Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)

[iNow]

I'm not saying there is no global warming just that man is not making it.

Fine, but then what is?

 

No other natural forcing can adequately account for either the amount nor the quickness of the warming trend we're seeing. It's one thing to say it's something other than man... that "it's natural," but you have to also then demonstrate what that natural agent which is causing the warming really is.

 

We know it's not the sun or from solar cycles. We know it's not volcanoes. We know it's not from ocean currents or things like El Nino. We know it's not changes in land use and we know it's not from waste heat. We know it's not from the albedo effect. We know it's not from ozone. We know it's not from internal variability. No known natural forcing agent fits the fingerprint of the observed warming we've been experiencing. The only thing that does fit the data is human contributions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

 

I'm all ears if you can identify another natural agent not yet discovered by the thousands of people who have been working on this subject for decades, but until you do then the human cause explanation is easily the best one available given how it fits the data and the physics of greenhouse systems.

[CJMark5]

Did you watch the video, and also greenhouse gas is a natural gas and human CO2 is a very small part greenhouse gas as well CO2 is a natural gas, trees make more CO2 then we do.

[EdEarl]

Throughout their life cycle, trees sequester large amounts of carbon, which is taken from the air and stored inside the tree within the cellulose (C₆H₁₀O₅)_n. During this process trees take carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the air and water (H₂O) from rain or ground and release oxygen into the air, since 6CO₂+5H₂O yields C₆H₁₀O₅+6O₂. In other words, carbon dioxide and water make cellulose (wood) and oxygen.

 

Your video is misinformation. I do not know why you are peddling that trash video, but you will not convince anyone who understands high school chemistry that trees produce CO₂.

[iNow]

greenhouse gas is a natural gas and human CO2 is a very small part greenhouse gas

Nope.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

 

as well CO2 is a natural gas

Irrelevant.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

 

trees make more CO2 then we do.

Nope.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

[overtone]

 

 

I think this Video shows that man made Global warming is a lie

I'm not going to watch it. If you can't make the argument yourself, it obviously hasn't informed you - so how worthwhile can it be? If you can make the argument yourself, why are you wasting my time with that video?

 

Videos, in general, muddle things. They are slow, unreliable, easily misleading, easily manipulated sources of technical information.This is true even of carefully made and honestly intended videos, not the largest fraction of those found on the internet.

 

If you have no better source of support for a technical argument than an internet video, don't bother, OK?

[CJMark5]

I Found more evidence at a Another site that the world might be cooling. (http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-computer-models-collapse/)

 

This is my evidence that I found like the video, this is not the summer melt or winter freeze.

[arc]

I Found more evidence at a Another site that the world might be cooling. (http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-computer-models-collapse/)

 

This is my evidence that I found like the video, this is not the summer melt or winter freeze.

CJ,

I must warn you that just posting videos or other content by others is sometimes not in your best interest. To much of this will depreciate your reputation. Do some studying and create your own content. This stuff can be used as reference, but it may be compromised by the party you obtained it through. Go to the original source if possible, NASA, USGS, NOAA and others of similar reputation are best. There is just to much monkey business with climate change information to trust anything you find without clear knowledge as to the integrity of subject matter. A bad post only hurts your reputation.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I Found more evidence at a Another site that the world might be cooling. (http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-computer-models-collapse/)

 

This is my evidence that I found like the video, this is not the summer melt or winter freeze.

 

This is a good response to that graphic and why it's silly:

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

And:

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Speculative hijack on geo-activity causing climate change has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78633-geological-activity-causing-climate-change-split-from-reasons-not-to-worry/

[overtone]

 

 

I Found more evidence at a Another site that the world might be cooling

The only thing I found at the site you linked was somebody expressing the same opinion as you - he didn't have any more evidence than you have.

 

That's an improvement over asking me to watch some bullshit video - the entire experience took me less than a minute, and I appreciate that - but it's not evidence of anything except that you are not alone, which I knew.

[CJMark5]

CJ,

I must warn you that just posting videos or other content by others is sometimes not in your best interest. To much of this will depreciate your reputation. Do some studying and create your own content. This stuff can be used as reference, but it may be compromised by the party you obtained it through. Go to the original source if possible, NASA, USGS, NOAA and others of similar reputation are best. There is just to much monkey business with climate change information to trust anything you find without clear knowledge as to the integrity of subject matter. A bad post only hurts your reputation.

 

But most of those organisations are driven by money and not scientific research, they make some sort story so they can get funding from the government. And because they get a lot of money from the government that makes more people go the to that scientific field, and then they have to make a bigger story so they can more money, and the reason why the government gives them the money, so the government can achieve it's political goals.

[iNow]

While in any large group or effort there is always a small chance that a few people may try to exploit the system or unethically seek money or push a political agenda, that suggestion cannot reasonably account for the huge consensus that exists on this topic.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

But most of those organisations are driven by money and not scientific research, they make some sort story so they can get funding from the government.

Baloney. Scientists don't get paid a tremendous amount, compared to what can be made in other fields by smart people (or perhaps the ones hired by industry to get a different answer). The ones who want to make loads of money go into those other fields. The ones who do science want to do science. If they don't get funded for one project they'll think of another one. Funding goes to quality science, not to proposals that promise an answer you like.

 

And because they get a lot of money from the government that makes more people go the to that scientific field, and then they have to make a bigger story so they can more money, and the reason why the government gives them the money, so the government can achieve it's political goals.

The money is for the research, not personal enrichment. Competition for academic positions is fierce, so why would they want more people competing? And government funding is shrinking. The funding arms are largely apolitical anyway. It's hard to believe people get duped by such a lame conspiracy theory as this.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

I think the conspiracy theory side-topic has been scotched and I would prefer that it does not make a re-appearance. Please stick, at least approximately, to the Original Questions/Post; if you wish to allege government or big business conspiracies it would be a matter for the Politics or Speculations Forum. This forum is a place for scientific debate, evidence and reason - and not for the discussion of political machinations.

[nova]

why is it assumed that humankind will not be able to adapt to the changing envrionment caused bu global warming?

 

Humankind has adapted to changes in the climate before, have we not?

 

So, just what is the big deal if the planet warms up over the next century or so.....what terrible catastrophe will follow?

[swansont]

why is it assumed that humankind will not be able to adapt to the changing envrionment caused bu global warming?

 

Humankind has adapted to changes in the climate before, have we not?

 

So, just what is the big deal if the planet warms up over the next century or so.....what terrible catastrophe will follow?

Humankind didn't have the infrastructure, or need of an infrastructure, that will be compromised by warming. Sea level change, for example. Ports are designed for a particular range of water levels. Buildings aren't very portable.

 

Also, any previous adaptations took place over a much, much longer time scale. Much of the rest of nature will not be able to keep pace as habitats change and e.g. organisms are exposed to new enemies.

[overtone]

 

 

Humankind has adapted to changes in the climate before, have we not?

Sure. During the Little Ice Age, for example, a much slower and less dramatic climate change, humans in northern Europe eventually adapted to the new climate.

 

The adaptations consisted of of abandoning large areas of formerly prosperous landscape, starving and freezing to death, figuring out ways to survive without the former luxuries of trade and surplus production, migrating and making war and robbing the neighbors, adjusting to the hardships and insecurities of things like open ocean fishing in winter weather, and so forth.

 

There are also global scale examples, such as the climate aftermath of the Toba volcano. Humans successfully adapted to that, which was reasonably compararble in speed of onset to the current events but not as long lasting, by dying en masse but not to extinction - so the remnant population had a depopulated world to expand into when the climate returned to a more hospitable regime.

 

We will adapt, we humans. So no worries, eh?

[nova]

The projections are that the temperature will rise 1 degree celsius during the next century, so again, what is the big deal? All of our citys were built within the past 200 yeas or so, and I don't think that sea levels of a couple of feet will inundate New York City, so all we have to do is back up a little and rebuild what was drowned out. Or better yet, build a sea wall.

 

Sounds like a construction boom to me. It ain't like it is all gonna happen next week.

Edited December 3, 2013 by nova

[swansont]

The projections are that the temperature will rise 1 degree celsius during the next century, so again, what is the big deal? All of our citys were built within the past 200 yeas or so, and I don't think that sea levels of a couple of feet will inundate New York City, so all we have to do is back up a little and rebuild what was drowned out. Or better yet, build a sea wall.

 

Sounds like a construction boom to me. It ain't like it is all gonna happen next week.

 

What you think? Not of much importance. This is science.

 

Let's say we have another hurricane like Sandy. Add in another few feet of water, and the flood damage gets worse, because more of the area is under water. Smaller storms that were no problem before all of the sudden are, because the water can get over barriers that are in place.

 

We haven't rebuilt everything from Katrina yet, much less Sandy. Pardon me if I find your argument from ignorance unimpressive.

[John Cuthber]

All of our citys were built within the past 200 yeas or so,

Are you always an ignorant ****er, or did you not realise that 95% or so of the world doesn't live in America?

[nova]

Are you always an ignorant ****er, or did you not realise that 95% or so of the world doesn't live in America?

 

Well now that you mention it, yes, I do know that. And I also know that the really big CO2 producers in the near future will be China and India......who are unwilling to limit their emmisions because they are more inclined to bring some 2.5 billion people out of extreme poverty. So, I ask you, where does that leave us?

 

Do you think we should go to war with China and India to bring them into compliance with our poorly thought-out emissions standards?

 

And if the answer is no then we are screwed ain't we?

 

Just perhaps we would be better off devoting our attention to how we are gonna react to the coming warm spell?

[EdEarl]

 

Well now that you mention it, yes, I do know that. And I also know that the really big CO2 producers in the near future will be China and India......who are unwilling to limit their emmisions because they are more inclined to bring some 2.5 billion people out of extreme poverty. So, I ask you, where does that leave us?

 

Do you think we should go to war with China and India to bring them into compliance with our poorly thought-out emissions standards?

 

And if the answer is no then we are screwed ain't we?

 

Just perhaps we would be better off devoting our attention to how we are gonna react to the coming warm spell?

Your characterization of "the coming warm spell," makes it sound like buying a bigger air conditioner will fix everything. The projections are that the world's rivers will not flow in summer because the glaciers that feed them throughout warmer months will disappear, and that much more land will turn into deserts. If those projections come true, the world's food supply is in danger and billions of people will starve. How do we plan for that?

[nova]

Your characterization of "the coming warm spell," makes it sound like buying a bigger air conditioner will fix everything. The projections are that the world's rivers will not flow in summer because the glaciers that feed them throughout warmer months will disappear, and that much more land will turn into deserts. If those projections come true, the world's food supply is in danger and billions of people will starve. How do we plan for that?

 

WOW! That sounds serious....but then, it is supposed to sound serious isn't it? Otherwise how would the doomsday theorists be able to extort money from the unwashed masses?

 

This stuff reminds me of the high priests during the dark ages who, knowing that an eclipse of the sun was going to occure, told the people that god was mad at them and was gonna make the sun go out, but if they brought enough lambs and chickens to the church, that the priest would intervene on their behalf and make the sun come out again.

 

It was BS then, and it is BS now.

Edited December 4, 2013 by nova

[swansont]

WOW! That sounds serious....but then, it is supposed to sound serious isn't it? Otherwise how would the doomsday theorists be able to extort money from the unwashed masses?

 

This stuff reminds me of the high priests during the dark ages who, knowing that an eclipse of the sun was going to occure, told the people that god was mad at them and was gonna make the sun go out, but if they brought enough lambs and chickens to the church, that the priest would intervene on their behalf and make the sun come out again.

 

It was BS then, and it is BS now.

But calling them "doomsday theorists" and referring to extortion and high priests leaves you as pure as Caesar's wife, eh? No hyperbole or dishonesty there. No siree!

 

This is why we prefer to discuss science and not political posturing in a science discussion. But you brought it up, and you got your answer. Calling it BS like a four-year-old who didn't get what he wanted doesn't change the science.

[nova]

But calling them "doomsday theorists" and referring to extortion and high priests leaves you as pure as Caesar's wife, eh? No hyperbole or dishonesty there. No siree!

 

This is why we prefer to discuss science and not political posturing in a science discussion. But you brought it up, and you got your answer. Calling it BS like a four-year-old who didn't get what he wanted doesn't change the science.

 

I have always noticed that whenever a deciple of any particular theory starts to see holes in his pet theory, he tries to marginalize the person that exposed the holes.

 

Annnnnd, I also noticed that you did not address the fact that China and India and most other un-developed countries are not gonna do anything about their emissions....ergo we are, if the so-called 'scientists' are correct, going to experience higher temperatures. So what exactly are we gonna do when it becomes fact instead of speculation?

 

You can run, but you can't hide....

Edited December 4, 2013 by nova