September 2016 Warmest on Record

[MrMrdevincamus]

CO2 emissions brought on by the industrialization of our civilizations have coincided almost perfectly with the raise in air, sea and atmospheric temperatures. Either it is the wildest coincidence or there is a correlation.

So its circumstantial evidence that support the claims of Anthropogenic global warming?

; {>

 

[Twilight Hue]

The earth has always had climate change, records that are only around 100 years is only a drop in the ocean.

It's funny how people try to push nature.

I'm sure it was generally much hotter in the past. Especially when the earth first formed. *grin*

 

[metis]

It's the culmination of decades of research and record keeping, and scientists are not prone to just guesswork. Even a scientific hypothesis must have some evidence to indicate that X could be true.

 

[Quetzal]

So its circumstantial evidence that support the claims of Anthropogenic global warming?

; {>

(I deleted an earlier post because it was rude, apologies.)

Question, is your contention the overwhelming focus on climate change being man made or are you against the idea of climate change as a whole?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

(I deleted an earlier post because it was rude, apologies.)

Question, is your contention the overwhelming focus on climate change being man made or are you against the idea of climate change as a whole?

I believe climate change has occurred in the past and is happening now. Its been changing for at least 300 million years. I think the graphs that show temp related to CO2 are very interesting, because the peaks and troughs of the graph are so symmetrical. Its as if there is some type of a repair mechanism or trigger that repairs the atmosphere by somehow correcting the ultra high CO2 levels. As far as climate change ie global warming being influenced or directly caused by mans activity I tend to doubt it. Until there is hard evidence I would urge caution when it comes to our environment, and be for some control on emissions etc.

; {>

 

[Quetzal]

As far as climate change ie global warming being influenced or directly caused by mans activity I tend to doubt it.

Really? I think we have a hand to play and the responsibility to help maintain the planet the best we can. I base this on the correlation between our industrialization and the sharp rise in temperature/CO2 emissions since.

Causes aside, do you support funding renewable initiatives? Wind, solar, etc?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Really?

First I do not trust anyone, when 'money' is involved in a system and when complexity increases the probability that we common folk will never know the entire story increases exponentially. So I do not think there are bad guys and bad guys in this climate change/warming debacle. There are simply some not as dirty as the others. That said not sure of how reliable the evidences is from either side of the table is. I tend to trust those that do not support mans role in global warming and even climate change is that much of the data they use was published before this debate became a debate. So there was no, or very limited incentive to spin the results. Some of that data was for example warmer periods of the Earth’s history prevailed 800 years (+or- a few years) before the significant rise in CO2 levels via the industrial age. There is so much anecdotal evidences like the fact that after WW2 CO2 levels posted a large surge, however global temps fell for forty years after 1940. Or the fact that the average global temp did rise 0.7 degrees, that rise was consistent with long term natural climate trends.

I think we have a hand to play and the responsibility to help maintain the planet the best we can. I base this on the correlation between our industrialization and the sharp rise in temperature/CO2 emissions since.

As I said in an earlier reply, even though I feel climate change and to a lesser extent global warming is caused more, a lot more by natural phenomenon that can be verified by historical record etc man should err on the side of caution and do what is economically prudent to offset global warming triggers. I would support an independent research study that would dwarf our current efforts. In fact if I were president or dictator I would eliminate some pet projects or do what ever it took to find out once and for all what our activities are doing to the biosphere by an totally independent (of anyone or thing that has a vested interest etc in CCGW) The group would be completely transparent. It would not be that difficult to do. Simply 'tag' the fuels and anything that produces greenhouse gasses with an chemical or isotope tag and monitor the air. Without such a study we are in danger of throwing vast sums of money down a speculative hole that may or may not have a return on investment and of being the pasty of second world economies that are looking to the USA to subsidize their economic expansion.

Causes aside, do you support funding renewable initiatives? Wind, solar, etc?

Are you asking me if I think governments should subsidize such things? Maybe the gov should give tax incentives for pilot projects* and do some pure R&D work on things like battery technology. Maybe there could be some far more stringent requirements on passive stuff like super-insulating homes and building them to use thermal masses etc. You might wish you had left that insulting reply after I say this. We need a energy dense** source to meet the electrical demands of the next hundred or so years, or until fusion is brought on line. ** (solar wind and renewable are not energy dense)

Fission fast breeder reactors would fill that need. As the head of government I would order many new fission reactors to be built. Those new reactors would be redesigned to make them fail proof in the event of cooling loss etc. I would began decommissioning the old plants because the new plants would be all standardized and fail safe in the event of everything but a direct hit from a nuke. I would increase R&D in the field of clean coal and fossil fuels which would have to be used until the nukes would come on line....

Thats all.... sorry for the length I got carried away...

; {>

 

[Quetzal]

First I do not trust anyone, when 'money' is involved in a system and when complexity increases the probability that we common folk will never know the entire story increases exponentially. So I do not think there are bad guys and bad guys in this climate change/warming debacle. There are simply some not as dirty as the others. That said not sure of how reliable the evidences is from either side of the table is. I tend to trust those that do not support mans role in global warming and even climate change is that much of the data they use was published before this debate became a debate. So there was no, or very limited incentive to spin the results. Some of that data was for example warmer periods of the Earth’s history prevailed 800 years (+or- a few years) before the significant rise in CO2 levels via the industrial age. There is so much anecdotal evidences like the fact that after WW2 CO2 levels posted a large surge, however global temps fell for forty years after 1940. Or the fact that the average global temp did rise 0.7 degrees, that rise was consistent with long term natural climate trends.



As I said in an earlier reply, even though I feel climate change and to a lesser extent global warming is caused more, a lot more by natural phenomenon that can be verified by historical record etc man should err on the side of caution and do what is economically prudent to offset global warming triggers. I would support an independent research study that would dwarf our current efforts. In fact if I were president or dictator I would eliminate some pet projects or do what ever it took to find out once and for all what our activities are doing to the biosphere by an totally independent (of anyone or thing that has a vested interest etc in CCGW) The group would be completely transparent. It would not be that difficult to do. Simply 'tag' the fuels and anything that produces greenhouse gasses with an chemical or isotope tag and monitor the air. Without such a study we are in danger of throwing vast sums of money down a speculative hole that may or may not have a return on investment and of being the pasty of second world economies that are looking to the USA to subsidize their economic expansion.



Are you asking me if I think governments should subsidize such things? Maybe the gov should give tax incentives for pilot projects* and do some pure R&D work on things like battery technology. Maybe there could be some far more stringent requirements on passive stuff like super-insulating homes and building them to use thermal masses etc. You might wish you had left that insulting reply after I say this. We need a energy dense** source to meet the electrical demands of the next hundred or so years, or until fusion is brought on line. ** (solar wind and renewable are not energy dense)

Fission fast breeder reactors would fill that need. As the head of government I would order many new fission reactors to be built. Those new reactors would be redesigned to make them fail proof in the event of cooling loss etc. I would began decommissioning the old plants because the new plants would be all standardized and fail safe in the event of everything but a direct hit from a nuke. I would increase R&D in the field of clean coal and fossil fuels which would have to be used until the nukes would come on line....

Thats all.... sorry for the length I got carried away...

; {>

If you support cleaner energy initiatives while preserving the planet in the best way we know how, the rest of the narrative is your own. No arguments here.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

It really just boils down to deniers to gaining a greater understanding of the topic they claim to know so much about. But they typically outright refuse. You can't reason with an unreasonable person.

I think that blade cuts both ways. Deniers are accused of being ignorant of the subject. Most of the rebuttals to climate change seem to mirror those that claim C.change is real in quality and knowledge of the subject. I am just wondering what do you base that accusation of the 'deniers' are ignorant of the subject? Its difficult because IMO the subject is really about more than just climate change. I am happy you are keeping it clean.

From the web' 'A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.'

; {>

 

[Quetzal]

I think that blade cuts both ways. Deniers are accused of being ignorant of the subject. Most of the rebuttals to climate change seem to mirror those that claim C.change is real in quality and knowledge of the subject. I am just wondering what do you base that accusation of the 'deniers' are ignorant of the subject? Its difficult because IMO the subject is really about more than just climate change. I am happy you are keeping it clean.

My argument is data driven. The data comes from a large variety of sources from a wide gambit of nations. There is a consensus as well as consistency from the various studies.Those who throw it out without data to support their own claims are dismissed from my mind in regards to this discussion.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I think that blade cuts both ways! So called deniers are accused of being ignorant of the subject. Most of the rebuttals to climate change seem to mirror those that claim C.change is real in quality and knowledge of the subject. I am just wondering what do you base that accusation of the 'deniers' are ignorant of the subject?

From the web' 'A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.'

; {>

If you support cleaner energy initiatives while preserving the planet in the best way we know how, the rest of the narrative is your own. No arguments here.

I do very much care about our world. Love my trees, natures air conditioners, detest clear cutting to the point of doing sabotage to save old growth forest, so we seem to be somewhat in agreement and I will take that anyday!

; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

My argument is data driven. The data comes from a large variety of sources from a wide gambit of nations. There is a consensus as well as consistency from the various studies.Those who throw it out without data to support their own claims are dismissed from my mind in regards to this discussion.

I can understand that and would do the same.

; {>