it... There are times part of the scientific community has been pressured and produced some dubious and biased results, but that's almost always has been sponsored by the private sector not the government. Just look at the Tabac Industry. Do you really belief that the Oil and Energy Industry would not be prepared to at least match the amount offered for results they favor?
There has also never really been a time where the entire Consensus was based upon selfish interests. There are too many scientist who deeply, deeply care about truth and who would stand for no such things.
Kind of like how the Bush Administration manipulates EPA research to suit its political agenda? That definitely grinds my gears.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifTIO4F-5F4uJL8wnzMbDs3wSzzAD91RPPS00
That seems quite "anti-science" to me.
Similar threads
