av8torntn
Well-Known Member
The opposition is rooted in inefficiency in my opinion. The support from those at the higher levels is one of a tactical nature as well as a political nature.
Global warming
- Thread starter mthbstr8
- Start date
The opposition is rooted in inefficiency in my opinion. The support from those at the higher levels is one of a tactical nature as well as a political nature.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Climate Science Is Not Settled - WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories
Did you actually read the entire article? What did you take away from it?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Obviously you didn't read it but why do you want to tell me what it says? You leftists want everyone to do everything for you.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Maybe you didn't read this part.
Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/climat...411143565?mobile=y&mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
I figured you would stop there. For everyone else it's an interesting read written by a former member of obamas team.
oldngray
nowhere special
How about this part?
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.
A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.
A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.
We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
I figured you just skimmed through the article before posting the link.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
And I figured you just skipped the big words.
I read it yesterday, and was waiting for you or the other old, gray denier to post it.
It's fairly obvious that you didn't really understand it, nor did the old, gray guy.
Your snark comes through loud and clear, though.
oldngray
nowhere special
Its even more obvious you didn't read or understand it.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
For some, it is an editorial written by the former chief scientist for BP.
His conclusion, nonetheless:
Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
He acknowledges climate change, and points out we can't foresee the future. Bárðarbunga could change the climate for a decade, A major eruption in Yellowstone could change it for generations. In the meantime, we should try to treat the planet just a little bit better.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Psst, i dont think anybody is disputing that.
Really, thats a dumb argument to make.
TOS.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Troll a nice little piece from the article I linked for you.
" Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. "
Its clear you dont understand science bro. We get it. You dont have to keep convincing us.
TOS.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Nice of you to finally acknowledge that troll. Now we can surely agree that governmental policy isn't need to fix something Tbag happens anyway.
