How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Nordic » Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:41 pm

smiths wrote: .......the post modern idea that any idea as valid as the next.




Smiths, I'm with you, and I think that phrase above is the key statement to what you write. It's the key statement to make about post 2001 propaganda and culture.

"Any idea is as valid as the next".

Really, isn't that why we're here? To sort through the muck?

I find it very strange how people have taken sides on this issue.

Real science is not dogma. Real science is theory. The latest theory to explain things. The whole idea of science is to refine these, challenge them, find new and better explanations for the observation of the phenomona we see around us.

Yet everybody is digging in and taking sides on ..... science?

Any idea is certainly NOT as valid as the next in the world of science. That's the whole idea behind science. You throw out the bad, disproven ideas and move on.

I suppose the Global Warming scenario scares the shit out of people. It does me. There's nothing more destablizing, psychologically, than not knowing if any place is safe. Where are we supposed to go in the "warming world" scenario? What if we choose badly and end up in a wasteland that can't support human life?

I think more people would rather just deny what they see coming down the road, and hope it's not gonna happen.

"Denial" and "hope" are both extremely strong parts of the human psyche.

At the same time, I've had enough science in my background to know that the theories COULD be wrong. They could be faulty. The melting ice caps could be due to something other than man-made phenomona, but if so, we sure haven't figured out what it is yet.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Cosmic Cowbell » Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:16 pm

The "science" of CO2 and it's effect on climate is pretty much a done deal. Carbon cycles and their effect on global temperatures are well understood scientifically. The debate is, IMO, whether or not the contributions of human activity are disrupting the natural carbon cycle. Again, there really is no question that human activity releases sequestered carbon unnaturally, either through the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil) or through deforestation. What remains unanswered is what the effects of this unnatural disruption of the cycle will do the natural cycle. We see some of the effects already. The acidification of the oceans and their ability to absorb CO2. The melting of permafrost, releasing vast quantities of methane. The melting of ice at the poles, effecting albedo and the release of CO2 trapped in said ice for millennia. This is already happening and it could be argued that even if human activity and it's affect on the sequestration of CO2 were to completely cease, the feedback loops are already in process enough that it may not really matter.

I posted a lecture by Professor Ricard Alley of Penn State in this thread. In his lecture, he connects carbon to temperature historically and specifically the corollary to known Mass Extinction events based on the geological record. And while he doesn't go into the ramifications, one can tell he is fully aware of them. I've always taken the long view wrt to the potential of AGW. If our activities today could even remotely cause, say in a 1000 years, another Mass Extinction event, then I really could care less about nefarious global agendas, economic or otherwise. All I know, and feel strongly about, is that we should have started mitigating our unnatural disruption of the carbon cycle a long time ago. I don't blame anyone in particular that we haven't up to this point, but will start to shortly now that the science of the fact is indisputable to the thinking human.

One has to wonder what equivocations ran through Nero's mind as Rome burned. Not that that's what we would ultimately remember, even if we did know. All Rome knew is that it burned. And that's all the Earth and future generations will know. We are Nero and we will be damned.
"There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil." ~ A.N. Whitehead
User avatar
Cosmic Cowbell
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby monster » Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:20 pm

Nordic wrote:Where are we supposed to go in the "warming world" scenario?


Mars? Heh. But where are we supposed to go in an "ice age" scenario? Because those have actually happened before. The disturbing-when-you-think-about-it term for our climate right now is "interglacial".
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
User avatar
monster
 
Posts: 1712
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:55 pm
Location: Everywhere
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby 23 » Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:15 pm

I kinda agree with Mr. Bernard, though.

"[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also make very poor observations." - Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist, 1865.

In fact, I agree with it so much that it deserves to be my new signature.

Thanks for giving me the impetus to do that.


Nordic wrote:
smiths wrote: .......the post modern idea that any idea as valid as the next.




Smiths, I'm with you, and I think that phrase above is the key statement to what you write. It's the key statement to make about post 2001 propaganda and culture.

"Any idea is as valid as the next".

Really, isn't that why we're here? To sort through the muck?

I find it very strange how people have taken sides on this issue.

Real science is not dogma. Real science is theory. The latest theory to explain things. The whole idea of science is to refine these, challenge them, find new and better explanations for the observation of the phenomona we see around us.

Yet everybody is digging in and taking sides on ..... science?

Any idea is certainly NOT as valid as the next in the world of science. That's the whole idea behind science. You throw out the bad, disproven ideas and move on.

I suppose the Global Warming scenario scares the shit out of people. It does me. There's nothing more destablizing, psychologically, than not knowing if any place is safe. Where are we supposed to go in the "warming world" scenario? What if we choose badly and end up in a wasteland that can't support human life?

I think more people would rather just deny what they see coming down the road, and hope it's not gonna happen.

"Denial" and "hope" are both extremely strong parts of the human psyche.

At the same time, I've had enough science in my background to know that the theories COULD be wrong. They could be faulty. The melting ice caps could be due to something other than man-made phenomona, but if so, we sure haven't figured out what it is yet.
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby smiths » Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:58 am

TVC15, if you have a point to make then make it, if you have some good references to add then add them,

cryptic references and hyperbolic sarcasm add nothing of value

hammer, describing me as a true believer is a sneaky insult and a complete misrepresenation of my views,

for those that dont quite get it, science is "in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome"
hypothesis' are made, experiments are conducted and these experiments are repeated and confirmed of falsified,
this is the polar opposite of belief in the religious sense

i asked above the skeptics to provide some links and info that refute the basic theories of carbon dioxide as a forcing agent in the atmosphere,
i see none so far,
there is not one skeptic i have read about to this point whose ideas have not been shredded by scientists who know what they are talking about

moost who claim to debunk man-made global warming are an embarressment to thier profession like australia's ian plimer

and as for this

I am not impressed with the current state of science as it seems more like scientism to me. This impression results from the modern embrace of things like fluoride, GM foods, ethanol, vaccines, aspartame, pharmaceuticals, soil killing chemical fertilizers, DU, etc.


this is like saying that you are not impressed with the concept of propulsion because after the government eliminated all safety standards the planes keep crashing

most of the examples given in this quote stem directly from the sociopathic, corporatist american state developing ever more horrible ways to screw people and make money, blaming science for this is absurd
was science to blame because sick people in germany in the 1930's wanted to create a master race?
is music to blame because people in guantanamo bay are tortured with high volume noise that offends thier culture?

developing plants that produce inferrtile seeds is not a problem with science, it is a problem with humans
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby smiths » Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:32 am

i'll just float this to the top again because i am sure that any minute the relevant people are going to engage with some of the requests for references i have made,

i asked above for the skeptics to provide some links and info that refute the basic theories of carbon dioxide as a forcing agent in the atmosphere and

please can someone point me to peer reviewed scientific papers explaining alternative theories for what is causing the rapidly changing climate (not weather)


anyone?
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby 23 » Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:33 am

I re(a)sonate with Heisenberg's observation that the observer of anything becomes part of the thing he or she is observing (AKA the Uncertainty Principle).

And that the act of observation changes that which you are observing.

Implying, of course, that the best scientific conclusion is always a probability one, instead of one of certainty.
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:20 pm

IPCC scientist: Global cooling headed our way for the next 30 years?

"There are signs everywhere, according to an article in the Daily Mail, which produced this graphic below:

Image

According to IPCC scientist Mojab Latif in an article for the Daily Mail, it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze. Latif is known as one of the world’s leading climate modelers.

He says we’re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures. While maybe it is a harsh prediction, he calls it a “mini ice age”. His theory is based on an analysis of natural oscillations in water temperatures in the oceans.

In a stunning revelation, he told the Daily Mail that:

“a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 percent.”

Quite a revelation, and a smack down of much of the climate science in the last 30 years that attributes the cause mostly to CO2 increases."

So is it weather or climate, this 'cold snap' in the north?

Don't tell me the science is robust.
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Cosmic Cowbell » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:38 pm

Try again Tazmic...

"At the UN's World Climate Conference 2009 in Geneva Latif gave a talk about prediction that used, amongst other material, results from this paper.[2] New Scientist reported about Latif's research that "we could be about to enter one or even two decades of cooler temperatures".[3] This interpretation has been stated as incorrect in an interview with Latif,[4] after being asked whether he was a climate sceptic, he explained that "If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojib_Latif

Why don't you step up to Smith's challenge, Tazmic, instead of posting more "Watt's Up With That" drivel...either that or admit you can't.
"There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil." ~ A.N. Whitehead
User avatar
Cosmic Cowbell
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Hammer of Los » Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:32 pm

So, how bad is global warming?
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Hammer of Los » Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:58 pm

Looking back at the original post;

DeltaDawn wrote:Then we have the fact, since it's global, there are reasons for all countries to divulge certain amounts of information they might not otherwise do. The entire thing to me stinks of bringing us one step closer to NWO and many steps made for the reputations of those taking us there.


I am sure there are people and groups who will try to organise international agreements to their and their bosses' benefit. I'm not convinced of the benefit of carbon trading schemes. I fear that would simply siphon money into the pockets of carbon commodity traders or somesuch.

But I don't doubt that man-made CO2 is having a warming effect on the climate, at the most simple level. But there are certainly many factors at work in the climate which we do not fully understand.

I believe good standards of planetary stewardship should be encouraged amongst all the nations of the world. I would also like to see all the nations of the world acting now to curb their emissions, and to fund further research into climate science, and clean energy sources. No doubt many other issues ought to be treated seriously such as radiation and chemical pollution of all kinds, and it would be nice if serious commitments were made to further research and ameliorative action in those areas too.

On the other hand, I don't think that the issue is going to be solved by turning to low energy light bulbs.

I believe very many current human activities, if allowed to continue unabated, will wreak havoc on our planetary ecosystems on timescale(s) about which it is difficult to have any certainty.

Of course, the mainstream news/entertainment media talk rubbish about climate change. But then, they talk complete rubbish about everything else too.

Anyway, thats my position. I think. For now.

In fact, I have learned a lot from reading some of the links posted here. Mostly I have learned that the concensus is that they dont know enough about the climate to do much in the way of accurate modelling.

Some of the global warming hype is just more apocalypse porn. The millenial paranoia of catastrophism has seeped everywhere. Or is it just the worlds of hollywood and science? Odd bedfellows, you might imagine.

But you know, I calmed down when the world wasn't destroyed by the Millenium Bug.
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:20 pm

cosmic cowbell wrote:Try again Tazmic...


Why? You are pointing out that Latif is miffed over some interpretations of his work, those interpretations that present him as an 'climate sceptic'. That is unrelated to my post.

My question was, is this 'cold snap' in the north, weather or climate? To which I add, when does a 'natural variation' get big enough to qualify as climate? :wink:

"Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect, but said that was consistent with the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "No climate specialist would ever say that 100% of the warming we have seen is down to greenhouse gas emissions.""

cosmic cowbell wrote:Why don't you step up to Smith's challenge?


Because we've already covered this simplistic ground - that the climate changes and humans don't live in a vacuum, and because they are clearly leading questions.

i asked above for the skeptics to provide some links and info that refute the basic theories of carbon dioxide as a forcing agent in the atmosphere and


We know full well that CO2 can act as a forcing agent and as a feedback agent, this is hardly what the climate debate is about.

please can someone point me to peer reviewed scientific papers explaining alternative theories for what is causing the rapidly changing climate (not weather)


Given that Latif thinks that up to half of the warming is not from CO2, perhaps you should be asking him?
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby 8bitagent » Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:30 pm

To this day I am astonished at how pervasive the "global warming is a hoax" right wing crap has become, even in some liberal circles I've come across.

Good job Fox, Alex Jones and the rest of right wing idiot America!
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12244
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:45 pm

Who said that it was a hoax, 8bit?
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby smiths » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:46 pm

We know full well that CO2 can act as a forcing agent and as a feedback agent, this is hardly what the climate debate is about.


but that is what the whole debate is ultimately about,
humans are releasing vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere,
CO2 acts as a forcing agent with the effect that the climate of the earth warms steadily over time,
observation over decades confirms that the earths climate is steadily warming (notwithstanding wild fluctuations in weather)

skeptics of anthropogenic climate change say that even if the climate is found to be warming, we are not contributing,
ergo the release of vast amounts of CO2 is not in any way affecting climate, therefore CO2 is not a forcing agent

the best alternative theory i have heard is the most logical one,
that the sun is the main driver of changes in earths climate,
but the record of the last forty years seems to contadict this and it would also require an epic coincidence theory

just at the very moment in time – lasting aeons – that humans have exploded their population levels, upped the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by huge factors, savaged the oceans, cut and burned the forests, multiplied the use of vehicles exponentially and poured chemicals into the land and waters, just at that very moment ...
the global climate has started to change dramatically and this is ... a coincidence
this is clearly the greatest of all coincidence theories
our comment on this is the Bart Simpson defence, "we didnt do it, nobody saw us do it, you cant prove a thing"

the next decade will be pivotal,
the climate will either cool and therefore follow many centuries of tradition where a long weak solar cycle (as just ended) results in cooling, or the climate will continue to warm against all of the skeptics theories and against the solar cycle historically and it will look increasingly likely that we have fucked things up majorly and of course it will be too late to do much about it,
for those of us who trust the theory supported by the overwhelming number of qualified and genuine scientists it is looking increasingly like a heads they win tails we lose scenario,
i for one would rather not be standing around in twenty years toasting the ultimate in bitter sweet victories
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests