Global Warming

[JR-]

Either there is a massive amount of bias, or small studies can't be relied on.

yes, i have heard of such things too:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3406

[Hax]

Well..studying a thing like this is difficult to say the least, and my opinion on the fact of global warming is that humans are severely overrating it, much less thinking that we can make a serious impact on earth.

And for me, that's the arrogance of the human. We constantly think we can threaten the earth itself. We've been on this planet for what, 300,000 years? The earth has been here for about 5 billion years. Come on people, how seriously do you take yourselves?

Anyway, global warming. I think it's an entirely natural process in which the human race has no severe impact on. What we do have impact on is the cleanliness of the air, however, and thus I am in favour of finding alternate fuels.

[PBI]

my opinion on the fact of global warming is that humans are severely overrating it, much less thinking that we can make a serious impact on earth.

Suppose we were to simultaneously detonate the world's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. Do you think we would be silly to think that might have a serious impact on the Earth? Why do we think that extracting a large percentage of the world's entire reserves of oil and dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2 would be unlikely to have an effect? Personally I would be amazed if doing something so drastic to the atmosphere did not have an effect.

We constantly think we can threaten the earth itself.

It's not so much whether we will destroy the earth (at least for anyone but the most extreme climate catastrophe fanatic), but whether we can simply make it an inhospitable place for us to live for a long time (on a human timescale, not geological). As demonstrated by my example with nuclear weapons we are quite capable of doing that.

We've been on this planet for what, 300,000 years? The earth has been here for about 5 billion years.

You could argue that makes the opposite point: Human society has only been around for a relatively short period of time, and industrialized human society for an even shorter period, a couple of hundred years, the blink of an eye in geological terms. Industrialized society is unprecedented in the history of the earth (or if it has existed before, it destroyed itself so thoroughly as to leave no trace of its existence, surely an ominous sign), it is essentially an experimental leap of faith, we have no idea whether it is sustainable in the long term.

Trying to do science based on intuition and a vague sense of the "common sense" way things should work is not generally a good idea. Nature has an unerring ability to surprise us every time we think we've got the hang of it.

[Hax]

Suppose we were to simultaneously detonate the world's entire stockpile of nuclear weapons. Do you think we would be silly to think that might have a serious impact on the Earth? Why do we think that extracting a large percentage of the world's entire reserves of oil and dumping it into the atmosphere as CO2 would be unlikely to have an effect? Personally I would be amazed if doing something so drastic to the atmosphere did not have an effect.

We would utterly destroy ourselves, that much is obvious. What would happen to the earth is also pretty much certain, we would transform it into a barren piece of rock (I wonder how much would be left standing), though as long as there is still a core and something vaguely resembling an atmosphere, it can heal. However, on the point of global warming, I do not believe us wasting resources as oil can make a serious impact on this planet.

It's not so much whether we will destroy the earth (at least for anyone but the most extreme climate catastrophe fanatic), but whether we can simply make it an inhospitable place for us to live for a long time (on a human timescale, not geological). As demonstrated by my example with nuclear weapons we are quite capable of doing that.

Ah yes, of course. To be honest, I think we could be capable of that, though, as I stated in my previous post. However, as I said before, I do not regard it as it having a serious impact on the geological timescale.

You could argue that makes the opposite point: Human society has only been around for a relatively short period of time, and industrialized human society for an even shorter period, a couple of hundred years, the blink of an eye in geological terms. Industrialized society is unprecedented in the history of the earth (or if it has existed before, it destroyed itself so thoroughly as to leave no trace of its existence, surely an ominous sign), it is essentially an experimental leap of faith, we have no idea whether it is sustainable in the long term.

An excellent point. However, I still think that whatever humans do, it would be a larger threat to ourselves than to the planet. The planet has been through stuff much worse than us, keep that in mind. And you are right that the planet has not has seen industrialization in the past, and you could say I am underestimating human capabilities, yet when we are long gone (how many years? 200, 2000, 20.000 perhaps?) the planet is perfectly capable of healing itself. We are a threat to ourselves, not to the Earth. So instead of everyone telling us to 'Save the Planet', perhaps they should say 'Save Ourselves.' Thinking about themselves is the best thing humans can do after all.

Trying to do science based on intuition and a vague sense of the "common sense" way things should work is not generally a good idea. Nature has an unerring ability to surprise us every time we think we've got the hang of it.

That's what nature is, isn't it? We can never control it.

[LittleGrizzly]

So is your problem with global warming (protestors/supporters/theory) that the planet will be fine, it is just the humans that will be wiped out...

[Kralizec]

nevermind, I probably shouldn't post when I'm drunk.

[PBI]

However, I still think that whatever humans do, it would be a larger threat to ourselves than to the planet. The planet has been through stuff much worse than us, keep that in mind. And you are right that the planet has not has seen industrialization in the past, and you could say I am underestimating human capabilities, yet when we are long gone (how many years? 200, 2000, 20.000 perhaps?) the planet is perfectly capable of healing itself.

I have no doubt the planet is capable of healing itself on a geological timescale, but I am of the opinion that if we think we may be on course to sending it seriously out of whack on a human timescale we probably ought to do something about it. Whether the planet would be capable of healing itself after the human race is dead and gone and done messing with it is not of much concern to me, whether the future world will be a place my children and grandchildren will be able to live in is.

That's what nature is, isn't it? We can never control it.

That all depends on what we mean by "nature" and "control". As a scientific realist I would strongly disagree with any suggestion that we can never understand nature, at least without justification. But certainly there is a big difference between "control" and "affect". You can affect a bee's nest by whacking it with a stick, but that doesn't mean you control it.

[Tribesman]

Climate change ??????
Where the are the swallows this summer?

[LittleGrizzly]

I would like to exclusively blame the welsh rain filled summer on CO2, everyone who visits this forum contributes in thier own small way, so here's to you!

(now where is that middle finger emoticon...)

[m52nickerson]

University of Guelph

MIT Professor

Some articles from PhD's here.

Vast majority of engineers and earth scientists in survey disagree on consensus

Consensus?

I agree that some scientists know more than us. I would also say that not only does alarmism suppress alternate beliefs, but that some people are seeking a conclusion that they already have in mind, and not from an impartial standpoint.

The first two are attacking the Kyoto protocol, so they start with a bias.

The third talks about earth scientist and engineers. Does not speak to if they have doe research in the field of climate change, or have even read any of the studies done.

The third has some 9000 PHDs again not saying in what the PHD is in or if that person holding the PHD is up-to-date with all the information.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The first two are attacking the Kyoto protocol, so they start with a bias.

They're attacking the Kyoto Protocol for a very good reason. As I recall, the IPCC snuck out a (very quiet) retraction. They're still both scientists, and just wait until I dismiss any pro-alarmist stuff as biased - because that's what a lot of it seems to be, especially after the IPCC was caught out with those graphs.

[Viking]

I have no doubt the planet is capable of healing itself on a geological timescale, but I am of the opinion that if we think we may be on course to sending it seriously out of whack on a human timescale we probably ought to do something about it. Whether the planet would be capable of healing itself after the human race is dead and gone and done messing with it is not of much concern to me, whether the future world will be a place my children and grandchildren will be able to live in is.


That all depends on what we mean by "nature" and "control". As a scientific realist I would strongly disagree with any suggestion that we can never understand nature, at least without justification. But certainly there is a big difference between "control" and "affect". You can affect a bee's nest by whacking it with a stick, but that doesn't mean you control it.

Amen to all of that, saved me from some serious typing.

[ajaxfetish]

However, as I said before, I do not regard it as it having a serious impact on the geological timescale.

And what on God's green earth does the geological timescale matter to us? I agree with you that 'Save Ourselves' would be a much more accurate catchphrase than 'Save the Planet.' I suppose it just doesn't have a sufficiently heroic ring to it to catch on. In the end, the entirety of the issue is whether we can affect or are affecting the planet in such a way as will improve or worsen our species' chances for survival and quality of life.

Ajax

[Meneldil]

Usually a safe bet.

That's totally unrelated to the main topic, and probably deserve a thread of its own, but actually (and I'm serious), I can't think of any good thing the right brought to humanity.

[JR-]

200 years of unparalleled economic growth with has lifted billions out of poverty?

[PBI]

200 years of unparalleled economic growth with has lifted billions out of poverty?

Actually I prefer to give science the credit for that. Aren't scientists supposed to be a bunch of lefties?

[JR-]

i was being a little tongue-in-cheek with that comment. personally i believe that engineers and not politicians are responsible for most significant advances in human civilisation.

[LittleGrizzly]

That's totally unrelated to the main topic, and probably deserve a thread of its own, but actually (and I'm serious), I can't think of any good thing the right brought to humanity.

Well Bush has personally contributed some classic material for comedians

[Fragony]

Now can somebody please explain me why temperatures haven't been on the rise for 10 years despite the rapid development of China and India as industrial superpowers who don't exactly produce their stuff enviroment-friendly? That doesn't make sense. Eco-nostra just keeps repeating repeating, treat it as a fact and people will eventually believe it. It's a hoax, it's all about money.

[PBI]

Thing is Frag, it really doesn't matter what you think about global temperature change because it's a scientific issue, not a social one, and thus not open to public debate. Similarly, when the LHC begins operation this autumn the experimentalists at CERN will not be beating a path to your door to ask you what energy range they should begin searching in.

The question of what, if anything, we should do about climate change, is open for debate. Many people seem to have decided that they could not give a crap about climate change, which is fair enough. What I do not understand is why if people are happy with that they feel the need to try to crowbar the science post-facto into justifying their decision. To me it reeks of a guilty conscience.

But hey, don't ask me, I'm clearly in on the conspiracy.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thing is Frag, it really doesn't matter what you think about global temperature change because it's a scientific issue, not a social one, and thus not open to public debate.

This assertion reminds me of a joke my biology professor used to introduce his first lecture:

Science is Truth; don't be misled by facts.

Of course science is open to public debate. Debate is precisely the lifeblood of science, where informed (not necessarily purely scientific) opinions mull over the evidence and produce a consensus (hypothesis) that can then be tested.

There is a comprehensive consensus about the occurrence of global warming based on much evidence. It is rare to find a dissenting voice. Where there is much less of a consensus is on the cause of this warming - natural or man-made or what proportion of both, if either. There is almost no consensus on how to solve this warming, if indeed it needs to be "solved".

The truly difficult part for scientists is that the hypotheses are very difficult to verify, because we don't have the time, observation ability (ie the model is extremely complex) and most especially because we don't have a control experiment.

As my professor was intimating in his introduction, what is also difficult for many scientists is to admit that we don't have all the answers, all the time.

[JR-]

There is a comprehensive consensus about the occurrence of global warming based on much evidence. It is rare to find a dissenting voice. Where there is much less of a consensus is on the cause of this warming - natural or man-made or what proportion of both, if either. There is almost no consensus on how to solve this warming, if indeed it needs to be "solved".

to take it a stage further; where it is truly difficult is stand with hand on heart and state, given the uncertain nature of our understanding of climate, that it is worth pouring a significant amount of the worlds future economic growth into trying to reverse a phenomenon that may be 98% natural.

do we really know that the human outcome will be better with kyoto than spending a tenth as much mitigating the effects of global warming............., especially given that industrial powerhouses like india and china will take no part in the coming 'revolution'?

right now, i would rather spend a trillion building sanitation, housing, and flood defences than screwing over UK economic growth for the next century.

[rory_20_uk]

An incoming asteriod might be natural, but if there was a way of preventing it, I'm all for it, especially if it naturally wipes off 98% of all life on earth again.

I don't think that reducing emissions will inevitably destroy growth. I think that such things as our appalling education system are doing a far better job of that, as is our lack of a work ethic (look at the 1970's for a much more extreme example).

[JR-]

one swift look at the disgrace that is kyoto tells me it would cost britain a great, and india and china nothing.

so it would slow our economic growth while doing piss all to halt global warming........... on the assumption that enough global warming is anthropogenic for us to have a chance to effect change upon.

[Fragony]

Thing is Frag, it really doesn't matter what you think about global temperature change because it's a scientific issue, not a social one, and thus not open to public debate. Similarly, when the LHC begins operation this autumn the experimentalists at CERN will not be beating a path to your door to ask you what energy range they should begin searching in.

The question of what, if anything, we should do about climate change, is open for debate. Many people seem to have decided that they could not give a crap about climate change, which is fair enough. What I do not understand is why if people are happy with that they feel the need to try to crowbar the science post-facto into justifying their decision. To me it reeks of a guilty conscience.

But hey, don't ask me, I'm clearly in on the conspiracy.

It is a fact that temperatures aren't rising, haven't been on the rise for 10 years. Say what you want about Bush, but unlike global warming terrorism actually exists, how is that for scare tactics.

[PBI]

Debate is precisely the lifeblood of science, where informed (not necessarily purely scientific) opinions mull over the evidence and produce a consensus (hypothesis) that can then be tested.

On the contrary, I would argue that the whole problem with the climate change issue is that it has been so muddied by people arguing from political, rather than scientific, positions, especially when people extend their political views to form an opinion on the science itself. Left wingers support the theory because it gives them an excuse to clamour for the demise of big business regardless of whether that would truly help. Right wingers oppose it because it contradicts their mantra that all economic growth is good. This is fair enough when we are dicussing what we should do about climate change (which is a political question) but not when we are discussing the science itself. My original assertion was perhaps too strong, I posted unwisely and in annoyance at Fragony's facetious remarks, but I maintain that letting political ideology influence scientific theory is a recipe for disaster.

Where there is much less of a consensus is on the cause of this warming - natural or man-made or what proportion of both, if either.

If we are waiting for 100% approval before we can accept a scientific theory as valid we will be waiting forever. However this issue is still not as controversial as it is often made out ot be in the non-scientific media. I am not aware of any major scientific publication or professional organization which disagrees with the conclusions of the IPCC. Yes, there are dissenting opinions among individual scientists and research groups, that is normal and healthy but it is certainly not a reason to overturn the prevailing theory until they can verify their claims. Certainly to accept uncritically the assertions of the fringe groups seems like lunacy and I can think of no reason why people do so other than political ideology.

There is almost no consensus on how to solve this warming, if indeed it needs to be "solved".

On this we are in complete agreement.

As my professor was intimating in his introduction, what is also difficult for many scientists is to admit that we don't have all the answers, all the time.

I would go further than that. The difficult thing, both for scientists to admit and the public to accept, is that science does not deal in certainties at all, it deals in probabilities. There is always an uncertainty, there is always dissent, which is precisely why it is such a good method for finding out about the natural world, but at some point we have to come down on one side or the other. As I say, if we reject every theory that doesn't recieve 100% approval we would never get anything done.

It is a fact that temperatures aren't rising, haven't been on the rise for 10 years.

Link?

[JR-]

On the contrary, I would argue that the whole problem with the climate change issue is that it has been so muddied by people arguing from political, rather than scientific, positions, especially when people extend their political views to form an opinion on the science itself.

maybe that is the fault of climate scientists for advocating political policy, Hansen would be a prime suspect.

[Fragony]

Link?

Here is one; http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0501/p25s01-wogi.html

This one says seven years, no rise in 7 years. Now is it just me or is that a bit, well odd, I mean with China and India joining the industrial giants. Maybe it is all bull. Yes it is most definatily bull, the only thing that is on the rise is taxes. Of all these new taxes 98% goes directly to the treasury, only 2% goes to the enviroment. At least here in the Netherlands.

[m52nickerson]

Here is one; http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0501/p25s01-wogi.html

This one says seven years, no rise in 7 years. Now is it just me or is that a bit, well odd, I mean with China and India joining the industrial giants. Maybe it is all bull. Yes it is most definatily bull, the only thing that is on the rise is taxes. Of all these new taxes 98% goes directly to the treasury, only 2% goes to the enviroment. At least here in the Netherlands.

One link from a site that also thinks evolution is a lie also proves it!

Science is open to debate, just by those people who have done the research and read the per-reviewed article. Not really by the general public.

[Fragony]

One link from a site that also thinks evolution is a lie also proves it!

Science is open to debate, just by those people who have done the research and read the per-reviewed article. Not really by the general public.

Contact your local weather station. Temperatures aren't rising, sorry about your science must have been tough.