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

[Omhra]

It is the attempt of AGW-believers to turn science into a religion I guess. And the IPCC reports are the holy scriptures people show and say "I have this in my hands, you have nothing".

No Moonwalker, this is you and your political wing who are trying to turn science into religion...
We demand evidence.
You only have your head shaking... and an opinion.

We have all the data.
And a panel brought some of it together to illustrate that we are affecting the climate.

You use that panel to discredit all of science.

It is you... who is religiously biased. You and all of those who prefer a believe to knowledge, however limited.

 

[Moonwalker]

We have all the data.
And a panel brought some of it together to illustrate that we are affecting the climate.

A few sheets of paper do not prove that we are influencing climate changes.

We don't know what a normal climate is like, and if we change it or not. Nor are we able to predict the future climate, even weather a few weeks ahead. The only thing humans know is that climate does never stop to change. Anything else still remains speculation and guesswork.

 

[Urwumpe]

A few sheets of paper do not prove that we are influencing climate changes.

What does it? A monolith dropping from outer space on a Chinese coal power plant, with the words "Stop it!"?

And what do you have?

 

[Omhra]

A few sheets of paper do not prove that we are influencing climate changes.

We don't know what a normal climate is like, and if we change it or not. Nor are we able to predict the future climate, even weather a few weeks ahead. The only thing humans know is that climate does never stop to change. Anything else still remains speculation and guesswork.

Moonwalker,
It is not the sheets of paper... is MY UNDERSTANDING of WHAT IS WRITTEN on those papers.

You are really not able to support your claim, as are most who try to mystify human existence and science.

You prance around in circles and then you go hyperbolic...

Hyperbola is what you do...

A small question, please answer it... or you will prove my point.

Does CO2 help transform UV radiation in to heat radiation?

Just answer that... we will take it point by point...

Does CO2 help transform UV radiation in to heat radiation?

And again.. weather prediction is to climate prediction as rain drop impact location is to a storm....

 

[Eagle]

I don't want to interrupt your tenderizing of Moonwalker so I'll just leave this here.

Its from the climate-skeptic.com guy's blog. Its about the doomsday climate model predictions that are often reported by the media.

 

[Moonwalker]

To understand the IPCC reports, which is not a big deal, is no prove that we are influencing climate changes. Especially computer models and prophecies are never proof.

CO2, and an increase of it also is no proof. Past variations of CO2 vs temperature do not explain some past temperature changes at all. Climate changes on the whole are still not precisely explainable.

 

[Omhra]

so how do you go from imprecize to 'incorrect'? We do not contend in favor of 'dooms day' we favor responsible caution... but yo argue only the Ipcc..

 

[Urwumpe]

Especially computer models and prophecies are never proof.

And that is wrong.

A computer model is no scientific fact = experimental observation.

But a computer model is a modern form of a hypothesis, which is based on experimental observation.

A computer model, which does hold water (Predictions and observations agree), is a scientific truth.

I would say, that a computer model predicts an ISS pass with second accuracy despite measurement errors, is then no evidence, that the theory of gravity and the gravity model of Earth are correct, in your eyes?

The 400 terms of the gravity model of Earth are no longer in the range what humans can deal. We need better tools for our calculations and computer models are this tool.

Also: Is using a telescope against your science? Without a telescope, many discoveries would have been impossible. are things seen with a telescope no evidence?

 

[Moonwalker]

Rudimentary climate models are never proof. Less then ever doesn't have modeling the complex earth atmosphere anything to do with predicting ISS orbits.

My 900mm Celestron telescope, which I used the last time just two weeks ago, does never make me believe that we little humans know a lot. It is just another ridiculous tool, like computer models, compared to the complexety of mother nature.

 

[Urwumpe]

Rudimentary climate models are never proof. Less then ever doesn't have modeling the complex earth atmosphere anything to do with predicting ISS orbits.

Of course - you are able to tell that a model is "rudimentary". Disregarding this failure of language (Rudiments are remainders of former evolutions), you also fail to say, what makes climate models inadequate. I would say, that you even don't know, how the climate models work, or what numerical errors mean.

Errors are, in real world science, inevitable. You always have them. They can be small, caused by rounding errors, etc.

But as scientist, you can estimate them. You can know, how much error is inside the range of what you can have, and how much error means, you are wrong. This science of mathematical errors and number representation is called "Numerics".

Of course you will never have a exact temperature prediction to the millionth digit - especially not if your thermometer fails already at the second digit after the dot.

But that is not the question. The question is, can you know better without. Do you have a climate model which works better, with smaller errors?

 

[Moonwalker]

Of course - you are able to tell that a model is "rudimentary". Disregarding this failure of language (Rudiments are remainders of former evolutions),

I did not mention anything about rudiments. I was talking about rudimentary. Rudimentary means - of a primitive kind / very imperfectly developed / in the earliest stages of development.

you also fail to say, what makes climate models inadequate. I would say, that you even don't know, how the climate models work, or what numerical errors mean.

I could not explain it any better than those who work with it:

"I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time".

John Cristy, IPCC lead author

 

[lockingtoggle]

It is estimated hat to bring the current population to 1st world standards would require 3 Earths. So our economic methods must change...

So if I run my sustainable growth MFD, the 1st world 1bilion population, in order to be fair with the rest of the homo sapiens, should not consume more than 16% earth.

That is 3 times less of what you say it does today.

So in the very near future the 1st world is supposed to;

consume 3 times less goods.
or
produce goods with 3 times less energy.
or
produce goods with an energy 3 times cleaner
or
simply be 3 times less

Nothing is not Everything... nor the other way around...
And between something attainable and Everything unattainable I will take something.

The point with the GW is that in order to address the problem drastic measures must be taken, imidietly. A little effort will change nothing. We either fix the problem for good, or we are doomed. This is what IPCC is telling since the 90ies.

 

[Urwumpe]

The point with the GW is that in order to address the problem drastic measures must be taken, imidietly. A little effort will change nothing. We either fix the problem for good, or we are doomed. This is what IPCC is telling since the 90ies.

What changed the tone was also the effect that in the 90s, nobody was willed to really listen. I have a pretty good book in my library from that times, including reference to the first IPCC report, about green economics (Instead of fatalist "Oh my god, we are doomed", the tone then was "New challenges bring new opportunities").

The predictions of the IPCC have not been much different in 1990 than what they are today. What changed had been the accuracy. And that big time.

In 1990, we still had the hope: If we take the challenges of the future, in a world which just got turned upside down, we could do it.

Today, we just hope for any decision other than "We need to discuss things a bit longer, we fear that having challenges at our economy might cause damage."

Which shows that we had a clear climate change since the 1990s. An economic climate change. Before the cold war ended, we believed that communism was bad and capitalism only good when the managers are kept at their toes. We had trust into the markets. Today, we don't trust the markets anymore, we trust managers. And wonder why we are betrayed.

 

[lockingtoggle]

Today, we just hope for any decision other than "We need to discuss things a bit longer, we fear that having challenges at our economy might cause damage."

I think we should stop hoping for any other decision than the one that we need to discuss things a bit longer. No other decision is likely to be made, and if it does it will face a ferocious resistance.
Instead, I think we should stick to our actual decision to discuss the things a bit longer and try to convince each others on what we think that should be done.

Oh, one more thing. Once in a while we should consider the possibility that the counterpart might actually be right. It helps a good deal in the discussion.

 

[Urwumpe]

Oh, one more thing. Once in a while we should consider the possibility that the counterpart might actually be right. It helps a good deal in the discussion.

It is OK considering it. But you should invest your resources according to the chance of this scenario happening. I feel 90% of AGW and 10% non-AGW a bit too favorable for my stomach feeling, but anyway. if the IPCC says so, I can't do such an estimate better.

So, I would have to spent 90% of my resources on the scenario, that AGW exists. And 10% of them on a world, where it does not cause trouble.

Still, I think no economy on this world has an advantage by an easy game. Think about evolution - the bigger the pressure, the higher is the rate at which species adapt. If you increase the pressure on companies, those will survive, which adapt to the new situation.

 

[Omhra]

Besides, nowhere is it written that the change ( to [green?] economy) must be sudden, absolute and hysterical.
I don't see how it would cause damage to progressively change our cars, for instance.
I will buy another car in the next 10 years and that is a fact... what I will buy will mostly depend on what is available and not on what I "want"... Also, every adolescent who buys a car in the next 5 years will follow trend not by malice or because its the "economic soothing" thing to do...they simply will look at the market and pick one. Emerging countries will also follow suit.
So, what technologies we bring to market will be incidental to the economy, and not damaging.
I still have seen no evidence that progressive change will hurt anything.
But, Blah, blah, blah is all I hear... oh the doom... oh the cost... oh the unnecessary progress... All fairly unintelligent at its core.


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

Oh, one more thing. Once in a while we should consider the possibility that the counterpart might actually be right. It helps a good deal in the discussion.

Well, no.
In this case we are talking about a much larger issue... the human condition.

And thus, to consider that the anti-AGW are correct is just silly.
If not that; for whatever reason pollution of any kind should be sought to end and to say that because we "might not be hurting anything" we should keep on as usual is just... retrograde.

 

[lockingtoggle]

So, I would have to spent 90% of my resources on the scenario, that AGW exists. And 10% of them on a world, where it does not cause trouble.

And that is, in my opinion, exactly what everybody should do. We can also use the media and all other information channels to persuade the others to follow our direction.
The trap we should avoid falling in is this -> The rise of scientific authoritarianism

Well, no.
In this case we are talking about a much larger issue... the human condition.

This case is for you as a larger issue as religion, race, ideology etc was or is important for some others.

 

[T.Neo]

We can also use the media and all other information channels to persuade the others to follow our direction.

You mean lob the masses with propaganda?
This will just have the effect of annoying people.

Where are the clean alternative to oil and coal? Making use of those would be a good start.

 

[simonpro]

The trap we should avoid falling in is this -> The rise of scientific authoritarianism

I read this until I saw the words "James Hansen". Then I stopped.

 

[Urwumpe]

The trap we should avoid falling in is this -> The rise of scientific authoritarianism

This article is not better as the behavior it criticizes... it tells people how they should not do it, but fails to explain how they should do it instead.

Hansen is right about "green coal" being a political illusion. But he does not offer an alternative to the power demands.

Pielcke, the author of the text, complains about scientists expecting to be respected by politicians, but fails to offer an alternative, in arguing with politicians. Especially since the coal lobby does not need to rely on any kind of scientific argumentation itself.