ManusJustus said:
Ice caps have melted and grown before humans weren't around, but man is able to change his environment and is capable of doing such things. And humans aren't the first living thing to have that claim, I'm thinking of ancient bacteria and photosynthesis. Besides, mosquitos with three foot wingspans that were around in previous hot periods doesn't sound too appealing to me. I dont see why you mentioned your second point. What matters is how much overall effect something has. Methane is obviosly another greenhouse gas that has more of an effect per unit mass but there a lot less of it. Its the overall effect that we are concerned with, and yes methane is part of that equation. Again, I dont know how this pertains to the argument. We put CO2 into the air and the change leads to an increase in overall temperature, and that current increase is in terms of one or two degrees C, which isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things but can have major consequences as far as we are concerned. If we put more CO2 into the atmosphere than natures puts there we'd start to resemble Venus. The natural level of greenhouse gases results in our current climate, and I prefer to stay closer to our current norm. I dont want to put entire ecosystems on the brink and cause mass human migrations from global warming. We are going to run out of hydrocarbons soon anyway, so the quicker we try to switch to solar and/or nuclear forms of energy the better off we are. |
ugh... let me break down even more simply for you.
A) The natural world puts far more CO2 in the atmosphere then we do.
B) Global warming is a natural phenomina... In fact... the earth is naturally set to warm.
C) There is no actual "straight line" correlation like you claim... in fact the global warming trend actually began slightly BEFORE the industrial revolution.
D) If you actually want to use the data from those time periods, which are flawed in a number of ways methodolocially when it came to data samples. For example in those recent emails... you had people fudging tree ring data because they didn't think the tree ring data provided accurate tempetures for the most recent tempetures.
D1) Ingoring the very real possibility that tree ring data... may actually just not be reliable at all. "This is lower like the old tree-ring data... therefore it must be wrong.) vs (hey maybe this isn't caused by tempeture after all?)
D2) Another problem is average tempeture takin by weatherstations since such weatherstations are added and removed from the composite data and often face other problems such as suburban development and the like. Cities and suburbs in general are going to rate higher as far as "Tempeture" goes then other stations. Build a tempeture station, then build a city around it and the heat will go up even if the climate stays the same.
D3) It's not really representative, they don't have tempetures stations everywhere... or even in most places. For example the vast majority of tempeture taking is taken... well on land. Which is important since 2/3rds of the planet... isn't land.
D4) The computer models that predict global warming were all based on this data... by people who believed in global warming. Which is an issue with global warming.
E) Sattelite technology is the only technology which can properly judge global tempeture... and we've only used it for that since i believe the mid 90s.
Currently Online 
