Subject: »Climate Change and Global Warming

I don't talk about manipulation but about oriented views.

the main problem is that it'll get worse and worse
(edited)

My point is that CO2 levels are raising and it is bad, but not as drastically bad as some people think.

this is truth. but depends on our definition of "drastical"
climate changes will not destroy the earth, wont make armageddon or something like that.

but they are going to change significantly conditions of our living, food production, water availability etc. it will leads to massive migrations, and few other important implications.
so far we can suspect that costs of adaptaion to those changes will be much higher than costs of reducing our CO2 emissions and that is the clue of all story


and You can't look on this considering only the effectiveness os sotosynthesis - it's only the tip of the iceberg of problems and other implications. for example what gives You better fotosynthesis if You don't have any acces to sweet water for people (not metion the plants) because the local glacier melt down totally...

i can't agree with You. scientists know all the main forcings that have significant impact on global temperature

You can't say that current warming isn't coused by humans activity because in very distant past was also some warm and even warmer periods. This is not an argument.

All of climate changes in earth history had own reasons - You can call them natural (natural long term CO2 fluctuations, solar activity changes, orbital parametres, volcanic activity etc etc etc) but we now today that none of them occured now.

I had nothing to do so I started to read this this topic. I don't have any studies in biology, ecology, and other "green" sciences. I saw that there are mainly 2 sides: one which is convinced that GW is caused bt human activities, and one that doesn't really think there is a GW. I am not saying that one side is right or wrong but, I found some faults in peoples logic:

1. All the graphs which are shown contain data only for 100-150 years max. That is nothing compared to scale of the whole system. The climate evolved and will evolve for millions of years, that period is simply insignifiant.

2. No one considered the inertia of the system. The earth's atmosphere is a large system, with a proportional high inertia. Have you ever thought that the changes produced now are caused by events which happened hundreds of years ago?

3. Why the human race needs to fell like the belly button of the Universe? The earth was before humans, will be after humans, we are just like a fly: you tolerate it some time, and when it irritates you, you just kill it - probably that will happen. These changes could be caused by humans, but in the same way, humans may have absolutely no contribution at all.

You can't say that current warming isn't coused by humans activity because in very distant past was also some warm and even warmer periods. This is not an argument.

??? :-)

If you want to use arguments to explain us your views, you may be careful :-)... If you want to sned us some logical explanations, you may know that graphs taht are not global aren't give all true thing. Give us all the temparature periods to compare with your graphs and give explanations about what they show and then you will act as ascientist otherwise you can't say i'm right and you're wrong...
As you must know (i'm a scientist) and i don' care to see if someone is right or wrong but i ony like to see logical anwser with logical arguments and not oriented arguments :-p

3. Why the human race needs to fell like the belly button of the Universe?

The main "error" of the nature is to have "gave" us a brain :-)...
(edited)

1. All the graphs which are shown contain data only for 100-150 years max. That is nothing compared to scale of the whole system. The climate evolved and will evolve for millions of years, that period is simply insignifiant.

I think that my previous post will make it more clear to You

2. No one considered the inertia of the system. The earth's atmosphere is a large system, with a proportional high inertia. Have you ever thought that the changes produced now are caused by events which happened hundreds of years ago?

You're partially right but not about the causes but about the effects.
About a half of human CO2 emisions are know absorbed by the oceans so even if we stop burning fossil fuels today the level of CO2 will be maintained for a quite long time because of realising it from oceans.
Another aspect is the heat capacity of water - many many times larger than heat capacity of ground and air. It means that acumulated energy will be also releasing for a very long time after decreasing of CO2 concentration.

3. Why the human race needs to fell like the belly button of the Universe? The earth was before humans, will be after humans, we are just like a fly: you tolerate it some time, and when it irritates you, you just kill it - probably that will happen. These changes could be caused by humans, but in the same way, humans may have absolutely no contribution at all.

well... if we know the reason of current changes, can predict what will happen, and what to do to avoid those negative consequences - why we shouldn't to act?
It's a matter of responsibility for next generations...

I can show You also the graphs about very old climate changes and believe me - all of them had own reasons and none of them was so rapid like current one.

And for me it isn't logical argument if You say that: because it was natural then it can't be unnatural now

I can show You also the graphs about very old climate changes and believe me - all of them had own reasons and none of them was so rapid like current one.

I'm not a believer :-p... You must show me ;-)

And for me it isn't logical argument if You say that: because it was natural then it can't be unnatural now

Tel me where i said that please ? :-)... Please use logical arguments when writing otherwise i could think you are laughing at me :-p

Tel me where i said that please ?

maybe I've misunderstood You. sorry then

about the role of CO2 in the earths climat in the past I recommends You to watch this lecture:

The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History by Richard Alley

It is really interesting and this guy isn't another boring scientist. Besides I could make some mistakes in interpretation of graphs and I don't want to risk that...
(edited)

human being takes also part of the environment, so its useless to speculate about what would've happened if we were less influential... we shouldnt refuse to live like that unless our actions are clearly proved to be catastrophic...

There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action.

this is the fragment of open letter of 250 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

GW seems to be such a complicated phenomenon so science is just not able to take into account all the factors which could be linked to it. That's clear, and that is why there are fully different theories, all of them supported by Science: I mean they've not been randomly made.
At least, I sensibly agree on trying to improve our routine, but thats only my point of view cause I'm not involved in any energy-depending bussines. The problem is that powerful people/countries, in general, have no interest in changing their wasting-energy habits.

That's clear, and that is why there are fully different theories, all of them supported by Science

here You are wrong. theory of antropogenic global warming is the only theory suported by science with masive amount of evidences. currently there is no alternative theory about GW causes.

currently what is not known exactly is the scale of our impact (climate sensitivity to CO2 concetration) because of possible feedbacks in climate system what can be not known right now. but those feedbacks can be negative as well as positive...


The problem is that powerful people/countries, in general, have no interest in changing their wasting-energy habits.

this is entirely not true!

as far as I remember estimations in this matter cost of total independency from fossil fuels reached to year 2050 (i'm not sure about this date exactly) is estimated to around 2% of GDP per year

costs of forced adaptation to changed climate conditions (agriculture, addapting infrastructure, ingeenering etc), costs of massive population's migrations (and possible conflicts or even wars connected with it), costs of terain lost due to increasing sea level etc etc, are simple bigger

the truth is that not all countries will be affected by those changes equally. some can have even some benefits thanks to those changes. but globally is going to be more expensive than CO2 emissions limitations.

btw in all that calculations I didn't mentioned about inestimable losses. for example massive estinction of species coused by changed climat in certain terrains without possibility of migrations because of civilisation barriers, pauperization of ocean's ecosystems due to acidification etc.

believe me, climate changes are really giong to do some mess in our world...

according on what youve said, a big mobilization by governments should've been carried out a lot of time ago... As i've said im not a specialist at all, but i do believe in science (even though theories it creates are often not enterely right) and I try to take into account what it's thought to be the truth at the moment...
Ordinary people have usually no idea about current researches, they believe what they watch on TV..., and this topic hardly appears.