On December 13 2011 07:37 TanGeng wrote: This is a terrible idea. First of all Climate Change Policy is one part science (largely applied thermodynamics), one part economics, and one part politics. Even if you have competence in the science, you can hardly begin to comment about the economics (whether or not it is worthwhile to do anything about it) or the politics (whether or not we can construct social institutions to effectively do something about it).
I agree that I do not have the competence to comment on all economic or social implications of Climate Change and Climate Change politics. I wont, I promise I still believe, that the science part is important for itself, for it is the basis for societal decision making.
who cares about uranium and uranium/plutonium. nuclear might be the worst pollutant jet, but does not effect climate change!
We are right now at the point in history when humankind can produce most. we are at PEAK oil, coal, uranium,....production and PEAK credit (financial) for that matter, so global warming might be a nice mental exercise, but is just irrelevant in our economy.
you guys can also go ahead and google "climate gate"...nice mails leaked about how "settled" the sience really is!
tl;dr about twice as many people die in the US from being cold than from being too hot (1976-2006), and many of the cold deaths are attributed to getting sick because they were cold, for whatever reason.
@Fruscainte:
"could prove to have dastardly consequences"
Doesnt this sound like this:
I do not see any denialist taking up this challenge as it is mostly lack of knowledge that promotes it and it is therefore never backed up by any scientific facts.
- radiatoren
Please don't foxnews us with your "could have terrible terrible consequences omg!"
If we are going to have this conversation, each post needs to be based on fact and observation, or hypothesis based on observation, and some sources REALLY help your position. Thanks.
Also, since Global Warming is still a theory, you as a scientist should be working to disprove it. Scientific method is not defending something, but try to tear it down until there is only fact remaining. It is terrible that climate science has become such a pop culture thing, that proper scientific protocol isn't followed. Instead it has become a witch hunt for the unbelievers. All research on the topic is done with the intent to prove it. I can prove anything if I apply that scientific method. Scientists proved horribly fallacious things under that premise. You even doing this post shows you have no respect for science and the pursuit of knowledge.
On December 13 2011 07:37 ~SiC~ wrote: How is it that if you take real empirical evidence it shows that with the Urban Island effect aside, there is actually no variation of climate or rise in temperature if you look at data that shows information going back further than 100 years? The largest ecological effects the planet has ever had happened previous to mans existence, being the introduction to oxygen to the atmosphere and the ice ages, and we could never compete with the vasts amounts of extinction or devastation either of those events caused.
Hi Sic, good to hear you for you show a few of typical sceptic / denialist arguments. Let me answer them one by one, without the need to pick a fight!
Concerning temperature evolution: you mix many points. The Urban Island Effect, i.e. cities are warmer than countryside: a new evaluation by a group of nobel prize laureates that have NOTHING to do with climate science and that have been paid by the Koch brothers (who fund climate denialist science) have shown, that Earth is warming. The essentially got the same result as the classical reconstructions. See for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071
The long termin evolution: it is clearly true that Earth has seen a lot of climate changes. Climate reacts to dominant forcings. Nowadays, thats us. In the past it was Volcanic Eruptions, Orbital Changes (ongoing), Sun strength variations, continent movements, extinction events +++ The speed of our Co2 perturbation is unrivalled, though. Past changes strengthen the scientific consensus that a strong change in atmospheric composition will lead to a changed climate.
> Real Denialist here, with my denial coming from actually working with the UN on environmental research and realizing that you are forced to publish only facts supporting global warming, and if anything contrary is discovered you lose funding, or get research ignored.
That is bad that you made these experiences. I know that the UN process of producing political documents is political (sic), but the underlying science is independent. I am involved in the ongoing IPCC process from a quality management perspective (as an outsider, I do not have to publish, yeah), and I assure you, that so far nobody was enforced to write anything except the scientific assessment of what we believe is true.
tl;dr about twice as many people die in the US from being cold than from being too hot (1976-2006), and many of the cold deaths are attributed to getting sick because they were cold, for whatever reason.
I do not see any denialist taking up this challenge as it is mostly lack of knowledge that promotes it and it is therefore never backed up by any scientific facts.
- radiatoren
Please don't foxnews us with your "could have terrible terrible consequences omg!"
If we are going to have this conversation, each post needs to be based on fact and observation, or hypothesis based on observation, and some sources REALLY help your position. Thanks.
Why do I need sources to say that water levels rising exponentially when over 2 billion people live near the coasts would have dire consequences? Do enlighten me.
I think that climate change is probably happening, but we don't impact it as much as a lot of people seem to think. Its very possible that global warming is happening, but are we really affecting it that much? I'm pretty sure that the earth simply has cycles were it is warmer and some where it is colder - like the ice age. There was no cars, electricity or technology back then and somehow the Earth's temperature drastically changed. You obviously know more than I do about it, but that's just the opinion I have made based off of my current knowledge.
On December 13 2011 07:41 QuXn wrote: who cares about uranium and uranium/plutonium. nuclear might be the worst pollutant jet, but does not effect climate change!
We are right now at the point in history when humankind can produce most. we are at PEAK oil, coal, uranium,....production and PEAK credit (financial) for that matter, so global warming might be a nice mental exercise, but is just irrelevant in our economy.
you guys can also go ahead and google "climate gate"...nice mails leaked about how "settled" the sience really is!
I encourage everyone to do so. In this multitude of stolen emails, not a single fact of climate science as it is was shown to be wrong, not a single point! That really was the low point of climate discussion, stealing private emails and quoting out of context
Hi dabbeljuh, cool thread! I think it's a good idea, because I'm personally tired of seeing things twisted beyond recognition in the news, and I can imagine it's tearing at your professional pride. I think it's awesome you stand up for your work!
It's not exactly the kind of question you're looking for here, but I wonder if you're familiar with Bjørn Lomborg's work? I see him as one of the frontmen on this subject, and I'm curious as to if you think the debate needs some experts for people to put their trust in, in the fight against climate changes as opposed to just reading about new reports proving the way things are going? I'm asking because I could imagine something like that would happen in the debate, I guess you could call it a Che Guevara of climate debate. I'm not making a political statement here, but saying that there might seem like a lack of big expert frontmen within climate debate(that aren't politicians) whom people can support, and structure their organization under. At the same time I'm worried that a frontman could be one of those that state they have nothing but good intentions, while having a secret agenda etc.
Hope you can follow my train of thought it might seem a bit messy. xD
On December 13 2011 07:48 FoeHamr wrote: I think that climate change is probably happening, but we don't impact it as much as a lot of people seem to think. Its very possible that global warming is happening, but are we really affecting it that much? I'm pretty sure that the earth simply has cycles were it is warmer and some where it is colder - like the ice age. There was no cars, electricity or technology back then and somehow the Earth's temperature drastically changed. You obviously know more than I do about it, but that's just the opinion I have made based off of my current knowledge.
Yes, climate change is a very natural thing -- when it happens over thousands or tens of thousands of years, and is just fine and dandy when it doesn't potentially affect the lives of almost 7 billion people, and rising. The issue here is not whether or not it exists or whatnot, it's whether or not we are putting its rate on ludicrous speed and potentially endangering ourselves unnecessarily. The issue is sustainability.
On December 13 2011 07:48 FoeHamr wrote: I think that climate change is probably happening, but we don't impact it as much as a lot of people seem to think. Its very possible that global warming is happening, but are we really affecting it that much? I'm pretty sure that the earth simply has cycles were it is warmer and some where it is colder - like the ice age. There was no cars, electricity or technology back then and somehow the Earth's temperature drastically changed. You obviously know more than I do about it, but that's just the opinion I have made based off of my current knowledge.
This is good scientific thinking. There is a lot of internal climate variability on decadal time scales, longer scales are usually driven by external effects. Scientist look at how Climate reacts to perturbation of its forcing, i.e. changes in solar activity, atmospheric composition (volcanoes) . We then analysed if there were such perturbations in the 20th century besides man made Co2 changes. As of now, we do not know of any other perturbation that could explain the climate variation of the 20th century - only anthropogenic intervention.
I don't care - our money is better spend on building infrastructure and eliminating disease. It is better for 2012 india to build a coal plant today than to build solar panels. Based on the precipitation of that wealth and well-being created today by building the coal plant, it is also better for 2112 india to build a coal plant today rather than solar panels. They will be much more wealthy in the future and able to deal with the +.0001 or whatever degree change caused by the coal plant.
On December 13 2011 07:12 Traeon wrote: Man-made climate change is only controversial in the US, everywhere else it is accepted as reality.
Still, it would be interesting to see an actual discussion taking place.
I doubt it. That has not been my experience in Canada.
Even in school we were shown both "The Inconvenient Truth" as well as some counter-documentary.
Lol! I am from Denmark where Bjørn Lomborg is from. "The Inconvenient Truth" is based on documents that has been labelled scientifically dishonest. He is a statistician and economist and his knowledge about climate is what gave him the flattering label. Using his film as evidence of anything is therefore not a good idea.
On December 13 2011 07:53 Buubble wrote: I don't care - our money is better spend on building infrastructure and eliminating disease. It is better for 2012 india to build a coal plant today than to build solar panels. Based on the precipitation of that wealth and well-being created today by building the coal plant, it is also better for 2112 india to build a coal plant today rather than solar panels. They will be much more wealthy in the future and able to deal with the +.0001 or whatever degree change caused by the coal plant.
What's more important -- making arbitrarily more efficient energy and a country more rich, or creating a sustainable system that can last us for centuries? It's extraordinarily selfish to live unsustainably without a care in the world because you just want to make more money or whatever.
On December 13 2011 07:47 ~SiC~ wrote: Also, since Global Warming is still a theory, you as a scientist should be working to disprove it. Scientific method is not defending something, but try to tear it down until there is only fact remaining. It is terrible that climate science has become such a pop culture thing, that proper scientific protocol isn't followed. Instead it has become a witch hunt for the unbelievers. All research on the topic is done with the intent to prove it. I can prove anything if I apply that scientific method. Scientists proved horribly fallacious things under that premise. You even doing this post shows you have no respect for science and the pursuit of knowledge.
A little harsh, but do you see the point?
hmmm I don't think you're a scientist, are you? what evidence do you have to say that proper scientific protocol isn't followed in the field of climate science? No you can't prove anything you want. You can't even prove anything scientifically, anyways. All that remains is the evidence. It doesn't matter if the scientist wants to confirm a theory. They're not making up fictional things based off no data in science. It seems like you're dealing with some clandestine organization or some country that doesn't have real science.
On December 13 2011 07:53 Buubble wrote: I don't care - our money is better spend on building infrastructure and eliminating disease. It is better for 2012 india to build a coal plant today than to build solar panels. Based on the precipitation of that wealth and well-being created today by building the coal plant, it is also better for 2112 india to build a coal plant today rather than solar panels. They will be much more wealthy in the future and able to deal with the +.0001 or whatever degree change caused by the coal plant.
I think this thread is better served to discuss purely scientific points regarding climate change - the OP has made a statement that he does not feel comfortable discussing political and economic ramifications regarding climate change. Perhaps he can put that in PURE SOLID BOLD PRINT IN HIS OPENING so that people understand that this thread is for him to
a) Take honest questions regarding climate change, from less informed people and from denialist b) Formulate a scientific response to it
Cluttering it up will make the thread less readable and of less significance.
The general problem is not some climate change, from where ever it comes (yay, i dont know it, neither do scientists to a full extent), but how we face consequences out of one. I mean, people die through droghts since hundreds of years, and there will be droughts in the future and starvation because of them wont stop even if every human on earth stops driving a car and produce zero CO2(impossible, i know, just some food for thoughts). One has to look for solutions in the ares which are affected by harsh living evironments and fix technical problems THERE. You cant simply stop cardriving and think you can save the world with it. One has to come up with solutions which are unique for a given living environment (and this is a small! area) and how this environment is gonna change and act accordingly, like making smarter plans für some sort of irrigation, or dams and polderlandscapes, or forrest or whatever the like. But these are all possible solutions for affected areas and not any global "acomplishment" in fixing CO2 will be as useful as them. Humans are an successful creature because they can fit themselves in in a given environment cause they are smart and know how to use tools to survive. We shouldnt abandon this path and think we can change the climate in either way and look out for chances and problems of the changes in our environment and face it rather than trying to change it. Hell what if climate changes without the CO2-bla and we all stop driving cars and it still warms up? Thats gonna be no use for anyone.
Sorry this was political Bla.
To the Scientific Base: As far as i know there ist that much pointing to a causation between CO2 and temperature. One has the historic data, which shows correlation and one has the big climate simulations where one can deduct some sort of causation. But this simulations are more or less a bitter pill, as they are, ye simulations with quite simplified models in the background. And last but not least one has the theoretical approach with CO2 as NIR-active gaseous material with the problem that this approach is very difficult, as there is more to the climate than the CO2 concentration, as backlash effects of different kinds like watervapor etcpp. Im not into it that much, rather than reading some articles, so i dont know how right i am exactly. But that doesnt matter that much, as posted in quotes.
On December 13 2011 07:37 TanGeng wrote: This is a terrible idea. First of all Climate Change Policy is one part science (largely applied thermodynamics), one part economics, and one part politics. Even if you have competence in the science, you can hardly begin to comment about the economics (whether or not it is worthwhile to do anything about it) or the politics (whether or not we can construct social institutions to effectively do something about it).
I agree that I do not have the competence to comment on all economic or social implications of Climate Change and Climate Change politics. I wont, I promise I still believe, that the science part is important for itself, for it is the basis for societal decision making.
Ok well. One of the heuristics that I like to use is that theories that are purely academic has to survive a test of time. In this day and age, I'd say 30 years is the right amount of time for academics to flush out and discredit the garbage, and the length of the period has to do with the duration of influence certain academics may hold in universities and over a field of study. Much of climate science is younger than 30 years. The quicker alternative is applied science where theories have economic applications where the theory is tested and retest, and even if it is wrong (i.e. Aristotle's celestial motion theory), it still has merit in real world applications.
On an academic basis, I'm willing to agree with climate scientists, but it's not going to get me to seriously change my behavior based on their prognostications.
On December 13 2011 07:47 ~SiC~ wrote: Also, since Global Warming is still a theory, you as a scientist should be working to disprove it. Scientific method is not defending something, but try to tear it down until there is only fact remaining. It is terrible that climate science has become such a pop culture thing, that proper scientific protocol isn't followed. Instead it has become a witch hunt for the unbelievers. All research on the topic is done with the intent to prove it. I can prove anything if I apply that scientific method. Scientists proved horribly fallacious things under that premise. You even doing this post shows you have no respect for science and the pursuit of knowledge.
A little harsh, but do you see the point?
a) everything in science is 'Still a theory'. The hypothesis "human induced co2 concentration changes lead to warming" is incredibly strong, it is supported by direct data (20th century), paleo data (has happened earlier that Co2 strengthend a global warming that was inducedd by orbital changes), simple models (energy balance) and complex models (Earth System Models). b) It is unkind of you to revert the truth here. We do not with hunt for the unbelievers. In contrary, it is unbelievers who witch hunt scientists who speak their mind, see for example this youtube video of a group of climate change denialists: see for example http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-anger-dangerous-says-german-physicist/story-e6frg6nf-1226095587105
I have the utmost respect for science protocol, I am a physicist in a foreign discipline and I see this respect everywhere around me. The political implications of climate change make it difficult, see demands in this thread that scientists should be more present in the public.
I do believe it is the responsibility of the society to form decisions on how to react and not the role of science to supply this answer. It is, however, also the duty of the society to be fair in their judgement oif the situation and not listen to agents that are propelled by money more than competence.
EPT
I still believe, that the science part is important for itself, for it is the basis for societal decision making.
