Global Warming Thread 2

oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The original first thread.
quote:
I am just curious to you global warming critics. how in the heck does 5,955 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions not have an effect on climate. 5,955 million metric tons just last year, just by this country.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524085725.htm

Where is that co2 going. well plants are sucking it up? well that might have been the case in the past.
quote:
About half of the mature tropical forests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1.5 to 1.6 billion hectares that once covered the planet have been felled.[(a sourced quote on wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

BTW, Scientific evidence clearly shows that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. and we are producting a whole lot of it. and the fact that co2 is on the rise.

i can't understand how you can be skeptical about man's impact on the planet's climate.
It is like saying that you drank 10 beers and you become drunk, and you are saying that you can drive home fine. You are not drunk and the fact that you passed out can't be attributed to the 10 beers that you drank. i feel like i am arguing with a rock.

*** i thought this should be highlighted for those of you new to the thread****

btw, a real scientific journal: The abstract.
quote:
Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important. Although there has been progress in monitoring and understanding climate change, there remain many scientific, technical, and institutional impediments to precisely planning for, adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change. There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected, but it is clear that these changes will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent, and sea level rise. Anthropogenic climate change is now likely to continue for many centuries. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5651/1719


**** my conclusion also on page three*****
lets summarize my main points:

red herrings as in many of the skeptics arguments (as seen on this page)
Economic problems with trying to reduce global warming:
- you are missing the point. this is not an economic argument. this is about the validity of mans contributions to global warming. "fixing" global warming might be catastrophic to the economy, but that in itself does not prove global warmings validity. if you want to argue economics start your own thread.

Those who are arguing for changes to deal with global warming are a bunch of arrogent people who only want to gain political access.
- well, they might be a bunch of arrogent people who want to gain political access who admittedly exaggerate the truth. But the essence of their vessel to gain power might actually have ounce of truth. of you want to point out hypocracy of these people also, start your own thread.

Thus we argue about man's impact.
1. Global warming is happening. It is man's contribution to the warming that is in question. that can be seen with the glaciers melting. that is also shown in Sit & Stand N Your Jock's diagrams.
2. There are documented cases of regional climate change thoughout human history in wish the best explanations for them have been due to manmade causes. deforestation for example is being one of the biggest manmade climate changers. According to a skeptic on this page, dad-a-lot
quote:

Of course man can have an impact on the environment. Just look at any highway and you can see that.

3. Man's impact on the environment is greater then it has ever been historicially. the topic of my first thread. again. the skeptics on this age are focusing on emissions. I have yet to see a response against deforestation and why that doesn't impact global warming. deforestation after all is a predominately manmade activity.
quote:
0.117% of the greenhouse gas is anthropogenic CO2.
i am no climatologist, but that could be significant. you have to show me why a 0.117% is neglibable. that still equates to billions of tons of extra co2. also, it isn't like that number is remaining the same. while temperatures might not follow co2 fluctuations tit for tat, co2 still has been on the rise for quite some time.
4. CO2 has been shown in labs to "absorb many infrared wavelengths of the Sun's light". far more than O2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
4. While correlation does not imply causation. . .
a. man's activities do have a huge impact on the environment.
b. not all of the man's effects on the environment are immediately evident.
c. what other explanations can there be for the increase in temperatures. and can the effects of impact of these explanations overwhelm the greenhouse effects that increased co2 causes.

while i don't expect people to change their opinions based solely on a texags thread. i have a better understanding of global warming skeptics arguments. skeptics have a better understanding of our argument. and hopefully it made everyone think. my boss isn't very happy with the productivity i had today. i really can't continue this. thanks and gig em.

[This message has been edited by oldag07 (edited 8/6/2007 11:26p).]
crag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That number is meaningless without context.

Man contributes about 3.2% of total CO2. If you add water vapor and other greenhouse gases, man contributes about .28% of greenhouse gases.

Sorry junior, but that BIG number doesn't look so big in context, does it?
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Check the graphs on the relationship between CO2 levels and global warming.

The CO2 levels lag the warming trends. It's the warming that causes CO2 levels to go up, not the other way around.

It makes logical and scientific sense. Warmer weather causes an increase in plant life. Temperate zones expand and what used to be ice-covered barren land becomes suitable for vegetation. That vegetation then increases animal life as well. This causes CO2 levels to increase.

High CO2 levels are an indicator of higher temperatures, not a cause.

Note that sunspot activity has increased and that not only earth, but the other planets have also shown a certain level of warming over basically the same time period.

global warming may be happening but it is not being caused by man.

add: volcanic emissions release more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1 eruption that all of the man-made sources combined.

[This message has been edited by Dad-O-Lot (edited 8/5/2007 4:51p).]
pencil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
add: volcanic emissions release more CO2 in the atmosphere in 1 eruption that all of the man-made sources combined.



Link? You're probably thinking of SO2 emissions, not CO2.

07,
To elaborate on what hcr said: The earths atmosphere is about 5,000 trillion metric tons, of which 0.038% is CO2. That is 1,915,000 million metric tons of CO2. You are talking about 5,995 million metric tons.
gazelle01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I realize you all want some overly simplistic explanation for global warming (e.g., "it's the sun", but it's an infinitely complex set of phenomena with both positive and negative feedback mechanisms occurring.

First of all, the thought that "that BIG number doesn't look so big in context, does it?" is like saying that a sip of arsenic couldn't possibly hurt a person because it seems such a small amount. Yes, nitrogen comprises 78% of the dry atmosphere, oxygen 21%, leaving only a very small remainder of the atmosphere to be comprised of greenhouse gases, only a portion of which are carbon dioxide. Are you thus suggesting that the greenhouse effect doesn't occur at all because it's such a small number? If so, I've got some arsenic for you to sample.

To say that we can't possibly have an effect on the climate is to suggest you don't understand the carbon cycle for one thing. Very simply, the carbon on earth is either stored as a gas in the atmosphere, on land within the tissues of plants and animals, dissolved in the oceans, or geologically stored and thus removed from the cycle, as oil or gas underground or on the ocean floors. Yet nowadays, all of that carbon formerly locked away from the cycle is now being burned as fossil fuels and thus released back into the carbon cycle. What's so hard to understand about that?

Volcanic activity actually lessens some of the global warming that has occurred, or will occur, because the sulfur dioxide released acts as an aerosol in the atmosphere which reflects sunlight before it reaches the surface of the earth. For many years, climate models overpredicted the effects of carbon dioxide on our planet's temperature, a problem that was resolved once this phenomenon became more clear. Aerosols cause cooling, and once this was incorporated into global models, the reliability of such models became much better. And yes, these models can, and have, been tested by looking at current and past climates using the same models. They are reliable.

About the lag in CO2 behind temperature changes, that's a commonly used argument that suggests that CO2 isn't influencing temperatures at all. In ice core studies, there is about an 800 year lag in CO2 behind changes in temperature. This however does not disprove the theory of CO2 influencing temperatures. The reason is rather complex, but climatologists have known about this potential "problem" with their argument since before it even became a "problem." Read this:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

and this:

http://www.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=923974&forum_id=16
crag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
First of all, the thought that "that BIG number doesn't look so big in context, does it?" is like saying that a sip of arsenic couldn't possibly hurt a person because it seems such a small amount.

Wrong.

It would be like saying "you've already consumed 10 gallons of arsenic, one more ounce will not alter the outcome."

I'll address the rest of your post when I have time; gotta run.
schizmann
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
The CO2 levels lag the warming trends. It's the warming that causes CO2 levels to go up, not the other way around.



I love it when people get on here and say such crap...as if the world' best and brightest climate scientists had not thought of this possibility. Go and read the science on this stuff and maybe you won't be tempted to embarrass yourself again.
oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
3.2% of total CO2- this is one year just in America. china and the third world is also using a lot of co2. furthermore no one so far has responded even the advocates on this page has mentioned anything about deforestation a huge factor in global warming. Iraq, or former Mesopotania used to be the fertile crescent. the birth place of civilization. what is it now. desert. why. historians/ climate scientists say that the vegetation helped humidify the air allowing for a more temperate climate. when the land is converted into farmland, that effect is gone. desertification still is a major problem globally. there are many other places in Roman times where there used to be lots of vegetation but now it is completely desert. these are historically documented area's with climate change that was caused largely due to mans influence. now with deforestation going at the rate it is, and co2 emissions rising also, i don't know how you guys believe that man has no impact on the environment.
BBDP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sch
"It has been known for years that most CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. It is called “carbon
sinking.” The oceans typically contain 60 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. It is also known
that colder waters dissolve more CO2 than warm waters. Which do you think is cause and which
is effect? We currently have CO2 levels of about 380 ppm. A recent study completed at UC Davis
concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of
2,000 ppm. Then this, “the same increase that experts expect by the end of this century as
remaining reserves of fossil fuels are burned.” If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is
what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don’t they owe
us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago? In fact we are being
treated to a modern scientific shell game. The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not
CO2; it is water vapor, which accounts for about 60 percent of the heat-trapping gases while CO2
accounts for about 26 percent. So, why are we being served a daily diet of our destroying the
environment with our behavior as it relates to CO2? Because our behavior has little to do with the
amount of water vapor, so it is a non-starter when it comes to those whose principal goal is ruling
our lives."
From:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqznfb/Images/Linder%20Eugenics.pdf
Johnny_Five
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oldag07,

The debate is not on whether man contributes to climate change or not. The debate is on the relative impact of man compare to other factors.

If man's contribution is miniscule, then whatever corrective actions we take will also have miniscule impact. On the other hand, if we do take radical steps to try and improve the environment this will have significant impact on the economies and prosperity of the world. Most impacted will be the third-world as they are being strong-armed into adopting much more expensive, less efficient forms of alternative energy. The progress and standard of living for the people in these third-world countries will be stunted. In short, these people will suffer the most as we try and "fix" global warming.

So we better be damn sure the science is solid on this, because the consequences effect millions of people in negative ways.

If man's impact on climate change is significant, and we can take significant steps to make improvements we still need to approach the problem in rationale and prudent way to minimize the before mentioned negative effects.

In short, quit acting like we are idiots because we don't subscribe to the alarmist views of the global warming activists.

If someone can produce scientific data that conclusivley shows man's relative/proportional impact on climate change, I'll happily jump on board.
oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Because our behavior has little to do with the amount of water vapor, so it is a non-starter when it comes to those whose principal goal is ruling our lives.
Driving, no, deforestation with water vapor, a definite yes.

quote:
On the other hand, if we do take radical steps to try and improve the environment this will have significant impact on the economies and prosperity of the world.
in the long run, conservation is better for the worlds economy. it is the tragedy of the commons.

quote:
If man's impact on climate change is significant, and we can take significant steps to make improvements we still need to approach the problem in rationale and prudent way to minimize the before mentioned negative effects.

arguments against mans effects on global warming is like explaining to a liberal why minimum wage does work. wishful thinking and good intentions does not make something right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming certainly not the best source, but i really don't have time to right it all down.

as for the ocean absorbing co2, yes you are correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
ocean acidification also has its problems.

ultimately it comes down to, what else could be causing the rise in co2 in the atmosphere. what else changed in the last 100 years that could be causing the observed global warming? that would make co2's effects seem minimal. what else could be causing the spike in co2 that would make the increase in cars and deforestation seem trivial?

[This message has been edited by oldag07 (edited 8/5/2007 9:30p).]
junior200414
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tell you what, when there is a scientific CONSENSUS about humans causing global warming, ill start listening, but until then, its just scientists saying what makes them research money.
NormanAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
oldag07 - I'm on the other side of the argument on this subject, but I have to say you have made some very intelligent posts. Lots of good debate on this thread.
Starkvegas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is interesting: Scientific researchers claim that Solar Irradiance on Earth and Mars have been the cause of recent warming.

http://www.assetprofile.com/global%20warming%20scam.pdf

oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
scientific CONSENSUS

I know this isn't the best example. but much of the muslim community also claims that there isn't enough "scientific consensus" to prove that the holocaust happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust

While the biggest flaw in Iran's argument is the fact that the validity of the holocaust is more of a historical debate not a scientific debate, I feel there argument does demonstrate several points. There are few things, beyond basic science (DNA, Gravity, etc), that scientists (or historians with the holocaust) will ever be 100 percent behind. But i from what i have heard in the science classes i have taken at a&m, and with that announcement that the a&m science department has made recently made, it seems to me that the scientific community is mostly behind the idea of man's impact on global warming. And such, that is where i make my stand. no i have not watched inconvenient truth. It just seems too depressing for me to watch.

As for Norman Ag's comment. As much as i don't like criticism, sometimes i really do need a whack in the **. though admittedly there are more tactful ways of doing what you did on that Sherman thread, Ill take what i can get. Thanks
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
I know this isn't the best example. but much of the muslim community also claims that there isn't enough "scientific consensus" to prove that the holocaust happened.


great red-herring.

Yeah, all of the scientists who question man-made global warming are the same as holocaust deniers.

No wonder many of the skeptics try to keep a low profile. Who wants to be equated to a holocaust denier.
Nonregdrummer09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"sigh" our sun has the highest amount of activity since the mt warming period. (Which was hotter than it is now, but there is no man-made CO2 being produced), our solar activity directly corresponds with our overall temperature over the past 2000 years. CO2 does not. Even the polar ice caps on mars are starting to heat up from the solar activity. There is not much you can do about that. Although, CO2 emissions are still extremely bad for humanity in general as far as the health aspect goes and does need to be controlled. Thats all I've got to say on this topic.
Ag$08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
CO2 emissions are still extremely bad for humanity in general as far as the health aspect goes and does need to be controlled. Thats all I've got to say on this topic.


I keep hearing stuff like this creep into people's arguements. Is this simply proof that the media is scaring the **** out of everyone, or do people honesly believe we are anywhere near toxic levels of CO2? (for those keeping score at home, C02 is what you exhale when you breath)
oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Yeah, all of the scientists who question man-made global warming are the same as holocaust deniers.
I did not say that at all. and yet all of you claim that it is controversal. during my 4 years at a&m, me being a science major, i have yet to hear an argument against the idea of man made global warming from any faculty member here. i have heard many rants explaining why we need to do something about it. the holocaust denyers was an analogy. just because there is no "concensus" about the existance of the does not make it false. id say scientists against global warming are in a very small, admittedly vocal minority.

one criticism id have against global warming critics is the argument critics make about how the left has this agenda. id say the left has a better argument about how the right has an agenda with denying global warming. the right would call the left prophets of doom that just want power. the left on the other hand would say that business has an interest against pollution controls, so they are willing to listen to anybody who will tell them that what they are doing is ok. While i believe the left likes to exaggerate the effects of global warming, they generally their motives are good intentioned just misguided. This world will not be sterile after gw's effects are in full force, and the human species. The argument against business makes sense.
LOYAL AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
what else changed in the last 100 years that could be causing the observed global warming?


I'm confused. Are we talking about the observed warming on Earth or Mars? Help me out. Thanks.
Global Warming
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why does every debate turn into such petty squabbling?
B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
3.2% of total CO2- this is one year just in America. china and the third world is also using a lot of co2.

China and India don't count. They give off "special CO2" - or so it would seem. Remember - Kyoto has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with fleecing the US and cutting back our economy.
oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I'm confused. Are we talking about the observed warming on Earth or Mars? Help me out. Thanks.
i wish i had more time, but wikipedia will just have to do . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Even those of the man's impact of global warming deniers are starting to admit global warming exists. they just question the source. Glacier national park has far less glaciers then it used to. the ice caps are smaller than they used to be too.
oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Kyoto has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with fleecing the US and cutting back our economy.

please. no ad hominems.

[This message has been edited by oldag07 (edited 8/6/2007 9:24a).]
Geophysics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
during my 4 years at a&m, me being a science major, i have yet to hear an argument against the idea of man made global warming from any faculty member here.

Just out of curiosity, what major were you? I've heard Environmental Studies folk brand themselves as "science majors", and also listened to Civil Engineers talk about how we're dooming the world. So I'm curious. I spoke to a few Meteorology profs who agreed that warming *is* happening (glaciers thin for a reason, fellas), but don't buy in to it being caused by man.
Ag$08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
i wish i had more time, but wikipedia will just have to do . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming


I wish you had more sense than to use wiki as a source for a controversial topic.
oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
the inherent problem with many of your arguments is the fact that they are economic in nature not scientific. real solutions for ending global warming might all ruin the global economy. and yet, global warming still can exist. taking the holocaust argument into consideration, moving jews into former palistine without consulting the locals might be ethicly bad decision and the holocaust still could have happened.

quote:
I wish you had more sense than to use wiki as a source for a controversial topic.

I challenge someone to refute all my points. so far i have most of yours.

[This message has been edited by oldag07 (edited 8/6/2007 10:06a).]
Geophysics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You didn't answer my question.

Also, bringing the Holocaust deniers in to this and comparing Global Warming skeptics to them is rather misleading. The Holocaust had proof -- over six million corpses "mysteriously appearing" in various camps.

CO2 causing Global Warming is NOT proven as fact, but what you're seeing is a healthy amount of folks clinging to it because "everyone else is". All the conclusions being lept toward are based on computer models. Science fact is based on fact and observation. Neither of these have been effectively satisfied in the Global Warming debate. Given the complex nature of weather (both long and short-term), it's ridiculous to point to any one thing as the cause of the symptom. It's even crazier to think that we can "save the Earth" and sustain this temperature range for all of man's existence.

[This message has been edited by Geophysics (edited 8/6/2007 10:09a).]
oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
what major were you?
I like anoymonity in tacit. although if you did enough searching you probably could figure out who i was. lets just say i was in the college of science (that narrows it to biology, chemistry, physics)
oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Also, bringing the Holocaust deniers in to this and comparing Global Warming skeptics to them is rather misleading
it is an analogy. hot is to stove as cold is to frezzer. they don't equate.

quote:
Also, bringing the Holocaust deniers in to this and comparing Global Warming skeptics to them is rather misleading. The Holocaust had proof -- over six million corpses "mysteriously appearing" in various camps
global temperatures are clearly rising. carbon dioxide is clearly rising. and carbon dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. what could be the cause of the spike in carbon dioxide. clarly it cant be the billions of metric tons that we pump into the air every year, or the mass deforestation that we do.

quote:
Global Warming is NOT proven as fact
global warming IS a proven fact. mans impact is more debatable.

[This message has been edited by oldag07 (edited 8/6/2007 10:15a).]
Bismarck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
what else changed in the last 100 years that could be causing the observed global warming?



100 years is hardly a representative sampling of what is "normal" for the Earth's climate. If we took that same 100 years 20,000 years ago I would think that ice covering most of North America was normal. Do you know what you find out when you examine the geological records? Ice caps and glaciers are not normal. The majority of the time our planet has been too warm for this to occur. Clearly this was due to the massive carbon emissions from dinosaur industrial complex. Listen, we live on a planet where the environment is not static and any number of things effect the climate. Humanity is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I support cleaning up pollution for the sake of public health but I don't think worrying about global warming is worth our time.

By the way, why are you so worried about the ice caps melting anyways? People will migrate to Greenland, Alaska, Siberia, Canada, Scandinavia, and Antarctica. Life will go on.

[This message has been edited by Toni Reauxmeaux (edited 8/6/2007 10:41a).]
Geophysics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I like anoymonity in tacit.

It'd be nice if you saved me the trouble of "searching" to cure you of your anonymity.
quote:
it is an analogy.

Not a very good one.

Don't take my quotes out of context, pal. Re-read that line:
quote:
CO2 causing Global Warming is NOT proven as fact


CO2 levels have been in a constant climb for hundreds of years, and temperature has been rising since before we were chugging out CO2. The difference is that the temperature didn't follow the CO2 trend. The 1940s-1970s were characterized by a cooling slump, but following the baby boomer generation, CO2 emissions kicked in to overdrive. Things aren't lining up, y'know...
oldag07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
100 years is hardly a representative sampling of what is "normal" for the Earth's climate.
correct. actually at worse, global warming will put us into a state much like the earth is normally. all 6 billion years of our history. oil/coal is created from the carbon remains of organisms of the past. the carbon simply is being put back into the atmosphere from it the past, a time when the earth was hotter than it is today. Climate is a funny thing. as mentioned earlier, forests do emit water vapor. in temperate regions this has a massive effect on climate. actually in the 1700's weather up north was warmer than it is today, at least in the winter. with less water vapor in the air, a huge contributor to the greenhouse gas effect, temperatures in the winters became colder than average. of course this is a local effect. deforestation could be an explanation for the drop in temperatures at the beginning of the industrial age. however, forests today in the temperate regions of the planet are not being cut in mass numbers. they, however in tropical areas are being cut wholesale.

btw, a real scientific journal: The abstract.
quote:
Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important. Although there has been progress in monitoring and understanding climate change, there remain many scientific, technical, and institutional impediments to precisely planning for, adapting to, and mitigating the effects of climate change. There is still considerable uncertainty about the rates of change that can be expected, but it is clear that these changes will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways, such as changes in extremes of temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and perennial snow and ice extent, and sea level rise. Anthropogenic climate change is now likely to continue for many centuries. We are venturing into the unknown with climate, and its associated impacts could be quite disruptive.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5651/1719

[This message has been edited by oldag07 (edited 8/6/2007 11:02a).]
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, lets all get our panties in a wad, and waste VAST amounts of effort and resources trying to freeze the global climate as it is today because:

1. We are so sure this is THE ideal climate that was meant to exist at all times, and mother nature and man just keep screwing it up.

2. It is really worth the expenditure of resources to try to settle the climate in this small range because we are SO sure how every intricate element and mechanism that influences global and regional climates work that we could not possibly just be deluding ourselves and wasting time and effort better spent adapting and dealing with other shorter term problems that we CAN practically do something about.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And as supporting evidence, here is a nice chart of estimated global temperature versus estimated global temperature based on the geological and fossil records available..



Overall, it looks like carbon is an unreliable or erractic indicator of temperature, to say the least, and that the earth is getting much much colder in the last few millenia than the mean....perhaps you could say we NEED a bit more heat to get back to the mean.
Page 1 of 5
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.