Climate Change

[Rockport]

It may in fact be real.
But the lie about 98% of the world's scientists saying so is 100% for sure not true. In fact, the vast majority won't say one way or the other without further evidence. You may wish to research that 98% figure AB. That keeps getting used as if it's fact, when it is not the case at all.
Again, that is not to say man-made warming is not a real thing....it's just that the 98% figure for sure is not.

Ok, how about overwhelming number of climate scientists.

 

[Rockport]

It may in fact be real.
But the lie about 98% of the world's scientists saying so is 100% for sure not true. In fact, the vast majority won't say one way or the other without further evidence. You may wish to research that 98% figure AB. That keeps getting used as if it's fact, when it is not the case at all.
Again, that is not to say man-made warming is not a real thing....it's just that the 98% (actually 97%) figure for sure is not.
That figure comes from a poll of 79 UN Climate Change board "approved scientists". 79 scientists out of the 100s of thousands out there.

Or over 95%.

There is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause. In spite of this agreement, only about 50% the general public think that scientists have reached a consensus on human-caused climate change. Two sources of the discrepancy are the unbalanced portrayal of the situation in the media, and the Manufactured Doubt Industry.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

 

[DFWJC]

Or over 95%.

There is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Over 95% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is the cause. In spite of this agreement, only about 50% the general public think that scientists have reached a consensus on human-caused climate change. Two sources of the discrepancy are the unbalanced portrayal of the situation in the media, and the Manufactured Doubt Industry.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

For example. A group of more than 31,000 Chemical scientists and Physicists have signed a protest petition in regard to this topic. Nobody asked them and they see major flaws.....and 9000 of them have PHDs in areas directly linked to UN "findings".

I'm sorry, but the 79 responses used by the UN does not make up a proper sample size of the entire scientific community.

And yes, weather.com and wundergroud will list that quote about actively publishing "climate scientists" (read, scientists getting grants to say just that)
being 95 or 97 or whatever %. That number is from the UN approved 79 responses out of thousands that were deemed acceptable. And from that small sample, we continue to get the 97% figure.

Again, I'm not even here debating the validity of warming one way or the other as much as saying that this 97% figure is a railroad job tied to politics and agenda.

 

[BigStar]

This board don't need no science, it was cool last week

 

[jobberone]

That 97% number is a convenient number and does not tell us anything. The sample size is too small and is biased. The vast majority of scientists do say CO2 levels are rising and that temps over the last two decades have gone up but the latter doesn't say much. It isn't to be dismissed either.

 

[Rockport]

That 97% number is a convenient number and does not tell us anything. The sample size is too small and is biased. The vast majority of scientists do say CO2 levels are rising and that temps over the last two decades have gone up but the latter doesn't say much. It isn't to be dismissed either.

Common sense tells me that everything mankind has done to the environment will cause a climate change reaction of some sort.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think the key to Warming and Cooling is related to Locked Carbon in the permafrost layer. It has to do with the Earth's eliptic rotation around the Sun in conjunction with the axis in which the Earth sits on it's magnetic pool. Because we are slightly tilted, it effects the amount of direct sun light the pools are subjected to, which in turn, causes more melt, which releases more carbon, which acts as a catalyst for heating or cooling. It's a natural phenomenon.

However, I think it would be foolish of us to believe that Man does not effect his own surroundings. We definitely do so it is reasonable to say that man is effecting warming and cooling cycles. The question is, how much and do we have any ability to change the cycle enough to effect climate? I think the answer to that is probably no but I am not an authority on the subject so I can not speak authoritatively on that.

 

[Rockport]

For example. A group of more than 31,000 Chemical scientists and Physicists have signed a protest petition in regard to this topic. Nobody asked them and they see major flaws.....and 9000 of them have PHDs in areas directly linked to UN "findings".

I'm sorry, but the 79 responses used by the UN does not make up a proper sample size of the entire scientific community.

And yes, weather.com and wundergroud will list that quote about actively publishing "climate scientists" (read, scientists getting grants to say just that)
being 95 or 97 or whatever %. That number is from the UN approved 79 responses out of thousands that were deemed acceptable. And from that small sample, we continue to get the 97% figure.

Again, I'm not even here debating the validity of warming one way or the other as much as saying that this 97% figure is a railroad job tied to politics and agenda.

The research looked into peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2011 specifically on "global climate change" or "global warming." In abstracts taking a position on anthropogenic global warming, 97.1 percent of the abstracts supported the view that humans are causing global warming.

http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/global_warming_climate_change_is_real.html

 

[jobberone]

Common sense tells me that everything mankind has done to the environment will cause a climate change reaction of some sort.

Well, you may or may not be right. We are in an Interstadial period of an Ice Age and have been in one for several million years. So one needs to understand we are in an ICE AGE right now. It's just merely the lull we live in and perhaps why we are even here. It would be better to live in a warming period of an interstadial than to live in a cooling one (right now) or the beginning of a new ice dominant earth. We just don't want to get it too hot or have too much CO2 esp too rapidly.

As another pointed out volcanoes spew out a lot of gases and more so than we can produce. But we must be careful because we do not know all the ins and outs of climate on this planet. Best to be cautious about what we do.

 

[Rockport]

Well, you may or may not be right. We are in an Interstadial period of an Ice Age and have been in one for several million years. So one needs to understand we are in an ICE AGE right now. It's just merely the lull we live in and perhaps why we are even here. It would be better to live in a warming period of an interstadial than to live in a cooling one (right now) or the beginning of a new ice dominant earth. We just don't want to get it too hot or have too much CO2 esp too rapidly.

As another pointed out volcanoes spew out a lot of gases and more so than we can produce. But we must be careful because we do not know all the ins and outs of climate on this planet. Best to be cautious about what we do.

The problem is that it costs too much to be cautious. That and it's turned into a political issue because of those costs. Once it becomes political, very little will change so anti climate changers win.

 

[joseephuss]

Well, you may or may not be right. We are in an Interstadial period of an Ice Age and have been in one for several million years. So one needs to understand we are in an ICE AGE right now. It's just merely the lull we live in and perhaps why we are even here. It would be better to live in a warming period of an interstadial than to live in a cooling one (right now) or the beginning of a new ice dominant earth. We just don't want to get it too hot or have too much CO2 esp too rapidly.

As another pointed out volcanoes spew out a lot of gases and more so than we can produce. But we must be careful because we do not know all the ins and outs of climate on this planet. Best to be cautious about what we do.

I've read articles that say otherwise.

 

[jobberone]

If the permafrost starts releasing enough methane then we won't have to guess about the warming of the earth.

 

[jobberone]

The problem is that it costs too much to be cautious. That and it's turned into a political issue because of those costs. Once it becomes political, very little will change so anti climate changers win.

Being cautious means not jumping to conclusions and spending money on the wrong things.

Again the answer is fusion. We can change humanity and the face of the earth with it.

 

[Hoofbite]

For example. A group of more than 31,000 Chemical scientists and Physicists have signed a protest petition in regard to this topic. Nobody asked them and they see major flaws.....and 9000 of them have PHDs in areas directly linked to UN "findings".

That website is a complete joke. I can't remember the name of it, but I've seen the site you are talking about. Saw some guy post it on reddit and I looked at the site. Apparently it's also been heavily critiqued based on the replies the guy received. I'm not sure you could have picked a worse site to go with.

They define "scientist" as someone with a B.A. level of education. So, random undergrad who set foot in a lab at one time or another qualifies.

That in itself is laughable and many of their higher degree holders don't have degrees in areas that have anything to do with climate change. Let me ask my podiatrist about climate change.

 

[jobberone]

I've read articles that say otherwise.

Yeah, me, too. Remember the end of the Permian was probably strongly correlated with volcanic activity. Of course that was a whole lot more than we will likely see over the next few to more million years. So I'm not entirely certain of that figure either. I'm very concerned about the worldwide measurements of temps. We need to get a lot better at making sure those are down properly which many aren't now.

Also the end of the Cretaceous period also had increased volcanic activity that was very likely related to loss of species well before the asteroid hit.

Again, I'm not in one camp or another but the camp of mankind and the planet. I don't really know what to make of it all and I'm not in that field either.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that we can all agree on the fact that Man is changing his surroundings. But, does that mean that man can change the effects of these changes enough to change the actual outcomes? All things change their surroundings. A mountain range changes it's surroundings and the effects it has on it.

 

[jobberone]

That website is a complete joke. I can't remember the name of it, but I've seen the site you are talking about. Saw some guy post it on reddit and I looked at the site. Apparently it's also been heavily critiqued based on the replies the guy received. I'm not sure you could have picked a worse site to go with.

They define "scientist" as someone with a B.A. level of education. So, random undergrad who set foot in a lab at one time or another qualifies.

That in itself is laughable and many of their higher degree holders don't have degrees in areas that have anything to do with climate change. Let me ask my podiatrist about climate change.

Ouch, that had to hurt some, somewhere, somehow!

 

[jobberone]

I think that we can all agree on the fact that Man is changing his surroundings. But, does that mean that man can change the effects of these changes enough to change the actual outcomes? All things change their surroundings. A mountain range changes it's surroundings and the effects it has on it.

Simply put is well put. I like this.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

When Yellowstone finally decides to do it's thing, the effects on everything will be noticeable. That's a given.

 

[jimmy40]

Whatever caused the cool front to come through Texas in the middle of July last week and dump 3" of rain on my place I'm all for.