4 ms·

So is the conversation something like, "air/water/ground pollution" X "planet is becoming uninhabitable"? Where X differs depending on who is talking? For Sch

So is the conversation something like, "air/water/ground pollution" X "planet is becoming uninhabitable"? Where X differs depending on who is talking? For Schwarzenegger, X seems to be "therefore". For me, X is more like, "but not". I treat the two arguments as separate. Shocking warnings have always come with pollution. For me, those warnings have mostly born out as true. I have chronic asthma, probably from air pollution. And, I have eyes so I can observe the haze and smog over the city in the morning. I've been to China and seen and felt what happens when there are no pollution controls at all. Rivers catching fire/all the life being killed off in them by dumped waste is a real thing that happens. Acid rain, though? That one jumped the shark for me; I think acid rain was all hype. Fantastic claims need really fantastic evidence is all I'm saying. I do like pollution controls though and I am amazed at how improved the air quality is in the states over what it was in the 1970's. I have kids, and I want to continue our regime of pollution controls. Renewable energy sources are the way to go. Global warming appears to me to be bad science, however. All the computer models predicted a spiraling warming effect, but instead we're cooling off, and we're potentially heading for another mini-ice age. The sun, being the primary energy input for the system, is never causally linked to warming or cooling trends on our planet. Why is that, especially when we can measure the sun's energy output is not a constant? Money and power is my guess. I don't see any proof - at our current rate of energy consumption and pollution - of how we are making a dent in this absolutely massive system. The scientific claims seem to predict destabilization, and I just don't see any proof of that happening. Honestly, if global warming theorists want to bolster their claims, they should keep links between pollution and warming very abstract. Trying to use health effects of pollution as a proof of atmospheric destruction weakens the argument because they're two separate effects. Arnold does a disservice to his cause here.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
I have no idea where you get the idea that the planet is cooling, but you're 100% wrong about this. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-records http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-recor... This is not "bad science." And it leads to predictable effects. The North West of England is partly underwater this week because of yet another "once a century" storm - the kind that have been rolling around every few years since 2000 or so. Increased rainfall for the UK has been predicted since the late 1980s as an effect of CO2 output. "The sun, being the primary energy input for the system, is never causally linked to warming or cooling trends on our planet." Climate change models have allowed for solar output for decades. See e.g. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08... It might be an idea to educate yourself on the real science.
- EdSharkey 11y ago
  Your second link states right at the start, "There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate." And there's uncertainty and debate between scientists mentioned throughout. The sun inputs many orders of magnitude more energy as humans into the atmosphere. Even 0.01% variability in solar output should create fluctuations in surface temperatures that we can measure.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    Do you have any studies supporting this variability in the Sun's output?
    - EdSharkey 11y ago
      Do you want to know about solar cycles? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle There's a solar irradiance section that explains: > Solar irradiance varies systematically over the cycle, both in total irradiance and in its relative components (UV vs visible and other frequencies). The solar luminosity is an estimated 0.07 percent brighter during the mid-cycle solar maximum than the terminal solar minimum. Photospheric magnetism appears to be the primary cause (96%) of 1996-2013 TSI variation. The ratio of ultraviolet to visible light varies.
      - unprepare 11y ago
        I'd like to see how solar output over time correlates with global average temperatures over time. Specifically on a timescale longer than one solar cycle.
        EdSharkey 11y ago
        I think that irradience is difficult to pin to surface temps. From the same article: > The current scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in driving global warming, since the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the forcing due to greenhouse gases. Also, solar activity in the 2010s was not higher than in the 1950s (see above), whereas global warming had risen markedly. Otherwise, the level of understanding of solar impacts on weather is low. The last sentence and the section on hypothesized cycles basically state "we're not sure" about what the sun is doing in the long term and what it's effects on earth are. That's okay, I'm fine with not having answers on that while science and tech catches up with nature. What I'm not fine with is drawing extraordinary conclusions from incomplete computer simulations about man's role in climate given the primary sun and cosmic ray inputs into the system are not well understood.
kgmpers 11y ago
> Global warming appears to me to be bad science, however... Climate scientists do and have studied the link between climate and the sun, as well as many other factors, but in the end GHG emissions from humans are contributing the most to increasing global temperatures. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor... Also while it's a big system, there are also 7 billion of us. In 2012 we released over 30 billion tonnes of C02 into the atmosphere. https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8 https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&...

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

I have no idea where you get the idea that the planet is cooling, but you're 100% wrong about this. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-records http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/science/temp-recor... This is not "bad science." And it leads to predictable effects. The North West of England is partly underwater this week because of yet another "once a century" storm - the kind that have been rolling around every few years since 2000 or so. Increased rainfall for the UK has been predicted since the late 1980s as an effect of CO2 output. "The sun, being the primary energy input for the system, is never causally linked to warming or cooling trends on our planet." Climate change models have allowed for solar output for decades. See e.g. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08... It might be an idea to educate yourself on the real science.

EdSharkey 11y ago
Your second link states right at the start, "There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate." And there's uncertainty and debate between scientists mentioned throughout. The sun inputs many orders of magnitude more energy as humans into the atmosphere. Even 0.01% variability in solar output should create fluctuations in surface temperatures that we can measure.
- unprepare 11y ago
  Do you have any studies supporting this variability in the Sun's output?
  - EdSharkey 11y ago
    Do you want to know about solar cycles? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle There's a solar irradiance section that explains: > Solar irradiance varies systematically over the cycle, both in total irradiance and in its relative components (UV vs visible and other frequencies). The solar luminosity is an estimated 0.07 percent brighter during the mid-cycle solar maximum than the terminal solar minimum. Photospheric magnetism appears to be the primary cause (96%) of 1996-2013 TSI variation. The ratio of ultraviolet to visible light varies.
    - unprepare 11y ago
      I'd like to see how solar output over time correlates with global average temperatures over time. Specifically on a timescale longer than one solar cycle.
      - EdSharkey 11y ago
        I think that irradience is difficult to pin to surface temps. From the same article: > The current scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in driving global warming, since the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the forcing due to greenhouse gases. Also, solar activity in the 2010s was not higher than in the 1950s (see above), whereas global warming had risen markedly. Otherwise, the level of understanding of solar impacts on weather is low. The last sentence and the section on hypothesized cycles basically state "we're not sure" about what the sun is doing in the long term and what it's effects on earth are. That's okay, I'm fine with not having answers on that while science and tech catches up with nature. What I'm not fine with is drawing extraordinary conclusions from incomplete computer simulations about man's role in climate given the primary sun and cosmic ray inputs into the system are not well understood.

kgmpers 11y ago

> Global warming appears to me to be bad science, however... Climate scientists do and have studied the link between climate and the sun, as well as many other factors, but in the end GHG emissions from humans are contributing the most to increasing global temperatures. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor... Also while it's a big system, there are also 7 billion of us. In 2012 we released over 30 billion tonnes of C02 into the atmosphere. https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8 https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=90&...