Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[ArmoredDragon]

So their we have it, yet another change of stance when somebody questions you.

Isn't that ideal? When somebody points out a hole in your position, you'll try to reconcile it by either changing your view or finding another explanation? It seems that he did the former. That is a core part of the scientific method. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[ArmoredDragon]

Your inferences are legion and we've seen the profile before.

Uh...wut?

Which inferences in particular? Nobody has even addressed ones that I've made at all. The first response I got from you was information about who all subscribes to global warming. I never contended the issue at all, but clearly you believed that contending it is part of my profile. Obviously it's not, so what profile are you referring to, exactly?

Are you in general agreement with the main stream climate science that the earth is warming and it is primarily due to GHG emissions from burning fossil fuel?

It's kind of hard to be in either agreement or disagreement with a subject that I've never done any investigation on. For example, I've never observed whether or not any particular gas causes a greenhouse effect, nor have I measured to what extent it does so. Furthermore, even if I did such an experiment, I would have no idea how the hell it would work in an open environment, which is beyond a scale that I could ever test.

Something like relativity is easy to test due to my knowledge of how GPS works. Something like the pangea theory is testable because of actual measurements we've made recently. (I think the last estimate was that the continents drift about the rate at which your fingernails grow.)

As for whether or not the planet is warming, I think I made it pretty clear by now that yes I do believe that is happening. And as I said earlier, my opinions are very similar to that of Randi in that I do believe we are having an impact, but I have no idea to what extent.

And to be honest, it's really hard to tell to what extent due to all of the noise associated with the subject. In my opinion, this is because the environmentalist movement stopped being about science a long time ago. Now they are basically a PAC, so it is a bit difficult to get around the BS to figure out what is real and what is nonsense.

Are you in agreement with the wider world community that this represents a challenge that needs to be addressed.....that BAU is not a suitable response.

Not sure what BAU you are referencing, but I don't think anything needs to be done beyond preparation. And by preparation, I don't mean sit in your bunkers and wait for the meteor to hit kind of thing. I mean adaptations that aren't much more complicated than ones we make all the time.

Once we get by those two then please provide YOUR suggestion on how you think the problem is best addressed as that is where this particular forum is moving towards.

In my very first post on this forum, one of the first things I did was indicate that my view on the matter probably doesn't sit anywhere in line with what anybody is used to dealing with. It's painfully obvious that you didn't even bother to read my post because that one point obviously flew past you, yet you attacked me over the contents of what you didn't read anyways.

And by the way, just by my nature I don't really believe in anything somebody tells me. I remember when I was little I was always told that if you touch baby birds in a birds nest that the mother would abandon them. I was curious one day (as all kids are) and I started playing with some birds in a nest. I found out on my own a few hours later that what I was always told was BS.

I also always thought it was BS that going outside in the cold without a jacket will make you get the common cold, or that sitting too close to the TV would make you blind. This is in spite of being raised around people who always insisted otherwise and would call me names when I didn't believe them.

My opinion on most things therefore tends to sit as "I don't know" unless I've personally seen to believe it, and even then I am careful to avoid confirmation bias.

Hell, isn't all of what I just said above the mark of being a skeptic?

 

[ArmoredDragon]

OK but that wasn't how I initially read it, so I can understand if DC also took it as an endorsement.


Again fair enough, but this is the science forum and this thread (despite occasional off topic tangents) is about the science - what's happening, what's the cause, how serious is it likely to be.

The words I bolded are pretty much what I am touching on the most. So by your definition, what I am discussing belongs here. My first post was on exactly that, and not one person who has tried to "shut me down" as it were, hasn't even talked about that at all, or my reasoning on why I hold my particular view.

 

[Pixel42]

The words I bolded are pretty much what I am touching on. So by your definition, what I am discussing belongs here.

Fine.

When I first got interested in this subject many years ago estimates of the amount of warming likely to result from a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (something we'll have acheived before the end of this century at the current rate of increase) varied from below 2C to more than 5C. Thanks to a great deal of research that range has gradually been narrowed, so that we can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that the increase will be somewhere around 3C. That's the global average of course: disruption to existing weather patterns will mean that some areas will warm considerably more than that, others less (and some may actually get cooler, for a while at least).

How serious do you think that is likely to be?

 

[ArmoredDragon]

Fine.

When I first got interested in this subject many years ago estimates of the amount of warming likely to result from a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (something we'll have acheived before the end of this century at the current rate of increase) varied from below 2C to more than 5C. Thanks to a great deal of research that range has gradually been narrowed, so that we can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that the increase will be somewhere around 3C. That's the global average of course: disruption to existing weather patterns will mean that some areas will warm considerably more than that, others less (and some may actually get cooler, for a while at least).

How serious do you think that is likely to be?

It could be bad or it could be not so bad. What matters is that we'll adapt to it, like we always have. I'd reference you to my first post rather than explain it again, but I can't post links.

 

[uke2se]

Perhaps, but I do try to get the most accurate information I can. I'm not married to either viewpoint right now. I just can't help but have this nagging suspicion that this is going to be one of those things like Global Cooling in the 70's.

Global cooling in the 70's is another denialist myth. There was no such thing.

 

[uke2se]

That sounds to me more like an argument against religion.

It is an argument against the religion of climate denial.

How do you "accept science" exactly? Does that mean we have one side that all thinks the same on every issue, and everybody else is holistic?

It means that if you're not an active climate scientist, you don't go pontificating in the media about stuff you know jack about, and you accept the consensus.

Even well renowned scientists within the same field will have disagreements with one another on their theories. That's what empirical science is about, being able to test theories. Peer review involves people being skeptical and even attacking your findings in order to test them.

Yes, but you're clearly not a climate scientist, so you don't have any ground to stand on when criticizing climate science. Nor does Freeman Dyson or any other "renowned" scientist you want to drag up.

Have we had a reset of this thread again? It sure feels like all the same crap once more.

 

[DC]

Yes and yes. I'm not really a car person, and I like cycling. I cycle in spite of triple digit temperatures and most things I do being far away. For the most part, I only have to drive somewhere twice a week.



Honestly I can't tell you where it comes from, but I do know this: My state produces more food than it consumes. The notoriously hot climate here actually works quite well for that purpose; you can grow almost anything here. (You see that?)



I don't know, I haven't looked. But I do know that Beijing is a big polluted hellhole whereas my city is very clean.

yeah cycling is good, i should do that more. but i am lazy and prefer to sin in a tram or Train

Bejing is surely heavy poluted but other chinese cities are much worse. but here we talk about CO2. and the average CO2 footprint of a chinese Person is alot lower than our average. with our Standard of living ist almost not possible to get that low like a chinese Person, so China was maybe not the best example for you to pick.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

Seems I've graduated to the point where I can post links. That said, here's my original post if anybody wants to actually read it now rather than make assumptions about my viewpoints.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9124594&postcount=8426

As a PS (post-script) I don't think we'll ever end up in a situation like Venus. Take a greenhouse, and see just how hot you can actually make that thing. Eventually it will hit a point of equilibrium whereas it won't take in thermal energy faster than it expels it. Unless of course you amplified the sun's energy to increase the rate at which energy is added to the system, like say moving it closer.

There could be something wrong with what I just said; I don't know. Like I said, I'm not a climate scientist, and I won't pretend to be one. I don't think it benefits any of you to pretend to be one either. That would be like ID proponents saying they're biologists and paleontologists.

 

[uke2se]

It could be bad or it could be not so bad. What matters is that we'll adapt to it, like we always have. I'd reference you to my first post rather than explain it again, but I can't post links.

We might or might not adapt to the changing environment. We never had to deal with anything like this as a species before, so saying "like we always have" is simply wrong.

The point is, the world around us won't adapt. It has no chance to.

 

[uke2se]

Seems I've graduated to the point where I can post links. That said, here's my original post if anybody wants to actually read it now rather than make assumptions about my viewpoints.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9124594&postcount=8426

As a PS (post-script) I don't think we'll ever end up in a situation like Venus. Take a greenhouse, and see just how hot you can actually make that thing. Eventually it will hit a point of equilibrium whereas it won't take in thermal energy faster than it expels it. Unless of course you amplified the sun's energy to increase the rate at which energy is added to the system, like say moving it closer.

There could be something wrong with what I just said; I don't know. Like I said, I'm not a climate scientist, and I won't pretend to be one. I don't think it benefits any of you to pretend to be one either. That would be like ID proponents saying they're biologists and paleontologists.

Do you think "as hot as Venus" should be the benchmark for us to start doing something?

By the way, I read your first post. It's the usual denialist crap we've seen a million times before.

 

[Megalodon]

Global cooling in the 70's is another denialist myth. There was no such thing.

Considering the uncertainties at the time regarding the effect of the orbital cycles on the onset of the next glacial period, plus the physical effect of sulfate aerosols, there was a scientific basis to postulate a possible cooling event. But even then there were much less articles referring to it than to global warming.

What is interesting to compare is the attitude of the scientists opposed to global warming today. Their attitude tends to be more of the sort "It can't be warming, because... well, just because!".

There is no physical explanation beyond the ones being offered by mainstream climatology, and all the putative avenues have been relentlessly closed by reality.

And more importantly, they can't find a new mechanism for warming without finding an accessory mechanism to counter the warming that we know for sure is associated with the accumulation of GHG.

The debate right now is reduced to making sure the liars can't drown the scientific discourse in the arena of public opinion. Which they try by repeating the same lies, innuendos and insults that were being used ten years ago.

 

[Belz...]

TL;DR: Keep london tidy, don't worry about global warming.

That doesn't sound like a climat skeptic's reaction, does it ?

 

[Pixel42]

It could be bad or it could be not so bad. What matters is that we'll adapt to it, like we always have. I'd reference you to my first post rather than explain it again, but I can't post links.

OK I've found what appears to be your first post in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9124594#post9124594

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that because we have adapted to climate change in the past we will be able to do so this time too. I certainly don't see how that follows. To mention just the first few objections that occur to me: homo sapiens came very close to being wiped out completely about 70,000 years ago; small populations living in mud huts can migrate much more easily than millions living in large cities; the regions they might migrate to are for the most part already occupied; the current change is happening much faster than most natural changes.

 

[DC]

Uh...wut?

Which inferences in particular? Nobody has even addressed ones that I've made at all. The first response I got from you was information about who all subscribes to global warming. I never contended the issue at all, but clearly you believed that contending it is part of my profile. Obviously it's not, so what profile are you referring to, exactly?



It's kind of hard to be in either agreement or disagreement with a subject that I've never done any investigation on. For example, I've never observed whether or not any particular gas causes a greenhouse effect, nor have I measured to what extent it does so. Furthermore, even if I did such an experiment, I would have no idea how the hell it would work in an open environment, which is beyond a scale that I could ever test.

Something like relativity is easy to test due to my knowledge of how GPS works. Something like the pangea theory is testable because of actual measurements we've made recently. (I think the last estimate was that the continents drift about the rate at which your fingernails grow.)

As for whether or not the planet is warming, I think I made it pretty clear by now that yes I do believe that is happening. And as I said earlier, my opinions are very similar to that of Randi in that I do believe we are having an impact, but I have no idea to what extent.

And to be honest, it's really hard to tell to what extent due to all of the noise associated with the subject. In my opinion, this is because the environmentalist movement stopped being about science a long time ago. Now they are basically a PAC, so it is a bit difficult to get around the BS to figure out what is real and what is nonsense.



Not sure what BAU you are referencing, but I don't think anything needs to be done beyond preparation. And by preparation, I don't mean sit in your bunkers and wait for the meteor to hit kind of thing. I mean adaptations that aren't much more complicated than ones we make all the time.



In my very first post on this forum, one of the first things I did was indicate that my view on the matter probably doesn't sit anywhere in line with what anybody is used to dealing with. It's painfully obvious that you didn't even bother to read my post because that one point obviously flew past you, yet you attacked me over the contents of what you didn't read anyways.

And by the way, just by my nature I don't really believe in anything somebody tells me. I remember when I was little I was always told that if you touch baby birds in a birds nest that the mother would abandon them. I was curious one day (as all kids are) and I started playing with some birds in a nest. I found out on my own a few hours later that what I was always told was BS.

I also always thought it was BS that going outside in the cold without a jacket will make you get the common cold, or that sitting too close to the TV would make you blind. This is in spite of being raised around people who always insisted otherwise and would call me names when I didn't believe them.

My opinion on most things therefore tends to sit as "I don't know" unless I've personally seen to believe it, and even then I am careful to avoid confirmation bias.

Hell, isn't all of what I just said above the mark of being a skeptic?

the green movement, whatever that is, i would think Greenpeace and similar Groups, have never been about science, but about enviromentalism. and when science is in Agreement with them, they are totally sciency. but when not. they simply ignore it or even deny it.

but science on the other Hand, was always about science and they are totally sciency and such.

but when you think we can easely adapt, you Need to do some reading on Impact studies. the IPCC has some good in the 2007 Report. ist not an easy going thingy, ist moer like impossible. we will have to move Food production, People, mega cities etc etc. the Impacts are huge.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It could be bad or it could be not so bad. What matters is that we'll adapt to it, like we always have.

Of course we will. I plan to grow webbed feet and gills.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

It is an argument against the religion of climate denial.

It means that if you're not an active climate scientist, you don't go pontificating in the media about stuff you know jack about, and you accept the consensus.

Well, if I accepted the consensus all the time, then I'd still believe that going outside in the cold without a jacket gives you the common cold.

Science isn't a democracy. You can't go around always saying that the majority opinion defines our reality. It doesn't. It never has. It never will. If reality would bend to the majority consensus on a whim, then the world would be flat and smack dab in the center of the universe.

But anyways, I'm not really at odds with the particular consensus you are speaking of. Again, you are doing just like MD who is making an assumption about my position, and then attacking that false assumption. Why is it that so many people here do that?

It's one thing if I did go against the grain and tried to disprove climate science. I can sort of understand the frustration with that when I try to explain evolution to my mormon relatives. But I'm not doing that. You are trying to make me take a position that I never took to begin with. I've been a fan of James Randi for a long time, I sort of hoped for something better in this forum when I signed up.

Yes, but you're clearly not a climate scientist, so you don't have any ground to stand on when criticizing climate science. Nor does Freeman Dyson or any other "renowned" scientist you want to drag up.

Have we had a reset of this thread again? It sure feels like all the same crap once more.

Ugh...just when I thought I made it pretty clear that I wasn't a climate scientist, somebody comes and attacks me because I'm clearly not a climate scientist. And then worse, assumes that I'm taking the same position as his opposing team as if there are only two teams and you have to pick a side or die, like in that movie.

 

[Belz...]

LOL, pure arrogance. Someone who has already displayed he is part of the problem insists his recognition of the problem is mandatory, that people who are aware of the harm people like him are doing on this issue, must sit up and beg for his approval.

Say what ? Where are you getting this from ?

 

[uke2se]

Well, if I accepted the consensus all the time, then I'd still believe that going outside in the cold without a jacket gives you the common cold.

1. Please show me evidence of a scientific consensus on that issue.
2. Who overturned said scientific consensus?

Science isn't a democracy.

Typical denialist misunderstanding of a scientific consensus.

You can't go around always saying that the majority opinion defines our reality. It doesn't. It never has. It never will. If reality would bend to the majority consensus on a whim, then the world would be flat and smack dab in the center of the universe.

The scientific consensus on AGW is useful for laymen to get policy shifted. Scientists don't use it do do science.

But anyways, I'm not really at odds with the particular consensus you are speaking of. Again, you are doing just like MD who is making an assumption about my position, and then attacking that false assumption. Why is it that so many people here do that?

I mean the scientific consensus among climate scientists that the earth is warming, that we are primarily responsible and that we have a serious problem in our hands.

I read your first post. The position you put up there is a boilerplate denialist position. We've been around in this thread for a while. We've seen your kind come and go. You can't surprise us anymore.

It's one thing if I did go against the grain and tried to disprove climate science. I can sort of understand the frustration with that when I try to explain evolution to my mormon relatives. But I'm not doing that. You are trying to make me take a position that I never took to begin with. I've been a fan of James Randi for a long time, I sort of hoped for something better in this forum when I signed up.

Perhaps you shouldn't expect something different on a skeptics forum when you take a blatantly unskeptical position like climate denial in the first thread you participate in.

Ugh...just when I thought I made it pretty clear that I wasn't a climate scientist, somebody comes and attacks me because I'm clearly not a climate scientist. And then worse, assumes that I'm taking the same position as his opposing team as if there are only two teams and you have to pick a side or die, like in that movie.

Pick a side is right. Either pick a side or keep your yap shut. There's only one right side to pick.

 

[DC]

Seems I've graduated to the point where I can post links. That said, here's my original post if anybody wants to actually read it now rather than make assumptions about my viewpoints.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9124594&postcount=8426

As a PS (post-script) I don't think we'll ever end up in a situation like Venus. Take a greenhouse, and see just how hot you can actually make that thing. Eventually it will hit a point of equilibrium whereas it won't take in thermal energy faster than it expels it. Unless of course you amplified the sun's energy to increase the rate at which energy is added to the system, like say moving it closer.

There could be something wrong with what I just said; I don't know. Like I said, I'm not a climate scientist, and I won't pretend to be one. I don't think it benefits any of you to pretend to be one either. That would be like ID proponents saying they're biologists and paleontologists.

Pangea Ultima seems to by a hypothesis and not a theory. but that doesn't matter anyway, tha's out more than 200 Million years. now we Need totake care we survive the next 1000 years.
we will also have the next glacial period, that is not only a hypopthesis, that is already Happening but takes a very Long time.

Global warming might also happen naturally, but currently we are causing it.
naturally the cool should be cooling slowly into the next glacial period.

yeah i agree, i also don't think ist a coincidence that civilisation rose in the time of a pretty stable climate. what is why i fear the instability we brought to the System. it might be a danger to civilisation as we know it. we evolved in this climate and formed the human civilisation and now we already increased CO2 Level above the Level in which we evolved in.

we can adapt to different climates somehwat, the Food we eat and animals we use and eat not so much. And being 7 Billion and growing , doesn't really help us with that.

mass relocation will come from rising sea Levels. some of the largest most populated cities are coastal cities. also Food security in some regions are in danger, and most importantly. we humans like water, we often Need glaciers to have year over stable water sources. those glaciers are mostly melting already, and might create huge water shortages very soon.

not sure about AGW and economy, but i guess the Impact on the economy will mainly come from mass allocations, Food insecurity and water insecurity.


your political ideology does not matter when we talk about the Problem, when we talk about solving the Problem, politics and ideology might come into Play. and there i am very open to all ideas. and many different approaches are and will be used in future to adress this Problem. i guess the CHinese will go for a less libertarian solution etc.

so i think i adressed all your Points.