the tug boat analogy was to show that a question of "how much is due to human contribution" is entirely a question of logical reasoning, not linearity. I gave Shadow what I thought was a very good answer about a year ago to this very question. He refused to believe the form of the answer as it was a subjective answer and, if I remember correctly, was a number derived from the beliefs of people who study climate science. However the question cannot be answered objectively at this point in time, and probably never will be. My mind can only fathom that an objective answer is not possible and would only be possible if we extrapolated data from a statistically significant number of experiment on many earths in a controlled environment. We do not have many earths, and if we did we have no way of feasibly experimenting on them before we ruined this one. Instead we would just move to the next one when this one becomes uneconomical to repair.
So, I propose this question cannot be answered objectively. I therefore pose another question that I hope someone will be kind enough to answer. Does this mean we do nothing?
Essentially you are agreeing with Shadow. There is nothing out there other than opinion to say that rising C02 is something to be concerned about.
As far as i can see the Earth cooled during the little ice age and has now warmed to a similiar temperature as before that cooling.
What we do know as a fact, is that many alarmists twisted the historical data to suggest todays events are much scarier than they are and some of the most prominant of those people are still getting government backing.
If the subject was presented with a more open mind without the scare tactics it would lead me to think there was an open minded discussion going on as to what is happening. Instead it is common to be insulted for having an alternative view and it is easier to believe we are being bullied into something that is not supported by all of the scientific evidence available.
For some reason you are resisting a basic physical reality of ice and water vapour.
Ice will always have a partial vapour pressure of the gas of water over the ice, even if it is tens of degrees below zero
Even in very cold conditions ice evaporates via the gas. The ice will be warmer at the equator and colder further away.
Ie most snow will arise near the equator and fall further away from the equator where it is cooler. Less snow will arise away from the equator.
Just as happens today water gets transported via the atmosphere away from the equator because most water in the atmosphere arises at the equator
Congratulations, what a confused load of gobbledegook. An indication you don't have a clue.
It doesn't seem to get through to you that colder air progressively has less and less capacity for water vapor. And temperature falls about 6.5C for every km of altitude in the troposphere. No CO2 and the equator will have the average temperature of the arctic. The air will be transporting very little water vapor.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
Congratulations, what a confused load of gobbledegook. An indication you don't have a clue.
It doesn't seem to get through to you that colder air progressively has less and less capacity for water vapor. And temperature falls about 6.5C for every km of altitude in the troposphere. No CO2 and the equator will have the average temperature of the arctic. The air will be transporting very little water vapor.
Sigh.
It does not matter that the air temperature is lower or that quantities of atmospheric water are 'little'. It will be warmer at the equator where a greater capacity for water vapour is present.
Eventually there will be no land based water at the equator that cannot be easily melted and evaporated from the surface by the morning sun and the earth will progressively warm up again.
I've answered this about a year ago. You don't like the answer AND can't understand it.
No, you didn't answer it. You linked to the opinion of one climate change alarmist.
Quote:
Literally that is devastatingly poor logic. It's objectively incorrect from an economics standpoint. You say are not willing to spend a few percent of the economy to insure against a real risk that if it occurs would likely destroy the entire current economic system and the risk is deemed likely to be happening by a majority of experts. Wow.....
I believe money is better spent adapting to inevitable climate change, rather than engaging in a futile effort to prevent change.
Quote:
Firstly the scales are a joke...
Similarly scaled and designed charts were used by the climate change alarmists to 'prove' the existence of anthropogenic climate change, until their charts stopped showing what they wanted to show so they decided they need different charts to 'prove' their case. Similar to the way climate change alarmists twist any observation into 'proof' of anthropogenic climate change... sea ice contracting - proof of anthropogenic climate change, sea ice expanding - anthropogenic climate change, temperatures rising - anthropogenic climate change, temperatures falling - anthropogenic climate change...
Quote:
The planet earth is orbiting the sun. It appears that we are not accelerating towards the sun, or being pulled away from it. However there is a massive gravitational force attracting us to the sun, and a massive force of momentum wanting us to fly away from the sun. This is called an equilibrium. Now....what if someone was to get a big rocket and use it as a tug boat
Your analogy is inane and falls over right there. The gravitational forces between earth and sun are in equilibrium and the movement of the Earth around the sun is totally predictable. However the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not in equilibrium, and the climate in general is not in equilibrium. They have been changing in unpredictable cycles for billions of years. The earth has had much higher and lower levels of C02 and much higher and lower temperatures in the past, and this was all happening long before humans ever appeared. We can't prevent it from happening. It will continue to happen regardless of what we do.
1. Human released C02 is known. The total amount of C02 is known
2. Temperature rises due to C02 are unknown.
3. Correlation does not mean causation.
There is no scientific evidence to link the earths temperature to human activity so it can be scientifically said humans are causing the earth to be warmer.
We currently have no idea if people are simply fitting the C02 idea to their own temperature constructions where C02 may have a a trivial role in climate.
All we seem to know is that the Earth cooled in the last 1000 years and now has returned to similar temperatures existing 1000 years ago, but even that relies on a large amount of assumption and guesswork.
Hi there, I don't need to argue the science with you as it exists with or without your understanding of it. If you do some reading on the topic beyond the work of Lord Monckton you will find the evidence is truly overwhelming.
But even before doing that it may be worth looking into where the seeds of denial and doubt come from. I would suggest reading into the George C. Marshall Institute, in particular these guys - Fred Seitz, and Fred Singer.
The deniers of climate change will look back on this time with embarrassment. In fact many have been changing their positions.
The deniers of climate change will look back on this time with embarrassment. In fact many have been changing their positions.
It's more likely the climate change alarmists will look back with embarrassment, when they wake up to the idiocy of their belief that humans can actually prevent the climate from changing.
It's more likely the climate change alarmists will look back with embarrassment, when they wake up to the idiocy of their belief that humans can actually prevent the climate from changing.
As I said to Andrew Judd above, the sciences exists with or without your understanding of it.
It does not matter that the air temperature is lower or that quantities of atmospheric water are 'little'. It will be warmer at the equator where a greater capacity for water vapour is present.
Eventually there will be no land based water at the equator that cannot be easily melted and evaporated from the surface by the morning sun and the earth will progressively warm up again.
Hey Brain Dead, how many times you gotta be told. Water Vapor won't remain a gas because conditions are way below its boiling point. It will liquify and freeze and fall back to the surface.
Do we see the arctic or antarctic ice cap "warm up" create a stronger greenhouse effect and disappear? It don't because the water vapor will precipitate back to the surface, it don't remain in the air indefinitely below boiling point.
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
