TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:Saw this article today and it reminded me of this thread. I think this meteorologist make some very good points. I recommend those on both sides of the climate change issue read it. He sums up my thoughts very well.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do encourage you to listen to the opposing point of view in the climate debate, but be sure the person you hear admits they can be wrong, and has no financial interest in the issue. Unfortunately, those kind of qualified people are very hard to find these days. It is also hard to find people that discss climate without using the words “neocon” and “libtard”. I honestly can’t stand politics; it is tearing this nation apart.

Agreed 100%. Honestly, that point of view should be part of pretty much every issue.

I am not claiming to be an expert. My knowledge of climatology is comparable to an engineers knowledge of basic physics when they graduate. If we were arguing about whether gravity were real would my level of work experience matter?

mojo84 wrote: Once you graduate, will you be in a profession utilizing your degree and will that result in personal income or profit? Will that profit or income be increased by the existence or perceived existence of global warming?

I'm going to law school next fall and may be working in environmental law after that, but likely in commercial litigation. Will my work and therefore income be affected as a result of the completely factual existence of climate change? Possibly, but most likely not. Do I personally stand to gain more from the projected consequences of climate change than I will lose? Absolutely not. If I work in environmental law, it will not be in air quality or alternative energy, but almost certainly wetland restoration/regulation or hazardous materials.

mojo84 wrote: If you do not like the idea of looking at the last 20 years, what period of time fits your argument? Haven't we gone through something like 7 ice ages? Didn't those involve, climate change, global warming, global cooling etc.?

No one with adequate knowledge of climate science could claim that we have 100% certainty in our understanding of climatology. As a result, we have to account for uncertainty, which is small enough that we can still be sure we are having an influence. As I stated, you can debate the exact amount of warming, but you can not debate that there has been significant warming (even the lowest estimates are still high enough to be significant).

Accounting for uncertainty means comparing global average temperature trends over time, not simply comparing the average temperature in a given year to another year that supports your argument (this is called cherry-picking data). The "20 years of cooling" claim is usually based on comparing 1995 and 2014 average winter temperatures in the US. That is in fact true, but not only is it too short of a time frame, it is also only winter temperatures and only in the US. Using the exact same data, extending the time frame to 1981 and 2010 shows "40 years of warming".

When conducting solid analysis (not cherry-picking convenient years), there has been about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warming since 1880, and about two-thirds of that was in the last forty years. If you look at the historical record, there has been a clear upward acceleration since the industrial revolution. This isn't a time frame that fits my argument, it is history starting today and going back for up to thousands of years.

Yes, there have been ice ages and warmer periods, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we humans have become a prominent factor that has accelerated the warming since we started burning coal as fuel.

What I have posted here is simply the facts. I am not debating the general reality, because there is no rational argument to be had. You can continue to debate specifics, but I will not be wasting anymore of my time. This is like debating religion and politics.

cb1000rider, I considered making an educated, logical argument based on everything you addressed, but I had to decide against wasting my time and energy. I commend you on trying though. The folks who doubt human impact on the climate simply don't understand how it works and they don't want to believe it is possible because life is rosier when you don't have to acknowledge fault, even if it is diffuse and common. They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Why do I believe the reality of current climate change? I believe it because of research and analysis of the data, and methods of data collection, that I have personally done during my studies at A&M. I am about to graduate with a degree in Environmental Studies, but don't try to dismiss me as a "liberal hippy". I don't trust every word my largely liberal professors have said, but that only extends to opinions, and this subject is not based on politics or opinions when it comes to my professors. I trust my own education and analysis more than I would ever trust a handful of people making the same claims based on very little real evidence.

I respect all people, especially the folks who would be members of this forum, so please don't take my comments as inflammatory. They are simply the conclusions of what my own research in school has brought me.

P.S. Sorry for contributing to derailing the thread. I agree completely that the article is complete bunk.

Except that, unlike this article, the consensus on climate change is based on objective analysis among experts in the field.

This article is actually based on the exact type of evidence anthropogenic climate change deniers cite.