How We Know Global Warming is Real and Human Caused
skeptic.com
skeptic.com
The relevant question is "what do we do?". That depends (somewhat) on "how much change?". (We do know that the earth has been warmer and cooler, and we also know that it has had significantly more atmospheric CO2 so the "runaway" folks are wrong.)
Note that "how much change" does not depend on "how much did we do". For example, suppose that global warming was caused by a recent trend of volcanos spewing CO2. We might still need to do something.
In other words "natural causes good, artificial causes bad" is wrong.
I do find it interesting that people think that any deviation from 1972 or so is bad. The 70s were nice and all, but I don't see why they're the only acceptable temperature.
Humans have changed the climate and we need to reverse it. OR Humans haven't changed the climate. Nothing is wrong.
I think it's pretty clear that the climate has changed. It also seems to be pretty likely that humans have probably had some role in that. What we need to do is to move on from placing blame and figure out what we should do about it.
I like to propose the hypothetical discovery of new information that undeniably proves that humans have had no hand in climate change. Suppose we learned that this climate change is completely natural. What then would environmentalists want to do? Try to reverse it anyway?
My hunch is that we're probably better off spending trillions adapting to it rather than, perhaps futilely, spending trillions trying to roll back the odometer.
If warming is caused entirely by increasing CO2 concentration (and I know it's more complex than that, this is a hypothetical), then reducing or stopping it is comparatively easy: reduce CO2 emissions.
If warming is caused by some natural process like volcanoes or ecological feedback loops or whatever, well, how do you stop that?
We can do things to counteract that CO2, such as making carbon sinks. We can do other things to affect the warming.
I find it interesting that you accept the consequences of "nature" without question.
> then reducing or stopping it is comparatively easy: reduce CO2 emissions.
This is a definition of "easy" that I'm unfamiliar with.
Let's see how it works in other areas. "Heroin use is bad for most people, so let's just stop using heroin". Hmm.
People engage in CO2 producing activities because they get benefits from those activities. And, those benefits don't have the costs of heroin.
And there's still the "what's the right temperature" question (which isn't that simple). Why not 5 degrees warmer?
I never accepted the consequences of nature without question.
I didn't say reducing CO2 emissions was easy, I said it was "comparatively easy". And this is true. It's much easier to reduce CO2 emissions than it is to extract CO2 from the air once it's already there.
I can't figure out just what it is about the global warming question that causes people to become completely incapable of reasoned conversation. It sure is annoying, though.
So you think that doing without heat is much easier than growing a tree....
"Don't emit" vs "take out of the air" is not nearly the slam dunk that you assume that it is.
> I can't figure out just what it is about the global warming question that causes people to become completely incapable of reasoned conversation.
I like the smug attitude from folks spouting facile falsehoods.
Here's the referenced paper:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III...
Usually claims of the HIGHEST!!! CO2!!! EVARRRRR!!1!! use qualifications like "historical", papering over the fact that "historical" means (at the outside) "the last 5,000 years". 5,000 years is a tiny fraction of the age of the earth.