Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
Let me give you an example that you can understand intuitively. Today there are X cars in your city/town/village/farm area. If that number doubles, there will be more emissions from cars, home heating, fireplaces - any source of carbon. Now if you believe that cars have doubled, doesn't it make sense that emissions have gone up? Now obviously, as vehicle emissions are reduced, their contribution is also reduced. But there will still be more emissions than before the new settlers and their cars arrived.
Nobody - certainly not the 97% scientists - preaches that 100% of the climate change is anthropogenic. There have been large volcanic eruptions that had short term impacts. I live 1,000 miles from Mount St. Helens and there was ash depositing on my car for three days. The atmosphere is like a big ocean. Water doesn't segregate, it mixes. Same with the atmosphere. However, since the industrial revolution and the explosion of automobiles that use carbonaceous fuel, it should be simple to see that they have had an impact on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is inconceivable that humans didn't contribute to increases in greenhouse gas since the industrial revolution. And with the spread of cars and manufacturing in Asia and Africa the position that there are more emissions is obvious.
What does your Fox guy believe is causing the melting of glaciers that have been there for hundreds or even thousands of years?
The interview that was posted was full of half truths; enough truth to make it sound plausible. Sure there are warming and cooling periods. The difference is that most of those periods had limited geographic scope. The current term "global" is a key descriptor of what is going on now. It wasn't hard to see through it if you had some knowledge. I have a lot of experience with atmospheric modeling. I know how they predict. Current models are not nearly the voodoo he suggests.
By the way, I knew and worked with Roger Pielke. Smart guy.
Here's a question anyone is welcome to answer: what is the most prevalent greenhouse gas?
|
Since the number of cars dramatically went up from the forties through the seventies yet temperatures plummeted; so your cause and effect is null and void. According to you, the earths temperature should have risen during those decades. Man has very little if anything to do with global warming, the Earth does it naturally. Besides, a warmer earth is a more beneficial earth, so lets hope it increases a little more.
