Quote:Carbon dioxide traps heat. Human activity (burning fossil fuels) is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
That's it.
It truly is that simple.
From the article from Forbes:
"In the end, everything about climate science boils down to one simple fact: all else being equal, increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in a mixture of gasses will cause the mixture to absorb more heat."
There is no getting around it; its science.
Quote:It truly is that simple.
From the article from Forbes:
"In the end, everything about climate science boils down to one simple fact: all else being equal, increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in a mixture of gasses will cause the mixture to absorb more heat."
There is no getting around it; its science.
All else isn't equal though. They've spent the last five years uncovering mistake after mistake in their understanding of how the biosphere responds to this increase, and they considered not one BENEFIT of the increase in their models, only potential negatives that HAVE NOT and WILL NOT come to fruition.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...-greening/
“On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas,” Donohue reported, while adding that scientists should still monitor secondary effects."
And...
"The satellite data show plant life in the United States has especially benefited from rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and gradually warming temperatures. Satellite data show foliage has increased in the vast majority of the United States since 1982, with the western U.S. benefiting the most. Indeed, many western regions experienced a greater than 30 percent increase in foliage since 1982."
I like this one too:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...after-all/
I don't think anyone here is "denying" that carbon dioxide can get trapped, or temperatures can or have increased. It's the magnitude and the doomsday prophecies that are up for debate and leave many skeptical and for good reason.
Quote:I like this one too:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...after-all/
I don't think anyone here is "denying" that carbon dioxide can get trapped, or temperatures can or have increased. It's the magnitude and the doomsday prophecies that are up for debate and leave many skeptical and for good reason.
If only most people were more reasonable instead of either claiming conspiracy among the scientific community or calling for doomsday.
Quote:If only most people were more reasonable instead of either claiming conspiracy among the scientific community or calling for doomsday.
Well I think it does strike a bit of naivety to think that some scientists, organizations, etc don't stand to gain financially from a doomsday scenario whether real or not. Humans are humans and money is green. And obviously that goes for both sides.
What bothers me is the way many scientifically qualified persons are ostracized, berated, etc if they dare question the narrative or offer alternative theories on why we are experiencing changes and what should be done, and if it's even as damning towards humanity as some think it is. Basic facts are there, it's the theories about the results that should be open to an honest inquiry and debate. It's that kind of spirit of opening and questioning that has fueled many of discoveries of the past, and it's opposite that has inhibited good things (see discovery and use of penicillin for instance).
Quote:Well I think it does strike a bit of naivety to think that some scientists, organizations, etc don't stand to gain financially from a doomsday scenario whether real or not. Humans are humans and money is green. And obviously that goes for both sides.
What bothers me is the way many scientifically qualified persons are ostracized, berated, etc if they dare question the narrative or offer alternative theories on why we are experiencing changes and what should be done, and if it's even as damning towards humanity as some think it is. Basic facts are there, it's the theories about the results that should be open to an honest inquiry and debate. It's that kind of spirit of opening and questioning that has fueled many of discoveries of the past, and it's opposite that has inhibited good things (see discovery and use of penicillin for instance).
Well said, the problem though is both sides are so adamant about being right that reasonable debates and reasonable steps forward can't even be brought to the table. It's a shame really.
Quote:That's NOT it.
How much heat is trapped? Is it significant?
The atmosphere is not a laboratory. CO2 only affects the radiative release of energy, but convection in the atmosphere is also very important. A 1% change in cloud cover makes a bigger difference than a 100% increase in CO2. Those are just two of several confounding effects, so the simple statement that 'CO2 traps heat' is only a small part of the climate.
And as far as that link is concerned, it's filled with lies and half truths. For just one example of a flat out lie, the bottle experiment will not prove anything since measurement errors and other heat sources (such as a lamp being marginally closer to one bottle vs. the other) will vastly overwhelm the effect of CO2. Bill Nye was caught faking the results of this experiment for just that reason.
Yea, they got all that covered, boss. You honestly think these people being published in journals don't know about albedo and FRIGGIN CONVECTION--like are you serious? That'd be like questioning a doctor on the function of the heart or a musician if he knew what notes are. You are ridiculous.
Quote:Well said, the problem though is both sides are so adamant about being right that reasonable debates and reasonable steps forward can't even be brought to the table. It's a shame really.
Well the whole humanity things comes back into play. No one likes being wrong, let alone admitting it; and while I hate to paint with a broad brush here, the two groups most involved in this are politicians and scientists, both who seem to have a special knack for avoiding contrition and admitting error
Quote:Well the whole humanity things comes back into play. No one likes being wrong, let alone admitting it; and while I hate to paint with a broad brush here, the two groups most involved in this are politicians and scientists, both who seem to have a special knack for avoiding contrition and admitting error
Scientists like to prove other scientists wrong. Nobody likes the idea of their life's work being invalidated regardless of what they say. Politicians are another beast entirely
Quote:Scientists like to prove other scientists wrong. Nobody likes the idea of their life's work being invalidated regardless of what they say. Politicians are another beast entirely
Exactly. It's a human thing. And there's one reason don't vote
Quote:2 + 2 will always equal 4 regardless of the political affiliation of the mathematician. Logic works the same way as math. If all men are mortal, and Socrates was a man, it follows that Socrates was mortal. You simply can't challenge that. Science is based on math and logic. It doesn't care how you vote.
So, no, the science does not support both positions, that is literally impossible.
Also, the science is extremely easy to understand; I can explain it to you if you like.
However, show me one scientist that says that
global warming climate change is man-made and a real problem. I can show you a scientist that will refute the "facts" presented by the first scientist. There is some truth in there somewhere, but it seems that many of the scientists conducting research into
global warming climate change like to "fudge" their data to support their agenda. The agenda is ultimately about money. Al Gore is a very good example of that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaner energy and alternative forms of energy production. I am just tired of my tax dollars being wasted on something that at this point is a myth.
Quote:However, show me one scientist that says that <del>global warming</del> climate change is man-made and a real problem. I can show you a scientist that will refute the "facts" presented by the first scientist. There is some truth in there somewhere, but it seems that many of the scientists conducting research into <del>global warming</del> climate change like to "fudge" their data to support their agenda. The agenda is ultimately about money. Al Gore is a very good example of that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaner energy and alternative forms of energy production. I am just tired of my tax dollars being wasted on something that at this point is a myth.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change'>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change</a>
You are wrong to think it's [BLEEP] for tat in the scientific community. There is no schism. There is no divide 50/50. The bulk of the science is unequivocal.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html</a>
Already covered that one in the other thread, hoss.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation'>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation</a>
That's not a science agency in contention with every other science agency. That's a right wing think tank trying to muck rake.
I suggest you read the wiki on the scientific consensus instead of trying to play gotcha games.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change'>http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change</a>
You are wrong to think it's [BAD WORD REMOVED] for tat in the scientific community. There is no schism. There is no divide 50/50. The bulk of the science is unequivocal.
What's a tat?
The basic science is known. What it means as far as the future of the planet is highly debatable. The IPCC gives a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2. There's a huge amount of difference between those two.
BTW, after over 100 billion dollars in taxpayer (i.e. money taken by force) sponsored research, that is the exact same range the IPCC gave in it's first report. !00 billion doesn't buy much science these days, does it?
Here's James Hansen's predictions from 1988. Note that the actual measurements are below what was predicted for scenario C where all CO2 emissions were stopped by the year 2000. What does it mean when the massive amounts of CO2 that have actually been released since 2000 give the result predicted for no CO2? Let me put this in an equation for you, since you think CliSci is just simple math.
2 = 2 + x (Solve for x)
![[Image: hansen.gif]](http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hansen.gif)
Quote:What's a tat?
The basic science is known. What it means as far as the future of the planet is highly debatable. The IPCC gives a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2. There's a huge amount of difference between those two.
BTW, after over 100 billion dollars in taxpayer (i.e. money taken by force) sponsored research, that is the exact same range the IPCC gave in it's first report. !00 billion doesn't buy much science these days, does it?
Here's James Hansen's predictions from 1988. Note that the actual measurements are below what was predicted for scenario C where all CO2 emissions were stopped by the year 2000. What does it mean when the massive amounts of CO2 that have actually been released since 2000 give the result predicted for no CO2? Let me put this in an equation for you, since you think CliSci is just simple math.
2 = 2 + x (Solve for x)
Watch out guys, he's got a graph. Next he's going link an "article" from the Wattsupwiththat blog about secret government funding of the IPPC. Scary stuff let me tell you!
The science is settled. Climate change is real and man made, settled.
Settled, just like these:
The earth is flat.
The earth is hollow.
Alchemy, turning any metals to gold.
Earth is cooling and will soon be in an ice age, 1970 's.
Blood letting to cure any illness.
I could on and on..............
Settled once and for all.
Quote:The science is settled. Climate change is real and man made, settled.
Settled, just like these:
The earth is flat.
The earth is hollow.
Alchemy, turning any metals to gold.
Earth is cooling and will soon be in an ice age, 1970 's.
Blood letting to cure any illness.
I could on and on..............
Settled once and for all.
Scientists have been wrong in the past. Therefore, we can believe whatever we want to believe. And that's what we do. We pick a side, whichever one makes us most comfortable, and then we cherry pick some facts to back up our position and argue about it as if we actually knew something about it.
Dealing with climate change would be painful. So we'd rather not do it.
Personally, I think man made climate change is real and it's going to cause some problems. But I am an inveterate optimist, and I think we will somehow handle it.
I would add that I trust the scientific community a lot more than I trust the politicians who get campaign contributions from oil companies.
And it's kind of laughable to say scientists are in this for the money, and ignore the trillions of dollars that are earned by selling fossil fuels.
The idea that scientists would deliberately spread a falsehood in order to earn money is pretty slanderous.