Quote:
Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan
It's useless to argue about what is causing climate change. This is the stance I was happy to hear.
|
How so? The basics of any problem solving is understanding the cause of the problem in the first place. Like any problem, It's important to understand the cause of the problem in order to determine the best course of action for remediation.
You won't get consensus on possible solutions without consensus on the cause of the problem.
Far from the "perfect" stance. Not to suggest that apart from a broad sweeping "reduce emissions" statement followed up by a shout out for energy independence (see drilling) sorta contradicts this perfect stance.
Like saying, it's useless to argue about the causes of any illnesses. Screw diagnostics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan
Either it is human caused (greenhouse emissions) or it is caused by cyclical temperature change.
|
That simple? It's not a simple either/or scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan
100% responsible?
|
No. You will rarely in fact never get scientists saying 100%. Cyclical changes IMO cannot be ignored and have never been disputed as contributing to the exacerbation of the problem.
Ice core analysis suggest there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than anytime in the last 650000 years. Also that the rate of rise of CO2 in the last 7 years equals a similar rise that would (at the fastest) have taken 1000 years during any period in the past 650000 years. If this were natural given the correlating time lag and historical records then we would have expected a phenominal increase in temp 800-1000 years ago. We didn't.
My point: No one is saying CO2 causes "initial" warming but that it amplifies it once started. It's the rate of amplitude that is of concern.
A few snips from the latest IPCC report.
There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.
Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed duringthe 20th century.
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan
I would like to see the evidence that supports that cyclical changes have had zero effect on what we're seeing. I can't imagine how cyclical temperature trends can be disproven.
|
As mentioned above I won't dispute that and wouldn't even attempt to disprove it.
It's the amplification and exacerbation of the warming and the associated challenges that it will bring that IMO is of concern. That's why I subscribe to the precautionary principle in this case.