Quote:
Originally Posted by cementor
With the recent controversy of the IPCC and other esteemed "Scientists" and the doctored data, the lack of transparency of methodology, the obvious collusion shown by the emails which were leaked to the public and sequestration of non coroborating data, I have ZERO faith in any of these so called GW "facts" or for that matter those that poopoo GW. I believe we need a group of folks on both sides of the fence to review all the data and give us the non spin version. Frankly the idea that manmade CO2 emmissions which according to both sides of the arguement add up to 6% are solely responsible for making these moves in the "average temps" as some folks would have us believe, does not make any sense. Science just as politics and anything else to do with humankind is influenced by the perspective of those making the claim. EGO is a huge factor in the scientific community ( don't believe it go attend one of these conferences and get a dose of the hubris) and unfortunately money is an even bigger inluence. How do we remove these influences and get to the truth???? Beats hell out of me. In the mean time I distrust them all. In the interest of all of us I am making moves to reduce my carbon footprint, not because I believe the sky is falling, but because I believe it is the right thing to do. However, to wipe out economies and return mankind to the stoneage is not the proper move either.
|
No one, other than pundits on either side, claims that global warming is due solely to CO2 emissions.
And CRU aside, academia is actually doing pretty well when it comes to estimating the effects of man made CO2 on temperatures.
The academic debate is, of course, on how big an influence that CO2 has. Because, believe it or not, it does have an influence. Pundits may deny it, but in order to deny that CO2 has an impact on warming one would have to claim that CO2 is the perfect conductor, letting temperatures and radiation go through without any loss.
And, again, believe it or not, there are plenty of people within academia who claim that the impact of CO2 is negligible. One of these people is a full professor at MIT. Just about one of the highest ranks in academia one can achieve. If academia was part of this sort of conspiracy to trump up these claims, how can one explain this dissension within academia? He is in the minority, but it is obvious that the picture painted by most deniers regarding academia is false.
---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
There are many questions regarding the focus on CO2 in the atmosphere. Our atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen. The remaining 1%, greenhouse gases, is mostly comprised of H2O or water ranging between 40% to 70%. CO2 is next ranging between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse gases, but the planet has seen bigger percentage increases in other greenhouse gases, such as methane. So, assuming we could control for these variables and develop a predictive model - why do we believe manipulating CO2 will have a bigger impact than manipulating the other variables. Perhaps the fact that we irrigate deserts has a bigger impact on climate change than all the CO2 output caused by industrial use. We don't know and some of us ask questions. And some of us don't ask questions for some reason. I think we want to get it right if we do have the control we think we have.
|
1- we can't control water and water vapor
2- we can, to a degree, control CO2
We don't know the impact of CO2, and there are many who claim it to be small. But the fact that CO2 makes up a small part of the atmosphere doesn't preclude it from being a major factor. If green house effects have any sort of "feedback loop" where things reinforce each other, indicating some sort of multiplicative effect, as the majority seems to believe, then CO2 can have huge impacts. Doubling even the smallest multiplier in a multiplicative model doubles the overall outcome.
Im sure you don't "feel" that way, but thankfully policy is implemented regardless of how you "feel."