EnviroLink Forum

Surely it's not a matter of where the warming has come from but where it could go at worst.

According to the IPCC that's about 3.2(?) degrees by 2100. That would cause a less than 2 foot sea level rise.

I don't see the need for panic.

To answer the first question posed in the thread, I had to do a lot of thinking about it since I have been doing it for nearly two decades on some version of this forum.

My views have been changed by these discussions over that time. In the case of a position based on science and evidence it has more often been the change against a position with obviously slanted claims. In the positions I have researched to form a conclustion outside of the internet discussion, I have not been swayed, however, I have convinced others to change their position based on the evidence I presented.

In the discussion of both human and animal rights, economic theory, and politics the opinion is often guided more by the reasonableness of the discussion. I have learned as a moderator, that even the worst opposition to my position deserves the same considerations and when given them will institute a real discussion. I have not changed a position, but I have learned a lot about myself and others that plays a factor in the process of researching now.

I did oppose the Animal Rights movement initially because of the radical actions to support an illogical position. I supported Animal Welfare instead. That has not changed, I still oppose the more terrorist actions and the illogic of the position, but I have learned to respect some of the people involved because of the way they lived their position. I think that was a significant change we can all hope to acheive in such discussions. Tolerance is a good change in most cases.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Are you going (log(1.18)/log(2))*3.7 W/m² to get 0.66W/m²?

Because when I do that it gives me 0.88 W/m².

But, as you can probably recall, there is a 25-50 year lag between the increase in CO₂ and when only 60% of the warming that it will cause to have occurred. So there is a lot more warming still to come from the change in CO₂ that occurred over that time.


True, but irrelevant, because this assumption is not made. In those papers looked at by Oreskes, and in many more since, an estimate of the natural forcings are included if the paper can be said to support directly that most of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

Is it possible that this claim about the sun's magnetic field is questionable?

I don't know what you mean by that. The abstracts are there for anyone to confirm.