What are your views on climate change?

[FluffyNinja]

There is an old saying that "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" and that is what is shown here - just a (very) little bit of a very large body of knowledge. Did you know that Europe used to have dense forests? See it is not just about emission of CO2 but the loss of one of the main mechanisms to soak the ruddy stuff back up again - the loss of vegetation across large swathes of the world

Did you know 1/5 of CO2 rise is down to deforestation?

Did you know that about a mile-and-a half below the Antarctic ice cap lies a tropical rain forest. Guess what? At the time Antarctica cooled, mammals were just miniscule things hiding out in their burrows? So, what's your point.......that the climate changes over time? WOW! What an astute observation! I don't seem to be arguing that point. BTW, your 1/5 reference above......this has been TESTED on a Global Scale? We know that this figure is irrefuteably ONLY DIRECTLY caused by HUMANS cutting down trees? Are you also suggesting that raging forest fires have not always been a common occurrance even before the existence of man? If not, then, who was there to help extinguish them? Are you, consequently, suggesting that deforestation has not occurred naturally on an immense scale at various points in the 5 billion year history of Earth? Humans aren't all bad my friend, some even go as far as promoting active REFORESTATION! Imagine that. :mrgreen:

 

[Deuce]

Like you do to prove points? The point is for years we heard the warming would heat the oceans and we would see more hurricanes and more powerful hurricanes. Once again the predictions from the global warming crowd proves to be false. We see more of this than we do truth from the global warming church

Hurricane seasons go in cycles as well. You're taking one year as an indication of a long-term trend, which is just stupid when talking about anything to do with climate.

 

[ptif219]

Hurricane seasons go in cycles as well. You're taking one year as an indication of a long-term trend, which is just stupid when talking about anything to do with climate.

It is a 30 year low. We are looking at the whole period of your so called global warming

 

[Deuce]

Did you know that about a mile-and-a half below the Antarctic ice cap lies a tropical rain forest. Guess what? At the time Antarctica cooled, mammals were just miniscule things hiding out in their burrows? So, what's your point.......that the climate changes over time? WOW! What an astute observation! I don't seem to be arguing that point. BTW, your 1/5 reference above......this has been TESTED on a Global Scale? We know that this figure is irrefuteably ONLY DIRECTLY caused by HUMANS cutting down trees? Are you also suggesting that raging forest fires have not always been a common occurrance even before the existence of man? If not, then, who was there to help extinguish them? Are you, consequently, suggesting that deforestation has not occurred naturally on an immense scale at various points in the 5 billion year history of Earth? Humans aren't all bad my friend, some even go as far as promoting active REFORESTATION! Imagine that. :mrgreen:

Uhh, I'm having trouble figuring out what the point of this insanity is.

 

[Orion]

I voted other. The poll does not give the option of it being a natural cycle but that humans are accelerating it and worsening it in unnatural ways.

I don't like to see the destruction of nature because of wanton human practices, especially when there are easy alternatives that don't cost that much. The earth will survive for the most part no matter what we do to it, and even though it pains me to see many beautiful species being rendered extinct because of us, I know that more would just end up evolving anyway.

My biggest concern is for humans themselves. We are destroying our own source of life despite now having sufficient knowledge to know that it is hurting us, and that there are alternatives that can lessen the impact. We are arrogant in presuming that our technology can solve the shortages of the resources we need for our life processes, as well as our continued development and evolution. Humans are animals and we evolve slowly along with the rest. Our bodies are not going to magically know how to deal with increased air pollution, contaminated water, greatly reduced food quality/quantity because there is not enough nutritious food for feeding everyone, lack of the presence of nature, etc. Contrary to popular belief, we are not meant to live in these urban ghettos that more than 50% of the world's population now lives in.

Some people say... who cares about the plants and animals? These people are too stupid to see the ecological web that humans too are part of. If the animals die, we die. Take bees for example. If bees went extinct, humans would follow in less than a decade. If you don't know the reason why, then you need to do more reading up on how our food production is tied to insect populations.

The web is simply too complex for us to understand. The truth is that we only know a small part of it, yet we are blindly altering it inextricably every year.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Uhh, I'm having trouble figuring out what the point of this insanity is.

Just responding to this insanity:

Originally Posted by bowerbird
There is an old saying that "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" and that is what is shown here - just a (very) little bit of a very large body of knowledge. Did you know that Europe used to have dense forests? See it is not just about emission of CO2 but the loss of one of the main mechanisms to soak the ruddy stuff back up again - the loss of vegetation across large swathes of the world

Did you know 1/5 of CO2 rise is down to deforestation?

with some "insanity" of my own. My point is bowerbird seems to be attempting to "prove" something to me that I already agree with - that the climate changes. I don't believe that it was the point of the OP to question that very "astute" observation. Bowerbird goes on to "enlighten" me by explaining how deforestation results in less CO2 being processed out of the environment.......WOW......REALLY?.............WHO KNEW???. I was simply wanting to know if he, through this faulty logic, was attempting to attribute ALL deforestation to human activity?
Isn't THAT the REAL question here? I mean, for God's sake, I'm educated enough to know that trees process CO2. The question is, are you guys actually dumb enough to believe that deforestation has not occurred NATURALLY for as long as there have been forests? Is there, or is there not a forest beneath the ice of Antarctica?..........go ahead, look it up. If so, then what happened to this "dead" forest so many hundreds of millions of years ago? Does this qualify as "deforestation"? Are humans to blame for the shifting of the Antarctic Plate as well. Come on, you AGW apologists need to get a grip and stop giving yourselves and the rest of the human species so much credit!

 

[bowerbird]

Like you do to prove points? The point is for years we heard the warming would heat the oceans and we would see more hurricanes and more powerful hurricanes. Once again the predictions from the global warming crowd proves to be false. We see more of this than we do truth from the global warming church

This is the equivalent of saying - well science has proven nothing can fly because the theory of gravity says that mass attracts objects and all things will fall toward Earth

As I said a little bit of knowledge badly applied

 

[bowerbird]

Just responding to this insanity:


with some "insanity" of my own. My point is bowerbird seems to be attempting to "prove" something to me that I already agree with - that the climate changes. I don't believe that it was the point of the OP to question that very "astute" observation. Bowerbird goes on to "enlighten" me by explaining how deforestation results in less CO2 being processed out of the environment.......WOW......REALLY?.............WHO KNEW???. I was simply wanting to know if he, through this faulty logic, was attempting to attribute ALL deforestation to human activity?
Isn't THAT the REAL question here? I mean, for God's sake, I'm educated enough to know that trees process CO2. The question is, are you guys actually dumb enough to believe that deforestation has not occurred NATURALLY for as long as there have been forests? Is there, or is there not a forest beneath the ice of Antarctica?..........go ahead, look it up. If so, then what happened to this "dead" forest so many hundreds of millions of years ago? Does this qualify as "deforestation"? Are humans to blame for the shifting of the Antarctic Plate as well. Come on, you AGW apologists need to get a grip and stop giving yourselves and the rest of the human species so much credit!

a) Where did I say man was responsible for ALL the deforestation? Of COURSE there has been natural fires - I live in ruddy Australia when we have bushfires it can be the equivalent of dropping a couple of A bombs

b) Man HAS accelerated deforestation - or do you deny that? Are you really really trying to tell me that America has as much forest cover as it did before colonisation? That Europe has as much forest cover as it did in Roman times?
http://www.if.uidaho.edu/~johnson/ifiwrri/SciAmGlobal.pdf
Pan-tropical monitoring of deforestation

 

[FluffyNinja]

a) Where did I say man was responsible for ALL the deforestation? Of COURSE there has been natural fires - I live in ruddy Australia when we have bushfires it can be the equivalent of dropping a couple of A bombs

Ok then, let's play the tit-for-tat game: Do you believe that modern humans have also helped to stop or decrease the destructive force of many wildfires/bush fires?

b) Man HAS accelerated deforestation - or do you deny that?

Man has accelerated REFORESTATION, do you deny that?

Are you really really trying to tell me that America has as much forest cover as it did before colonisation? That Europe has as much forest cover as it did in Roman times?

No, but are you trying to tell me that the Earth hasn't gone through extremely hot or dry periods over the past 2-3 billion years on its own where (for whatever the NATURAL reason) the forests were less widespread and less dense than say, the Taiga Coniferous forest, Amazonian Rain forest, or Congo Basin Forests of today?

 

[Deuce]

Ok then, let's play the tit-for-tat game: Do you believe that modern humans have also helped to stop or decrease the destructive force of many wildfires/bush fires?



Man has accelerated REFORESTATION, do you deny that?

No, but are you trying to tell me that the Earth hasn't gone through extremely hot or dry periods over the past 2-3 billion years on its own where (for whatever the NATURAL reason) the forests were less widespread and less dense than say, the Taiga Coniferous forest, Amazonian Rain forest, or Congo Basin Forests of today?

If you think our net impact on the size of the world's forests over the last century is not negative, there's really no reason to discuss any of this further because you exist in some crazy alternate universe.

 

[FluffyNinja]

If you think our net impact on the size of the world's forests over the last century is not negative, there's really no reason to discuss any of this further because you exist in some crazy alternate universe.

Well, if you believe that humans have ONLY had a negative impact on the climate/environment and that forests haven't died out in the past due to natural causes, then obviously you have found yet another "alternate universe" (as you put it) in which to dwell, and I am forced to then agree that there is indeed no further reason to discuss this. You and bowerbird deserve one another - AGW apologists to the end! :roll:

 

[ptif219]

This is the equivalent of saying - well science has proven nothing can fly because the theory of gravity says that mass attracts objects and all things will fall toward Earth

As I said a little bit of knowledge badly applied

So Hurricanes are not a natural way the oceans cool? The GW community did not say hurricanes would be more and stronger?

Hurricanes and Climate Change

 

[Deuce]

Well, if you believe that humans have ONLY had a negative impact on the climate/environment and that forests haven't died out in the past due to natural causes, then obviously you have found yet another "alternate universe" (as you put it) in which to dwell, and I am forced to then agree that there is indeed no further reason to discuss this. You and bowerbird deserve one another - AGW apologists to the end! :roll:

Please quote where I said any of those things, or alternatively admit to just repeating the same old regressive straw men.

Our net impact on forests has been negative, our net impact on CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels has been an increase, and nobody ever claimed these things cannot also change naturally.

 

[ptif219]

Please quote where I said any of those things, or alternatively admit to just repeating the same old regressive straw men.

Our net impact on forests has been negative, our net impact on CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels has been an increase, and nobody ever claimed these things cannot also change naturally.

So how many degrees of warming was caused by man?

 

[ptif219]

Please quote where I said any of those things, or alternatively admit to just repeating the same old regressive straw men.

Our net impact on forests has been negative, our net impact on CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels has been an increase, and nobody ever claimed these things cannot also change naturally.

So how many degrees of warming was caused by man?

 

[FluffyNinja]

Please quote where I said any of those things, or alternatively admit to just repeating the same old regressive straw men.

Our net impact on forests has been negative, our net impact on CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels has been an increase, and nobody ever claimed these things cannot also change naturally.

By your failure to address my questions regarding NATURAL impacts on forests, CO2, and climate in general, you are, by default aluding to the premise that man must be the primary cause of these changes. I'm simply trying to figure out if you truly accept that these things (deforestation, CO2 increases/decreases, sea level rise/fall, variations in ice cap thickness, avg global temp fluctuation, etc) HAVE INDEED occurred NATURALLY and with a much wider degree of variance and on a MUCH larger scale than we have measured in the past 50 years, and have been occurring long before the existence of homo sapiens?
Also, by saying "nobody ever claimed these thing cannot change naturally" is not quite the same as admitting "ALL of these things DO and HAVE occurred naturally and often on a MUCH wider and more intense scale than modern human causality." At least I CAN admit that human activity DOES impact climate and often negatively. My whole point is that the actual degree to which humans are affecting climate change is highly suspect and the science to measure the DIRECT impact of global temp change attributed to human activity effectivey DOES NOT exist.

 

[obvious Child]

the science to measure the DIRECT impact of global temp change attributed to human activity effectivey DOES NOT exist.

Wait what? We can estimate the average emissions of Co2, methane and other green house gases from natural sources as well as abnormal emissions from volcanos. Furthermore, we can determine the concentration of gases via ice cores to form a benchmark predating the industrial revolution. Therefore, it is not impossible to determine the change in green houses gases from human industrial sources. And since we know that Co2 and Methane and other gases do trap heat (well, some of us do, some think that Co2 doesn't trap heat) it's not that hard to produce relatively rough estimates as to what human activity over the course of 150 years has done to temperatures. Says it does not effectively exist is rather inaccurate. Is there a method to get extremely accurate measurements as to just how much activity produced just how much change? No. But that does not mean that what we have now is ineffective.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Wait what? We can estimate the average emissions of Co2, methane and other green house gases from natural sources as well as abnormal emissions from volcanos. Furthermore, we can determine the concentration of gases via ice cores to form a benchmark predating the industrial revolution. Therefore, it is not impossible to determine the change in green houses gases from human industrial sources. And since we know that Co2 and Methane and other gases do trap heat (well, some of us do, some think that Co2 doesn't trap heat) it's not that hard to produce relatively rough estimates as to what human activity over the course of 150 years has done to temperatures. Says it does not effectively exist is rather inaccurate. Is there a method to get extremely accurate measurements as to just how much activity produced just how much change? No. But that does not mean that what we have now is ineffective.

When did "relatively rough estimates" become acceptable scientific proof? You can't even be convicted of speeding in court based on a "relatively rough estimate" of how fast you were driving, LOL. Also, when the AGW community seems to be focusing on global temperature variances of 1-2 degrees over a period of 70 years, shouldn't the science that claims humans are the primary cause, be a bit more accurate than "relatively rough estimates"?
**Note: Bold emphasis in quote - mine

 

[obvious Child]

When did "relatively rough estimates" become acceptable scientific proof?

Technically there isn't anything as "proof" in science. Proofs are for mathematicians. Science is always changing. Refining. Retooling. Something as complex as the planet is not going to be as accurate as we want considering the time frame. That said, it does not mean that we cannot derive useful information from what we have now. Thereby rendering it somewhat effective. A pinpoint accurate method in climatology is like asking a physicist for a unified field theory in a few years. He's going to laugh at you. Does that mean everything else he does is "ineffective?" No. Does that mean that his findings are worthless? No. It means there is more to be done. But it does not mean we just ignore everything as if it's "ineffective."

You can't even be convicted of speeding in court based on a "relatively rough estimate" of how fast you were driving, LOL.

Court is not the same thing as science.

Also, when the AGW community seems to be focusing on global temperature variances of 1-2 degrees over a period of 70 years, shouldn't the science that claims humans are the primary cause, be a bit more accurate than "relatively rough estimates"?

You do realize those are low ball estimates? Furthermore, the actual temperature increases are historical. Should the science be more accurate? Always. No matter what the science is. But to throw our hands up and do nothing is to ignore many changes we can see with our own eyes. Such as temperate species moving further north then they have ever been recorded in history much less fossil records. And animals changing their behaviors to match temperature variations. We have hundreds of years of seasonal information. And plants are blooming at times never recorded before. This planet is getting warmer faster then it has without massive geological changes such as the massive Siberian super volcanoes.

Though, IMO, it's too late to stop it. We must now mitigate and plan for the increasingly odd weather we will face.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Technically there isn't anything as "proof" in science. Proofs are for mathematicians. Science is always changing. Refining. Retooling. Something as complex as the planet is not going to be as accurate as we want considering the time frame. That said, it does not mean that we cannot derive useful information from what we have now. Thereby rendering it somewhat effective. A pinpoint accurate method in climatology is like asking a physicist for a unified field theory in a few years. He's going to laugh at you. Does that mean everything else he does is "ineffective?" No. Does that mean that his findings are worthless? No. It means there is more to be done. But it does not mean we just ignore everything as if it's "ineffective."

I agree with absolutely everything you say here. Sorry to use an old cliche here but when it comes to something as important as AGW, you can't "have your proverbial cake and eat it too." When global scientists, on one hand, claim that recent human activity is directly related to global temperature change, those of us who are "untrained" want to see the evidence - and if we're going to be asked to shoulder the blame, buy smart cars, cut back on energy consumption, pay for carbon filters, cut back on production, and pay fines, then the "unenlightened" human population will want that evidence to be definitive not vague, circumstantial, or relative to "all things being equal." Then these same scientists will say, on the other hand, we can't produce definitive evidence to show the exact AMOUNT of impact our actions are having on this climate change. We can't with certainty say that X% of the temp increase can be contributed to human-based CO2 production while X% is contributed to natural causes.

Court is not the same thing as science.

No, but in the analogy..........producing hard evidence in order to reach a valid conclusion works the same way in a court of law. If I am going to be "convicted" of causing an impending global "catastrophe" then I would like to see the definitive evidence that has been "stacked against me."

You do realize those are low ball estimates? Furthermore, the actual temperature increases are historical. Should the science be more accurate? Always. No matter what the science is. But to throw our hands up and do nothing is to ignore many changes we can see with our own eyes. Such as temperate species moving further north then they have ever been recorded in history much less fossil records. And animals changing their behaviors to match temperature variations. We have hundreds of years of seasonal information. And plants are blooming at times never recorded before. This planet is getting warmer faster then it has without massive geological changes such as the massive Siberian super volcanoes.

I would never advocate a "do nothing" approach; however, you must agree that the "evidence" of AGW has been used recently for more than simply "noble endeavors"............................I'm talking the political connotations as well as the economic ones. Politicians have often used and even "stretched" the forgone conclusions of the AGW scientists to promote their political agendas and to garner votes. University research programs depend on grants to continue their research programs - their viability depends on the sustainability of this impending "crisis". Some corporations, namely the "Green Community" and those who produce products such as "Smart Cars" and carbon filters, also depend on the "sustainability" of the AGW crisis. All I'm saying is that I do recognize the need to take action to a certain degree, but the skeptic in me also sees the "hidden agendas" at play as well. I do honestly believe that most of the research is valid, but the big "gray area" floats around the finite levels global impact our current actions are having.

 

[Deuce]

So how many degrees of warming was caused by man?

If I answer this question with scientific evidence, are you just going to handwave it and start spamming the thread with your "spin and lies" and "gloom and doom" and "chicken little" nonsense? Because we've been through this before.

 

[obvious Child]

We can't with certainty say that X% of the temp increase can be contributed to human-based CO2 production while X% is contributed to natural causes.

Well, that may be partially due to scientists being scientists. Science was never very good at getting out the actual facts of the matter. Case in point, the example of finding Dinosaur Blood. The media reported it as actual blood when it was really dessicated residual organic material that had to be re-hydrated in special solutions multiple times before anything useful could be determined.

No, but in the analogy..........producing hard evidence in order to reach a valid conclusion works the same way in a court of law. If I am going to be "convicted" of causing an impending global "catastrophe" then I would like to see the definitive evidence that has been "stacked against me."

True. There needs to be better delineations between natural causes and human sources. Science has a long way to go in showing the average person something they can really understand. You have to be trained in the sciences to really get what they are saying as well as statistics. I generally avoid these topics as most people here at least have truly appalling grasps of statistics.

I would never advocate a "do nothing" approach; however, you must agree that the "evidence" of AGW has been used recently for more than simply "noble endeavors"............................I'm talking the political connotations as well as the economic ones.

What hasn't? Business smells profit. And honestly I don't see this as bad. If corporations can make a buck doing something better for the environment, that's not a bad idea. But where there is profit there is also corruption.

Politicians have often used and even "stretched" the forgone conclusions of the AGW scientists to promote their political agendas and to garner votes. University research programs depend on grants to continue their research programs - their viability depends on the sustainability of this impending "crisis".

But that's how it's always been. Military research programs have done this kind of thing for years.

Some corporations, namely the "Green Community" and those who produce products such as "Smart Cars" and carbon filters, also depend on the "sustainability" of the AGW crisis.

To a certain degree yes. But there's also the impact of using less imported oil (or oil in general). What I don't understand is why many so called Conservatives are against this. If we removed the bulk of the American Market from oil consumption, we'd see radical changes in Venezuela, Iran and Russia. More American jobs, less pollution and the end to regimes opposed to America is not something a Conservative should be against.

All I'm saying is that I do recognize the need to take action to a certain degree, but the skeptic in me also sees the "hidden agendas" at play as well. I do honestly believe that most of the research is valid, but the big "gray area" floats around the finite levels global impact our current actions are having.

No question. What bothers me is people who think that emitting effectively nearly a trillion tons of Co2 since the Industrial Revolution into the atmosphere won't change anything.

 

[ptif219]

If I answer this question with scientific evidence, are you just going to handwave it and start spamming the thread with your "spin and lies" and "gloom and doom" and "chicken little" nonsense? Because we've been through this before.

I would like to see a specific answer to how much instead of your opinions and general answers

 

[Deuce]

I would like to see a specific answer to how much instead of your opinions and general answers

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Page 17

Relative to 1750, 1.6 W/m^2 versus solar output increase .12 w/m^2, so about 93%.

 

[ptif219]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

Page 17

Relative to 1750, 1.6 W/m^2 versus solar output increase .12 w/m^2, so about 93%.

So i should believe more lies from the IPCC ? |5154|


get The Smilies @ https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/14455