Is The Sun Causing The Current Climate Change?

[jeb]

If you think science can "prove" much of anything, beyond the existence of gravity, we don't have a great basis for a discussion here. It's about making a hypothesis and gathering enough evidence to infer whether there is very likely a causal relationship. The vast majority of scientists claim that there is.

That's why I said right or wrong. And the vast majority claiming there is does not prove anything. At this point, they all just look bad given the incorrectness of their models/hypothisis thus far.

But if you won't even accept that C02 is a greenhouse gas (which is one of the few things here that is an undeniable, concrete fact) then we can't possibly hope to get anywhere here. Since this is unclear, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases, particularly methane) traps solar energy as it's "trying" to radiate to outer space. This holds the heat in the atmosphere and it eventually finds its way back to the surface.

This is not conjecture. You can argue that our current, unprecedented rise in CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change (though you would probably be wrong) but to claim that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and doesn't effect earth's temperature is simply to be factually incorrect.

And if you don't think that, on the whole, the global temperature has been rising ever since the industrial revolution, I have some prime oceanfront property here in Boone County with your name on it.

When did I say it was not called/considred a GHG? My point was, as I stated above, that if it is such a key GHG, why have the increases not been matched with increased global temps, as was foretold?

Global temps have overall been on the rise since the last ice age receeded. Doesn't take trillions of dollars of research to see that truth. But for the last 15-20 years, they have held pretty much steady, against all the chicken little predictions of the consensus sceientist.

[Al Agnew]

For those who want to read an interesting account of the history of and current state of climate change science from a reputable source on the opposite side of things from Jeb's link, go here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#a_hockey Suffice it to say that there are good reasons why the warming isn't following the models exactly. This site also debunks some of the other claims of the anti-AGW people, and is heavily footnoted to give you links to the actual science if you're so inclined.

[jeb]

For those who want to read an interesting account of the history of and current state of climate change science from a reputable source on the opposite side of things from Jeb's link, go here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm#a_hockey Suffice it to say that there are good reasons why the warming isn't following the models exactly. This site also debunks some of the other claims of the anti-AGW people, and is heavily footnoted to give you links to the actual science if you're so inclined.

Even your article says the warming has stopped, or is on "hiatus". No good explanation of why it has stopped while C02 levels have continued to rise is offered, other than the oceans are getting warmer instead, which is just the latest thing for the AGW crowd, er, consensus scientist to gather around.

I think the best quote from the link is in the opening paragraph:

All of them agreed that their knowledge was primitive and any prediction was guesswork.

And it still is, as evidenced by the almost total failure of their models and predictions so far. Again, I support some research into the field and hope that it someday becomes even mildly reliable information. But it is not there today, and most likely has a LONG way to go to get there. The problem I have with this primitive guesswork, as your article calls it, is assuming it is accurate enough to impose draconian laws on ourselves, and further damaging our economy and world wide competitiveness in the process, especially given its very dismal track record thus far. It's no better than Don Quixote tilting at wind mills at this point.

At some point, common sense has to kick in. Let's see, they were wrong about the hockey stick thing, wrong about CO2 directly causing warming, wrong about it getting it warmer at the rates they predicted, etc. But now they are asking us to believe they have it right about oceans getting warmer and its effects on the climate. Yeah, not so much. None of it really passed the sniff test to begin with. But now you have to ignore an awful lot to still buy into it, IMO.

[Al Agnew]

Nice out of context quote there, Jeb. You do know, of course, that they were talking about the state of climate science in the 1970s, more than 40 years ago, when they said that. Also, if you weren't as invested in your own evangelism, you might just see some possible validity in the reasons they gave for the current "hiatus" in warming and why it doesn't prove the models wrong. Obviously there is no use arguing with you about it because your mind has long been made up, but maybe some others on here would like to read this.

I do agree with you that it would be stupid (and it isn't going to happen) that we further damage our economy with draconian measures while the rest of the world goes on with business as usual. Thing is, there are positive ways to go about reducing our CO2 footprint and have the rest of the world follow along. China, the biggest problem, is realizing they have a problem and beginning to figure out how to reduce it, and we could be leading the way with technology to do so instead of kicking and screaming about changing the ways we produce energy.

But that's a policy question that's separate from the question of the validity of the science.

[Mark]

Thanks Al for trying to answer more eloquently than I can.

It's hard to believe that most argue about money spent on grants and research, with all the other money wasted by our government, that is their biggest complaint.

You're right, you can't argue with someone who has their minds made up.

I have to always ask, though, what if we do find in the future undeniable evidence that we are doing irreversible damage to our environment and atmosphere - is it worth the risk to do nothing now???

[Quillback]

Not much "we" can do. We can do some feel good stuff and continue the research to find green technology that can replace carbon as an energy source.

But the scientific consensus at this point is that if there are negative consequences to the carbon that is in the atmosphere, it is inevitable that we will suffer those consequences.

The Chinese stated at the recent UN climate change conference that they will not sign on to anything at the 2015 meeting unless they are allowed to "temporarily" increase carbon emissions. Brazil has also indicated that they will not slow down the clearing of their rain forest.

So we can continue to make minor incremental gains in carbon emission here in the US, and hamstring out economy, but it will be for naught.

Global human population continues to increase - that's another issue that is completely left out of this debate.

[Mark]

I don't believe that throwing our hands up in the air because there is nothing we can do about it is the answer.

[Quillback]

Then what do you propose we do?

[Mark]

We, as a nation, have to lead the fight to clean up our environment and atmosphere. Admittedly, it is an uphill fight when we are divided in our nation on the effects man is having on our environment as some doubt we are having any negative effects, and we continually put profits over the environment. Maybe boycott products produce in other countries that don't comply with environmental standards.

I can see your point of view - individually, each person isn't even a drop in the bucket. I'm sure Ameren UE does more damage to our environment in a day than each of us individually do in a lifetime. But our principles should guide us on the environment.

Again, our ancestors and decendants will be ashamed of us for what we have done to our planet is the past 150 years.

[Al Agnew]

Again, this is why I'm pessimistic about the whole issue. Fact is that China, India, and Brazil want what we've had and they aren't innovative enough to see any other way to do it than the way we did it, depending upon fossil fuels to a great extent. It seems they are waiting for us to come up with alternative energy sources and the technology to make them feasible, and then they steal the technology. Meanwhile, we don't have vast amounts of money to invest in the development of the technology. It's a bad time economically for us or any other country to invest that kind of resources.

At the same time, can we afford not to? IF the problem is as serious as it could be, SOMEBODY has to lead the way to the solutions. But, it's all become so politicized and the two sides are so polarized (like just about everything), that there is a tremendous amount of inertia, and the fossil fuel companies who have had it all their way for so long will continue to do everything they can to keep doing business as usual.

By the time it becomes obvious enough to everybody for people to start working together, both political parties and countries, I'm afraid it will be far too late.

I think we're screwed.