Believe in? Why would anyone completely discount the possibility tipping points? They're not some mythical being, its a possibility. You can believe the possibility is small or large but your wording is beyond ridiculous.
Man influencing earth temperatures. What arrogance.
At one time the earth was covered with snow and ice and
then earth had a warming trend. Mankind, if it existed
during that phase, had no hand in that warming trend.
Then a little ice age came along, no fault of man, and
then another warming trend that ended the little ice
age. Again mankind had nothing to do with the warming
phase.
Now we have a group of so called scientist who want to
blame mankind for any warming we may have. And
strangely, if we just tax the "rich" nations and give it
to the poor nations all will be solved and mankind
can live without fear of a scorched earth.
Why is that, can anyone answer how higher taxes
and giving to the poor nations will really solve the
problem.
Kinda reminds me of redistribution of wealth that
all the Socialist want.
Just my thoughts.
Believe in? Why would anyone completely discount the possibility tipping points? They're not some mythical being, its a possibility. You can believe the possibility is small or large but your wording is beyond ridiculous.
If you DENY that Manhattan will be underwater in 100 years because of a trace gas that makes up 3.8% of the atmosphere, and which humans only contribute 3% to, then you are a bat crazy flat-earther of the highest order. I really don't see how people make that argument with a straight face.
Ok, what happens when you reach a "tipping point"?
Keep in mind that you've already said you don't believe in doomsday scenarios.
There's believe in again. Tipping points aren't unicorns. I don't think they are a major concern but I also don't believe they're out of the realm of possibility. You apparently have a hard time with the concept of risk.
Deny or affirm........
You and I nor anyone else posting on here will
be around in 100 years to see anything. Nor
will the people who keep telling us that is going
to occur.
If you care to remember, some of these quasi-
experts have told us that flooding was imminent.
But tell me, what flooding has occurred.
And by the way you didn't answer the question
of how money will solve all the problems.
And you can take all you fade ass stats and
put them where the sun doesn't shine. Or
have you forgotten all the BS stats that were
proved bogus with the emails that came to light.
No need to be confused.
I do believe that systems can have tipping points that create feedback loops, because I have seen plenty of examples.
I do believe our climate is complex enough to potentially have those feedback loops and tipping points.
I do believe that neither you, nor anyone else, despite their 99.999999% certainty, really truly knows where those points are.
I believe that "doomsday" scenarios tend to be fairly remote, and real doom and gloom scenarios for our climate probably fall in that category.
I do not believe we really have a really good grasp on the actual probability of that happening.
I believe risk has two dimensions, magnitude and probability.
Does that help?
I also believe some reasonable steps towards reducing CO2 emissions, even if slightly harmful to our economy in the short-run, make a LOT of long-term sense for reasons that have nothing to do with the climate and all the uncertainty involved in that topic, and everything to do with the mathematical certainty that we will run out of fossil fuels and long before full depletion will experience uncomfortable increases in the cost of fossil fuel energy.
That is a purely emotional argument. The truth of whether or not the thought of our activities affecting the climate is completely independent on it being "arrogant".
It is a bit like saying "It is arrogant for Randomguy to think he will die someday."
The certainty of my death and its underlying truth is completely irrelevant to any emotion associated with that.
Lastly, I would point out that at no time in any of that history you cited were there 6.8 billion (and growing) human beings with a global civilization producing gigatons of greenhouse gases.
That little differentiating factor has only happened in the last few decades.
Saying that climate change in the past was always caused by nature, and therefore must always BE caused by nature has the same logical form of the following:
"Every time I pointed this revolver at my head before and pulled the trigger, nothing happened, so therefore I can continue to do so..."
Not exactly a compelling logical argument.
I might not be here in 100 years, but my children might be, and their grandchilden will quite possibly be here.Deny or affirm........
You and I nor anyone else posting on here will
be around in 100 years to see anything. Nor
will the people who keep telling us that is going
to occur.
If you care to remember, some of these quasi-
experts have told us that flooding was imminent.
But tell me, what flooding has occurred.
And by the way you didn't answer the question
of how money will solve all the problems.
And you can take all you fade ass stats and
put them where the sun doesn't shine. Or
have you forgotten all the BS stats that were
proved bogus with the emails that came to light.
You might not feel morally obligated to take conservative risk avoiding measures today, but your decendants will have to live with your/our decisions, and that, to me, means that I am morally obligated to be a bit conservative in my approach to poking a sleeping bear.
Nobody is a denier of global warming. Just the anthropogenic vs. natural influence of it.
I think we both agree here, and agree they are desperate people too.
Ditto.
Speaking of satellite record of surface temperatures...
Lets not forget, that when satellites first started tracking temperatures, we have an unquantified level of cooling from atmospheric particulates. As the first world powers, being responsible for most of it, and primarily us... the USA... we formed the EPA, and started cleaning up our act.
That said...
This 20+ year trend from the 70's to the early 2000's definitely has a component of relative warming increases, because of a cleaner atmosphere.
Are you laughing because you don't understand the facts, or don't believe the facts?Earth's temp has risen a whopping 0.6 deg. C in a century. In a 30 year period between 1940 and 1970, it actually fell by 0.2 deg. C. I never hear why temps fell for a full 30 year period, but it looks like we may be headed that way again.
You just explained what the AGW crowd does. Darrin simply illustrated that increases in CO2 do not mean warming occurs. Now think about how many times the AGW crowd cites the increases from 1970 when they want to make a point. We see that is is already at a 30 year low, so why do you give them a pass for every time they cite such cherry picked examples?
I see it as only proving the earth has warmed since the use of satellite data, which was already at a 30+ year low.
Why do you get convinced so easily by propaganda?
Some people just cannot see past their own confined knowledge.
How many of you AGW people understand the Milankovitch Cycle, and it's flaws related to using only northern insolation. How many of you also understand Kepler's Law, and how the energy received by the sun varies with eccentricity?
Manny...
Did they teach you why eccentricity is a factor in climate change?
Another question is why don't the AGW alarmists discuss these factors?
fixed:
He believes Earth will become another Venus I bet.
Manny, can you explain to us the relevance of eccentricity on a climate system?
Surly, this important fact is taught in one of your 101 level classes.
If you look at the source link, you see that 0 = 2007.
Orbital Eccentricity
Thanks.
And you accuse me of being emotional in a
previous post.
You still don't answer the questions posed. How is
taking money from so called rich countries and
giving it to so called poor countries going to
solve any problems.
If a problem truly does exist then something more
than a carbon tax needs to ins uted.
No this is a man made crisis alright, by the
socialist wanting wealth re-distribution, not
by activities of man.
You grasp at so many straws. Its not orbital. Why? Think timescale.Manny, can you explain to us the relevance of eccentricity on a climate system?
Surly, this important fact is taught in one of your 101 level classes.
If you look at the source link, you see that 0 = 2007.
Orbital Eccentricity
-Manny
Where are the numbers since 1970 and why were those not included?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
