[kenberg]

Daniel1960, on 2014-March-20, 05:21, said:

What is more absurd and irresponsible? To go forward into the unknown without adequate knowledge, or to not go forward out of fear of the unknown?

I regard it as fundamental to life that we always go into the future without adequate knowledge. I am not recommending fear, but I do think caution is a useful trait. Tossing more and more stuff into the atmosphere and trusting that it will all work out does not strike me as cautious.

Exactly how to have a world with 7+ billion people in it, all leading enjoyable and energy consuming lives, without making a hash of it is not easy. Maybe it's not possible. I recommend trying.

[Daniel1960]

kenberg, on 2014-March-20, 07:07, said:

I regard it as fundamental to life that we always go into the future without adequate knowledge. I am not recommending fear, but I do think caution is a useful trait. Tossing more and more stuff into the atmosphere and trusting that it will all work out does not strike me as cautious.

Exactly how to have a world with 7+ billion people in it, all leading enjoyable and energy consuming lives, without making a hash of it is not easy. Maybe it's not possible. I recommend trying.

I am not referring to pollution, whch I feel that we need to reign in. Europe and America tackled this problem a few decades back (still needs some work), and now it is China's turn. Sulfates, nitrates, particulates, and a host of other chemicals need to be curtailed for the benefit of all. However, we do not have any data showing that added carbon dioxide is harmful, while we have data showing benefits to plantlife, which ultimately benefits animals.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2014-March-20, 08:32, said:

However, we do not have any data showing that added carbon dioxide is harmful, while we have data showing benefits to plantlife, which ultimately benefits animals.

Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, and mankind is spewing billions of tons of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The additional heat is disrupting weather patterns and is causing ice sheets on land to melt, raising the sea level. Many people (and plants) live in areas threatened by rising seas. Those effects are harmful.

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-20, 09:32, said:

Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, and mankind is spewing billions of tons of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The additional heat is disrupting weather patterns and is causing ice sheets on land to melt, raising the sea level. Many people (and plants) live in areas threatened by rising seas. Those effects are harmful.

While carbon dioxide does absorb IR radiation, its contribution to the recently observed warming is contentious. Even if the warming was 100% caused by the added CO2, the decrease in coldest temperatures and increased agricultural output more than offset the small rise in sea level. There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is disrupting weather patterns. While Arctic warming (by any means) is thought to slow the jet stream, the results are a mix between beneficial and harmful. The slowing lessens storm severity, but increases local precipitation. Less immediate storm damage (winds, lightning, hail, and tornadic activity), but more flood potential. Someone would need to do a search to determine if one result outweighs the other. They may be a wash (sorry, bad pun)/

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-20, 09:32, said:

Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, and mankind is spewing billions of tons of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. The additional heat is disrupting weather patterns and is causing ice sheets on land to melt, raising the sea level. Many people (and plants) live in areas threatened by rising seas. Those effects are harmful.

"Excess" in what sense?

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-20, 10:41, said:

"Excess" in what sense?

More than non-man made emissions.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2014-March-20, 10:38, said:

While carbon dioxide does absorb IR radiation, its contribution to the recently observed warming is contentious.

Not according to some local professors that I know to be knowledgeable, honest, and concerned, and not according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science and many other scientific organizations.

Daniel1960, on 2014-March-20, 10:38, said:

There is no evidence that carbon dioxide is disrupting weather patterns. While Arctic warming (by any means) is thought to slow the jet stream, the results are a mix between beneficial and harmful.

Slowing the jet stream is a disruption of the weather pattern.

[PassedOut]

Duplicate

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-20, 11:01, said:

Not according to some local professors that I know to be knowledgeable, honest, and concerned, and not according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science and many other scientific organizations.


Slowing the jet stream is a disruption of the weather pattern.

By all accounts the slowing of the jet stream results when the temperature difference between the tropics and poles decreases. This is a natural process, occurring whether the temperature change is natural or manmade. An observed slowign of the jet stream tells us nothing about the cause of the warming, only that it has occurred.
While some scientific organization readily accept the IPCC-held belief in climate change, others do not. Most notably, the American Physics Society and Meteorology Society. Some very knowledgeable professors at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (known for aerospace and satellite research) disagree with the theory that the warming is anthropogenic. Others contend that the warming is a manifestation of man's activities, but activities which include urbanization and deforestation, as opposed to burning of carbon-based fuels. If you read some of the research on the connection between carbon dioxide and temperatures, you will find widely different correlations.

[mike777]

Daniel1960, on 2014-March-20, 11:53, said:

By all accounts the slowing of the jet stream results when the temperature difference between the tropics and poles decreases. This is a natural process, occurring whether the temperature change is natural or manmade. An observed slowign of the jet stream tells us nothing about the cause of the warming, only that it has occurred.
While some scientific organization readily accept the IPCC-held belief in climate change, others do not. Most notably, the American Physics Society and Meteorology Society. Some very knowledgeable professors at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (known for aerospace and satellite research) disagree with the theory that the warming is anthropogenic. Others contend that the warming is a manifestation of man's activities, but activities which include urbanization and deforestation, as opposed to burning of carbon-based fuels. If you read some of the research on the connection between carbon dioxide and temperatures, you will find widely different correlations.

Where does this 97% number come from. 97% of climate profs say man made climate change exists?

Your post makes it sound like 97% is not accurate number.

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-20, 10:49, said:

More than non-man made emissions.

So humans shouldn't be allowed to emit CO₂? Guess we're all going to turn blue and die. Too bad - we'll have an internet, but nobody to use it.

[mike777]

Side note but since man is part of nature ...fully nature....is not man made stuff natural...just like bird or bees made stuff is natural?

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-20, 12:50, said:

So humans shouldn't be allowed to emit CO₂? Guess we're all going to turn blue and die. Too bad - we'll have an internet, but nobody to use it.

It seems your logic is that if human beings breathe out carbon dioxide, then it's also safe to emit billions of tons of carbon dioxide by burning carbon-based fuels. Interesting.

[mike777]

Not sure the question or test ought to be "is it safe"?

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2014-March-20, 14:40, said:

Not sure the question or test ought to be "is it safe"?

What do you think the question should be?

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2014-March-20, 12:52, said:

Side note but since man is part of nature ...fully nature....is not man made stuff natural...just like bird or bees made stuff is natural?

Sure. So what? Lightning is natural too, but I don't stay out on the golf course during a thunderstorm.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2014-March-20, 11:53, said:

While some scientific organization readily accept the IPCC-held belief in climate change, others do not. Most notably, the American Physics Society and Meteorology Society.

If there is really an "American Physics Society and Meteorology Society," it is so small that even Google can't find it.

But I found this using the search term as modified by Google (and I'm pretty sure that this is the organization you mean): American Physical Society Climate Change Commentary (adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

Quote

Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite.

And these are your most notable contrarians. Doesn't seem to me to be an argument for rolling the dice...

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-20, 15:37, said:

What do you think the question should be?

I think I posted what I thought the question should be in detail a number of posts ago. For the most part the question ought to be "how urgent is the problem of global warming?"
---

to put it another way...I paraphrase but I hope the point is clear.

.Fossil fuels are harmful in a nonlinear way. The harm is concave( if a little bit of it is devoid of harm, a lot can cause climatic disturbances.)

Due to opacity, we do not need to believe in anthropogenic climate change (caused by humans). in order to be ecologically conservative. We can put the convexity effects to use in producing a risk management rule for pollution. Simply, just as with size, split your sources of pollution among many natural sources. The harm from polluting with ten different sources is smaller than the equivalent pollution from a single source.*
*Volatility and uncertainty are equivalent.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2014-March-20, 17:02, said:

For the most part the question ought to be "how urgent is the problem of global warming?"

Obviously the American Association for the Advancement of Science considers it urgent enough to devote a site to explain the risks in plain English. How urgent do you consider the problem?

[mike777]

PassedOut, on 2014-March-20, 17:21, said:

Obviously the American Association for the Advancement of Science considers it urgent enough to devote a site to explain the risks in plain English. How urgent do you consider the problem?

Since you asked me..I don't know the answer to that question.