:lol: :lol: :lol: Patterson again! You've read one dissenting scientist's opinion and ignore the consensus of the vast majority of climatologists. Look at my posts above, I cited the National Academy of Science's report to Congress! Plus the reports on five separate international meetings on climate change. CO2 levels are absolutely part of global warming. Again, you cherrypick your "facts" and come up with erroneous conclusions based on a sample size of one! :rofl:
There were many natural factors at work--volcanic activity is a big one. But you are missing the point. Natural processes are still at work and now human impact has been added to the equation. That is what is at issue here. We are adding to the problem and it only makes sense to address those things that we have control over. We cannot make the volcanoes go away, we can reduce greenhouse gases that result from our own activities. I repeat, the "2000 years" reference is as far back as reliable climatic evidence goes. It ain't that hard to understand. Natural processes alone accounted for earths temperature fluctuations before the dawn of man. Since then, and especially since the industrial revolution, Human processes have significantly impacted climate change.
i dont think i am missing the point. i am asking a simple question. if the earth warmed and cooled drastically before we were here, and i think we can assume it did, given that the earth went in and out of ice ages, then how can we say now that the warming would not happen were we not here? shouldnt we expect the warth to cool and warm now like it always has? why should we assume that because the earth is doing what it always has that we are to blame? agreed so what would the earth be like if we did not exist? how much cooler would it be without us? how do you know? where is the experimental control earth with no people that you studied? all we have is models. and the models do not agree, there are so many factors at wok that conclusions are very hard to draw. unless you are trying to draw conclusions and are the sort of person who worries about peak oil and deficits and various other things that arent scary.
We're not assuming it. This issue has been studied by experts for decades and they have tons of evidence to support their conclusions. There isn't one, of course. So instead of burying their head in the sand, scientists investigate the evidence, analyse it, and draw conclusions. The reports are there for you to read. You should actually study this a bit before simply dismissing it out of hand. The fact that there are natural warming cycles does not preclude the preponderance of evidence that there is also a very unnatural one. Of course it's hard . . . but not impossible. There are people who spend their lives studying the climate and ecology of the earth--I work with them every day and they know their business. You can be skeptical if you wish, based on your peculiar theories of big government, flying spaghetti monsters, or simple polemics. But I've read the reports, I find their evidence credible, and I agree with the expert scientific consensus on this matter.
and i think one of the recurring themes you will see in the world are people drawing conclusions when they cant stand the fact that there isnt enough evidence for a conclusion. there is a strong motivation that people have to find problems to worry about and fix. and when a situation has unknowns or unresolved questions i think people naturally tend to find answers where answers arent. i think we should be more confident this isnt the case before we do anything about the situation, because there are alot of unknowns involved. one thing i do know is that most of the steps i have heard (kyoto for example) are horrible and are incredibly unfair and stupid and are basically designed to hurt developed countries in order lessen the gap between poor and rich countries. futhtermore, if the peak oil stuff is true, then this problem will solve itself because oil will become scarce and we will quit burning it. so we do not have to punish our economy in the process. of course, like i have mentioned before, if there is warming, the people who are favoring government oversight to keep oil prices low are the ones who are to blame for not allowing market prices to solve this problem. thats a bit of a petty cheap shot. i have read the opinions of many men far more knowledgeable than either of us that agree with me. and because my critical thinking skills are superior to yours, i know who to side with.
I was in Alaska last month. The globe does not seem to warming there. I will add the result of SabanFan's studies to this discussion (they appear to support martin's side of the argument). Human effect on the earth is akin to the affect a squirrel has on the Atlantic Ocean by drinking out of it. In the grand scheme of things, we have been here for less than a second. Natural climatic changes have occurred cyclically for gazillions of years and will continue to occur for gazillions of years, with or without homo sapien. Our relative comfort level may be minutely affected, but, fear not. The planet will be fine.
I'm quite sure that this is true of many casual observers. But the scientific process is much more stringent. The published papers are subject to far more detailed and demanding scientific peer review before publication and then their evidence must withstand the scrutiny of other scientists, including those who who disagree, after publication. Sure there are unknowns involved, but that doesn't make a scientist discount the many factors that are known. I'm not arguing for Kyoto. It's a political decision and political biases and strategy plays a part. I'm arguing for science and the fact that global warming is real and that human impact plays a part. It may in fact cost far too much to slow warming or there indeed may be fair-play issues that are legitimate arguments. But denying the scientific basis for global warming is not the way to do it. At last, a valid observation and a very interesting point! You should expand on this and on the politics of Kyoto and on the economics of a solution. I might agree with much of it. But questioning the legitimacy of established scientific studies by simply pooh-poohing it is unconvincing. Nonsense, it was simple advice. We've traded far wittier barbs than that, I don't believe for a second that you are offended. You are definitely a brain surgeon, a sophisticated Hollywood producer, or perhaps a double-naught spy. :grin:
http://www.usgs.gov/features/glaciers2.html I fear not, Reasonable One. The planet will be absolutely fine. It is life on the planet that will be affected. In terms of geologic time, human impact is a squirrel fart in a hurricane. But we don't live in geologic time and we would be prudent to not accelerate the next great extinction if we can avoid it.
But that's what glaciers do. How do you think all of those mountain valleys and Alaska's Inside Passage were formed. If they continued to freeze over and get bigger, we'd have a problem. But, that's the point my hairy, willie nelsonesque friend. We, the mere humanoid pissant temporary occupants of planet Earth, cannot avoid it. It's the natural order of things.
Simple thermodynamics & the conservation of mass and energy, really. Stuff gives off heat energy when it is burned. Two-thousand years ago, most of this 'stuff' was sitting around in the ground somewhere. Now it's being used for manufacturing and producing energy. Unless you can somehow make the case that just as many chemicals were being used for exothermic processes then as there are now, it's undeniable that more heat is being expelled into the atmosphere than at that time. This is actually incredibly simple, and it doesn't take an engineering degree, or even a course in 'Physics for Poets' to grasp it.
