What Do We Think About Climate Change

The point here is that we humans are contributing to the natuiral cycle. If you care to read the whole thread ( but I'm sure you have better things to spend your time on), you will see that no one serious is saying that humans are CHANGING the climate.

Rather, humans are CONTRIBUTING to otherwise normal cycles, and in this fashion, we are cutting the branch we are sitting on.

The poblem is that we are cutting the wrong end of the branch, and the fall, at some point, will be inevitable.

And that, you shall hopefully agree, might prove to be a seriously stupid thing to do.

 

So what did you prove just there?

In the larger scheme of the things, I would say you have only proved your oponents right. See, Dr. Nikola Tesla had demonstrated in early 1900' that a small input of force will cause an earthquake if repeated enough times, with the right tools.

So, small and perfectly natural cyclical changes receiving additional small input from humans will inevitably change the cycle's synusoidal characteristic (following above graph's analogy).

Hence, yor oponents are right. As you yourself said, it will be interesting to see where does the cycle go. When all numbers are taken into account, it follows that a CHANGE is inevitable.

How hard is that to understand?

9033 posts hard.

Not surprised at all, though. Those ostriches here are more willing to avail themselves to their beliefs in the numbers, instead to the cold facts of numbers. And the difference is huge.

 

I assume that's a rhetorical question; I doubt you're really that clueless.

Another classic example of trying to take the debate back to square one and start over, for the umpteenth time.

 

Yes, I was being rhetorical.

If you haven't gathered, the last string of posts of mine were responses to what I considered very simplistic pigeonholing.

I think you went a little overzealous though in your retort though, I apologize however if it were mis-read. what I meant was "...'agree CO2 has an effect on the climate's rate/direction of temperature change" pause for a separate statement.... the people on my side of the argument further believe "that it [CO2 in re: climate change] is a second, third or fourth order magnitude....'

I could be wrong on this, but I don't think most skeptics thing that Co2, has no effect, just not the dominant one.

 

OK...that makes more sense to me.

 

This is not a response against the thread or the topic, but a particular allegation that was not just responded to by myself as being erroneous but by several others.

 

Not to derail the debate but...

Of all the wondrous contributions and irrefutable genius of Tesla you choose about the least viable of his theories. A totally unproven and unsubstantiated theory at that. I don't claim to be within a standard deviation of his intelligence or insight, but this one doesn't appear to hold the test of time, or at least without some serious nuancing.

Sure there was the Tacoma Narrows bridge, and a few other case scenarios where harmonic oscillations have caused things to fall apart, but the contributing force was much greater than a hammer. In a perfect world it might work, but slight imperfections quickly add up and unless the driving force is enough to dominate the other factors the energy gets quickly attenuated.

Further...

I am not sure how man's impact could be a sinusoidal let alone harmonic driving force, we just aren't that clever (unless you are a conspiracy theorist) ... If anything it would tend to push on one swing and pull on the other, causing an offest. Unless you were arguing say for instance that CO2 increases lead to larger amplitude swings in temperature, or that they are more erratic, but that is nothing related to the fictional Tesla/Atlas Shrugged death ray type effect.

 

I think most scientists would say there are feedback mechanisms, which multiply the effect of CO2-induced temperature changes.

For example, the change in albedo as we lose snow and ice cover. "The classic example of albedo effect is the snow-temperature feedback. If a snow-covered area warms and the snow melts, the albedo decreases, more sunlight is absorbed, and the temperature tends to increase."

Fortunately, the latest thinking seems to be that the feedback mechanisms at work as CO2 rises may not drive the changes as much as was previously estimated. If confirmed, that would knock out some of the worst-case scenarios that have been floating around.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm

 

Sure, but not in a Tesla-esque way.

 

Are you not trying to shoehorn your ideas onto the general populace? Doesn't everyone?

 

You over-rate our ability to change climate in this way. Real weather modification, as humans do it, involves radioactive isotopes. Boom.

 

No. I'm not placing my own words into the mouths of scientists or the general populace, or wrongly saying they believe what I believe.

By the way: I started going through an old 2 1/2 hp Elgin outboard, readying it for use on the Blue Bayeau. So far, it seems to have very little wear and tear on it; looks like about all it needs is a new paint job and decals. The lower unit had a litttle water in the gears, but that's no surprise. I'll pack it with Lubriplate 105, and see how it does.

 

That sounds like a very good match for the FBC Bleu Bayeau.

 

the sientists know the only truth is " THE BIGGER THE CATASOPHY THE BIGGER THE GRANTS" and thats how they live longer

 

I'll ask again , why the visceral reaction to reducing co2?

how would reducing co2 impact the lifestyle of any one in a major way?