Your views on climate change

[TOMAIANIA]

i agree and in the future when most of the co2 is naturally recycled into the earth people will realise this truth.
and the cycle will continue (come out of the earth and then back in naturallly).

[TOMAIANIA]

so to sum it up:
huamans only 0.8% of the total c02 emitted
oliptical orbits (the distance from the sun) pruduce a colling and heating periods every 100 years or so
during the life of dinosuars co2 was 3 times higher
previous history was hotter
the earth produces the rest of the co2
co2 is recycled naturally
coal is running out
new tech have been invented (renewable)
co2 isnt the main corse (oliptical orbits are)
tempertures fluctuate

[Kemal Ataturks left sock]

We have an effect on the climate, to say the actions of 7 billion humans, particularly those with cars, operating factories, flying in planes etc has no effect on the evironment is arrogant and moronic, but I definitely think natural fluctuation and sunspots play a pretty large part too.

[Free Soviets]

so to sum it up:
huamans only 0.8% of the total c02 emitted

incorrect and false. you mean of the total flow of CO2 in and out of the atmosphere. but who gives a shit about that? its all about the equilibrium.

suppose you run a warehouse. this warehouse can hold 1000 pallets of stuff. your business is currently such that each day about 500 pallets arrive and 500 pallets leave, and there are 950 pallets sitting in it each night. this can go on indefinitely.

now suppose that one of the companies you receive stuff from starts shipping you one extra pallet a week. there is no equivalent uptick in stuff being shipped out though. what happens? well, instead of 3500 pallets being received each week, you now have 3501. a 0.03% increase. that's nothing, right? except that this means that at the end of each week you have one extra pallet in your warehouse - only 3500 are leaving while 3501 are arriving. which means that your warehouse is holding 951 after the first week, 952 after the second, etc. and by the end of the year, you either have to have some sort of a 'get this shit out of my warehouse!' sale or you'll need a bigger warehouse.

back in terms of carbon, there is a huge amount of natural flow in and out of the atmosphere, sure. the photosynthesis/respiration exchange is absolutely massive. but, and this is the important bit, we are digging up carbon that has been buried for millions of years and adding it to the system. new pallets for the carbon warehouse. we don't have the option of moving to a bigger facility - and even if we did it wouldn't solve the problem.

oliptical orbits (the distance from the sun) pruduce a colling and heating periods every 100 years or so

no.

during the life of dinosuars co2 was 3 times higher

no, it was much higher than that. and temperatures were correspondingly much higher. if we hit hothouse-type temps, our entire civilization collapses and we'll be lucky to survive at all.

co2 isnt the main corse (oliptical orbits are)

the is demonstrably false.

[Arkinesia]

I'm highly sceptical of human-caused climate change.

In fact, I'm sceptical the world is even warming...I'm thinking more of a global cooling to come.

Too bad, the planet disagrees with you. So does nearly the entire scientific community.

Even the vast majority of anthropogenic deniers will tell you the world is warming.

[Thalam]

This is another red herring, similar to the one saying that the overall contribution of greenhouse gases by humanity is small. Yes, the temperature in the past has been higher, and yes, the temperature naturally fluctuates. This does not in any way provide evidence that humans are not contributing to current warming, or that simply because the earth may not get as hot as it has in the past, that a rise of one or two degrees C will not be devastating for our current environment or way of life.

The fact that it has been higher in recent past, does in fact show that current tempreature is natural, unless you belive somehow humans released huge Carbon Dioxide about 10,000 years ago. The fact that it has been higher in recent past, does in fact show that current tempreature is The fact that it has been higher in recent past, does in fact show that current temperature is

10,000 years ago the earth was coming out of a glacial period. We are still in an interglacial, and the temperature is rising at a much faster rate and much higher than it did then, or in previous interglacials.

[Salandriagado]

so to sum it up:
huamans only 0.8% of the total c02 emitted
oliptical orbits (the distance from the sun) pruduce a colling and heating periods every 100 years or so
during the life of dinosuars co2 was 3 times higher
previous history was hotter
the earth produces the rest of the co2
co2 is recycled naturally
coal is running out
new tech have been invented (renewable)
co2 isnt the main corse (oliptical orbits are)
tempertures fluctuate

In order: blatantly false, not true, garbage, on occasion, meaningless, true but we're stopping it, true, true, incorrect (running out of ways to say "false" now), true but misrepresented and irrelevant.

[Coccygia]

If Global Climate Change is a hoax, it's the biggest hoax since the Holocaust*. Supposedly scientists are risking their careers (which is what you're doing if you falsify research) to get government grants. So why is the government doing it? 'Cause Obama be a Muslim and totally ebil?

And this guff about us being in an "interglacial period" may be technically true but is entirely irrelevant. Words do not create a reality.

*Irony. The holocaust is not a hoax. Just so nobody accuses me of being a Holocaust denier.

[Saiwania]

I don't believe in global warming and see no reason too. I would if Greenland actually becomes green.

[DaWoad]

so to sum it up:
huamans only 0.8% of the total c02 emitted

would you like to know what would happen if you increased the total volume of water in the world by 0.8% all at once? nothing good .. . because of this thing called (wait for it) equilibrium.

oliptical orbits (the distance from the sun) pruduce a colling and heating periods every 100 years or so

that's not true. Just flat out false

during the life of dinosuars co2 was 3 times higher

[citation needed] moreover, We're . . . Not. . . .Dinosaurs

previous history was hotter

yes, occasionally, and it was also either a) catastrophic for various species or B) over such long periods of time that species had time to adapt.

the earth produces the rest of the co2

produces and consumes but when you simultaneously down consumption (bye forests and various other carbon sinks) and up production (hello cities) there be problems.

co2 is recycled naturally

yes. Exactly my point.

coal is running out

yep

new tech have been invented (renewable)

some, they're not effective enough to take over at this time

co2 isnt the main corse (oliptical orbits are)

it provably is

tempertures fluctuate

yes, not usually this much in this short a time when a cooling period was due though.

[Independant States of America]

My question:

Are human actions causing or contributing to a current climate change emergency?

My answer:

No one knows. It is as simple as that. No scientific evidence has been discovered to which positively points to man's contribution to climate change in total or even in part.

Free Soviets wrote:

"yes. this is not in question. in order for us to be wrong about this, we have to be wrong about basic facts of chemistry and physics, and we must be fundamentally incapable of measuring energy flows and carbon isotopes. there is no doubt that human impacts loom large."

My Response:

Free Soviets is taking a few liberties with scientific facts here. While we indeed can accurately measure energy transfer as well as the ratio of carbon isotopes, the data gathered in doing so simply does not produce any evidence that would scientifically prove any amount of human contribution to climate change. As my respondant to my post seems to be intelligent and possibly even knowledgable in these applied sciences, he knows as well as I do that this is the case. However like many well meaning researchers in this field, my respondant seems to take scientific data and make it into evidence that quite simply requires some conjecture, forcasting, and theory rather than relying on the hard scientific facts shown by such data. My answer was, and is, objective to the facts only, without any of the possible theories or conjecture that can be attributed to such data.

My statement:

We do not know if humans have any impact on the climate. We simply do not have enough scientific data to form a definate scientific conclusion. And that is that. There are some indicators among the data that humans indeed may have some degree of impact, and yet other indicators that point to little or no human impact at all. We just don't know. And, at this time, until we have enough data required to form an absolute scientific conclusion, the facts remain we just do not know how much, if any, impact mankind has on the climate of this planet.

[AustriaHungaryBohemia]

I don't believe in global warming and see no reason too. I would if Greenland actually becomes green.

But that's exactly what's happening:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#The_ice_sheet_as_a_record_of_past_climates

[DaWoad]

My question:

Are human actions causing or contributing to a current climate change emergency?

My answer:

No one knows. It is as simple as that. No scientific evidence has been discovered to which positively points to man's contribution to climate change in total or even in part.

Free Soviets wrote:

"yes. this is not in question. in order for us to be wrong about this, we have to be wrong about basic facts of chemistry and physics, and we must be fundamentally incapable of measuring energy flows and carbon isotopes. there is no doubt that human impacts loom large."

My Response:

Free Soviets is taking a few liberties with scientific facts here. While we indeed can accurately measure energy transfer as well as the ratio of carbon isotopes, the data gathered in doing so simply does not produce any evidence that would scientifically prove any amount of human contribution to climate change. As my respondant to my post seems to be intelligent and possibly even knowledgable in these applied sciences, he knows as well as I do that this is the case. However like many well meaning researchers in this field, my respondant seems to take scientific data and make it into evidence that quite simply requires some conjecture, forcasting, and theory rather than relying on the hard scientific facts shown by such data. My answer was, and is, objective to the facts only, without any of the possible theories or conjecture that can be attributed to such data.

My statement:

We do not know if humans have any impact on the climate. We simply do not have enough scientific data to form a definate scientific conclusion. And that is that. There are some indicators among the data that humans indeed may have some degree of impact, and yet other indicators that point to little or no human impact at all. We just don't know. And, at this time, until we have enough data required to form an absolute scientific conclusion, the facts remain we just do not know how much, if any, impact mankind has on the climate of this planet.

so then all the people that make up the scientific consensus that supports humanocentric climate change they're . . . what? just misinformed?
moreover, you need to support your assertions.

[Wikkiwallana]

The fact is climate change is 100% real. It is a natural phenomenon that has been constantly occurring since the Earth formed between 5 Billion and 6000 years ago (depending on your school of scientific thought, or religious thought). We know that the Earth has had several Ice Ages as well as several hot and moist Tropical Ages, and several hot and dry Desert ages. From the geological and archeological evidence we have, we find some of these changes occurred quite quickly, less than a century, while some were more gradual, over more than 1000 years. So yes the climate is always changing, and always will. That is a fact.

Now for the questions...

Q. Are human actions causing or contributing to a current climate change emergency?

A. No one knows. It is as simple as that. No scientific evidence has been discovered to which positively points to man's contribution to climate change in total or even in part.

Q. How is this climate change emergency different than previous natural changes?

A. No one knows if it is any different than the changes that have always occurred with the Earth's climate, just that there is no record of such changes occurring in the past 160 years. (but an overwhelming amount of historical records and scientific evidence it happened several times prior.)

Q. What is causing, or has caused in the past, changes in the Earth's climate?

A. Just a theory, since we have only been accurately tracking this stuff since the late 1860's, but how about solar activity? It seems that solar activity, i.e. flares and sunspots, seems to increase when the Earth's temperature rises, and decrease when the Earth's temperature falls. Since the Earth is not having this effect on the Sun, what if the Sun was having temperature affects on the Earth? What a novel idea! Pretty simple.

THEREFORE: Climate Change is real, but probably has little to do with human actions such as burning fossil fuels, and more to do with solar activity.

Except the Sun has been cooling since the 60's, but the Earth hasn't.

[Keronians]

climate change is real but humans don't do that much damage to the enviroment (humans creat 0.8% of the total co2 produced a year).
its mostly the oliptic rotation aruond the sun that changes every 100 or so years. that cuases the earth to heat up or cool down.
also there was 3 times as much co2 during the life of the dinosuars. but it is better to be safe than sorry.
also coal is running out. so now people are making renewable technologies so that it wont run out and we wont have to find new resources, examples of thease techs are wind farms, hydrodams, solar power, tidal and wave power or extracting power from any atom (from eletronic fields).
all this eco talk is good it makes the earth cleaner (but not by much)

the tempertures arent that high compared to other moments in history

No, there wasn't.

The time when there was a shitload of CO2 is when there was little vegetation, and the Earth was still quite hot. The volcanic eruptions used to produce CO2.

During the time of the dinosaurs, there were also many more plants.

[Keronians]

i agree and in the future when most of the co2 is naturally recycled into the earth people will realise this truth.
and the cycle will continue (come out of the earth and then back in naturallly).

Carbon is already naturally recycled. It's called the carbon cycle.

[Wikkiwallana]

I don't believe in global warming and see no reason too. I would if Greenland actually becomes green.

Since most of the island sunk a long time ago under the weight of the ice, it'll never be green, just a puddle.

[Wikkiwallana]

i agree and in the future when most of the co2 is naturally recycled into the earth people will realise this truth.
and the cycle will continue (come out of the earth and then back in naturallly).

Carbon is already naturally recycled. It's called the carbon cycle.

And we're breaking it with all our deforestation and excavation.

[Keronians]

Carbon is already naturally recycled. It's called the carbon cycle.

And we're breaking it with all our deforestation and excavation.

The thing is, what we're doing is, while carrying out deforestation, we're simultaneously increasing the supply of CO2.

It's fucking ridiculous.

Because, the way I see it, we are taking out the carbon which has been stored underground (and thus taken OUT of the carbon cycle, with it never being returned to the air) BACK into the air, millions of years later.

That is unhealthy. We also like to use a lot of natural gas. One of these is methane. Both CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases. Therefore, the atmosphere is insulating more and more heat within the Earth. This heats it up.

As the Earth gets warmer, the ice caps melt. Ice, is shiny, and white. This means that it reflects heat off into space. However, as it melts, the amount of heat it allows to leave into space, is much lower.

CFCs, which we used to use, break ozone (O3) into oxygen (O2). This damages the ozone layer, thus eliminating our natural protection against UV radiation. This also heats the Earth up.

Sulphur dioxide is often used in industrial processes. When released into the atmosphere, it may react with oxygen, to produce sulphur trioxide. This is the main cause for acid rain.

But then, there are other factors as well.

The Earth will, over a course of a few thousand years, head towards an ice age. That may provide more cooling.

The effect of the greenhouse gases may be offset by the holes in the ozone layer, which may allow heat to escape.

Warmer Earth means warmer sea. This leads to more rapid cloud formation. Clouds are also white, and so may compensate for the loss of heat.

A previous post I made.

[Independant States of America]

My question:
How is this climate change emergency different than previous natural changes?

My answer:
No one knows if it is any different than the changes that have always occurred with the Earth's climate, just that there is no record of such changes occurring in the past 160 years.

Free Soviets wrote:
there are no non-human climate forcing factors that can be blamed. the sun has not been giving off more energy, the earth's core hasn't suddenly started heating up, the continents haven't moved into a new configuration and redirected ocean currents, the earth's orbital wobbles aren't doing anything new, and there are no non-anthropogenic sources of new greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere.

My question:
What is causing, or has caused in the past, changes in the Earth's climate?

My answer:
Just a theory, since we have only been accurately tracking this stuff since the late 1860's, but how about solar activity? It seems that solar activity, i.e. flares and sunspots, seems to increase when the Earth's temperature rises, and decrease when the Earth's temperature falls. Since the Earth is not having this effect on the Sun, what if the Sun was having temperature affects on the Earth? What a novel idea! Pretty simple.

Free Soviets wrote:
you wanna know something fabulous? we can actually check these things. crazy, right? so, i wonder what the sun has been doing recently...

My response:
Am I to understand that Free Soviets actually believes that there are no non-human factors involved in the Earth's climate? This of course is ridiculous and I am unsure exactly why he made such a foolish claim in his response. Then he goes on to list several non-human factors that could, if they were actually occurring, indeed affect the climate. No the earth's core is not suddenly heating up and ocean currents have not been redirected by a great continental shift. But what about that sun? Free Soviets states it has not been giving off more energy. Hmmm is that true? Hey, Free Soviets that is fabulous, we CAN ACTUALLY CHECK THE DATA WE DO HAVE, that is crazy, so lets see if there is any data that would suggest my solar activity theory is a possibility...



http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

The red curve illustrates the recorded scientific data of solar activity and mean temperatures from 1960 to 2000. Quite simply a correlation cannot just be denied on the sole basis that one wants to believe in a different theory.
(Reference: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991).

In closing, I would like to state my position is an objective one. Those who state that human activity is the cause of climate change, and those that state humans have no impact are both wrong in claiming their view is scientific fact. We simply do not have enough evidence from the data to make either scientific claim. Hence I stated my theory as just that. A theory. Free Soviets in turn stated his theory as scientific fact. Tsk, tsk.

[DaWoad]

*snip*.

Source: Foukal et al. 2006. Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate. Nature 443: 161-166.

one of those is wrong



Figure 1: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Solanki. TSI from 1979 to 2009 from Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (PMOD).

[Wikkiwallana]

And we're breaking it with all our deforestation and excavation.

The thing is, what we're doing is, while carrying out deforestation, we're simultaneously increasing the supply of CO2.

It's fucking ridiculous.

Because, the way I see it, we are taking out the carbon which has been stored underground (and thus taken OUT of the carbon cycle, with it never being returned to the air) BACK into the air, millions of years later.

That is unhealthy. We also like to use a lot of natural gas. One of these is methane. Both CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases. Therefore, the atmosphere is insulating more and more heat within the Earth. This heats it up.

As the Earth gets warmer, the ice caps melt. Ice, is shiny, and white. This means that it reflects heat off into space. However, as it melts, the amount of heat it allows to leave into space, is much lower.

CFCs, which we used to use, break ozone (O3) into oxygen (O2). This damages the ozone layer, thus eliminating our natural protection against UV radiation. This also heats the Earth up.

Sulphur dioxide is often used in industrial processes. When released into the atmosphere, it may react with oxygen, to produce sulphur trioxide. This is the main cause for acid rain.

But then, there are other factors as well.

The Earth will, over a course of a few thousand years, head towards an ice age. That may provide more cooling.

The effect of the greenhouse gases may be offset by the holes in the ozone layer, which may allow heat to escape.

Warmer Earth means warmer sea. This leads to more rapid cloud formation. Clouds are also white, and so may compensate for the loss of heat.

A previous post I made.

Like I said deforestation and excavation.

[Independant States of America]

My question:

Are human actions causing or contributing to a current climate change emergency?

My answer:

No one knows. It is as simple as that. No scientific evidence has been discovered to which positively points to man's contribution to climate change in total or even in part.

Free Soviets wrote:

"yes. this is not in question. in order for us to be wrong about this, we have to be wrong about basic facts of chemistry and physics, and we must be fundamentally incapable of measuring energy flows and carbon isotopes. there is no doubt that human impacts loom large."

My Response:

Free Soviets is taking a few liberties with scientific facts here. While we indeed can accurately measure energy transfer as well as the ratio of carbon isotopes, the data gathered in doing so simply does not produce any evidence that would scientifically prove any amount of human contribution to climate change. As my respondant to my post seems to be intelligent and possibly even knowledgable in these applied sciences, he knows as well as I do that this is the case. However like many well meaning researchers in this field, my respondant seems to take scientific data and make it into evidence that quite simply requires some conjecture, forcasting, and theory rather than relying on the hard scientific facts shown by such data. My answer was, and is, objective to the facts only, without any of the possible theories or conjecture that can be attributed to such data.

My statement:

We do not know if humans have any impact on the climate. We simply do not have enough scientific data to form a definate scientific conclusion. And that is that. There are some indicators among the data that humans indeed may have some degree of impact, and yet other indicators that point to little or no human impact at all. We just don't know. And, at this time, until we have enough data required to form an absolute scientific conclusion, the facts remain we just do not know how much, if any, impact mankind has on the climate of this planet.

so then all the people that make up the scientific consensus that supports humanocentric climate change they're . . . what? just misinformed?
moreover, you need to support your assertions.

As long as we agree that scientific consensus is not scientific fact. It is still just a theory, one that is supported by the majority of the scientific community. No one really knows for sure, and that is my point.

[Wikkiwallana]

so then all the people that make up the scientific consensus that supports humanocentric climate change they're . . . what? just misinformed?
moreover, you need to support your assertions.

As long as we agree that scientific consensus is not scientific fact. It is still just a theory, one that is supported by the majority of the scientific community. No one really knows for sure, and that is my point.

There's a big difference between your claim that non-one is sure, which implies it could easily go either way, and the reality of everyone who knows enough to meaningfully comment on the subject saying "We're 90% certain it's our fault".

[Independant States of America]

As long as we agree that scientific consensus is not scientific fact. It is still just a theory, one that is supported by the majority of the scientific community. No one really knows for sure, and that is my point.

There's a big difference between your claim that non-one is sure, which implies it could easily go either way, and the reality of everyone who knows enough to meaningfully comment on the subject saying "We're 90% certain it's our fault".

There is simply not enough scientific data to claim the evidence supports even at 90%, you know that. Again you are trying to change a theory to a fact or close to a fact when the evidence does not support such claims. Period.