The Environmentalist Thread Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (19413)	1/7/2008 8:46:53 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) of 36921

Perhaps the best way I can cast the AGW debate to you is as follows: Suppose the Sun were directly measured to have been slowly increasing output, such that we measured 2W/m2 increase from the 1800's till now, and it was currently continuing to increase at a rate which would tack on another 2W/m2 by 2100. Lets say we had excellent historical and current direct measurements of this. What would your view be regarding scientists and climate modelers claiming that this increased solar flux was causing the earth to warm? Now, instead of the Sun changing, what if you have the situation we do have, the measured CO2 is going up at the rate it is? What I see is that all the AGW deniers hold out hope that the 2W/m2 forcing from CO2 will somehow be negated by other climate issues, since the field is so complex and we know so little. The argument from ignorance so to speak. But if the 2W/m2 was observed to be from increased solar output, they would accept that as a legitimate source of global warming. Sorry, the science of climate change is the same in both cases. If you doubt AGW, you should also doubt the sun could warm the planet for the same level of forcing (2-4W/m2)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next