Expert climate scientists say....

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

It is indeed a major problem that while we are certainly changing the climate, we don't yet have a full understanding of the ramifications of our actions.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/02/12/Snow-covers-most-of-Spain/UPI-12491360676040/

"The majority of Spain is covered in knee-deep snow and more than 930 miles worth of roads have been closed as a result, officials said.

Madrid, Mancha and Navarra are among the hardest hit regions, thinkSPAIN reported, and areas in the south have already been hit hard or will be soon.

In areas in the western region of Galicia, snow in remote areas has reached as much as 5 feet deep."

Climate change sure does funny things, doesn't it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

It is indeed a major problem that while we are certainly changing the climate, we don't yet have a full understanding of the ramifications of our actions.

The case is not closed and it is not settled.

98% of bona-fide climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Only the wilfully ignorant or those with a vested interest deny it . What remains to be determined is the details of the effect it will have on local weather patterns, ocean currents, etc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

The whole "98% of climate scientists" meme, is so 1990's.

The climate models, were wrong, the predictions were wrong, and you my good sir are wrong as well.

[tkhayes 348]

Sure because it is only 'religion' when we make a claim that dumping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of pollution into the air each day might actually have an effect on air quality and the way our environment works....I mean CRAZY talk right?

Just like dumping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of garbage and toxic waster into waterways have arguably NO EFFECT whatsoever on water quality, life or ecosystems or the way that the waterways work.....
http://www.takepart.com/photos/10-most-polluted-rivers-world

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Am I reading this correctly? You've posted something supporting climate change?

I support climate change. It sucks in Belgium. I want to see a change. Isn't that what POTUS ran on? CHANGE?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Sure because it is only 'religion' when we make a claim that dumping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of pollution into the air each day might actually have an effect on air quality and the way our environment works....I mean CRAZY talk right?

Just like dumping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of garbage and toxic waster into waterways have arguably NO EFFECT whatsoever on water quality, life or ecosystems or the way that the waterways work.....
http://www.takepart.com/photos/10-most-polluted-rivers-world

Does anyone really claim that humans have NO effect? I haven't seen that position.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Sure because it is only 'religion' when we make a claim that dumping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of pollution into the air each day might actually have an effect on air quality and the way our environment works....I mean CRAZY talk right?

Just like dumping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of garbage and toxic waster into waterways have arguably NO EFFECT whatsoever on water quality, life or ecosystems or the way that the waterways work.....
http://www.takepart.com/photos/10-most-polluted-rivers-world

Does anyone really claim that humans have NO effect? I haven't seen that position.

Personally, I think humans do have an effect

BUT, that effect should be viewed in the same light as the climate vs weather argument

I think humans can affect an area (weather) to some extent. I trully believe it is arogant to think we can have a affect globally (climate)

A small eco system vs plant wide

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 348]

But the reality is, what the nay-sayers want is ABSOLUTE 100% infallible proof that we are affecting climate otherwise the problem simply does not exist.

We do not have 100% infallible proof that water pollution affects the environment we live in but in fact we accept that it DOES in fact affect the environment we live in.

It takes a pretty narrow mind to think that changing the composition of gases in the atmosphere has no effect on climate, given that pretty much every facet of weather is dependent on temperature and that the composition of gases greatly affects the temperature.

This ain't rocket science. But it is still denied as non-existent.

"Yes we have pollution but that pollution is not affecting anything" got it.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

But the reality is, what the nay-sayers want is ABSOLUTE 100% infallible proof that we are affecting climate otherwise the problem simply does not exist.

We do not have 100% infallible proof that water pollution affects the environment we live in but in fact we accept that it DOES in fact affect the environment we live in.

It takes a pretty narrow mind to think that changing the composition of gases in the atmosphere has no effect on climate, given that pretty much every facet of weather is dependent on temperature and that the composition of gases greatly affects the temperature.

This ain't rocket science. But it is still denied as non-existent.

"Yes we have pollution but that pollution is not affecting anything" got it.

I haven't seen anyone put forth the proposition that humans have NO effect on the environment, there is absolutely NO problem, or that they want 100%ABSOLUTE proof. I think this is an emotional reaction on your part. Please direct me to where someone has these extreme hyperbolic positions.

I think most people would agree that human activity MUST have SOME kind of effect. The disagreement is in how much, how well the planet handles it, whether money should be sunk into it, how to measure it (vice normal environmental changes), etc.

Like many of the disputes on SC, if people would be a bit less argumentative and a bit more persuasive, I think fruitful discussion would bloom.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

But the reality is, what the nay-sayers want is ABSOLUTE 100% infallible proof that we are affecting climate otherwise the problem simply does not exist.

We do not have 100% infallible proof that water pollution affects the environment we live in but in fact we accept that it DOES in fact affect the environment we live in.

It takes a pretty narrow mind to think that changing the composition of gases in the atmosphere has no effect on climate, given that pretty much every facet of weather is dependent on temperature and that the composition of gases greatly affects the temperature.

This ain't rocket science. But it is still denied as non-existent.

"Yes we have pollution but that pollution is not affecting anything" got it.

The problem with you argument is you started out with and absolute

I stopped reading after 100% because even at that point I considerd the point bs

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[killler 2]

We really don't do a thing.... It's all a money game... I remember the smog of the 60's and 70's in nyc.. and all most every other city in the USA... We cleaned that all up and they still claim we're destroying the earth.... Right....

In the 4+ billon years that earth has been around, It's been frozen, Hot house and everything in between ...
[url]http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php[url/]
Volcanic Gases and Their Effects
Magma contains dissolved gases that are released into the atmosphere during eruptions. Gases are also released from magma that either remains below ground (for example, as an intrusion) or is rising toward the surface. In such cases, gases may escape continuously into the atmosphere from the soil, volcanic vents, fumaroles, and hydrothermal systems.

At high pressures deep beneath the earth's surface, volcanic gases are dissolved in molten rock. But as magma rises toward the surface where the pressure is lower, gases held in the melt begin to form tiny bubbles. The increasing volume taken up by gas bubbles makes the magma less dense than the surrounding rock, which may allow the magma to continue its upward journey. Closer to the surface, the bubbles increase in number and size so that the gas volume may exceed the melt volume in the magma, creating a magma foam. The rapidly expanding gas bubbles of the foam can lead to explosive eruptions in which the melt is fragmented into pieces of volcanic rock, known as tephra. If the molten rock is not fragmented by explosive activity, a lava flow will be generated.

Together with the tephra and entrained air, volcanic gases can rise tens of kilometers into Earth's atmosphere during large explosive eruptions. Once airborne, the prevailing winds may blow the eruption cloud hundreds to thousands of kilometers from a volcano. The gases spread from an erupting vent primarily as acid aerosols (tiny acid droplets), compounds attached to tephra particles, and microscopic salt particles.

Volcanic gases undergo a tremendous increase in volume when magma rises to the Earth's surface and erupts. For example, consider what happens if one cubic meter of 900°C rhyolite magma containing five percent by weight of dissolved water were suddenly brought from depth to the surface. The one cubic meter of magma now would occupy a volume of 670 m3 as a mixture of water vapor and magma at atmospheric pressure (Sparks et. al., 1997)! The one meter cube at depth would increase to 8.75 m on each side at the surface. Such enormous expansion of volcanic gases, primarily water, is the main driving force of explosive eruptions.

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H2O), followed by carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).


Examples of volcanic gas compositions, in volume percent concentrations
(from Symonds et. al., 1994)

Volcano
Tectonic Style
Temperature Kilauea Summit
Hot Spot
1170°C Erta` Ale
Divergent Plate
1130°C Momotombo
Convergent Plate
820°C
H20 37.1 77.2 97.1
C02 48.9 11.3 1.44
S02 11.8 8.34 0.50
H2 0.49 1.39 0.70
CO 1.51 0.44 0.01
H2S 0.04 0.68 0.23
HCl 0.08 0.42 2.89
HF --- --- 0.26
The volcanic gases that pose the greatest potential hazard to people, animals, agriculture, and property are sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen fluoride. Locally, sulfur dioxide gas can lead to acid rain and air pollution downwind from a volcano. Globally, large explosive eruptions that inject a tremendous volume of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere can lead to lower surface temperatures and promote depletion of the Earth's ozone layer. Because carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air, the gas may flow into in low-lying areas and collect in the soil. The concentration of carbon dioxide gas in these areas can be lethal to people, animals, and vegetation. A few historic eruptions have released sufficient fluorine-compounds to deform or kill animals that grazed on vegetation coated with volcanic ash; fluorine compounds tend to become concentrated on fine-grained ash particles, which can be ingested by animals.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)

The effects of SO2 on people and the environment vary widely depending on (1) the amount of gas a volcano emits into the atmosphere; (2) whether the gas is injected into the troposphere or stratosphere; and (3) the regional or global wind and weather pattern that disperses the gas. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless gas with a pungent odor that irritates skin and the tissues and mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, and throat. Sulfur dioxide chiefly affects upper respiratory tract and bronchi. The World Health Organization recommends a concentration of no greater than 0.5 ppm over 24 hours for maximum exposure. A concentration of 6-12 ppm can cause immediate irritation of the nose and throat; 20 ppm can cause eye irritation; 10,000 ppm will irritate moist skin within minutes.

Emission rates of SO2 from an active volcano range from 10 million tonnes/day according to the style of volcanic activity and type and volume of magma involved. For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km3 of dacite magma and injected about 20 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6°C cooling of the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with the increased stratospheric chlorine levels from human-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to some of the lowest ozone levels ever observed in the atmosphere.

At Kilauea Volcano, the recent effusive eruption of about 0.0005 km3/day (500,000 m3) of basalt magma releases about 2,000 tonnes of SO2 into the lower troposphere. Downwind from the vent, acid rain and air pollution is a persistent health problem when the volcano is erupting.


SO2 causes air pollution Volcanic smog
Eruptions of Kilauea Volcano release large quantities of sulfur dioxide gas into the atmosphere that can lead to volcanic air pollution on the Island of Hawai`i. Sulfur dioxide gas reacts chemically with sunlight, oxygen, dust particles, and water to form volcanic smog known as vog.



SO2 effects Earth's surface temperature Global cooling and ozone depletion
Measurements from recent eruptions such as Mount St. Helens, Washington (1980), El Chichon, Mexico (1982), and Mount Pinatubo, Philippines (1991), clearly show the importance of sulfur aerosols in modifying climate, warming the stratosphere, and cooling the troposphere. Research has also shown that the liquid drops of sulfuric acid promote the destruction of the Earth's ozone layer.

Please see the web article, "Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview" for additional information.


Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a colorless, flammable gas with a strong offensive odor. It is sometimes referred to as sewer gas. At low concentrations it can irritate the eyes and acts as a depressant; at high concentrations it can cause irritation of the upper respiratory tract and, during long exposure, pulmonary edema. A 30-minute exposure to 500 ppm results in headache, dizziness, excitement, staggering gait, and diarrhea, followed sometimes by bronchitis or bronchopneumonia.


Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.


CO2 trapped in depressions can be lethal to people and animals
When a burning piece of cloth is lowered into a hole that has a high concentration of CO2, the fire goes out. Such a condition can be lethal to people and animals.

Air with 5% CO2 causes perceptible increased respiration; 6-10% results in shortness of breath, headaches, dizziness, sweating, and general restlessness; 10-15% causes impaired coordination and abrupt muscle contractions; 20-30% causes loss of consciousness and convulsions; over 30% can cause death (Hathaway et. al., 1991).

Please see the web article, "Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview" for more information on Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions.


Historical examples of the effects of carbon dioxide gas
Mammoth Mountain in Long Valley Caldera, California kills trees near Mammoth Mountain, California

Hydrogen Chloride (HCl)

Chlorine gas is emitted from volcanoes in the form of hydrochloric acid (HCl). Exposure to the gas irritates mucous membranes of the eyes and respiratory tract. Concentrations over 35 ppm cause irritation of the throat after short exposure; >100 ppm results in pulmonary edema, and often laryngeal spasm. It also causes acid rain downwind from volcanoes because HCl is extremely soluble in condensing water droplets and it is a very "strong acid" (it dissociates extensively to give H+ ions in the droplets).


Hydrogen Fluoride (HF)

Fluorine is a pale yellow gas that attaches to fine ash particles, coats grass, and pollutes streams and lakes. Exposure to this powerful caustic irritant can cause conjunctivitis, skin irritation, bone degeneration and mottling of teeth. Excess fluorine results in a significant cause of death and injury in livestock during ash eruptions. Even in areas that receive just a millimeter of ash, poisoning can occur where the fluorine content of dried grass exceeds 250 ppm. Animals that eat grass coated with fluorine-tainted ash are poisoned. Small amounts of fluorine can be beneficial, but excess fluorine causes fluorosis, an affliction that eventually kills animals by destroying their bones. It also promotes acid rain effects downwind of volcanoes, like HCl.

Secondary Gas Emissions

Another type of gas release occurs when lava flows reach the ocean. Extreme heat from molten lava boils and vaporizes seawater, leading to a series of chemical reactions. The boiling and reactions produce a large white plume, locally known as lava haze or laze, containing a mixture of hydrochloric acid and concentrated seawater.


Laze plumes are very acidic

Extreme heat from lava entering the sea rapidly boils and vaporizes seawater, leading to a series of chemical reactions. The boiling and reactions produce a large white plume, locally known as lava haze or laze, which contains a mixture of hydrochloric acid (HCl) and concentrated seawater. This is a short-lived local phenomenon that only affects people or vegetation directly under the plume.

The hydrochloric acid (HCl) comes from the breakdown of seawater-derived chlorides during sudden boiling. Because the lava is largely degassed by the time it reaches the sea, any HCL coming from it is insignificant by comparison. Analyzed samples of the plume show that is is a brine with a salinity of about 2.3 times that of seawater and a pH of 1.5-2.0.



Key seawater chloride breakdown reactions that produce HCl gas

MgCl2 (sea salt) + H2O (steam) = MgO (periclase) + 2HCl (HCl gas)

2 NaCl (sea salt) + H2O (steam) = Na2O (sodium oxide) + 2 HCL (HCl gas)

CaCl2 (sea salt) + H2O (steam) = CaO (lime) + 2 HCL (HCl gas)

Avoid standing beneath a laze plume. Dense laze plumes, such as that shown here (Photograph by C.C. Heliker, February 10, 1994) contain as much as 10-15 parts per million of hydrochloric acid. These values drop off sharply as the plume moves away from the lava entry areas. During along-shore or on-shore winds, this plume produces acid rain that may fall on people and land along the coast. This rain (pH 1.5 to 2), often more acidic that lime juice or stomach acid, is very corrosive to the skin and clothing. Visitors to the lava entry areas should avoid standing directly in, under, or downwind of the laze plume.

Blong, R.J., 1984, Volcanic hazards--A sourcebook on the effects of eruptions: Academic Press, Australia, 424 p.
Gerlach, T.M., Krumhansl, J.L., Fournier, R.O., Kjargaard, J., 1989, Acid rain from the heating and evaporation of seawater by molten lava: a new volcanic hazard [abs.]: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (EOS), v. 70, p. 1421-1422.

Hathaway, G.L., Proctor, N.H., Hughes, J.P., and Fischman, M.L., 1991, Proctor and Hughes' chemical hazards of the workplace: Van Nostraud Reinhold, New York, 3rd ed.

Self, S., Zhao, Jing-Xia, Holasek, R.E., Torres, R.C., and King, A.J., 1996, The atmospheric impact of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, in Newhall, C.G., Punongbayan, R.S. (eds.), 1996, Fire and mud: Eruptions and lahars of Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines, Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, Quezon City and University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1126 p.

Sparks, R.S.J., Bursik, M.I., Carey, S.N., Gilbert, J.S., Glaze, L.S., Sigurdsson, H., and Woods, A.W., 1997, Volcanic Plumes: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., England, 574 p.

Sutton, A.J., and Elias, T., 1993, Volcanic gases create air pollution on the Island of Hawai`i: U.S. Geological Survey Earthquakes and Volcanoes, v. 24, no. 4, pp. 178-196.

Symonds, R.B., Rose, w.I., Bluth, G., and Gerlach, T.M., 1994, Volcanic gas studies: methods, results, and applications, in Carroll, M.R., and Holloway, J.R., eds., Volatiles in Magmas: Mineralogical Society of America Reviews in Mineralogy, v. 30, p. 1-66.

Volcano Hazards
Volcanic Gases
Volcanic Gas and Climate Change
Air Pollution
SO2 Aerosols
Lahars
Pyroclastic Flows
Volcanic Landslides
Lava Flows
Tephra
Volcanic Ash Site
Volcano Assessments
Hazards Preparedness
Killler...

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is indeed a major problem that while we are certainly changing the climate, we don't yet have a full understanding of the ramifications of our actions.

The case is not closed and it is not settled.

98% of bona-fide climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Only the wilfully ignorant or those with a vested interest deny it . What remains to be determined is the details of the effect it will have on local weather patterns, ocean currents, etc.

As do I. 100% of real scientists would agree - including you - that predictions of the future as so ripe with uncertainty as to be scientific wild ass guesses.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It is indeed a major problem that while we are certainly changing the climate, we don't yet have a full understanding of the ramifications of our actions.

The case is not closed and it is not settled.

98% of bona-fide climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Only the wilfully ignorant or those with a vested interest deny it . What remains to be determined is the details of the effect it will have on local weather patterns, ocean currents, etc.

As do I. 100% of real scientists would agree - including you - that predictions of the future as so ripe with uncertainty as to be scientific wild ass guesses.

Has anyone actually ASKED climate scientists? Is there a poll somewhere? I'm curious where this statistic came from. One one site, I found, "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming." with no source or rational explanation for where the stat came from. It did quote a study that said a researcher went through peer reviewed papers and since none of them argued against, the theory, they must agree. Not the greatest logic.

On the SAME site, I found, "Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming
Klaus-Martin Schulte examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. While only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. Only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. (Source: DailyTech)" Still not astounding logic, but it LOOKS like something closer to a rational approach.

So, where does this statistic come from? Was there a poll that I couldn't find? Just for fun, what the heck is a BONAFIDE climate scientist? One that agrees with the speaker's views?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

what the heck is a BONAFIDE climate scientist? One that agrees with the speaker's views?

A scientist trained in, and working in, climate science. Not a bootlegging attorney who's read a book on the topic, or a shill for the Koch brothers.

The survey was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

See also the statement of the American Meteorological Society www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html

And the joint statement from the US National Academy of Science along with the national academies from 10 other nations: nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't see the Koch brothers anywhere on the list. Keep in mind that much of the criticism of the IPCC is based on poor mathematics and statistics not climate science per se.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't see the Koch brothers anywhere on the list. Keep in mind that much of the criticism of the IPCC is based on poor mathematics and statistics not climate science per se.

I'm sure those members of the National Academy (which includes ALL US Nobel laureates) are just dreadful at math and statistics.

NOT.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't see the Koch brothers anywhere on the list. Keep in mind that much of the criticism of the IPCC is based on poor mathematics and statistics not climate science per se.

I'm sure those members of the National Academy (which includes ALL US Nobel laureates) are just dreadful at math and statistics.

NOT.

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment (or observation), it's wrong”

R. Feynman

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I don't see the Koch brothers anywhere on the list. Keep in mind that much of the criticism of the IPCC is based on poor mathematics and statistics not climate science per se.

I'm sure those members of the National Academy (which includes ALL US Nobel laureates) are just dreadful at math and statistics.

NOT.

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment (or observation), it's wrong”

R. Feynman

Good job that measurements show a distinct warming trend then, isn't it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

You mean like this?

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017c362d1500970b-pi

[lawrocket 3]

Dave:

I think that the earth is warming. I think that human activities are playing a role in it. But I also think that as we have seen that the warming itself will be negligible, within the realm of normal variability, and not the disaster that is being predicted. (i.e., Antarctica is so cold that it’s a desert. Warm the average temperature in Antarctica a bit and massive precipitation will result, making the continent gain more ice/snow than it loses. Same with Greenland).

Part of my issue with everything is that the predictions being made are just those – predictions – which are based on thousands of variables and orders of magnitude more interactions between those variables. All of which allow a computer to spit out a prediction that will be either validated or invalidated starting in about 70-80 years.

Ever notice what climate scientists say? Do they ever provide any idea of things to come that aren’t qualified? No. they don’t. So when a person talks about a 5 meter sea level rise it’s always, “Sea level may rise from a half a meter to over 5 meters by 2100.” Sounds bad but what is also being said is, “sea level may not rise at all.” Those who have attempted unqualified predictions have gotten hosed, i.e., snow will be a thing of the past, hurricanes will be stronger, more destructive and more frequent, etc.

The science of the greenhouse effect is well established. Climate science, though, requires more than knowledge of chemistry. They need physics. Mathematics. Geography. Geology. Oceanography. Meteorology. Hydrology. Glaciology. Biology. Statistics. They are jacks-of-all trades. That’s the blessing and the curse – an interdisciplinary approach is necessary for it, and statisticians have had the most success in attacking the findings and models both in future looking and paleoclimate models.

It’s why I agree with the findings regarding AGW. But – I view with distrust the predictions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Stumpy 284]

Quote

Quote

But the reality is, what the nay-sayers want is ABSOLUTE 100% infallible proof that we are affecting climate otherwise the problem simply does not exist.

We do not have 100% infallible proof that water pollution affects the environment we live in but in fact we accept that it DOES in fact affect the environment we live in.

It takes a pretty narrow mind to think that changing the composition of gases in the atmosphere has no effect on climate, given that pretty much every facet of weather is dependent on temperature and that the composition of gases greatly affects the temperature.

This ain't rocket science. But it is still denied as non-existent.

"Yes we have pollution but that pollution is not affecting anything" got it.

The problem with you argument is you started out with and absolute

I stopped reading after 100% because even at that point I considerd the point bs

you should read some more of brenthutch's posts then.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 23]

Got an issue with him.? Don't post to me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 444]

I am just 100% sure that the climate models that the IPCC used were wrong. They are not evil, they are not stupid, they are just wrong. That is why a slack jawed mouth breathing troglodyte like me can eviscerate their "science" because it is wrong!.

[davjohns 1]

Jerry:

In perfect agreement with everything you said.

I'm just trying to find the justification for the "98%" quote. I tried Kallends' first link. It didn't work. I read the article at the second. It was very well written and I don't disagree with it at all. But it doesn't mention climatologists or 98. I ran a search after I read it to make sure I didn't miss it.

I'm really just recommending that a little more persuasion and a bit less Chicken Little might be in order. Changes need to be made. Sooner is better than later. There are sound arguments and reasoning. Put down the baseball bat.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

Changes need to be made. Sooner is better than later.