Comments by keving314
Posted on September 15 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
re: Mr. Wege and climate change
The objective is not to reverse the temperature. The objective is to return climate to nature by reducing co2 and other green house gases to their natural level and to thereby stabilize temperatures. Right now, co2 is at a greater concentration than in the past half-million years, and it continues to rise because of fossil fuel.
Surface temperatures are a poor short term (even decadal) indicator of climate change because air contains only a small fraction of the earth's thermal energy with the temp fluctuating as energy is exchanged with the oceans. The thermal imbalance (more energy coming in than going out) is measurable by satellites and now amounts to the energy equivalent of several Hiroshima bombs per second, over 300,000 bombs per day, every day. Temperature will continue to rise as long as this imbalance continues. (doc file with calculation: http://bit.ly/1gkcW9i)
The notion that a "minute quantity" can't have major consequences isn't even logical or scientific. There are many examples in nature where a small quantity or concentration can have a major effect. A trace amount of co2 is all that is needed to trap heat due to the differential absorption of short and long wavelengths, with a positive feedback to increased water vapor - itself a greenhouse gas.
The denier camp is free to put forth its own credible models and analysis that would explain the temperature trend over the past 100 years assuming zero increase in co2. No such model has been forthcoming for the simple reason that the temperature trend can't be explained without factoring in the ramp up of co2. The one attempt that I'm aware of, the Koch brothers' funded BEST study, concluded that co2 is the culprit.
Posted on September 10 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
re: Mr. Gaetani
Climate change over geological time frames has little to do with the current problem of global warming where the problem is the thermal imbalance that results in a stop and start but nevertheless relentless increase in surface temperature, and continous increase in subsurface-ocean temperature.
The cooling scare of the '70's was mainly a media event. Among scientists concerned about cooling, most thought that cooling was a short term effect that soon enough would be overwhelmed by warming. Please see this pdf: http://bit.ly/18fOFgi
Anyone with a good high school science education knows that "co2 is good" is a straw-man argument. The problem isn't that co2 is inherently bad, but that an additional amount disrupts the thermal equilibrium. This disruption is known to be true for theoretical reasons, demonstrable in the laboratory, and directly measurable in the atmosphere. To simplify: more heat energy is coming in than is going out, resulting in a temp increase.
Indeed, science is not based on consensus, but rather on an accumulation of evidence. However, it is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of working climate scientists that enough evidence has accumulated to conclude that man made global warming is for real. "Working climate scientists" excludes scientists in other fields, climatologists who are not up to date, engineers, and talk show hosts.
The very few working climate scientists in the denial or doubter camp are free to come up with their own credible models that would explain the multi-decade temp trends without factoring in the rise of co2. It's not an accident that they have not done so. They have not done so because it's not possible.
Posted on August 23 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He should also have looked both ways regardless of the traffic signal and regardless of who had the right of way - basic defensive driving.