Way to ignore the dozens of incredibly thought out posts by an expert in the field (the OP). Your sweeping generalization and link are just as valuable though, no doubt.
On December 14 2011 06:01 Thorakh wrote: Naysayers make me so angry, you can't just toy around with the world like that. Unless of course you're a world leader sitting on your piles of cash, laughing because you'll be dead when the effects start to kick in.
We will all be dead when the effects kicks in, also don't think that Naysayers as you call them have no arguments... If cows have more effects on global warming than humans should we kill all the cows? I heard that the sun is the main source of heat we should cool it down a lil bit. Earth radioactivity is also warming up the earth should we change planet? No, all we can do is deal with it because every physic phenomenon affect the earth and that is why there is natural selection, because not everyone can survive in this world as cruel as it may sound.
There is thousand and thousand of africans dying everyday. Why? Because we are reaching the population cap and we cannot feed everybody. The fact is that the human population is skyrocketing since the industrialisation and there is big consequences to this phenomenon. People are going to die and it's no big deal to most of us, but when the so called ''global warming'' appears people are going nuts because it will affect them in 50 years, it just makes no sense to me.
Your argument reminds me of a political cartoon...
I simply can't fathom why there are still skeptics (I hate the term "denialists", it's a political term and this should be a scientific debate). The correct terms should be proponents and skeptics.
That being said, the overwhelming evidence on the side of climate change proponents is staggering (to the point where to say the phenomenon isn't happening is pretty much plugging your ears, closing your eyes and saying "I can't hear you". I don't think there are any qualified people in the field who deny the Earth is warming... perhaps you can shed light on any who still do?). The real debate should be on the degree of human impact driving climate change and the models forecasting what this will mean in the future.
I'd like to talk about the actual skeptics and their theories, particularly Roy Spencer and John Christy. Not only have their views on the subject been proven false by data points but Christy also admits in court that greenhouse gasses are driving climate change (and notes burning fossil fuels as a main contributor). My question is more along the line of why some of these scientists with actual degrees are given any credibility in their fields at this point? Why doesn't the scientific community fight back (for lack of a better term) and expose their peers who are obviously bought and paid for? I realize the science itself isn't too concerned with fighting a political battle and winning public opinion because regardless of opinion, the facts will remain the same. Wouldn't it go a long way to stop having to have the same arguments and debunk the same lies repeatedly if the mouthpieces for the lies had zero credibility?
On December 14 2011 06:01 Thorakh wrote: Naysayers make me so angry, you can't just toy around with the world like that. Unless of course you're a world leader sitting on your piles of cash, laughing because you'll be dead when the effects start to kick in.
We will all be dead when the effects kicks in, also don't think that Naysayers as you call them have no arguments... If cows have more effects on global warming than humans should we kill all the cows? I heard that the sun is the main source of heat we should cool it down a lil bit. Earth radioactivity is also warming up the earth should we change planet? No, all we can do is deal with it because every physic phenomenon affect the earth and that is why there is natural selection, because not everyone can survive in this world as cruel as it may sound.
There is thousand and thousand of africans dying everyday. Why? Because we are reaching the population cap and we cannot feed everybody. The fact is that the human population is skyrocketing since the industrialisation and there is big consequences to this phenomenon. People are going to die and it's no big deal to most of us, but when the so called ''global warming'' appears people are going nuts because it will affect them in 50 years, it just makes no sense to me.
So many misconceptions and myths in one post, it almost seems impossible.
1) If that were true that would be a good starting point. Cows are less important than everything and everyone that is going to dissappear. 2) The sun is not the cause of global warming. 3) Earth radioactivity, what? 4) We can feed and house everyone. 5) It makes no sense to you that people are 'going nuts' because our children will inherit a shitty world because we had too many dollar signs on the place our eyes should be?
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic, what more proof do you want? Why would you rather believe shady people with no credentials who cite some stuff scientists said out of context, show some graphs that are either made up, statistically insignificant or only show a tiny period where a large period would be relevant, yell some stuff about conspiracies that involve money and boom, suddenly everyone is 'convinced' global warming is not real/not manmade.
It's mind boggling really. Here's some food for thought, real food, with credible sources and all:
And regardless, it's better we overdo it than that we don't do anything at all.
Responding to your counter-arguments. 1)I don't know when the effect will kick-in if they eventually kick-in but considering the incapacity to predict meteo 1 day in advance I wouldn't be so sure about a 20 years prediction. 2)I never stated that the sun was the cause of the global warming, but the sun has different cycle which is called the solar cycle and that change the climat of our earth. In fact, the sun surely have more than 1 cycle but the most common has a duration of 11 years, which has an influence on the climat of 0,3 and this is the most common solar cycle. Now if you take in consideration that the other cycles have way bigger change on our climat then the climat change caused by human seems irrevelant. 3)http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/46592.jpeg) as you can see the center of our earth seems pretty hot doesn't it? That's what we call earth radioactivity. 4)Here is a little graph for ya http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Population_curve.svg/300px-Population_curve.svg.png do you still think that in 20 or even 50 years there will be enough food for everyone? 5)I just think that they will inherit a shitty world as we all did.
hi carapas, sorry, but many of your points are mood.
1) there are several types of predictability in complex system, one due to initial condition (weather) that has a strong limit due to chaos (few days). one is boundary condition predicatability, i.e. if you change the forcing radically (switch off sun), Earth would respond quite certaint (would get cold °)
2) dont get that point. the 11 year cycle is in every serious climate model, we have yet to identify any physical quantity that directly follows the 11 year cycle. the longer orbital cycles are well known and studied too, but act on much longer time scales (thousands of years). they play a role for example in the set in of ice ages, but cannot explain the current warming because they are just too slow.
3) connection to climate?
4) I agree that overpopulation is one main DRIVER of the climate problem, Earth would be much more resilient if we would have only 1 billion inhabitants. We dont, we will have 9 quite certaint in a few decades, Earth is very susceptible to changes. I agree that we would have agricultural problems even without climate change. Most scientists believe this will get worse with climate change, you might disagree.
5) agree.
I should redact my sorry, I only disagree with one point
On December 14 2011 07:31 HyperLink wrote: I'd like to talk about the actual skeptics and their theories, particularly Roy Spencer and John Christy. Not only have their views on the subject been proven false by data points but Christy also admits in court that greenhouse gasses are driving climate change (and notes burning fossil fuels as a main contributor). My question is more along the line of why some of these scientists with actual degrees are given any credibility in their fields at this point? Why doesn't the scientific community fight back (for lack of a better term) and expose their peers who are obviously bought and paid for? I realize the science itself isn't too concerned with fighting a political battle and winning public opinion because regardless of opinion, the facts will remain the same. Wouldn't it go a long way to stop having to have the same arguments and debunk the same lies repeatedly if the mouthpieces for the lies had zero credibility?
hi hyperlink,
nice cartoon °
I believe that is impossible to adress these scientists in the community itself. As a result of their weird public argumentations, they tend to publish less. Society (i.e., media) should realize that and not try to give their opinion as equally important as lets say, the National Academies of Science of 20+ Nations.
I believe in the longterm rationality of the people, they will realize whom to trust at some point. hopefully
On December 14 2011 04:58 frogrubdown wrote: This thread has taken a sharp turn toward the ignorant since the OP left. Hopefully he'll return before it becomes a complete waste of time like so many other discussions on this topic.
Actually, it will be a waste of time either way. In fact, even if we were able to convince every single person that ever visits this thread that man-made global warming is real, it would still be a waste of time because there truly isn't a legitimate solution to the problem yet. So long as population increases, so long as more nations industrialize, so long as we don't have a severe global economic depression, CO2 emissions worldwide will simply continue to increase. The real denial is believing government can do anything to stop it.
Hi Liberal,
I will take your post as one representative of all the "it just doesnt matter" posts
It is not true. Climate Change is a global challenge, and we have to try to prevent the powers that be of manipulating us. IF you guys, as educated young people in rich countries dont believe that climate change is happening, there is no change in hell that the governments of 2020 or 2030 will be more rational than now.
It is a fair point to say, you do not see the politicl system to react in time, I partially agree.
I still believe it is our responsibilty to talk about this. We are changing EArth in many ways, Climate Change is one of them. Most are not sustainable. Most of them are bad for us and those that follow us. If humanity wants to claim to be sentient in a global sense, at one point we HAVE to change strategy. This can be government guided, could be consumer based, could be a big ethical swingback, who knows. I just think, everybody should get their facts straight.
I repeat something from my OP: the reaction of society is not the responsibility of science, it is your responsibility, our responsibility as citizens.
In my opinion as citizen: do we like the way Earth is operated right now, in our western, liberal, rich countries?
Im not a denialist by any means, its pretty obvious that climate changes are happening. However, I do believe that the amount of funds that we currently use to reduce emissions is way way too high, compared to what we spend on solving other problems (Koyoto countries = ~1% of BNP for all of them, some more, some less every year). Would it not be benificial to spend way more money on research in green technology (Wind power, Solar panels, particle filters etc) instead of spending insane amounts of money on the inefficient and very costly practical solutions we have available today? The funds that every year goes into complying with the Koyoto agreement, could solve world hunger and provide basic education for every child on the planet (Lomborg), while the Koyoto agreement it self dosn't have a very big impact on the climate.
Basicly: We could do alot more good with the money that we are currently spending on applying inefficient solutions to the complicated problem that is global warming. Spend more money on research in the field, and spend the rest of the money on problems that we actually know how to fix right now (Hunger, sanitation, diseases, education) - The cost would be about the same.
I would like to know your thoughts
hi ela,
while there are big difficulties to distinguish which generation should take the burden of paying for climate change adaptaton or mitigation (because those generations before us wont °), I would not simply believe Lomborg but look also in reports like the Stern report. Some parts of the money that go into the Kyoto protocol , namely into the Clean Development MEchanism (the method to spend money in developing countires to save emissions in rich countries), go into things like poverty control, or have at least one part in this, so I see that this "Green" money is also trying to accomodate social questions (see gold label http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/)
Still, I believe it is clear, that equity, hunger, poverty and climate change adaptation / mitigation are intrinsically linked. I suggest you have a look at the Working Groups II and III of the IPCC to find more information on that, I am not an expert, so I cannot link you to more specific literature.
One last thing: the Kyoto Protocol is a political result, so th emoney countries spend for it is mostly in their own interest for things they would do anyway. Now, with Canada, its the first time they would have to pay money to others - and they leave it. This shows a big problem of international climate diplomacy.
On December 14 2011 01:41 archonOOid wrote: OP, at which point in time or at what levels of CO2 will ( or need to) man kind start to implement geoengineering to curb the effects of climate change trough different kinds machines (carbondixoid traps) or increasing the sulphurdixoid levels.
If I could answer that question, I would be very rich. I fear that the idea that we will find simple technological methods that remedy the bad effect of CO2 is too simpleminded, because as people have pointed out, single countries or regions will be profiting from climate change, and some might explicitly suffer from such global geoenieering methods. I sincerely doubt that we have a robust enough international policy regime to guide and manage such methods.
It might happen, however, that some countries that will suffer under extreme climate change related problems, will do this on their own. If this happens, than lets just hope that we will have a fallback plan °J°
On December 14 2011 02:23 Exoteric wrote: I remember reading some remarks from climate change scientists that it will happen regardless of human intervention, it's just that we're accelerating the process. With that in mind, to what degree are we accelerating it in comparison with a natural change and what sort of government response would be necessary for there to be a noticeable positive impact overall? Some figures would put this into perspective for me. It's hard to break away from the apathetic attitude most people have (me included) towards global warming. I mean, I have solar panels for my household, energy saving light bulbs and whatnot, but I don't really think I'm making any kind of practical difference overall and it's more of a feel-good thing.
hi exoteric,
thanks for your comments.
I dont think your statement is correct per se, we do not know of any other mechanism that could have initiated the 20th centruy warming. One thing that might play into your perception is the hypothesis, that Earth will warm even if we curb emissions right now. This is true, it has to do with the inertia of the system, especially the ocean. sorry, I dont really have a figure for that.
The problem with the lack of "actionable" science is a very valid one. I see it for myself: I dont have a car, use public transportation, use renewable energy, eat less meat (but cant go around a good burger), try to behave nicely and still my CO2 footprint is immense just from not freezing in winter. Its tough. I believe we should act responsible personally, vote for responsible parties and try to identify companies that try to tackle the problem and help them. The solution will only be sustainable if government, private individuals and companies work hand in hand, so to speak.
One thing btw is the possibility of compensating flights (I know it will be expensive for you down under
here is a german organisation who spends money to offset your flights by investing in green energy projects in developing countries, supported are only CDM measures with gold label
To clear things up, scientific skepticism is incredibly important and useful. However this means skeptics have to adhere to certain rules. If the scientific community proposes global warming as true and anthropocentric, address that actual claim.
A lot of you are just posting conspiracy theories (some of which are ridiculously absurd) and hypothetical scenarios regarding 1000s of scientists getting together and lying to the public. For one, none of these claims have any evidence whatsoever and that aside, they have pretty much nothing to do with the actual scientific proposition.
This is the exact problem that's prevalent in the political sphere -- global warming skeptics don't address the actual scientific claims with contradictory evidence, they just attack the work others have done and claim conspiracies are at work.
so all denial is propaganda. all approval is 100% true data. well i dont know what to believe. but i know that climate change will happen no matter if man made or not, no matter if we reduce carbon production, we wont cool the world, we will just slow it down. before i deal with the climate change id rather fix war, hunger, undeveloped countrys and religion. i will just enjoy my life and see what happens. its too short to worry "in the big view". and viewing at what this world is makes you depressive. stupidity brings happiness which is what im aiming for in my life. best regards a stupid happy man made global warming denier
On December 14 2011 08:13 hmunkey wrote: To clear things up, scientific skepticism is incredibly important and useful. However this means skeptics have to adhere to certain rules. If the scientific community proposes global warming as true and anthropocentric, address that actual claim.
A lot of you are just posting conspiracy theories (some of which are ridiculously absurd) and hypothetical scenarios regarding 1000s of scientists getting together and lying to the public. For one, none of these claims have any evidence whatsoever and that aside, they have pretty much nothing to do with the actual scientific proposition.
This is the exact problem that's prevalent in the political sphere -- global warming skeptics don't address the actual scientific claims with contradictory evidence, they just attack the work others have done and claim conspiracies are at work.
hi hmunkey,
very good points. I would just like to add the following thought: If I would be Exxon manager (or RWE or EON or Shell or whatever), I would spend considerably money on trying to be able to do things like the exploitation of oil sands because its much easier to earn buckloads of cash with that than with windfarms. It is there justifiable reasonable to assume that there are agents in the public arena that intentionall debunk serious science, with professional methods.
We, as scientists, do not have these methods. Our main work is science, if I would tell you how much time I spent the last years for my PhD, you would recogniye, that the amount of time we have to propagate science into the public is limited.
I am doing this here " noon in the night in my spare time because I believe this is a cool Forum and here are interested TL members. I will never be able to fight the above mentioned professionally paid agents for the contrary. Al Gore tried to be the "green" counterpart but lost credibility due to errors - and massive attacks from the other side. He was never a scientist, but we still need societal agents like him, who try to take science serious, at face value.
Science does not deliver the solution, it shows consequences of society#s actions. Only thing I am arguing for is, to believe we dont do this for some weird conspiracy theory. If I want to get rich, I join my friends @ McKinsey and not some weird eco dictatorship
On December 14 2011 08:19 R3m3mb3rM3 wrote: so all denial is propaganda. all approval is 100% true data. well i dont know what to believe. but i know that climate change will happen no matter if man made or not, no matter if we reduce carbon production, we wont cool the world, we will just slow it down. before i deal with the climate change id rather fix war, hunger, undeveloped countrys and religion. i will just enjoy my life and see what happens. its too short to worry "in the big view". and viewing at what this world is makes you depressive. stupidity brings happiness which is what im aiming for in my life. best regards a stupid happy man made global warming denier
hi rememberme
fair points.
You say before you deal with climate change, you rather fix war, hunger, undevelopment and religion.
Go for it. ITs all connected. Dont sit back and try to be stupid. You cannot un-know certain things. If you attack hunger and poverty, you increase societal resilience to environmental changes. A climate change activist (not scientist) might call this climate change mitigation, a NGO worker might call it development aid. It doesnt matter, how you call it. Do it.
sorry that I could not answer all questions, there were also quite some PMs that had high priority.
I will be back tomorrow, please continue in the nice constructive atmosphere of yesterday evening. This place is not to fight, but to learn facts and exchange opinions on resulting actions. If you disagree with this premise, please just refrain from posting here
On December 14 2011 04:39 storm8ring3r wrote: What is the incentive for a climate scientist to predict that everything is going to be okay
This.......times a thousand. My Dad used to say that finding a cure for cancer would actually cost corporations more money than they would be willing to part with. I don't agree 100% with this viewpoint but it's something to seriously consider. I honestly, just don't believe we have enough long-term reliable data about the Earth's climate. At best, our most reliable numbers and measurements regarding this issue only go back as far as 1200AD, and there is still debate about how trust-worthy these figures really are.
"The most general definition of climate change is a change in the statistical properties of the climate system when considered over long periods of time, regardless of cause. Accordingly, fluctuations over periods shorter than a few decades, such as El Niño, do not represent climate change."-Straight from the Wikipedia Climate Change page.
In short, 2000 years is the blink of an eye for any planet. But I think there is merit in discussing Man's effects on our truly wonderful and diverse world.
GlobalWarming/Climate Change is Grossly exaggerated and blown out of proportion by the MSM hence the reason they changed the name to Climate Change when they realized they couldn't sell the fraudulent ' The Earth is continually heating up because of Humans Con'
It's not that humans don't have an impact on the climate there is no argument about that; the argument is that humans have almost a meaningless null impact on the climate (Temperature wise) because of the monstrosity that is the Earth compared to the minimal amount of output humans have in comparison to the colossal size of the biosphere/atmosphere.
Not to mention how much of the biosphere is actually a carbon sink that takes in CO2 that humans produce.
CO2 is actually a good thing to be emitting it's healthy for the biosphere....
All studies are such short-time frames anyhow so trying to determine changes in the climate is almost a moot point its really just a big con by the scientist to get funding for their 'Research' and/or get funding for their 'Useless stuff we don't need projects' Or to push some kind of totalitarian Green Agenda on the people and tax us to death with Carbon Taxes.
I have some more info i'll post in the thread later.
Nice thread! But I'm a little bit afraid of all the people who refuse to see climate change as a problem.
I do believe we are part of the climate change, and not in a good way. I am yet to be convinced how severe the problem will be in the end though. Not sure if the question has been raised yet, but apart from the environmental impact due to the use of fossil fuels, we are facing other big problems as the oil, gas and coal are running out. Namely providing energy for our whole society. This should also be considered in the debate as we have to find alternative energy sources at one point or another, starting a little bit earlier might not be such a bad idea huh?
As an example:
At least 6 of the 10 biggest companies in the world are oil suppliers, to keep their position in the years to come they are bound to find other ways of providing energy as their main sources is running low. A few of them are already looking into biofuels but it would be interesting to have their take on the whole debate. They are right in the middle of everything but are rarely brought up in discussions...
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
Very important to include water vapor in the Greenhouse effect but most climate scientists don't because they don't want you to realise how minimal the effect of human emissions are on the planet
Total human emissions only acount for less than 0.3% of the Greenhouse effect.
This isn't even included all the amount of CO2 that is absorbed into carbon dumps each year(eg:biosphere).
Climate change will of course happen. If its human doing or not is the debate here.
My honest opinion about whole thing is that climate change pales in comparison to the problem of too many people. There will soon be too many people for this planet to feed and then it will get really ugly and bloody. Either we consume everything there is and then kill each other and 50% of population, or we do the killing part before consuming everything.
But population control isn't exacly a popular topic and thing like setting a "maximum humans allowed on planet" seems unthinkable to people. Oh well, my country is living somewhat cleanly compared to others and our population will actually start declining soon.
So I just don't care that much about this climate thing. It's not really my responsibility other than that I try to avoid destroying nature as much as possible.
When that peak predator number is reached you see at least 75% drop in predator numbers, before the prey population recovers. Now imagine humans being the predator.
Now pray you don't have to face the human peak population in your lifetime. With the weapons we have at our disposal, it's going to be very ugly.
So what are you most concerned with as a consequence of Glooooobaaaallll Climate changed. (Man driven side, I'd like to ignore any natural warming/cooling as messing with that is pure silliness!)
EPT![[image loading]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg)
