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

[Hielor]

...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.

QFT, because that's exactly what you're doing.

 

[Urwumpe]

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.

Yes, and they had been doing so for millions of years. But now, suddenly, humans use fossil fuels. In a single century, we release the CO2 stored in biomass over about 800 million years. We are an additional factor in the equation. And the latest increase in CO2 is well explained by the CO2 produced by human activities. If this is not our CO2, the question would be: Where did it our CO2 go? Magically disappear in space? That kind of phenomena would be the 1% uncertainty - the other 99% of evidence support the hypothesis of AGW.

Of course we have only a "minor" contribution, when calculating in total numbers. But we are this minor contribution which tips the scale. And that is the problem.

Climate changes are normal, so much we do know. But we already left the range of the normal climate oscillations and that with such a steep gradient, that was never observed before in historic reconstructions.

 

[lockingtoggle]

Some questions...
Can we sustain world population growth without economic growth?
Are we aware of the NO answer implications?

 

[T.Neo]

You're asking to prove a negative.

Yes, I am. Maybe I need to stop posting at 11pm

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 simple explanations to this. Earth has encountered many climatological shifts and geological changes in its hsitory.
Nevada used to be underwater, before geologic processes pushed it up above sea level, and Antarctica used to be much warmer due to a more tropical global climate.

 

[Urwumpe]

Can we sustain world population growth without economic growth?

Sure we can. Economic growth is a even more vague value as temperature predictions. As somebody explained it to me, economic growth comes not from the things you own, but from how much faster the things leave your hands and get exchanged with others. Your economy could go down the drain, and you could still own more every day. But what you own, has less and less value to others.

And we could even have economic growth without massive pollution. There is no logical reasoning behind the claim, that economic growth is only possible by more pollution. That argument is today also only repeated by thieves who got rich by stealing from society.


-----Post Added-----

Nevada used to be underwater, before geologic processes pushed it up above sea level, and Antarctica used to be much warmer due to a more tropical global climate.

Also, Antarctica was even without the theory of true polar wander, at equatorial latitudes once.

http://www.scotese.com/precambr.htm

 

[Moonwalker]

Yes, and they had been doing so for millions of years. But now, suddenly, humans use fossil fuels. In a single century, we release the CO2 stored in biomass over about 800 million years. We are an additional factor in the equation. And the latest increase in CO2 is well explained by the CO2 produced by human activities. If this is not our CO2, the question would be: Where did it our CO2 go? Magically disappear in space? That kind of phenomena would be the 1% uncertainty - the other 99% of evidence support the hypothesis of AGW.

Of course we have only a "minor" contribution, when calculating in total numbers. But we are this minor contribution which tips the scale. And that is the problem.

Climate changes are normal, so much we do know. But we already left the range of the normal climate oscillations and that with such a steep gradient, that was never observed before in historic reconstructions.

Well, compared to humans, the martians already are ecoconscious beings. They don't drive big cars. They tend to drive solar driven tricycles because their planet is warming even much faster than the Earth

That we don't observe comparable climate oscillations in our minor and limited reconstructions, is no evidence that the current trends are unusual or caused by humans. Our observations do not cover detailed global data of Earth's climate history. It just covers rather young local parts.

 

[T.Neo]

Also, Antarctica was even without the theory of true polar wander, at equatorial latitudes once.

True, forgot that, although that was before any vascular land plants existed.
That comes from a time before any hard shelled animals lived in the sea, let alone creatures ventured onto land.

 

[Hielor]

Well, compared to humans, the martians already are ecoconscious beings. They don't drive big cars. They tend to drive solar driven tricycles because their planet is warming even much faster than the Earth

What are you smoking? A) We know of no Martians. B) Their planet is warming?

That we don't observe comparable climate oscillations in our minor and limited reconstructions, is no evidence that the current trends are unusual or caused by humans. Our observations do not cover detailed global data of Earth's climate history. It just covers rather young local parts.

We see that the climate is warming. We see that we are putting things into the atmosphere which may potentially cause a greenhouse effect. Logical deduction says it's very likely that we have something to do with it.

Basically, your argument is this: There's a cat in a box. We injected a gas which has been proven to have the capability to kill cats. The cat died. You're saying that the fact the cat died is just coincidence, that it was going to be dying then anyway, and since you cannot prove that it wasn't going to be dying anyway.....yeah.

I have a counter-argument for you which is just as scientific as yours: Due to the lack of data, you cannot prove that the current trend is a normal thing for the Earth to do regardless of the presence of humans.

 

[lockingtoggle]

There is no logical reasoning behind the claim, that economic growth is only possible by more pollution.

The reasoning is that to transform matter into wealth you need energy, and in our days the most efficient way of extracting energy appears to be fossil burning.

 

[T.Neo]

The cat died.

You merciless cat killer you!
How could you possibly commit such an act?

 

[Moonwalker]

We see that the climate is warming. We see that we are putting things into the atmosphere which may potentially cause a greenhouse effect. Logical deduction says it's very likely that we have something to do with it.

The climate did not start to change when there was humans. And if we talk about CO2, human CO2 production was relatively low until the second half of the 20th century, while the temperatures rose before already.

I have a counter-argument for you which is just as scientific as yours: Due to the lack of data, you cannot prove that the current trend is a normal thing for the Earth to do regardless of the presence of humans.

That's no counter-argument. That's part of my entire point: lack of data and lack of knowledge to be able to play the big boss. But regardless of what we think and decide, the weather and so the climate does not care anyway.

 

[Hielor]

You merciless cat killer you!
How could you possibly commit such an act?

We have no proof that I killed the cat. Since we are lacking in data for that species of cat, we cannot prove that it didn't just up and die of natural causes.

 

[simonpro]

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.

No, they deliver multiple evidence.

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.

The climate should be within a window in which we can comfortably live.
Yes, it's arrogant to change the planet, but given a choice between arrogance and possible destruction of land, and possible death, then I'll choose arrogance.

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.

Do you feel the same way about Einstein's theory of general relativity? It's just a collection of conclusions and guesswork.

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.

Ask a climate scientist if they know what is causing our climate to change at such a rate. They know the answer.

The ONLY question at the moment is how much of that change can be attributed to humans and how much of it can b attributed to other factors.

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.

Volcanoes release somewhere between 200-250 million tonnes of CO2 annually (ref: Encyclopedia of volcanoes). This is about the same as the amount of CO2 released by the country of Kazakhstan (according to wikipedia). According to a more trustworthy source, the UN, worldwide CO2 emissions in 2004 were 27 billion tonnes.

It is clear then, that humans release around 100 times more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanoes do, and you are therefore wrong.

Just cause you can't prove that extraterrestrial planets don't exists doesn't mean they don't.

Eh?

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?

That this thread is responsible for most of the world's CO2?


And now I'm out of time. I'll respond to the rest of this later.

 

[Moonwalker]

No, they deliver multiple evidence.

They deliver assumptions, lots of words and nice graphics

The climate should be within a window in which we can comfortably live.

The weather and nature does not care if we like it comfortably. That the current climate is comfortable does not mean that it was comfortable in the past, and is going to remain comfortable in the future.

Do you feel the same way about Einstein's theory of general relativity? It's just a collection of conclusions and guesswork.

I don't adore Einstein and his theories too much too.

Ask a climate scientist if they know what is causing our climate to change at such a rate. They know the answer.

To have an answer to questions does not mean to have evidences. Other than geophysicists for example, climatologists tend to exaggerate and to talk a lot.

The ONLY question at the moment is how much of that change can be attributed to humans and how much of it can b attributed to other factors.

I don't think it would be ever possible to answer clearly. I think it is very likely that the climate does not behave in the wide future in a way we expect it to change, and that curiosity will continue.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, compared to humans, the martians already are ecoconscious beings. They don't drive big cars. They tend to drive solar driven tricycles because their planet is warming even much faster than the Earth

And what does that have to do with the topic? Do you try now argument by confusion? If you can get scientific evidence about your claim of the existence of Martians, go on.

That we don't observe comparable climate oscillations in our minor and limited reconstructions, is no evidence that the current trends are unusual or caused by humans. Our observations do not cover detailed global data of Earth's climate history. It just covers rather young local parts.

You are contradicting yourself. You say, that our climate is unusual compared to the reconstructions, and you say that it is not? Check your logic.

Also, you can not do the reconstructions better or even say, what the reconstructions do wrong. You probably don't even know how reconstructions work, but you feel that your minor and limited opinion is less unusual.


-----Post Added-----

The reasoning is that to transform matter into wealth you need energy, and in our days the most efficient way of extracting energy appears to be fossil burning.

That reasoning is obsolete since the 1950s. We already turn a naturalistic nothing into wealth - with minimal use of energy.

Also, is it necessary to use the same amount of energy for turning pig iron into steel like we did in 1850? Sure not. And does this energy always have to come from fossil fuels? Sure not completely (But the requirement of flux materials will very likely stay).


-----Post Added-----

True, forgot that, although that was before any vascular land plants existed.

360 million years ago?

Antarctica left tropical regions about 150 million years ago, and did not settle at the poles until about 70 million years ago.

 

[T.Neo]

360 million years ago?

Antarctica left tropical regions about 150 million years ago, and did not settle at the poles until about 70 million years ago.

Oh, sorry, I was talking about the time the map was dated, 650 million years ago.

If you're talking about 360 million years ago, which I presume is the late Devonian period, then yes, there were vascular land plants.

And at 70 million years, even at the pole, Antarctica still had a liveable climate.

 

[Moonwalker]

And what does that have to do with the topic? Do you try now argument by confusion? If you can get scientific evidence about your claim of the existence of Martians, go on.

Mars also is warming, and it's not humans causing it. The martians I mention just is irony.

You are contradicting yourself. You say, that our climate is unusual compared to the reconstructions, and you say that it is not? Check your logic.

Also, you can not do the reconstructions better or even say, what the reconstructions do wrong. You probably don't even know how reconstructions work, but you feel that your minor and limited opinion is less unusual.

My message still is that we don't know exactly the Earths climate history, and that we can't assure that the climate always remains comfortable in a way we like to see it.

Man-made global warming of 0,X°C above our man-made mathematical value (a global average temperature) still is nothing than theory. You can go on try to explain how narrow minded and ignorant I seem to be, but you fail to prove why my message and conviction is wrong.

 

[lockingtoggle]

We already turn a naturalistic nothing into wealth - with minimal use of energy.

"We" who? You mean the 5% of "us"? How about the other 95%?

Also, is it necessary to use the same amount of energy for turning pig iron into steel like we did in 1850? Sure not.

Again, not the 5%. But the other 95%, for sure yes.

 

[Urwumpe]

Mars also is warming, and it's not humans causing it. The martians I mention just is irony.

Ok, and you are now able to show, with scientific evidence, that Mars has a comparable climate?

My message still is that we don't know exactly the Earths climate history, and that we can't assure that the climate always remains comfortable in a way we like to see it.

That is wrong. We can know in which range the temperatures are, and this range is no guess work.

Man-made global warming of 0,X°C above our man-made mathematical value (a global average temperature) still is nothing than theory. You can go on try to explain how narrow minded and ignorant I seem to be, but you fail to prove why my message and conviction is wrong.

Nothing than a theory... Gravity is also "just" a theory. Evolution is just a theory. Even Newtons mechanics are just a theory.

 

[Andy44]

This thread grows tiresome.