Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
Whether other factors not related to the atmosphere have a bigger impact is irrelevant.
|
Not to me.
Quote:
|
The only question that matters for this issue is whether man made global warming, independent of everything else, is enough to trigger catastrophic events.
|
Not only does the first issue relevant in my view but so is the definition of "catastrophic events".
I certainly like the thought that polar bears thrive on this planet, but species come and go, species evolve, and I have a bigger concern regarding the quality of human life. So, what may be catastrophic to polar bears and the people who love them, may not be catastrophic to me.
Quote:
|
And what I meant by opposite is that part of the feedback loop that would lead to such catastrophe is that marginal increases caused by CO2 lead to increases in water vapor, which leads to higher temperatures again, and so on.
|
And this is the key question. I don't think there would be a "feedback loop" as you describe. I think, all other things being equal, that there is a theoretical maximum CO2 level in our global atmosphere, and that as CO2 levels reach that theoretical maximum the interplay with other variables would cause CO2 level to decrease seeking a equilibrium.
I don't know if the theory I hold is correct or if yours is. But to me the question is not settled.
Quote:
|
My position is simple: We know, with absolute certainty, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That much is not up for debate. We also know that climatologists have estimated the effects of increase in CO2 as going from very small to very significant.
|
It has gone to very small from less very small. "very significant" is not how I would describe it. And if what we think we know about this planet is true, CO2 level have been significantly higher than they are now, without a direct correlation to what we think were average global temperatures.
Quote:
|
This is really where the academic debate and the questions are, not on whether there is global warming.
|
Do you agree that looking at temperatures over 100 years or so, compared to the length of time this planet has been here, is a problem?
For example if I decided to go to an unknown planet and study the climate it is obvious that a sun up to sun up (one day) study is virtually meaningless. A one season study would be meaningless. A one year study would be less meaningless but still could lead to erroneous conclusions. Then given that most orbits are not circular, that most spinning objects spin in a gyroscopic manner, and the affects of other orbiting objects that vary in distance from time to time, it seems to me that data collection will be on going and that the more time studied the more confidence we can have in the study of the climate. So 100 years is better than nothing but not better than 1,000 years.
But, we can study all the variables, plug in our assumptions and come up with models. The assumptions should always be challenged. We should never accept "it is settled". For example the earth's motion has more than a 24 hour, 12 month cycle based on how the earth rotates.
Quote:
|
This polar motion has multiple, cyclical components, which collectively are termed quasiperiodic motion. In addition to an annual component to this motion, there is a 14-month cycle called the Chandler wobble. The rotational velocity of the Earth also varies in a phenomenon known as length of day variation
|
Earth's orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is it safe to say the sun may have similar cyclical components, if so what are they and what impact do they have on earths temperature?
Quote:
|
We know that there is man made global warming, the debate is over whether it matters. I think a safe approach is to treat it as it matters, especially because global warming is far from being the only negative effect of pollution.
|
We disagree. You say we know, I would say we suspect. But at this point there is still too much conflicting data for me to even say with confidence that I suspect. Climate scientist were saying there was a mini ice age in our future not to long ago, at a time when we were spewing out CO2 at very high levels.
Quote:
|
And whatever Al Gore's position is, it is disingenuous to suggest that you are merely "asking question," or that those who don't agree with you are trying to stop others from "asking questions."
|
What is disingenuous about what I have posted on this subject. I have my view, I have questioned the views of others, I have provided support and reasons for my views and questions.
It is indeed a fact, that as a "denier", I am subject to ad-hominem arguments, name calling, dismissive attitudes and the current email controversy is centered around silencing those who challenge the "settled science" of man made global warming. It is amazing to me that this is not clear.