Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[Unter_Dog]

It seems like you have all the right answers, never mind that the US consumes ridiculous amounts of water, energy and resources...beyond what is needed.
The US is an economic powerhouse, because it's one of the largest first world nations on earth, with plenty of natural resources (so far) and a large production of goods (which is going in a downward spiral)

You are pretty good at dodging the hard questions, it's always about how great you are doing NOW...I'm a bit more worried about the future, but I hope you enjoyed your 7" of rain.

production of goods spiraling......http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimed...jpg?uuid=12753a28-f2a5-11e5-908d-0015c588dfa6 (fastest link i could find at midnight)

just production of crap anybody can make and high labor mfg are spiraling

I do totally agree that the US Suburb heavy model is wasteful versus the European multi family model

 

[SK-1]

The more I look at this one, the more I laugh and smh..The graph is incredibly misleading... and short in terms of geological history, it commits the same "hockey stick" error for which Al Gore was infamous. We've been exiting an ice age during the entire timespan covered by this infographic, which is the other reason it's deceptive. And the rapid off shoots at the bottom are merely projections! Give me a break man! Lol. The SKY IS FALLING!! (maybe? xD) For most of Earth's history, the temperature has been warmer, and sea levels have been higher than they are right now. You can try again, though, climate alarmists. I'm sure plenty of sheeple will lap this nonsense right up.

People are starting to come around!! Light at the end of the tunnel!
Sarkozy comes out of the closet as a climate skeptic
“Climate has been changing for four billion years,” the former president said according to AFP. “Sahara has become a desert, it isn’t because of industry. You need to be as arrogant as men are to believe we changed the climate.”
http://www.thelocal.fr/20160915/sarkozy-turns-climate-sceptic-in-battle-for-the-elyse

 

[AphexDreamer]

Not surprised in the least. The Global Warming Movement is nothing than a fuckn Money Grab anyway you look at it.

Does that some how negate the fact that global warming is happening and its occurring at a faster pace due to anthropogenic means?

The more I look at this one, the more I laugh and smh..The graph is incredibly misleading... and short in terms of geological history, it commits the same "hockey stick" error for which Al Gore was infamous. We've been exiting an ice age during the entire timespan covered by this infographic, which is the other reason it's deceptive. And the rapid off shoots at the bottom are merely projections! Give me a break man! Lol. The SKY IS FALLING!! (maybe? xD) For most of Earth's history, the temperature has been warmer, and sea levels have been higher than they are right now. You can try again, though, climate alarmists. I'm sure plenty of sheeple will lap this nonsense right up.

People are starting to come around!! Light at the end of the tunnel!
“Climate has been changing for four billion years,” the former president said according to AFP. “Sahara has become a desert, it isn’t because of industry. You need to be as arrogant as men are to believe we changed the climate.”
http://www.thelocal.fr/20160915/sarkozy-turns-climate-sceptic-in-battle-for-the-elyse

The more I look at this one, the more I laugh and smh..The graph is incredibly misleading... and short in terms of geological history, it commits the same "hockey stick" error for which Al Gore was infamous. We've been exiting an ice age during the entire timespan covered by this infographic, which is the other reason it's deceptive. And the rapid off shoots at the bottom are merely projections! Give me a break man! Lol. The SKY IS FALLING!! (maybe? xD) For most of Earth's history, the temperature has been warmer, and sea levels have been higher than they are right now. You can try again, though, climate alarmists. I'm sure plenty of sheeple will lap this nonsense right up.

People are starting to come around!! Light at the end of the tunnel!
Sarkozy comes out of the closet as a climate skeptic
“Climate has been changing for four billion years,” the former president said according to AFP. “Sahara has become a desert, it isn’t because of industry. You need to be as arrogant as men are to believe we changed the climate.”
http://www.thelocal.fr/20160915/sarkozy-turns-climate-sceptic-in-battle-for-the-elyse

I think your missing the point.

At least what my point is.

Temperatures matter. I think we can agree on that much at least? If things ever got too hot that would suck or if things got too cold that would suck too.

Earth has been really hot before and really cold before, we agree on that.
The earth has also been changing temps on its own for all its life, I also agree with this. At least on its own meaning through natural means, like sun, orbits, its own atmosphere and its own volcanic explosions and meteors and what not.

However, that tiny curve you see at the end, that is the point. That projection which is the dashed part (not the solid black line) is a the most likely path although sure not guaranteed.

But take a real good look at that solid line, the solid black one, that indicates that there is some sort of influence to the way we know temps to fluctuate normally by natural means alone.

Now what we can do is say, oh ok, something is cause the temps to rises faster than they should. Lets turn to nature and see what is causing it. So we have, and we can't find a source to explain it naturally and accurately as it is. If you know of a source and have evidence that shows that a natural source would cause temps to rise as quickly as they are then please share it with scientists around the world but be prepared to have it falsified, because that is what scientists do. Scientists earn more recognition and fame for proving something to be false than they do for showing a claim to be true.

So if you think you have data and evidence to show that the warming is certainly and unquestionably done naturally you have a moral obligation to share it.

 

[Ahhzz]

Please. As is always the case, data and evidence are not the word of the day. He's using Sarkozy as a reference point??

 

[dorsetknob]

He's using Sarkozy as a reference point??

Please Please You Cannot use Sarkozy as a reference point he is just to Small

 

[Bones]

Does that some how negate the fact that global warming is happening and its occurring at a faster pace due to anthropogenic means?



I think your missing the point.

At least what my point is.

Temperatures matter. I think we can agree on that much at least? If things ever got too hot that would suck or if things got too cold that would suck too.

Earth has been really hot before and really cold before, we agree on that.
The earth has also been changing temps on its own for all its life, I also agree with this. At least on its own meaning through natural means, like sun, orbits, its own atmosphere and its own volcanic explosions and meteors and what not.

However, that tiny curve you see at the end, that is the point. That projection which is the dashed part (not the solid black line) is a the most likely path although sure not guaranteed.

But take a real good look at that solid line, the solid black one, that indicates that there is some sort of influence to the way we know temps to fluctuate normally by natural means alone.

Now what we can do is say, oh ok, something is cause the temps to rises faster than they should. Lets turn to nature and see what is causing it. So we have, and we can't find a source to explain it naturally and accurately as it is. If you know of a source and have evidence that shows that a natural source would cause temps to rise as quickly as they are then please share it with scientists around the world but be prepared to have it falsified, because that is what scientists do. Scientists earn more recognition and fame for proving something to be false than they do for showing a claim to be true.

So if you think you have data and evidence to show that the warming is certainly and unquestionably done naturally you have a moral obligation to share it.

Here's an article on that which states these periods of both, global warming and cooling do occur naturally for the following reason(s).
https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/

Be sure to read the entire article top to bottom.

This has been going on since the sun has been shining so this thing about "Global Warming" being caused solely by man is BS. 100 years or so isn't nearly enough time to gather any meaningful data to truly state it's for the reasons said to be causing it - With the age of the earth being what it is, the period of time since the industrial age began is barely even noticeable.
It's also known we've been warming up since records began to be kept anyway, this period starting not long at all after the ending of the little ice age so if basing things from that point of time you will see temps climbing overall up until today. With this recent forecast of expected solar activity we may well see a reversal in temp trends but only for a small amount of time.

 

[AphexDreamer]

If we can't rely on data and evidence then what can we rely on? And whatever that may be can it be more reliable than data and evidence?

So yea I've heard of the Maunder Minimum, but the change in suns output during a solar minimum is well... minimal. I encourage you to look and see by how much the suns output of solar radiation increase and decrease during any stage of its life cycles. We are talking about 0.25 percent difference. The Suns output is quite stable. Check out the suns TSI.

In terms of the Maunder Minimum and the mini ice age it isn't conclusive as to what caused the ice age to begin with. Some speculate a huge volcano eruption but we don't know for sure.

Also note that the current speculation is of a volcanic eruption. Hinting that it was a change in the earths atmosphere that would be necessary to cause such an event.

Think about what would happen if we covered the Earth in a giant sheet of metal just around the exosphere or if we put the Earth in a glass globe do you think that would effect the temps in any way?

Might be an interesting test to try at home although not easy and this is pretty much what computer simulations do just in greater details taking into account albedo and what not. Take a glass globe and a light as a heating source. Play around with the idea of increasing the heating source by .25 percent up or down. Go crazy and increase the heating source by .7 percent. Try different size globes and different types of plastic or glass, have one clear with white spots. Have a way to measure the inside of it. See which effects it the most. The type of shielding (aka atmosphere), the sun light? Do both play an equal effect? Consider the known data of the sun, its variance and what we know of green house gases. Might not be totally indicative of the Earth's climate system but it would be interesting to try out.

 

[Bones]

If we can't rely on data and evidence then what can we rely on? And whatever that may be can it be more reliable than data and evidence?

What I said was there isn't yet enough recorded data, not that either evidence or data itself cannot be trusted.
If talking about periods such as the ice age for example from it's beginning to it's conclusion, the amount of accurately recorded data we have records of doesn't nearly stretch far enough to establish it as "So" for X reason(s) but we can and do observe the effects it had by said evidence.
The little ice age that occured in the 1600-1800's in itself isn't much of an indicator except that the sun went through a period of lesser solar output, that being a norm for it to do along it's life-cycle. Man wasn't a factor in that or in the eventual recovery of temps from that time onward, at least up until the late 1800's when data began to be gathered and kept.

Now..... To be fair I cannot say man himself isn't a factor in some way, that's certainly possible but do remember how powerful nature itself is - Just when you think you've beaten it, mother nature comes around and B-slaps you with how powerful we aren't, including how much influenence we really don't have.

She's gonna do what she's gonna do.
Just sayin....

So yea I've heard of the Maunder Minimum, but the change in suns output during a solar minimum is well... minimal. I encourage you to look and see by how much the suns output of solar radiation increase and decrease during any stage of its life cycles. We are talking about 0.25 percent difference. The Suns output is quite stable. Check out the suns TSI.

In terms of the Maunder Minimum and the mini ice age it isn't conclusive as to what caused the ice age to begin with. Some speculate a huge volcano eruption but we don't know for sure.

Also note that the current speculation is of a volcanic eruption. Hinting that it was a change in the earths atmosphere that would be necessary to cause such an event.

Think about what would happen if we covered the Earth in a giant sheet of metal just around the exosphere or if we put the Earth in a glass globe do you think that would effect the temps in any way?

Might be an interesting test to try at home although not easy and this is pretty much what computer simulations do just in greater details taking into account albedo and what not. Take a glass globe and a light as a heating source. Play around with the idea of increasing the heating source by .25 percent up or down. Go crazy and increase the heating source by .7 percent. Try different size globes and different types of plastic or glass, have one clear with white spots. Have a way to measure the inside of it. See which effects it the most. The type of shielding (aka atmosphere), the sun light? Do both play an equal effect? Consider the known data of the sun, its variance and what we know of green house gases. Might not be totally indicative of the Earth's climate system but it would be interesting to try out.

Look up the effects that took place in 1883 when Krakatoa went off, we do have accurately recorded info on that proving what effects it had globally. BTW it is a proven fact when a volcano goes off it releases an insane amount of these gases, not much you can do about that and it goes on even today. However you are correct in that it could be a volcano went off and contributed to things as they were at that time. Too many "Could Be's" to nail it down to a singular cause or even specific multiple causes, until rock-solid proof comes up we really won't know what caused things to be as it was back then - All we have is speculation, nothing more.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Yea that comment on evidence and data was to Ahhzz above.

Yea but remember that speculation involves firm evidence.

It is true that if the sun were to get really intense we'd fry, really weak we'd freeze. But it is also true if we had a thick layer of CO2 or methane we'd be more like Venus or no atmosphere more like Mars. Now I'll admit both are not perfect examples. Since mars is already further from the sun it could be argued that it isn't the atmosphere but its distance from the sun. Or that Venus is closer to the sun and therefore hotter because of that.

But remember what are hottest planet is. It isn't Mercury, its Venus. Mercury is far closer to the sun than Venus yet it isn't the hottest? Why not?

Green house gases play a big role.
And simple logic dictates that if we fill the air up with more of them, something is going to happen? You could say yea but the atmosphere just farts it out or something. But it isn't. We can measure it and its climbing.

Make of it what you will...

 

[dorsetknob]

But remember what are hottest planet it. It isn't Mercury, its Venus. Mercury is far closer to the sun than Venus yet it isn't the hottest? Why not?

Mixture of geo magnetic fields atmosphere and planetary rotation all have an effect along with that lump of rock in orbit around the Earth ( Called the moon )

 

[Recon-UK]

All i know is i am British i can't do 30c, -2 - 15c is my comfy temp.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Mixture of geo magnetic fields atmosphere and planetary rotation all have an effect along with that lump of rock in orbit around the Earth ( Called the moon )

You mean the moon is blocking sun light?
By how much does the rotation of the planet effect the temperature of said planet?
Doesn't the magnetic field come from the planets rotation? So in essence you just mean planet rotation?

 

[dorsetknob]

No i don't

 

[AphexDreamer]

No i don't

Well alright then thank you this has been very productive

 

[dorsetknob]

A Geo magnetic field helps to stop the solar wind stripping Atmosphere
Example
earths liquid iron core creates and maintains earths geo magnetic Field and thus reduces erosion of the atmosphere by the Solar wind
mars by Contrast has virtualy no geomagnetic field and has lost most of its atmosphere over eons
As for the moon Blocking Sunlight ( and Radiation )
Let me Ask you have you experienced a total Solar Eclipse I have and i can assure you there is a noticeable Drop in Temp for the period of the Eclipse
Then there is that Rock we call the Moon
Its Gravity and earths Rotation Drag both the Atmosphere and the ocean causing Weather patterns around the world these weather patterns Distribute both hot and cold weather around the world In conjunction with
Earths Rotation resulting in Day Temps higher than Night ( that Damm sunlight and Radiation this time being blocked by planet Earth).

So as i Said

Mixture of geo magnetic fields atmosphere and planetary rotation all have an effect along with that lump of rock in orbit around the Earth ( Called the moon )

Now Did i really need to explain that to you
Are you now HAPPY i Explained my comment in this Draging on pointless thread!!!

 

[Recon-UK]

That all explains the tropical weather we had this week.
What a train wreck, 27c!!!!!!! i could cook you know!!!

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I blame @qubit

 

[Bones]

Yea that comment on evidence and data was to Ahhzz above.

I stand corrected and do apologize for that.

Yea but remember that speculation involves firm evidence.

Speculation is more of a guess than anything else in an attempt to provide some kind of explanation and it's not always based on firm evidence - That's why it's more of a guess than something concrete.

Can speculation actually be useful?
Why yes it can be as long as it's treated for what it is and nothing more. That's when the required step of proving it comes in and if proven then it's no longer speculation since speculation by it's very definition isn't proof of anything.

Do recall we "Knew" what dinosaurs for example looked like and it was said for many years that X dinosaur looked like "This" and that..... Then more evidence came into play and changed things around. These appearances they thought were correct were based on speculation derived from what was understood at the time concerning things such as basic anatomy yet over the course of time were proven incorrect. Even now these definitions could be changed yet again because more knowlege gained could eventually prove these changes to be correct or at least closer to what really was.

Even Einstein's theories are now being called into question in some ways now because of what has been learned since he stated his theories - Although these have been used repeatedly as they were stated some are now beginning to see evidence (Speculate) about at least some of it not being exactly "Correct". The more we learn and discover the more past theories will change since theories are based on knowlege held at the time such speculation is made.

Another good example is electricity itself - It was thought for years it moved from positive to negative yet the opposite was eventually proven true (Neg to Pos) BUT it's still thought of and taught that way because it "Works".

It is true that if the sun were to get really intense we'd fry, really weak we'd freeze. But it is also true if we had a thick layer of CO2 or methane we'd be more like Venus or no atmosphere more like Mars. Now I'll admit both are not perfect examples. Since mars is already further from the sun it could be argued that it isn't the atmosphere but its distance from the sun. Or that Venus is closer to the sun and therefore hotter because of that.But remember what are hottest planet is. It isn't Mercury, its Venus.
Mercury is far closer to the sun than Venus yet it isn't the hottest? Why not?

Mercury has no atmosphere of any kind to either help insulate it either for or against heat - Venus does.

Green house gases play a big role.
And simple logic dictates that if we fill the air up with more of them, something is going to happen? You could say yea but the atmosphere just farts it out or something. But it isn't. We can measure it and its climbing.

Make of it what you will...

I do.... And I say there are simply too many external factors at work to go chalking it up to a singular thing as what's said about greenhouse gases specifically being "It" and it alone..... Logic sometimes may dictate one thing but reality makes it another. Sorry but it's nothing but BS to me - Speculation proves nothing, theories themselves can only suggest but not provide any real proof.
Done.

 

[AphexDreamer]

I stand corrected and do apologize for that.


Speculation is more of a guess than anything else in an attempt to provide some kind of explanation and it's not always based on firm evidence - That's why it's more of a guess than something concrete.

Can speculation actually be useful?
Why yes it can be as long as it's treated for what it is and nothing more. That's when the required step of proving it comes in and if proven then it's no longer speculation since speculation by it's very definition isn't proof of anything.

Do recall we "Knew" what dinosaurs for example looked like and it was said for many years that X dinosaur looked like "This" and that..... Then more evidence came into play and changed things around. These appearances they thought were correct were based on speculation derived from what was understood at the time concerning things such as basic anatomy yet over the course of time were proven incorrect. Even now these definitions could be changed yet again because more knowlege gained could eventually prove these changes to be correct or at least closer to what really was.

Even Einstein's theories are now being called into question in some ways now because of what has been learned since he stated his theories - Although these have been used repeatedly as they were stated some are now beginning to see evidence (Speculate) about at least some of it not being exactly "Correct". The more we learn and discover the more past theories will change since theories are based on knowlege held at the time such speculation is made.

Another good example is electricity itself - It was thought for years it moved from positive to negative yet the opposite was eventually proven true (Neg to Pos) BUT it's still thought of and taught that way because it "Works".



Mercury has no atmosphere of any kind to either help insulate it either for or against heat - Venus does.



I do.... And I say there are simply too many external factors at work to go chalking it up to a singular thing as what's said about greenhouse gases specifically being "It" and it alone..... Logic sometimes may dictate one thing but reality makes it another. Sorry but it's nothing but BS to me - Speculation proves nothing, theories themselves can only suggest but not provide any real proof.
Done.

Hmm. I mean theories are based on real proof. At least scientific theories like Evolution and Gravity. Its not really meant to go the other way around at least in science. You don't say a theory and then go out to set it right. You observe document record, analyze and all the information you collect suggest a reason why, that why is the theory. If I make a guess and provide no real proof its just a guess. But a guess is not a speculation and its not a theory. They are not all the same thing. A speculation made without any evidence isn't a speculation. If I say the sun is going to explode tomorrow and show nothing for it its just a crazy guess. If I say its going to rain tomorrow because the air pressure is rising and I can see rain clouds forming than that is a speculation.

Let me ask you this.

Would any amount of evidence change your mind about anthropogenic climate change?

 

[Bones]

Hmm. I mean theories are based on real proof. At least scientific theories like Evolution and Gravity. Its not really meant to go the other way around at least in science. You don't say a theory and then go out to set it right. You observe document record, analyze and all the information you collect suggest a reason why, that why is the theory.

I agree - You first come up with a hypothesis/idea as to what you are trying to define in the first place because if you don't know that then what are you doing?
Next, speculation about the idea is done to try and sort out the what's, how's and why's including what to look for and how to go about looking for it, all this affecting the next step.

Formulate, observe, gather data, record data, establish a baseline for said data by reviewing it, test to confirm baseline is good for starting reference and retest again.... And again..... And again while recording what actually happens then review it against the baseline to see if and what changes took place, make notes of these changes, double-check and record that data, restest yet again as before.... It goes on and on.
It's not about making anything "Right" because that means you've already decided what is and is not to yourself if you try and do this. Unfortunately some scientists actually do just that (They are human you know) and yes it happens on both sides of the ball.

If I make a guess and provide no real proof its just a guess. But a guess is not a speculation and its not a theory. They are not all the same thing. A speculation made without any evidence isn't a speculation. If I say the sun is going to explode tomorrow and show nothing for it its just a crazy guess. If I say its going to rain tomorrow because the air pressure is rising and I can see rain clouds forming than that is a speculation.

That depends on one's meaning of it as spoken or the symantics of it, context could also be something to consider if it's being used the same or differently.

I could say it's gonna rain tomorrow with the same observations you've made but do I mean where I am or just somewhere closeby.... Or maybe just somewhere in the world itself? (Context used for the statement)
I could also say the sun will go up tomorrow as you have.... Personally I do doubt it myself but then again do you or even I "REALLY KNOW"?
Of course not.

Let me ask you this.

Would any amount of evidence change your mind about anthropogenic climate change?

Depends on the evidence and I don't mean fancy charts and what-not because I can make those to support my view all day long and call it "Evidence" which it would not be.... Let me go out and see it for myself, up close and firsthand.

 

[qubit]

Hmm. I mean theories are based on real proof. At least scientific theories like Evolution and Gravity. Its not really meant to go the other way around at least in science. You don't say a theory and then go out to set it right. You observe document record, analyze and all the information you collect suggest a reason why, that why is the theory. If I make a guess and provide no real proof its just a guess. But a guess is not a speculation and its not a theory. They are not all the same thing. A speculation made without any evidence isn't a speculation. If I say the sun is going to explode tomorrow and show nothing for it its just a crazy guess. If I say its going to rain tomorrow because the air pressure is rising and I can see rain clouds forming than that is a speculation.

Let me ask you this.

Would any amount of evidence change your mind about anthropogenic climate change?

That's quite true about what a theory is. Shame the general population doesn't tend to understand this and accuse someone of having a "theory" in an attempt to downplay or destroy there opponent's argument's credibility, which is really stupid.

I'd just like to add that there is such a thing as a theory without evidence in science: it's called a hypothesis. These are still more than wild guesses though like one might have in a casual conversation.

A hypothesis will involve a good amount of logical reasoning, based on some observed phenomena and may quite often include complex mathematics, which may have been peer reviewed. A great example of a hypothesis is the well known "string theory".

While there's lots of high level maths to suggest that this could be real, there's absolutely zero observational evidence of it due to the difficulty of testing it. It would really be better to call it the string hypothesis, but it's probably a bit too awkward to say "hypothesis" every time, kind of a tongue twister, lol. Scientists still understand it to be a hypothesis though and generally don't go round in circles over it with believers making up strawman arguments.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Depends on the evidence and I don't mean fancy charts and what-not because I can make those to support my view all day long and call it "Evidence" which it would not be.... Let me go out and see it for myself, up close and firsthand.

What do you mean by up close and firsthand?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

That's quite true about what a theory is. Shame the general population doesn't tend to understand this and accuse someone of having a "theory" in an attempt to downplay or destroy there opponent's argument's credibility, which is really stupid.

I think they understand very well that chaos is nature and nature is chaos. Until something happens that can be directly attributed to global climate change (e.g. sea level rising) and it happens at a pace is that is clearly threatening (e.g. NYC permanently under water in five years), they just don't care (and why should they? worrying about something these individuals have no control over borders on insanity). For most people, putting food on the table and paying the bills are far more pressing matters than doom and gloom fear monger products and services.

TL;DR: Your average person doesn't care about the science behind it--only how it impacts them now or in the immediate future.


Case in point: that lawsuit/CNN article I linked to. The "general population" doesn't blame that Louisiana August flooding on "climate change." That's just weather. "Climate change" in a lot of ways, has become a scapegoat and/or substitute for "act of god."

 

[qubit]

I think they understand very well that chaos is nature and nature is chaos. Until something happens that can be directly attributed to global climate change (e.g. sea level rising) and it happens at a pace is that is clearly threatening (e.g. NYC permanently under water in five years), they just don't care (and why should they? worrying about something these individuals have no control over borders on insanity). For most people, putting food on the table and paying the bills are far more pressing matters than doom and gloom fear monger products and services.

TL;DR: Your average person doesn't care about the science behind it--only how it impacts them now or in the immediate future.


Case in point: that lawsuit/CNN article I linked to. The "general population" doesn't blame that Louisiana August flooding on "climate change." That's just weather. "Climate change" in a lot of ways, has become a scapegoat and/or substitute for "act of god."

I wasn't actually talking about the meaning of theory in response to climate change so much, as simply the way the word is used and understood, but I can see why in the context of this thread you'd think I did. I think if this misconception could be corrected for most people, it would help somewhat with getting people to understand real science and real facts instead of believing in garbage like young earth creationism and flat earth which just retards mankind's overall knowledge and technical progress and is hence a

Anyway, in the context of the thread, I think it's undeniable now that the climate is changing. However, how much of it is man made? I still dunno, because there are so many vested interests with money to try and make us think one way or another that the science can be corrupted and I'm sure has been to some extent. Therefore, it's hard to trust the data that people keep posting up on here and elsewehere.

Just thinking about it logically though, mankind is spewing out an ever increasing amount of carbon dioxide and other crap into the atmosphere, as well as felling the all important rainforests. On top of that, this has been going on for the last 2-300 years since the industrial revolution, so it stands to reason that the earth's climate will be affected eventually and that eventually seems to be right now. Hence, I think that mankind is at least partially responsible for this global warming / climate change, with perhaps the rest of it being the planet's natural cycle. However, we're apparently actually headed for another ice age, making mankind's effect much bigger than it seems at first glance, if true.

 

[magibeg]

I still don't know why this thread continues to rage on, 99% of the arguments thrown around in here don't actually explain the changes occurring. It's so simple....

1. The solar radiance of the sun is a known value, it doesn't explain the changes.... and it couldn't anyway because
2. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling, it's only the troposphere that is warming because
3. The albedo of the earth at the frequencies that CO2 reflects light is changing, so less energy at those wave lengths are being released into space. So less energy is being reflected back through the upper atmosphere.

I have yet to see an argument from those that disagree with the climate scientists that have a valid explanation for why the upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming, and the sun can be ruled out as a factor. And to please Ford, I will note that yes, frequencies which interact with methane have also been greatly affected.

The final fun fact is that using math, scientists can actually calculate how much energy is hitting the earth from the sun (the sun's radiance, the earths atmosphere, and the earths average albedo are all known values) and how much is being reflecting back into space.

And before the pedantic squad jumps on me, yes, the scientists know the earths climate is always changing.... they're the ones who discovered it.