It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: intergalactic fire
There is nothing that says this rise will affect humans or the planet in a bad way.
Drought, floods, fire, storms, habitat loss and destruction of entire ecosystems - not the least of which are in our oceans...increase of diseases, poverty, famine, economic collapse, war, refugees...totalitarianism
Time to wake up from our cocooning dreams and start planning for our new future - before it gets planned for us
...the best thing we can do is plan with her, understand and listen.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Actually, there are large number of credible people who disagree with anthropogenically sourced climate change.
Judith Curry, a climatologist is one of them.
originally posted by: Aphorism
Excuse the ignorance, but what sorts of evidence show the causal link between man and climate change? Surely the climate is deviating from the norm, and surely we are destroying vast amounts of flora and fauna (which is evil enough in its own right), but I cannot think of anything indisputable regarding the causal link.
“but as a scientist , I feel it is my duty to let the evidence change my mi nd .”
Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director of Berkeley Earth, notes “Much to my surprise, b y far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice . ” He emphasizes that the match between the data and the theory do esn’t prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for the warming, but the good fit makes it the strongest contender. “ T o be considered seriously, an y alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as does carbon dioxide.” In its 2007 report the IPCC concluded only that “ most ” of the warming of the past 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the IPCC, that increased solar activity could have contributed to warming prior to 1956 . Berkeley Earth analyzed about 5 times more station records than were used in previous analyses, and this expanded data base along with its new statistical approach allowed Berkeley Earth to go about 100 years farther back in time than previous studies. By doing so, the Berkeley Earth team was able to conclude that over 25 0 years, the contribution of solar activity to global warming is negligible.
originally posted by: Aphorism
Excuse the ignorance, but what sorts of evidence show the causal link between man and climate change? Surely the climate is deviating from the norm, and surely we are destroying vast amounts of flora and fauna (which is evil enough in its own right), but I cannot think of anything indisputable regarding the causal link.
Who has made these claims?
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mc_squared
I am calling bull#. If its just weather when its cool, then its just weather when its hot. Neither condition is proof of AGW theory.
Oh. Well then. I don't hold, in particular, with that train of thought. While interconnectivity cannot be denied the notion that it implies some all encompassing synergy is a reach into speculation.
James Lovelock, among others.
Indeed.
Thus we can say nothing with certainty. We can, however, make projections based on what we observe, what we know, and on past experience.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: Aphorism
Excuse the ignorance, but what sorts of evidence show the causal link between man and climate change? Surely the climate is deviating from the norm, and surely we are destroying vast amounts of flora and fauna (which is evil enough in its own right), but I cannot think of anything indisputable regarding the causal link.
Carbon dioxide is indisputably a greenhouse gas: just look at Mars.
Mars should be about 210K, based on the Stefan-Boltzmann black-body radiation law. However, it has an atmosphere almost entirely composed of carbon dioxide (96%), albeit very thin. This results in a surface temperature slightly warmer, at about 215K. Ergo, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
If Mars were to acquire more atmospheric carbon dioxide, it would be warmer. The same applies to Earth.
Earth should be about 255K, based on the same law. However, it has a much thicker atmosphere and is quite a bit warmer, with a surface temperature at about 288K. Earth's main greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide, but water vapor. A great concern among scientists is that warmer temperatures will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Man is burning fossil fuels, which are composed of carbon and when burned create significant quantities of carbon dioxide as a byproduct. This increases atmospheric carbon dioxide, and subsequently warms the planet at the surface.
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: intergalactic fire
...the best thing we can do is plan with her, understand and listen.
You're kidding - right?
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So why did this experiment didn't work?
What is happening that we are not aware off?