Very interesting 80~minute film on the science and politics of climate change. It decidedly puts forward the sceptical case, that global warming is a real phenomenon but has nothing to do with human activity and CO2, that the Sun is actually responsible for it, that there's a ~conspiracy~ to keep developing countries shitty and dependent and all sorts of other exciting things... I am currently watching part 6 of 8.
Youtube Link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk&mode=related&search=
It was shown on (I think) Channel 4 (UK) last week, and is being shown again on More4 at 22:00, tonight.
>>Please provide quote of any significant portion of the entire field of cliamte science saying this thirty years ago.
Leaving aside that this is a field of politics, not science, scroll up and read >>14 and >>15 again, and you and your copy of "Hooked on Phonics" get back to us.
>>Are you saying an entire field of science is "fanatics who latched onto an idea decades ago"?
No, because these are loud fearmongering kooks who get a lot of media coverage. This is politics, not science.
>>Ok. By this same logic, a ten-meter rise in sea levels is totally insignificant, because the sea is over ten kilometers deep! A ten-meter rise is less than a tenth of a percent, and totally insignificant!
Keep beating that strawman. Watch that straw fly!
The facts remain: water vapor makes up one hundred times as much of the Earth's atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Water vapor absorbs vastly more strongly in the infrared than carbon dioxide does. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by water.
>>You are projecting your own ignorance.
No, I'm highlighting yours.
>>Just because you don't know doesn't mean nobody else does.
Too bad the ones who claim to know can't even tell me whether it will rain two weeks from now, eh? And the same ones who claim to know were demonstrably, laughably wrong thirty years from now, but they're still riding that DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM hobbyhorse.
>>If anyone has latched onto an idea here, it's you.
I've latched on to the idea that objective truth is preferable to bullshit, yes. And I've latched onto the idea that fearmongers are not to be trusted with power.
>>You're simply parroting old, old arguments
I'm speaking the truth, which refuses to go away just because it is politically inconvenient for fearmongering extremists.
>>that have been debunked again and again,
By whom? Certainly not by you. In the scientific community there is considerable debate over whether there is enough evidence to support any of these claims, though it is politically incorrect to mention this.
Is this the part where you wave your hands vigorously and declare victory?
>>but you refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support your own pre-conceived notion
Listening to environmentalists was how I found those quotes.
>>And just what is your hangup with this "Steven Schneider" character?
He's a "leading environmentalist" who was wrong about Western Civilization DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMING humanity by changing the climate thirty years ago, he's wrong today, and he comes right out and admits that it's all lies, fearmongering, and propaganda. "A balance between being effective and being honest," indeed. I never thought that honesty needed to be balanced with anything, especially when we're talking about objective scientific truth, especially when we're debating radical policies that would pretty much gut the whole of industrialized civilization.
Are you done now?
> Leaving aside that this is a field of politics, not science
> No, because these are loud fearmongering kooks who get a lot of media coverage. This is politics, not science.
We are on the science board. We discuss science. And this is most definitely science. What exactly do you think the field of climate science is doing? It does exist, you know.
Now please back up your statements with actual science. You claim that:
> I'm speaking the truth
> I've latched on to the idea that objective truth is preferable to bullshit
But I don't see you backing this up with any references to actual science or any kind of "objective truth". I have, repeatedly.
> Keep beating that strawman. Watch that straw fly!
Just because you do not understand the argument does not mean it is a strawman. The point is this: It does not matter what the total value is. What matters is what happens when you change it. If it is a balanced system, small changes can have big effects.
Your body's temperature is balanced at 310 kelvins. A tiny increase to 315 kelvins, and suddenly, you die. Did it really matter that the change was small compared to the total?
It's funny that you accuse me of making strawman arguments, when your own water vapour argument is a complete and utter strawman itself. As is this one:
> He's a "leading environmentalist" who was wrong about Western Civilization DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMING humanity by changing the climate thirty years ago
Apparently your argument is that because some guy said something that was wrong thirty years ago, and entire field of science does not exist.
> By whom?
By scientists. I have provided an ample amount of links to read about this, but you are not interested in learning anything that goes against your prejudices, are you? You seem to be much more interested in ranting and raving, and certain don't seem to have actually read the earlier replies dealing with issues you repeat again now, such as:
> Too bad the ones who claim to know can't even tell me whether it will rain two weeks from now, eh?
See >>23.
Summary of >>70 for those who can't be bothered to read it:
On the science board we discuss science. If you want to make claims, back them up with references to actual science.
I think it's quite obvious that this thread is over.
--- snip here ---For a guy who claims to be interested in objective truth and not bullshit, you sure aren't.
You want to know something? I don't think we're DOOOOOMED. I might purely intellectually know there's a chance things will be bad, but deep down I don't believe it. I think everything will work out in the end because that's what it always does, and it's much more comforting to think that.
This doesn't mean I'm going to think every scientist who says different is a liar.
Oh, I've been talking about actual science. I've been talking about things like Occam's Razor, and the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the fact that extraordinary mass industrialization and increases in carbon dioxide levels worldwide between 1940 and 1975 coincided with measurable and significant decreases in global average temperatures for three and a half decades, and the inconvenient fact that a non-falsifiable claim doesn't rise to the level of being a hypothesis.
When I mention the fact that there's one hundred times as much water vapor in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, and water vapor absorbs vastly more infrared radiation than carbon dioxide, I am accused of attacking a straw man, of all bizarre things.
When I mention that the claim that predicting the climate tomorrow is difficult, predicting the climate two weeks from now is impossible, but predicting the climate a century from now is quite doable, is counterintuitive to say the least, the response is sputtering outrage and flat accusations that I must be "in denial," which is, I guess, a trendy insult among the emo kids this year.
When I mention the fact that environmental extremists have been fixated on this rather nihilistic idea that Western Civilization has DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED humanity for decades now, and while the ad-hoc hypotheses they push from year to year may change but the central idea, and obvious political motivation, remain unchanged, I am accused of speaking unscientifically.
If I bring up that 160 scientists the Leipzig Declaration, 4000 scientists (including 72 Nobel Prize winners) signed the Heidelberg Appeal, and the 17,000+ scientists and engineers who have so far signed the Global Warming Petition at OICM.org (all of which question the politically correct conventional wisdom being pushed by environmentalists), no doubt I will be accused of the fallacy of "appeal to authority."
But what does that make you, since you've been claiming for 70+ posts that this has all been debunked long ago by SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCIENTISTS, who of course can't be named, and no details can be found, but trust me, I know what I'm doing, it was all debunked, okay? You're just in denial, maaaaaaaaan!
>>74 For a guy who claims to be interested in objective truth and not bullshit, you sure aren't.
Takes one to know one. Cry more, emo kid.
> When I mention that the claim that predicting the climate tomorrow is difficult, predicting the climate two weeks from now is impossible, but predicting the climate a century from now is quite doable, is counterintuitive to say the least
I can't predict whether a coin flip will result will be heads or tails, but if I were to flip a coin 1000 times and record the data, I can predict the end ratio of heads to tails will be near 1:1 with reasonable accuracy. This is a gross oversimplification and a poor analogy, but the point is that while ''discrete events'' may not be predictable in a chaotic system, this does not mean ''long-term behavior'' is not predictable. For more information, google "chaos theory."
Also, since he won't cite his data, I will:
> the fact that extraordinary mass industrialization and increases in carbon dioxide levels worldwide between 1940 and 1975 coincided with measurable and significant decreases in global average temperatures for three and a half decades
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html
Judge for yourself.
> But what does that make you, since you've been claiming for 70+ posts that this has all been debunked long ago by SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCIENTISTS, who of course can't be named,
I've linked you the references. It's you who refuse to read them. Come back when you have, and address what is said in those, and maybe we can talk. This name-calling and quesstion-dodging has gone on for long enough.
Please, just take one of the realclimate posts, and try to show some actual science that refutes it. Not name calling, not writing "DOOOOOOOM" over and over again, not attacking the messenger, not vague references to Occam's Razor that you do not really understand, actual science. With references. Can you do that?
I guess he couldn't.
I'm not surprised.
What annoys me about the Global Warming argument is how little people have read up on it before putting forth a semi intelligent argument. Most of the points that people raise are redundant.
"So what, worst case scenario is a 5-6 degrees increase in temperature."
Protip buddy: 1 fucking degree Celcius change in your body temperature is enough to kill you. 5-6 degrees increase will wipe out entire species of animal.
"Water level rising a few meters is not so bad."
Have you noticed how much of our population lives on the coast? Do you realise that it only takes "a few metres" to submerge a city?
And if you haven't noticed already, the only parties playing down Global Warming are the US and the big corporates. Question is, who would you trust? The petition signed by numerous Nobel Prize winners or the people who want to protect their short term profits?
>The petition signed by numerous Nobel Prize winners
You mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal
As that one does not mention global warming, according to that Wikipedia article, probably not, huh?
No, rather this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists%27_Warning_to_Humanity
>And if you haven't noticed already, the only parties playing down Global Warming are the US and the big corporates. Question is, who would you trust? The petition signed by numerous Nobel Prize winners or the people who want to protect their short term profits?
You know, us humans also produce CO2, and a lot of ammonia just by living. That's really bad. Hey, i think the government should tax us for sporting and eating so much, because those two increase our metabolism, which yields more greenhouse gasses than absolutely necessary. You wanna downplay that huh, kiddo? do you even know how many people there are on this tiny planet? 6billion - that's 9 zeroes behind the 6. So that makes a real impact, just think about it.
(actually, I'd trust the big corporations here, because there you have tons of people who actually know about dealing with information, and are employed only to make decisions that use such information appropriately. That's more than I can say about the Nobelprize winners. Besides, I'd take the ideas of an average corporate employee about global warming just as serious as those from an economics, psychology, biology, mathematics... etc, laureates. Neither are professionals in the global warming discussion, that's why.)
Questions
1) Do you think humans are able to control the climate by regulating greenhouse gasses?
2) Do you think humans are able, now, to effectively adjust the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, so that global warming can be halted?
>"So what, worst case scenario is a 5-6 degrees increase in temperature."
>Protip buddy: 1 fucking degree Celcius change in your body temperature is enough to kill you. 5-6 degrees increase will wipe out entire species of animal.
Thanks, "buddy." I take it your entire family is wiped out when they leave their airconditioned car to step into the hot summer day?
finally
>What annoys me about the Global Warming argument is how little people have read up on it before putting forth a semi intelligent argument. Most of the points that people raise are redundant.
(laughing my ass of rolling on the floor cramping my stomach oh wow the irony W00T!!)
> You know, us humans also produce CO2, and a lot of ammonia just by living. That's really bad.
Is it? Show us some data that shows that CO2 emissions directly from humans are significant compared to emissions from industry and transportation. Or were you just making yourself a strawman?
> Besides, I'd take the ideas of an average corporate employee about global warming just as serious as those from an economics, psychology, biology, mathematics... etc, laureates. Neither are professionals in the global warming discussion, that's why.
And what about those who are professionals in climate science? They all say global warming is real, and a big threat. Most of the Nobel prize winners you hold in such low regard are not saying that they are experts and therefore you should listen to them. What they know is that they can trust those scientists who are experts, and who are pretty much unanimously saying this is a huge problem.
>You know, us humans also produce CO2, and a lot of ammonia just by living. That's really bad. Hey, i think the government should tax us for sporting and eating so much, because those two increase our metabolism, which yields more greenhouse gasses than absolutely necessary. You wanna downplay that huh, kiddo? do you even know how many people there are on this tiny planet? 6billion - that's 9 zeroes behind the 6. So that makes a real impact, just think about it.
So, what was your actual point of this? How did that link in with US and big corps downplaying Global Warming again? Your maths is certainly impressive, but you fail to address the original point made.
>actually, I'd trust the big corporations here, because there you have tons of people who actually know about dealing with information, and are employed only to make decisions that use such information appropriately.
They're employed to make a profit, not to give a damn about environmental consequences. If they had it their way, they would build a nuclear reactor in your backyard for the sake of a little pocket money.
>Thanks, "buddy." I take it your entire family is wiped out when they leave their airconditioned car to step into the hot summer day?
Oh yeah, because they have air conditioning in rain forests and South Pole. A 5-6 degree increase in temperature is not just one or two hot days in summer. It's an average, meaning a significant change in climate which will wipe out ecosystems. Ice caps will melt, water levels rise, etc etc. And for your information, it doesn't take that much to change your internal body temperature. Think heat strokes. Those are only caused by a change of less than 0.5 degrees Celsius.
>1) Do you think humans are able to control the climate by regulating greenhouse gasses?
There is substantial evidence of carbon emissions causing changes in climate over the years. That answers your question.
>2) Do you think humans are able, now, to effectively adjust the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, so that global warming can be halted?
Obviously not. But just because it's gone past the irreversible stage, it doesn't justify the continuing increase of carbon emissions. If you're dying of lung cancer from smoking, you don't keep on smoking if you want to live longer.
>What annoys me about the Global Warming argument is how little people have read up on it before putting forth a semi intelligent argument. Most of the points that people raise are redundant.
>(laughing my ass of rolling on the floor cramping my stomach oh wow the irony W00T!!)
Considering the lack of substance to your argument, that goes for you too.
haha, big lol at the envirofreaks up there
build a nuclear plant in my backyard? please, its one of the cleanest energies available... Not in my backyard, but certainly in the country yeah.
so if I'm dying of lungcancer, I'd stop smoking? Like that's gonna help! I'd enjoy my cigarette even better (I prefer cigars actually, more class)
If anyone other than >>81 thought that >>81s points are not to be laughed at, please stand up. Then go to your cuddleparty, and first turn of your computer.
I, personally, would wholeheartedly approve the building of a nuclear plant in my backyard. It might be a little small for one though.
>>88
You answer the analogies that I used, not the actual points that I made. When I raise a point about how companies don't give a shit about anything except for profits, you're not supposed to talk about how you like nuclear power plants. Ditto with the emissions point. Stop being so evasive, picking at trivialities and address the actual point.
You attack >>81 for silly points, but the fact is you've said nothing of substance that can rebut them.
>Then go to your cuddleparty, and first turn of your computer.
Reverting to personal insults. It shows what a convincing argument you've made.
Only corporate types advocate nuclear power as clean. Definitely not the same type of oil, coal, gas, auto and manufacturing corporate advocates, who claim global warming is lies, along the lines of (a) "Hey it's cold today! That disproves global warming!", (b) "You don't know what the weather is tomorrow! You can't say you know anything" and (c) "Shucks, you're just all being negative Nancies. Think positive!" (These are to a degree strawmen, but the arguments themselves are fallacies.), though.
Very conveniently you ignore other clean sources of power. Although each does have minor to major problems of their own (major probably being large hydroelectric dam's environmental impracts, pollution from geothermal, and disposal of silicone sandwich plates for solar, minor being the problem of finding viable places to put electric windmills), other sources of clean energy can be managed, to reduce issues.
Also, stopping smoking does actually help reduce the problems caused by smoking up to the point where you've contracted serious terminal illness. You see, the thing is, you're analogy makes the assumption that we're already doomed and can do nothing about it, and that we should do the danse macabre (How's that for a gloomy, "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!" attitude here), rather than the idea that it's possible to avert disaster; and that there's hope to change.
>Let's try again. Show us some data that shows that CO2 emissions directly from humans are significant compared to emissions from industry and transportation.
>Or else, admit that you're talking out of your ass.
I'm sorry. I thought it was actually extremely obvious that I was talking out of my ass on this particular point. Especially since I advocated a tax on exercising and eating, if I recall correctly. While you're at it, though, why don't you look up some data on the significance of emissions from industry and transportation, when compared to natural sources? (Protip, the movie 'the great global warming swindle' discusses this too. Conclusion: not very significant) Yeah.... isn't it fun to tell other people to look up data, and to read whole books? (Read Marx, Schumpeter and Riccardo to see why I am right - like hell you'd do that, right?)
---------------------------------------------------------
>>91 you are right about the ad hominem. >>81 had it coming, though.
---------------------------------------------------------
>>92 I am actually convinced that global warming is real. The movie which started this thread of, actually acknowledges global warming also. I'd like to state one of its conclusions here: Al Gore, in 'an inconvenient truth,' shows how there is a strong correlation between global warming and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's real data, and I think its relatively trustworthy. However, what the 'great global warming swindle' remarks about the relation between global warming and levels of CO2, is that we should look at the direction of causality. According to that movie, CO2 development lags behind global temperature, indicating that a warmer earth causes more CO2 in the atmposphere, not the other way around. The lag is a couple hundred of years.
I find that a highly relevant finding.
Another finding is that, according to the same models which are used to predict the future climate, changes in the temperature of our earth (I mean overall increases in climate) should be observed most drastically in the higher regions of our atmosphere, which is where the larger amounts of greenhouse gasses are supposed to trap more sunlight. Measurements of temperature at these heights have been conducted for ages, by means of simple weather balloons. 'The great global warming swindle' argues that the measurements are in conflict with what the climate models predict.
Again, I find that highly relevant: these predictions come from a central part from the climate models, which is the role of greenhouse gasses. These temperature data indicate that there is a fundamental flaw (not just a small mistake) in the model.
I am aware that some people featured in the movie were happy about the way they were portrayed, and about the way their comments were included in it. However, to my knowledge, only the oceanographer has made complaints about this. The two reasons for doubt which I posed, have for as far as I know, have not been challenged by the scientists who posed them in the movie.
It should be obvious that, if human caused CO2 emissions are insignificant to global warming, there is no reason at all to cut such emissions.
I hope this soothes the commenters who criticized my sloppy style. I do think I posed relevant arguments here although I did not pose contra arguments to all criticisms. The arguments above, causal relation between CO2 and global warming, and counter evidence to climate models, are the ones that I can support best. I must say that I am glad that there is debate on this issue though.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bah, comment field was too short, so here's the rest.
p.s. >>92, You are right in considering that I take a fatalistic approach toward the terminally diseased smoker, and that is indeed not a stance that I want to make toward my own, or others' futures, but I'd like to comment here that once you've contracted a terminal disease, most often the quality of your life already sucks so much that 1) smoking or not smoking doesn't matter that much and 2) so what if you die earlier - what of life is there to enjoy that you'd want to live another day for it?
> I'm sorry. I thought it was actually extremely obvious that I was talking out of my ass on this particular point. Especially since I advocated a tax on exercising and eating, if I recall correctly.
Well, yes. So you have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Why are you talking? Nobody is impressed with strawmen. If you want to make an argument, you will have to provide some actual facts, and not just grandstanding and rambling.
> While you're at it, though, why don't you look up some data on the significance of emissions from industry and transportation, when compared to natural sources? (Protip, the movie 'the great global warming swindle' discusses this too. Conclusion: not very significant)
Here's a protip for you: As has been stated many times already now, the movie is not reliable, and misrepresents and misinterprets facts.
And has also been explained numerous times in this thread, it doesn't matter if man-made contributions are small compared to natural ones, because it's the change that is important, and its effects, not the total value.
Please go back and read the thread, and especially read the linked pages.
if the change is small, then it doesn't matter. If you eat at burgerking everyday, then cutting down from supersized menus to normal size will still make you horridly obese.
And I acknowledged that the movie has not handled all contributions properly. I said though, that some important facts in it seem to have been handled correctly, and those facts i have named in my secondlast post. please, >>95, abandon the name 'anonymous scientist,' because you know bollocks about science.
> if the change is small, then it doesn't matter.
> If you eat at burgerking everyday, then cutting down from supersized menus to normal size will still make you horridly obese.
It may well, however, prevent or delay your upcoming heart attack.
Pretty stupid analogy.
>>97 the analogy also fails to predict who will win the next presidential elections. what a crappy analogy.
I went to read >>70 I think this is the relevant point you refer to.
>It does not matter what the total value is. What matters is what happens when you change it. If it is a balanced system, small changes can have big effects.
That is correct. However, do small changes really have a small effect? Even then, such small changes, to be significant, have to be relatively large when we make them: Purely hypothetical, if Humans contribute 5% to CO2 production next to natural sources (and I think this is already large) then reducing total CO2 production by half a percent still requires a 10% change in human caused emissions. Do note, that humans then still contribute 4% (actually, slightly more) to total CO2 production, which in a environmental system with a very unstable balance (as many environmentalists like to pose it) might still be not enough.
By the way, since you speak of a balanced system, i suppose you understand that the system will likely find a new balance at a different temperatures depending on the new amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (although I actually adhere to a temperature->CO2 level causality). It is then interesting to see if the new temperature at the current rate of emission might be acceptable.
> if the change is small, then it doesn't matter. If you eat at burgerking everyday, then cutting down from supersized menus to normal size will still make you horridly obese.
Sorry, counter-examples only count one way. If you say "all small changes have small effects", I can refute this by giving an example of a small change with a large effect, but it is not enough for you to give a single example of a small change with a small effect to refute me.
This is very basic logic. You really ought to understand at least THAT much if you're going to be in an argument at all.
> please, >>95, abandon the name 'anonymous scientist,' because you know bollocks about science.
And you know more? You haven't made a single scientific argument yet. All you've done is pull numbers out of your ass like the mean anything, such as this:
> However, do small changes really have a small effect? Even then, such small changes, to be significant, have to be relatively large when we make them: Purely hypothetical, if Humans contribute 5% to CO2 production next to natural sources (and I think this is already large) then reducing total CO2 production by half a percent still requires a 10% change in human caused emissions. Do note, that humans then still contribute 4% (actually, slightly more) to total CO2 production, which in a environmental system with a very unstable balance (as many environmentalists like to pose it) might still be not enough.
This means nothing, especially when the numbers are completely made up, and you have no understanding of the processes involved. If you want to make an argument, reference some real data and real research, please.
I've provided at least some references for my argument, but you have obviously not read them, and neither have you given any yourself.
>>99 I reckon I know a little about science, yeah. But ok, how 'scientific' I am should never be an argument actually, so I'll refrain from alluding to peoples scientific attitudes.
>This means nothing, especially when the numbers are completely made up,
Actually, it is not meaningless, since I am trying to show the limits of the observation that in a balanced system small changes can have big effects. I explicitly state that the numbers are hypothetical only. I am thus discussing the properties of a balanced system, which does not require any real data because we´re talking about a theoretical construct anyway.
Which is a different discussion from the one about the data, about which I did actually posted in >>93, although my referencing at this point remains at 'the great global swindle.' Do note that I am glad that you do reference, but unless you can shortly summarize your reference, I'm not going to look it up - takes too much time. This may seem lazy, but I don't have the time to read pages upon pages of stuff of which only a small part might be relevant to your argument.
> Actually, it is not meaningless, since I am trying to show the limits of the observation that in a balanced system small changes can have big effects.
You may be trying, but you're not succeeding. A single counter-example can never show a limit to anything.
Try applying your own example to the body heat of a person. For a person with a body temperature of 36 degrees celsius sitting in a 20 degree celsius room, you have 293 kelvins natural temperature, with an additional 16 kelvins "man-made" temperature. An additional increase of 2 kelvins will make you sick, and 5 kelvins will kill you.
>>101.
My body also has a balancing system. When it gets hot, it will transpirate more, which allows my body to remain at regular temperature even in places where the temperature is higher than my body temperature. In the same way, the earth has balancing mechanisms although they work a bit slower than the body. One of these would be that, with a higher temperature, more water evaporates into the air, which shields the earth from sunlight and thus additional warmth.
Anyway, you said >A single counter-example can never show a limit to anything.
I beg to differ. I can agree with you to the point that a single counter-example cannot ever show WHERE the limit is, but a single counter-example can surely show that there ARE limits. If I were to give an example of this, would you argue that its just one example and therefore invalid?
>In the same way, the earth has balancing mechanisms although they work a bit slower than the body. One of these would be that, with a higher temperature, more water evaporates into the air, which shields the earth from sunlight and thus additional warmth.
Actually, that’s not really how it works. When sunlight passes through the Earth’s atmosphere, it warms the surface of the Earth. The Earth then radiates the heat back into the atmosphere, which mostly escapes into space, but most of it gets absorbed by the atmosphere. Likewise, as the atmosphere is heated, it will radiate heat back towards the ground. Such absorption and radiation of heat is due to the relatively small amounts of water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This trapping of heat is called the greenhouse effect. It’s this blanket of heat around the Earth that makes the planet livable. However, if we were to add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the Earth would start to warm a little and cause water to evaporate from the sea. More water and CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global warming.
More water in the atmosphere will not actually shield the Earth from sunlight. This is because the radiation of the sun is of shorter wave length than that of the Earth. Hence sunlight just passes straight through the atmosphere.
*but some of it gets absorbed by the atmosphere..
> My body also has a balancing system.,,
That was not the point. I was not likening body heat to the heat of the planet. It was merely an example about numbers, and how a small change compared to a large total can be very important.
Please re-read it with this in mind.
> Anyway, you said >A single counter-example can never show a limit to anything.
> I beg to differ. I can agree with you to the point that a single counter-example cannot ever show WHERE the limit is, but a single counter-example can surely show that there ARE limits.
No, a single example can show that a certain value is within the possible limits, but it can never show that there are limit, nor what they are.
Say, I have a hundred bucks in my wallet. Does this tell you how much money fits in my wallet?
> If I were to give an example of this, would you argue that its just one example and therefore invalid?
No, but there is no valid example. Once again, this is very basic logic. You can disprove a general statement by a counter-example, but you can not prove it.
I was actually talking about clouds, but ok. Perhaps the heat reflected by the clouds remains trapped in the atmosphere or is mainly absorbed by the clouds anyway.
And when I talked about limits, I wasn't talking about values. It surprises me that it is interpreted in this way. I was talking about theoretical limits to the (balanced) model, and I do hope that we can talk about the limits of the model since its so central in the debate about what the causes are about global warming.
Anyhow, I posed this earlier:
>I am actually convinced that global warming is real. The movie which started this thread of, actually acknowledges global warming also. I'd like to state one of its conclusions here: Al Gore, in 'an inconvenient truth,' shows how there is a strong correlation between global warming and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's real data, and I think its relatively trustworthy. However, what the 'great global warming swindle' remarks about the relation between global warming and levels of CO2, is that we should look at the direction of causality. According to that movie, CO2 development lags behind global temperature, indicating that a warmer earth causes more CO2 in the atmposphere, not the other way around. The lag is a couple hundred of years.
>I find that a highly relevant finding.
>Another finding is that, according to the same models which are used to predict the future climate, changes in the temperature of our earth (I mean overall increases in climate) should be observed most drastically in the higher regions of our atmosphere, which is where the larger amounts of greenhouse gasses are supposed to trap more sunlight. Measurements of temperature at these heights have been conducted for ages, by means of simple weather balloons. 'The great global warming swindle' argues that the measurements are in conflict with what the climate models predict.
>Perhaps the heat reflected by the clouds remains trapped in the atmosphere or is mainly absorbed by the clouds anyway.
The clouds that form in the lower part of the atmosphere do shield the surface of the earth from solar radiation. However, the clouds higher up, reflect and radiated heat from the Earth back to the Earth. But to rely on this balancing process when Global Warming increases, is a rather capricious thing to do. The behaviour of clouds is just too unpredictable to decide whether they will cool or heat the Earth during Global Warming. If the temperature were to increase, the low lying clouds (which shield radiation) may actually evaporate into higher flying clouds (which trap heat radiation). If this were to happen, it will actually add to the effect of Global Warming. It could happen the other way and reduce Global Warming, you never know. But yeah, as I said, we don't know enough about clouds to make a certain decision about how they will react to temperature rise.
Well, >>108 has sort of the gist of it, but it's not that we don't know enough - it's that you can't make a simple statement like "increased heat means more clouds means more reflection". The whole system is incredibly complex, and you can't really tell just from intutive reasoning what any given change will do.
Which is why you create models, and run simulations, and try to find models that fit past data and use them to extrapolate into the future. Which is what the entire field of climate science is doing, and they nearly unanimously agree that global warming is happening, and will only get worse from here.
Strawberry Panic said it, it's not true.
Meh, if we can stave off the next ice age, I say good for us.
The problem, I think, is that the media does have an agenda, and a lot of the people who view this media take all their reported news as facts. A great example, not to get too off topic: the war in Iraq. How often, honestly, do you hear about operations that go right there? You always hear about the bad. Because people want to hear about the bad. And the media is happy to oblige.
From what I understand, the weather and climate that we've experienced for the past 200,000 years, according to core samples from the polar ice caps, has shown an unusual pattern of stability. Before then, there would be vast changes in temperatures and weather patterns in small (geologically that is) periods of time, the last time anything was this stable was during the dinosaur times. And that all happened before mankind even existed. Plus, look at the geothermal activity of the planet. I forget what it was called, but there was a volcano that erupted during the revolutionary war that put out more pollution in the atmosphere than the entire combined equivalent of human history, the major contributor of the so-called "year without a summer". I regard these things as clear evidence that mankind is not a real significant contributor to global warming.
I think that the planet is changing once again, and these changes are affecting our lives. More and more, people are noticing small changes in their lives, like plants growing out of season or hurricanes stronger and more numerous than before. But how long have these people lived? 70 years, less? Thats a hundreth of a second in geologic time. People are not used to change, and have been since the dawn of man, yet we have adapted. The planet went through that ice age from the 1300s to the 1800s, we survived that just fine. And the planet did that all on its own.
The problem is that the media loves to report doom and gloom, its part of their job, so they conveniently report the facts that support their agendas and leave out the important ones, such as the fact (note the word "fact") that there really is no concensus on what is causing global warming. Mankind is bound to be a contributor, but not the CAUSE. So as long as the media continues this trend, people will believe it. And more and more, political sanctions will lead to exploitation of the poor, all in the name of "preserving our planet".
No, the problem is that some people (to some extent, rightly) distrust the media, but then swallow anyboy else's agenda without question as long as it is in line with their ideologies. That would be you, >>113.
For instance:
> From what I understand, the weather and climate that we've experienced for the past 200,000 years, according to core samples from the polar ice caps, has shown an unusual pattern of stability. Before then, there would be vast changes in temperatures and weather patterns in small (geologically that is) periods of time
This is mostly nonsense, and you obviously picked it up from somebody spreading lies and disinformation, without questioning if it was true or not.
> such as the fact (note the word "fact") that there really is no concensus on what is causing global warming.
This is also a blatant lie. The entire field of climate science is unanimous in stating that global warming is caused by humans.
>This is also a blatant lie. The entire field of climate science is unanimous in stating that global warming is caused by humans.
Proof please?
>>115
Hello, and welcome to the real world.
Supplying more info for you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
"I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans."
Of course, global warming causes increases in poverty and infection diseases, and kills off living creatures on land and in the oceans.
I hope the US presidential elections is soon over. I really want this global warming madness to stop. It's effecting every country out there.
It's not like the US elections are causing it. The US was like the last country to jump on the green-train. Frankly, while I don't know what we can do to prevent the damaging aspects of global warming, it's good that people are paying attention to the condition of their planet and that they're willing to reduce emissions and find healthier, sustainable ways of producing energy.
> It's not like the US elections are causing it.
Do you realize how much hot air is expelled into the atmosphere by American politicians and pundits?
10, or maybe 5 years ago (in the US, at least) that viewpoint might have been valid, but not anymore. There just isn't any room to significantly oppose the green movement in this matter. It's becoming an international priority to regulate emissions and control energy use.
You sound terribly outdated.
>>123
Humans think they are greater then they really are. Even burning the rest of the trillion tons of oil underground, we won't make a dent. Global warming is a political tool and nothing else.
>Global warming is a political tool and nothing else.
Troll detected.
how so?
I have never seen anyone argue that global warming is not happening. The only argument is whether or not humans are responsible for it, which doesn't change the fact that we're going to have to deal with it somehow. (Of course, if humans aren't the cause of global warming, we are taking the entirely wrong approach in trying to prevent it.)
You are ignorant and a fool. You have an entire field of science saying your are wrong, yet you still cling to your silly belief. You are the one who is being deceived by politics.
Actually, there's quite a number of people who say it's not even happening. They are just as wrong as the people who think it's not certain if we're causing it or not. We are, it's a near certainty.
There are people who say it's not happening. Some of these are the same people who said it in the late 80s the first time global warming was an imminent crisis. Some of those are the same people who said that global cooling wasn't happening either the decade before that when an ice age was the imminent crisis.
The entire field of science is not convinced that global warming is happening, or that it is caused by humans, or that an increase in carbon dioxide causes an increase in average global temperature, or that an increase in global temperature leads to those images of terrible devestation you see on TV.
> or that an increase in carbon dioxide causes an increase in average global temperature
What effect is an increased level of measured carbon dioxide in the atmosphere supposed to do, other than increase global temperature? That'd be defying a great deal we've observed about the compound.
>>131
It would increase greenery. More oxygen.
I'd like to ban soda pop since i believe the CO2 bubbles they have is a great contributor to global warming. Probably a liter bottle of coca cola has more CO2 in it then the exhaust from a whole day of car driving.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Just providing one example of the dissenting views I mentioned in >>129
If you took all of the CO2 from a coke, and made it all in one container and drove 10 miles in car and took that CO2, what would be bigger?
Fail.
>>132
I suppose I should have emphasized "measured carbon dioxide". That word is crucial.
What you measure is independent of how many plants there are. There can be many plants, or there could be none; either way, the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher. As a result, temperatures go up.
As an aside, this also means that plants and ocean systems are unable to keep up with our current rates of CO2 production. If they were, homeostatis wouldn't have been disturbed, and the ratio of gasses in the atmosphere wouldn't have changed.
*stasis
I'm afraid I didn't understand any of that, >>137. :(
> The entire field of science is not convinced that global warming is happening
Sorry, the entire field of climate science is. All the "global cooling" stuff is pretty much anti-global-warming propaganda and has little basis in reality. An ice age was never considered an "imminent crisis" by climate scientists. It was only ever circulated as an idea that never got any real consideration outside the media.
As for >>133, if a paper starts out with an outrageous lie like this:
> The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend.
I'm not going to pay all that much attention to it.
> I'd like to ban soda pop since i believe the CO2 bubbles they have is a great contributor to global warming. Probably a liter bottle of coca cola has more CO2 in it then the exhaust from a whole day of car driving.
"Probably" nothing. Perhaps you should educate yourself about some facts instead of making idiotic shit up?
The mass of released carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel is roughly 3.6 times the mass of the burned fuel. Let's (conservatively) say your car burns about 10 kgs of fuel in a day. That makes 36 kilograms of released carbon dioxide.
Do you really think your soda bottle has 36 kilograms of CO2 in it?
>>141
lol, it's people like you who perpetuate CO2 doom around. It's nice that you actually considered to answer that very obvious shit joke post. Shows people what you guys are actually are; scaremongering dipshits.
Dude how can 1kg suddenly become 3.6 kg?
Basic conservation of matter violated?
>>140
I DISAGREE WITH CONCLUSIONS BASED ON DATA SO I WILL IGNORE THEM AND THEN ACCUSE EVERYONE ELSE OF DOING THE SAME THING
Oh, I see, because I correct people who speak falsehoods, I am a scaremonger. Thanks, that makes perfect sense.
"The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend" is anything but a "conclusion based on data". Pretty much all available data disagrees with that conclusion. You're going to have to try harder than that.
>>146
I like how you subtlely beg the question. Really, I do. You've got data that indicate that both the average global temperature of the Earth is increasing, and that it is the result of man? That's impressive. I could see why you would completely ignore an argument against your view, since it's wrong for opposing it. I guess whole studies on how the data is unreliable or misinterpretted or how carbon dioxide levels trail behind global temperature trends are completely worthless, because they don't support your views.
So, do you have any copies of some available data that will even show me a correlation between human action and average global temperature, with some indicator of human action leading? Since that's what you're saying anyway. I've got a background in statistics, I'd like to examine this info myself.
No one has ever mentioned human made CO2, they all say reduce carbon emissions by cutting back on this, turning down that, but they never discuss the implications of 6 billion people exhaling this so called pollutant gas.
Does the Global Warming party think that maybe Hilter and Saddam weren't crazed dictators, maybe they were ahead of their time, by slaughtering millions of people they were actually reducing carbon emissions.
I have not had the time to plow through this yet, but if someone would like to see the references to the conclusion that we are likely the source of global warming, take a gander here: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch09.pdf
And if someone would like to see the references to the conclusion that we are likely NOT the source of global warming, take a gander here:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.6
A report by the IPCC, written by dozens of scientists, supported by thousands of references, versus some unknown author without any references? I particularly love the hand-made graphs (how very rigorous!). s.9.3.3.2 in the chapter of the IPCC report in >>151 addresses the issue of solar forcing as well, as do other parts.
So, surely you're joking, Mr. >>152.
> You've got data that indicate that both the average global temperature of the Earth is increasing, and that it is the result of man?
Ok, I'll admit that I missed the "man-made" in the original statement, which makes it less of an outright lie and more of a misrepresentation of the argument.
Let's look at the rest, then. I see much is made of how the mean temperature supposedly has not been increasing at all according to satellite MSU measurements. Unfortunately, that's not actually true: Turns out the data is very hard to interpret, and when done correctly, temperatures have been increasing: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
So much for that argument. There are more arguments made, but I really don't feel like wasting time disproving those too. I'm no climate scientist, and this stuff doesn't come easy for me.
> No one has ever mentioned human made CO2, they all say reduce carbon emissions by cutting back on this, turning down that, but they never discuss the implications of 6 billion people exhaling this so called pollutant gas.
Any CO2 produced by living organisms is part of the carbon cycle, and not part of the problem. The problem is solely the carbon that was previous locked down deep underground that is now suddenly being quickly released into the environment.
>>156
No it's not.
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. It doesn't even absorb solar photons of the wavelengths you would want, as much as you want. It's released because there is global warming, that's it. It does not affect it. It does not speed up global warming. It's a side effect, just put this in your mind. Mars would be fucking 100C instead of the fucking freezing weather that is killing Opportunity if CO2 was a greenhouse gas.
And 154 was me. And it was not spam.
Unfortunately, even though you really, really wish that was true, none of it is. Please get equipped with a clue, and leave the debating to people who do not live in some kind of fantasy world.
Hey check out what they say about climate change on http://www.cubicao.tk ... they say:
• 2ND WISEST HUMAN COMMANDS humanity to SPREAD TIME CUBE far and wide, across the entire human population of Earth, before the impending armageddon of natural-resources depletion, deforestation, oil-depletion crisis, global warming, also global economic and ecological crisis, and nuclear waste, nuclear bombs, cannibalism, nuclear holocaust. Spread Time Cube before the Armageddon.
• 2ND WISEST HUMAN commands the entire human species—a species more technologically advanced, powerful and destructive than ever before—to heed the CUBIC PROPHET/WISEST HUMAN, DR GENE RAY, and heed the PROPHECIES OF DR GENE RAY THE GREATEST THINKER AND WISEST HUMAN, in order to redeem humanity.—For we must save humanity before it destroys itself.
• 2ND WISEST HUMAN has created the CubicAO website, a website that is helping people to become better-equipped to resist the singularity conformist evil of modern 1-corner civilisation. It contributes to the ethos of the pro-Cubic anarchic REVOLUTION!
• 2ND WISEST HUMAN commands humanity to accept Time Cube.
No, pirates.
Here's something that has been bothering me for a while (such as in http://4-ch.net/science/kareha.pl/1182487164/7): What is the deal with libertarians and global warming? Why do they seem to dogmatically deny it exists or is a problem?
How about a little experiment? Would you people in here tell us all two things: Do you think global warming is a problem, and are you a libertarian (or at least generally supportive of that view)?
I'll start: Yes, and no.
i dont know if it is a problem, and i'm somewhat of a libertarian.
Yes, and no.
I don't know whether it's a causation or correlation (probably the latter). One possible confounding variable is that most libertarians appear to hail from America. We all know what a fine, fine media echo-chamber it is over there.
"We report, you decide," &c.
the general response i've been greeted with if i hint at my doubts of global warming on campus has been some combination of shock, appallment, and disbelief. i've argued that i havent directly seen any evidence, i've only heard of people making claims, and i haven't seen their data, and knowing that there are both scientists who agree and disagree with the claim, the words of some don't have any particulary value for me over the words of the others.
i favor libertarianism because i've some background in economics, i value personal responsibility and liberty, and i think government programs are inefficient and often immoral.
Skepticism is a good attribute, but there appears to be an almost overwhelming stack of evidence supporting the existence of global warming that's primarily caused by anthropogenic forcing.
I am not a climatologist, a chemist, a physicist or even a biologist. To reach their level of understanding in their vocations I would need about a decade. That's time I do not have, so I must therefore defer to the experts.
And there's a lot of literature that the experts seem to have supporting their arguments. Given what I know of the pure sciences, their arguments are plausible (e.g.: no violating of the "laws" of thermodynamics) and the hypotheses reasonably follow. The alternative is that they are clueless (unlikely), they're on some kind of social bandwagon (unlikely), our observations and models on a broad range of pure sciences are completely off-mark yet nobody has noticed (risible) or there's some global conspiracy of scientists going on (risible).
The other side hasn't presented much. It appears to consist of internet kooks with hilarious graphs, the usual vacuous sound and fury of the media, or entities that have a vested interest in the status quo. So far as I know, there have been no peer-reviewed articles published in respectable journals that present any strong case agaist the conclusion drawn from all the other observations; feel free to enlighten otherwise.
I think the problem here is that while you have not seen nor sought evidence for anthropogenic forcing, you haven't done so for the opposite either. You simply don't know. Therefore the correct response to "Do you think that global warming is primarily caused by humans?" is "I don't know." not "I doubt it."
>>165
doubting imo has always been the same as admitting uncertainty, not claiming the negation is true. it connotes exposure to seemingly contradictory evidence though.
i'd seen a BBC documentary from many years ago about global warming where they had attacked the credibility of the claims supporting the theory. as far as i know now, the accuracy of the claims hasn't gotten significantly better, but still continues to be the main support.
i'm not sure whether it was right, but i've seen a graph of atmospheric carbon levels and measured average global temperature, where the carbon levels seem to increase after the temperature increases. i suppose, more accurately, what should be said in describing it is that the fluctuation of carbon, in relation to the fluctuation of temperature, appears to be shifted ahead in time. this doesn't really conflict with the idea that carbon increases cause temperature increases, unless theres areas on the graph where temperature makes some erratic change in direction and then later in time carbon does the same, but i don't recall.
plus i have this feeling in the pit of my stomach that claims of what will happen years in the future are very weak, considering we fail at predicting weather a month away. i know long term climate and weather are different, but still, i'm not sure how much to believe claims of what's going to happen even if we are warming the world right now.
i don't have a personal agenda, but i haven't really been convincinced by evidence, either because of lack of exposure or lack of belief in the validity of certain things. i have heard a lot of people who should be reliable just making claims that they've done studies and the studies indicate blah blah blah. that doesn't particularly affect my opinion, and i don't think it should, since it's just a person talking, not evidence being shown to me.
so i sort of have to make an expected outcome judgment about what i think should be done based on probabilities i dont know and outcomes i don't think anyone knows.
all the uncertainty combined with general apathy regarding the issue leaves me in a position where, if some organization told me the fate of the world relied on people funding organizations like theirs, i would likely keep my money, because i am currently willing to accept the risk.
Fair enough.
I'll just point out though that given how important this could potentially become, doing some research on it is definitely in order. I've been slowly grinding away at this: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Also, what the media says isn't of much interest. As a libertarian I'm sure you agree. They have a tendency to use convenient sound-bites and come with no references or peer-review -- other than that rare breed of bloggers with critical thinking, if you can call them peers. As primary material they're usually best ignored.
Most of those doubts could be easily cleared up if you actually made the effort to go out and educate yourself on the topic. None of the are in any way original, and all of them are refuted over and over again, even in this thread. Look at the realclimate links, for instance.
"Admitting uncertainty" where uncertainty exists is good intellectual practice, but that does not mean one should question every single thing. That is just as intellectually dishonest as claiming knowledge of truth where none exists. If you truly have a skeptical mind, maybe you should try being skeptical of the motives of those who wish to cast doubt on global warming, too? You can't just pick and choose. You have to put everybody up to the same level of questioning, and if you do, you will quite quickly see that the claims of global warming deniers collapse quite quickly.