|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 28 2013 22:21 Slydie wrote:
So what if we made the world a fraction of a degree warmer. Im totally fine with that. Some might have to migrate, but we always have and still do. Out historical upswings have been closely related to an advantagous WARM climate.
When it comes down to it, there is NO WAY we will change our lifestyles enough for us to change anything about the climate. Jobs, food and transport is just too important to us. I dont worry at all. Climate models have never helped us with anything, only made us all more worried and given false dramatic predictions. Give me a model which can if I get a good summer in 10 years and I will respect them. They are not even close!
The problem is not that the world will be a fraction of a degree warmer, the problem is that over a long period of time the increased temperature will, according to physics models, cause the release of even more carbon emissions (from naturally captured carbon) pushing the greenhouse effect beyond our control. We have an example of what runaway greenhouse effect looks like in the long run, it's Venus.
It's easy for you to say jobs, food and transport is too important for you as you live in a cold country, it's a bit harder to swallow for, say, island pacific nations who's islands are going to completely disappear, and jobs, food and transport are going to be exactly the problems for them, because all their infrastructure just disappeared with the island it's built on. Then they will have to migrate, to colder, safer countries, like your own, and you will have to share jobs, food, transport infrastructure with those refugees. In the end the actual problems with climate change ARE still jobs, food, transport, it's just a matter of time scale that differs.
It is also a ridiculous to automatically assume that combating carbon emissions should be automatically detrimental to jobs, food, transport etc. Moving into cleaner energy, finding ways to capture carbon from the atmosphere, improving transport infrastructure are all things that create more jobs. Yes some industries will become less viable if we were to move to drastically reduce emissions, due to no longer being economically competitive, it just means there will be a shift to other industries to provide the same needs. This is effectively a redistribution of wealth away from 'dirty industries', rather than a reduction of overall wealth.
Climate models have never helped us with anything, because the physics and computing power required to make accurate predictions did not exist until recently. Until we had these, most 'climate models' were based on historical data rather than the actual physics/physical science principles. Which operate on the erroneous principle that climate will operate the same way as it has historically. The problem with the more mechanistic model is that they aren't good at predicting short term phenomena, because there are too many perturbations we don't understand in the short term. But they are going to be far superior to previous models in the long term since they actually address the mechanistic causes of climate in the long term.
The problem is that it's hard to motivate people to solve problems in the long term, especially when talking a timespan longer than lifespans, even if the potential problems are apocalyptic. Change takes effort, and people just don't want to make even small sacrifices without that motivation of big, immediate problems that happen close by.
|
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them.
|
On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them.
It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done.
Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently.
All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now.
|
On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion?
|
On September 27 2013 23:44 Douillos wrote:
I think it would be interesting to add to the OP how this panel was created. I can't find the article right now, but They studied over 9000 different publications (I think it was 9200), some of them saying that climate change is directly connectd to pollution and some saying the contrary, and used their own tools to get there. I'll try to find the info. ASAP.
It's an incredible report and I still don't understand sceptics after reading through it.
Because its all political. The panel is also biased in its assumptions and only works to sort of clump up and in any way confirm that humans cause global warming.
They don't even investigate the sun as a cause, its that level of absurdity. Read all of their reports and they don't mention the sun as a cause at all.
In their world the sun doesn't affect the warmth on the planet, its absolutely retarded really.
|
On September 29 2013 00:28 BillGates wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2013 23:44 Douillos wrote:
I think it would be interesting to add to the OP how this panel was created. I can't find the article right now, but They studied over 9000 different publications (I think it was 9200), some of them saying that climate change is directly connectd to pollution and some saying the contrary, and used their own tools to get there. I'll try to find the info. ASAP.
It's an incredible report and I still don't understand sceptics after reading through it. Because its all political. The panel is also biased in its assumptions and only works to sort of clump up and in any way confirm that humans cause global warming. They don't even investigate the sun as a cause, its that level of absurdity. Read all of their reports and they don't mention the sun as a cause at all. In their world the sun doesn't affect the warmth on the planet, its absolutely retarded really.
More likely that they think the sun is so obviously not a cause, that it doesn't bear any mentioning. I mean really, its like what Farvacola said earlier. What kind of a world do you have to live in to think that the brightest scientists in the field don't factor the sun into the warming of the planet? You're right it would be retarded. That's probably why they have factored it in, and nobody talks about it because it isn't a factor and its obvious to all the scientists in the field.
If you want to understand, just type it in on google (actually here - I've linked an article), and read the clear answers provided by experts in the field as to why this is false.
|
On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion?
The main thing I've learned from the most vocal contributors in this topic is that basically people who have a different opinion are stupid. This is still a gaming forum, and if people just want to express scepticism this doesn't enforce them to back that scepticism up with tons of research on the matter.
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years.
So then even without knowing the entire model, apparently we're sure that men are a leading cause because of correlation. So now apparently, the earth hasn't warmed up at all in the last 15 years, which is so far an unexplained anomaly, yet we're so sure that this pause will end and then the warming up will continue. Also, we're sure that when CO2 increases, we will know exactly how it effects the entire planet.
In other fields, there's always an admittance that "maybe an effect was caused for something that was not actively controlled for during the study". And in those studies, actual precautions were made like randomizations to decrease the chance of this happening. This is not even possible here, as there is only one Earth. In the end, I feel the most pretentious ones are the people who say they know exactly what will happen and what exactly is the best way to fix it without admitting in the slightest that they don't have a single clue how to implement their ideas in modern society, and basically shoot down every single person who doesn't agree with their line of thinking saying "but the proof is here, the only reason you can disagree is because you don't comprehend it".
|
The report confirmed what that OP from the "AMA I'm a weather scientist" thread we had earlier this year said.
I lost the link but it should be an obligatory FAQ for anyone looking for answers about climate change... Too bad he doesn't answer anymore.
|
On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere?
As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict.
|
On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict.
That's the real problem with Democracy... sometimes people don't think what we want them to think.
|
On September 29 2013 01:56 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. That's the real problem with Democracy... sometimes people don't think what we want them to think. Well, at the end of the day people will vote for politicians that best represent their views on climate change. None of my snooty comments will change that.
My comments on merely focused on winning the war of ideas in cyberspace, where I believe ridicule has an important part to play. (For conformation, just look at what happened in the "science versus religion" culture wars).
|
On September 29 2013 02:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:56 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict. That's the real problem with Democracy... sometimes people don't think what we want them to think. Well, at the end of the day people will vote for politicians that best represent their views on climate change. None of my snooty comments will change that. My comments on merely focused on winning the war of ideas in cyberspace, where I believe ridicule has an important part to play. (For conformation, just look at what happened in the "science versus religion" culture wars).
You aren't supposed to admit there was a cultural war on religion. Now you can't ridicule Bill O'Reilly.
I'd say that ridicule is the absolute worst way to try and win a war of ideas. Ridicule only makes your opposition more defensive and adamant in their convictions. Unfortunately ridicule and condescension are the most popular arguments on this forum. For example, I was trying to get into an interesting debate yesterday and I kept getting mindless insults like "tin foil hat paranoia." Needless to say I wasn't persuaded and looked down on my opponent as incapable of forming an articulate argument.
|
"As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems."
These are all kinda irrelevant as atm the world population/economy and with that the co2 outpout grows way faster then the possible reduction we can get from technological advances.
We should stop beating around the bush,we all know that atm there is only one option if we want to preserve our current lifestyle.
The only realistic option to stop global warming and possibly reverse it is by lowering, or at least stabelising the world population.
|
On September 29 2013 02:13 Rassy wrote:
"As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems."
These are all kinda irrelevant as atm the world population/economy and with that the co2 outpout grows way faster then the possible reduction we can get from technological advances.
We should stop beating around the bush,we all know that atm there is only one option if we want to preserve our current lifestyle.
The only realistic option to stop global warming and possibly reverse it is by lowering, or at least stabelising the world population.
And what's a fast way to reduce world population? Global warming!!! Nature has a way of working things out, doesn't she. 
|
On September 29 2013 02:18 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 02:13 Rassy wrote:
"As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems."
These are all kinda irrelevant as atm the world population/economy and with that the co2 outpout grows way faster then the possible reduction we can get from technological advances.
We should stop beating around the bush,we all know that atm there is only one option if we want to preserve our current lifestyle.
The only realistic option to stop global warming and possibly reverse it is by lowering, or at least stabelising the world population. And what's a fast way to reduce world population? Global warming!!! Nature has a way of working things out, doesn't she.
Well the truth of that remains to be seen.
|
On September 29 2013 02:13 Rassy wrote:
"As far as what should we do to fix it - we take baby steps. We engineer mode efficient power solutions, we engineer better operating cities, we engineer better transportation systems."
These are all kinda irrelevant as atm the world population/economy and with that the co2 outpout grows way faster then the possible reduction we can get from technological advances.
We should stop beating around the bush,we all know that atm there is only one option if we want to preserve our current lifestyle.
The only realistic option to stop global warming and possibly reverse it is by lowering, or at least stabelising the world population.
You may be looking for a fast solution, but again - to dismiss the slower solutions instead of improving upon those slower solutions (which, by the way, does not impede you from advocating your faster solution) is just silly. You want to stabilize or lower the world population? Go ahead and campaign for that. But to step out and say "your ideas of energy efficient buildings, transportation, and power sources are irrelevant, they'll never catch up to carbon output" is very dismissive and unhelpful.
|
On September 29 2013 01:47 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 01:08 Neemi wrote:
There's one problem I have with all this research, and that is that there is no way to experimentally conclude anything. All of it is observational studying, correlations. No one knows exactly how it all works, and the Earth itself damn sure isn't going to care about it. Species have died and new species have turned up all the time, just like the climate here on Earth changed over the years. That line of argument is about as illogical and unmotivated as requiring that juries perform an experiment before they lock someone up for being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Really...what am I supposed to say when faced with somebody who instinctively favours trusting oil companies over mainstream science, and repeats talking points that have been amply rebutted already in this thread and elsewhere? As with a juror...if you make up your mind on a whim, and you're not prepared to sit through the proceedings of a complex trial, you have no business giving your verdict.
Again, the IPCC can't be trusted either. They've proven that. Look at the Ad Hominem style of "debate" they use whenever anyone so much as suggests that maybe they don't know everything. Look at the papers they cited as evidence that actually came from Greenpeace and the WWF.
I'm not saying you should trust the oil companies instead, I'm saying you shouldn't trust any organization 100%, especially when they haven't exactly proven they CAN be trusted.
|
On September 29 2013 00:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2013 00:13 FluffyBinLaden wrote:On September 29 2013 00:02 -VapidSlug- wrote:
It is pretty difficult for me to believe anything the IPCC says. I have serious doubts on what they consider a "panel of scientists." When somebody stands in opposition to their official position--regardless of the person's credentials--the shit that is flung at them from the media and the IPCC itself is certain to scare away anyone with a different view. When someone outright says "the science is settled" it is time to discount every single word they have spoken. They are obviously hiding something, because even some of the tenants of gravity are being questioned; I sincerely doubt a chaos equation predicting the climate "settles" any scientific debate. If you run a chaos equation twice, you can achieve entirely opposite results because it is, by nature, chaotic.
As far as I see it, we have too many REAL environmental issues to worry about (dumping into the ocean, agriculture, water quality, nuclear waste disposal ect.) to get hung up on simply labeling CO2, and subsequently carbon, which are plant food and the building block of life, respectively, as pollutants and trying to eliminate them. It doesn't help that they've replaced 65% of the previous scientists they had working on these reports. It just makes a lot of this look too damn fishy, like they're distracting or trying to get something else done. Then there's the whole "Weather does/does not equal climate" thing that we appear to have changed our minds on 3 or 4 times recently. All I know is that it's really cold in Michigan right now. If you lack the intellectual skills to come up with a better analysis than this, why even have an opinion?
lol @ how douchey that sounded.
|
There are so many variables that it is hard to say humans are the primary cause imho. What if nature changes climate much more than humans influence it? On the other hand, summer wasn't so hot like last year's summer. Global warming? Probably not. Climate change? Definitely.
|
"OMG but in 100 million years from now there's going to be another ice age!! why are we even worrying about climate change at all?"
This is literally the dumbest argument of all time. Yeah, a billion years ago the Earth was covered in lava. Clearly the Earth was able to make it through that so surely it'll be-able to handle a few degrees C, right? Well the difference is now there are 7 billion people living on Earth, and this number is just going to get bigger.
Based on even the most uncontroversial and modest predictions, an increase of just a few (man made) degrees C over the next 100-200 years will have absolutely catastrophic outcomes for human civilization. Sure, a few degrees C is completely trivial on a geological timescale, but unless you think civilization should be reduced to 50,000 hunter gatherers scattered throughout the world, it poses an enormous threat.
Strong and decisive action is needed to be taken in order to ensure that civilization survives these next few centuries. By this time, advances in technology will have been so great that none of this will even matter anymore. We'll just be-able to terraform our own atmosphere to make sure that the climate always stays perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
