Your gauge of comparison is off. Naturally in defending your position you might downplay mans contributions. There isnt nearly as much volcanic activity as during the aforementioned epoch. Do you deny the effects of cryoconite? What do you say regarding Co2 as a plant fertilizer?
If you enviro wackos want to live in tents and sipping stream water and eating tofu, go for it bro. The rest of the planet lives in reality. Mankind is a billion times more likely to die from Nuclear weapons than anything the Earths weather patterns will dish out.
I am far from an environ wacko. I just find it absurd that people simply fall in line with the argument that their party affiliates promote. Politicians are not climate change mavens, they get their stance on issues like this from the top down, and then the peons follow suit. Nobody promoting man not having a role in this subject can explain much about environment issues, much less understand photosynthesis and respiration. Look at some of my posts, Im probably more conservative than most people here, ill take any challengers to that claim as well. Just because I havent taken a side on this issue does not make me an idiot or environ wacko.
There is no debate although there is debate over degree. Much of the debate centers around the deceitful ways that some scientists have attempted to make the present warming appear to be unprecedented. Remember the first 2 IPCC ARs fell flat on their face because the alarmists scientists could not show that the present warming was any greater than previous warming. There has always been a great deal of both scientific and historical evidence to point to the 3 previous warm periods, the medieval warm period, the roman warm period and the Minoan warm period as being much greater than the present. This is what led well known alarmists scientists Dr. Jonathan Overpeck to tell the not alarmist Dr. David Deming "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period" when he mistook Dr. Deming as an alarmist.
Most Co2 comes from humans and animals--almost all of which gets reabsorbed. Have you ever heard of sun-spot activity? The sun can increase the Earth's temperature or decrease it. That explains why "global warming" isn't a consistent model of temperature increase.
I most certainly have heard of sunspot activity, it is one contributing factor effecting climate change. Just like I have seen all sorts of charts just like that one. Come to think of it I think you have posted that particular one numerous times. Its not just about Co2 either, and what about the substance which is not absorbed which reduces ice albedo?
Humans debate Global Warming because certain very powerful parties are beginning to use authoritarian measures to tax, prohibit, regulate or otherwise abolish many consumer choices and driving up the prices of energy we all need and rely on every day. The solutions being offered to GLobal Warming are not only do not help, they do nothing but add yet another left wing ideological inefficiency to the Western Economy and make us that much less competitive against totalitarian China who doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). That is why people question global warming. We don't want our lives inconvenienced or to become more expensive. it's cool to recycle, it's cool to switch from CFC 's and not destroy the ozone layer.. add 25% to the utility bill every month though? man that is going to (*)(*)(*)(*) people off.
This explains quite well why if rapid global warming is true, we're screwed even if we could do something about it, because we will not do anything about even if we could.
Life will go like it has for BILLIONS of years of warming and cooling Libs need to stop living scared so dam much, they are always creating these fantasy end of the world scenarios to feel important.
It's been posted because people don't seem aware of the information. When there is less sun-spot activity, the Earth is cooler. Go figure. Co2 is naturally occurring and is not the primary factor. It contributes, but so does "water vapor" and a host of other factors.
There is a lot at stake in the global warming debate. Is it man made, or is it not? If not, there is no reason to change the way we live and power our lives and there is nothing we can do about it. If man is the cause and there is time to reverse it, or at least slow it down, we need to take action now. If man is the cause and it is too late, or nature is the cause and we can't change it, we need to prepare. If it is a temporary situation and the climate will improve in a short time, we would waste billions for nothing.
You mean, "There would be nothing we could do, even if we wanted to." Most Co2 comes from humans and animals, short of killing all life on the planet, it's hopeless. Plus, sun-spot activity, not Co2 is responsible for the unusual warming periods.
I understand everyone has different opinions regarding the subject and admittedly I'm probably not as knowledgeable about it as some but... I'm curious as to what 97% of scientists are doing wrong if there really isn't man caused climate change.
The theory of GW is based on factual scientific realities, the conclusion misguided. Most (90%) of the theory sounds valid, but it's the conclusion, the remaining 10% that's not. There was cooling during a three fold increase in human-made Co2. Why? Because sun-activity that has been increasing through the 1900's decreased for a time. Most Co2 in the world is man and animal made--most of that gets re-absorbed by plants, the ocean and the land biomass. Scroll to the top of the previous page and read the graph. Link 97% of the worlds scientists don't specialize in weather or solar-activity.
It was actually 97% of US climate scientists, my mistake. I saw those charts, but wouldn't they have taken this into account? I know it's not wise to take everything thrown a t you and accept it as fact, but I have a hard time figuring out how so many people who specialize in this be wrong. But I definitely accept it's a real possibility.
They might be right that man-kind contributes to the warmth, but wrong that we are the primary factor. That data is largely ignored, in fact. Also, the classic hockey-stick model is wrong. We had warming followed by a mini-ice age that isn't taken into account. So you have two glaring data points; an ignored mini-ice age period and sun activity that correlates to global temperature increase, then decrease, then increase again. Why these two facts are ignored? I don't know, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I think they are just misguided people and very few scientists actually study global warming as their primary duty. Even if they aren't wrong, which two data points seem to suggest, there is still the main issue: Most of the 'problem' is caused by living beings, humans and animals. Short of killing all mammal-life on the planet, there is no solution. I used to be a big defender of Global Warming for a number of reasons. But then I started trying to debunk the opposition, so I had to read their research. I'm sorry to say I had to admit I was wrong. Of all the research I've done trying to justify a controversial theory and I come across two data-points that put a nail in the popular theory.
When you have to change the name of your theory because the evidence doesn't support the claim, there is bound to be a lot of skeptism.
Thats not at the hands of many who have been concerned with climate change. The evidence supports melting ice.
And there is ice forming every winter, whats your point? Glaciers were melting long before humans showed up, the world has climate cycles it goes through regaurdless of what its population does.
It is not the sun! The cooling stratosphere is one reason that the sun is not the reason for the current warming. Others are discussed in this video. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=player_embedded"]Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar - YouTube[/ame] Before the use of FF, the Carbon cycle was in balance. The additional carbon, which was sequestered in the FFs, is unbalancing the cycle and cannot be completely absorbed plants and the ocean.
My point is there is substantial evidence that the amount of light that ice will absorb is being increased and in turn absorbing heat which leads to melting.
