EPTTL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 6
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
| ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
The consequences will likely lead to a struggle for survival, which in mankind's case means war, where the ones that adapt fastest benefit and other ones will be worse off. But change is natural and so is this climate change since mankind and thous everything mankind produces is natural as well and in the same way is the struggle for survival natural. Wasn't it tectonic shifts and climate change with lead to a change in the environment which in turn lead to the evolution of men? Wasn't it the cyclic change of hot and cold climates and changes to the atmosphere which lead to the diversification of lifeforms which exploited newly created niches? Also I think the climate during the Cambrian Explosion was warmer than todays, as well as the climate in which the most magnificent creatures the earth has ever seen lived, the dinosaurs. | ||
|
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:50 Probulous wrote: I always get the feeling when reading deniers comments that they are looking for a reason for this not to be true. Which is not necesarily a bad thing, but when something small that can be explained (Co2 helps plants grow for example) they refuse to accept that they are missing the bigger picture. Yes Co2 helps plants grow, but as you pointed out there are other factors (geograpy, rain fall, light intensity, soil composition, the list goes on). Anyway, love your work  Man, the point I'm trying to get across is this: WHAT is the bigger picture? What are we missing? As mentioned earlier, science is most often the process of eliminating all possibilities until one non-disprovable truth remains. This is how things like relativity, the electron, and evolution we're "Proven". This is science. The scientific method. If you don't want to follow this method, go make a new thread  | ||
|
Knalldi
Germany50 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:58 dabbeljuh wrote: I also advocate stochastic cloud modelling since I started my scientific career! Only a few more years ...  And this pretty much sums up my problems with definite climate research. It stays a model, even if this is gona be be best model ever made by best possible researches it stays a model which by definition cannot be 100% precise. And there the problems begin with decision making of huge decisions based on a (REALLY) good model. It is a model and that is something one should never forget in the following decision making process. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:02 Abraxas514 wrote: Here is the line of reasoning: IF the increase of water over land happens mostly closer to the poles, this region of Earth's surface will have a differential albedo of .7 or .8? Seeing as most of the Earth's surface heat (almost all of it) comes from the Sun, increase in albedo means a decrease in surface temperature. Does this mean that rising water levels will be decreasing global temperature? thanks for rephrasing, now I got it. simple answer: no. complex answer: what you describe is a regional effect. water has a very low albedo, i.e. it absorbs lots and lots of sun light. even if in some parts of the Earth that might change due to the angle, this is an second order effect. And even if it would be really a negative local feedback, it is just that, local. Last but not least: (linear) negative feedbacks do not decrease global temperature but would "buffer" or slow an increase. I like the hypothesis, will discuss it tomorrow with a few colleagues if we can quantify the strength of that effect, even if I am quite certaint, it is a secondary effect. | ||
|
LennyLeonard
United States48 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3pu0z.jpg) I Think i just gg'ed global warming. Its the fucking sun people. Look at who is funding the research that promotes the global warming theory. Al Gore for instance, funds many a research project, and is also involved in making millions off of carbon credits and the like. If you don't believe me, watch this video which proves 100% that what i am saying is true. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:05 Knalldi wrote: And this pretty much sums up my problems with definite climate research. It stays a model, even if this is gona be be best model ever made by best possible researches it stays a model which by definition cannot be 100% precise. And there the problems begin with decision making of huge decisions based on a (REALLY) good model. It is a model and that is something one should never forget in the following decision making process. True, but consider this: our models of economic development suck ass (we dont even try the reanalysis of last year). Still, the world handles that. We have found societal methods to deal with model projections with inherent uncertainties and should do cost-benefiut - risk analyses. if there is a 10% chance of dying in a flight, people dont fly. If it is 0.000001% and cheap, people do. So science should come up with SOME numbers + uncertainty, society should react as they see fit. but nobody should try to defuse the numbers. fight in the political arena, science does it already itself quite thoroughly | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:09 LennyLeonard wrote: I Think i just gg'ed global warming. Its the fucking sun people. Look at who is funding the research that promotes the global warming theory. Al Gore for instance, funds many a research project, and is also involved in making millions off of carbon credits and the like. If you don't believe me, watch this video which proves 100% that what i am saying is true. I am sorry but game is not over °J° You say: its the sun! That is the most used and most contradicted denialist argument of the last decades. I dont know where you got your reconstruction from but I would refer you to the new Berkely independent study funded by climate sceptics that will contradict your plot. Additionally, please read here for follow-up information: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm Simple answer: In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions btw: there are parts of the its the sun hypothesis that are interesting, as the connection of cosmic rays and cloud formation. they are discussed in the scientific community and have been shown - so far - to be wrong. | ||
|
Celadan
Norway471 Posts
| ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:05 Abraxas514 wrote: Man, the point I'm trying to get across is this: WHAT is the bigger picture? What are we missing? As mentioned earlier, science is most often the process of eliminating all possibilities until one non-disprovable truth remains. This is how things like relativity, the electron, and evolution we're "Proven". This is science. The scientific method. If you don't want to follow this method, go make a new thread This is great for things that can be proven. For things that cannot be 100% determined, such as what the climate is doing, you can't expect there never to be a voice of dissent. Your point about removing hypotheses as they are disproven does not contradict what I am saying. If the overwhelming amount of evidence points to Climate Change happening and humans are the cause, then even if there are alternative explanations they will require vast amount of evidence to back them up. Relativity was proven by experimentation, evolution by mounting evidence. Sure the theory is elegant but it is the data that proves the point. There are still questions about certain data points that are not explained by relativity, that doesn't mean the theory is useless. Same with climate models, they are the best tool we have. Saying the science is redundant because it is based on models is throwing out the baby with the bath water. | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:03 Sm3agol wrote: Here is my most burning question, as a pretty ignorant "denier" in the sense that I don't believe it's quite as big of an issue as it's made out to be ......why the sudden spike? We are going along all fine and dandy in the 1800's..... early-ish1900s, burning so much coal, and just blowing the smoke directly back into the atmosphere, that places like London never actually see the sun for months on end. Cars are invented and noone gave a crap about emissions for 60 years..... just blew that crap right back into the air. People are warning about global cooling in the 60's for crying aloud. So we start getting more environmentally conscious, and start emissions laws, start caring about pollution, and suddenly, NOW(1990s and on), when we start actually having emissions restrictions, pollution is a big deal, etc, the temperature is "rising like never before", and we have this big hullaballoo about everyone dying to rising sea water in 50 years. Makes no sense to me......other than maybe it's all China/Indias fault... but I doubt it. Just the whole thing stinks of a small scientific issue/anomally, possibly and probably slightly exacerbated by human pollution, that politicians and money hungry porkers latched on to to launch their name into the spotlight and fund their own private cash cows. You have to remember that this is a very complex issue with a lot of factors. There are positive and negative feedbacks that often need some amount of time to get going. Once they do, however, they lead to pretty significant changes. Not to mention that there is still a lot of pollution expelled globally even with restrictions in some countries. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:03 Sm3agol wrote: Here is my most burning question, as a pretty ignorant "denier" in the sense that I don't believe it's quite as big of an issue as it's made out to be ......why the sudden spike? We are going along all fine and dandy in the 1800's..... early-ish1900s, burning so much coal, and just blowing the smoke directly back into the atmosphere, that places like London never actually see the sun for months on end. Cars are invented and noone gave a crap about emissions for 60 years..... just blew that crap right back into the air. People are warning about global cooling in the 60's for crying aloud. So we start getting more environmentally conscious, and start emissions laws, start caring about pollution, and suddenly, NOW(1990s and on), when we start actually having emissions restrictions, pollution is a big deal, etc, the temperature is "rising like never before", and we have this big hullaballoo about everyone dying to rising sea water in 50 years. Makes no sense to me......other than maybe it's all China/Indias fault... but I doubt it. Just the whole thing stinks of a small scientific issue/anomally, possibly and probably slightly exacerbated by human pollution, that politicians and money hungry porkers latched on to to launch their name into the spotlight and fund their own private cash cows. good questions, complex question. one part: the drivers: a) think population increase. we have now 7 billion people on earth, 1800 it was 1, 1900 less then 2. emission is proportional to population. b) think technology increase. we have much more ways nowadays to spend energy, c) think wealth increase. we have much more middle class people, potentially more than we have humans back in 1900. second part: aerosols there is a hypothesis that the aerosols (i.e. air pollution) damped the warming. I am not quite convinced that this is true but it is current scientific consensus. third part: internal variability there is variability in the earth#s ocean that can lead to changes on the 30-60 year time scale that is SUPERPOSED on the global warming trend. fourth part: latency. more co2 -> more heat is trapped -> goes into upper ocean until mixed layer is warmed, this takes decades! -> after that the atmosphere starts warming more. the full effect is a combination of that and not yet fully understood, you could make a career out of solving this | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:15 Celadan wrote: How about the ones that believes in climate changes firmly stops faking statistics (like Al Gore for an instance) and uses actual scientific evidence instead?? Al Gore's data is simplifying and rather pointless. Don't listen to public figures about scientific matters! They will always be misleading. Check out the science for yourself. | ||
|
Knalldi
Germany50 Posts
True, but consider this: our models of economic development suck ass (we dont even try the reanalysis of last year). Still, the world handles that. We have found societal methods to deal with model projections with inherent uncertainties and should do cost-benefiut - risk analyses. if there is a 10% chance of dying in a flight, people dont fly. If it is 0.000001% and cheap, people do. So science should come up with SOME numbers + uncertainty, society should react as they see fit. but nobody should try to defuse the numbers. fight in the political arena, science does it already itself quite thoroughly But the numbers would be specific to certain regions of this globe. On point A floods could be more likely while on Point B on the globe droughts are more likely. These are all regional problems which cannot be fixed by some global meeting where someone decides to drive less cars (I dont know your position towards that). These upcoming problems are regional and cannot be solved by the discussion about CO2 imho. But yea, numbers could help somehow forseeing the weather future an Point A or B. | ||
|
Mooster
Canada43 Posts
Firstly, Global warming will not save those who are dying from the cold weather (they're suffering because they live in an area that cannot sustain proper living conditions given their financial situation). A warmer planet can boost the growth of plants but the resulting *super* vegetation usually contain less nutrients. People need to stop taking Global Warming literaterally, ie only an increase in temperature. The major concerns scientist have right now are far more complicated than just a small change in temperature over a few decades. One major concern is that the ice caps in the North Pole are melting at unprecedented rates. Some scientist have theorized many complications if this melting continues: - Firstly, an unimaginable amount of fresh water will be released into the global water body. This will raise the sea elevation, reduce the coastline of most landmass. This is a major concern because humans tend to develope cities close to the coast for sea acess. - But the more concerning problem is that a large injection of fresh water into the modern oceans will disrupt all the ocean circulation systems. All the currents in the world relies on a temperate and salinity gradient to drive water movement. This is also what regulates most of our climate, giving Northern Europe a warmer climate than their latitude would normally dictate. - If all the fresh water stored in the polar ice caps were to be injected into all the deep water circulation systems, then the circulation would be halted; the warm and cold water bodies in the world wouldn't be able to circulate. The climate in areas such as North America and Europe will change drastically. - In the rest of the world where the average temperature will rise, temperature in North America and Europe would drop significantly because they rely heavily on an influx of warm water body to regulate their cold climate. Its called global warming, but thats an average, not every place on Earth will warm up, some places will cool significantly. *so to those who keep reading about CO2 cooling the climate down, please take everything you read/hear with a grain of salt.* Another concern scientists have is that a warming climate usually correlates with more frequent and severe weather phenomenom such as hurricane, tornadoes, and typhoons. These major events require energy which is provided by a warm climate. Finally what REALLY worries scientists is the unknown factor. They do not know if the global warming phenomenom works on a linear scale or an exponential one. They're worried about the runaway factor in phenomenoms that manifests itself exponentially. - One example which justify their worry is the Ozone Hole in Antartica. Ozone in the atmosphere shield us from deadly solar radiation, but we have created chemicals (CFCs) that can destroy atmospheric ozone. This phenomenom called the Ozone Hole only occurs in the Antartica due to the unique environment. Invented in 1920s, CFC were used as refrigerants, propellants, and in fire extinguishers. After decades of wide spread application, the amount of CFC in the atmosphere reached a critical level and suddenly poked a large gap in our protective ozone layer. This phenomenom did not occur for a long time, but when it did, it spiralled out of control. Luckily for us, the ozone hole was isolated to the antartica and scientist are trying to replace and reduce CFCs entirely. Now back to Global Warming, scientists do not know ALL the consequences of releasing tons of green house gas into the atmosphere. But they're right to be cautious and worried about a potential devastating complication from Global Warming. If this complication only occurs once a threshold is reached and starts spiralling away, then we might be too powerless and too late in stopping it. Conclusion, scientists make a big deal out of Global Warming not for the immediate changes that we can see right now or in the near future. Its the potential for an exponential disaster that worries all of us (imagine if the ozone hole was not isolated in Antartica, we'd be in a world of hurt right now). | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:15 Celadan wrote: How about the ones that believes in climate changes firmly stops faking statistics (like Al Gore for an instance) and uses actual scientific evidence instead?? not much to say here, I fear you do not really want to be convinced BUT all the climate sceptics, denialists and industry PR companies have not found a single scientific error in the IPCC assessment report if you dismiss a typo (himalaya glaciers disappear in 2035 instead of 2350) and a wrong map (poor netherlands were under the water in one study °°). we have now 4 assessment reports that only "assess" science, each between 2000 and 3000 pages long. go tell the thousands of involved scientists, that they all should stop faking statistics ° | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
OK, I am skeptic only because I have heard the explanations and anthropological carbon-dioxide from what I understand is not a contributor to the global warming context but could (in theory) have a cooling effect globally. So, according to "skeptics" like Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen, and Bob Carter, the "hockey stick" theory is bunk becauase it neglects the effect temperature has on CO2 levels, not the other way around. Also, and the more important point, the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles. Do you agree with these effects or is CO2 still the culprit? | ||
|
etherwar
United States45 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:57 dabbeljuh wrote: etherwar, as I said earlier in a response to your original, fair point: I meant any news clips, not only fox, so sorry for that. I hope this can finish this sub-discussion on my scientific ethics. I will answer questions that seem to be from the person writing, not somebody else. I am not 'above' any information, I just try - here in this context - to help people understand the complexity of the problem and not fight any given news organisation and their campaign goals. Sorry if I was unclear in that. Fair response, I didn't mean to derail I was just answering another's protest of me even posting that in the first place. I have one more gripe that might end up taking the form of a question (lol), and that is the debate re: weather vs climate. It seems that climate scientists in the beginning of AGW really wanted to separate the two, bringing forward the point that "Weather is not Climate/Climate is not Weather". Now, in a sense I can get behind this statement, because Climate data is global and long term and weather is local and volatile. Obviously the two are interwoven, however, and while a really cold winter doesn't disprove the theory of AGW, neither does a hot summer, or a drought "prove" it. Basically, as a whole, it is much easier to make accurate predictions about what is going to happen to the Earth as a whole than it is to make an accurate prediction about where rainfall is going to take place on a certain day. There are many variables that are not being accounted for, and climate science has a long way to go to completely understand how weather works and how our climate works. All this is my perception, my understanding (which of course maybe and usually is wrong). So, where did the following quote come from? the increase in rainfall is mostly over oceans and will not help agriculture in most regions of the world. some regions (.i.e. mediterranean sea) will see significant precipitation reduction for a warmer climate. Has climate science made enough progress to show locally which areas of the world geographically will be affected and in what way? Because this information is invaluable, and if Climate Change is as bad as alarmists have predicted, will be the best information in making informed decisions regarding how drastic our response to combat the change should be... | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
If the current climactic alterations are man-made is another issue, but like I said, I don't think it matters in the long run anyway. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 09:22 slytown wrote: "by burning carbon that has been accumulated over many millions of years and been stored in fossil fuels. the earth#s carbon cycle is in a fragile equilibrium, by releasing energy in an incredible fast manner, we do impact climate in an unprecedented speed. hope that helps!" OK, I am skeptic only because I have heard the explanations and anthropological carbon-dioxide from what I understand is not a contributor to the global warming context but could (in theory) have a cooling effect globally. So, according to "skeptics" like Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen, and Bob Carter, the "hockey stick" theory is bunk becauase it neglects the effect temperature has on CO2 levels, not the other way around. Also, and the more important point, the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles. Do you agree with these effects or is CO2 still the culprit? It is proven beyond doubt that increasing Co2 concentration will increase temperature. It is also proven beyond doubt that a warmer Earth has a warmer ocean that can carry less (!) CO2. So, thought experiment: Orbital changes induce temperature change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth. This has happened in the past and explains that in these plots in some periods, CO2 leads temperature. This does not invalidate the current problem: Human induced CO2 change -> warmer Earth -> warmer ocean -> emission of CO2 -> even warmer Earth. Concerning your " the recent rise in global temperature is a result of two effects: water vapor's reflection of solar rays and the sun's solar activity cycles" What you mean is the argument that solar rays excite cloud formation and that sun activity influences global SAT. Direct measurementas (satellite) show however, that global temperature and sun activity are NOT correlated, they point in different directions even for the last 35 years. I refer you to http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm for more infos. | ||
| ||
