Climate and Weather

Sheriff Joe said:
do you believe there is a chance that humans are NOT contributing to global warming...
Click to expand...

Sure, but our experts are saying otherwise, so I listen and way policy proposals based on our current body of knowledge. That's common sense.
 
Wez said:
Sure, but our experts are saying otherwise, so I listen and way policy proposals based on our current body of knowledge. That's common sense.
Click to expand...
You believe snopes is an arbiter of truth.
You also believe the expert opinion presented to you through the usual channels.
Dont feel bad, almost everyone else does too.

btw, your post?....politics.
 
espola said:
"Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."
Click to expand...
I just look at the numbers/trends.
The info was posted with no political slant on my part.
It seems you caught what you wanted out of it.
 
Wez said:
Sure, but our experts are saying otherwise, so I listen and way policy proposals based on our current body of knowledge. That's common sense.
Click to expand...
I guess it is all who you talk to /believe.
For every alarmist there is a skeptic.
However, the skeptics are not in it for profit.
I can't say that about alarmists.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
I guess it is all who you talk to /believe.
For every alarmist there is a skeptic.
However, the skeptics are not in it for profit.
I can't say that about alarmists.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why we're not discussing alarmists, we're discussing your desire/propensity to value your own opinion on the Science instead of actual Scientists research work and subsequent opinions based on research. My suspicion is you are choosing to discount the Science because you think AGW is a "lefty" thing, so you knee-jerk rebel against it.
 
Wez said:
I agree, which is why we're not discussing alarmists, we're discussing your desire/propensity to value your own opinion on the Science instead of actual Scientists research work and subsequent opinions based on research. My suspicion is you are choosing to discount the Science because you think AGW is a "lefty" thing, so you knee-jerk rebel against it.
Click to expand...

I think it depends which scientists you are asking.
Do you think all scientists think global warming is caused by man?
AGW is a lefty thing.
 
Wez said:
Sure, but our experts are saying otherwise, so I listen and way policy proposals based on our current body of knowledge. That's common sense.
Click to expand...
Ok. What is our current "body of knowledge"?
We have a political force that has been very successful in having the US, along with many western European countries, submit to a very well orchestrated lobby to curtail co2 emissions.
Fine.
Just from that information, what would you surmise?

Is the human population of earth actually having an impact, not on ecology, which is well founded, but the actual climate?
I would say, "depends on what the meaning of "impact" is".
If I were to throw my two cents in, (which is just about how much it is worth) I would say we are technically, having some impact.
How much?, literally impossible to calculate.
A reasonable approach would be a relative guess.
How much greenhouse gas are we, as industrial humans, contributing in the over all picture?
What is the percentage, relative to the whole?
Then, we need to calculate the moderating responses inherent within earth's climate dynamic, which are not completely, or honestly understood.
After that, we can guess again, but its just a guess.
Can anyone tell me the (rough) percentage of co2 the industrial human population of earth contributes to the overall naturally occurring co2 annually?
Then compare with all other naturally occurring greenhouse gasses, and give me that answer.
The percentage you come up with, would be my "guess" as to the overall "effect" of man made global warming on our planet.
It may be measurable.
 
Bernie Sanders said:
...It may be measurable, just not reliable.
In any reasonable calculation, the impact is not alarming.
Click to expand...

You sound very convinced for someone who isn't a scientist.

We should avoid alarmism, but in reality, who knows what we're really headed for? What if it turns out we took it too lightly and could have done more to avoid a negative result?

Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Actively fighting against the possibility of a dire outcome, because you view AGW as a left/right political battle is silly.

The politicians who say AGW is a left wing conspiracy are fools. Christ, even the military is taking it seriously.
 
Wez said:
You sound very convinced for someone who isn't a scientist.

We should avoid alarmism, but in reality, who knows what we're really headed for? What if it turns out we took it too lightly and could have done more to avoid a negative result?

Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Actively fighting against the possibility of a dire outcome, because you view AGW as a left/right political battle is silly.

The politicians who say AGW is a left wing conspiracy are fools. Christ, even the military is taking it seriously.
Click to expand...
What exactly do you think Im convinced of?
Did you even bother to look up the percentages?
 
Bernie Sanders said:
Ok. What is our current "body of knowledge"?
We have a political force that has been very successful in having the US, along with many western European countries, submit to a very well orchestrated lobby to curtail co2 emissions.
Fine.
Just from that information, what would you surmise?

Is the human population of earth actually having an impact, not on ecology, which is well founded, but the actual climate?
I would say, "depends on what the meaning of "impact" is".
If I were to throw my two cents in, (which is just about how much it is worth) I would say we are technically, having some impact.
How much?, literally impossible to calculate.
A reasonable approach would be a relative guess.
How much greenhouse gas are we, as industrial humans, contributing in the over all picture?
What is the percentage, relative to the whole?
Then, we need to calculate the moderating responses inherent within earth's climate dynamic, which are not completely, or honestly understood.
After that, we can guess again, but its just a guess.
Can anyone tell me the (rough) percentage of co2 the industrial human population of earth contributes to the overall naturally occurring co2 annually?
Then compare with all other naturally occurring greenhouse gasses, and give me that answer.
The percentage you come up with, would be my "guess" as to the overall "effect" of man made global warming on our planet.
It may be measurable.
Click to expand...

In the current atmosphere, averaged over the globe, in round numbers: humans and our industrial activities account for 30% of CO2, 60% of methane, 40% of nitrous oxide, almost 100% of halocarbons.

You have asked for those numbers many times in the past, and I have posted them.
 
espola said:
In the current atmosphere, averaged over the globe, in round numbers: humans and our industrial activities account for 30% of CO2, 60% of methane, 40% of nitrous oxide, almost 100% of halocarbons.

You have asked for those numbers many times in the past, and I have posted them.
Click to expand...
What is the percentage of co2, methane, nitros, and holocarbons combined?
 
espola said:
In the current atmosphere, averaged over the globe, in round numbers: humans and our industrial activities account for 30% of CO2, 60% of methane, 40% of nitrous oxide, almost 100% of halocarbons.

You have asked for those numbers many times in the past, and I have posted them.
Click to expand...
You sure about these numbers?
Snopes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top