Do not believe in climate change caused by mankind?

[gunslinger]

So, can we drop the politics, stick to the OP and start answering some questions?

Nah, I don't have anymore questions. Found out everything I needed to know.

 

[TechLady]

@gunslinger Like these guys? Oh look, one from your home state.

Alexander, Lamar (R – TN)
Ayotte, Kelly (R – NH)
Collins, Susan M. (R – ME)
Graham, Lindsey (R – SC)
Kirk, Mark (R – IL)

Either they understand science or they're not on Exxon's payroll yet, but either way--they exist. That took about two seconds to find. There's also a lot of Repubs not currently in office on board with the concept...like Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Schwarzenegger, etc. etc.

So...you're wrong. Again. The fact that you have determined only liberals believe in global warming says more about you and your news sources than it does about us.

 

[phaZed]

I'm asking for answers in which you refuse to give... so your bowing out then?

 

[gunslinger]

@gunslinger Like these guys? Oh look, one from your home state.

Alexander, Lamar (R – TN)
Ayotte, Kelly (R – NH)
Collins, Susan M. (R – ME)
Graham, Lindsey (R – SC)
Kirk, Mark (R – IL)

Either they understand science or they're not on Exxon's payroll yet, but either way--they exist. That took about two seconds to find. There's also a lot of Repubs not currently in office on board with the concept...like Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Schwarzenegger, etc. etc.

So...you're wrong. Again. The fact that you have determined only liberals believe in global warming says more about you and your news sources than it does about us.

I think your definition of liberals and mine are a bit different.

I'm asking for answers in which you refuse to give... so your bowing out then?

Bowing out of what? I don't have a dog in the fight. You can believe what ever helps you sleep better at night....lol

 

[TechLady]

You haven't addressed what I said. Oh well, take your marbles then.

 

[gunslinger]

You haven't addressed what I said. Oh well, take your marbles then.

At least I still have mine.....

 

[phaZed]

OK man, 4 pages of back and forth but you're not in it. Gotcha. What I think is "true", is what keeps me up. So you can sleep better with your ideas since they are the ones that aren't scary.

When the questions get too tough.

 

[gunslinger]

OK man, 4 pages of back and forth but you're not in it. Gotcha. What I think is "true", is what keeps me up. So you can sleep better with your ideas since they are the ones that aren't scary.

When the questions get too tough.

I know, I know....The sky is falling, gloom and doom.

 

[phaZed]

Who claimed they're for Al Gore? He's a politician, not a scientist.

 

[MobileTechie]

I think there is a link between ignoring the scientific consensus and being on the right-wing end of US republican politics - well as far as I can tell from forum discussions and other web opinions. I could be wrong but the same sort of people who argue evolution is "just a theory" seem to be the same sort of people who refuse to believe other science that goes against their beliefs, including GW. This is just an observation of mine.

I'm still in the dark as to how non-experts in the field (all of us here I imagine) come to the conclusion that they're more likely to be correct by not going with the scientific consensus on a scientific issue?

 

[Metanis]

I'm still in the dark as to how non-experts in the field (all of us here I imagine) come to the conclusion that they're more likely to be correct by not going with the scientific consensus on a scientific issue?

I could write a book. For example do some research on the field of temperature measurement. It's much more difficult than you'd think to get accurate and reproducible temperature sensors. Then you could ask why the "scientists" keep making "adjustments" to the raw data. Or you could ask why none of the dramatic forecasts have come to pass. Real scientists always express the difficulty in determining how much climate change can be attributable to human activity.

But skip ahead to the important part. Science is heavily involved in determining the extent of climate change. Science is not the field associated with the human political response. That political response is driven by the same differences in opinion which have always divided the human race. Unfortunately the people who seem so anxious to exert control over this process are not scientists! They are political players with an agenda and the science of climate change is simply their bigger hammer.

When you look at the favorite political responses being pushed it simply is the same old argument of control versus freedom. All the carbon taxes and carbon sequestration schemes are simply methods to transfer wealth from the poorest 55% to the 1% in charge of the regime. Good work if you can get it I suppose.

I do not doubt that climate change is occurring. I think the response needs to be left to an informed free market and not controlled by obvious political operatives best caricatured by Al Gore and Barack Obama.

 

[coffee]

Totally irrelevant...you're not even comprehending facts. What I quoted...was measurement in output of CO2 in measurable TONS. you're sort of countering your own prior statements...you tried to claim a volcano can put more CO2 in the air that mankind can. Not true. We were talking about putting volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now...you're trying to change direction, by talking about existing volumes of CO2 in the air...and done by something else. You're trying to backpeddle and/or try slight of hand, or just randomly spewing out via some A.D.D. approach in debate.

I was hoping for at least a college grad level of debate...none here....I feel like I'm correcting my daughters junior high school project.

No, no no...

I am not trying to say that a volcano puts out more co2. I am trying to say that a volcano does more climate change than mankind. Perhaps I screwed up in stating that in the message. Hey, I have had some rather long days at work lately so I can screw up a bit

My main point is that previous eruptions of certain volcanos have made dramatic changes on weather patterns but usually correct themselves in a period of time. I am sure that current volcano eruptions put out what you say but I was looking not at a current output from volcanos but of major eruptions of certain volcanos. For instance, Krakatoa erupted and caused a lot of climate change for some time. However, It did subside and normal weather patterns did return. I think that if there is any climate change caused by mankind it is a short living condition that corrects itself quickly (geologically speaking).

The article I quoted stated the idea that CO2 emissions are more abundant from natural processes than from mankind.

Hope you have a good day,

 

[phaZed]

Can I just say, thank you Metanis. I largely don't agree with you but I applaud your post for being genuine.

The Right side of the isle is responsible for the caricatures on the Left. Notice how nobody ever complains when a Republican does the "horrible" things of a tree-hugging hippie liberal:

In February 2002, Bush announced his alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, by bringing forth a plan to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gasses by 18 percent over 10 years. The intensity of greenhouse gasses specifically is the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions and economic output, meaning that under this plan, emissions would still continue to grow, but at a slower pace. Bush stated that this plan would prevent the release of 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, which is about the equivalent of 70 million cars from the road. This target would achieve this goal by providing tax credits to businesses that use renewable energy sources.

Also, the Left is heavily blamed for some kind of "suppression" of the facts or tampering of the evidence, yet:

according to testimony taken by the U.S. House of Representatives, the Bush White House pressured American scientists to suppress discussion of global warming

Under Bush, "High-quality science" was "struggling to get out," as the Bush administration pressured scientists to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush administration's skepticism, in some cases at the behest of an ex-oil industry lobbyist. "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change,' 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications."

Similarly, according to the testimony of senior officers of the Government Accountability Project, the White House attempted to bury the report "National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change," produced by U.S. scientists pursuant to U.S. law.[8] Some U.S. scientists resigned their jobs rather than give in to White House pressure to underreport global warming.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration

So, there's plenty of blame to go around in the political sphere and a lot of it didn't originate where they think it did.. and sometimes it does. To place blame squarely on one party or the other and point fingers is ridiculous.

 

[phaZed]

The article I quoted stated the idea that CO2 emissions are more abundant from natural processes than from mankind.

The problem with that piece that I see is that his numbers are not corroborated anywhere that I can find. The opinion piece was written by Ed Caryl (Who?) and his numbers don't match anything I can find:

The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux.

Where can I find any external reference to that? Why does he not provide a reference to any actual science? Since he doesn't, we should take it upon ourselves to see if the premise of his article even holds water.. and it doesn't.
Firstly, he uses the old data from 1990-2001, not the newer data. Why? Secondly, his 8Gt figure doesn't even match up with the graphic directly beneath it. Thirdly, why does the the IPCC AR4 (That you have quoted before) say Humans expel 29Gt annually and 750Gt are attributed to the natural carbon cycle? An updated figure for that in 2008 from the UEA says 32Gt. The IEA in 2014 also quotes 32Gt annually. So how do you square that with the article from an obviously biased blogger (Look at his other stuff)?


Here's the updated "picture" from Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4:

So it's really a question of this, is it not?

atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

 

[gunslinger]

The problem really is that when you make your mind up about something THEN start funding "science" to prove your beliefs. Anyone who does not "tweak" their data to suite the agenda is ridiculed.

 

[phaZed]

The problem really is that when you make your mind up about something THEN start funding "science" to prove your beliefs. Anyone who does not "tweak" their data to suite the agenda is ridiculed.

To what are you referring? Considering the first Climate change calculations occurred in 1896, Climate Change concerns accelerated in the 50's and 60's due to emerging technologies and Consensus started being reached in the early 80's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...tions_of_human-induced_climate_change.2C_1896

This isn't a new development. I really don't see how your views make sense. Can you explain what you mean?

 

[SilverLeaf]

I could write a book. For example do some research on the field of temperature measurement. It's much more difficult than you'd think to get accurate and reproducible temperature sensors. Then you could ask why the "scientists" keep making "adjustments" to the raw data. Or you could ask why none of the dramatic forecasts have come to pass. Real scientists always express the difficulty in determining how much climate change can be attributable to human activity.

But skip ahead to the important part. Science is heavily involved in determining the extent of climate change. Science is not the field associated with the human political response. That political response is driven by the same differences in opinion which have always divided the human race. Unfortunately the people who seem so anxious to exert control over this process are not scientists! They are political players with an agenda and the science of climate change is simply their bigger hammer.

When you look at the favorite political responses being pushed it simply is the same old argument of control versus freedom. All the carbon taxes and carbon sequestration schemes are simply methods to transfer wealth from the poorest 55% to the 1% in charge of the regime. Good work if you can get it I suppose.

I do not doubt that climate change is occurring. I think the response needs to be left to an informed free market and not controlled by obvious political operatives best caricatured by Al Gore and Barack Obama.

Honestly, I don't understand the conflict here. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Given that:

• Climate change is indeed occurring. I think everyone can agree to that, regardless of the cause (natural vs man-made).
• Climate change is having, and will continue to have, substantial impacts on human existence. Including:
  • Our ability to feed and provide water for our ever-increasing world population. As traditional agricultural and livestock producing regions are experiencing reduced yields due to historic drought and heat, food availability and quality are bound to decrease, and costs are bound to increase. I wouldn't want to be in California when the water runs dry and the hills are ablaze....and I sure wouldn't want to pay the taxes that will be required to fund the solutions.
  • Rising sea levels will, and already are in many spots, causing problems in coastal areas. This will become incredibly expensive to remedy as this continues and will have costly impacts on existing infrastructure in many large coastal cities.
  • The accelerating polar ice melt will continue to impact ocean currents, especially the Atlantic conveyor (Gulf Stream). This current is is the mechanism that is responsible for maintaining the temperate climate along the northern US Atlantic coast and northern Europe as well. Expect harsher winters going forward is this continues. Also, this conveyor is responsible for supporting the robust fish populations of the north Atlantic. As the conveyor continues to slow, nutrient levels will be reduced and these populations will suffer.
  • As others have noted, climate change can also impact weather as we've seen with the polar vortexes this past winter in the US. Countless records were broken. Municipalities spent fortunes in efforts to battle the snow and cold, as well as to repair the damage caused. Likely more Sandys and Katrinas are in the cards as well.
• So, given the huge risks that climate change presents to mankind, why not err on the side of caution and assume that the vast majority of scientist are correct, and do what we can to slow down this process. Scenario #1 (The scientists are right) - We implement strategies to reverse human impact on the climate and delay the major catastrophes to give us more time to prepare for the human impact. Scenario #2 (The scientists are wrong) - We've made a worthwhile investment in human health and welfare and provided a foundation on which to build a long-term sustainability model for future generations. Outside of some political or ideological influence, I don't see how anyone could rationally be opposed to this.

 

[TechLady]

Entirely correct. Even if the scientists are wrong (and they aren't), it certainly doesn't hurt to start moving to more sensible energy plans. Cleaner, safer, sustainable, more jobs...it's a win all around. It boggles the mind why anyone would prefer oil spills and radioactivity to that. It really does.

Also, it's really the denier camp that's well known for tweaking data. You know what data is, right? Of course you do. Can you understand it? Good! In the next post I'll post some.

 

[gunslinger]

Entirely correct. Even if the scientists are wrong (and they aren't), it certainly doesn't hurt to start moving to more sensible energy plans. Cleaner, safer, sustainable, more jobs...it's a win all around. It boggles the mind why anyone would prefer oil spills and radioactivity to that. It really does.

Also, it's really the denier camp that's well known for tweaking data. You know what data is, right? Of course you do. Can you understand it? Good! In the next post I'll post some.

Because you are a scientist and you know this for a fact? Interesting, maybe a career change is in order? I don't have a problem with moving towards cleaner, safer,energy sources. I'm not pro-oil spill or pro-radioactivity. Thats not even the issue here. You have your left wing, liberal, "scientists" that say man made climate change is a thing. Then there are the other scientists, the ones you choose to ignore, who strongly disagree.

 

[TechLady]

Ok! So here is the evidence against each and every one of the standard denier claims. It's long (sorry about that), but deniers have a habit of simply changing the subject to another false claim as soon as you refute one falsehood--soooooo, rather than play their game of whack-a-mole, behold, here's all of them. The evidence is literally overwhelming.

TL;DR? Try Wikipedia. It's also worth noting there's a lot of money to be made in the denial camp: New Study Exposes Flood of Dark Money Feeding Climate Change Denial