Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

It wouldn't let me post any links if that's what you're asking.

If you can't click it, it's not a link? C'mon! Write them down. Insert spaces if necessary.

I'm sure those links don't meet any standard for a thread in the science forum, but do it anyway.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Of course we have, even very recently. For example, I live comfortably in an area that most of the world considers inhospitable. When relatives come down here to visit, all they ever do is complain about how hot it is and then set my AC down to 60 and run up my utility bill.

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

Not at all, rather it's just a talking point I've seen about what greenhouse gases do to a planet. From what little I have read about climate science, there's a scale that they have, called GWP, to model how certain greenhouse gases effect the climate. CO2 is the baseline, with other common gases increasing in multiples. By that definition, water vapor is a much much MUCH higher contributor in terms of both potency and volume than CO2. And no, I'm not downplaying the effect of CO2. What I am saying however is that I can't envision a scenario where greenhouse gases could ever result in a temperature change anywhere near the scale to that of Venus. Warmer than they are now? Absolutely. But not to the scale of Venus.

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

How so? What am I denying? By the way, I am glad that at least you are reading my post rather than making assumptions about my viewpoint.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

I disagree very much. You see, unlike even say 150 years ago, we can migrate faster, safer, and in much larger numbers than any point in history. Read up on the Donner Party for example; you'd have to screw up really bad to repeat that again. However in older times, it wouldn't be difficult to make such a mistake. In addition, we have the ability to set up shelter in remote areas much faster. That is assuming that the need arises to migrate to begin with, which I don't think it will.

 

[uke2se]

Of course we have, even very recently. For example, I live comfortably in an area that most of the world considers inhospitable. When relatives come down here to visit, all they ever do is complain about how hot it is and then set my AC down to 60 and run up my utility bill.

Jeeeesus...

Could you please take a moment and learn what "adapting" means?

ETA: This is sooo Stundied!

Not at all, rather it's just a talking point I've seen about what greenhouse gases do to a planet. From what little I have read about climate science, there's a scale that they have, called GWP, to model how certain greenhouse gases effect the climate. CO2 is the baseline, with other common gases increasing in multiples. By that definition, water vapor is a much much MUCH higher contributor in terms of both potency and volume than CO2. And no, I'm not downplaying the effect of CO2. What I am saying however is that I can't envision a scenario where greenhouse gases could ever result in a temperature change anywhere near the scale to that of Venus.

Why is this relevant? Nobody's saying Earth is going to become Venus because of our CO2 emissions.

How so? What am I denying? By the way, I am glad that at least you are reading my post rather than making assumptions about my viewpoint.

In your post, you downplay the gravity of AGW, while serving up a number of denialist myths that have been shot down in this very thread at least five times before your arrival. We are able to tell from your post the mold of your denialism.

You represent a type of denialist we have been inundated with here over the years. We've heard all your arguments before.

 

[uke2se]

I disagree very much. You see, unlike even say 150 years ago, we can migrate faster, safer, and in much larger numbers than any point in history. Read up on the Donner Party for example; you'd have to screw up really bad to repeat that again. However in older times, it wouldn't be difficult to make such a mistake. In addition, we have the ability to set up shelter in remote areas much faster. That is assuming that the need arises to migrate to begin with, which I don't think it will.

Seriously, stop and think about what you're saying. It's getting embarrassing.

As a hint: who are "we"?

 

[DC]

I disagree very much. You see, unlike even say 150 years ago, we can migrate faster, safer, and in much larger numbers than any point in history. Read up on the Donner Party for example; you'd have to screw up really bad to repeat that again. However in older times, it wouldn't be difficult to make such a mistake. In addition, we have the ability to set up shelter in remote areas much faster. That is assuming that the need arises to migrate to begin with, which I don't think it will.

have you read any Impact studies ? scientists from all over the world have been looking at the question if we will have mass Migration etc.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

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

Hmm..I don't think you understand. I'm not saying that any scientists have held that view. What I'm saying is how I view the consensus. Just a little digression, one of the things I like about our constitution is how it creates a balance between the elite and the tyrannical mob. I think the scientific method does something similar.

Typical denialist misunderstanding of a scientific consensus.



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



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.



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.



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

Wow...hmm...ok this all begs another question. Why did you come somewhere to discuss, only with the express intention of not discussing?

 

[DC]

Hmm..I don't think you understand. I'm not saying that any scientists have held that view. What I'm saying is how I view the consensus. Just a little digression, one of the things I like about our constitution is how it creates a balance between the elite and the tyrannical mob. I think the scientific method does something similar.



Wow...hmm...ok this all begs another question. Why did you come somewhere to discuss, only with the express intention of not discussing?

what concencus were you talking about then? you two were talking about scientific concencus, then you said if i always would believe in the concencus, that implied to me you meant the scientific concencus, which concencus were you talking about if not the scientific?

 

[ArmoredDragon]

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.

Well, the main thing I'm getting at is that the climate will change. It doesn't really matter what we do, it will get much hotter and it will get much cooler.

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.

But how long do we need that stable period to last?

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.

Actually I don't think the population will be a problem. I'd go into it further, but I talked about it earlier in another thread. Long story short, the rate of growth is beginning to decline. My personal theory is that we've come really close to some sort of natural equilibrium.

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.

Now the water is a concern. I'm not quite sure how fresh water spread through the supercontinent millions of years ago, especially given how far inward the water had to travel. But, it seems to have done so anyways.

 

[Megalodon]

Wow...hmm...ok this all begs another question. Why did you come somewhere to discuss, only with the express intention of not discussing?

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.

I think it sums it up...

 

[Megalodon]

My personal theory...

We're in the Science Forum... Please refer to your guesses as that. The word theory has a well defined meaning.

 

[Pixel42]

I disagree very much. You see, unlike even say 150 years ago, we can migrate faster, safer, and in much larger numbers than any point in history. Read up on the Donner Party for example; you'd have to screw up really bad to repeat that again. However in older times, it wouldn't be difficult to make such a mistake. In addition, we have the ability to set up shelter in remote areas much faster. That is assuming that the need arises to migrate to begin with, which I don't think it will.

I see absolutely no grounds for your complacency. The fact that a tiny human population managed to survive natural climate change in the past tells us nothing about the difficulty 7 billion people will have adapting to much faster changes. The next serious natural climate change isn't expected for tens of thousands of years, and its inevitability doesn't lessen the seriousness of the situation we are currently in one iota.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Speaking of Randi
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html

He ran into the hyperstupid hysteria of alarmists quickly



those comments sounds a lot like the echo chamber of unscientific alarm that resounds here.

r-j, you forgot to tell that post was a correction after Randi swallowed The Global Warming Swindle hook, line and sinker.

Randi is a proud person who probably has the intuition that man made global warming is not possible, but he hasn't the education and knowledge needed to find his way through the whole subject (you forgot to quote Randi saying "...beyond my grasp"). That's the probable reason behind Randi endorsing denialism twice in the blog, and the reason he got an avalanche of protests each time he did so. The "I'm not denying anything" was the answer to both avalanches, that is, a PR message.

That only shows that Randi is human and as observer his heart is with some side of the tug-of-war. That doesn't mean that for him what it is, it is not.

On the contrary, you have shown yourself here capable of any misbehaviour to distort reality. You have focused ignorance and lack of scruple and fabricated countless pieces of bull here. The problem continue to be moral, and you needed to play with and promote the image of wacky alarmists howling hysterical mantras just for you to acquire some sort of appearance of normality. Fat chance, old coot. You're barenaked.

 

[DC]

Well, the main thing I'm getting at is that the climate will change. It doesn't really matter what we do, it will get much hotter and it will get much cooler.



But how long do we need that stable period to last?



Actually I don't think the population will be a problem. I'd go into it further, but I talked about it earlier in another thread. Long story short, the rate of growth is beginning to decline. My personal theory is that we've come really close to some sort of natural equilibrium.



Now the water is a concern. I'm not quite sure how fresh water spread through the supercontinent millions of years ago, especially given how far inward the water had to travel. But, it seems to have done so anyways.

Sure the climate will Change. and we will get to a Point were we have to controll it. the next glaical period is comming if we solve the AGW Problem. and we will have to prevent the globe from cooling too much. after we managed to prevent the planet from warming up too much.
so climate Change if natural or not will be part of our life. but atm we have this Anthropogenic climate Change. and we Need to solve that Problem.

how Long do we Need a stable climate? aslong we can. everything else is a huge danger to Society as we know it.

Population is now already a Problem, we simply do not have enough sources for all of those 7 Billion People having a Standard of living like we have.
and untill we really stabilize world Population is still a Long way to go. alot of developing nations Need to develop in order to have an education System like we have and that will then elad to less children.
but also with a stabile Population at 7 Billion, there will be huge mass allcations do to AGW.

it doesn't matter how water spread millions of years ago, we were not around back then and we were not 7 Billion back then. ist a huge Problem we will have to solve.

 

[ArmoredDragon]

Jeeeesus...

Could you please take a moment and learn what "adapting" means?

Shall I pull out a dictionary? How about webster, which says "to make fit". I tried to link to this earlier in my original post, but couldn't. Have a look here:

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/204/18/3151.full.pdf

Is that adapting enough for you? Increased hemoglobin and lung capacity to deal with a third less oxygen and much colder temperature. Within a single generation.

ETA: This is sooo Stundied!

Why is this relevant? Nobody's saying Earth is going to become Venus because of our CO2 emissions.

Perhaps not here, but it is an argument I've seen before. Just as I addressed other arguments I've seen before.

In your post, you downplay the gravity of AGW, while serving up a number of denialist myths that have been shot down in this very thread at least five times before your arrival. We are able to tell from your post the mold of your denialism.

You represent a type of denialist we have been inundated with here over the years. We've heard all your arguments before.

To be honest, I've dealt with people like you before as well. I remember talking about religion with a group of christians, and I was trying to explain to a guy the problem with always sticking to traditional wisdom. I gave him an example of the old saying of that which goes up must eventually come down. So he stands on a chair and holds a pair of shoes up in the air and drops them in order to debunk my argument and says "duh" and gives me this 'you're stupid for saying that' look. I sort of stopped talking at that point. Worse is that we were in an aerospace science class, where sending objects into space was a common discussion. It was kind of annoying because the entire group was shouting me down, and it was difficult how every time I would make a point, three people would make some silly counterpoints because they've all supposedly heard everything there is to hear about evolution, and have their arguments against it ready before hand. I'm sure they all still believe that the book of genesis is an accurate account of the creation of the universe. Whatever floats their boat.

So far DC is the only rational person I've run into here. It's obvious we disagree with one another, but he isn't behaving like doctor banjo and forcing viewpoints upon me which I never held, which is a good thing, unfortunately I can't say the same for most of you.

Anyways, I can't really keep up here, it's one thing if I was just talking to one person, but having to deal with counterpoints against a group can get frustrating because every time I say one thing I have to deal with multiple counterpoints, even more frustrating is that when making an analogy several here interpret that as if it is my de-facto opinion. Even if I did get you guys to at least understand my point of view, not even accepting it or believing it, I won't really gain anything. Hell, I won't gain anything if you did believe it either.

I just wanted to offer my opinion that the world really isn't as crappy a place as most make it out to be, and it isn't about to end soon. To some, the end times are always just around the corner and the old days were always the golden days, and I don't think I'll ever convince them otherwise. I think I'll stick around the JREF forum, but this thread seems to be dominated by a single "don't you dare question it" sort of viewpoint, which means there is no point in discussion and so hardly any point in the thread to begin with, so I'll bow out of it.

 

[Megalodon]

I think I'll stick around the JREF forum, but this thread seems to be dominated by a single "don't you dare question it" sort of viewpoint,

This thread is 213 pages long, and you didn't bother to read any of it before coming with the old strawmen.

which means there is no point in discussion and so hardly any point in the thread to begin with, so I'll bow out of it.

In that we agree... you will find no fertile ground for your innuendos, insults and guesses. And if you don't spend any time informing your opinion before deciding to join the discussion, then there is really no point to join.

 

[DC]

yes there is much arrogance and much hostility in this Topic.
understandably. a huge number of scientists from around the world have reasearched AGW for several decades now. our best knowledge about it is summarized in the IPCC AR's. everything is freely avaible for everybody to read and learn. but most People don't. yet still alot of People are taking their time to read Long oppinion peaces on WUWT without questioning it and go on the web and spread the myths and lies they found on denier Blogs. yet AGW is the biggest Problem we ever came across. nothing else Comes even Close to it. yet so many People parrot ignorant talkingpoints without even taking the time to Research and question their own beliefs. they often talk about grantwhores and how science is wrong, without even knowing what science has to say. they only know what Deniers have to say about the science.
so i can fully understand the hostility.

but back then when i was a 9/11 truther i could also not understand the hostility. only after realizing that alot of People here had heard and debunked my Claims and myths i was convinced of a Long time ago. and every day another ignorant idiot Comes along and makes the same Claims. that is annoying.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Would anyone like to offer an opinion on the just the facts global warming site? I can't type out the url because I'm new and not allowed but I think anyone should be able to find it.

I visited a site called justfacts dot com (you could have written it like that) and I found immediately factual errors, inconvenient approaches, and a non-functional collection of items. Their pages seem to be a collage without a "storyline" that makes it useful. You can't get the story nor use it as a repository of information.

The whole AGW subject has the uncomfortable virtue of revealing intellectual and moral shortcomings in individuals and human systems.

 

[macdoc]

Yay team.....closing coal plants and opening new nukes

US starts building first nuclear reactors in 30 years

* 03 April 2013 by Michael Reilly

After a three-decade hiatus, work is finally under way on a new wave of reactors thanks to government funding – but China is already way ahead

Editorial: "It's too early to herald a US nuclear renaissance"

YOU could be forgiven for thinking a new era of nuclear energy is under way in the US. On 11 March, crews at the Virgil C Summer power plant in South Carolina completed a 51-hour marathon of pouring concrete. Three days later, in Burke County, Georgia, another concrete base was completed.

The two reactors that will sit on these bases will be Westinghouse AP1000s. Like older models, they will use uranium fission to heat water and drive a turbine, but these reactors will be smaller, simpler to build, and each will add more than 1100 megawatts of capacity to the region's power grid when they come online in 2016 or 2017 – without emitting carbon dioxide.
They will be the first new reactors on US soil in over three decades. Besides the two reactors in progress, two more are planned – one at each plant. And work has resumed on a half-built reactor, Watts Bar 2 in Tennessee. It could be connected to the grid by 2015.

more

http://www.newscientist.com/article...lding-first-nuclear-reactors-in-30-years.html

 

[Roger Ramjets]

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/204/18/3151.full.pdf

Is that adapting enough for you? Increased hemoglobin and lung capacity to deal with a third less oxygen and much colder temperature. Within a single generation.

Some adaptations may be quite rapid, but it only helps future generations, not us.

Prolonged exposure to hypoxia appears to blunt the HVR in some high-altitude natives (Chiodi, 1957) such that their response, when challenged by further reductions in oxygen level, is reduced. As the resultant hypoventilation can lead to pathologically high haematocrits, this blunted response is believed to be maladaptive... Furthermore, reduced HVR has also been proposed to contribute to the greater susceptibility to chronic mountain sickness (Monge’s disease) in Andean highlanders.

Now you understand why I chose to go the Lamarckian way - even one generation is not fast enough adaptation for me!

But seriously, to suggest that we can 'adapt' to rapid climate change genetically is just crazy. Most major adaptations take hundreds or thousands of generations to complete, and in the mean time a large proportion of the population is at risk of dying off. That is not how humans do things. We don't just sit around waiting for Nature to take it's course, we adapt the environment to us! Sometimes by design, sometimes by accident. In this case we are still trying to figure out a workable fix for the mess we making...