Global Warming/Climate Change: Is it only a concern in caused by humans?

[CPricecrispi]

Thats my point a scientist, probably with an agenda says CO2 is a green house gas, where is the proof?

So even if Co2 isn't a greenhouse gas, there is a correlation with an increase in Earth temperatures and CO2 levels and Methane levels. It's undeniable with 400,000 years of data there.

For all we know it's volcanic activity and released by the earth in larger amounts possible produced by humans. Humans are just causing a small blip or peak. I doubt it will matter until 50-100 years. Hopefully by then cancer and aging is not curable and I'm gone.

 

[Craig234]

I'd like to point out that at one point 98%+ of the world's scientists used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe, and that it was flat. Just because they agree on something now doesn't mean it is true.

That's a false analogy. Science has advanced. Your argument would say that we *still* don't know whether the earth is the center of the Universe, because once we didn't.

Your argument is the worst sort of ignorant approach to the issue, just attacking all of modern science as completely useless.

It's wrong. It's your right be wrong, but it's wrong. Democracy is as good or bad as its citizens.

 

[monovillage]

If you really are interested in learning more about anthropogenic global warming then i'd recommend reading Dr. Judith Curry's blog. Here's a link to her blog and comments where you can read her comments on the recent Senate hearings and if you look you can find her own testimony in a couple of House hearings.
http://judithcurry.com/

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The problem I'm having is that I like the way I am living now and don't want to change. Patchouli stink hippies want me to drive hemp-powered cars and live in trees: I don't trust them. And hell, we all know so-called scientists are nothin' more than communist liberal elites in lab-coats. The green movement has red-roots.

I there a good ole boy, cow boy, oil man that I can trust on the subject?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX26e5VIb6w



T. Boone Pickens agrees that we need to work on climate change? FUCK~!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Is mankinds additive the tipping point; probably not...

Evidence?

Why are all the scientists in the world lying in 98%+ of the cases?

I asked a simple question and made a observation.

What evidence is needed.

the amount of CO2 that mankind generates is much less than nature.
Therefore it is not a primary factor.

Will it possibly start down the slope that the nature can not recover from; NO.
Can nature recover from in a short time period - probably not.
Mankind can make it worse and it may not heal while mankind is around.


Now, you want to through around numbers; where are people lying in the other 98%

 

[Paul98]

I asked a simple question and made a observation.

What evidence is needed.

the amount of CO2 that mankind generates is much less than nature.
Therefore it is not a primary factor.

Will it possibly start down the slope that the nature can not recover from; NO.
Can nature recover from in a short time period - probably not.
Mankind can make it worse and it may not heal while mankind is around.


Now, you want to through around numbers; where are people lying in the other 98%

I already answered your assumption earlier from my post on the first page

"Yes nature does output a lot more CO2 that what humans have done, but nature also absorbs CO2 so overall CO2 rate remains rather steady from nature.( unless there is an event that isn't normal.) While humans have a large net increase to CO2 output. Plus the increase in CO2 is measured in the atmosphere and in other places."

You need to stop stating the same thing over again when shown what is wrong with your argument.

 

[Craig234]

I asked a simple question and made a observation.

What evidence is needed.

the amount of CO2 that mankind generates is much less than nature.
Therefore it is not a primary factor.

Evidence for your assertion that humanity's activities are not the 'tipping point' on global climate change. Let's see the credible scientific reports to support that claim.

 

[Jaskalas]

Just because its happening rapidly...

I contest the notion that it is "rapid".

A perfect example of cherry picking, to take the warm up between 1980-2000 and extrapolate this into a longer linear trend. Well known and establish ocean cycles are ~60 years. The rate of warming over a mere 20 year period is too small a time frame.

The pause since then clearly indicates natural factors at play which no climate model has properly addressed. This divergence between actual temperature and predicted temperature indicates that climate sensitivity based on the 80s and 90s is vastly over stated.

Remains to be seen whether the actual value is something we can live with. God help us if it's not.

 

[Craig234]

I contest the notion that it is "rapid".

A perfect example of cherry picking, to take the warm up between 1980-2000 and extrapolate this into a longer linear trend. Well known and establish ocean cycles are ~60 years. The rate of warming over a mere 20 year period is too small a time frame.

The pause since then clearly indicates natural factors at play which no climate model has properly addressed. This divergence between actual temperature and predicted temperature indicates that climate sensitivity based on the 80s and 90s is vastly over stated.

Remains to be seen whether the actual value is something we can live with. God help us if it's not.

That sounds like yet another layperson's making up the science for themselves. How about 350.org, I hear good things about their having information you might benefit from.

Reports on the science contradict your 'who knows' claims and indicates have a lot more information about the problem and dangers than you say.

 

[Moonbeam]

When mites infect a cheese wheel, the wheel will eventually collapse. We have a choice we have not yet made to not be mites and instead be human. In order to care about tomorrow one needs to have no fear you and your kids won't live for another day. We have created a world of competition because we suffer from the disease of self hate. I will burn all the carbon on the planet to feel I'm better than you. I am a vacuum of endless emotional need.

 

[Jaskalas]

That sounds like yet another layperson's making up the science for themselves. How about 350.org, I hear good things about their having information you might benefit from.

Reports on the science contradict your 'who knows' claims and indicates have a lot more information about the problem and dangers than you say.

They have made plenty of claims, predictions based on models. Which the actual temperature is proving to be over stated. If you're going to support their radical claims of 8F warming by 2100, then we've nothing to discuss.

 

[Craig234]

They have made plenty of claims, predictions based on models. Which the actual temperature is proving to be over stated. If you're going to support their radical claims of 8F warming by 2100, then we've nothing to discuss.

What evidence do you have of "plenty of claims" overstated by 350.org?

 

[monovillage]

Evidence for your assertion that humanity's activities are not the 'tipping point' on global climate change. Let's see the credible scientific reports to support that claim.

How can you prove a negative? It's up to the climate alarmists to prove that human activities are causing some sort of "tipping point" and to prove their claim with scientific evidence. Then once that's established they need to offer solutions that would actually work to solve the problems.

"When in trouble, when in doubt: run in circles, scream and shout" is not a viable solution.


"Perils of apocalyptic thinking"
http://judithcurry.com/2012/04/26/perils-of-apocalyptic-thinking/

 

[bshole]

Just for the record, every single carbon molecue man is releasing today was at one point in the past taken from the atmosphere. It is literally impossible for man to "carbonate" the atmosphere to a level that is higher than it was in earths past. Man is simply returning carbon to the atmosphere that was taken out years ago.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Just for the record, every single carbon molecue man is releasing today was at one point in the past taken from the atmosphere. It is literally impossible for man to "carbonate" the atmosphere to a level that is higher than it was in earths past. Man is simply returning carbon to the atmosphere that was taken out years ago.

Yep, the excess green-house gasses made the earth much hotter than it is today, despite the sun being significantly dimmer!

http://www.solstation.com/life/ear-life.htm

 

[Fern]

Global Warming/Climate Change: Is it only a concern in caused by humans?

No.

While I'm highly skeptical of MMGW (I do wish we'd stop cutting down trees etc - deforesting) no matter the cause we must be prepared to respond.

I think it much more important that we get a grip on the effects and how fast/how severe they will manifest themselves. (We in the USA are said to be releasing less CO2 than ever. I've heard it said our emissions are lower than that required by the Kyoto protocol. But we cannot control China etc., so eliminating MMGW, assuming it exists, is not within our control.)

E.g., Much of the population lives on the coastal regions. We have nuclear plants near the coastal region etc. We should prepare to respond to increased sea levels etc. We should be prepared for changes in agriculture (some crops are better in warmer temps and different levels of precipitation etc.).

Trying to prevent climate change is foolish IMO. You don't control Mother Nature, you prepare for it, you adapt to it.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

If climate change is being caused by man trying to prevent it makes perfect sense. Throwing up your hands and saying we can't do anything about a problem we are making is defeatist and irresponsible.

 

[Fern]

If climate change is being caused by man trying to prevent it makes perfect sense. Throwing up your hands and saying we can't do anything about a problem we are making is defeatist and irresponsible.

Fine. I assign you responsibility for China and India.

Get back to me when you've persuaded them to curtail CO2 emissions and you've verified that they've done so.

TIA

Fern

(One man's "defeatist and irresponsible" is another man's pragmatism. Keep jousting at the windmill.)

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Quixotic is my second favorite word.

 

[Paratus]

Just for the record, every single carbon molecue man is releasing today was at one point in the past taken from the atmosphere. It is literally impossible for man to "carbonate" the atmosphere to a level that is higher than it was in earths past. Man is simply returning carbon to the atmosphere that was taken out years ago.

You don't really mean that do you? There was a time when NO carbon was tied up in the crust, mantle, or core of the Earth? It was ALL in the atmosphere sometime in the past?


Besides the point of taking action on climate change is that it's potentially cheaper to do something now than try an adapt later. And why do you think what the Earth was like in the past would be good for us NOW?

 

[fskimospy]

Fine. I assign you responsibility for China and India.

Get back to me when you've persuaded them to curtail CO2 emissions and you've verified that they've done so.

TIA

Fern

(One man's "defeatist and irresponsible" is another man's pragmatism. Keep jousting at the windmill.)

You're right, we should ignore the countries that make up more than half of the world's carbon emissions because there are other developing countries that make up less than a third that are increasing their emissions. Not only is that silly just from a mathematical perspective, but considering the fact that even if India and China never reduce emissions by a single molecule, reducing emissions in the industrialized world would still have a positive effect on climate change.

One man's 'pragmatism' is another man's ignorance of basic facts on carbon emissions. I do enjoy Don Quixote though!

 

[DrPizza]

I'd like to point out that at one point 98%+ of the world's scientists used to believe the Earth was the center of the universe, and that it was flat. Just because they agree on something now doesn't mean it is true.

This is an absolutely false statement. Lay people may have thought that the earth was flat, but dating back more than 2000 years, and even before experimental science had been conceived, "scientists" had fairly accurately determined that not only was the earth round, but they had also determined its circumference. The evidence is abundant even to "primitive" peoples.

I am not aware of any time in history that *science* determined that we were the center of the universe. This was simply accepted, based on religious grounds. Science is what actually took us a step away from that and toward an evidence based system.

 

[monovillage]

The 97% consensus part 1
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/

and the 97% consensus part 2
http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/the-97-consensus-part-ii/

 

[Jaskalas]

What evidence do you have of "plenty of claims" overstated by 350.org?

I'm rather amused that you choose to sidestep the issue, and instead focus on some notion that I made a statement regarding 350.org. I did not. Instead I'm speaking to the source. This website you wish to protect from besmirchment must derive its science from actual institutions of science. Thus I'll cite NASA (via WUTT) and the IPCC and their wild !@# claims of 8F by 2100.

I want to return to the issue at heart:

That sounds like yet another layperson's making up the science for themselves. How about 350.org, I hear good things about their having information you might benefit from.

Reports on the science contradict your 'who knows' claims and indicates have a lot more information about the problem and dangers than you say.

When I say we don't know climate sensitivity, that's because those institutions sure as heck do not know. As proven by their wide range of answers. By them labeling the sensitivity range as an "estimate". As proven by their failure to predict the temperature up to this point in time.

This issue is simple from where I stand. They claim man "took control" post 1950. After that we only warmed around the 80s, and 90s. 20 years of "man made warmth". 17 years of nothing since. We're all supposed to freak out over it. We're supposed to linearly extrapolate such a short time span and call it unprecedented. That's not how it works, you don't cherry pick two decades of warming and expect it to just continue like that. Especially not in the face of observational data to the contrary.

Far as I'm concerned an 8 degree rise by 2100 is a wild and seemingly baseless prediction. They may as well be trying to burn witches. You do not stand by the 8 degree absurdity, do you?

To reiterate, I am not bothered by little websites, for I strike at the heart and soul of climate science. I stand by the notion that Climate Sensitivity remains an unknown quantity, and depending on the answer we may not care if CO2 reaches 1,000 or 2,000 PPM.

 

[GreenMeters]

...for I strike at the heart and soul of climate science.

And when you finally get around to that, it'll be with peer-reviewed scientific evidence, not rhetoric, right?