How do you measure climate change? What is it?
Global warming is a simpler hypothesis to test, and temperatures are higher than 80 years ago apparently.
How do you measure climate change? What is it?
Global warming is a simpler hypothesis to test, and temperatures are higher than 80 years ago apparently.
If people were really concerned with global warming, WE'D END ALL AID TO AFRICA tomorrow and let nature take it's course. The population on that continent is tripling at an alarming rate, and the combo of population and rain forest deforestation will do more to affect global warming than anything.
Hardloper wrote:
The more important question is how good/bad is it, what are the costs/benefits of fighting it now vs. fighting it later vs. adapting, etc. But if you disagree on any point with a leftist ideologue you are labeled a "denier" so it is easier to identify as such.
Our president pulled out of the Paris Accord because he says he thinks it is a conspiracy. While I agree the the science predictions going forward are all over the place, the understanding of what already happened is hard facts that a lot of people, specifically Americans, ignore.
The fact that Miami and New Orleans are growing is an example of ignoring facts and not being willing to adapt.
I don't think anyone's realistically questioning the science that climate is massively influenced by carbon dioxide levels.
With that assumption, what's the cause of this?
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061316.gif
Source:
Skeptical? wrote:
What's different in your life, today, due to climate change?
My race times have gotten slower due to hitter races.
That and I've lost about 2 feet of beach in my vacation home due to rising sea levels.
In an attempt to educate the younger readers, let me provide an analogy to the manmade climate change theory.
A thousand years ago, Ptolemy theorized that the earth was the center of the universe with all celestial bodies rotating around it. When observational data did not match his theory, he developed the concept of epicenters... planets and stars rotated in circles around their own individual epicenter while rotating around the earth. By modifying his theory to match observational data, he was able to match star/planet motions to 1 part in 1,000. Mathematics existed at the time to prove him wrong, but the Ptolemy Theory was accepted as dogma for 500 years until Copernius developed the Heliocentric theory.
Similarly, climate changers accept as dogma that CO2 is the single thermostat controlling the complex system of variables that create climate change. When observational data did not meet their theory, rather than admit their theory might be wrong, they made excuses (the oceans caused the pause) and attempted to modify the observational data (hide the change and the ongoing adjustments of raw data to make it conform to manmade climate change theory). I don't believe this is a conspiracy; it's mostly confirmation bias... and the fact that skeptics are ostracized professionally and don't get grant money for future research.
Among climate scientists, skepticism is the equivalent of runners wearing shorts over tights.
Still, some scientists are speaking out with alternative theories for climate change. Here is a list over 400 scholarly articles that are skeptical of manmade climate change. I would urge you to scroll down to the link for Skeptic Papers 2017 (1) and look at the ones on solar influence on climate change. Broadly summarizing these papers, they show that solar irradiance (particularly wavelengths outside visible light) varies with the sunspot cycle, which heats/cools the upper oceans, which changes the multi-decade ocean cycles, which changes cloud cover. Increasing cloud cover cools the earth. Decreasing cloud cover warms the earth. A change in global cloud cover by one percent could account for most of the observed climate change over the past 200 years. These solar cycles occur in 11, 22, 60, 200, and up to 10,000 year cycles. When these cycles overlap just right, we get rapid (over decades is rapid) global cooling or warming.
New England was once covered by a glacier, of course climate change is real, only the cause is in doubt .
That the climate is changing is evident. Climate has never been stable. The question has never been whether the climate is changing or not (in the 70s I was gonna freeze, in the 80s I was gonna fry), but, rather, whether or not it is caused by human activity. Many humans have decided that "Yes, I did this." and, subsequently, "But I can save the world!" Humans are a freaking riot. In the local vernacular, a human claiming to have the ability to change the climate would be equivalent to a hobby jogger -- self-important out of all proportion but, in the end, not having a bit of influence on the outcome of the race.
Bobby1 wrote:
New England was once covered by a glacier, of course climate change is real, only the cause is in doubt .
The hottest summer I recall in Britain was the summer of 1976.
If only all our summers were like that one, myself and millions of other Britons wouldn't have to jet off to the Mediterranean every summer seeking the sun.
So what happened to 'global warming'?
My problems are with the “journalists” who sensationalize preliminary findings and the politicians who milk them.
At what age are you old and retarded? I don't deny that the climate is changing. Although I haven't studied the data I'll concede that the earth is warmer than it was in the 70's when I was told to worry about the next ice age. I would like to ask, given that the earth has warmed and cooled over the centuries when there were less people and less use of fossil fuels - how do we know the cause is man-made? And the next critical question - how do we know it is bad? A warmer climate is generally a longer growing season for most of the world. If you could pick any temperature in the history of the world, would it really be the temperatures from the late 20th century? Are you sure you wouldn't want something warmer? For those who believe it is so catastrophic why are you still using fossil fuels including fossil fuels to generate electricity (for those electric cars).
For the OP: Of course climate is not static and has changed, is changing and will change.
Many people move to the question of whether any recent climate change is caused by humans. Frankly, it doesn't really matter.
The right questions, it seems to me, are:
1. What is the optimal "climate" for human success? (i.e., should it be cooler than present, hotter than present or stay exactly the same.) Good luck with this as the answer for optimal climate will likely be different for different parts of the world.
Try this thought experiment: Would it be worth it to you to pay $500 a month to reduce the temperature in your house by 5 degrees Fahrenheit? Wouldn't that depend on the current temperature in your house and what you thought was the optimal temperature (or at least bearable)? Wouldn't it further depend on what $500 a month means to you financially? Don't people almost every day make a similar calculation when setting their thermostat?
2. Assuming we can determine the optimal climate, can we do anything to get us closer to this optimal climate?
Unfortunately we can't just change the thermostat.
3. Assuming we can determine the optimal climate and can do something to get us closer to the optimal climate, are the costs associated with doing something worth the benefits obtained by such action?
The problem of course is that there are winners and losers associated with changing climate. Who picks them? Is it truly important to shut down coal-fired electricity plants in the Third World and keep them in the dark and heat so that homes on the Intercoastal Waterway in Florida are not affected 100 years from now?
It does not appear that 97% or any sizeable number of "scientists" have reached any consensus on these questions.
It's not that people don't think climate change is "real". It is just skepticism that it is actually a problem, and if it is a problem, skepticism that we can do much about it that makes any economic sense. (Hint: telling me that people 200 years from now will wonder why we didn't wreck our economies for them doesn't influence me much.)
curioustoknow wrote:
Is this one of those things where people don't want to trust the facts so that their lives are less worrisome?
1) It's very easy for people to rationalize actions they believe to be in their self interest.
2) There are players with interests in the status quo who peddle contrarian arguments providing easy "arguments" for individuals to looking to rationalize.
3) The best science indicates that humans are affecting climate and it is going to be increasingly problematic.
fisky wrote:
Here is a list over 400 scholarly articles that are skeptical of manmade climate change.
Actually, no.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMaRx7gIGY&t=219sWhy can threads like this go up but m a g a threads or People perceived to be m a g a can’t voice their opinion?
Bc Mods are lame?
This thread is a make America communist thread with Carbon taxes at 90% of income.
So that Communists can be toltalitarian and girly men atheists can feel good about themselves.
“I’m captain Save the Planet”.
What a joke.
Argument?
University of East Anglia is loaded with liars.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate
A second source:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but the Earth is not a perfect greenhouse. There is no glass ceiling to trap all of the heat. Most infrared heat escapes into space, but a small amount is captured by the gas, and some temperature rise is expected with higher concentrations. Most of the Earth's warming occurs within the first 100 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide. The warming curve is asymptotic so that it now requires a doubling of CO2 to raise the temperature 1 degree Centigrade. That means we would have to go from our current 400 ppm to 800 ppm of CO2 to get this small amount of increase in temperature. (Most of us would not notice the difference. We also would not feel any effects from this higher level of CO2. It is common for interior spaces to be above 1,000 ppm carbon dioxide.)
The IPCC claims that the warming would be much more because of positive feedback warming from water vapor. But the climate is not cooperating. No such feedback has been found. Almost every climate computer model has been wrong over the last twenty years at predicting the change in our temperature. Except for the El Niño years, the climate has been remarkably static for two decades. The great American physicist, Richard P. Feynman, said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." The science is not settled.
Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
I'm sure the climate changes a lot, we have periods of ice age and then warmer temps, then cooler. I don't believe we have anything to do with it.
I'm against pollution, I'm for conservation of natural resources and places and animals. I'm NOT for some whacked out wealth redistribution scheme passed off as something to be done to stop "climate change".
Not a denier at all. What I can't stand is the smugness of the rich white guys that act like they are somehow above it all and feel the need to condemn everyone else. We understand climate change exists ice scientists, do you really need to keep taking trips back and forth to Antarctica to tell us more stuff that we already know? We know climate change exists NASA, do you really need to launch a couple more satellites into orbit to study it? We know climate change exists Al Gore, do you really need to take trips all over the globe and helicopter rides to extremely remote locations to film it or do you really need the three giant mansions that you own? I've looked at the carbon footprint of my own lifestyle and I can tell you with certainty that it doesn't come close to the negative impact these individuals have. And then you look at global climate accords and they are extremely punitive to the US and Europe, but do nothing to places like China and India. All this has created is a massive shift of industry from the US and Europe to SE Asia and India. As a result, all of the climate agendas the Obama pursued ultimately ended doing nothing globally as China and India built coal plants like they were Starbucks locations. US greenhouse gas emissions have been on the decline since the Bush administration, but our declines have been more than matched by the rise in the use of coal in China and India. Until developing nations are held to the same standards as industrialized nations, global warming will continue to worsen. I am not opposed to regulations, but they need to be uniform, otherwise industries will simply move from country to country to exploit deficiencies in the regulations, as they did before.
It's a commie Marxist $cam.
The truth about cc wrote:
It's a commie Marxist $cam.
I totally agree.
Tax the people more $$$$$ enviro carbon tax
Meanwhile China and India and Russia Do Not Care
Free people vs Communist people
Free people vs Climate thugs
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VsWbkqrFZCY/UaJSYZ2n9aI/AAAAAAAABfc/wPRVLLMZO68/s1600/hist_us_20_cold_war_pic_berlin_wall_crowd_guard.jpgLRF go out and drive your car
Don’t feel guilty
Anyhow you really don’t care about the Environment and you know it.
So sip on your lattes.
Drive cars
Damn, runners are definitely in the bottom half of the intelligence Bell curve
