Thanks for the link. There are many assumptions with that drake equation as well. Once you start making assumptions without data... is it really any different than faith.
Polar ice melts disrupting the Atlantic Conveyer. Massive ice sheets form in the northern hemisphere. The ice has a high albedo (reflectivity coefficient) so solar flux is reflected back into space making it colder. More ice forms. Albedo increases and it gets colder still. Its a closed loop and it has happened over and over.
Let's hope we're not accelerating it without planning for it. And let's leave it at hope--anything else would cost money.
It has only been like -10 here all winter, I am not going to lie, i secretly have 2 fridges which i leave wide open outside, in an attempt to keep warming up the planet. If we can turn this bitch up another couple degrees it will be heaven on earth.....
It happens whether humans are present or not due to mega-vulcanism. Particulate matter in the atmosphere due to human activity is insignificant by comparison. That is the point.
I understand that it happens without us. The disagreement is about our contribution as "insignificant" or even "any".
Unlike the alternatives? (That Hawking fellow is all about flash and good times. Someone should get him a library card.)
Which means exactly nothing, Rule of logic: truth is not determined by the number of adherents to a claim. The only thing that matters are what the models and data say. You are way in over your head. First we really don't have a "theory of gravity", we have Newton's laws and general relativity. Second any theory must explain all current relevant measurements and produce testable predictions. One error, just one glaring inconsistency, and out goes the theory DESPITE the preponderance of 'evidence'. This is not a court of law, nature does not give two shits about preponderance of evidence. A true scientist remains open minded about everything with also a very healthy skeptism, especially about new dramatic climate claims and politically charged science behind it. A true scientist also understands the vast difference between a well established and tested closed form mathematical theory like general relativity versus an ad hoc empirical modeling scheme like climate science. A true scientist knows that complete first principles ab initio climate models do not exist, and recognizes the large limitations of the current ad hoc empirical models. A true scientist would NEVER sell any of the current climate models of the very complex nonlinear dynamical system known as the atmosphere (which we know CANNOT be precisely modeled even in theory) as anything close to a well established physical theory like classical newtonian mechanics.... Yet, some do- the power of religion. 100 year climate predictions are about as accurate as 20 day weather forecasts, you would not know that listening to the news. Make work schemes are not 'better or new' windows, they are wastes of resources. The only thing that matters is if wealth or productivity goes up. If you are correct then let's just print up a bunch of money, shut down all fossil fuel activities and make everyone make and use solar energy. I am open minded about what carefully collected data says, the problem is that I can't even trust that anymore, and what I think I can trust is very noisy and incomplete. After climategate, people went to work trying to explain why the atmosphere apparently showed no warming in the last 10 years. As is typical in this field all sorts of ad hoc explainations came in. 'They are constantly surprised by unexpected phenomena. This alone tells you 'they' do no not 'have a grasp on reality at this point in time. I do know that the left is so heavily politically invested that it will be very difficult for open minded examinations. LOL, I almost feel empathy... you provide so many softballs for one to smack around... sigh, check out http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/spesific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html (the cp is the one you want)...get back with me when you know something about thermodynamics and for cripes sake stop saying 'we know' ok It is not a direct linear correlation at all, it isn't isotope analysis that is used, significant is not a useful term, and you can't tell by examing a molecule of CO2 where it came from. Ok back to Stevie Ray Hawking and his overmedicated Venus statement. Earth's atmosphere has about 0.035 percent (not 3%, .03%) CO2 in it and the entire industrial revolution has increased it about 25% from its starting base in 1800 (I'm being charitable to the climate gang). Venus' atmosphere has 95% CO2 and has about 100 times more mass than earth. Also, ~500 million years ago it is theorized that the ocean's CO2 was released and that raised concentrations to about to about 20 times current levels (note how puny man's hypothesized contribution is compared to that). So there is Stevie's ocean trapped CO2. There is a big problem however, we didn't turn into Venus even at those levels. To turn into Venus we need approximately another 95x30x100 ~2.5million times more CO2. That means if we have another 10 million industrial revolutions and a release of Ocean CO2, and global vulcanism to get that sulfur, then we might be Venus (except that I didn't account for the fact we get only half the solar flux). Whew thank goodness for Al Gore
Wow Mav, knocked it out of the park. Epic post. Mankind is but a self-important monkey who thinks the universe is all about him and that the meager exhaust farted out by our little vehicular conveyances pushes old mama-san Earth around in some meaningful way. It is bunk. Here is the real world killer. The local badass. The Ichiban. The Boss... Gentlemen, let me introduce you to Toba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory The wiki citation only addresses the last eruption. It is thought that this sob has erupted periodically for millions of years and pretty much wiped out life each time. They keep looking for an asteroid crater but none are big enough to account for the fossil record. There is a pretty decent probability that Toba is responsible. Krakatoa was just a baby volcano by comparison. . . On a sidenote, my mom was born on Sumatra. My grandfather was a PhD tropical botanist who ran the U.S. Rubber Company there back when rubber was a strategic material. He was captured by the Japanese on Sumatra and was a POW. He had already served in the infantry in France in WWI so he got fucked in both world wars. Every now and then Sumatra lets off a little rumble. The last one created the tsunami that killed 500,000 people on Sumatra, in Thailand, Sri Lanka, India and on the Seychelles a few years ago.
Seems so. Until you look up "greenhouse gases", and "scientific opinion on climate change"--he's wasted his day. The earth is warming. Today, Man is the main contributor. You two and a handful of others are in disagreement with basically all professional scientists. You're smart, but not smart enough.