Of course it makes a difference. Natural process moves us in a direction that actually is expected, but doesn't induce catastrophic results as the IPCC pointed out. So, if we aren't even reaching the top line target IPCC created, why hyperventilate at all?
I think you missed my point. ~2C/century of warming, regardless of whether it is all natural or all anthroprogenic, doesn't sound catastrophic to me. But, either way humans have to adapt. Maybe we have to adapt more if it were ~4C/century but we still have adapt all the same. So it doesn't matter what the cause is. The difference is more philosophical and political which I really don't care about...personally. Also, please don't misunderstand my position on this. I'm not saying we have to do anything about AGW politically. I think there are a lot of great arguments against doing anything. But there's a difference in acknowledging that Earth is warming and that humans are the primary cause and doing something about it. I'm not sure we should or can do anything about it or that we even need to. That's my position on this.
I do not want to spend trillions of dollars on AGW. A trillion dollars could go a long way in solving problems like poverty, cancer, etc. I acknowledge that. I'm a really sciency person so I'm mostly apathetic about what we do about it. Maybe we don't need to do anything at all. I'll let you more philosophical and political types hash that out. There is no contradiction in me acknowledging that 1) the Earth is warming and 2) that humans are probably responsible for most it and me not really caring about what is done about it. Do you disagree? I absolutely acknowledge that AGW is just a theory. And it could be wrong. But, quantum mechanics and general relatively are also just theories. And, did you know, that we know for an absolute fact that they are both wrong! That's right. Between the two they make what is often called the "worst prediction in all of science" concerning the cosmological constant problem. But, we don't throw them away do we? Of course not. They form the basis of some the most remarkable advances in all of human history. They are still useful...very useful. And you use them both on a daily basis whether you are aware of it or not That's what science asks of it's theories. Not that they be 100% correct, but that they be useful. AGW is useful in understanding the current climate situation. And it happens to be more useful than any other theory right now. Maybe someday we'll have a better theory.
Are you interested in learning more about AGW or not? I don't mind engaging in a conversation with someone that is genuinely interested in the topic. Hoosier8 and AFM for example are skeptics that are completely rational. They have great points. They make me think. They keep my position more centrist on AGW than it might otherwise be. I accept that and it's probably for the best. You're rants, however, come off more like someone who is ideological than someone who actually wants to learn. Actually, it comes off as if you're acting like you already know it all, but your responses indicate otherwise. And you've already labeled me (incorrectly I might add) as an alarmist without even asking any questions. I have to be honest, you appear to be prejudiced against AGW without even understanding what the primary hypothesis are. There are plenty of "skeptics" out there that acknowledge the tenants of AGW, but still don't think we need to do anything politically about it. I'd say that's closer to where I fall. But, you didn't know that because you didn't to ask.
It does give me pause. We have to figure out why models overestimate the warming. There's no way around that.
I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do tend to agree with those that are....including the ones who put Americans on the Moon: https://climate.nasa.gov/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Yes, and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2...more greenhouse effect. It's not that hard. So we have a workable theory that explains (at least partly) the 0.15-0.20C/decade rate of warming. And there's no convincing natural theory that explains it. That's the current state of affairs. And yet, I'm told over and over again that we're just supposed to abandon the most useful theory we have for no theory at all because someone is mad about the politics of it and thinks it's all a big conspiracy and hoax. It doesn't make any sense.
In 1970 Alvin Toffler's book "Future Shock" was a best seller and he popularized (didn't invent) the term "information overload". Between cable TV and the Internet, that's exactly what many Americans face today. Global Warming AKA Climate Change has been so highly politicized by both sides that it's difficult for those without a strong STEM background to see the truth, to recognize where the science ends and the bullshit politics begin.
It's not really that hard. The attempt to silence one side of the debate is a pretty good indicator of the politicization of science.
The Paris accords are costing trillions, you and fools like you do DEMAND that trillions of dollars be spent on a fake problem. PS. I read one sentence, so keep it short kid, who do you think you are, Steven King
Kid, there is nothing that you can teach me. I own 3 SUV's, 2 cars, a boat, a home and a stock portfolio. All you do is repeat lies that you have been suckered into believing. You have no clue
Agreed....and that works both ways. What I'm trying to say is that it's difficult for non-STEM educated people to tell what is pure political bullshit and what is real science. Remember when Big Tobacco was under fire and the CEO of RJR Nabisco, under oath, said "“Cigarette smoking is no more ‘addictive’ than coffee, tea or Twinkies.”? Then the other CEOs muddied the waters with "*Cigarettes may cause lung cancer, heart disease and other health problems, but the evidence is not conclusive" and denied knowing how many people died from smoking because estimates of death are "generated by computers and are only statistical." It's these kinds of smoke screens which confuse most voters about climate change. Both sides exaggerate with either "We're all gonna die!" to "nothing to worry about." http://billmoyers.com/content/10-big-fat-lies-and-the-liars-who-told-them/5/ “Cigarette smoking is no more ‘addictive’ than coffee, tea or Twinkies.” —James W. Johnston, CEO of RJR Nabisco, April 14, 1994 http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/15/us/tobacco-chiefs-say-cigarettes-aren-t-addictive.html
I note you get attacked. This won't happen in my posts. I see this in a way that mimics the very oceans often discussed. We know a lot about waves. But can man control the ocean waves? Is man responsible for the vast amounts of ocean waves? Climate is extremely complex and is not a single system. What makes me smile is some allege climate is our fault and this of course strongly hints that man can control climates globally. Seems silly when posted on a forum. Few say climate is static. Few say it can't warm up. But most who are alleged skeptics (normal state of science) get shoved aside by those alleging man can indeed control climate conditions. Politically they are simply wanting more and more of your cash for purposes they do not actually define. If they want earth to cool, what are the mechanics?
I'm not demanding that anybody spend trillions of dollars. I've said that repeatedly PS. It's Stephen King. And he actually writes a lot of short stories too.
You are demanding that trillions be spent, and do not even know it, or you are a liar. It's one of the two and neither makes you very bright PS. Keep it short and you will get read, and you are not Steven King
Only one record ‘debunked’ the pause and that paper incorporated into the land/ocean record is still controversial. All other records show the pause.
So you admit to climate change, but deny mankind has anything to do with it? Not worried here. I have no kids and most of the changes won't manifest themselves until we're all dead. That's the American Way, isn't it? Kick the can down the road and let the kids handle it? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
There was definitely a pause. Almost every dataset confirms that. In fact, there were multiple pauses and declines all embedded in the longterm secular upward trend. In other words, every pause or decline was followed by an even more pronounced rise.
