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

[Urwumpe]

Urwumpe, I haven't seen any evidence that supports Global Weirding, the theory that Global Warming will be masked by increased oscillation in climate. Modern weather isn't any weirder than it was 50, 100 years ago or earlier.

Not global weirding. Just the experience from other climate changes in history: even more dramatic temperatures than predicted did not result in continued warming, but actually in an oscillation. After an increase, it dropped down into an ice age, with this repeating as some sort of damped oscillation.

Global weirding is BTW, also a fact, which is observed through out human history: Globally, all old people will claim, that the weather was far better/warmer/more extreme/colder in the past. Too bad that weather is not climate...

Weather is to climate, like a nitrogen molecule is to a room full of air.

 

[ghostrunner01]

Couldn't global warming just be a cycle?. The Co2 in the air could have just sped up the process.

 

[Ark]

Even if global warming is 100% real, 100% caused by us, and 100% fixable by us (which I'm not going to say it is or isn't), nothing is going to happen until Washington's biggest priority ceases to be "Screw over the other party at all costs". Until this petty bickering stops and people actually start working together we as a country (or species, for that matter) are never going to accomplish anything meaningful. I think we need to develop the ability to think in terms longer than 2 or 4 years.

 

[Torgo]

We can stop global warming pretty easily.

Turn the Sun off.

 

[zerofay32]

My two cents. There are two factors toward "global warming." One, is the natural cycle the Earth is in. The Earth has been warming since the Pleistocene epoch. Geologic evidence shows that the Earth has gone through several warming/cooling trends, and todays climate is no were near the worst the planet has seen. Now, I do believe that humans have sped up the trend slightly but I view it as to having little impact to the Earth. The one thing I can't stand is when people talk about global warming, they refer to distroying the Earth. Nothing we can do will desrtoy the Earth, we may cause are oun extinction but the Earth, and lifeforms for that mater, will continue well after we destroy ourselves.

Zerofay32

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

To deny that the Earth is currently experiencing an overall warming trend is absurd unless you want to claim there is a massive global conspiracy among climatologists to essentially lie about what their thermometers are saying.

And whether it's part of a natural cycle or not is irrelevant; its effects are going to be what they are regardless of its causes, and if man can do anything about its negative effects perhaps he should--and even if it's natural, man is quite capable of triumphing over nature.

What I don't understand is the assumption that it must be stopped at all costs. This is patently absurd.

Climate change is only good or bad to the extent that it positively or negatively affects human activity--it is not good or bad in and of itself.

Now, perhaps the positive consequences of climate change are so positive that they outweigh the negative effects of climate change. If this were so, wouldn't it make more sense to let it go on, and perhaps take purely reactive measures against only the negative consequences of climate change, rather than trying to put a stop to climate change itself?

Now, there are literally trillions of variables that factor in to whether or not the net effect of climate change will be positive or negative, and those variables are changing constantly. No single monolithic entity--be it a person, a company, the Sierra Club, a government, or the UN--can ever begin to possess the data-collection and information-processing capacity to determine what the net consequences of climate change will be. Only free markets, due to their massively distributed nature, can do this.

 

[Omhra]

...
What I don't understand is the assumption that it must be stopped at all costs. This is patently absurd.

Climate change is only good or bad to the extent that it positively or negatively affects human activity--it is not good or bad in and of itself.

Now, perhaps the positive consequences of climate change are so positive that they outweigh the negative effects of climate change. If this were so, wouldn't it make more sense to let it go on, and perhaps take purely reactive measures against only the negative consequences of climate change, rather than trying to put a stop to climate change itself?

...

No.

Only because we have the technology to live in a bunker eating protein packs and continue watching TV, it doesn't mean we should continue our "unhindered" activity.
et al'
And this insurmountable notion, that some have, that data is "IMPOSSIBLE" to collect IS absurd... you don't have to know all the details of tire rotation and pavement friction, horsepower/compression ratios to know the truck will stump you.
Be more sensible and quit getting lost in the "particulars".

Thread is moving on a good direction... at least GW is not seen as "not happening" anymore.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah, the global warming critics don't want to know if global warming is bad, but they want to know, how bad exactly. They read "warmer temperatures" and think about planting palms in Calgary.

 

[lennartsmit]

The problem is that nature isn't able to adjust itself as quickly as we are changing it. We can absolutely lessen the effects or at least preserve nature as best as we can. This could be done by using renewable energy sources and find better ways of farming.
If we would carry on like this, this could be a consequence and then we would really be screwed.

 

[Moonwalker]

If humans stop to believe in god, they do not believe in nothing, but in all sorts of things. That is the chance for prophets - and they appear in droves.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton

 

[Hielor]

If humans stop to believe in god, they do not believe in nothing, but in all sorts of things. That is the chance for prophets - and they appear in droves.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Wait what? So you're saying, "Global warming is a lie because I believe in God."

That makes no sense at all. God is clearly not stopping us from destroying our planet.

 

[Urwumpe]

Wait what? So you're saying, "Global warming is a lie because I believe in God."

That makes no sense at all. God is clearly not stopping us from destroying our planet.

Argument ad absurdum is the only thing left for people, who have no other logical arguments left.

 

[Kurt M. Weber]

Only because we have the technology to live in a bunker eating protein packs and continue watching TV, it doesn't mean we should continue our "unhindered" activity.
et al'
And this insurmountable notion, that some have, that data is "IMPOSSIBLE" to collect IS absurd... you don't have to know all the details of tire rotation and pavement friction, horsepower/compression ratios to know the truck will stump you.
Be more sensible and quit getting lost in the "particulars".

I really think you missed my point.

Let's start simply.

In addition to the obvious negative consequences, is it not at least conceivable that climate change could have consequences that are, in and of themselves, beneficial to human activity?

 

[Moonwalker]

Wait what? So you're saying, "Global warming is a lie because I believe in God."

That makes no sense at all. God is clearly not stopping us from destroying our planet.

As Gilbert Keith Chesterton said, people believe in almost anything and prophets are taking their chances. The difference today is that prophets appear as empiricists. But the scientific evidences used for the current and upcoming human defined man-made climate change, are as valid as any statistics, based on average values. In fact, there is still no single evidence yet that humans have caused an unnatural climate change.

 

[Urwumpe]

In addition to the obvious negative consequences, is it not at least conceivable that climate change could have consequences that are, in and of themselves, beneficial to human activity?

Of course. But, and this is a big but: What if the negative effects outweigh the positive effects?

Regarding the human nature, it does not even matter, if a minority has advantages from climate change - the others will come, even without invitation.

So, it is important to know, what can we expect in the worst case - not in the best case. If all will be fine, all will stay at home and not have wars for water and farming lands, fine.

But if even the predictions for small climate changes already predict massive disadvantages for some regions, which are already instable, you can expect trouble. The USA are for example not among the winners in any scenario, while Europe has at least a small chance when the global warming neutralizes the loss of the Gulf stream.


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

As Gilbert Keith Chesterton said, people believe in almost anything and prophets are taking their chances. The difference today is that prophets appear as empiricists. But the scientific evidences used for the current and upcoming human defined man-made climate change, are as valid as any statistics, based on average values. In fact, there is still no single evidence yet that humans have caused an unnatural climate change.

You have not yet understood neither the scientific method, nor numerics.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html


-- Mod note: removed personal attacks! --

 

[C3PO]

When someone can tell me how the weather will be next month or next week, I'll start listening.

:rofl:

 

[Urwumpe]

When someone can tell me how the weather will be next month or next week, I'll start listening.

:rofl:

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.

 

[Omhra]

It is a thought process used by most lawyers... to mitigate the extent of a law... or to extend an argument to what is "acceptable" for damages... and then use that as a precedent.

That posture might benefit some humans, but it is evident it does not benefit most species.

 

[Urwumpe]

http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

[T.Neo]

Let's take a differant stance for a moment, and disregard all concepts relating to climate change. Imagine we come from an outside culture or species.
Evaluating the situation, we find that humans burn fossil fuels for energy, because they are cheap and acessable.
The burning of these fuels releases greenhouse gases, particularly CO2, into the atmosphere. Vegetation cannot absorb this airborne carbon into biomass, so most stays in the air, where it traps heat and warms the planet.
________________________________________________
That's the theory. Now, does the evidence back it up?
Do humans use fossil fuels? -Most definately, that is without question.
Does this release carbon dioxide? -Well, I should hope so.
Does this excess of carbon dioxide warm the planet? Do temperature readings indicate this?- Mainstream science seems to think so.
________________________________________________

So, that is my version of global warming. Without the accusations of "evil first worlders", or all the eco-nonsense.
Frankly, I think is far more important to find an alternative to oil then worry about global warming. Without that, I see the end of civilization as we know it within this century.

I'm also suspecting the "CNN effect" to be the "cause" of all the extreme weather. 100 years ago, if there was a heatwave in australia, most people in North America would not know, let alone care, since they had their own problems.

I dread to think what would be if Mr Gore became president instead of Bush. We'd be in an ice age, driving good-for nothing electric cars, and we'd be up to our necks in owls :lol: