OK, then how did the Ice Age end? What caused that dramatic change in climate? What caused the Little Ice Age? Why did these major climactic changes occur?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
There are several theories out but none can be proven without a doubt. But I never heard of the human exhaling theory. I have heard of the cow farting theory (well not a theory but a factor). Actual theories that I've heard are atlantic underwater conveyor belt stopping theory, excessive volcanic activity, pole shifting, etc.
Our climate goes thru cyclical changes over thousands of years. Why and what triggers cycle changes we don't fully understand. The problem we have today is that the cycle is changing faster than at it's normal rate. And that is a fact and can be measured.
I believe the next ice age is supposed to take place in about another 6-7k years. I know it sounds weird but global warming can spark an ice age. Its thermal dynamics on a grand scale.
Quote: OK, then how did the Ice Age end? What caused that dramatic change in climate? What caused the Little Ice Age? Why did these major climactic changes occur?
We can't answer those questions with 100% certainty and point to any one factor as the major role player. The same reason we can't point to the dying out of the dinosaurs as the sole result of a meteor impact in the Yucatan. It's a historical science, we do the best with what was preserved from the past. The one thing we can be sure of it was either the Sun, the earth (volcanism or ocean currents), the atmosphere or more likely, a combination of the three.
Regardless, It doesn't matter. You're keying in on this last little bastion of denial as if it means anything to the current argument; it doesn't. We know the factors that play a role in our climate. We see the climate changing, so we look at the factors to see which of the factors is changing. If we could blame it on anything else, we would. However, there's no evidence for anything other than CO2 increase.
Also, did you read my post? Do you have any questions?
Like I've said in this thread ..... I have no problem with environmental sciences, and doing everything we can to try and help maintain the environment, but not at the expense of people, their jobs, and their ability to live their lives.
People want energy, and all that energy provides .... well, we cannot provide for our energy needs without fossil fuels. We cannot even come close. We should continue to develop alternatives, but we should not destroy peoples' lives at the same time. We can drill and develop our domestic resources fully, while still developing technologies that will allow for lesser potential environmental impact.
Could you imagine the market if someone came up with an add on for a car that dropped the exhaust pollutant and CO2 levels to nothing ... or even just lowered it dramatically? Imagine if it could be added to an existing car. Imagine if scientists who are so environmentally concerned would work with existing technologies to create products that would lower the impact of those products ..... in many cases products that people absolutely cannot do without.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
None of that long post just above mine matters with what you originally asserted when it comes to climate change. You said that the science was bad (it's not), the climatologists are essentially lying(they're not), and that there are many people who disagree (the people aren't scientists). I've attacked these points in your argument, yet you haven't addressed them. You instead are trying to shift the argument toward denial based on blowing up our economy, which again, no one is suggesting. You can talk all you want about the economics of climate change, it has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the statement, "AGW is real, CO2 is the culprit, we're already seeing the climate change as a result."
People are working on the problem of carbon sequestration. Is it amazingly underfunded? Yes. But, basic research funding is down regardless because of the economy and people in congress want to slash it even more. And you have the audacity to say, " Imagine if scientists who are so environmentally concerned would work with existing technologies to create products that would lower the impact of those products ..... in many cases products that people absolutely cannot do without." It's a slap in the face. Heck, these people can't even convince you that their research is true, yet you want them to drop what they're doing to work on fixing the problem? It doesn't work like that.
Ok, let me ask this. One of your questions is about how/why the little ice age and the last major ice age ended. I didn't answer the question, saying it doesn't matter, but I would like you to tell me why you the ice ages ended. I believe this would be a good starting point for a discussion. I can pull up papers on this topic as the need arises.
I believe that the Earth has climactic changes that are caused by factors well beyond our control.
The Earth has warmed over time, starting with the end of the Ice Age, then Europe experienced and Ice Age ..... then warmed again, and the climate in England changed to something completely different than it was before the Little Ice Age. This had nothing to do with man whatsoever.
Hell, England was a great grape producer prior to the Little Ice Age. The wetter climate after the Little Ice Age changed that forever.
What caused it? I don't know. Neither does anyone else.
Is the climate still evolving, independent of any of man's activities? I don't know. Do you?
I believe that the climate is constantly evolving. I don't see it as an immutable aspect of the Earth that will never change. I believe that it constantly evolves, no matter what man does, or does not do.
As far as your scientist statement ... if I were absolutely and completely convinced that there was a problem, I would be looking for solutions everywhere I could. I would be trying to figure out solutions that could be implemented quickly to help stem the tide, and which could help solve the problem.
That would seem sensible to me. I would be fighting to make actual improvements, rather then just telling everyone that the sky is falling.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science. The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over the media and political arena by storm. The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted. We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.
Everyone "knows" that global warming is true. The public has no idea of the number of scientists -- precisely one thousand at last count of a congressional committee -- who believe that global warming is benign and natural, and that it ended in 1998. We have not been informed of the costs to our economy of discouraging fossil fuel development and promoting alternatives. The public need to know the choices being made on their behalf, and to have a say in the matter. We are constantly told that the scientific and policy debate on global warming is over. It has just begun.
What is never discussed is this: the theory of global warming has catastrophic implications for our economy and national security. Case in point: Obama's recent decision to block the Keystone pipeline in order to placate global warming advocates. Key Democrat supporters fear the use of oil more than they care about losing jobs or our dangerous dependence on the Mideast for oil. The president delayed the pipeline by fiat, and the general public has had no say. (For the impact on our economy, see my article, "The Whole Country Can Be Rich.")
President Obama has spoken out passionately on the danger of developing oil and gas because of man-made global warming. "What we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return. And unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are condemning future generations to global catastrophe."
Obama calls for the debate to end. He cites hurricanes as proof: "dangerous weather patterns and devastating storms are abruptly putting an end to the long-running debate over whether or not climate change is real. Not only is it real -- it's here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster."
Happily, our president is wrong. The worst hurricanes were in 1926, the second-worst in 1900. The world's top hurricane experts say that there is no evidence that global warming affects storms. There is no such thing as a man-made hurricane. Storm cycles and long patterns of bad weather are entirely natural. Yet this good news is suppressed by our politicized media. We hear only one side.
More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.
It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.
Here is how it has worked. The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists "soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials."
Physicists at Europe's most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked. This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof -- by a team of 63 scientists at CERN -- that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans. But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."
As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution -- whose previous president declared that "the debate on climate change is over" -- "is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures. ... The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause." Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, "One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective."
In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." Dr. Giaver:
Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?
The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this "warming" period.
In 2008, Prof. Giaever endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy, but he has since joined 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to Obama, declaring: "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
Do a Google search: you will find this letter reported in Britain and even India, but not in America.
Fifty-one thousand Canadian engineers, geologists, and geophysicists were recently polled by their professional organization. Sixty-eight percent of them disagree with the statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled." Only 26% attributed global warming to "human activity like burning fossil fuels." APEGGA's executive director Neil Windsor said, "We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."
Dr. Joanne Simpson, one of the world's top weather scientists, expressed relief upon her retirement that she was finally free to speak "frankly" on global warming and announce that "as a scientist I remain skeptical." She says she remained silent for fear of personal attacks.
Dr. Simpson was a pioneer in computer modeling and points out the obvious: computer models are not yet good enough to predict weather -- we cannot scientifically predict global climate trends.
Dr. Fred Singer, first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, and physicist Dr. Seitz, past president of the APS, of Rockefeller University and of the National Academy of Science, argue that the computer models are fed questionable data and assumptions that determine the answers on global warming that the scientists expect to see.
Recently we've had a perfect example of the enforced global warming consensus falling apart. Berkeley Professor Muller did a media blitz with the findings of the latest analysis of all land temperature data, the BEST study, that he claimed once and for all proved that the planet is warming. Predictably, the Washington Post proclaimed that the BEST study had "settled the climate change debate" and showed that anyone who remained a skeptic was committing a "cynical fraud."
But within a week, Muller's lead co-author, Professor Curry, was interviewed in the British press (not reported in America), saying that the BEST data did the opposite: the global "temperature trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all - though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly."
This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting," Prof Curry said. "Whatever it is that's going on here, it doesn't look like it's being dominated by CO2." In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics' arguments were now taking them much more seriously. They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation - as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.
Other scientists jumped in, calling Muller's false claims to the media that BEST proved global warming "highly unethical." Professor Muller, confronted with dissent, caved and admitted that indeed, both ocean and land measurements show that global warming stopped increasing in 1998.
Media coverage on global warming has been criminally one-sided. The public doesn't know where the global warming theory came from in the first place. Answer: the U.N., not a scientific body. The threat of catastrophic warming was launched by the U.N. to promote international climate treaties that would transfer wealth from rich countries to developing countries. It was political from the beginning, with the conclusion assumed: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC) was funded to report on how man was changing climate. Its scientific reports have been repeatedly corrected for misrepresentation and outright fraud.
This is important. Global warming theory did not come from a breakthrough in scientific research that enabled us to understand our climate. We still don't understand global climate any more than we understand the human brain or how to cure cancer. The science of global climate is in its infancy.
Yet the U.N. IPCC reports drive American policy. The EPA broke federal law requiring independent analysis and used the U.N. IPCC reports in its "endangerment" finding that justifies extreme regulatory actions. Senator Inhofe is apoplectic:
Global warming regulations imposed by the Obama-EPA under the Clean Air Act will cost American consumers $300 to $400 billion a year, significantly raise energy prices, and destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is not to mention the 'absurd result' that EPA will need to hire 230,000 additional employees and spend an additional $21 billion to implement its [greenhouse gas] regime.
Former top scientists at the U.N. IPCC are protesting publicly against falsification of global warming data and misleading media reports. Dr. John Everett, for example, was the lead researcher on Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones at the IPCC and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, and he received an award while at NOAA for "accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries." Here is what he has to say on global warming:
It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios ... I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming...No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.
That is why we must hear from all the best scientists, not only those who say fossil fuel use is dangerous. It is very important that we honestly discuss whether this theory is true and, if so, what reasonable steps we can afford to take to mitigate warming. If the theory is not based on solid science, we are free to develop our fossil fuel wealth responsibly and swiftly. Instead, federal policies are based on global warming fears. Obama has adopted the California model. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 has shed a million jobs in that state. California now has almost 12% unemployment, ranking 50th in the nation.
The country could be following North Dakota, where oil development has led to a 3.5% unemployment rate, or Texas, which has created 40% of the jobs nationwide since the 2009 economic crash thanks to its robust energy sector. These are good jobs. An entry-level job on an oil rig pays $70,000 a year. A roughneck with a high school diploma earns $100,000 a year in Wyoming's Jonah Fields. Brazil's new offshore oil discoveries are predicted to create 2 million jobs there. We have almost three times more oil than Brazil.
When we treat oil and gas companies like pariahs, we threaten America's economic viability. For global warming alarmists who believe that man-made CO2 threatens life on earth, no cost is too high to fight it. They avert their eyes from the human suffering of people without jobs, with diminished life savings, limited future prospects, and looming national bankruptcy. This is not all about idealism. There are crasser reasons of money and power for wanting to close the debate. Billions of dollars in federal grants and subsidies are spent to fight global warming. The cover of fighting to save the planet gives the government unlimited powers to intrude into private business and our individual homes. The government can reach its long arm right into your shower and control how much hot water you are allowed to use. In the words of MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Lindzen, "[c]ontrolling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."
Warming advocates persistently argue that we cannot afford to pause for a reality check; we must not ignore the possibility that global warming theory might be true. Limiting fossil fuels and promoting green energy are presented as a benign, a "why not be on the safe side," commonsense approach.
There is a lot of emotion and little common sense in this argument. If a diagnosis is based on a shaky and partly fraudulent theory, ignores much more convincing evidence, and has terrible negative side effects, you don't perform major surgery. We do not have to run around like Chicken Little on the off-chance that the sky may be falling.
There has been a high economic cost to limiting our oil and gas wealth, with much human anguish because of government-imposed economic contraction. Responsible government policy requires honest media coverage, unfettered scientific inquiry, and robust political debate. Our country cannot afford the costs of foolish energy policy based on politicized science and fear.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: I believe that the Earth has climactic changes that are caused by factors well beyond our control.
It's possible, absolutely, but you're creating this strawman argument (still) that because the climate has shifted in the past that it can't be because of us now. You say that there are climatic factors beyond our control, which is patently false. The climate shifting in the past isn't because of magic, there are reasons, variables, that when changed, alter the climate. Here's as comprehensive of a list of climate factors that I'm able to find: Surface Albedo, Ozone, Solar variations,Volcanoes, Aerosols, Stratospheric Water Vapor, Linear Contrails, Nitrous Oxide, Halocarbons, Methane, CO2. All of those contribute either to cooling or warming. All of those factors have been looked at, and the one that makes the most sense, has the most good data, matches up with the changes that occurring is CO2. Out of all of those factors, how many can be influenced by humans? I count 7. I'm not counting Surface albedo, solar variations and volcanoes or water vapor (since the water cycle turns over so fast, anything we do to it is negated within days). Which one of those factors that are out of our control are responsible for the warming we're seeing? It's not the Sun, it's not volcanoes, it's not surface albedo, all of these factors have been checked and rechecked, yet are found to not be changing enough to match the current warming we're experiencing. Are you saying that there's some other factor out there, some other fundamental input into the climate, that we're missing?
Quote: What caused it? I don't know. Neither does anyone else.
You may not, but people dedicate their lives to this, and what they're saying is that CO2 is driving the temperature up to create a different climate. You've wrapped your disbelief in this layer of rhetoric and conspiracy such that when approached with hard evidence you totally deny it based upon these lies you've been fed. The data doesn't lie. The data has been validated over and over again for 50 years. What will it take to convince you that this is real?
Quote: I believe that the climate is constantly evolving. I don't see it as an immutable aspect of the Earth that will never change. I believe that it constantly evolves, no matter what man does, or does not do.
No one is saying that it isn't immutable, or that is hasn't changed in the past. NO ONE. Please stop bringing it up, it's just making me think you're not actually reading what I'm typing. Everyone who studies the climate, studies the earth, or studies biology that change is the only definite on this planet. The problem is that we may be pushing the atmosphere to levels that haven't been seen in hundreds of millions of years, in a timespan of hundreds of years. Regardless of what you think, plants and animals can't survive that fast of a shift. That's the problem.
And you're right, the world would continue on as before if we stopped altering the concentrations of molecules that make up the atmosphere. And again, that doesn't mean that we can't influence it with our activities. Out of the 11 factors I listed above, we can change (long term) 7 of them. All of those factors influence the climate. I just don't get why you don't realize that these factors, that have been in play for eons and have influenced the climate in the past, are suddenly not important this time around when we're the one's monkeying with them. You've said yourself the the climate is mutable, it changes. It changes when these factors change. Those factors are changing again by our hand. Why is it out of the realm of possibility that the fault is ours?
Quote: That would seem sensible to me. I would be fighting to make actual improvements, rather then just telling everyone that the sky is falling.
Because a climatologist is capable of engineering a mechanism by which carbon can be removed from the atmosphere? Do you honestly think that all scientists are capable of just switching gears, learning a new set of skills and knowledge, then apply them? I've been in college for 10 years, and I'm not considered an expert in any field yet. I understand the basics of molecular biology and neurobiology, but my knowledge is dwarfed by the people that have been doing this their whole lives. But, there are people working on it, Engineering groups mostly. More money needs to be put into the system though, because this isn't something that can wait 50 more years. But, it's hard to actually find funding for something when the majority of the populace thinks you're lying about it.
As for the article you linked, I'm familiar with the likes of Lindzen and Curry. They represent the disbelievers quite well, although the majority of their arguments turn out to be false in the end. Muller used to be in there, but has performed his own study and come to the conclusion that the previous data was fine. Here is a statement regarding himself and Curry:
Quote: Berkeley Earth released results today that give a new and improved estimate of the global land temperature going back 250 years. In addition to providing a detailed temperature record, the paper, “A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011” also analyses volcanoes and changes to the diurnal temperature range. Richard Muller and Judith Curry are broadly in agreement over these two findings, which both feel provide a useful contribution to the field.
However, Muller and Curry disagree over the use of a simple model fitting the temperature of the past 250 years to human CO2 emissions and volcanoes to conclude that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions. While Richard Muller and the Berkeley Earth team value the simplicity of the model (indeed, in physics the simple model is generally considered the best), Curry believes that it is overly simplistic and is not convinced. These sorts of disagreements are common among scientists and contribute usefully to advancing science.
So, they agree that it's happening, where they disagree is the fit of the graph when compared to CO2. At some point, her criteria will be met, and she'll believe. There's just too much evidence to the contrary. Also, she hasn't put forth any other explanation at this point. So I guess she's like you, lots of hand waving, lots of denial, but there's no substance to your argument.
And this is just completely wrong:
Quote: It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios ... I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming...No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.
We are still warming. We're much warmer than we have been. 2005 and 2010 were both much warmer, and after 2012 is done, I bet it will rank right up there. The trend is still continuing.
However warming is not a continuing trend, despite increased CO2 levels increasing being a continuous trend.
The guy who wrote the paper that was referenced earlier in this thread. His co-writer directly contradicted him publicly. (probably without realizing it, because they were an ocean apart at the time)
This is the kind of stuff I am talking about ... where even "conclusive evidence" isn't even conclusive to the writers of the supposed evidence.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: However warming is not a continuing trend, despite increased CO2 levels increasing being a continuous trend.
It most certainly is. 2010 and 2005 were both much hotter than 1998. You'll be able to add 2012 to that list by January 2013. Warming might not be as pronounced as it was from the 70's to 2000, but it's still increasing. Here's a graphic from a paper in 2011 discussing this very topic ( Article Link ) :
After correcting for short term variables like El Nino and La Nina, this is the averaged data from 5 different data sets (like NASA and NOAA). The warming is still continuing.
Quote: The guy who wrote the paper that was referenced earlier in this thread. His co-writer directly contradicted him publicly. (probably without realizing it, because they were an ocean apart at the time)
I quoted the press release about what they disagree about, and it wasn't what was found in the blog post you linked to.
Quote: This is the kind of stuff I am talking about ... where even "conclusive evidence" isn't even conclusive to the writers of the supposed evidence.
99% of climate scientists believe that global warming is occurring and that CO2 is the reason behind it. You decide to choose the three or four that don't and claim that their dissent makes you question the validity of what's happening? I hope to god you don't use that type of logic in the real world, or else all these forest fires that are burning around the world aren't our fault since forest fires occurred naturally in the past. People in science disagree all the time, it doesn't make them both wrong. At some point, evidence comes out in support of one hypothesis or another. At this point, the only story that makes sense with what we're seeing is that the climate is getting warmer, and CO2 is the best fit. At some point, Dr. Curry and her ilk will be convinced.
You still haven't answered the question that you posed me, why has the climate changed in the past? I'm not asking for specifics necessarily, just a quick hypothesis about the factors that influence climate. What about the climate makes it mutable? Why does it change?
I look at your graph, and I see ups and downs ...... however the CO2 readings have been steadily rising on almost a straight line. Why the ups and downs if CO2 is the only, or major cause?
There are too many questionable factors for me to go all in on what I find to still be questionable science. Given the political pressures exerted on scientists to see things in a particular way, then I have to question their results.
You disagree, and that's your right. I choose to prefer that we move economic considerations back up the ladder, getting this country working again, instead of continuing to put questionable science at the top of the food chain. Now I am NOT saying that we should abandon environmental concerns, but they should be out into proper perspective given all of the factors involved.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: I look at your graph, and I see ups and downs ...... however the CO2 readings have been steadily rising on almost a straight line. Why the ups and downs if CO2 is the only, or major cause?
The ups and downs are because the climate is complex; CO2 is the major cause, it doesn't take precedence and immediately cancel out the input from the other factors. Sometimes the other factors are able to mask the warming a bit, but it never goes back to baseline. That graph shows the trend of the temperature since the late 70's when the first satellites went up to measure surface temperatures. Breaking out our high school math skills and using a linear regression of the data points shows an overall positive trend from a lower temperature to a higher temperature, ie warming has occurred and has been measured by 5 different satellites over 40 years. There are many different factors that play into the global climate, there are bound to be ups and downs. What I hope you realize though is that the up and down inflections represent small changes, the overall trend is up.
Quote: There are too many questionable factors for me to go all in on what I find to still be questionable science. Given the political pressures exerted on scientists to see things in a particular way, then I have to question their results.
But there aren't! You yourself ( in the article you linked) mentioned at least four "skeptics" whose academic careers are alive and thriving. There is no pressure from the government to conform. I just don't know how to assure you that this science has been verified over and over and over again, using normal thermometers to high-tech satellites, the earth is warming. The only answer that fits the changes we're seeing in the atmosphere and the oceans is that it's CO2 thats causing it.
Quote: You disagree, and that's your right.
No, I don't disagree because it's my right, I disagree because anything else doesn't conform to the facts at hand. This isn't like the tooth fairy or easter bunny; belief or lack-thereof is irrelevant because the facts state that this is what's going on. If you don't choose not to believe something that is based on fact, the onus is on you to show why that belief/fact is wrong. Otherwise you're being dishonest.
Quote: I choose to prefer that we move economic considerations back up the ladder, getting this country working again, instead of continuing to put questionable science at the top of the food chain. Now I am NOT saying that we should abandon environmental concerns, but they should be out into proper perspective given all of the factors involved.
That strawman again? They're not mutually exclusive! I can't believe you're choosing to ignore the facts based on the idea that it's inconvenient economically when there's not a causal relationship between the two, ie one doesn't lead to the other. You can still believe the fact of AGW while not wanting to blow up the economy. Because I'm fairly sure that you'd be hard pressed to find someone who wants this. It's just an illogical argument.
You still haven't answered the question that you posed me, why has the climate changed in the past? I'm not asking for specifics necessarily, just a quick hypothesis about the factors that influence climate. What about the climate makes it mutable? Why does it change?
I have no idea why the climate changes, but the one thing that is absolutely and irrefutably clear is that mankind had nothing to do with the biggest changes in climate in recorded history.
We know of an Ice Age, then a warming period, then a Little Ice Age, then another Warming period, and one that actually changed the climate in England from warm and somewhat dry to a far moister and cooler climate.
Why? I don't know. Do you? No you don't either. The only thing that we do know without doubt is that mankind almost certainly had nothing to do with it.
As far as the "evidence" posted in this very thread, I posted an article showing how the co-author of the paper referenced disagreed with the author of the paper. That's no small thing in my mind, as he had access to th same information. Of course, he only released that information overseas, and no one in the US picked up on it here. What a surprise.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
The one thing we know with certainty is that the world has been changing since the day it existed, and will continue to change until it no longer exists, and no amount of anything can stop that.
With that said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our abililty to sustain the planet in an ecological way, maintain clean fresh air, water, and use the resources efficiently.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: The one thing we know with certainty is that the world has been changing since the day it existed, and will continue to change until it no longer exists, and no amount of anything can stop that.
With that said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our abililty to sustain the planet in an ecological way, maintain clean fresh air, water, and use the resources efficiently.
Quote: The one thing we know with certainty is that the world has been changing since the day it existed, and will continue to change until it no longer exists, and no amount of anything can stop that.
With that said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our abililty to sustain the planet in an ecological way, maintain clean fresh air, water, and use the resources efficiently.
Quote: With that said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our abililty to sustain the planet in an ecological way, maintain clean fresh air, water, and use the resources efficiently.
...and the United States should pay much more to accomplish this and be held to a much higher standard than every other nation when it comes to preventing global warming. We should also pay out the nose in penalties and fines for violations that all other countries commit.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: The one thing we know with certainty is that the world has been changing since the day it existed, and will continue to change until it no longer exists, and no amount of anything can stop that.
With that said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our abililty to sustain the planet in an ecological way, maintain clean fresh air, water, and use the resources efficiently.
Which is what I have said. I'm not saying that I want factories to rip off the pollution control systems, dump sludge into the water, and so on. However, I do not want to completely put US companies at such a complete and total competitive disadvantage that we lose even more jobs.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: The one thing we know with certainty is that the world has been changing since the day it existed, and will continue to change until it no longer exists, and no amount of anything can stop that.
With that said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in our abililty to sustain the planet in an ecological way, maintain clean fresh air, water, and use the resources efficiently.
Which is what I have said. I'm not saying that I want factories to rip off the pollution control systems, dump sludge into the water, and so on. However, I do not want to completely put US companies at such a complete and total competitive disadvantage that we lose even more jobs.
Apparently, that is exactly what people think is going to happen when we talk about CO2 emissions.
Look at the campaign against California Prop 23 which was a proposition to get rid of AB32 in California which deals with CO2 emissions. They trotted out claims that it was going to increase pollution and didn't say much about what it was actually about which was CO2 emissions..
Notice: "Dirty smokestack pollution" "It will pollute our air" "Keep us addicted to costly oil"
I'm sure the market forces will eventually phase the oil out as it becomes more costly on it's own merit people will switch. I would consider putting solar panels on my roof, not because I want to save the environment but save money. Right now, these clean energy solutions can be costly. In time, the will become less expensive.
Yet another doom and gloom and is considering CO2 has dirty pollution and claim that it would weaken California pollution standards which would have remained in tact because it only dealt with the issue of CO2 which AB32 dealt with.
But to some people CO2 is evil and we need to force "clean" energy into the lives of the public, whereas market forces will eventually do what they want. At the moment, we need the oil and other "dirtier" fuels because they are more economically feasible. Just like how a lot of power companies are switching to a cleaner burning natural gas fuel over dirtier coal because natural gas got cheaper for them. But forcing the switch is going to be costly until the technology improves.
Now lets see if they can make cleaner batteries for all those electric and hybrid cars.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
With solar panels, are those things indestructable? I've noticed large facilities going solar and building huge fields of solar panels all clustered together. What would it take to destroy all those? Most notably, the air force academy. They have a huge field of solar panels on the south end of the academy. The wildfire that hit colorado springs back in June got pretty close to those solar panels.
When I see all these panels clustered together, I'm reminded of my noob days in playing command and conquer where I built all my power plants close together, one bombing run from my opponent shut my base down.
It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!
Quote: I have no idea why the climate changes, but the one thing that is absolutely and irrefutably clear is that mankind had nothing to do with the biggest changes in climate in recorded history.
The only one claiming that people believe this is you. No one else actually believes this. Anyone who studies the climate or knows anything about the topic will tell you that the climate has shifted before.
Quote: Why? I don't know. Do you? No you don't either. The only thing that we do know without doubt is that mankind almost certainly had nothing to do with it.
That's the thing, we DO know why the climate changes. Things like Surface Albedo, Ozone, Solar variations,Volcanoes, Aerosols, Stratospheric Water Vapor, Linear Contrails, Nitrous Oxide, Halocarbons, Methane, CO2 all interact to create the climate. If you change one of those variables, you have the chance to change the climate. All of the changes in the earths climate ever are a results in shifting the balance between those variables. It just so happens that each of these variables is able to measured, and we can determine how much of a role they play in the current climate. We can even use bubble trapped in ice to measure the concentrations of some of these variable from the past. So we have the ability to make conclusions about the past climate, the current climate, and where we may be heading.
Quote: As far as the "evidence" posted in this very thread, I posted an article showing how the co-author of the paper referenced disagreed with the author of the paper. That's no small thing in my mind, as he had access to th same information. Of course, he only released that information overseas, and no one in the US picked up on it here. What a surprise.
Yet SHE'S (Judith Curry is a woman, not a man) still an author on the paper ... if she doesn't like the result, why keep it there? The reason why is because she DOESN'T disagree with the results of the paper, which state that the global temperature IS rising and that the urbanization of the human race isn't to blame. Where they disagree is the simple fitting of CO2 to temperature over the past 250 years, which isn't even the scope of the paper! It's a mischaracterization of the stance of the person you're siding with in addition to implying foul play of some sort. This is readily readable on their website here. No one's hiding the disagreement because it doesn't have any implication on the science contained within the paper.
Curry is a widely known skeptic in the climate community and she has been for a long time, much like Muller once was. This is one person, who is part of a dozen or so people within a working community of 10's of thousands, who disagree's that the fault of this warming is excess human-generated CO2, not that the earth is warming. This group of people don't have an alternative hypothesis, they have nothing to offer up except that they disagree. The Sun is not increasing it's output, there is no excess of cosmic rays seeding cloud formation, water vapor is not any higher or lower than it should be. The best explanation is that it's CO2.
Quote: With solar panels, are those things indestructable?
No, depending on the type of panel they have a useful life of 10-25 years depending on a number of factors. The biggest problem is that the clear coverings get scratched over that time period from windborne debris, causing light to be refracted and scattered as it passes through. This decreases the effectiveness over time. Soot from a fire would also decrease their effectiveness until it's cleaned off.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)