Climate Change

[denso13]

It would all be happening if we wasn't here.....probably

We are causing it so, no it wouldn't.

 

[pete01]

We are causing it so, no it wouldn't.

Don't believe you

 

[pete01]

But not at the same rate, and that is the issue.

No probably about it

Well we dont know so still probably

 

[denso13]

Don't believe you

Don't care

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Don't believe you

Anything? Anything at all to back that up with ?

 

[pete01]

Don't care

Ditto

 

[denso13]

Well we dont know

Well, we do.

 

[aveatry]

So if the rate of change is the issue, what does science, and common sense, say about why ?

It's not the rate if change either, you really have not been paying attention have you

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It's not the rate if change either, you really have not been paying attention have you

The rate of change is the only part that is important.

 

[aveatry]

The rate of change is the only part that is important.

That is not what the debate is about - do keep up.

 

[transam]

Don't believe you

Good sense
Take what he says (Denso) with a pinch of salt

 

[Justin Passing]

That is not what the debate is about - do keep up.

Yes it it. Rising fast because of us.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

That is not what the debate is about - do keep up.

You can try and cut down the debate as much as you want, but the facts remain.

Found any good, sensible, information that can show that the rate of change is not the problem ?

Climate change has always happened and it is misleading to try and pretend that change is new and not natural. But it is very misleading, and wrong to deny the rate of change recently, compared to any point in history, and suggest that man is not responsible.

What to do about, or can be done about it is down to us all. Bury your head in the sand, or not.

 

[aveatry]

Climate change has always happened and it is misleading to try and pretend that change is new and not natural.

Well that is a major part of the climate doomers argument, so we agree on that one

But it is very misleading, and wrong to deny the rate of change recently, compared to any point in history, and suggest that man is not responsible.

Nope evidence shows it has happened before and faster but that info is not widely talked about because it goes against the man made narrative. And its the amount that man is responsible is what people are questioning in the debate - they believe it is vastly exaggerated, which it needs to be if you want to raise some nice tax out of it.

 

[MNW67]

I came across this, very sensible, and rational post in a newsgroup, posted by someone using the name 'Indy Jess John'. I hope he doesn't object to my reposting it here...

'I did a bit of digging a few weeks ago, and I discovered that the global warming claim for CO2 is because it blocks certain wavelengths of infrared from escaping into space. The same source of information also pointed out that water vapour also blocks a range of wavelengths of infrared, spanning and a bit wider than the range that CO2 blocks. There is many times as much water vapour than there is CO2 in the atmosphere. It varies by location from almost zero across the polar ice to maxima over rain forests, but the global average is at least 10 times as much as CO2. So even if the amount of CO2 doubles it would make only an insignificant contribution to global warming yet it would considerably improve crop yields.

The reason why CO2 was made the villain is because humans can do nothing about water vapour but they can be blamed for CO2; and that power allows governments to impose "green" taxes or legislate controls on behaviour and have the mugs who pay for it happy to do so to save the planet.

Climate change sceptics often bring up the role of water vapour. I believe they are wrong and it has been "debunked" many times. But it is is very difficult to get your head round. However, a relatively simple way to explain it has just popped into my head.

What you have to realise is that water vapour in the atmosphere does not cause global warming. However, it does affect global warming through a positive feedback loop. You really need to go back to first principles. If there was no naturally occurring greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the earth would be a giant ball of ice at -18C. Everyone scientist agrees that. Even the most ardent climate sceptics. And at -18C, there would be no water vapour in the atmosphere at all.

But luckily for us, carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere, and that means the earth is a lot warmer than it would otherwise be. This means that we have liquid water rather than just ice. And it also means the air is warm enough to hold water vapour. That water vapour, in turn, acts as a greenhouse gas, and it accentuates the effect of carbon dioxide. The more carbon dioxide, the warmer the planet, and that leads to more water vapour in the atmosphere, which in turn warms the the planet further. That is what I mean by a positive feedback loop.

Currently, water vapour accounts for about 50% of the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide accounts for about 30%.