Climate Change Discussion [Split from Election 2008 Thread]

[Weiser Wonder]

It is very important to know what caused the problem of global warming. Honestly how else are we supposed to solve the problem? If greenhouse gases didn't cause global warming, then logically reducing emissions wouldn't do anything to stop global warming.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I beg to differ.

"I'm not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet."

She's lending more weight here to cyclical temperatures. It is not in her interest to attribute recent CC to anthropogenic causes.





So what is perfect about this stance? Saying Let's fix it and then saying little if anything on how to fix it. It's not even a stance IMO.

She never said anything about fixing it except the token "reduce emissions" thrown in the middle of her promotion of energy independence (see drilling) and only said she would support a cap (which is McCain's policy) after avoiding the question and being pressed for an answer.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

It's useless to argue about what is causing climate change. This is the stance I was happy to hear.

8th time now.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

It is very important to know what caused the problem of global warming. Honestly how else are we supposed to solve the problem? If greenhouse gases didn't cause global warming, then logically reducing emissions wouldn't do anything to stop global warming.

Just wow.

Either it is human caused (greenhouse emissions) or it is caused by cyclical temperature change.

It doesn't matter to which degree you believe one or the other is responsible.

It is in our best interest to reduce greenhouse emissions wheher it is responsible for climate change or not.

How do you guys not understand that?

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Just wow.

Either it is human caused (greenhouse emissions) or it is caused by cyclical temperature change.

It doesn't matter to which degree you believe one or the other is responsible.

It is in our best interest to reduce greenhouse emissions wheher it is responsible for climate change or not.

How do you guys not understand that?

I don't know which way you swing on this issue DFF but I'm going to try to clarify some points.

At this point, there is absolutely no doubt among the scientific community that humans are responsible for climate change thanks to burning fossil fuels.

I urge anyone who still thinks that there is confusion on what is causing climate change to go read up on the issue outside of mainstream news sources.

Science, Nature magazines would be a good start.

Sunspots, cyclical temp variations, water vapour have all been disproven by thorough scientific methods.

I wish that people would start to understand this.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I don't know which way you swing on this issue DFF but I'm going to try to clarify some points.

At this point, there is absolutely no doubt among the scientific community that humans are responsible for climate change thanks to burning fossil fuels.

I urge anyone who still thinks that there is confusion on what is causing climate change to go read up on the issue outside of mainstream news sources.

Science, Nature magazines would be a good start.

Sunspots, cyclical temp variations, water vapour have all been disproven by thorough scientific methods.

I wish that people would start to understand this.

100% responsible?

[Ronald Pagan]

Yes, we are 100% responsible for climate temperature forcing. Not volcanos, not sunspots, not gamma radiation.

This is not uncontroversial in the scientific community.

It is also important to understand that the way that scientists test climate change theories. They actively try to disprove the theory that humans are responsible for climate change. That's the way the scientific method works. So far, nobody has been able to disprove the theory.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I don't know which way you swing on this issue DFF but I'm going to try to clarify some points.

At this point, there is absolutely no doubt among the scientific community that humans are responsible for climate change thanks to burning fossil fuels.

I urge anyone who still thinks that there is confusion on what is causing climate change to go read up on the issue outside of mainstream news sources.

Science, Nature magazines would be a good start.

Sunspots, cyclical temp variations, water vapour have all been disproven by thorough scientific methods.

I wish that people would start to understand this.

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Yes, we are 100% responsible for climate temperature forcing. Not volcanos, not sunspots, not gamma radiation.

This is not uncontroversial in the scientific community.

It is also important to understand that the way that scientists test climate change theories. They actively try to disprove the theory that humans are responsible for climate change. That's the way the scientific method works. So far, nobody has been able to disprove the theory.

You forgot the green color didn't you.

[Ronald Pagan]

Get ready for another FOL flood of discredited, unsubstantiated, untrue, unscientific, not peer-reviewed articles that blame climate change on something else.

I'm almost looking forward to it.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Yes, we are 100% responsible for climate temperature forcing. Not volcanos, not sunspots, not gamma radiation.

This is not uncontroversial in the scientific community.

It is also important to understand that the way that scientists test climate change theories. They actively try to disprove the theory that humans are responsible for climate change. That's the way the scientific method works. So far, nobody has been able to disprove the theory.

Extremely important. Most people do NOT understand this and I see people claiming that things are scientifcally proven here all the time. It's a big pet peeve of mine.

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.

[Ronald Pagan]

No one is saying that cyclical changes have had zero effect on the temperature. What they're looking at is forcing, temperature changes outside of the range within a certain period. Cyclical temperature changes are not responsible for the rapidity of mean ocean temperature rises and other symptoms of climate change like the rapidly melting arctic ice sheet. Cyclical temperature is responsible for the temperature changes that FOL will most likely go on about. Such as the temperature decline over the past 5 years etc.

Thing is large basins of heat do not respond easily to these pithy 5 year average changes. The ocean is still expanding thanks to thermal energy increases.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Get ready for another FOL flood of discredited, unsubstantiated, untrue, unscientific, not peer-reviewed articles that blame climate change on something else.

I'm almost looking forward to it.

So you weren't joking? What cause the last ice age (massive climate change, mind you)? Cave men stopped burning fossil fuels?

[Ronald Pagan]

Sigh...

If you aren't willing to do your due diligence and actually read up on the issue then I'm not willing to debate it with you.

The ice age thing is laughable btw and has absolutely zero traction in any real discussion on the causes of climate change.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

The ice age thing is laughable btw and has absolutely zero traction in any real discussion on the causes of climate change.

care to elaborate?

[Ronald Pagan]

care to elaborate?

The start of the glacial period was characterized by a mostly gradual cooling, lasting about five millennia1. The growth of ice sheets is necessarily a slow process, limited by the transfer of moisture through the atmosphere, and it appears likely that this process initially limited the rate of climatic cooling. Then, approximately 114,000 years ago, with temperatures having dropped less than halfway to typical full glacial values, the first rapid climate changes began — as documented here for the first time. The timing and characteristics of these events offer an invaluable subject for climate modellers; the mechanisms underlying rapid climate change are still being debated, and climate models have not yet convincingly predicted them.

Cooling happened over 5000 years. A natural climatic cycle. The temperature increases we are experiencing now are too fast to be considered natural to any previous warming period.

And before you point out that this section states that the mechanisms are still up for debate on what causes rapid climate change, he is not stating whether it is human produced CO2 pollution. He is referring to climatic mechanisms or 'feedback' loops that the Earth engages at certain temperatures.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/431133a.html

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Yes, we are 100% responsible for climate temperature forcing.

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

No one is saying that cyclical changes have had zero effect on the temperature.

So which is it? We are 100% responsible, or are we 70% responsible, 50%, 30%? The natural cyclical climate change obviously is having an effect.

Then, approximately 114,000 years ago, with temperatures having dropped less than halfway to typical full glacial values, the first rapid climate changes began — as documented here for the first time.

So 114,000 years ago, documented rapid climate change happened, with out humans being 100% responsible, yet you are 100% certain that this current state of rapid climate change is 100% man made?

[Muta]

Somehow, the Hadron Collider will solve all our problems.

[Bagor]

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.

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.

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.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

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.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Yes, we are 100% responsible for climate temperature forcing.

[Ronald Pagan]

See Bagor's post.

[burn_this_city]

The planet has been warming since the last Ice age. Its common knowledge that has not been debunked. To say its 100% our fault is hilarious.