For example, while more than 95% of the climate models are overestimating the current temperatures, they have a range of future warming from 1 degree to 10 degrees. This is for the warming. What about the effect?
We KNOW that CO2 increases tend to help plant growth in controlled environments, but we don't know the effect in nature.
We KNOW that warmer temps tend to help tree growth. We do not know the effect on all plants.
We KNOW that changing the temperature of the planet will cause changes in rain pattern. We do not know whether those will end up leading to more or less droughts or floods.
We have little that we know and a TON of uncertainty.
As a normally cautious man, I would say that this would lead one to make intelligent reduction in our CO2 emissions. NOT panicked decisions based upon some absurd climate apocalypse.
I can say this with certainty. You show many ANYTHING that has you panicked about the future of the world or humanity and I will show you the errors in the analysis.
Beyond that, panic leads to stupid decisions like using our crops as a source of fuel or stopping 3rd world nations from having the power they need to better their lives.
So YES there is some warming, yes we are causing it, and yes we should reduce our CO2 emissions. But this problem is being GREATLY exaggerated and the presumed certainty is being GREATLY overstated.
Ignore the denialist nonsense. Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
wilds-of-Virginia
< global warming is not a myth and CO2 is contributing. To claim our position is otherwise is to create a strawman. >
Sagebrush says that global warming is a hoax.
Kano has it right. global warming is not a myth and CO2 is contributing. To claim our position is otherwise is to create a strawman.
The real question is are we certain that the warming will be catastrophic, not whether warming exists. According to the last IPCC report, we are really not sure- no consensus climate sensitivity given. Predictions diverging from models.
Global warming is caused by guns being fired in shoot-outs.
Guns should not be permitted.
Global W#arming was real enough to melt most of the Glaciers, but Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed. Mike
No
but the Hoax Movement is. It's based on myths and misinformation.
The Koch Bros/ big oil, have funded phony studies to make it seem like AGW isn't man made.
Anti-Science people say ridiculous things like 'plants like c02' or claim it's a political conspiracy.
Only a fool believes Rush Limbaugh and not Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Not exactly CO2 does cause some warming, but it is minimal, but they try to say 'that' warming will increase water vapor which will cause more warming, this is utter nonsense, because water is what controls and regulates our climate, with an increase in heat more water vapor is evaporated from oceans or forests or even just damp earth, it takes a huge amount of heat to turn water into vapor, and this warm vapor rapidly rises up into the atmosphere until it becomes so cold that it condenses into water droplets (clouds) when it condenses it releases this heat which can be radiated into space, at the same time the clouds prevent the suns rays from heating the earths surface(shade) of course the water droplets eventually form as rain or snow and fall back to earth, so you can see water acts as a thermostat (this is why deserts can be so hot or cold) and as long as our planet is covered with 70% water, extreme warming will not happen.
"Natural variability is responsible for late twentieth century warming and the cessation of
warming since 1998. The modern rise of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric greenhouse gases
has had little, if any, measurable effect on twentieth century climate."
"The IPCC claim of robust evidence of amplified CO2-induced warming in Earth’s polar regions is
patently false, having been invalidated time and again by real-world data. From the birth and death
of ice ages to the decadal variations of modern-day weather patterns, studies in Earth’s polar regions
demonstrate the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration is not a major player in bringing about significant
changes in Earth’s climate."
"Earth’s climate has both cooled and warmed independent of its atmospheric CO2
concentration, revealing the true inability of carbon dioxide to drive climate change throughout the Holocene. Conditions as warm as, or warmer than, the present have persisted across the Holocene for
decades and centuries even though the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration remained approximately 30 percent lower than it is today."
http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
Nope. Pretty real. In fact, you can see it.
https://www.google.com/#q=glacier+repeat...
The National Academy of Sciences is the academy of greatest scientists in the USA. Its purpose is to provide the nation with the advice on complex scientists coming from the greatest scientists in the nation. The work of NAS scientists is the highest level in the world.
The Royal Society is England's national science academy and is the academy of greatest scientists in the UK. Its purpose is to provide the nation with the advice on complex scientists coming from the greatest scientists in the nation. The work of Royal Society scientists is the highest level in the world.
You need not ask opinions of yahoos on Yahoo. The NAS and the Royal Society provide advice from the highest level of scientists. This is the voice of the world's scientific body. This is what the science tells us:
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoi...
"Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences."
Just look at Baccy Baby's statement. He digs up 'scientific' organizations whose sole purpose was to push this hoax on the public.
It is a hoax and they even admit it.
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Justice and equality are just code words for Communism.
Wow you sire got some loser denier answers They don'y know jack
No.
Next
question'
yes
Yes. Sort of. Inconclusive. Btw bovine flatulence contributes more cfcs into the air than cars.
no
But man being the cause of it is.
No
no
This should answer your question:
no
