tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4652888793139849030.post8940822205459337237..comments2023-04-29T06:24:40.882-04:00Comments on Pat Canny Online: 12-12-07: New Study Questions Human Role in Global WarmingPathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06278702331176564567noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4652888793139849030.post-4872262295012938072007-12-12T13:35:00.000-05:002007-12-12T13:35:00.000-05:00Thank you very much for the comment, big show. It ...Thank you very much for the comment, big show. It is refreshing to hear from people who agree with most of my views.<BR/><BR/>Your challenge, from what I'm understanding, is CO2's role in the warming of the climate. You're correct in saying that it's a tough matter to really prove, as our climate is very complex.<BR/><BR/>From what I've read and seen, which I am not calling unbiased, it would appear that CO2 might be a by-product of warming as opposed to a leading factor. As oceans warm, they produce more CO2. What many scientists are wondering, who obviously doubt that CO2 is a leading factor, is what sparks the warming cycles. One climatologist from Britain claims to have predicted weather patterns quite well for years, at an accuracy higher than most of his peers. His method was heavily reliant on sun spots.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying sun spots are the cause simply because this guy can predict the weather more accurately. I'm just saying that it has lead others to look at sun spot data from years ago, and has lead some to believe they are better indicators than CO2. CO2 levels increased after sun spots, which would lead one to believe sun spots are a more significant cause.<BR/><BR/>I'd love to read your sources, though. I'm not really 100% convinced, but I'm leaning heavily towards the sun spot theories.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for reading the blog!Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06278702331176564567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4652888793139849030.post-80831304479479344432007-12-12T13:15:00.000-05:002007-12-12T13:15:00.000-05:00I applaud your rejection of sensationalism, and yo...I applaud your rejection of sensationalism, and you frame the debate nicely. I always see it as a three step process of agreement: is climate change occurring? are humans a significant factor? what, if anything, should we do differently? You and I seem to agree on the first question, which is a refreshing change.<BR/><BR/>My own research has led me to the opposite conclusion, that humans are most likely a non-trivial contributing factor in climate change. Without wanting to make a lengthy exchange out of it, I'd like to respectfully challenge one assumption you make that is always particularly bothersome to me when this topic comes up.<BR/><BR/>You say that human CO2 production is a small contribution compared to natural components like the oceans and volcanoes. This is entirely correct, the estimates I've read range between 90 and 95% of global CO2 being produced from natural sources. But the global climate is an immensely complex system, and a 5-10% increase, though intuitively a "small" number, might very well be non-trivially large in its effect on the system, especially over the course of the last 100+ years of industrial revolution. That is to say, CO2 is an input to a system, and our understanding of the system's sensitivity to that input is incomplete (hence the endless parade of studies). The vast majority of evidence I've seen on the subject has led me to believe strongly that it is significant. One set of studies I find particularly compelling on the point are the antarctic ice cores, which provide an accurate record of atmospheric CO2 content over a very long period of time (much much longer than we have recorded weather data for).<BR/><BR/>But I'm about to betray my intention not to turn this into a drawn out debate if I'm not careful. The climate is an immensely complex system that is incompletely understood. We have some pretty good models for certain aspects of it, but there are so many inputs that it's almost certainly incorrect to say "such and such is <I>the reason</I> for climate change." No one study or a dozen studies are going to definitely prove anything, but the mounting evidence has led me to a different conclusion than you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01861996779197340980noreply@blogger.com