|
A few weeks ago I read about a study about the health costs of climate change. It was done by people at the NRDC, (bias?) UC Berkley and UC San Fran. and I believe it was funded by the NRDC.
Here's an article about it. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/08/news/la-heb-health-costs-climate-change-20111108
They calculated climate change related health costs to be $14 billion during the last decade. The way they got that number is by choosing 6 "extreme weather events" and added up all the health costs associated with the events. 95% of the health costs were attributed to premature deaths. They gave each premature death a health cost of "$7.8 million."
So as far as I can tell, their "study" on the health costs of climate change involved randomly picking 6 weather catastrophes, adding up all the people that died during those 6 catastrophes, and multiplying that number by $7.8 million. That got them 95% of the way to their answer.
My question is am I supposed to take that seriously? Is that really science if I could have come up with that with a calculator and some wikipedia data? This is put out there in the media and let's be honest, how many people are going to bother to look up their methodology instead of just reading the "$14 billion cost" and moving on?
|
On December 13 2011 07:08 dabbeljuh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 08:11 bonse wrote:
Climate "changes" happened all the time throughout the earth's existence. More exactly, climate was never static, being constantly influenced by a myriad of factors like sun's activity, biomass and so on. There were ice ages and hot ages alternating all the time. To believe that humanity has more influence on the atmosphere than the sun, the oceans, the forests... that's quite a lot of arrogance. Let's face it guys, we are pretty much insignificant.
You tell me, what percentage of CO2 released daily in atmosphere comes from natural causes? see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/the carbon cycle has been in equilibrium for millenia. now we emit a lot of co2. if you do the math and add all sources and all sinks of co2 you will see that at the moment we are in a plus that leads to the increase in concentration. this increase matches athropogenic co2 exactly. relative simple math compared to other effects in this discussion 
Actually the link you gave me (doesn't answer what I asked and) disprove everything you say. In the link it says that the measurements of CO2 in Hawaii rose over the last 50 years.
But, do you realize that Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean?? You know how far it is from any big source of human CO2 emmission (big city or industrial zone)?? If humans in Los Angeles (for example) were to effect the change in CO2, the measurement in LA should be hundreds of times bigger than in Hawaii (of course this is not the case).
If you go through the numbers they provide, is says that in 1993 there was the lowest concentration of CO2 in about 40 years. In 1999 the CO2 % was 3 times smaller than the year before. What happened, humans stopped everything (production, cars, breathing) on a 8,000 Km radius?
This proves more than anything that the CO2 rise is not caused by humans.
Even more, there are several greenhouse gasses, out of which 95% is water vapor. If you do the numbers, humanity's contribution to the greenhouse gases is only 0.28% !!! If you believe that those 0.28% can decide in which way the warming will go, than that's (a very unscientific) leap of faith.
|
I would suggest everyone watches this series about climate change myths made by a reputable journalist. He gives every single source he uses, everything he says is confirmable by you yourself.
+ Show Spoiler +
It might also be a good idea to include this in the OP.
|
On December 13 2011 21:07 bonse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 07:08 dabbeljuh wrote:On December 13 2011 08:11 bonse wrote:
Climate "changes" happened all the time throughout the earth's existence. More exactly, climate was never static, being constantly influenced by a myriad of factors like sun's activity, biomass and so on. There were ice ages and hot ages alternating all the time. To believe that humanity has more influence on the atmosphere than the sun, the oceans, the forests... that's quite a lot of arrogance. Let's face it guys, we are pretty much insignificant.
You tell me, what percentage of CO2 released daily in atmosphere comes from natural causes? see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/the carbon cycle has been in equilibrium for millenia. now we emit a lot of co2. if you do the math and add all sources and all sinks of co2 you will see that at the moment we are in a plus that leads to the increase in concentration. this increase matches athropogenic co2 exactly. relative simple math compared to other effects in this discussion Actually the link you gave me (doesn't answer what I asked and) disprove everything you say. In the link it says that the measurements of CO2 in Hawaii rose over the last 50 years. But, do you realize that Hawaii is in the middle of the ocean?? You know how far it is from any big source of human CO2 emmission (big city or industrial zone)?? If humans in Los Angeles (for example) were to effect the change in CO2, the measurement in LA should be hundreds of times bigger than in Hawaii (of course this is not the case). If you go through the numbers they provide, is says that in 1993 there was the lowest concentration of CO2 in about 40 years. In 1999 the CO2 % was 3 times smaller than the year before. What happened, humans stopped everything (production, cars, breathing) on a 8,000 Km radius? This proves more than anything that the CO2 rise is not caused by humans. Even more, there are several greenhouse gasses, out of which 95% is water vapor. If you do the numbers, humanity's contribution to the greenhouse gases is only 0.28% !!! If you believe that those 0.28% can decide in which way the warming will go, than that's (a very unscientific) leap of faith.
just a quick lunch break post: I am sorry but the conclusions you do are completely wrong and might be misleading to others, please analyse the given data a little bit more carefully before saying something like "This proves more than anything that the CO2 rise is not caused by humans"
Yes, I realize that Hawai is in the ocean.
Yes, I know that is far from big sources of human CO2.
This is, however, exactly the reason the hawai Co2 record is used BECAUSE CO2 is a well mixed gas, it is mostly homogenous around the world. The record @ Hawai is NOT perturbed by local emissions, instead it gives a very nice overview of yearly fluctuations. Your Los Angeles / Hawai example is therefore deeply flawed.
The rest of your post is a wrong interpretation of basic facts.
1993 (year after Pinatubo, why are you talking about 1999? which is btw the year after the strongest El Nino ever ~) was the lowest Growth rate, not the lowest concentration. The Growth rate fluctuates stronger than the concentration but its always positive so we always have growing concentrations. the analysis of CO2 growth rate is complicated and interesting in itself.
Your conclusions that this single plot proves anything concerning the human influence is plainly wrong, it is just a measurement of CO2 concentration, nothing more. Human influence is determined by Detection and Attribution studies as mentioned earlier in this post.
|
On December 13 2011 17:03 BlackJack wrote:A few weeks ago I read about a study about the health costs of climate change. It was done by people at the NRDC, (bias?) UC Berkley and UC San Fran. and I believe it was funded by the NRDC. Here's an article about it. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/08/news/la-heb-health-costs-climate-change-20111108They calculated climate change related health costs to be $14 billion during the last decade. The way they got that number is by choosing 6 "extreme weather events" and added up all the health costs associated with the events. 95% of the health costs were attributed to premature deaths. They gave each premature death a health cost of "$7.8 million." So as far as I can tell, their "study" on the health costs of climate change involved randomly picking 6 weather catastrophes, adding up all the people that died during those 6 catastrophes, and multiplying that number by $7.8 million. That got them 95% of the way to their answer. My question is am I supposed to take that seriously? Is that really science if I could have come up with that with a calculator and some wikipedia data? This is put out there in the media and let's be honest, how many people are going to bother to look up their methodology instead of just reading the "$14 billion cost" and moving on?
I do not check all climate change related follow-up research and I dont have the time to analyse the six specific extreme events.
I agree, though, that is useful to be careful of extreme papers, in both directions. The social consequences of weather related events are very hard to model and judge.
|
On December 13 2011 13:54 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 12:23 slytown wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 11:14 Probulous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 11:00 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote:
Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress. Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas The effect is not minimal. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htmnot to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. Not tue. Please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmI know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail. Finally The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics? We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual. So the point is moot then. Saying the data cannot be falsified does not mean the data is false or the theory is incorrect. It is just that is cannot be proven. Moot. The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned:
From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare. As has been explained above there is a lag between C02 and temps. More importantly picking an choosing time scales to prove cooling or warming in a dynamic system such as the climate is nonsense. The long term data shows significant warming. Yes, the climate is variable, hence why you look at long term trends. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htmTroposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.) Can you explain your point here a little more. Are you saying that the models are wrong, or that clouds are too blame? I am not quite following your point. Sorry. Maybe this helps http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htmIf you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity. Relevance? Are you saying we can adapt easily? A little info for you http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htmHumans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect. Are you saying that we are not having a significant effect? http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htmThe last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Please explain this a little further. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move. Relevance? So it is political, so is economics but you don't see people complaining about their use of models. Or better yet, the political influence of economics. This is not about politics, it is about science. + Show Spoiler +EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland Finally, I know my rebuttals have come from SkepticalScience. Again it is because these arguments have been explained much better by actual scientists, than by myself. Hence I defer to them. 1. I don't think you understand what falsifiability means. I'm saying there is no "proven" in scientific theory and for climate alarmists to say "it's been proven" negate the underlying principle of sound science, which is falsifiability. What comes from organizations like the IPCC, which is not an academic institution or standardizing body, is not falsifiable because it does not answer to the academic community but it answers to the politicos. 2. You sight "picking and choosing" and "long term data" but I gave specific time periods that indicate natural warming and cooling. What I get from the academic community is that we don't know the actual average temperature change regarding human CO2 emissions, but what we do know is that human CO2's effect globally on temp is negligible. 3. Yes. Clouds have an effect relative to the troposphere because water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2. If greenhouse gases (including CO2) were warming, then the troposphere during the hockey stick rise would have a greater warming than below, but, however, the weather balloon data says the troposphere has had a much smaller warming effect than below it. So yes, the IPCC data is skewed because it uses computer models instead. 4. We have a local effect, as the OP mentioned was called the Urban Island heat island (which can be a cooling effect as well.) But, to the theory humans produce CO2 that causes catastrophic GLOBAL warming is false. 5. The relevance of Thatcher to the IPCC is that she was a proponent of nuclear power and the dwindling of the coal industry because she wanted to (and this is pretty common knowledge in the UK) reduce the power of the workers and the unions. What better way to minimize the PR and power of the miners than say they are contributing to global disaster. I think you should use a better variety of sources than just skepticalscience.com.
well, thanks for the detailed post. I am sorry that my answer will probably be not detailed enough to convince you in all points, but bear with me
1. I dont agree. IPCC is not producing science, it is condensing and assessing actual papers. No single sentence in an IPCC report can be in, if there is not a supporting peer-reviewed paper anywhere (for working group I at least). This means your differentiation of IPCC and science is wrong. What the political body, the UNFCCC convention of parties does with the results is free of scientific ratio, its just politics, see Durban.
2. Your perception is wrong ( or very different from everything I saw on many international conferences during the last years), the academic community knows a few things very very certain:
a) it has been warming and we do not know of any mechanism that could have caused that 20century warming besides CO2.
b) it is far from negligible. The direct response of the climate system to a doubling of CO2 (from 280parts per million to 560 parts per million, still much less then water vapor!) is believed to be around 1-1.5 degrees, which is significant. Together with follow-up feedbacks (water vapor, vegetation, sea ice, ice, clouds) the climate sensitivity is around 3-4 degrees per doubling of CO2.
3. The upper troposhere trend discussion (UTT): this is a very important point. There have been serious papers in the past that models get things wrong in the upper troposphere with respect to data. There have also been serious papers that say that these differences are not statistically significant, and vice versa. This discussion is ongoing, and the forthcoming IPCC report will state, that the representation of UTT in some of the models used for IPCC AR5 is not perfectly understood nor satisfying. This does not change the overall picture, though, contrary to Sceptic arguments who claim that a single error in some type of model does not invalidate all other lines of evidence. We are aware of this problem and it is discussed in detail in the scientific literature.
4. Urban heat island effect is small and is not influencing any of the global reconstructions, as has been demonstrated by a whole lot of different studies.
5. I must admit, I am at a loss here. What is your point? One government, in one country, in one period of time was influenced by a certain agenda? Agreed. Does that change anything that is the result of a multi decadal, multinational, multigovernmental scientific endeavour? I doubt that.
If you have more questions, please ask, I will be back tonight!
|
On December 13 2011 17:03 BlackJack wrote:
So as far as I can tell, their "study" on the health costs of climate change involved randomly picking 6 weather catastrophes, adding up all the people that died during those 6 catastrophes, and multiplying that number by $7.8 million. That got them 95% of the way to their answer.
Have you read the study?
|
Missed a related discussion already in place, so i'll put it in spoilers:
+ Show Spoiler +A problem in the debate is that it looks like the popular scientific communities working on it all look for confirmation of it.
That's a method at risk for confirmation biases, and the best way to test hypotheses is to look for falsification, not confirmation.
Another problem is that you can't replicate the effects of such a complex environment properly, there might aswell be a source of warming that just hasn't been identified yet (we still don't know what's going on in the nucleus of the earth although models try to simulate it).
What we see is CO2-increase and warmth increase, that's a correlation, but the causation theory can't be fully confirmed yet?
An ideal example:
If someone was able to take a part of the world which really measures global warming and CO2 increase free from local influences, sum up all the known possible effects, estimating the error component, and trying to replicate that data in a closed experimental environment (for instance a computer simulation, the expensive way i guess) obtaining similar similar results, then you would have a confirmation.
Significant differences however would be the real deal here, cause they would falsify the current theory and imply that there is another factor unrecognized.
Also, it's scary how nations get pressured in order to create countermeasures when the whole debate is still not finished, imo there are strong lobbies in play, and money can corrupt sources.
|
Has the whole increased sun activity theory been debunked or am I just misinformed?
|
It's really hard not to be skeptical about it when it all started with a Al Gore movie, full of bullshit...
Do you guys even see how many fakes statistics were used in the last 10 years?
In the end, i'm not denying the idea of it, I just can't fully believe yet. Actually, by following both side, I have read more logical and proven arguments against it than for it. And many utterly stupid one for it, and less against it.
I'm not a scientist, but many of my close friends actually are. Two of them believe in global warming like christian belive in the bible, and they actually argue the same way when they argue with another of my friend. I thing it's a big part of it, too, the fact that arguing with a believer is like arguing with a christian.
In the end, I hope global warming is a hoax, since I don't see the humanity being able to stop it if it's true.
If it's indeed true, I hope that we can prove it without doubt soon, because it's really not the case right now.
|
If it's indeed true, I hope that we can prove it without doubt soon, because it's really not the case right now. It's already been accepted by the scientific community, what more proof do you want?
The only reason naysayers exist is because accepting the truth would mean gigantic economic losses. These naysayers are only doing so because it protects their own interests and by the time the effects of global warming will be significant, they will be dead or of old age.
My children, and to a lesser extent my generation will be stuck with the effects while all the current politicians will be dead.
Humans like to hide from their problems.
|
How much impact does modern livestock farming have? Deforestation, methan gas, polluting of freshwater, etc?
|
On December 13 2011 22:42 Xalorian wrote:
It's really hard not to be skeptical about it when it all started with a Al Gore movie, full of bullshit...
Do you guys even see how many fakes statistics were used in the last 10 years?
In the end, i'm not denying the idea of it, I just can't fully believe yet. Actually, by following both side, I have read more logical and proven arguments against it than for it. And many utterly stupid one for it, and less against it.
I'm not a scientist, but many of my close friends actually are. Two of them believe in global warming like christian belive in the bible, and they actually argue the same way when they argue with another of my friend. I thing it's a big part of it, too, the fact that arguing with a believer is like arguing with a christian.
In the end, I hope global warming is a hoax, since I don't see the humanity being able to stop it if it's true.
If it's indeed true, I hope that we can prove it without doubt soon, because it's really not the case right now.
Argumentum ad hominem, affirming the consequent, straw man, and some false statements, nice!
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On December 13 2011 22:42 Xalorian wrote:
It's really hard not to be skeptical about it when it all started with a Al Gore movie, full of bullshit...
Do you guys even see how many fakes statistics were used in the last 10 years?
In the end, i'm not denying the idea of it, I just can't fully believe yet. Actually, by following both side, I have read more logical and proven arguments against it than for it. And many utterly stupid one for it, and less against it.
I'm not a scientist, but many of my close friends actually are. Two of them believe in global warming like christian belive in the bible, and they actually argue the same way when they argue with another of my friend. I thing it's a big part of it, too, the fact that arguing with a believer is like arguing with a christian.
In the end, I hope global warming is a hoax, since I don't see the humanity being able to stop it if it's true.
If it's indeed true, I hope that we can prove it without doubt soon, because it's really not the case right now.
Global warming has been known about long before Al Gore made a fairly bad film about it. An example is Cosmos, released in 1980, in which Carl Sagan talks about man made climate change. Although at that point scientists weren't sure whether the Earth would warm up or cool down in a much less extreme Day After Tomorrow fashion. I'd also make the point that because a politician makes a bad point about science doesn't make the science wrong.
As for the comparison with religion it doesn't really hold because there is a mountain of evidence showing that man made global warming is happening.
|
On December 13 2011 22:42 Xalorian wrote:
It's really hard not to be skeptical about it when it all started with a Al Gore movie, full of bullshit...
Do you guys even see how many fakes statistics were used in the last 10 years?
In the end, i'm not denying the idea of it, I just can't fully believe yet. Actually, by following both side, I have read more logical and proven arguments against it than for it. And many utterly stupid one for it, and less against it.
I'm not a scientist, but many of my close friends actually are. Two of them believe in global warming like christian belive in the bible, and they actually argue the same way when they argue with another of my friend. I thing it's a big part of it, too, the fact that arguing with a believer is like arguing with a christian.
In the end, I hope global warming is a hoax, since I don't see the humanity being able to stop it if it's true.
If it's indeed true, I hope that we can prove it without doubt soon, because it's really not the case right now.
I can't even read past your first sentence...
Started? Really?
|
You sir are a hero!
Global warming and polution are real, if you don't believe it just go to Asia and see for yourselft, thecitys, the lakes, the rivers everything is poluted.
What europe should do (since europe ratified the Kyoto Protocol) is have a big tax over everything that comes from a country that didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
We pay and try and enforce a better world for us and for others but they don't ratify it?
USA and China the two biggest polution emitters in the world..
These countrys are a disgrace to our world..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
|
On December 13 2011 15:19 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 13:54 slytown wrote:On December 13 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 12:23 slytown wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 11:14 Probulous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 11:00 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote:
Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress. Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas The effect is not minimal. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htmnot to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. Not tue. Please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmI know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail. Finally The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics? We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual. So the point is moot then. Saying the data cannot be falsified does not mean the data is false or the theory is incorrect. It is just that is cannot be proven. Moot. The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned:
From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare. As has been explained above there is a lag between C02 and temps. More importantly picking an choosing time scales to prove cooling or warming in a dynamic system such as the climate is nonsense. The long term data shows significant warming. Yes, the climate is variable, hence why you look at long term trends. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htmTroposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.) Can you explain your point here a little more. Are you saying that the models are wrong, or that clouds are too blame? I am not quite following your point. Sorry. Maybe this helps http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htmIf you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity. Relevance? Are you saying we can adapt easily? A little info for you http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htmHumans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect. Are you saying that we are not having a significant effect? http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htmThe last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Please explain this a little further. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move. Relevance? So it is political, so is economics but you don't see people complaining about their use of models. Or better yet, the political influence of economics. This is not about politics, it is about science. + Show Spoiler +EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland Finally, I know my rebuttals have come from SkepticalScience. Again it is because these arguments have been explained much better by actual scientists, than by myself. Hence I defer to them. 1. I don't think you understand what falsifiability means. I'm saying there is no "proven" in scientific theory and for climate alarmists to say "it's been proven" negate the underlying principle of sound science, which is falsifiability. What comes from organizations like the IPCC, which is not an academic institution or standardizing body, is not falsifiable because it does not answer to the academic community but it answers to the politicos. I've never understood why non-philosophers, especially scientists, remain so high on Popper's theory of science. Sure, falsifiability sounds like a nice, tidy explanation of why Freud is bullshit and science isn't, or of why people are afraid of string theory, but any attempt to get explicit on what falsification consists in results in more problems than revelations. And as for the empirical claim that science actually generally advances by processes of falsification, that's been more or less completely refuted by the likes of Kuhn and Lakatos. And that's not even to bring up how deeply skeptical Popper's views are when you look closely at them (way more skeptical than what's typically taken to be healthy scientific skepticism). Anyway, Popper was a good philosopher but he was wrong and we've progressed in our understanding of science a lot since his day. I hope one day pop science culture catches up.
Do actual scientists? I'm not sure. I know that BSc 'scientists' do, but perhaps that's because undergraduates are taught imprecisely and falsification is (a) simple and (b) better than nothing?
|
On December 14 2011 00:11 ikl2 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 15:19 frogrubdown wrote:On December 13 2011 13:54 slytown wrote:On December 13 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 12:23 slytown wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 11:14 Probulous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2011 11:00 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 09:56 Suisen wrote:
Climate change deniers are not deniers because of scientific understanding or arguments. They don't hold their position because they think the evidence dictates to them that that is the position to take. Therefore, it is not possible to change their mind with scientific arguments or proper evidence. In that respect they are alike to creationists. It won't matter what you say
Difference between creationists and cc deniers is that you can't attack their ideology because they just think nothing happens. If you argue a creationist what you do is attack their view of creationism where it is most silly.
Best thing you can do is call them idiots and leave them. Even if they are members of US congress. Some are, that's true. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas, not to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. Alright, I think we need to deal with this completely because if true then there really is a problem. But, those deniers I associate with are skeptical because the establishment's evidence is not falsifiable or analyzed correctly It is impossible to falsify the evidence because you cannot setup an experiment that would falsify the data. How do you prove that C02 is responsible for the warming? The only way to 100% prove it would be to create two identical worlds with varying concentrations of C02. Of course this is not possible so any evidence is going to be less than 100% certain. How do you prove the link? At some point who have to accept that the evidence is sufficient. The establishment denies how minimal an affect CO2 has as a greenhouse gas The effect is not minimal. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htmnot to mention the fact that atmoshpheric samples dating back thousands of years show a distinct correlation between the sun's activity and earth temperature variance. Not tue. Please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htmI know I keep quoting SkepticalScience, but that is because they specifically deal with these arguments. There is a very useful link on their site entitled Global Warming & Climate Change Myths which goes through these arguments in detail. Finally The first phase of skepticism is often thorugh recognizing the beneficiaries (research funding for a small climatology field, politicians, the new green industry, etc.) and the second phase is putting the evidence in the right context. This is true for everyone in this debate. Everybody has an interest and you are correct that people stand to gain and lose if we take action. The question is, who gains more and who loses more. Then you look at the data and arguments put forward and make a decision. Focusing on funding for one side of the debate is disingenious and misleading. Who is funding the skeptics? We shouldn't debate semantics or rhetoric, but I should point out there is not 100% proven in science. There is falsifiability and intellectual honesty. There is bias in every popular and academic article written on climate change. Any theory, whether in climate science, physics, or history, is never settled but merely historically contextual. So the point is moot then. Saying the data cannot be falsified does not mean the data is false or the theory is incorrect. It is just that is cannot be proven. Moot. The evidence is heretofore, as I understand it from the sources mentioned:
From 1940 to 1975, when industrialization had a boom period there was a cooling period that coincided with a public scare. As has been explained above there is a lag between C02 and temps. More importantly picking an choosing time scales to prove cooling or warming in a dynamic system such as the climate is nonsense. The long term data shows significant warming. Yes, the climate is variable, hence why you look at long term trends. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htmTroposphere temps should rise to a greater effect from greenhouse gasses, when in fact its temp over the last hundred years has risen less than near the surface (beneath the clouds.) Can you explain your point here a little more. Are you saying that the models are wrong, or that clouds are too blame? I am not quite following your point. Sorry. Maybe this helps http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htmIf you look at the history of warming periods they actually coincided with human and wildlife prosperity. Relevance? Are you saying we can adapt easily? A little info for you http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htmHumans are of the smallest contributors to CO2, 6.5 megatons. Oceans produce the most and plants and animals produce 150 megatons. How much the ocean emits OR ABSORBS depends on temp. There is about a 100 year lag for the oceans' CO2 cycle to take effect. Are you saying that we are not having a significant effect? http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htmThe last time the earth's climate wasn't variable was about 4 billion years ago. Over that context, the Earth has remained relatively stable but varied enough that living things have adapted. Consider the Medievil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Please explain this a little further. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The IPCC gained significant support from Margaret Thatcher in the wake of the miner's strike, a distinctively political move. Relevance? So it is political, so is economics but you don't see people complaining about their use of models. Or better yet, the political influence of economics. This is not about politics, it is about science. + Show Spoiler +EPICA and Vostok ice core data; Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but now a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster; Bob Carter, adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory for James Cook University at Queensland Finally, I know my rebuttals have come from SkepticalScience. Again it is because these arguments have been explained much better by actual scientists, than by myself. Hence I defer to them. 1. I don't think you understand what falsifiability means. I'm saying there is no "proven" in scientific theory and for climate alarmists to say "it's been proven" negate the underlying principle of sound science, which is falsifiability. What comes from organizations like the IPCC, which is not an academic institution or standardizing body, is not falsifiable because it does not answer to the academic community but it answers to the politicos. I've never understood why non-philosophers, especially scientists, remain so high on Popper's theory of science. Sure, falsifiability sounds like a nice, tidy explanation of why Freud is bullshit and science isn't, or of why people are afraid of string theory, but any attempt to get explicit on what falsification consists in results in more problems than revelations. And as for the empirical claim that science actually generally advances by processes of falsification, that's been more or less completely refuted by the likes of Kuhn and Lakatos. And that's not even to bring up how deeply skeptical Popper's views are when you look closely at them (way more skeptical than what's typically taken to be healthy scientific skepticism). Anyway, Popper was a good philosopher but he was wrong and we've progressed in our understanding of science a lot since his day. I hope one day pop science culture catches up. Do actual scientists? I'm not sure. I know that BSc 'scientists' do, but perhaps that's because undergraduates are taught imprecisely and falsification is (a) simple and (b) better than nothing?
I don't have any statistics on this, but it certainly seems that Popper's is the philosophy of choice for working scientists. I've heard tons of them commit themselves to it casually in person, interviews, blogs, and pop science books. That's obviously not rock solid evidence, but it's still a weird trend.
As for why, yes falsification is simple and better than nothing, but why not just teach them that our evidence gives us a positive reason to believe in scientific theories (it confirms them)? I know that all attempts to provide a precise account of the logic of confirmation have been failures, but I don't think that should be cause to abandon the idea that confirmation is at work at all.
|
I find it funny that almost all of the non-believers are americans and canadians.. does it harm your conscience that two of the worlds biggest, more powerfull and brightest countrys are also the worlds biggest polluters with china and also have the biggest pro-polution lobbyists ?
it would harm mine..
|
For what it's worth, I'm an engineering student at McGill University, and my classes have had several discussions about global warming with our teachers. One being a construction material professor who just said he was skeptical, and after a student started yelling at him, he went to his computer and said why HE believes man is not responsible for global warming and showed us graphs, reports and stuff like. It was interesting, but, from his words, he's no expert in that particular field and he told us to make our own decision, whether to believe in who says what.
One year later, in my geology class, we're going over climate change again and this other prof goes on a tangent about how she thinks us human don't affect global either. She shows us several graphs, one being interesting, where she superpose the cycle of eccentricity of the orbit the Earth, its inclination, its axis 'wobbleness' the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and the average temperature on Earth. The graph clearly showed that the temperature would rise or lower due to the cycles in the orbit of the Earth, which is every 100,000 years ish i believe (don't quote me on this please). Another thing she said was that the average temperature on Earth was around 14.0 +- 0.8 celsius, while the average increase in temperature was 0.6 +- 0.2 celsius, so the 'increase' of temperature was within the margin of errors, so we can hardly conclude there's an alarming increase. Another graph she showed us was how the increase in CO2 was lagging behind the increase of temperature the temperature by 100 years (there is an increase, just within the margin of error). From that graph, what can we say? Is the temperature rising because of an increase in CO2? or is the CO2 levels increasing because of the temperature?
What bothered me during her lecture was that while she did mention her sources (If i remember correctly), they were not in the class notes she posted online afterwards (which are different from her slides), so I couldn't check by myself. I'm not trying to argue whether humans are the cause of global warming or not, but just bringing up what some of my profs said during their lectures and I wondered what were your thoughts on this? Are the things my geo teacher mentioned correct? Or did she came up with this out of thin air (She did mention A LOT of stuff more than what I said, I'm just saying what struck me the most).
On December 14 2011 00:09 shell wrote:
You sir are a hero!
Global warming and polution are real, if you don't believe it just go to Asia and see for yourselft, thecitys, the lakes, the rivers everything is poluted.
What europe should do (since europe ratified the Kyoto Protocol) is have a big tax over everything that comes from a country that didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
We pay and try and enforce a better world for us and for others but they don't ratify it?
USA and China the two biggest polution emitters in the world..
These countrys are a disgrace to our world..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
So if I go to Asia, I will see pollution, from that I should conclude there's global warming due to humans too? Nobody is denying that humans can pollute the Earth, big cities definitely can pollute and have higher temperature compared to the surrounding regions. What is being argued is (I think) is whether humans can pollute to the extend of influencing the WHOLE Earth. FYI, whether the lakes and rivers are polluted or not is really, really, really not a proof of global warming caused by humans. The professors I mentioned do believe there's an increase of temperature at a certain extend, they just don't believe humans are the cause of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
