Poll Is it happening?-GlobalWarming

[cjp]

Yes. We are energetic dwarfs related to the nature, solar system and the universe. And we always will be. Our technologies and some sciences make some people believe that we are the center of all and everything and that we have to decide almost all and everything, yet even global climate changes.

No we are not dwarfs. Especially not since the industrial revolution. And it would be downright stupid not to decide to change our behavior once it becomes clear it is damaging our own environment.

I have (the right to have) strong doubts that the current measured very slight increase in global mean temperatures, and the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which are only 6% to 7% of the global natural CO2 emissions, would have catastrophic effects in the future.

About that 'right': some opinions have consequences. Currently, the lack of consensus about this subject is the thing that is blocking political decisions about making structural changes in our energy production. It is possible to switch to more sustainable energy sources, but currently they are more expensive than fossil fuels. So, energy companies, countries or even the EU can not decide on their own to switch to these energy sources, because it would give them a major economical disadvantage to those countries that don't switch.

The only alternative to global consensus, as far as I can see, is protectionistic measures to protect the economies of sustainable countries from those that are still non-sustainable.

Give me some arguments for not agreeing on a ban on burning fossil fuels, that are more urgent than even the probability that our CO2 emissions will give us a climate that's very different from the comfortable climates we've had for thousands of years.

 

[Moonwalker]

How much dwarf we are you can see when you are near a hurricane or a tsunami. We can't do anything against that, nor do we produce such things. We are helpless insects.

 

[cjp]

How much dwarf we are you can see when you are near a hurricane or a tsunami. We can't do anything against that, nor do we produce such things. We are helpless insects.

The fact that we can't stop a hurricane or tsunami doesn't mean we can't change the global climate. I looked up how this fallacy is named. Checking it on Wikipedia gives me either "Fallacy of Accident" or "Converse Fallacy of Accident", depending on which case is more exceptional than the other.

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, the real question is: What does climate change have to do with energy? Nothing at all - it is about how our pollution changes the energy balance of the planet, not about our own energy.

And that we can't do something against a hurricane is also pretty absurd- we can do that. If we would concentrate our energy on this task instead of our normal economic production. The power production of the USA should be enough for stopping a hurricane - if you don't use it for anything else.

 

[cjp]

Also, the real question is: What does climate change have to do with energy? Nothing at all - it is about how our pollution changes the energy balance of the planet, not about our own energy.

Well, direct heating coming from our own energy does have some impact, especially on the temperature of cities. But that's not the real issue. Yet. Maybe it will be in the next century if we continue the exponential growth of our consumption.

The real issue is of course that currently the cheapest energy source is getting fossil fuels out of the ground, refine them and burn them. So, most of our economy is provided with energy in this way, and it happens on a massive scale. And CO2 is a major reaction product of this, which in turn affects the climate.

The problem here is that having CO2 as a reaction product is quite fundamental, and can not easily be changed. Most other polluting chemicals are by-products that can be filtered out, but turning CO2 into something else usually costs energy, and because it's such a major reaction product, doing this will render your system useless as an energy source. So, CO2 production and using fossil fuels as energy source are quite strongly connected.

So I suggest:

• Using solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and/or nuclear energy for electricity production
• Using electricity, biofuel and/or synthetic fuels for transportation
• Investigate underground CO2 storage possibilities
• Invest a lot in nuclear fusion research
• Have a look at that rocks-that-absorb-CO2 idea I mentioned earlier

 

[Urwumpe]

:facts:
The sun has weather just like the earth.
remember that at many points in our earths history it either had no ice caps or it was in an ice age or somewhere in transition. so it is likely that we are just comeing out of an ice age. in other words, it is spring on the sun.:speakcool:

Nice theory, but contrary to measurements - solar radiance dropped in the last 50 years (radiation power per sun surface area and target area). Sun is nearing a minimum during it's major cycles currently.

 

[cjp]

:facts:
The sun has weather just like the earth.
remember that at many points in our earths history it either had no ice caps or it was in an ice age or somewhere in transition. so it is likely that we are just coming out of an ice age. in other words, it is spring on the sun.:speakcool:

I don't think the sun has ever had ice caps :lol::lol:

 

[pete.dakota]

How much dwarf we are you can see when you are near a hurricane or a tsunami. We can't do anything against that, nor do we produce such things. We are helpless insects.

Hiroshima, August 6, 1945: 80,000 dead. We're they not helpless insects? Their deaths impending as a wave of man-made energy destroyed an entire city?

Is man's potential not comparable to that of nature, if you want to talk about the killing power of hurricanes and tsunamis? Other cyclones and earthquakes etc. have been more deadly, of course. But you can't claim mankind can't produce such devastation.

The Tsar Bomb would have killed perhaps 8 million people if it had detonated above greater London.

 

[Urwumpe]

The Tsar Bomb would have killed perhaps 8 million people if it had detonated above greater London.

The Tsar Bomb could even have been much more powerful - they just had already enough problems with the "reduced" version of it.

And other designs would have allowed even much more dangerous at lower yields... like salted nuclear bombs.

 

[Moonwalker]

The Hiroshima-bomb killed more than 150.000 humans (not 88.000). Also, WWII claimed about 30 million humans. But we still can't change the weather. The atmosphere, the nature, the sun, is much more powerful than we are, including our bombs and weapons (which are just bagatelles compared to what happens within the nature).

Meteorologists say that a thunderstorm releases energy which corresponds to about 20 Hiroshima-bombs. So, about 45.000 thunderstorms each day around the globe release energy which corresponds to about 900.000 Hiroshima-bombs. We are still energetic dwarfs although we can kill ourselves several times.

As said previously, our technologies and sciences have created the misbelief that we are the center of everything. The believe that we could create or prevent hurricanes just like we build bombs, borders on megalomania. We do not have any influence to natural catastrophes.

 

[ar81]

In the last 50 years the amount of casualties of natural disasters is far bigger than the amount of people killed by global terror. So natural disasters aare a mmater of national security worldwide. Still, terror gets more government budget than environmental issues.

Earthquake in China killed 60,000+ people, while war on Irak killed about 4000 american soldiers. The relationship is about 15 to 1. Still politicians insist in being pop stars in the newspapers, they overestimate their own importance.

 

[Urwumpe]

Ah, cool. You want to play the game of meaningless comparisons of different quantities?

Meteorologists say that a thunderstorm releases energy which corresponds to about 20 Hiroshima-bombs. So, about 45.000 thunderstorms each day around the globe release energy which corresponds to about 900.000 Hiroshima-bombs. We are still energetic dwarfs although we can kill ourselves several times.

A nuclear bomb is an instantly release of energy (in a few microseconds time). A thunderstorm releases it's energy in a few hours.

20 hiroshima bombs sounds impressive and dangerous right? Each Hiroshima bomb has 15 kilotons of TNT energy equivalent. Even more dangerous, it contains the word TNT. In SI units your extremely strong thunderstorm has 1.255E+15 J or 1255 Terajoule.

The nuclear reactor of Biblis B produces 1300 MW electricity as peak power. 1.3 GJ energy per second.

It would have to run for 965538.46 seconds for producing the energy of your thunderstorm - or just 11 days. A single reactor produces the energy of two hiroshima bombs per day. In the 32 years since this opening, it produced the energy of 14300 Hiroshima bombs. Scary.


Maybe this shows why such comparisons are completely idiotic and should not be used for logical arguments at all - especially when they are actually an fallacy like in your case.

What will happen when you explode a single hiroshima bomb inside a extremely strong thunderstorm?

 

[Bj]

It's all just guesswork.

'Guessing' as defined;

to arrive at or commit oneself to an opinion about (something) without having sufficient evidence to support the opinion fully

First of all, they have evidence, so its not just guessing, its an educated guess.

Educated guess as defined;

a guess based on knowledge and experience, making it more likely to be correct

True enough, weather forecasting and models are educated guesses. BUT the graphs, are past history. Absolute facts. It is data.

Exactly like telling me the date of Apollo 11 launch. It already happened, its a fact, it is data, not guesswork.

 

[pete.dakota]

We do not have any influence to natural catastrophes.

Current research (which, of course, you don't believe) indicates that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will decrease cyclone (hurricane) frequency, but increase intensity. See here. And here.

Worldwide since the 1970s, there has been a near-doubling in the number of Category 4 and 5 storms - the strength that saw Hurricane Katrina do such damage to the US Gulf coastline late in August 2005.
Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, says the trend is global, has lasted over several decades and is connected to a steady worldwide increase in tropical sea temperatures.

But, of course, if you continue to ignore the evidence... this is all futile, right?

 

[Eagle]

OMG! GW causes earthquakes?

I bet California wild fires and heat waves are probably included in the 'events' along with a lot of other things.

Oh, and notice how there seems to be a drop off in disasters at the years of 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980. :hmm:

 

[Bj]

OMG! GW causes earthquakes?

:lol:

Oh, and notice how there seems to be a drop off in disasters at the years of 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980. :hmm:

True there are drop offs, but the drop is never as low as the increase is high.

 

[Moonwalker]

Current research (which, of course, you don't believe) indicates that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will decrease cyclone (hurricane) frequency, but increase intensity.

The research, which is based on computer models and predictions, shows that an increased CO2 concentration in a virtual atmosphere increases virtual hurricane intensity. No more, no less.

Do not use the word "will", since those scientists who publish their results don't use it too. They tend to use "may" and "we think", because the results of computer simulations are no scientific data, nor are they evidence for anything. Computer models are just used to help understand and gain knowledge, but not to proof anything. Also, compared to the real atmosphere, a computer based virtual atmosphere is not that much complex like the real atmopshere, which is very well known.

 

[simonpro]

Moonwalker, could you point us towards some peer-reviewed scientific literature that supports any of the claims you're making in this thread?
I'm not interested in the opinions of individuals, individuals don't know enough to be able to discuss this as a whole, hence the need for peer reviewed data and modelling.

 

[pete.dakota]

The research, which is based on computer models and predictions, shows that an increased CO2 concentration in a virtual atmosphere increases virtual hurricane intensity.

OK, well short of building a working time machine, how else are we to make predictions outside of 'virtual' simulations? What better solution is there to predict climate change? The data used to create these virtual systems is very scrutinised, thoroughly researched, and routinely updated using the latest, and most credible, scientific findings. You got a better idea?

Do not use the word "will", since those scientists who publish their results don't use it too. They tend to use "may" and "we think", because the results of computer simulations are no scientific data, nor are they evidence for anything. Computer models are just used to help understand and gain knowledge, but not to proof anything.

It was perfectly OK for me to use 'will'. As the sentence was still a postulation: "Current research (which, of course, you don't believe) indicates that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will decrease cyclone (hurricane) frequency, but increase intensity."

The research indicates that hurricane intensity WILL increase. I'm not saying it WILL; but the evidence indicates it.

Also, compared to the real atmosphere, a computer based virtual atmosphere is not that much complex like the real atmopshere, which is very well known.

Global model forecasting systems use some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world. Including a NOAA system for which the back-up is hosted by NASA.

 

[Eagle]

OK, well short of building a working time machine, how else are we to make predictions outside of 'virtual' simulations? What better solution is there to predict climate change? The data used to create these virtual systems is very scrutinised, thoroughly researched, and routinely updated using the latest, and most credible, scientific findings. You got a better idea?

A computer model is a bunch of equations that somebody thought might give an interesting result when run with certain parameters. A computer model will always give you the result you expected, even on unexpected data.

Well outside the realm of transformational math equations, there is experimental data. Its very difficult to have a planet sized controlled experiment, however parts can be simulated.

Just remember to manage your error. Increased temperature and CO2 concentrations on algae and krill, but there are other fish in the sea, vertebrate and otherwise.