No, it's not well said.

Physics works even if you refuse to believe it. The basic physical mechanisms are well understood. By releasing CO2 we are adjusting the radiation budget, and by the laws of thermodynamic this must be compensated for. We also have a pretty good idea of what a 2 degree warmer world will look like. And a 4.5 degree degree, and a 8 degree.

So yes, this should be something that worries you.

Least we all take life too seriously:

"The Royal Academy of Farting" by Benjamin Franklin

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/to-the-royal-academy-of-farting/

Wonderful! Tears are streaming down my bifocals (another of BF'scontributions)












0

Since we've drifted off-topic, might as well go see what the Norwegian Royal Guard Regiment is up to...

http://sorisomail.com/partilha/16993.html

Not a question of physics at all, more a question of proportion. Man-made CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses for that matter) is insignificant compared to the quantities generated by natural activity. Again, it is arrogance to think mankind has that much influence over the workings of this here globe. Historically, there has been much more CO2 in our atmosphere from time to time than there is now. Things got warmer, then they got colder. Every 30-40 years or so a bunch of enviro-scientists get together and proclaim the earth is getting colder, or the earth is getting hotter. I am still waiting form some group to tell us the sky is falling. I remember quite well from the 70s the grand proclamation that all the data said our planet was starting a cool down period, and we should all be concerned. They were so sure back then that the proof was unrefutable. Then a new group proclaims that the previous group was wrong, their interpretation was flawed, and it is actually going the other way.

Things change. Live with it, or yield. We have bigger fish to fry right now, climate change is just a distraction from real problems we need to deal with quick, fast, and in a hurry. Not much point in worrying about an average global temp increase of 8 degrees in the next 2, 3, 10 years, when you are sitting in the dark trying to keep from freezing to death.

Besides, until we get China, India and Russia on board with any remediation plan, not much we Americans can do to change the trend. Right now, there are 6 countries in Europe who are willing to burn whatever they can find to keep the lights on and the heaters warm, now that Russia has closed the gas line.

What was that old quote we used to see up here on the forums every so often? Oh yes, "When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

Kinda tough to get too worried about this when I am expending tremendous effort and resources now just trying to keep afloat one payday to the next. Its not like the politicians have been listening to me much lately anyways.

In any case, whatever the science says, whether it's getting warmer or colder, or whether we did it or something else is causing it, the real point is a matter of priorities. There are lots of more tangible calamities knocking at our door right now. Better be prepared to deal with them now, or it won't matter much what the sea level is in 10 years.

I see, bad moon a risin'. I see, trouble on the way.

As pessimists we are always on the lookout for doom so if you are wondering why you can't remember all the 70s scientists telling us we were heading for an ice age. It's because
it never happened.
From Wikipedia:
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]

However I'm willing to be proved wrong. Can anyone provide something other than magazine articles and the odd scientist claiming this? Something like the hundreds of studies by thousands of scientist that are saying global warming is happening please?
qjs

End result was the same. Broadcast as news, represented as fact. Still relatively unimportant from a survival perspective. Some places will end up worse off due to climate change, some will do better. I can easily imagine pulling 60 bushels an acre of hard red winter wheat out of Central Alaska, or growing corn in the Yukon. Climate change is inevitable, and unless and until someone can say for certain that we are going to experience something new that hasn't happened here before, I am not going to worry about what might be in 20 years, or not.

Of greater significance is a realistic answer to the question of what can be done about it. Burning up hydrocarbons seems to be the fundamental issue. You might be able to persuade a handful of nations that it is in their best interest to work at a huge economical disadvantage and deplete their gdp chasing the alternative energy rabbit, but no one is going to tell China and other heavily industrialized nations that are becoming increasingly dependent on the combustion of fossil fuels to give it up. So as we diminish our consumption, they will continue to increase theirs. Right now there are several European countries that are experiencing what existence will be like without cheap fossil fuel to burn, thanks to Russia's gas embargo. Media are conjecturing this as a prelude to war.

So knowing the problem doesn't mean it can be fixed, or even avoided. I'm not saying give up, but before we go hit the claxon knob, it would be nice if someone had some sort of practical notion of how to deal with what may, or may not, come to pass. For my part, all I can say is look for those places that will benefit from climate change in the manner suggested, and plan to relocate there if things go as projected.

You know what, Benjamin, I can totally relate to and at least partly agree with most of what you say. But this part here is wrong:



Actually, it's all about physics and energy budget. Meddling with one of the components of our beloved greenhouse effect does impact the energy budget, raising temperatures at the ground, ocean and lower atmosphere. The effects of antropogenic CO2 are NOT insignificant.

Who said antropogenic CO2 was "unnatural", by the way? It's natural as heck. It has just been conveniently stacked away by geology for millions and millions of years.



So do I.

Here's an interesting link that identifies proportionality of output between human generated and naturally generated CO2.

Skeptical Science debunked

Note that this is a site predicated on humans causing global warming. Based on the numbers provided, it would appear humans contribute less than 4% of the total output annually to the carbon emissions cycle. The author then goes on to make some claims that are not based on fact, but on assumptions and incomplete conclusions. Maybe these conclusions are correct, but there is no empirical link between the data provided and the author's assertion that the ~4% is the cause. His conjecture makes for a good arguing point, but is itself incomplete. While I won't disagree with his facts, I have doubts that what is happening is solely man's fault, and I would consider a 4% bias to be within the variability of naturally occurring emission cycles.

In any case, my point remains; this problem, if it is one, is not nearly so impending as a whole plethora of other, much more pressing concerns, all considerably more tangible. Whether the climate is getting warmer, or colder, or simply modulating, it is not worth the effort to continue to worry about it and try to impose reckless and ineffective regulatory policies that will only contribute to the hardships we as a nation are already struggling to contend with.

So a 4% mortage over 50 years is insignificant?


That's 4% added systematically. Every. Single. Year. Or 40% over 10 years. Or 400% over 100 years (relative to the first year, if we burn at a constant rate). That carbon doesn't go away, but is spread out in all components of the carbon cycle.

The increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is very well documented through measurements, and this increase clearly have antropogenic origin. We have fewer CO2-measurements of the oceans, but those show increased levels of carbon, as well. As for carbon levels in the biosphere the case is less clear, although there are indications of faster plant growth.



I can relate to that, and I respect your point of view. Although I don't agree with it -- I hold the climate change as one of the most pressing problems the humanity must tackle.