Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[Techne]

Yes, AGWers just LOVE forecasts. Forecast, schmorecast. Always the future. Always Might, Could, Maybe, Possibly ... spoken as if they're facts. They're not. They're projections. Makes one wonder if these people even grasp the basic distinction between facts and forecasts. And in every single case past forecasts of climate doom have turned out to be radically wrong. Pretty pathetic record, which anyone who truly loves science (as I do) will tell you is good warrant for perhaps reconsidering the "iron-clad certainties". Not that anyone expects AGWers to be swayed by facts - their agenda always trumps reality, as the record clearly indicates.

That is the thing, people who like science and know something about science also knows about its limits. It is not about "iron-clad certainties" or "proof", it is about testing theories and confirming them with a certain amount of certainty. Proof is for logic and philosophy. Empirical observation and the ability to generate testable hypotheses and theories that stand and fall based on observation is for empirical science.

 

[Praeses]

Is the greenhouse effect too complicated to be understood nowadays?

 

[Techne]

Is the greenhouse effect too complicated to be understood nowadays?

I think everyone understands that simple concept. I think the main issues are still attempting to quantify climate sensitivity in response to an increase in GHGs. For example, providing an accurate estimate of the effect of CO2 doubling on temperature increase by factoring all the other climate variables perhaps need more work.

 

[w1z4rd]

Is the greenhouse effect too complicated to be understood nowadays?

Yup. Clearly

 

[Praeses]

I think everyone understands that simple concept. I think the main issues are still attempting to quantify climate sensitivity in response to an increase in GHGs. For example, providing an accurate estimate of the effect of CO2 doubling on temperature increase by factoring all the other climate variables perhaps need more work.

That's what science is there for. But I don't understand how people can deny the basic principle that GHG's will cause the GH effect - regardless of the total impact. Humans are taking stored carbon from below the surface and releasing it into the atmosphere. It is having an effect regardless of who's finger is in which pie. I'm just glad we'll one day run out of coal/oil (or it'll become less financially feasible) - then just to hope the earth's ecosystem hasn't completely collapsed/changed by then

 

[w1z4rd]

That's what science is there for. But I don't understand how people can deny the basic principle that GHG's will cause the GH effect - regardless of the total impact. Humans are taking stored carbon from below the surface and releasing it into the atmosphere. It is having an effect regardless of who's finger is in which pie. I'm just glad we'll one day run out of coal/oil (or it'll become less financially feasible) - then just to hope the earth's ecosystem hasn't completely collapsed/changed by then

Nicely articulated.

 

[Unhappy438]

So what you GW deniers don't like the idea that you're contributing to the destruction of earth? Bummer we all are, grow up and deal with it. Try to think of ways of reducing your carbon footprint instead of sitting in a forum trying to shirk responsibility.

 

[Techne]

That's what science is there for. But I don't understand how people can deny the basic principle that GHG's will cause the GH effect - regardless of the total impact. Humans are taking stored carbon from below the surface and releasing it into the atmosphere. It is having an effect regardless of who's finger is in which pie. I'm just glad we'll one day run out of coal/oil (or it'll become less financially feasible) - then just to hope the earth's ecosystem hasn't completely collapsed/changed by then

The issue is the magnitude and kind of impact and the accompanied alarmism and governmental interference with the freedom of people.

We are currently at around 400 ppm CO2 (or 0.04%) in the atmosphere. There is not enough science to accurately predict the effects that say, 0.1% CO2 will have on the earth climate system. There are just too many variables and the models of a few years back simply failed to predict the current situation.

While I agree that alternative energy sources are needed urgently and fully support it, I disagree with the unnecessary alarmism and politicization associated with climate science.

 

[Unhappy438]

The issue is the magnitude and kind of impact and the accompanied alarmism and governmental interference with the freedom of people.

We are currently at around 400 ppm CO2 (or 0.04%) in the atmosphere. There is not enough science to accurately predict the effects that say, 0.1% CO2 will have on the earth climate system. There are just too many variables and the models of a few years back simply failed to predict the current situation.

While I agree that alternative energy sources are needed urgently and fully support it, I disagree with the unnecessary alarmism and politicization associated with climate science.

So you agree its happening you just don't know on what level, wouldn't you then agree to assume the worst and hope for the best. That way we have the best chance of saving our planet before irreversible damage is done.

 

[Techne]

So you agree its happening you just don't know on what level, wouldn't you then agree to assume the worst and hope for the best. That way we have the best chance of saving our planet before irreversible damage is done.

My position, for those who care to read what I actually wrote in the past, is that GHGs contribute towards climate change, I think this is trivially true. I am unsure so it is uncertain (for me anyway) what will actually be the best for humans.

What I disagree with is rhetoric and alarmism surrounding the whole CO2/climate change drama. "Saving our planet"? The planet does not need saving, we need to pollute less. For me, a far bigger issue is water security and how we are polluting our water resources. Plants grow just fine in response to increased CO2, even better actually so more food production most likely. They do not grow without water.

I am not convinced that a net increase in global temperatures will result in:
1) A nett increase in the formation of land that cannot be used for food production
2) Water will become more scarce

But, what is certain is that increasing taxes on good needed to produce food will certainly make it harder to produce food. So, i don't agree with government interference that will directly negatively influence food security now and may not even have an effect on securing future food security.

 

[w1z4rd]

The planet does not need saving, we need to pollute less..

I was drinking coke when I read this. Nearly went through my nose. Totally sig worthy.

 

[Nod]

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/

Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.

"Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place," says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years' worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica - the first ever to be taken.

According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:

It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...

It seems see levels will be ok for a while still.

 

[Arthur]

So what you GW deniers don't like the idea that you're contributing to the destruction of earth?

Huh? Where on earth did you suck that stupid observation from? You're arguing like a religious fanatic, plucking gratuitous association out of thin air.

 

[Unhappy438]

Huh? Where on earth did you suck that stupid observation from? You're arguing like a religious fanatic, plucking gratuitous association out of thin air.

The irony is that you are trying to deny GW thats bucket loads of stupid, more than any statement i can make on the matter. Anyway i am out , i don't have the time nor the inclination to argue with juvenile people.

 

[zippy]

The planet doesnt need saving. It will cope fine with global warming.

Ofc, things will get quite ****ty for us humans and most other life, but hey we won't be around, will we. So who cares

 

[Swa]

That's what science is there for. But I don't understand how people can deny the basic principle that GHG's will cause the GH effect - regardless of the total impact. Humans are taking stored carbon from below the surface and releasing it into the atmosphere. It is having an effect regardless of who's finger is in which pie. I'm just glad we'll one day run out of coal/oil (or it'll become less financially feasible) - then just to hope the earth's ecosystem hasn't completely collapsed/changed by then

Actually the most extensive study to date has shown no appreciable change in the last decade. Carbon use doesn't correlate with warming of the atmosphere just like it never has during earth's past warming and cooling episodes. Notice how it has changed from global warming to climate change over the years. Everyone knows climates will change so when that happens they claim they were right and ask for more research money from governments. That's not their original position so they were actually wrong.

Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/


It seems see levels will be ok for a while still.

Seems to correlate with the non-change in temperatures.

 

[porchrat]

I was drinking coke when I read this. Nearly went through my nose. Totally sig worthy.

He has a point though. The planet is going to be just fine. It is our environment we are trying to save, not the planet.

We want the planet to continue to be hospitable for us. That does not equate to "saving the planet".

 

[w1z4rd]

He has a point though. The planet is going to be just fine. It is our environment we are trying to save, not the planet.

We want the planet to continue to be hospitable for us. That does not equate to "saving the planet".

Im sure when the term is used, it is only in the context of saving our current habitat. I cant imagine it been used in any other context.

 

[Techne]

Im sure when the term is used, it is only in the context of saving our current habitat. I cant imagine it been used in any other context.

You can't imagine it, I have seen people use it in the literal sense. I can imagine you spilling your Coke again...
Principle of charity chap... it may help you save some coca cola, and "save the planet" in the mean time, it costs a lot of CO2 to make those cans you know.

 

[w1z4rd]

You can't imagine it, I have seen people use it in the literal sense. I can imagine you spilling your Coke again...
Principle of charity chap... it may help you save some coca cola, and "save the planet" in the mean time, it costs a lot of CO2 to make those cans you know.

You sound silly every time you use the word, "chap". Probably just me that thinks that though.

Were you using the term, "save the planet" in the literal or metaphorical sense?