Quote:
Originally Posted by 1wiseguy
How do you know this? The science I am familiar with indicate warmer temperatures are beneficial....increased productivity of food sources and so on. Nonetheless... that is not what I asked. What is the optimal temperature? Meaning, at what temperature does the earth need to be at for a beneficial balance to be attained?.
|
If you cannot follow what rising sea levels and melting ice shelfs will do then I will not exlain it to you. There could be some small regions that the rising temperatures would have transient positive effects for agriculture,yet in the end the negative impact is over shadows this. If we get to the point that massive amounts of methane are released in melting permafrost it will cause momentum to exceed what has been predicted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1wiseguy
You are correct, you do not know the answer. Man's contribution is <1%. With out knowing this answer, answering the remaining questions would make little sense..
|
I said I did not know where in the range given (70-100%) it was likely to fall. Do you want to explain your <1% statistic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1wiseguy
You are right, there are many laws that apply, but how is this relevant? Stefan's law is about calculating the "effective" temperature and this has nothing to do with "optimal" temperature nor does it contribute toward explaining how the 1% of CO2 emission by man is capable of having any significance on the other 99% of this dynamic, complex adaptive system we call Earth..
|
Stephans law is about Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. It has nothing to do with effective or optimal temperatures. Do you even know what you are talking about when referring to laws of science?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1wiseguy
I can be convinced, but only with real science not politics...and I have yet to see any real science being used to support the panic that is being generated. Who are the scientists that make up this "consensus"?... not that this really matters anyway, because as far as I know, there is no such thing as "consensus" in science. If it is to be science, it either is... or it is not... the rigors of the scientific method makes no room for agreements. Agreements are for politics. Climate change is nothing more than a hypothesis and needs to undergo the scrutiny of all the scientific disciplines so that we can make it settled science--one way or the other---and as of now, it is not settled.
|
No, it is scientific theory and and based upon scientific laws.
There is no panic, just rational people that understand that we need to seek alternative energy not only to reduce emissions , but for the geo-political, security, and economic factors as well.