|
On December 14 2011 14:47 XRaDiiX wrote: No one knows yet until it happens that's the thing. No matter how many articles i link there isn't going to be any conclusive evidence yet.... i'm just giving you studies i found about it.. Although i think i'm going to trust NASA and their 3 separate studies that came to the same conclusion. http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.html 
But they aren't about it. They are about solar spot activity. There is nothing in them that state this will lead to global cooling. I agree with that we may be heading into a period of very low sun spot activity. I don't see where they link that to global cooling. Everything you have posted has used the correlation with the little ice age as the only evidence for this link. Saying NASA studies show this to be true is wrong. They show an expected decrease in sun spots, that's all.
|
|
|
I give up 
It has been fun mate but I can't rehash the same arguments indefinitely. Work is over and life must begin. Maybe someone else can get an answer from you, cause to me nothing you have posted shows a link between solar activity and temperature.
|
There has been a significant argument presented that deals with a 1500 year solar cycle that heats and cools the world that essentially is the significant factor in our current global warming, which there is evidence of in older tree rings, bubbles in the antarctic ice. Supposing given the evidence that this is in fact the case, why should we invest money in the extreme amounts of outright fraudulent organizations claiming to help alleviate the problem.
Also why is everyone so hard on (North) America being skeptical which is by the way THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, given that a common sample of dried air contains over 30 times more Argon (known cancer causing agent) than carbon dioxide. (and around 225 times more oxygen than argon and about 4 times more nitrogen than oxygen) which means there is about 6750 times more oxygen (O2) than there is CO2 in a common sample of air. Also given that CO2 is a heavier gas (44.01) than Average air (28.97) how does the CO2 get high enough in the atmosphere to permanently cause the global warming effect given that it has very little energy when exhausted from a car.
Lastly a heavier CO2 environment would make it more suitable for plants to reproduce, and thus with more plant reproduction the heavier input of CO2 into the environment would be accounted for by the extra phototroph production.
I can understand how on Venus the CO2 system has basically murdered all life on the planet, but thats also taking into account that its a heavy methane atmosphere which is heavier than carbon dioxide (which gives it the 90x atmospheric pressure compared to here) and allows it to permanently sit on top of the atmosphere.
|
On December 14 2011 15:01 Hipsv wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There has been a significant argument presented that deals with a 1500 year solar cycle that heats and cools the world that essentially is the significant factor in our current global warming, which there is evidence of in older tree rings, bubbles in the antarctic ice. Supposing given the evidence that this is in fact the case, why should we invest money in the extreme amounts of outright fraudulent organizations claiming to help alleviate the problem.
Also why is everyone so hard on (North) America being skeptical which is by the way THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, given that a common sample of dried air contains over 30 times more Argon (known cancer causing agent) than carbon dioxide. (and around 225 times more oxygen than argon and about 4 times more nitrogen than oxygen) which means there is about 6750 times more oxygen (O2) than there is CO2 in a common sample of air. Also given that CO2 is a heavier gas (44.01) than Average air (28.97) how does the CO2 get high enough in the atmosphere to permanently cause the global warming effect given that it has very little energy when exhausted from a car.
Lastly a heavier CO2 environment would make it more suitable for plants to reproduce, and thus with more plant reproduction the heavier input of CO2 into the environment would be accounted for by the extra phototroph production.
I can understand how on Venus the CO2 system has basically murdered all life on the planet, but thats also taking into account that its a heavy methane atmosphere which is heavier than carbon dioxide (which gives it the 90x atmospheric pressure compared to here) and allows it to permanently sit on top of the atmosphere.
Precisely. This seems to be the fundamental flaw in those who tout warming trends, more importantly CO2 trends. CO2 is an indicator of life, creating greater amounts of photosythesis and more food production. The only explanation I see for the rise of the AGW phenomena is the political weight thrown behind it and the money made available for those who want the funding. Again, sorry dabbeljuh, but from the sources I see as reliable I don't see how your conclusions can be considered sound science.
This was inevitable for any climate scientist (Gavin Schmidt of which I don't trust.) Everyone who studies the Vostock ice cores knows that they indicate natural warming and cooling periods. What's hard to predict is how extreme the coming cool-down will be. What is certain is it's much more of an issue than a warming.
|
@OP: Did the climate models being used around the year 2000 predict the temperatures for the next 12 years (up until the present?) How accurately? Which models? Which didn't (any)?
What is the role for economists in this issue? Global warming is bad because it hurts human beings right? But if helping human beings is the goal of policy then don't we have to weight how much it costs to cut carbon vs what we could do with that money to help those affected by whatever impacts global warming might have?
Thanks! Cool thread 8)
|
On December 14 2011 15:03 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 15:01 Hipsv wrote:+ Show Spoiler +There has been a significant argument presented that deals with a 1500 year solar cycle that heats and cools the world that essentially is the significant factor in our current global warming, which there is evidence of in older tree rings, bubbles in the antarctic ice. Supposing given the evidence that this is in fact the case, why should we invest money in the extreme amounts of outright fraudulent organizations claiming to help alleviate the problem.
Also why is everyone so hard on (North) America being skeptical which is by the way THE CORRECT SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, given that a common sample of dried air contains over 30 times more Argon (known cancer causing agent) than carbon dioxide. (and around 225 times more oxygen than argon and about 4 times more nitrogen than oxygen) which means there is about 6750 times more oxygen (O2) than there is CO2 in a common sample of air. Also given that CO2 is a heavier gas (44.01) than Average air (28.97) how does the CO2 get high enough in the atmosphere to permanently cause the global warming effect given that it has very little energy when exhausted from a car.
Lastly a heavier CO2 environment would make it more suitable for plants to reproduce, and thus with more plant reproduction the heavier input of CO2 into the environment would be accounted for by the extra phototroph production.
I can understand how on Venus the CO2 system has basically murdered all life on the planet, but thats also taking into account that its a heavy methane atmosphere which is heavier than carbon dioxide (which gives it the 90x atmospheric pressure compared to here) and allows it to permanently sit on top of the atmosphere. Precisely. This seems to be the fundamental flaw in those who tout warming trends, more importantly CO2 trends. CO2 is an indicator of life, creating greater amounts of photosythesis and more food production. The only explanation I see for the rise of the AGW phenomena is the political weight thrown behind it and the money made available for those who want the funding. Again, sorry dabbeljuh, but from the sources I see as reliable I don't see how your conclusions can be considered sound science. This was inevitable for any climate scientist (Gavin Schmidt of which I don't trust.) Everyone who studies the Vostock ice cores knows that they indicate natural warming and cooling periods. What's hard to predict is how extreme the coming cool-down will be. What is certain is it's much more of an issue than a warming.
Correct if the Vostok Ice Cores stay true to their pattern we are due for a 80,000-120,000 Year Ice Age in 1000-10,000 Years or so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vostok_Station
|
On December 14 2011 13:43 XRaDiiX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 13:40 Rhine wrote:On December 14 2011 13:23 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 13:11 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 13:06 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 13:02 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 12:28 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 10:56 Probulous wrote:On December 14 2011 10:39 Joedaddy wrote:Ok but... there are still a huge number of scientists who say there is no evidence supporting man made global warming/climate change. Your 1 article does not open and close the book on 31,000+ scientists who disagree. Its a nice argument for consensus but it does nothing to address the evidence against man made global warming. The article is extremely bias in saying that "those who understand the nuances and scientific basis." That's just a nice way of saying if you disagree then you don't know what you're talking about. Again, its not addressing any of the evidence against man made global warming. Fair enough. Link the data. And not a youtube clip please, actual data sets proving your point. Articles that are peer reviewed or at least in respectable publications. In particular, those that show that the globe is not warming over the long term, or ones that show if its warming the source is something natural. (Sun cycles have been dealt with earlier in this thread) Oh here's a little piece for you on Sun Cycles. 3 Different Major NASA studies came to the same conclusion. http://www.space.com/11960-fading-sunspots-slower-solar-activity-solar-cycle.htmlI've been researching GlobalWarming/Climate Change on the Internet for a few years now; but please read the article. After the next solar maximum ends there is a very good chance that we could enter another maunder minimum(Mini- Ice Age) Relevant Information Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age Thanks for the links. My understanding is as follows - The sun is heading into a likely low period of solar activity. The number of sunspots are expected to be very low for an extended period of time.
- The little iceage coincided with a similar effect. According to your link this is one possible explanation for the "little iceage". The others being increased volcanic activity and orbital variations.
Is that correct because I fail to see how that explains this ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3RstH.gif) from http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmThe actual data records for the chart are linked as well. If I understand your point, you are saying that the warming is due to an increased solar activity that is currently winding down. If that is the case you would expect that the chart would show some connection between solar activity and global temperatures. Am I missing something? Because it isn't supposed to start until the end of this or the next Solar Cycle. Which is in 2015 or 2021 ..... Edit: Face palm to your next post. Seriously the graph shows that solar activity is already slowing but that is has no effect on temperature. Sure the next period is going to have less, bt why will that affect temperature. It hasn't so far. No. Seriously the graph shows that solar activity is already slowing but that is has no effect on temperature. No. You're forgetting other Factors/Variables could make it look like the Solar activity isn't affecting the temperature when clearly it is. There are other Factors/Variables involved in determining Global Temperature that of which were posted in one of my previos posts on this page. 2 posts before this one. Exactly. There are a bunch of factors, not just the one. Though solar activity does make up one of the primary ones. The point is that all of the natural variables they've tried currently do not explain the increasing temperature. When adjusted with the other factors, solar activity does not account for the increase in recent times (e,g, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full ). Climate Gate the data cannot exactly be trusted if it was tampered with. 2015-22 its supposed to start. Purportedly.
Why do you think it cannot be trusted? That whole climate gate issue was manufactured and debunked a hundred times. How do you know this is "climate gate" data or otherwise and how do you make the distinction? It's easy to dismiss a study by simply classifying it as tainted. This is ONE study of many that have tried to uncover the variables and figure this stuff out. If i post others that have tried to answer the same question and kept building our collective knowledge, will you dismiss them similarly so simply?
|
As a scientist don't you think your time would be better spent researching solutions to global warming rather than spending all this time and money just trying to prove that it exists?
Shouldn't we be spending this time researching and developing ways to live comfortably on a >70 degree celsius planet, not attempting to prevent it. (which is somewhat proving to be a futile exercise)
Said research could benefit us greatly as a species when we eventually need to evacuate Earth.
I just dont understand personally the bias in the scientific community towards trying to prevent the Earth, and us as humans from changing over time. It's almost as if we are trying to "stop time" from advancing, continuing to live life the way we are at the moment for eternity.
We have come to the conclusion that our lives must end, and that must happen for our species to advance... Should we not also take this approach over to the planet on which we live? This world will die, thats a given right? We can either spend our time trying to save it, or spend our time trying to outlive it... I vote for the latter.
|
On December 14 2011 15:34 skipgamer wrote:
As a scientist don't you think your time would be better spent researching solutions to global warming rather than spending all this time and money just trying to prove that it exists?
Shouldn't we be spending this time researching and developing ways to live comfortably on a >70 degree celsius planet, not attempting to prevent it. (which is somewhat proving to be a futile exercise)
Said research could benefit us greatly as a species when we eventually need to evacuate Earth.
I just dont understand personally the bias in the scientific community towards trying to prevent the Earth, and us as humans from changing over time. It's almost as if we are trying to "stop time" from advancing, continuing to live life the way we are at the moment for eternity.
We have come to the conclusion that our lives must end, and that must happen for our species to advance... Should we not also take this approach over to the planet on which we live? This world will die, thats a given right? We can either spend our time trying to save it, or spend our time trying to outlive it... I vote for the latter.
There are people working on the latter as well. But of course, we also have to understand what's going on and why. That's the first stage of everything. Having said that, there are efforts being done to look into your ideas as well, but it's in other fields like engineering.
|
It really is frightening to observe the trend in attitudes towards CO2 emission / global warming
Sadly the trend also seem to consist of gish galloping between solar cycles, ice ages, Miskolczi cycles and how IPCC is run by Al Gore to get rich on green technology. And when they're adressed it's just ignored...sigh
|
On December 14 2011 16:37 blomsterjohn wrote:
It really is frightening to observe the trend in attitudes towards CO2 emission / global warming
Sadly the trend also seem to consist of gish galloping between solar cycles, ice ages, Miskolczi cycles and how IPCC is run by Al Gore to get rich on green technology. And when they're adressed it's just ignored...sigh
I agree with you look at my post on the last page 
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294083¤tpage=19#377
|
Hrm interesting Development i just found.... looks like the Jigg is up AGW'ers 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2073686/Fountains-methane-1-000m-erupt-Arctic-ice--greenhouse-gas-30-times-potent-carbon-dioxide.html#i
Oh yes this could also explain.... why we have a sudden increase in warmth in the Inter-Glacial before we plunge back into a 100,000 Year Ice Age I found an interesting comment on the site... That sparked my interest.
A Comment on the article that piqued my interest...
This was predicted. I saw a horizon years ago that was about the methane fields. The charts for temperature, CO2 and methane going back millions of years showed a clear evidence that you get temperature rise first, which increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and is followed by an increase in methane. NOT the other way around. Methane release AND CO2 increase are both a result of warming, not a cause. It all peaks and then it very rapidly drops away into an ice age. Quite how long we have until the temperature peaks, who knows, decades, centuries, but we need to prepare for an Ice Age, with interim preparations for further potential warming prior to that, but systems in place to switch rapidly from warm to cold. Because when the change comes it WILL be abrupt. And this is a natural cycle that has been repeated time and time again in the past. NOT something caused by man.
Vostok Ice Cores.. Relevant to what the Comment stated.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dag3w.png)
|
On December 14 2011 16:39 XRaDiiX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 16:37 blomsterjohn wrote:
It really is frightening to observe the trend in attitudes towards CO2 emission / global warming
Sadly the trend also seem to consist of gish galloping between solar cycles, ice ages, Miskolczi cycles and how IPCC is run by Al Gore to get rich on green technology. And when they're adressed it's just ignored...sigh
I agree with you look at my post on the last page http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294083¤tpage=19#377
I think you misunderstood me....
|
On December 14 2011 15:05 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
@OP: Did the climate models being used around the year 2000 predict the temperatures for the next 12 years (up until the present?) How accurately? Which models? Which didn't (any)?
What is the role for economists in this issue? Global warming is bad because it hurts human beings right? But if helping human beings is the goal of policy then don't we have to weight how much it costs to cut carbon vs what we could do with that money to help those affected by whatever impacts global warming might have?
Thanks! Cool thread 8)
hi lOvOlUNiMEDiA ,
good question, but slightly hard to answer. I have introduced in this thread the concept of predictability due to inititial conditions (few days) and boundary conditions (very long term). 12 years is somewhere in betweent. A few of the models hit the 12 year evolution exactly because they (by chance!) predicted the correct El Nino / El Nina oscillations and were also luckily right about MOC evolution. This is not the point, though: the ensemble of models projected a continous warming, overlaid with decadal variations that can mask (!) this trend for few years. There is a paper from 2011 on that that explains that nearly all of the AR4 IPCC models had periods of decreasing or stagnating trends, due to this natural variability.
They all still exhibit a longterm warming trend.
@ economists: there is a whole science area of economy of climate change that does exactly that. It is not a "hard science", however, in the sense that the "cost function" for damaging ecology and humans ist per definition arbitrary. It is still very interesting to see, because it forces you to quantify your assessment of different types of damages.
cheers,
w
|
On December 14 2011 17:02 XRaDiiX wrote:Hrm interesting Development i just found.... looks like the Jigg is up AGW'ers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2073686/Fountains-methane-1-000m-erupt-Arctic-ice--greenhouse-gas-30-times-potent-carbon-dioxide.html#iOh yes this could also explain.... why we have a sudden increase in warmth in the Inter-Glacial before we plunge back into a 100,000 Year Ice Age I found an interesting comment on the site... That sparked my interest. A Comment on the article that piqued my interest...Show nested quote +This was predicted. I saw a horizon years ago that was about the methane fields. The charts for temperature, CO2 and methane going back millions of years showed a clear evidence that you get temperature rise first, which increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and is followed by an increase in methane. NOT the other way around. Methane release AND CO2 increase are both a result of warming, not a cause. It all peaks and then it very rapidly drops away into an ice age. Quite how long we have until the temperature peaks, who knows, decades, centuries, but we need to prepare for an Ice Age, with interim preparations for further potential warming prior to that, but systems in place to switch rapidly from warm to cold. Because when the change comes it WILL be abrupt. And this is a natural cycle that has been repeated time and time again in the past. NOT something caused by man.
Vostok Ice Cores.. Relevant to what the Comment stated.
hi XRaDiiX ,
just one answer attempt concerning a wild range of things that you attacked in this thread.
a) scientific working ethics: you believe that many thousand of young PhD students that work for very little money (or nothing) are all forced to not see errors in models and data and theories that you have identified in a few hours of internet research. That is your opinion and I cannot change it, but let's just say: from my personal experience, its plainly wrong.
b) my personal ethics to call some people denialists: it was a brilliant marketing move by climate change denialists to coin themselves climate change sceptics and then to argue that it is the dutz of every scientist to be sceptical. It is! And we are! If you ever attended a science conference, the main point after a talk is always to DESTROY the other scientist's finding. To be sceptical of everything. This is how things roll here, and you will never be able to justifiable accuse climate science of not being sceptical, this is a purely media representation. I call people like you denialists, because you love to get tidbits of information from parts of the internet and big media corporations, that point to errors in scientific theory.
These wholes exist and always will be, if they are important, they are discussed in the literature. the existence of these wholes does not mean that the full scientific body of models, theories, data and reconstructions is flawed, this conclusion is the leap in faith that denialist always assume.
c) ice cores: a detailed analysis of these data shows that big climate changes have been initiated by orbital changes and have been amplified by Co2. This does not in any sense discredit the theory that a strong increase in CO@ due to mankind's emissions will change global surface temperature.
Best
W
I believe that you
|
On December 14 2011 15:05 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
@OP: Did the climate models being used around the year 2000 predict the temperatures for the next 12 years (up until the present?) How accurately? Which models? Which didn't (any)?
What is the role for economists in this issue? Global warming is bad because it hurts human beings right? But if helping human beings is the goal of policy then don't we have to weight how much it costs to cut carbon vs what we could do with that money to help those affected by whatever impacts global warming might have?
Thanks! Cool thread 8)
On the economics, have you heard of the Stern Review? It's probably the best known "cost-benefits analysis" of climate change. They've got their own points of contention, discount rates seem to be a particularly sticky point - in this context, discount rates reduce the monetary value of "impacts" due to climate change in the distant future (~100 years from now), so setting high discount rates can justify low investment in avoiding climate change now, while low discount rates justify high investment in avoiding climate change.
I think Michael Grubb has some interesting ideas on the economics - this vid might be a bit boring, but it's worth watching if you're interested. You can skip to 2:00 or so.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/8wgJRymY8FU
(I'm not sure how to embed)
|
On December 14 2011 14:19 XRaDiiX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 14:15 sluggaslamoo wrote:On December 14 2011 14:10 XRaDiiX wrote:On December 14 2011 14:08 sluggaslamoo wrote:On December 14 2011 11:59 slytown wrote:
... Here's the kicker against the CO2 argument; CO2 is .054% of the atmospheric gasses. Of the Greenhouse Gasses, wator vapor composes 95% of it. Greenhouse Gas global warming would be indicated by greater warming in the troposphere but actually satellite and weather balloon data from that height indicates the surface warming was more intense during this recent warming period and temperature actually decreased with altitude ...
This is silly, how is that the kicker against the CO2 argument? Composition has no relation, you can take a tiny amount of fatal poison when compared to the rest of your body but you still risk dying. And of course temperature decreases with altitude. Apart from that obvious fact, lets say he actually meant, temparature decreased in the same time-frame surface temperature increased. Greenhouse gases both reflect and trap heat, that probably explains it. The problem is it keeps in more heat than it reflects, its just like a glass house, some of the rays will bounce off the glass, however what passes through is light energy, it gets converted to heat energy when it hits the ground. Why are we concerned about heat in the upper atmosphere??? Humans do not live up there, humans live on the ground. so does everything else, if water and food was available in the sky, that would be awesome, but its not, it is grown, ON THE GROUND. Relevant Information http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.htmlJust how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not. The water vapour concept is so old and lame. I remember someone using it years ago, and I ended up tracing the author to some commercial industry/politician with a vested interest, and who had no actual expertise in science. It was basically abusing a logical fallacy, because it was using falsified data on top of a falsified equation to prove a falsifed answer, which made it seem correct, because it was doing all these scientific calculations and graphs to come up with an answer, only problem was the variables used initially were completely incorrect. And then you have confirmation bias, because the guy doesn't even screen check the original authors, he only cites it because it agrees with him. It was a long time ago, Ill have to have a look after work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Role_of_water_vapor
???
Do you even read what you post? o_O
Ok lets break this down, because clearly you don't even know what you are reading.
Your source (Wiki):
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds
Nothing wrong with that. If we had no greenhouse gases we'd all be frozen. We need some, just not too much.
This also leaves a 15% minimum and 65% maximum of effects of other greenhouse gases. How much did you state?
Ok lets have a look at what your other article said
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Whoaaa what?
Can you not tell the difference between 5% and 65%?
If you used 5% in your calculation and got 0.5C degrees of man-made warming, that would not be much, but now multiply that by 13 and you get 6.5C. I think you would agree that 6.5C degrees is A LOT. Think of the hottest day you've ever had, and add 6.5C (lets say 104F -> 116F) degrees onto it.
Gosh that was easy. I didn't even have to track down the author this time.
Owned by pure logic
|
For the OP:
Regarding the comment about how higher temperatures mean higher crop yields, this is simply not true. For the vast majority of things that we grow other than the super hardy plans like sugar cane and corn, higher temperatures are bad. This is due to the fact that certain enzymes that run photosynthesis work only at very specific temperatures and rising temperatures would do nothing to help this. The higher carbon dioxide part is true, yes, but the toll taken by the enzyme function in plants is catastrophic at higher temperatures. You often find things like this in nature where living things have adapted to exactly the conditions of the planet at the time and changing the system even a little bit would do lots of damage.
|
What is this thinking? Take no action because there is not a 100% certainty. Fallacious crap!
<95% probability (based on the scientific concensus) requires that action be taken immediately to manage the risk.
Hell, even a >5% probability requires a solid risk management agenda.
Upwards of nine billion human deaths, a vast number of species extinctions, oceans and seas made so warm and acidic that only jellyfish and a few microscopic organisms can live there, wet places becoming wetter, dry places drier, ever more energetic extreme weather events, the Earth's agricultural production in chaos, hordes of refugees subject to hunger and disease and the rule of the gun, entire nation states inundated (Holland, Bangladesh, many Island States) massive loss of fertile coastal plains elsewhere.
The list of the risks to humans and the environment goes on.
Greenhouse science is 19th century science and well settled.
The more CO2 (and other gases) that are introduced into a finite system then the more heat will be retained in that system.
The world's political machinery agreed, in the 1987 Convention on the Ozone Layer, that anthropogenic CO2 (and other gases) was affecting the thermal structure of the atmosphere.
And it was established in 1972, at the Stockhom Conference on the Human Environment, that each State is responsible for the damage that its activities cause to another State.
This opens the possibility that 100's of trillions of dollars in damages claims will be litigated by the non-polluting States against the polluting States when the effects of anthropogenic climate change are made manifest.
It seems to me that the possible risks associated with inaction are monumentally and globally catastrophic, beyond anything that humanity has previously witnessed; biblical, mythical, in proportion.
And I can see no valid reason for not taking immediate action to responsibly manage the risk and reduce the probability of the worst case scenarios occuring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
