07-03-2009, 05:29 PM
Hi,
Global warming, the effect of greenhouse gasses, the contribution of particulate matter, the variability of the solar cycles, etc., etc., are complex non-linear interacting phenomena. The only simple solutions are the wrong solutions. The only simple explanations are the wrong explanations. Anyone that claims to fully understand the problem is either a liar or a fool. Anyone who claims to have *the* solution is either deluding himself or trying to get funding.
Are we in a period of global warming? Yes.
Is it due to human activity? Probably, at least in part.
Are greenhouse gases responsible? Definitely, to some (unknown) extent.
Can we make a difference by regulating CO2 emissions? Maybe, but probably not enough to matter. Methane from the food we eat, deforestation to supply an excessive population, etc., may well, probably will, overwhelm anything we can do.
In the geological history of the world, there have been periods much warmer and much colder than the present. Climatologists cannot, yet, explain why those periods occurred. Yes, there are theories. Indeed, there are too many theories and they often contradict each other. In a field where the experts cannot explain the past, do you really think they can predict the future? Every damned model has so many adjustable parameters that it can be used to predict anything the modeler wants predicted. No model (as of ten years ago when I stopped being involved in planetary science) could reproduce any two given historical transitions using the same set of parameters.
There are many real reasons to reduce our population, to reduce our energy consumption, to clean up our environment. Adding global warming to the list is a mistake because it gives the informed, intelligent opponents to environmentalism a target which they can discredit. By including global warming in the list of environmental threats, the whole is made vulnerable by association.
--Pete
Quote:CO2 has been the main contributor to global warmingGood job. By simply asserting the the point in dispute, you cleverly avoid all that tedious debate and all those inconvenient partially founded facts. You arrive to the truth by assuming the truth. Your only mistake is where you did this. theology.com is where you need to be.
Quote:During the carboniferous period it was very warm and there was a lot of CO2 in the air, which lead to much plantgrowth, which then lead to the burial of huge quantities of biomass that became our oil.Coal, not oil. At least try to get the basics right. And the period of greatest overall growth was when the *oxygen* concentration was highest. You're entitled to your opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Quote:And about your number tricks with amounts of scientists:Science, unlike democracy, is about the *value* of opinions, not the *number*.
Global warming, the effect of greenhouse gasses, the contribution of particulate matter, the variability of the solar cycles, etc., etc., are complex non-linear interacting phenomena. The only simple solutions are the wrong solutions. The only simple explanations are the wrong explanations. Anyone that claims to fully understand the problem is either a liar or a fool. Anyone who claims to have *the* solution is either deluding himself or trying to get funding.
Are we in a period of global warming? Yes.
Is it due to human activity? Probably, at least in part.
Are greenhouse gases responsible? Definitely, to some (unknown) extent.
Can we make a difference by regulating CO2 emissions? Maybe, but probably not enough to matter. Methane from the food we eat, deforestation to supply an excessive population, etc., may well, probably will, overwhelm anything we can do.
In the geological history of the world, there have been periods much warmer and much colder than the present. Climatologists cannot, yet, explain why those periods occurred. Yes, there are theories. Indeed, there are too many theories and they often contradict each other. In a field where the experts cannot explain the past, do you really think they can predict the future? Every damned model has so many adjustable parameters that it can be used to predict anything the modeler wants predicted. No model (as of ten years ago when I stopped being involved in planetary science) could reproduce any two given historical transitions using the same set of parameters.
There are many real reasons to reduce our population, to reduce our energy consumption, to clean up our environment. Adding global warming to the list is a mistake because it gives the informed, intelligent opponents to environmentalism a target which they can discredit. By including global warming in the list of environmental threats, the whole is made vulnerable by association.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?