What do you believe has been adequately demonstrated in climate change science?

[DaShi]

I believe that scientists have proven beyond a doubt that climate change is man-made and that solely Ken Mitchel of Queensborough, Kentucky is responsible.

[MikeH]

Are there more disasters, or are there more people living on earth, making every catastrophe worse because more people are hit?

Both.

[Straybow]

I think it's been adequately demonstrated that:

1) CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (duh)
2) Human beings are currently altering the CO2 balance of the atmosphere significantly
3) The significant rise in global mean over the last 150 years started before there was a significant change in CO2, therefore CO2 is not the driving factor
4) The cyclic nature of global climate is responsible for this change

I'm unconvinced:

a) Global mean sea levels would change by more than 30cm
b) This will cause enormous death and destruction
c) The efforts will make any great change in the end result
d) The cost of a solution will be significantly lower than the damage mitigated by the efforts
e) Rainfall patterns will be significantly negatively affected

What should be obvious to even the most obtuse minds:

i) Climate science can't predict what will happen over the next 1 year, much less 100 years
ii) Neither a carbon tax nor a cap-and-trade system will significantly decrease the CO2 production, only reduce the rate of growth
iii) The revenue from a carbon tax or a fully auctioned cap-and-trade system will be wasted on bloated government programs unconnected to mitigating the effects of sea level rise, etc
iv) The revenue will be spent faster than it accumulates as politicians count on future payments to balance the books

[KrazyHorse]

Thanks for proving what an idiot you are yet again:

My numbering system can be used to shorten your responses, if you'd like. Further numbering should complement, not conflict, with mine (in order to prevent confusion)

[dannubis]

I think it's been adequately demonstrated that:

Climate science can't predict what will happen over the next 1 year, much less 100 years

Climate change does not look at what will happen next year. It provides you with indications.

All in all, the question boils down to this: Should we be very carefull in altering a system so complex we can not reasonably predict the end results of our alteration?

[Lorizael]

All in all, the question boils down to this: Should we be very carefull in altering a system so complex we can not reasonably predict the end results of our alteration?

Hell no. What would be the fun in pussyfooting around?

[Lefty Scaevola]

I'm not sure what the longevity of soot/smoke in the atmosphere is. If it's fairly short then you're simply disguising a long-term problem with a short-term solution. Also, there are other (than global warming/cooling) considerations for particulate pollution. such as sulfur content etc.

Not to mention that soot particulate pollution is a bigger factor in the current decrease in artic sea ice than temperature increase.

[Arrian]

1. Agree.
2. Agree.

The rest: I don't know. I find the folks warning that we're causing/contributing to warming to be more persausive than those who think AGW is all a commie plot (exaggeration, yes yes, I know). But I could very easily be wrong.

I also believe that, to the extent we're staring down significant climate changes (and even w/o AGW we probably are, since climate is anything but static), we should probably be at least considering doing some planning, because if the AGW people are right then we're not going to stop it. We may, if the AGW people win the debate, slow it.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

What if it simply isn't relevant to the future at all? It will be looked on as a silly fad of the early 21st century.

[Straybow]

[Q=KrazyHorse;5720164]Thanks for proving what an idiot you are yet again:

My numbering system can be used to shorten your responses, if you'd like. Further numbering should complement, not conflict, with mine (in order to prevent confusion)

[emphasis added][/Q] And if I don't like to slavishly follow your suggestion? I used the form of your enumeration system as a means to keep the sloppy reader from comparing apples to oranges. Since I wasn't using it to shorten the response (as the careful reader might notice lots of words along with the numbers and letters) there should be no confusion between your use and mine. Unless you are an idiot. Thanks for quoting yourself to demonstrate.

[DanS]

I think 1 & 2 have been adequately demonstrated. But carbon dioxide goes into a complex system once it hits the atmosphere. All bets (or most bets) are off at that point.

We should continue to monitor the information that is available. And if we can produce better science on climate, that would be great.

[CerberusIV]

Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas - but what they don't tell you is that CO2 already traps 99 point something percent of the radiated heat at the wavelengths for which it acts as a greenhouse gas. So you can increase CO2 substantially and it isn't going to trap much more heat. That's physics ie scientifically provable against rigorous standards rather than based on computer models people have been "improving" for more than a decade to produce the "right" result.


Current human civilisation exists because the climate has been relatively benign for the last 15,000 years - it's called an interglacial because ice ages are largely driven by the position of landmasses isolating the ice at the poles so it builds up, the planet cools and North America and Europe go into the freezer and that's likely to happen again within the next few hundred to few thousand years if not sooner (OK solar cycles and other things also have an effect but this is the major driver). If the rest of the planet frying, flooding and otherwise suffering is the price of the developed world not freezing, well I can live with that.

[CerberusIV]

Oh, and to prove it's really about money and politics the Irish government has come up with a clever scheme. They have introduced a carbon tax on petrol and diesel so it costs rather more than in the UK, specifically Northern Ireland.

Result - everyone who can will drive over the border to fill up which will count against the UK's carbon allowance rather than Ireland's - a win for the politicians here - and those who can't (like me) will have to pay more taxes - something the politicians also like. If you think carbon taxes are green, think again, as the minister responsible has already admitted that the revenue from this tax won't be ringfenced for environmental measures like promoting energy efficiency but will be part of general government income because the public finances are in a deep hole.

[Kuciwalker]

If you think carbon taxes are green, think again, as the minister responsible has already admitted that the revenue from this tax won't be ringfenced for environmental measures like promoting energy efficiency but will be part of general government income because the public finances are in a deep hole.

Wow, you're retarded.

[DanS]

That's too strong. There is some value from a practical political POV to ring-fencing this revenue.