CDZ What I think I know about Global Warming/Climate Change

[Pilot1]

Measuring the atmosphere is fine, but there are a few problems.

1. I don't trust the government people, nor their contractors to measure without bias, or measure properly.

2. There is no conclusive evidence CO2 content in the atmosphere matters to climate change.

3. You can't tell natural change from man made change. Change is change. Measuring the effect anything you do is ineffective as any change could be do to naturally occurring phenomena.

 

[forkup]

Measuring the atmosphere is fine, but there are a few problems.

1. I don't trust the government people, nor their contractors to measure without bias, or measure properly.

2. There is no conclusive evidence CO2 content in the atmosphere matters to climate change.

3. You can't tell natural change from man made change. Change is change.

1. The people who make those measurements are NOT government contractors in general. They are scientists.

2. Science doesn't work in absolutes. It constantly poses questions. Just because not every question is answered doesn't mean the central premise is wrong it simply means that not every question is answered.

3. Actually you can. If the temperature cools dramatically and you can tie it to a volcano erupting in Indonesia, you can tie cause to effect. If you can tie certain weather phenomenons to El Nino, you can tie cause to effect. If you can tie a cooling to reduced solar activity you can tie cause to effect. If you can tie a steady increase in CO2 levels to a steady increase in temperature; to the start of the industrial revolution you can tie cause to effect. One might doubt the level of change one cause adds to the overall climate but saying that you can't determine it at all is false.

 

[sartre play]

Every thing needs not be a crises, there is nothing smarter than being prepared.

 

[william the wie]

The huge problem with AGW is that adjustments for local heating due to asphalt, tar paper, buildings that act like furnaces due to architectural use of glass to create sky scraper greenhouses and similar problems are not properly accounted for in making AGW propaganda.

 

[ding]

1. There seems to be a significant increase in the amount (percentage?) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is unknown how much of this is due to man-made emissions.

2. There seems to be a slight increase in ocean temperatures. It is unknown if this is related to CO2 levels or natural variations.

3. Many scientists believe that these portend rapid and catastrophic effects on the Earth's climate. It is unknown what the specific effects would be.

4. Many people believe that governments should impose drastic restrictions and controls on industry to avoid or minimize these effects.

5. Other people dispute the likelihood of of these effects and/or their causation by man-made emissions.

6. The question is what price should we be willing to pay now in order to deal with a speculative future?

Thoughts/comments?

Simple, there is an entire line of study handling this. They call it risk impact assessment. To put it simply, the higher the possible impact of an event the higher the level of precautions one should take. In this case since we are talking about a global catastrophic event with very long lasting side effects and the consensus of this event actually happening is high, it stands to reason that taking extreme precautions is warranted.

That’s not an accurate way of describing risk. Risk has two components; likelihood and magnitude. It’s the combination or product of the two which determines the risk level.

I disagree with the likelihood and magnitude. Now if you were describing a glacial cycle I might agree that the magnitude was severe and based upon the geologic record that the likelihood was higher.

This would also be a good topic for the bull ring.

 

[forkup]

1. There seems to be a significant increase in the amount (percentage?) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is unknown how much of this is due to man-made emissions.

2. There seems to be a slight increase in ocean temperatures. It is unknown if this is related to CO2 levels or natural variations.

3. Many scientists believe that these portend rapid and catastrophic effects on the Earth's climate. It is unknown what the specific effects would be.

4. Many people believe that governments should impose drastic restrictions and controls on industry to avoid or minimize these effects.

5. Other people dispute the likelihood of of these effects and/or their causation by man-made emissions.

6. The question is what price should we be willing to pay now in order to deal with a speculative future?

Thoughts/comments?

Simple, there is an entire line of study handling this. They call it risk impact assessment. To put it simply, the higher the possible impact of an event the higher the level of precautions one should take. In this case since we are talking about a global catastrophic event with very long lasting side effects and the consensus of this event actually happening is high, it stands to reason that taking extreme precautions is warranted.

That’s not an accurate way of describing risk. Risk has two components; likelihood and magnitude. It’s the combination or product of the two which determines the risk level.

I disagree with the likelihood and magnitude. Now if you were describing a glacial cycle I might agree that the magnitude was severe and based upon the geologic record that the likelihood was higher.

This would also be a good topic for the bull ring.

You can pick.

 

[ding]

1. There seems to be a significant increase in the amount (percentage?) of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is unknown how much of this is due to man-made emissions.

2. There seems to be a slight increase in ocean temperatures. It is unknown if this is related to CO2 levels or natural variations.

3. Many scientists believe that these portend rapid and catastrophic effects on the Earth's climate. It is unknown what the specific effects would be.

4. Many people believe that governments should impose drastic restrictions and controls on industry to avoid or minimize these effects.

5. Other people dispute the likelihood of of these effects and/or their causation by man-made emissions.

6. The question is what price should we be willing to pay now in order to deal with a speculative future?

Thoughts/comments?

Simple, there is an entire line of study handling this. They call it risk impact assessment. To put it simply, the higher the possible impact of an event the higher the level of precautions one should take. In this case since we are talking about a global catastrophic event with very long lasting side effects and the consensus of this event actually happening is high, it stands to reason that taking extreme precautions is warranted.

That’s not an accurate way of describing risk. Risk has two components; likelihood and magnitude. It’s the combination or product of the two which determines the risk level.

I disagree with the likelihood and magnitude. Now if you were describing a glacial cycle I might agree that the magnitude was severe and based upon the geologic record that the likelihood was higher.

This would also be a good topic for the bull ring.

You can pick.

Let’s see how the first one goes. Maybe we can do both.

 

[sartre play]

Can some one explain the Polar Vortex more fully? how did we arrive at that understanding?

 

[task0778]

AGWs will state that carbon dioxide traps heat. Uh... Everything absorbs heat. Nitrogen absorbs heat. Dirt absorbs heat.

But there's a problem: Hot air rises. If gases absorb heat, they expand, and then they go up. When carbon dioxide absorbs heat, it does not remain at the Earth's surface. It rises.

So is CO2 a conveyer belt? Does CO2 absorb heat at the surface, rise upward to the thin upper atmosphere, and then release that heat into outer space? Does CO2 actually act like an air conditioner, cooling the planet?

Nobody knows. It's never been tested. How CO2 behaves in a container in the laboratory is not relevant to how free-floating CO2 behaves in the open atmosphere in a planet-wide climate system.


And there's the answer, it's never been tested. None of AGW has actually been field tested. The heart of science is in testing a hypothesis, and if you can't test it then all you have is an untested hypothesis. And as far as I know, there is no possible way to test the causes and consequences of increased CO2 in our atmosphere. Or of any other gas or component in our atmosphere either. To categorically state we know for a fact that AGW is THE major factor in climate change is just not true, rather it is a gross misrepresentation of a hypothesis for scientific truth. And here's the issue, the AGWers want to spend gobs of money, OUR money, on policies and ideas that may or may not offer significant changes to AGW or climate change. They don't really know, but what I know is that such policies so far have resulted in failures while certain people got richer at our expense.