Increases in CO2 - Causes Cooling
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Based on recent poll -- I suspect around half of them believe... but none of them know... because there is no science showing man made co2 causes warming in our atmosphere.
There is now just about zero doubt the sun and the tides contribute to warming and cooling.
The data shows co2 lags warming and cooling.
CO2 may at times in the thousands of years cycles cause positive feedback and may at times cause negative feedback.
NASA shows that CO2 warms and cools.... it is like a thermostat.
We will have to wait for science to figure out what man made co2 is doing now.
"consensus" without showing the science behind it --- is fraud.
There is now just about zero doubt the sun and the tides contribute to warming and cooling.
The data shows co2 lags warming and cooling.
CO2 may at times in the thousands of years cycles cause positive feedback and may at times cause negative feedback.
NASA shows that CO2 warms and cools.... it is like a thermostat.
We will have to wait for science to figure out what man made co2 is doing now.
"consensus" without showing the science behind it --- is fraud.
Myth 6: Penalizing greenhouse gas emissions would violate peopleâs freedom.
As John Stuart Mill, the British political economist, argued, people should be free to do as they please, provided they donât cause undue harm to others. But greenhouse gases have already caused great harm and threaten much worse. Millâs cost-benefit framework provides no reason for thinking that someoneâs freedom to escape the small burden of CO2 taxation should trump other, vastly more important freedoms. To the contrary, he said, restrictions on individual liberty are needed when the health and safety of the great mass of people and the purity of the natural environment are at stake.
In 2009, the respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model estimated that if we do nothing to curb greenhouse emissions, thereâs a 10 percent chance that temperatures will rise by more than 12 degrees Fahrenheit by centuryâs end, causing wholesale destruction of life as we know it.
Thereâs still time to eliminate this catastrophic risk at surprisingly modest cost. If we fail to act, future historians may wonder from behind high sea walls why we allowed the more effective responses we could have pursued to be blocked by an easily debunked collection of myths.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/u...-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
As John Stuart Mill, the British political economist, argued, people should be free to do as they please, provided they donât cause undue harm to others. But greenhouse gases have already caused great harm and threaten much worse. Millâs cost-benefit framework provides no reason for thinking that someoneâs freedom to escape the small burden of CO2 taxation should trump other, vastly more important freedoms. To the contrary, he said, restrictions on individual liberty are needed when the health and safety of the great mass of people and the purity of the natural environment are at stake.
In 2009, the respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model estimated that if we do nothing to curb greenhouse emissions, thereâs a 10 percent chance that temperatures will rise by more than 12 degrees Fahrenheit by centuryâs end, causing wholesale destruction of life as we know it.
Thereâs still time to eliminate this catastrophic risk at surprisingly modest cost. If we fail to act, future historians may wonder from behind high sea walls why we allowed the more effective responses we could have pursued to be blocked by an easily debunked collection of myths.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/03/u...-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well
It is going to be interesting about 30 years from now when a huge majority of scientists state explicitly that AGW does not exist. I expect that this is about the same time when you are institutionalized.
For that to happen CO2 would have to stop being a greenhouse gas. Do you think that will happen? Try logic. Even a sheep like you has a little.
Myth 1: The enormous uncertainty of climate science argues for a wait-and-see strategy.
The claim here is that reducing greenhouse gases would be a wasted expense if climate change ends up causing only minor problems. But uncertainty cuts two ways. Things might not be as bad as expected, but they could also be much worse.
In other domains, uncertainty doesnât counsel inaction. Few people, for example, recommend disbanding the military simply because adversaries might not invade. In any event, many scientists now believe that storms and droughts caused by climate change are already causing enormous damage, so all that remains uncertain is how much worse things will get. And as Robert Shiller has written in this space, when the risk is as high as it now seems, economics tells us that insuring against worst-case calamities is prudent.
Myth 2: Slowing the pace of climate change would be prohibitively difficult.
Reducing CO2 emissions would actually be surprisingly easy. The most effective remedy would be a carbon tax, which would raise the after-tax price of goods in rough proportion to the size of their carbon footprint. Gasoline would become more expensive, piano lessons would not.
The functional equivalent of that â a cap-and-trade system â worked spectacularly well when Congress required marketable permits for discharging sulfur dioxide (SO2) in 1995. Acid rain caused by SO2 emissions quickly plummeted, at about one-sixth the cost predicted. Once people have to pay for their emissions, they find ingenious ways of reducing them.
The claim here is that reducing greenhouse gases would be a wasted expense if climate change ends up causing only minor problems. But uncertainty cuts two ways. Things might not be as bad as expected, but they could also be much worse.
In other domains, uncertainty doesnât counsel inaction. Few people, for example, recommend disbanding the military simply because adversaries might not invade. In any event, many scientists now believe that storms and droughts caused by climate change are already causing enormous damage, so all that remains uncertain is how much worse things will get. And as Robert Shiller has written in this space, when the risk is as high as it now seems, economics tells us that insuring against worst-case calamities is prudent.
Myth 2: Slowing the pace of climate change would be prohibitively difficult.
Reducing CO2 emissions would actually be surprisingly easy. The most effective remedy would be a carbon tax, which would raise the after-tax price of goods in rough proportion to the size of their carbon footprint. Gasoline would become more expensive, piano lessons would not.
The functional equivalent of that â a cap-and-trade system â worked spectacularly well when Congress required marketable permits for discharging sulfur dioxide (SO2) in 1995. Acid rain caused by SO2 emissions quickly plummeted, at about one-sixth the cost predicted. Once people have to pay for their emissions, they find ingenious ways of reducing them.
It's going to be interesting about 30 years from now when nobody's around to argue about it.
Dr. Don Easterbrook: 'We've had 27 climate changes in the last 400 years: warm, cold, warm, cold. There have been four in this past century that have nothing to do with CO2, because CO2 wasn't a factor hundreds of thousands of years ago. We know that those are not at all related to CO2. So why would we expect climate change today to be related to CO2?'