The Chicken Little syndrome.
If every living thing in the world, consumed a pile of beans, then threw the plastic bean bag on the ground....the climate wouldn't care, and will change when it damn well feels like it..
That's when I'll become a believer too....
Same as I've always said....Meh.
Climate change is definitely real, no doubt about it, I've seen a lot of climate graphs and not one of them was flat. Don't worry though, they'll only tax us until it stops changing.
Seriously though, I believe we have altered the climate. Only thing is, I'm pretty sure we've done it through deforestation, because as someone who's studied meteorology I know that topography is THE central factor affecting weather, you know, besides the sun. We've removed most of the mature forest on earth and it's changed the way sunlight interacts with the surface of the planet. It's as obvious to me as the fact that it's cooler in the shade.
I don't doubt we've altered the climate,
I just don't think the percentage of it, is anywhere even near what is caused naturally..
Taxing me to no ends, so I'm forced to go live in a cave, helping Earth correct itself, is not an option for me.
Not that I even think that's a real solution.
An asteroid slammed this planet once, wiping out life, it survived.
I'll take my chances with pesky humans.
Well, if you look at the chart I posted, normally we would be going into an ice age about now. Will the changes we've made to forest cover prevent that? It might, the warm period we're in seems to be longer than average. As a Canadian, I'm keenly aware that when the warm period ends, my country will be buried under a mile of ice, so I'm in no hurry for it to happen.
Oh yes, an ice age would be an unparalleled catastrophe, and there's no evidence to suggest that the earth can get much warmer than it is now. Also, if you look closely at the chart, you'll see that whenever CO2 levels and temperature deviate, CO2 always turns to match temperature, not vice versa. A good example is the third warm period, at about 235,000 years ago. When temperature started going down, it hit a point where CO2 began to increase, did temperature turn to match rising CO2? Nope, CO2 dropped to match temperature, and that dynamic is visible at multiple points on the chart.
I honestly don't think it makes a difference at the concentrations we've seen so far, CO2 is a microscopic component of the atmosphere, 410 ppm at present, or 0.041%, or about 1/2500th. By comparison, oxygen is about 21% of the atmosphere and nitrogen is about 78%.
The real "greenhouse gas" on earth is water vapor. That's why it gets cold overnight in the winter when it's clear and warmer when it's cloudy, the clouds are trapping the heat.
An astounding number of people will deny climate science.
It is those who deny that human action has even possibly contributed to the escalating climate changes going on that concern me.
I don't deny the possibility that human activity has contributed to the observed global warming over the last century, but here are several questions for which I have never gotten plausible answers to, even from a number of climate scientists. Please refer to the charts below.
You will note that between 1910 and 1940, the global mean surface temperature increased by about 0.5 deg C. Then it stayed roughly constant for about 40 years between 1940 and 1980. Then it again increased by about 0.5 deg C between 1980 and 2010.
You will also note (from the second chart) that the rate of carbon emissions increased steadily over that same hundred years. The average carbon emissions rate during 1940-1980 was about 3 times the average rate of 1910-1940, and the average rate during 1980-2010 was almost 8 times as great as 1910-1940.
1. If human carbon emissions cause global warming, then why was the rate of warming between 1980-2010 substantially the same as between 1910-1940, even though the carbon emissions were almost 8 times greater during 1980-2010 than during 1910-1940?
2. If human carbon emissions cause global warming, then why did the warming stop for 40 years between 1940-1980, even though the carbon emissions were about 3 times greater during 1940-1980 than during 1910-1940?
But why should the mini ice age have ended around 1910?
As the chart below shows, total integrated sunspot activity was higher in the 20th century than in the 19th or 18th, so if the mini ice age began (or was at least correlated) with the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century, the increased sunspot activity of the 20th century would be a factor arguing against AGW.
As for the world wars, there's no evidence to show that they had anything to do with warming or cooling. There was a temperature uptick during 1914-1918 and a downtick during 1940-1945, neither of which exceeded the noise level.
And yes, there were lots of fluorocarbons in the atmosphere during 1940-1980 that some say caused just enough cooling to offset the warming that would otherwise have taken place because of CO2 emissions. But if that was the case, then the warming trend between 1980-2010 should have been much faster than it was, since by then the "cooling" chemicals had been banned.
The fact of the matter is that the models climatologists use are based on rough estimates as to the effects of each relevant factor they can think of. (Just a month or two ago, for example, some climatologists said they had mis-estimated the heat-absorbing capacity of the oceans by 60%). If you adjust the parameters of enough of these estimates, you can fit past data very well, but you are likely to run into trouble if you make predictions, which is exactly what has happened with most climate models over the last 10 years; it is much easier to describe the past than to predict the future.
Of course. I have no doubt that industrial activity plays a role, as does deforestation for agricultural purposes.
The long and the short of it is that we are suffering from overpopulation; none of this climate change discussion would be happening if world human population were what it was 100 years ago, say one or two billion.
......................................................."The REAL Hockey Stick"
But of course it's racist to mention just in what parts of the world population control is most urgently needed.
A few places? You left out South Asia and Latin America, and I was surprised to learn from this chart that China's "one child" policy doesn't seem to have had an enormous effect on China's population; I suppose they would have been over 2 billion by now without it.
And yes, you are right about consumerism... it gives people other things to do besides spawning babies.
Here is something more up-to-date, plus some predictions. It looks as if China's population will flatten out, but India's, not so much.
In fact, it looks as if India will overtake China within the next few years.
I'm curious as to where you learned that the green haze was due to industrial activity. I couldn't find anything about it except that it may be part of the lower ionosphere, about 50-100 miles up. Do you have a link?
Here's an interesting article.
The climate has been changing throughout history.They used to hold frost fairs on the frozen Thames.The question is are we now causing it?Everyone but the leader of the USA thinks so..
If Gore and his ilk truly believed in global warming why aren't they giving up their megahomes
and private air fouling jets? So far it looks like they are just using it as an excuse to punish the rest of "little people" with carbon taxes and lectures. Until they life frugally like the rest of us I'm sure France will show them what is thought of their oppressive taxes.
The arrogant elites will never willingly give up their perks, but instead will lay more burdens on the shrinking middle class.