Global Warming 2.0 (thread reopened; let's keep it civil)

[C3PO]

You also can't tell how a single nitrogen molecule in the air moves, but let me guess, you will not hesitate from taking a plane, only because Bernoulli's laws can't predict this path.

No. I hesitate to take a plane because I know some of the pilots that fly into this place.

I'm old enough to have experienced quite a few doomsday predictions like this. Remember how we all were going to die from skin cancer because of the hole in the ozone layer? Or how industry and transportation would grind to a halt in 2000?
This one is a bit special because the real effect isn't going to hit 'us' for another century. I'm sure we'll have several larger problems before that.

But one result of global warming that was guaranteed has already happened. Taxes on fossil fuel have increased.

 

[Urwumpe]

But one result of global warming that was guaranteed has already happened. Taxes on fossil fuel have increased.

Yes, and the first effect of the economic crises was the fuel prices dropping to unknown depths. :rofl:

What the media does with scientific results is not always good (my newspaper today printed a Soyuz TM(A) launch vehicle as huge photo for an article about the Russian nuclear weapon program), but that does not make science worse... The chances for skin cancer are higher in the region of the ozone hole, but thanks to the recovery, this region is in the worst case affecting polar latitudes now. Still no reason to say that the decisions in the past had been wrong.

 

[T.Neo]

(my newspaper today printed a Soyuz TM(A) launch vehicle as huge photo for an article about the Russian nuclear weapon program),

:rofl:
I'm actually a bit disturbed by that.

 

[RisingFury]

In fact, there is still no single evidence yet that humans have caused an unnatural climate change.

"For a believer, no evidence is required. For a non believer, no evidence is enough."


That's all I'm saying.

 

[Moonwalker]

Directed to urwumpe... still.

Moonwalker' you come-off with an off-the-wall religious statement on a scientific driven discussion...
Do you wish to discuss theology? start a thread.. I would certainly discuss philosophy with you.
But to discuss Science on your terms... is not possible, THUS a different discipline exists; Philosophy.

On this topic, how-ever, is not what I believe or what you believe that matters. Follow the link, it would help you in the least and bother you none at best.

Fact.

My message simply is, that there is no evidence that humans have caused an unnatural climate change, but that there are a lot of modern prophets, like Al Gore as only one example.

Regarding the link: the IPCC and its assessment reports (which I knew already before there was man-made global warming discussions on the early orbiter forums) do not deliver any single evidence.

 

[Urwumpe]

My message simply is, that there is no evidence that humans have caused an unnatural climate change, but that there are a lot of modern prophets, like Al Gore as only one example.

And you. Only because you preach the opposite, it is not like you are using different or even better tools. You keep on preaching despite the facts, while Gore has the tendency to exaggerate them. He got the Nobel Prize for his shameless PR work, you can be lucky if -- Mod note: removed personal attacks! --

Regarding the link: the IPCC and its assessment reports (which I knew already before there was man-made global warming discussions on the early orbiter forums) do not deliver any single evidence.

Yes? Can you please elaborate, which aspect of the reports, as compilation of research papers, is convincing you, that there is not evidence included, not even a single piece?

 

[T.Neo]

My message simply is, that there is no evidence that humans have caused an unnatural climate change,

Fine and well, where is the evidence that we have not caused an unnatural climate change?

 

[Moonwalker]

Can you please elaborate, which aspect of the reports, as compilation of research papers, is convincing you, that there is not evidence included, not even a single piece?

It's not just the reports. It's that humans arrogate to know how the climate "should be". In fact, nobody knows how the climate should be. Not even rocks and ice can tell us all the details, less than ever computer models (garbage in = garbage out). There is a lot on paper, but honestly, where are the evidences that humans are causing 0,6°C difference of temperatures we measure and we define as average? The IPCC reports are no evidence at all. It's just another papers of conclusions and guesswork. I would be surprised if anybody can find an evidence in it.

 

[Urwumpe]

It's not just the reports. It's that humans arrogate to know how the climate "should be". In fact, nobody knows how the climate should be.

Real scientists, for example biologists, can give you detailed answers, which climate which crop needs. And economists can tell you, that you can't grow all food for humanity in greenhouses. What a good climate for humans is, is pretty well defined: A climate in which most of the planet is directly habitable for us. We can work on the antarctic, but we couldn't survive there, without supplies from better climates.

You are right, the planet will not even mind if the temperatures reach 1000°C. But we would even mind already, if we have 1K more - because of the implications this has on the aridity of regions. Even if you then include those regions, which will then allow growing food, which is currently impossible, you will still get a loss in capacity even from smaller climate changes.

And if you hope for "Technology will allow bigger food production", you are maybe right - but we can't tell how much more we can squeeze out of the land, which will then be still available. We can't even plan with any kind of potential growth - what if this growth does never come? Or will be just delayed? Or what if this technology can't be afforded by countries which could need it? How high can the food prices become for the economy to deal with it? You quickly open a can of more problems, without even having solved the initial problem.

 

[Andy44]

Fine and well, where is the evidence that we have not caused an unnatural climate change?

You're asking to prove a negative.

 

[Moonwalker]

That biologists and economists know which climate is required for human life and crop, does not mean that we have a right on that special climate, and that we have to assure that this climate does not change in a way we don't want to see. The climate which enabled us to exist does not mean that this is a normal one. The Earth is rather old while the humankind is rather young. We don't know a lot really about the past. It's just a very view things we suggest/conclude and think we know of. It's just a little bit above 100 years of weather records, versus about 4.5 billion years of Earth history and almost 14 billion years of universum history. Impossible to know any details really, and arrogant to claim that we are all-knowing what's the best and what's the worst. Our knowledge and horizon is not even measurable compared to the whole nature.

 

[Omhra]

My message simply is, that there is no evidence that humans have caused an unnatural climate change, but that there are a lot of modern prophets, like Al Gore as only one example.

Regarding the link: the IPCC and its assessment reports (which I knew already before there was man-made global warming discussions on the early orbiter forums) do not deliver any single evidence.

There is no evidence that will convince you, that is obvious ... don't tell us, we know.
90% certainty becomes 100% impossibility sprinkled with 10% malice.

Your argument is as old as superstition.

...And, ...the guys in white coats, those scientists, are trying to maneuver people's opinion to get them ensnared into learning for themselves how things work!; Robbing them of their innocence.
The tapestry of logical thought must not prevail... Otherwise they might learn how things work by experience and become empiricists...
...And we know that road leads to prophetic vision and even the demise of non-prophetic voices which assure us that is all pointless and predetermined and therefore we must lower our heads and continue on as we have, how could we possible err in detriment of the planet... I mean really... how.
There is after all this mysterious force that protects us from us by not allowing us to interfere in the planet's biosphere (wooot... biosphere!! NEVER use such terms its heresy.) ...PARDON... in the kingdom.


Not even the rocks can tell...
Man oh man... I imagine then that chemistry must be the stuff of magic... and radio metrics must be the work of some spirit that drives madness into the mind.

 

[Pound4]

Ok, no one knows for certain if WE caused global warming, or if it's just a stage the sun is going through like the ice age.

 

[Cairan]

Here's my 2 cents about all the fuss in regard with global warming, climate change, climatic variability, whatever the name you give it:

Manking has ALWAYS been in the presence of a changing environment. Given, our specie has been very apt to modify it and tolerate "outside of operational range" climates with our knowledge (fire, wool, tools, construction methods, etc.). But it's only since mankind has REALLY begun shaping his environment on huge scales, in the last 100 years or so, that we feel we can control Mother Nature.

I say, blame the civilian engineers. They're the one who taught us that with enough work, you could empty a sea, create a lake, live on a sand spit right in the middle of hurricane paths, etc. and dismiss the fact that our environment has and will continue to evolve.

We should put energies in migrating to new fuel sources and encouraging migrations of humans from not-so-friendly places to environments that still have a lot of carrying capacity.

 

[Matt Decker]

It is naive to think that man has anything to do with it. There are Volcano's going off all the time spewing tons and tons of Co2 and noxious gases into the atmosphere everyday. They have been know to cover the earth with their fumes and ashes.

I hardly think that we mere humans compare to that. Just cause you can't prove that extraterrestrial planets don't exists doesn't mean they don't.

There have been deep sea fossils found in the high desert of Nevada, and tropical plants found under the ice of Antarctica. Still modern science is sure that the Earth has always rotated around that same poles. hmm...
:givemebeer:

 

[Hielor]

It is naive to think that man has anything to do with it. There are Volcano's going off all the time spewing tons and tons of Co2 and noxious gases into the atmosphere everyday. They have been know to cover the earth with their fumes and ashes.

It is naive to think that man is not having any effect at all. If you think otherwise you have never been near factories to smell just how much a single factory can have an effect for miles around. Now add up all the factories in the world, and billions of people driving to work each day, etc, etc.

Humans are pumping huge amounts of particles into the atmosphere that either aren't there naturally at all, or are present naturally only in small amounts.

Sure, volcanoes are "spewing tons and tons of CO2 and noxious gases into the atmosphere every day." But people are spewing millions of millions of tons of CO2 and noxious gases into the atmosphere every day. Are we the only cause? No. But we're a definite contributer.

I hardly think that we mere humans compare to that. Just cause you can't prove that extraterrestrial planets don't exists doesn't mean they don't.

Um...what? Extraterrestrial planets have been known to exist since the 1500s at least. I fail to see how that has anything to do with the argument. And by the same token--just because you can't prove that humans are the cause of global warming doesn't mean they aren't. Whoops. Why are you arguing against yourself?

There have been deep sea fossils found in the high desert of Nevada, and tropical plants found under the ice of Antarctica. Still modern science is sure that the Earth has always rotated around that same poles. hmm...

There are perfectly good scientific explanations for why there are deep sea fossils in Nevada and tropical plants in the ice of Antarctica without resorting to ridiculous conspiracy theories. Ever heard of continental drift?

Of course the Earth has always rotated around the same poles. The amount of energy required to change the Earth's axis of rotation would be immense. I wouldn't be surprised if it exceeds the entire energy usage of mankind throughout our existence.

And I'm not really sure what that has to do with the current situation, either.

 

[tblaxland]

Having browsed this thread and concluded that there is nothing really new to be seen here, I leave you with this observation: this thread has the highest ratio of thread replies to thread views of any thread active in the last 24 hours, easily. What do you think that means?

 

[Notebook]

It has a high argument ratio?

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

N.

 

[Moonwalker]

@ Omhra

tree rings, rocks, ice and such things, by far do not enable us to know the rather old Earths climate history in detail (less than ever does it include details of potential universal influences to weather and climate, still less understood than anything else). Our limited methods just cover minor local periods. If you take a local record somewhere, you can't say you have found out huge details about the Earths global climate history. Even one million years still wouldn't be enough.

Our few methods can't explain why the climate changes, and what causes ice ages, although politicians, scientists and other people feel able enough to make utterances like "our models are right, it's the real world that's wrong". That's typical human behaviour. Try to know and to control almost everything. But if there is the next hurricane, flooding, earthquake and so on, all we can do is to look a proper Charlie and try to hide like rats, if still possible. But that still does not scrape at our megalomania, which is to think to be the big boss, the center of almost everything around us.

And if we can't stop global warming because we don't like the ideas global warming generates in some people minds, well, then we simply will colonize the whole universe and escape sometime in the future. Because there is no doubt that we insignificant creatures can do everything...

 

[Urwumpe]

That biologists and economists know which climate is required for human life and crop, does not mean that we have a right on that special climate, and that we have to assure that this climate does not change in a way we don't want to see.

You are not alone with this opinion, Franz Alt said similar stuff in the past years. And Alt as well as problems backing his opinion up with reason.

Do you want to argue, that we are not allowed to shape our environment in a way, that allows our survival? Where should this rule start and where should it end? Keep it as extreme as today? We reshaped the world already so much, that it is already possible to find human relics in the deepest canyons below the oceans.

I see it like that: All or nothing. Either, we have the right to control our environment, from building houses to learning to control the climate of the planet, or we should go back to the deepest stone age. Maybe as compromise, just down to bronze age settlements - everything else has big impacts on the environment.