ican711nm wrote:Diest TKO wrote:ican711nm wrote:Diest TKO wrote:ican711nm wrote:Diest TKO wrote:ican711nm wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Like I said, I dont' expect perfection, just an improvement. Sure on a really hot day, roll up your window and turn on the AC. However, there are people who will use the AC in pretty mild heat.
T
K
O
What exactly will be
improved by following the procedure you recommended here?
If we are not so reckless with the small ways we use energy, the sum of those smal efforts can add up to great savings. That and concidering where our energy comes from, it will have less of a negitive impact on our ecology and climate.
T
K
O
How does reducing the gasoline my car and everyone else's car burns have less of a negitive impact on our ecology?
How does reducing the gasoline my car and everyone else's car burns have less of a negitive impact on our climate?
It's not my job to educate you. You're obviously a skeptic when it comes to AGW. I'm not going to play games with you.
I guess it's your job to peddle falsities about the significance of AGW (that is, the significance of the contributions by humans to global warming). How much are you getting paid to do that job?
I took me forever to find it, but here...
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html
Ican711nm thought this article (actually just the graph) was a good enough source to disprove AGW, too bad he didn't read the whole thing. Selective truth isn't truth at all.
You are correct. Selective truth isn't truth at all. I posted here five facts about the magnitude and trend of global warming since 1850. I also posted ten additional facts about probable causes of global warming, that I claimed were supported by the 15 sources I also provided. You provide me one source that you think supports your conclusions, but do not state what are your conclusions, nor how that source supports them. I guess you think that not your job. Very funny!
Refutte this. I believe the author did and excellent job accounting for all factors in climate change.
What were the author's conclusions? What specifically are you asking me to refute? Oh, sorry! Those two tasks are probably not your job either!
T
K
O
I already posted the summary of the writers results in this thread. If you want to go back approximately 50 pages to read what they were, be my guest. Or, you can simply read for yourself.
As for your claim that I get paid "to peddle falsities" and "get paid," you're wrong. My intrests side with the facts. If you're going to call me a liar, don't be a half ass about it.
It was you not me who used the pathetic excuse "not my job." So what the hell do you think your job is here?
Next, you'd better be ready to show how I'm wrong, desicively.
I cannot show you are wrong until you tell me what you think is true and why you think it true. I'm not going to go back 50 pages to learn that when you can easily post that again now.
Your facts were certainly facts, but they aren't the only facts. Given the entire landscape of evidence, your facts don't support your claims about AGW. I suggest you read the full article you sourced. You will find that the author was very honest about extrenal elements that contribute to global warming. What you will unfortunately read as well is how the climate responds to anthropomorphic factors effects the time scale of global warming trends.
In short: Human factors effect global climate.
T
K
O
Malarky! Human factors effects on global climate are insignificant, and consequently aren't worth changing because of their effect on global warming.
Surely you can summarize now what your summary allegedly stated 50 pages ago.
Allegely stated? I'm not sure what your questioning here.
Regaurdless, I can see you're not interested in reading the link in which your yourself cited. What are you affraid of?
As for my beliefs, I've outlined them several times. I'm not affraid to put them out on display.
1) The climate of the earth is changing. A planet's climate is a dynamic system which is driven by both extrenal and internal factors.
2) While climate change in natural, the time scale in which recent changes are happening is unprecedented.
3) The change in time scale is having a negitive effect on ecology because ecosystems cannot adapt at the same rate. Their inability to adapt is componded with human factors such as urbanization, water polution and deforestation additionally damp the ecosystem's ability to adapt.
4) The factors effecting the change in time scale are anthropomorphic. Specifically, human's use of fossil fuels, which changes the composition of the atmosphere, and thus changing it's responce to external energy sources (such as the sun).
5) It is in the interest of both my country and the other countries of the world to find ways to lower their carbon output.
6) It is in the interest of both my country and the other countries of the world to find ways to protect forrested areas and water ecology.
7) Superior (more efficiant) technology is the best way to address energy balance. They include but are not limited to...
a) Smart housing materials
b) Electric car technology for non comercial transit
c) Further development into nuclear technology
Lastly, as a treat, I went back and not only found the "alleged" summary, but your comments in responce. As noted by Steve41oo and blathamm, you enlarged certinal passeges from the summary, but seem to fail to understand what they mean. It's as if you were so proud to put them in big text that you think that people woulnt read the regular sized text?
You didn't understand it then, I dont' expect you to understand it now. Face it, you chose the wrong source to ake your argument. You opened the door for this arguement. If you want your facts you posted from this source to be concidered, you must additionally give equal credibility to the remainder of the source.
ican711nm wrote:Diest TKO wrote:Please enlighten me about the soluability of CO2 in H20 and the soluability of CO2 in air.
What do you wish to know about the solubility of CO2 in liquid H2O and the mixability of CO2 in evaporated H2O?
...
Quote:
Epilogue
Global climate change results from a combination of periodic external and internal forcing mechanisms, and a complex series of interactive feedbacks within the climate system itself. These climate changes occur over a whole range of time scales from a few years to hundreds of millions of years.
The traditional view of climate change has been one of cause and effect, where the climate system responds, generally in a linear fashion to climatic forcing. Only now is humanity beginning to realise that this view is too simple. In recent years climate models have re-emphasised the complex nature of the climate system and our limited understanding of its behaviour. The very nature of the feedback processes highlights the non-linearity of the climatic system.
External forcing sets the pace of climate change; but the internal (non-linear) dynamics of the climate system modulate the final response. This is true for all time scales. Galactic variations impose external variations in insolation, whilst tectonic movements through mantle convection regulate the climate changes over hundreds of millions of years. Milankovitch orbital variations act as a pacemaker to the internal variations of ocean circulation and atmospheric composition.
Today we may be witnessing one of the most profound climatic changes in the Earth's history. Certainly, larger changes in global climate have occurred in the past, but over much longer time periods. The danger facing the global society today is that anthropogenic global warming may be too fast to allow humans, and other species, to adapt to its detrimental impacts. In addition, through enhanced greenhouse forcing, we may be pushing the climate system towards a bifurcation point, where climatic responses may become highly non-linear through complex feedback processes, driving the system to a completely different, and most probably, inhospitable state for humankind.
The challenge for scientists is to understand the climate system, and ultimately predict changes in global climate. To this end, greater collaboration is required between modellers, empiricists and policy makers. Ultimately, the climate system may be too complex to simulate reliably, and the study of global climate change will remain an imprecise science.
In light of this, the precautionary approach to mitigating the threats of anthropogenic global climate change must be fully recognised and adopted by the international community. In addition, increased emphasis will need to focus on the study and modelling of the impacts of future global warming. Greater integration between scientific and policy scenarios will be beneficial to the management and control of future impacts to society. Greater emphasis on impact scenarios at the regional level is also needed, if society is truly to "think globally" and "act locally". Indeed, the challenge for society as a whole is to respond to current dangers regarding global warming, and ultimately to "manage" the climate system in a sustainable and responsible manner.
...
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.html
Quote:
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/6-11-5.html
6.11.5. Evaluation of the FCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the UK Programme
The UK is now committed, through the Kyoto Protocol, to a 12% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2008 to 2012 from 1990 levels. The UK Programme of CO2 emission reduction furthermore aims to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% by 2010. Recent energy projections (Dti, 1995) show that the UK is confident of meeting the original commitment of the Framework Convention for a stabilisation in CO2 emissions by 2000, and may exceed it by between 6 and 13 MtC below 1990 levels.
Despite the Kyoto Protocol however, emission reductions of the magnitude shown in Table 6.9 have not yet established themselves on the global or national political agenda. Yet it seems that without more stringent targets for emission reductions, the world will be unable to avert a climate change more rapid than anything that has occurred during geologic time.
Despite current scientific uncertainties regarding the causal link between increased greenhouse gases and a rise in global temperature, it seems probable that current FCCC commitments are at odds with its own underlying objective, to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system in a time-frame sufficient to allow natural ecosystems to adapt.
Although the FCCC aims to be precautionary in nature, just what is required by global policy to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system is far from clear. Comparison of temperature changes observed in the natural analogue, as indicated above, provide a starting framework. Nevertheless, the whole issue of the precautionary principle is at present, poorly defined (O'Riordan & Jordan, 1995). Most usually, it is interpreted to mean the implementation of action to prevent interference with the global climate in spite of scientific uncertainty (Article 3.3, UNEP, 1992). Included within this definition are the ideas of cost-effectiveness and responsibility.
Assigning a monetary (and indeed a moral) value to the impacts of global warming is fraught with the difficulties of ethical subjectivism (Buchdahl, 1997). Turner (1995), and O'Riordan & Jordan (1995) have offered some sort of framework, distinguishing between the weak and strong precautionary standpoints of traditional economists and contemporary environmental analysts respectively. Such plurality of opinion depends to a large extent on differing views on the vulnerability or resilience of the global climate. All parties call for scientific evidence to back up their respective arguments. Ironically, as much of this chapter has illustrated, the greatest scientific uncertainty in climate change prediction is this climate sensitivity or vulnerability to the change in radiative forcing associated with a build up of greenhouse gases. Although the essence of the precautionary principle is its call for preventative action, in spite of existing scientific uncertainty, it paradoxically seems that the very success of the FCCC rests on finding a better understanding of the climate system.
The issue of responsibility for global warming may prove to be even more of a contentious issue as nations try to agree on strategies to protect the global climate. Ultimately, it is not clear how the burden of responsibility should be shared amongst the parties of the FCCC. Article 4.2a of the FCCC recognised the different economic starting points of nations to be considered when drawing up national CO2 reduction strategies. However, should developed nations, such as the UK, be required to shoulder more of the burden of CO2 emission reduction, in light of their substantially greater energy expenditure, present, past and future? Equally, can developing nations reasonably be expected to stabilise or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to the detriment of their fledgling economies?
Many developing nations regard the developed world as the cause of the global warming problem. Before developing nations attempt to reduce emissions, developed countries, they argue, should implement their own effective reduction strategies. Some see the concept of joint implementation (UNEP, 1992) as a workable solution, but here again, poorer states view this as ineffective at mitigating the threat of climate change.
Perhaps what is really at issue here, and is often conveniently overlooked, is that developing nations, whilst being only minor contributors to the global warming problem at present, are most likely to suffer the severest impacts resulting from any future climate change.
To date, the instruments for achieving policy goals have been solely advisory, as nations have shied away from using legislative measures to implement greenhouse gas emission reductions. This piecemeal approach to climate change abatement could shift the burden of responsibility on to those less able to manage the task (Buchdahl et al., 1995). Clearly, the issue for a nation state is providing the maximum environmental protection commensurate with political acceptability. In the case of the UK the level of acceptable carbon abatement has been defined through a comprehensive consultation process which identified the target reductions, the instruments to achieve these targets and the sectors in which instruments could be deployed with the greatest cost effectiveness and maximum efficiency.
...
T
K
O
The author was frank about solar radiance in reference to it's uncertanty. you present it here as the end all be all fact to end the debate. Your opinion is not based on fact.
As stated before, you like scientist D, not because he uses a better scientific method, but because his conclusions align with your own. I have no problem with a conclusion that is based on truth but resolves in an answer that "we must study the climate more."
but somebody certainly does.
T
K
O
