I shut down a similar thread because rather than comment on the material presented, the conversation devolved. I will not hesitate for a moment to put the hammer down on this thread if the conversation takes the same trend....I suggest addressing the material or do not make any comments. I'm perfectly happy to create a thread with no comments as this topic is very important...timely, and related to the politically charged topic of global warming. The primary source of my citations: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html As I have rules to follow myself regarding thread creation, I can't just create a thread without adding my own words to the topic...so here goes. If we are to accept anthropomorphic climate change, which I do...and if we are to initiate economic policies driving a reduction in CO2 emissions linked to anthropomorphic climate change....we'd better have established climate models leaving little doubt in the catastrophic consequences of basically doing nothing to curtail CO2 emissions created by us...human activity. It is my opinion, we simply do not know enough to state without a doubt what a climate model can predict regarding climate change...the reason being, I'll explain through citations highlighting the key areas to my argument...mainly that climate models contain too many unknown variables to accurately predict future events related to Earth's climate. The question is... Which of these two effects will "win out"? Even if...starting tomorrow...we all get off the grid...live in teepees...and walk/bike to work...essentially cutting our carbon footprint to a fraction of today's level...there will be lag time. Some will argue, ok there's a lag time, perhaps it is too late for us but perhaps future generations can be saved from the perils of anthropomorphic climate change if we all reduce our CO2 footprints and do things, like plant trees, that act as CO2 absorbers. This is all fine and dandy, however, we do not have access to all the variables necessary to accurately predict climate change. We see consequences now that may indeed be directly related to human activity, however the climate's ability to react with negative mechanisms...aren't always part of climate models. These negative mechanisms, or global cooling factors....might still not be enough to counter-act global warming, only slow it down. The fact is...science does not have all the answers to accurately predict the consequences of CO2 emissions..as the biggest variable in all this..is water and it is the dominant driver in the greenhouse effect. It is in humanity's best interest to reduce CO2 emissions, however the economic considerations and ramifications of governmental policies need to be considered. If we're going to initiate governmental policies which are sure to carry serious economic consequences, perhaps we should ascertain all the information we can, limit the unknowns in climate modeling...I don't believe we're there yet. Again. I welcome comments challenging the material I presented...if you find it impossible to do that.. if you post because you've had a bad day and just want to anonymously call someone a know nothing...I suggest not posting.
Clouds effect on global warming... These scientists made their own clouds, and what they found could require us to rethink how fast the earth is warming May 25, 2016 - A new experiment looking at clouds is about to change the way we think about climate change.
