I have no idea what Jones and Joyce's views are on this.
You can choose to believe whoever you want... I don't really care.
But, just so we're clear...
You're not able to explain what caused climate change before humans were around?
You're not able to explain why you believe that thing has stopped causing it now?
The climate has been influenced and changed throughout the earth's history.
There are two categories for the changes; human and natural.
The natural causes are things like volcanic eruptions, ocean currents, changes in the earth's orbital and solar variations etc.
There growing rate of change in concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has been unprecedented. This corresponds to the observations and empirical evidence of climate change.
The climate has been influenced and changed throughout the earth's history.
There are two categories for the changes; human and natural.
The natural causes are things like volcanic eruptions, ocean currents, changes in the earth's orbital and solar variations etc.
There growing rate of change in concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has been unprecedented. This corresponds to the observations and empirical evidence of climate change.
OK, now we're getting somewhere.
Climate change has occurred throughout the Earth's history due to natural causes, and this continues today.
However today we also have humans contributing to climate change. I agree with that.
The question is, what proportion of current climate change is natural, and what proportion is human?
It is 95% natural and 5% human? 50/50? Who knows? Nobody knows.
I agree that we should reduce emissions, but I think we should do that in order to improve measurable indicators such as air quality, salinity, water quality etc. I don't think we should do it to 'prevent climate change' or even 'reduce climate change'. Our impact on the climate can't be measured, and we can't prevent climate change regardless of how much money we spend trying.
For example, we could spend billions trying to reduce global temperatures, and then measure the temperature in 50 years to find it has risen by 1 degree. How much of that was caused by the billions spent? Was the money wasted? Nobody knows. There is absolutely no way to tell what proportion of climate change is caused by humans.
Climate change has always been with us, and I suspect man's impact on the climate is tiny compared to the natural forces that have always caused climate change. Instead of spending huge sums of money trying to stop the climate changing, perhaps we should spend that money on ways to adapt to the inevitable change. We can't prevent it. We should adapt to it instead.
Climate change has occurred throughout the Earth's history due to natural causes, and this continues today.
However today we also have humans contributing to climate change. I agree with that.
The question is, what proportion of current climate change is natural, and what proportion is human?
It is 95% natural and 5% human? 50/50? Who knows? Nobody knows.
I agree that we should reduce emissions, but I think we should do that in order to improve measurable indicators such as air quality, salinity, water quality etc. I don't think we should do it to 'prevent climate change' or even 'reduce climate change'. Our impact on the climate can't be measured, and we can't prevent climate change regardless of how much money we spend trying.
For example, we could spend billions trying to reduce global temperatures, and then measure the temperature in 50 years to find it has risen by 1 degree. How much of that was caused by the billions spent? Was the money wasted? Nobody knows. There is absolutely no way to tell what proportion of climate change is caused by humans.
Climate change has always been with us, and I suspect man's impact on the climate is tiny compared to the natural forces that have always caused climate change. Instead of spending huge sums of money trying to stop the climate changing, perhaps we should spend that money on ways to adapt to the inevitable change. We can't prevent it. We should adapt to it instead.
While your argument no doubt sounds reasonable in your own mind, I would strongly urge you to seek out more information from credible sources.
Anthropogenic global warming is possible but not proven (either way), and it’s not true that 97% of climate scientists agree about anthropogenic global warming. Not even 97% scientists agree that there is global warming caused by anything.
well, I would disagree with that, 97% of climate scientists do agree there is man made warming, what they do not completely agree upon is the mechanism, severity and other driving forces. I would point you to a site like realclimate.org but I hazard a guess that you have already heard of them and have your own reasons for discounting much of the information there.
As for your other comments about how the climate has changed, before and now. The climate does respond and change significantly over time, and there are several driving mechanisms. And as many skeptics rightly point out that the carbon level has been higher in the earth's past. What a lot of people overlook though is the change that humans have brought to the earth's eco systems starting ever so small around 8000 years ago when basic farming practices started. There is a 23,000 year trend (I could be wrong on the exact cycle time) for natural carbon dioxide in the air (at levels both higher and lower than todays concentration). The minima tends to co-incide with ice ages (I think the cycles go back around 400,000 years so far), and we should be at a minima now, but we aren't. Also you should consider the basic chemistry of carbon dioxide. It is a greenhouse gas, and even back of the napkin calculations show the amounts we are pumping into the air are enough to affect the earth's climate. That is how the science started in the 60s.
There is an excellent paper on this subject for you to read if you are interested (I'd post it now, but I can't seem to find the link, but I can look when I have more time)
So you can't answer the question then? That's more or less what I expected.
That's the usual response when I ask people like you that question. They go quiet.
The climate has been changing for a very long time. Long before humans were around.
Let me premise this by saying I do not know all the answers, but I know enough not to ask basic level questions (on the level a 10yr old would ask about internal combustion thermodynamics).
A quick answer to your question. Yes, the climate has been changing long before we were around but the RATE OF CHANGE of gases and temperature in the atmosphere has never been as great (high). There is no rule of heat following CO2 or CO2 following heat - it does both as there is a significant positive feedback loop. Previously there were other (smaller) drivers for the change in temperature (tilt of the earth, geological activity, etc) - which caused large changes in both temperature and atmospheric gas concentrations over great lengths of time. The physics of heat trapping by CO2 is proven - that is the simple part. It is the possible feedback loops which are still being discussed.
The longer correct answer to your question/s:
Unfortunately the science of disproving skeptics (a subset of global warming science) is far more complex than the thermodynamics of an internal combustion engine. Therefore the answer to your question is EXTREMELY long and cannot be meaningfully compressed into this forum. For a start you would have to understand the initial concepts and multi-factorial causes and relationships.
From your initial questions (unless you were being facetious?) it appears you either do not want to know, do not understand, or do not agree with the logic behind this field of science. Hence, this would present an even longer conversation.
Also I will add that it does not matter if you understand or not. The environment does not care about your opinion - the environment is not a consensus of scientists/laymen/farmers or politicians.
Climate change has occurred throughout the Earth's history due to natural causes, and this continues today.
However today we also have humans contributing to climate change. I agree with that.
The question is, what proportion of current climate change is natural, and what proportion is human?
It is 95% natural and 5% human? 50/50? Who knows? Nobody knows.
I agree that we should reduce emissions, but I think we should do that in order to improve measurable indicators such as air quality, salinity, water quality etc. I don't think we should do it to 'prevent climate change' or even 'reduce climate change'. Our impact on the climate can't be measured, and we can't prevent climate change regardless of how much money we spend trying.
For example, we could spend billions trying to reduce global temperatures, and then measure the temperature in 50 years to find it has risen by 1 degree. How much of that was caused by the billions spent? Was the money wasted? Nobody knows. There is absolutely no way to tell what proportion of climate change is caused by humans.
Climate change has always been with us, and I suspect man's impact on the climate is tiny compared to the natural forces that have always caused climate change. Instead of spending huge sums of money trying to stop the climate changing, perhaps we should spend that money on ways to adapt to the inevitable change. We can't prevent it. We should adapt to it instead.
OK now you are not being facetious.
1. The study of how much is due to human change is a huge chunk of current research. It is a lot more than 5% - more than 50%. Not entirely sure what you would put on top of what here actually. Naturally we should be entering a cooling phase so the number would be a -% actually. Perhaps dividing the slope of the rate of change of gaseous atmospheric changes - or do you want the difference in slope of temperature gradient? Either way the human contribution is confidently (many times) more than double - so more than 50%.
2. The economics of whether it is better to adapt to the change (and keep business as usual) or spend money limiting emissions is also a large area of study. Perhaps start with the Stern Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
Many studies have been done and most conclude that limiting emissions is better. However it depends on what you want to do.
3. Currently the cutting area of research is into geoengineering. That is pumping water or reflective particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight. We probably only need to reflect ~2% of total sunlight to offset current CO2 levels (this is off the top of my head - many months since I have read this/caught up on this). A small scale study was meant to be under way by now, I think off the coast of central America ????
If you genuinely want to know I'd suggest you look on forums other than this one.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
