The estimates of fossil fuel reserves imply that there is more than enough to do plenty of damage. I think the numbers are that if we burned all the conventional fossil fuels, we end up with CO2 at ~4-5X the pre-industrial levels and if we include unconventional sources (like tar sands?) we get up to ~10X pre-industrial levels. [Right now, we are at about 1.35X pre-industrial levels.]
On the other hand, the fact that fossil fuels reserves are finite means we have to be weaned off of them at some point in the future. So, it seems better to put the proper incentives in place to make that happen before we dramatically alter the climate rather than after.
You keep saying that, and you keep failing to back it up. The fact is that the vast majority of climate science research indicates that human activity is almost certainly responsible for most if not all of the current warming trend. Not “an insignificant amount” of it. Most, if not all of it.
Either back up your contrarian claims with facts and evidence, or quit making them. This is Great Debates, not Arbitrary Assertions. Around here you are expected to argue on the basis of rational evidence.
No. Because there are still ample amounts of fossil fuels to continue over at least the next couple centuries significantly increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and raising global temperatures.
The situation is more analogous to worrying about whether you should fix your broken furnace during a bitterly cold winter in mid-January. Just because you are sure that someday the problem is going to be solved naturally (in this case, because it’s bound to get warm again when the spring comes) doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to solve it now in the short term. Because if you don’t, there’s still plenty of time for the problem to do a hell of a lot of damage to you before Nature eventually takes care of it.
The reference for the reserves of fossil fuels in my last post is this Science article. Actually, their estimate of the levels CO2 could reach if all conventional and exotic reserves of fossil fuels are used is ~4000ppm, which is ~15X pre-industrial levels.
We’re not going to burn all fossil fuels though. We’re going to use them as a fuel source until it becomes prohibitively expensive not to. Believe me, I hope that we also find alternatives, I don’t think I could get by paying $5.00 a litre for gas.
Anyway, there are thousands of sites that I could provide a link to. I’ll start with this one and then someone will come along and shoot it down for some obscure reason. And then I could provide another, and another, and another ad infinitum.
Generally speaking, when numerous cites are continually presented, and each of those cites is continually shot down… that usually means something, doesn’t it?
LilShieste
As LilShieste points out, this might say something about the quality of your sites. You can also find plenty of sites out there that support young earth Creationism, cold fusion, and a flat earth. That is why organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences (and, in the specific case of climate change, the IPCC) exist…i.e., to give the public and policymakers a summary of the current best scientific thinking.
If you want a list of good places to learn more about the science of climate change, including a few sites that go over the fallacies of most of the contrarian talking points, this is a good place to find references.
No “obscure reason” is required to shoot down that article (which, btw, was written by a newspaper editor who AFAICT has no expertise in climate science). It can be easily shot down for the simple and non-obscure reason that it’s full of ignorant assertions that are not backed up by the facts. Here’s just the first one I happened to notice:
This, as explained in this very thread in the responses to Hail Ants on the previous page, is a bullshit claim because in fact, mainstream climate science never did take the “global cooling” scare seriously. It was mostly an artifact of the popular press. Before, during and since the so-called “global-cooling” buzz, real climate scientists have been steadily working on the phenomenon of global warming.
So the author of your cite is completely wrong to claim that scientists have somehow managed to work out their global warming hypothesis in “just 20 to 25 years” after being all agog over global cooling before that. That’s an error that nobody who was even slightly informed about actual climate science would have made. Evidently, the author is an ignoramus about the development of climate science and the actual issues it focuses on.
As LilShieste and jshore note, if you can’t come up with any cites that don’t get shot down, it probably means that your argument is crap.
I have seen the recent study which shows that Humans are very likely the cause of the majority of GW. I have never seen a legit study which shows that humans are 100% responsible. :dubious:
interface2x: I am still waiting for that cite about cities being underwater in out lifetimes.
Well, in fact it is conceivable that we could be 100% responsible for, say, the warming since 1950 if, without anthropogenic influences, there wouldn’t have been any warming or even would have been some net cooling. And, in fact, if you look at figure SPM-4 from the IPCC summary for policymakers for Working Group I, you’ll see that the simulations of the climate in the absence of human forcings indeeds show the temperature to have been flat or even slightly cooling between 1950 and 2000. So, kimstu’s statement of us being responsible for “most, if not all of it” seems to be right on the mark.
[ They also note, “It is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset some warming that would otherwise have taken place,” which is a slightly different point since the aerosol cooling effects noted include both anthropogenic and natural ones.]
Many liberal churches believe that when God created the world, God also gave the care of the earth to the humans whom God created. Genesis 1:26-1:31 is often used.
Thus, if you’re a person of faith, you should care about the earth.
Well, currently it’s the coldest fucking summer I’ve known in my lifetime here in Ontario: if that counts for anything. (Global fucking warming indeed.)
It doesn’t count for anything. As you surely are aware, the AGW hypothesis does not predict that all regions of the earth’s climate will heat up uniformly or monotonically. Overall rising temperatures are no barrier to occasional unusually cold seasons in particular regions.
You know, Leaffan, there are plenty of good criticisms to be made about particular details of the AGW hypothesis. And there are also plenty of useful caveats to offer about the uncertainty in some of its predictions and the complexity of the policy issues involved. I wish that some of those points were being made here, since in the long run, it’s valuable to everyone if a provocative theory is debated with knowledgeable and vigorous criticism.
That being so, I can’t help feeling it’s kind of a shame that you’ve essentially wasted your opportunity to represent a climate-skeptic viewpoint here by trotting out such pitifully weak and uninformed substitutes for critical argument. “Humans aren’t causing the warming!” “The earth is in a natural warming cycle!” “Well, it’s really cold here this summer!” Oh, please. :rolleyes:
Dude, you are not debating global warming: you are desperately floundering around with unsupported and/or irrelevant assertions pulled at random out of your ass. The only message you’re successfully sending about anthropogenic global warming is that you’ve firmly made up your mind not to believe in it, irrespective of whatever facts and reason may suggest.