Weather Patterns / Climate Change

[anjou]

In plain English, just for the record
I believe there is climate change. Too much smoke not to be a fire.

Im NOT convinced the cause is wholy man made. It is in part but not entirely. No one thing alone causes climate change and because climates on earth have changed for millenia, it doesnt follow that man is totally responsible.

Some governments responses to it are misplaced ie new green taxes, while other countries go on polluting and our green taxes force the jobs to go to the polluters.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by anjou

In plain English, just for the record
I believe there is climate change. Too much smoke not to be a fire.

Im NOT convinced the cause is wholy man made. It is in part but not entirely. No one thing alone causes climate change and because climates on earth have changed for millenia, it doesnt follow that man is totally responsible.

Some governments responses to it are misplaced ie new green taxes, while other countries go on polluting and our green taxes force the jobs to go to the polluters.

A very balanced approach - not unlike my own feelings on the subject. See - I can also be agreeable.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Science isn't like politics or art, where everyone's opinion is arguably equal. If you seek to refute a theory, you need a scientific theory of your own that better explains the data. We don't see that, either from the few scientists deniers or from the much larger lay audience of deniers.

No scientific dissention at all. Welcome to the Copenhagen Climate Challenge Web Site

[Liam Wald]

There are many who believe that there is global warming but that it is not caused by man and that is exactly why it will never be corrected.
98% of environmental scientists (the other 2% work for oil companies) insist that it is caused by man as the evidence that corralates global warming to the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels is irrefutable.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

No scientific dissention at all. Welcome to the Copenhagen Climate Challenge Web Site

Firstly, I didn't say there wasn't dissention. I did say there is no other scientific theory that explains the data so well as the one that has become mainstream.

Secondly, this is a fly-by-night denier site. I picked one name - totally at random - and found this:

Professor denies global warming theory - The Daily Princetonian

Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore ...

... Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit conservative think tank known for its attempts to highlight uncertainties about causes of global warming.

Is it politics or is it science? You have to ask yourself why a scientist gets himself so squarely involved in a "conservative think tank".

I think if you google some of the other names - almost none of them climate scientists, btw - you might be equally surprised.

[Ocean Girl]

Interesting write up by the weather underground's Jeff Masters, here is the link if you are interested. I agree with Anjou, something is definitly going down, it may be the normal cycle of the earths seasons or it may be man made, either way we need to explore and learn about what is going on.
Cheers,
Erika

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

Interesting write up by the weather underground's Jeff Masters, here is the link if you are interested. I agree with Anjou, something is definitly going down, it may be the normal cycle of the earths seasons or it may be man made, either way we need to explore and learn about what is going on.
Cheers,
Erika

And, it even mention's Happer's think tank.

[KestrelBuck]

Something more for you all to think about:
Oxygen makes up 21% of the atmosphere. We breath this stuff. At present CO2 makes up .038% of the air we breath. At concentrations of 1% CO2 becomes toxic. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 2.5% per year. If we do nothing then the atmosphere will become toxic to humans in about 130 years. It won't affect me, but my great grandchildren might object.

[James S]

I really don’t give a **** what caused it.
Can/do we try and do something about it!
Or, accept to evolve with it, and leave it all up to “let nature take its course”?

[gosstyla]

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.

This chart shows how global climate has changed through time.

Don't believe many people doubt there is climate change or even global warming considering within the next 1,000,000,000 years or so all life on earth is expect to cease as the earth warms due to the sun's expansion.

However, do believe there are many of us that are not convinced of the current popular "climate change" and "global warming" or that if it does exist that mans' most effective response might be to adapt.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by gosstyla

During the last 2 billion years the Earth's climate has alternated between a frigid "Ice House", like today's world, and a steaming "Hot House", like the world of the dinosaurs.

This chart shows how global climate has changed through time.

Don't believe many people doubt there is climate change or even global warming considering within the next 1,000,000,000 years or so all life on earth is expect to cease as the earth warms due to the sun's expansion.

However, do believe there are many of us that are not convinced of the current popular "climate change" and "global warming" or that if it does exist that mans' most effective response might be to adapt.

And for most of earth's history, human life was not possible. What's your point? No one denies there is a natural variability, a very wide one at that over geologic time. The thing that's missing from this graph is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Liam Wald]

If GOSSTYLA is correct (and possibly may be) than there is absolutely nothing that can be done except wait for human extinction.
That is really good news for those who are wanting to continue their destructively selfish lifestyles.
It is also good news for the planet which will be none the worse for our demise. In fact, better off.
I wouldn't worry too much about the expansion of the sun. For that matter I wouldn't really worry too much about global warming since we will run out of food and clean water way before either of those become a problem. Few life forms have adapted to a no food or water condition.
Consider the population growth curves and projections. Anyone care to guess what life will be like in a hundred years?

[Liam Wald]

Consider the population growth curves and projections. Anyone care to guess what life will be like in a hundred years?

PS: make your best guess based on someone NOT "going rogue" with nuclear weapons in the meantime.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Happer served as director of the Office of Energy Research in the U.S. Department of Energy under President George H.W. Bush and was subsequently fired by Vice President Al Gore ...

... Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit conservative think tank known for its attempts to highlight uncertainties about causes of global warming.

Is it politics or is it science? You have to ask yourself why a scientist gets himself so squarely involved in a "conservative think tank".

I think if you google some of the other names - almost none of them climate scientists, btw - you might be equally surprised.

William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling), Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate change research), Member - National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA

Sounds like he's qualified. Fired by Gore because he didn't share Gore's point of view - that's politics.

If you don't accept think tanks, then what do you think of the IPCC? It is after all a think tank.

Feel free to dig into the qualifications of the IPCC members - you might be equally surprised by how few are climate scientists.

[Bash]

the ipcc is comprised of members appointed by governments and non-governmental organizations. it does not conduct independent research. it's not a think tank in the sense that think tanks exist to generate ideas. rather, its mission is to assess the research being conducted within the scientific community on behalf of the United Nations. three work groups are assigned to these assessments. group #1 assesses the science of climate change. group #2 assesses the vulnerability of systems to climate change. group #3 assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change.

to label it a "think tank" is to misunderstand its function. it's a panel. half of its members are governmental representatives, and the other half are distinguished experts.