Tailrotor:
We can't just look at the current temperature in the spot where one person lives. Temperatures in individual locations go up and down. When you average together the data from all over the planet, the average overall temperature is rising. While there are isolated places where there is more snow than in recent years, the overall average is that more global ice and snow is melting each year than is getting laid down. Vast snowfields and glaciers in Greenland and Alaska are rapidly disappearing. It won't be long until the Arctic Ocean is ice free in Summer. Vast portions of the ice sheet off Antarctica are thinning and breaking free.
These fluxuations have come and gone over the millennia. The geological record gives a strong indication that the planet may have been totally ice free at some times in the past and also completely ice bound perhaps twice curing the past. There are numerous natural factors involved. The Earth's orbit gets closer to then farther away from the sun. The sun itself gets hotter then colder. Like a top, the Earth sometimes spins smoothly, and at other times wobbles. Volcanoes and impacts of meteors and asteroids change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, which in turn affects how much light and heat get in, as well as get back out. The melting of permafrost allows huge amounts of trapped methane below to escape. The change in the Atlantic convection current has a huge impact upon temperatures above.
In like manner, we know that a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere DOES trap more heat. Scientifically, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that man made greenhouse gases do contribute to the warming of the Earth. Now that being said, the questions that come to my mind are these. If man were putting no CO2 in the atmosphere, to what extent would the climate be changing on its own? Would the Earth still be heating up, but at a slower rate? Would the climate remain stable? Would the Earth be getting colder?
What if the climate were getting warmer on its own, but man was putting no extra CO2 in the atmosphere, say because the sun was heating up.? Would we try to mitigate that somehow, or would we come to the conclusion, "It's totally natural and we should let nature run its course?" What if oceanfront property owners could see the ocean rising and eating away at their properties and knew that eventually their beach front homes would be underwater, completely for natural reasons? Would they want something done to stop that?
If the Earth were warming totally on its own, would we be more willing to ask, "Are there trade-offs?" In other words, though oceanfront property will be lost, will that be mitigated by the gain of arable lands in Siberia, Canada, Alaska, and Greenland, along with the opening of a northwest shipping passage and the ability to prospect offshore north of those locations? If global warming were happening completely on its own (man putting no increase of CO2 in the air) would we say it's worth the trade-off? Would oceanfront property owners be entitled to compensation? Climatologists say that we are actually in a down cycle of an Ice Age. It appears that for the majority of its existence, the Earth has been ice free. They say we will have cycled back into the deepest portion of this Ice Age by the year 17,000. If that is true, should we perhaps be trying our best to load the atmosphere with all the CO2 we possibly can right now, in order to preserve the human race in the future?
As a scientist, I know that a man made rise in atmospheric CO2 levels does increase the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat. It is a simple matter of physics. Yes, it does look like a very few scientists wanted to suppress tiny amounts of data they didn't like. Even given that, the overall statistical analysis still comes to the same conclusions. The Earth is warming; sea levels are rising. What I am concerned about, however, is that we have not asked the questions I posited above. Does it matter? Will the benefits outweigh the losses. If the Earth's climate has been yo-yo-ing for all its history, is it even morally right for us to assume that we MUST keep the climate stable forever?
Kenny: I understand your position, and for the most part I agree. It's a site about tractors. Nevertheless, most posts have been related to the OP. It comes down to whether or not the knowledge we use in engineering solutions to technical problems comes from scientific trial, or not. How you "know" something does really matter. I think they have let the thread run because while the exchanges have been passionate, no one has become belligerent or truly unkind. If everyone agreed on everything, it would be a boring world. I have enjoyed the exchange and harbor no ill will to any here. I am going to have to take a break from this, however, because I haven't spent nearly as much time with my family as I intended this weekend, and I have to turn my attention to work tomorrow. Best wishes to all.
