Anthropogenic Global Warming

[wufan]

What is proof of global warming is literally every study that has looked at global temperatures in the past 50 years. Denying that the earth was even warming was cute for a while, but now it's like denying that bears **** in the woods.

Too much hyperbole here. Throughout the 70s, we were in a cooling spell, and many articles projected global cooling. That 35-45 years ago. Since then, there are a few studies that disagree with global warming, but they are certainly a minority. Finally, insulting dissenting opinions is not a good way to gain traction. I don't think you understand the dissenting opinion. What you will find, if you listen to anyone that actually wants to discuss the topic, is that intelligent people agree that the climate is changing. Those that do not believe it is man made will tell you that it has always been changing, that the change is cyclic, and that little of any is caused by man. If man isn't causing it, then why spend money on it?

That said; What causes climate change? Should we attempt to intervene? If so, what should we do?

[wsushox1]

Too much hyperbole here. Throughout the 70s, we were in a cooling spell, and many articles projected global cooling. That 35-45 years ago. Since then, there are a few studies that disagree with global warming, but they are certainly a minority. Finally, insulting dissenting opinions is not a good way to gain traction. I don't think you understand the dissenting opinion. What you will find, if you listen to anyone that actually wants to discuss the topic, is that intelligent people agree that the climate is changing. Those that do not believe it is man made will tell you that it has always been changing, that the change is cyclic, and that little of any is caused by man. If man isn't causing it, then why spend money on it?

That said; What causes climate change? Should we attempt to intervene? If so, what should we do?

You are extremely well educated on this topic, and we've talked about this in the past.

I'll agree my 'bear **** in the woods' comment was petty. Let's move on.

To the argument of climate always changing: climate has changed throughout the years, but what I feel people don't really think about is the different circumstances behind those climate changes. People can look at paleoclimate data and say, well the earth has been warmer before!...they are right. The earth has been warmer before, however, that was when Pangea existed or when the earth's atmospheric composition was much, much different (much, much higher levels of CO2 and CH4). What does appear to be the case is, with the continents in the positions they are and excluding large scale volcanic eruptions that introduce particles into the stratosphere, we are warmer.

To your attempt of intervening, the cost of intervening, I am torn on this issue. I don't think that carbon is entirely to blame. I am certainly more in the camp of land-surface changes releasing large amounts of CH4 (which is 4x more efficient at the greenhouse effect than CO2). Through deforestation, city building, agriculture and other causes, this has a considerable effect on the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere.

Personal and Unresearched Opinion Alert : Warming earth temperatures aren't inherently a bad thing. Longer growing seasons can obviously occur. However, the differential heating of the earth is what causes most precipitation to fall in the MW/GP in the spring/early summer. As that differential in heating decreases, it is possible less rain could fall which would ultimately counteract the longer growing season. Not to mention the fact that many of the earths poorest populations live in areas in which sea level rise would directly impact their lives. As bad as the Syrian refugee problem is now, climate refugees could pose a huge issue in the near future.

[asiseeit]

The earth is not a "microclimate". The whole thing is a scam to allow the U.N. to
redistribute wealth internationally.

[wsushox1]

The earth is not a "microclimate". The whole thing is a scam to allow the U.N. to
redistribute wealth internationally.

And Humans are not 'micro" on this earth.

[wufan]

My big beef, and it really ticks me off, is that "climate change science" is so politically charged that it's quite difficult to find good, unbiased data. Both sides of the argument love to focus on regional weather patterns over a handful of years. Both sides call the opposition heretics and it has gone so far as to cause blatant falsification or the loss of ones job for not "getting on board." Even when the data "should" be good (large sample size over extended period) the scientists will dismiss large portions of data that don't agree with their conclusions, and people just accept this!

Until the science is fixed, whatever the conclusion, basing policy on these papers is a bad idea.

[wufan]

Oh, and the predictor models are WAY over the top! These models have been wrong time after time (similar to some of the Armageddon denominations) yet people keep going back to them. Warming spell...see, we are causing this; Put in new legislation and it still warms...see, we aren't doing enough. When does legislation fix the issue if ever?

[wsushox1]

. Both sides call the opposition heretics and it has gone so far as to cause blatant falsification or the loss of ones job for not "getting on board."

I'll agree with this point. Whenever grant money is involved you have to be careful.

[wsushox1]

Oh, and the predictor models are WAY over the top! These models have been wrong time after time (similar to some of the Armageddon denominations) yet people keep going back to them. Warming spell...see, we are causing this; Put in new legislation and it still warms...see, we aren't doing enough. When does legislation fix the issue if ever?

I'm confused.

There has been no legislation that has significantly reduced CO2 or CH4 emissions.

[ShockerPrez]

Global warming???

Holy ****, where do I send my money and freedom to curtail!??

[wufan]

I'm confused.

There has been no legislation that has significantly reduced CO2 or CH4 emissions.

Kyoto protocol is one that attempted it. If it's not reducing emission, then why was it put into practice? We were promised cleaner air to reduce global warming. Why didn't it work?

[wsushox1]

Kyoto protocol is one that attempted it. If it's not reducing emission, then why was it put into practice? We were promised cleaner air to reduce global warming. Why didn't it work?

Uhm, because the three biggest emission sources didn't sign off on the protocol?

That's a bad question and you know it.

Also, cleaner air =/ reducing global warming. CH4 and CO2 does not cause respiratory problems

[Aargh]

I believe in global warming.

I believe burning pretty much anything (wood, oil, coal, natural gas, gasoline, etc.) releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which, I believe increases a greenhouse effect, which causes global warming. I do not believe that's a reason to stop burning pretty much anything.

All global warming does is move some prime survival areas into different parts of the world. The transition is so slow that humans should have no problem responding and relocating their cities and agricultural areas. Global warming changes things, but it does nothing to affect the overall condition of humanity. Unless you happen to own a lot of real estate near the ocean. In addition to not caring if the planet gets warmer, I also do not care if Miami ends up being a scuba adventure dive.

I'm not fond of burning fossil fuels, wood, etc. because of their effects on air quality. Another consideration is that, long-term, whoever has the last fossil fuels on earth wins. At some point carbon emissions and clean air will become minor concerns compared to abandoning industrialization. Pump everybody else's oil fields dry. Let other countries burn through their coal. Meanwhile, we should use every ounce of solar and wind power we can muster to save our reserves.

[wsushox1]

I believe in global warming.

I believe burning pretty much anything (wood, oil, coal, natural gas, gasoline, etc.) releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which, I believe increases a greenhouse effect, which causes global warming. I do not believe that's a reason to stop burning pretty much anything.

All global warming does is move some prime survival areas into different parts of the world. The transition is so slow that humans should have no problem responding and relocating their cities and agricultural areas. Global warming changes things, but it does nothing to affect the overall condition of humanity. Unless you happen to own a lot of real estate near the ocean. In addition to not caring if the planet gets warmer, I also do not care if Miami ends up being a scuba adventure dive.

I'm not fond of burning fossil fuels, wood, etc. because of their effects on air quality. Another consideration is that, long-term, whoever has the last fossil fuels on earth wins. At some point carbon emissions and clean air will become minor concerns compared to abandoning industrialization. Pump everybody else's oil fields dry. Let other countries burn through their coal. Meanwhile, we should use every ounce of solar and wind power we can muster to save our reserves.

I align with you.

[wufan]

Uhm, because the three biggest emission sources didn't sign off on the protocol?

That's a bad question and you know it.

Also, cleaner air =/ reducing global warming. CH4 and CO2 does not cause respiratory problems

We agree that the KP supports my original argument. The KP was designed to reduce greenhouse gasses (CO2, CH4, a couple others) to pre 1990 levels. It hasn't worked because we didn't do enough (the three largest offenders didn't ratify). Failed legislation.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

What if global warming is real, is partially man-made, we know ways to spend money and resources to slow it, and the end result of all our calcs is that the cost of fighting global warming is larger than the cost of living with it?

*I'm not even close too 100% confident in the above theory. I'm just saying its possible, and gets way too little attention in policy debates. This shouldn't be a binary choice between "global warming is a threat we must act on" folks vs "global warming is a myth" folks. There are other possibilities.

In a lot of ways, this is typical of the way R's and D's fight these days.