Poll Is it happening?-GlobalWarming

Does Global Warming Exist?

  • Yes GW exists, and is a problem.

    Votes: 43 64.2%
  • Yes GW exists, and is not a problem

    Votes: 13 19.4%
  • No GW does not exist.

    Votes: 11 16.4%

  • Total voters
    67

Eagle

The Amazing Flying Tuna Can
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
3
Points
0
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.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
It's not a claim that computer based models are no proof for anything. Even IPCC lead authors mention that often enough.

Well, for what exactly dou you like to get peer-reviewed scientific literature? Or is it just the usual try to silence down "individuals"?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,561
Reaction score
76
Points
138
Location
Wolfsburg
It's not a claim that computer based models are no proof for anything. Even IPCC lead authors mention that often enough.
That is right and wrong. Computer models are no scientific proof. But they are a way to validate models, based on scientific proof. And predictions done by computer models, which are predictions based on a scientifically developed theory. Which means: If the model is correct, the predictions are correct. They are no proof of anything, as future predictions are no proof of anything: But if the predictions of the theory are correct, the theory has improved it's score.

And predictions of a scientific theory are much better as predictions of crackpots.

Well, for what exactly dou you like to get peer-reviewed scientific literature? Or is it just the usual try to silence down "individuals"?
Peer-review is a quality assurance system, commonly used in science. This system works very good, is tested and reliable. Of course, it punishes people who do not want to see their work reviewed. very often crackpot scientists, who claim to be the keepers of the holy grail of science.
 

simonpro

Beta Tester
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
7
Points
0
It's not a claim that computer based models are no proof for anything. Even IPCC lead authors mention that often enough.
As Urwumpe says, computer models aren't supposed to be proof of any scientific theory. Orbiter is merely a computer model, and it too comes with limits to it's accuracy, just like climate models, but I very rarely hear of people complaining that these uncertainties somehow contradict the theory of gravity.

It is a stone cold fact that the planet is currently experiencing rising mean temperatures. It's a stone cold fact that greenhouse gas concentrations are (globally) rising. It's a well known theory that these gases can cause localised climate change. It's a superbly validated theory that these localised changes can be extended to a global scale. The only thing we're not certain about is how much of an effect we are having. That we are having an effect is as close to a fact as you can ever get in scientific theory.

Well, for what exactly dou you like to get peer-reviewed scientific literature? Or is it just the usual try to silence down "individuals"?
I am attempting to find some aspect of your thoughts that stand up to scrutiny by the scientific community. I'm not trying to silence anyone, people can make as much noise as they want. Even if they - in my opinion - make themselves look like fools in the process. All I'm trying to do is find some basis in reality for what you're saying. Some scientific theory on which you're generating your conclusions.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
As Urwumpe says, computer models aren't supposed to be proof of any scientific theory.
Not supposed to be proof by scientists. But some journalists and news articles imply that computer models are proof. Some people take it too much conclusively.

Orbiter is merely a computer model, and it too comes with limits to it's accuracy, just like climate models, but I very rarely hear of people complaining that these uncertainties somehow contradict the theory of gravity.
The theory of gravity is practically replicable for anybody, especially in case my glas of water next to my keypad should fall off my desk.

Predictions of potential future climate changes, based on our input of limited current knowledge, is just data and values with less certainty of realism. Although we try to do so, climate is not predictable, based on our limted possibilities, compared to all natural forces and influences. Weather is also not really predictable, less than ever on the long run.

It is a stone cold fact that the planet is currently experiencing rising mean temperatures.
Not each stone is cold... ;)

I'm aware that some of our current measurements of mean temperatures show a slight rise above "average" (depends on what you measure; deep sea level temperature on the Antarctica for example, do not show a rise). I do not disagree to that. But I do not jump on the bandwagon of alarmism, just because some of our measurements show slight increase beyond the comma or because some climatologists think one or two things about their data. Nicely colored graphics and diagrams are easy to read. People love it very much. But paper doesn't blush.

It's a stone cold fact that greenhouse gas concentrations are (globally) rising. It's a well known theory that these gases can cause localised climate change. It's a superbly validated theory that these localised changes can be extended to a global scale. The only thing we're not certain about is how much of an effect we are having. That we are having an effect is as close to a fact as you can ever get in scientific theory.
I do not disagree that the CO2 level has risen up to 380 ppm. And I'm also aware of the children's book theory "greenhouse effect" (while the term itself is rather old and not really valid to current physics). How much of an effect we are having is not known indeed. But it can possibly turn out to be less than very minor in future, but also contrariwise.

Well, let's say the next decades would not show a significant increase of mean temperature, or even a slight decrease. What would your superbly validated theories look like? I think they would become much elastic. Six month ago, German scientists of the Max Planck Institute have calculated, based on current sea temperatures, that the global mean tempearture may stagnate within the next ten years, followed by a warming again in 15 to 20 years. While the latest IPCC report assumes a rise of 0,2°C within the next 20 years (which already is much less than predicted in the 1990's and the early 2000's), followed by a rise.

I still have an old schoolbook (geography) from 1994, which says that the global mean tempearture has risen by 0,75°C since industrialization. Today, almost 15 years later, the value still is almost the same.

PS: I have to mention that beside my scepticism of climate predictions and knowledge regarding climate change causes and climate driving factors, I do not disagree to reduce anthropogenic "greenhouse" gas emissions, pollution, as well as deforestation and other man-made altering effects significantly.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,561
Reaction score
76
Points
138
Location
Wolfsburg
Moonwalker: Do you have a theory that works better as the existing theories? Instead of using unqualified polemics, like "childbook theory", can you show, by pure skills, that you are better as the "alarmists" you attack? you have to admit, that the theories became more accurate over the last decades. And don't even think about starting "in the 1950, scientists predicted a new ice age" - until 600 AD, it was accepted scientific theory, that we see by using eye rays. If I remember correctly, the predictions from 1990 for our present became pretty much true within the still large error bars. While you search in a thesaurus for a new word to ridicule science, which is not fitting in your world view, newer theories will appear, with smaller error bars.

And I think, there is a nice quotation about your situation:

Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the Earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the Earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such persons will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers.
Nicolaus Copernicus... 1543. Some things on this planet will never change.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
...Some things on this planet will never change.
Which is our fear of natural forces and their incalculability.

I don't ridicule science on the whole. I comment my concerns about some parts of climatology, which obviously causes a few people to become nervous a little bit.

I do not have any different theory as the existing ones. I also don't think that I'm "better" (whatever that means) as people who are convinced that the IPCC has conclusive material, which consists basically of paper and pdf files.

Beside paper and guesswork, there is not much left which points to a dramatic climate change. Not even just because some glaciers melt and winters become slightly warmer at some regions. We always saw and still see any kind of climate change as a threat. No matter if it's about cooling or warming. It is for sure that we have to adapt. We have no right of a constant climate. Harvests will be destroyed here and there, people have to resettle and such things. Just look at the past only in Europe. The Earth is not a nice place on the whole, for any species, at any time.

The global warming debate actually is rather young (just a little bit younger than me). It directly follwed the global cooling debate as we looked more accurately to the climate by satellites and other equipment and methodes. It's still the beginning. But all we do is to obeserve. We can't do any practical against the climate change. We can't prevent our thermometers to show a slight increase of the average temperatures on some parts of the world. We can't prevent that glaciers melt and so on. We're just pretty much helpless bystanders. All we can do, which could influence the climate change slightly (but maybe it would not even be measurable), is to reduce anthropogenic gas emissions, pollution and to alter the surface by deforestation and so on. I'm very much in favour of it. But after that, there is not much left. The climate probably continues to behave like a lot of people would not like still.

In any case, we have to learn how to adapt to climate changes. There is nothing for it as the past shows. Even if we stop all our pollutions. The IPCC even concludes that it is not possible to stop global warming after all.
 

pete.dakota

Donator
Donator
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
621
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Surrey, UK
I do not have any different theory as the existing ones. I also don't think that I'm "better" (whatever that means) as people who are convinced that the IPCC has conclusive material, which consists basically of paper and pdf files.
Prove it's inconclusive.. Don't talk down at scientific theory if you don't have a countering theory of your own. Simply doubting and badgering current theory is not enough - especially for this crowd. If you can't provide conclusive evidence of your own to counter the IPCC's findings, don't bate it as being wrong.

Beside paper and guesswork,
Will you be printing your conclusive, non-guesswork findings on another material, then? Should the IPCC not use paper?

there is not much left which points to a dramatic climate change. Not even just because some glaciers melt and winters become slightly warmer at some regions.
Downplaying the ramifications of warming by putting 'some' or 'slightly' at the beginning of words does not constitute scientific argument. Equally, I could say, "Gun crime, so what? So some people die... We still need guns." Your mentality toward this matter bears resemblance to that of 9/11 truthers.

We always saw and still see any kind of climate change as a threat. No matter if it's about cooling or warming.
Everyone knows the climate changes itself; that is not the issue here. The problem lies in human's influence on this change - for which the evidence suggests, is not only notable, but massive.

It is for sure that we have to adapt.
Is measuring and accounting for man made global warming not adaptation? Are we supposed to adapt in the same way birds do? Fly south when it's cold, and north when it's warm? Humans have the perspicacity to notice our influence on our planet, therefore it is our adaption that allows us to change that influence. What would you rather have man do? Nothing? Let it be?..

The IPCC even concludes that it is not possible to stop global warming after all.
No one claims that stopping global warming is possible.
 

Omhra

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Salt Lake City
Website
www.myspace.com
Moonwalker wrote;
[Meteorologists say that a thunderstorm releases energy which corresponds to about....]

So you do believe scientists!... ? :speakcool:

Moonwalker wrote
[our technologies and sciences have created the misbelief that we are the center of everything.]

No it hasn't Science has broken that geocentric view figuratively and literally. Science tries to find our place in the universe not invent one. ;)

Moonwalker wrote
[I also don't think that I'm "better" (whatever that means) as people who are convinced that the IPCC has conclusive material,]

:facts: You fail to see that it IS NOT the IPCC we believe... is the data... who ever gathers the DATA is inconsequential... WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE IPCC; WE ASSESS THE DATA!!!! :chair:

The IPCC only gathered a set of DATA and presented it to the UN...
Most of us gather Data where ever it is found. The IPCC is only one source and a good one because so much of it was gathered... we read and we check with varied sources...
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Prove it's inconclusive.
As already mentioned, computer models are never proof at the time they are calculated. The proof if the data may become conclusive or not, will be the future behaviour of the climate. I don't neet to throw around any evidences for that, although it is popular to do so.

Don't talk down at scientific theory if you don't have a countering theory of your own.
I don't overrate climatology and all of it's theories. I don't have to kneel down in front of the IPCC just because I don't have to offer counter theories. Numbers and values is one thing, daily live is another one. I personally don't need theories and counter theories for almost everything. I have very well working sense organs, and, you may have your doubt, a very well working brain ;)

Will you be printing your conclusive, non-guesswork findings on another material, then? Should the IPCC not use paper?
The material and its presentation actually would be the atmosphere and its behaviour, rather than paper and computer models.

Downplaying the ramifications of warming by putting 'some' or 'slightly' at the beginning of words does not constitute scientific argument. Equally, I could say, "Gun crime, so what? So some people die... We still need guns." Your mentality toward this matter bears resemblance to that of 9/11 truthers.
It may seem so in your point of view. But it is not nearly the case. 9/11 is a very young historic event. The facts are on the table, no matter what the so called 9/11 truthers say about, while ignoring millions of witnesses in New York, Wahsington and in front of the TV around the globe. But it has absolutely nothing to do with climate science, a few of its outcomes and my point of view on it.

Everyone knows the climate changes itself; that is not the issue here. The problem lies in human's influence on this change - for which the evidence suggests, is not only notable, but massive.
If and how much man caused a global mean temperature rise of 0,75°C is assumed but not known, all papers aside.

Is measuring and accounting for man made global warming not adaptation? Are we supposed to adapt in the same way birds do? Fly south when it's cold, and north when it's warm? Humans have the perspicacity to notice our influence on our planet, therefore it is our adaption that allows us to change that influence. What would you rather have man do? Nothing? Let it be?..
I have already mentioned what we can do. We certainly won't prevent ice ages, nor won't we prevent global warming. In the worst case, adapting would mean to resettle, if all our reductions of pollution and surface altering would not take much effect to a global warming or cooling in the wide future. What else would you prefer?


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


Moonwalker wrote;
[Meteorologists say that a thunderstorm releases energy which corresponds to about....]

So you do believe scientists!... ? :speakcool:
Well, I did not say that I don't believe in scientists, less than ever scientists on the whole.
 

Bj

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
1,888
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Location
USA-WA
Website
www.orbiter-forum.com
The material actually would be the atmosphere and its behaviour, rather than paper and computer models.

Dude, your not reading what we are saying.

Look whats ON this document.



I don't know about you but in the USA it is year 2008. Unless its 1940 where you are, this is not a computer model, this is data.

Look at the time scale of this data.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dude, your not reading what we are saying.

Look whats ON this document.



I don't know about you but in the USA it is year 2008. Unless its 1940 where you are, this is not a computer model, this is data.

Look at the time scale of this data.
I basically refer to predictions of the future climate, not to current data.

Obviously you and others don't seem to realize that I don't disagree to global warming. Once again: I'm aware of the current mean temperature anomalies.
 

Eagle

The Amazing Flying Tuna Can
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
3
Points
0
There is something to be said about blind trust of data: Don't.

Lots of unintentional, unexpected and unnoticed errors and bias works its way into data. Good scientists don't even trust their own data, at least not at first.
 

pete.dakota

Donator
Donator
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
621
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Surrey, UK
As already mentioned, computer models are never proof at the time they are calculated. The proof if the data may become conclusive or not, will be the future behaviour of the climate. I don't neet to throw around any evidences for that, although it is popular to do so.
Is it not best, then, to act on the data we have, and assume it to be as close as we can come to knowing 100%? It doesn't seem prudent not to act on global warming simply because the scientific data isn't absolute. I could draw on many analogies wherein an assumption, all-be-it an educated one, is the best that can be done, and the science has been carried out.


The material and its presentation actually would be the atmosphere and its behaviour, rather than paper and computer models.
Uhuh. And how would you put that presentation forward to the scientific community? Have everyone stand outside, not writing down their research? How would you correlate data? How would you SAVE the data, if you don't believe in computer models?



9/11 is a very young historic event. The facts are on the table, no matter what the so called 9/11 truthers say about, while ignoring millions of witnesses in New York...
I was comparing your's and their's mentalities, not 9/11 to climate change.


If and how much man caused a global mean temperature rise of 0,75°C is assumed but not known, all papers aside.

Of course it's assumed. All science is 'assumed'. Ultimately, man will never know the inner workings of absolutely everything. But if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and sounds like a duck... Just because there is an error margin, does not mean the science is unsound, and not to be trusted. Your argument invites us all to sit around and do nothing unless the science behind the matter is 100% conclusive and has a 0% chance of being questioned by anyone, anywhere, ever.

Stephen Hawking bets the LHC won't find the Higgs Bosom. But yet there's still a £6BN machine ready to go in Switzerland.

I have already mentioned what we can do. We certainly won't prevent ice ages, nor won't we prevent global warming. In the worst case, adapting would mean to resettle, if all our reductions of pollution and surface altering would not take much effect to a global warming or cooling in the wide future. What else would you prefer?
Again, no one has said we will prevent ice ages. And no one has said we will prevent global warming.

IF, if they don't make an effect on global warming, you say? You've contradicted your whole argument. You're saying that, if our emmision reductions don't stump global warming, then we should resettle? So to imply reducing emmisions should be our first step.
 

lockingtoggle

Donator
Donator
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I was wondering how many people think global warming exists and if it is a problem.

Post your thoughts here.
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said I don't know."
Mark Twain
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
@pete.dakota

Just over and over again: I do not disagree to reduce our emissions.

My whole argument is that we don't know much about past and future climate changes, and that we don't know if we have a signifficant effect to the current global warming. I don't say we don't have. We have to adapt to climate changes anyway, if man-made or not. The atmosphere by far is not an adjustable aircondition, nor will it take any care of us.

Concerning "All science is 'assumed'":

We went to the Moon and we continuosly enter the low Earth orbit as only one example. This is based on science which is not just assumed and which works very well, practically. Take a stone and a feather in vacuum and...(you know), and you get another simple but good practical example.

But climate science, especially IPCC outcomes, is something totally different. Especially if we don't know much of our 4,5 billion years old Earth including its climate history, mass extinctions and so on (we know only a minor fraction of it). Local core records, tree rings and so on, do not enable us and our computers to decide if the current trend is basically unsusal/not the right one. Like Michael Griffin said: that's arrogant.

IPCC conclusions do not convince me. Nicely coloured diagrams and numbers do not convince me. NASA (which I like very much in many cases) conclusions do not convince me, although their choice of words is different than the ones from the IPCC. And you can't convince me too less than ever, which you should not take personally at all ;)
 

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,264
Reaction score
42
Points
123
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
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?

There's probably enough nuclear devices on Earth to blow us all up 10 times over...

No way in hell can nature do that.

So yes, men really doed make such a big impact.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
There's probably enough nuclear devices on Earth to blow us all up 10 times over...

No way in hell can nature do that.

So yes, men really doed make such a big impact.
I don't know if the number is right, but I read somewhere that we have about 30.000 atomic bombs around the globe. So it would be possible very well to blow us all up I think (sadly enough). Just ignite all the bombs at the same time or even on a single place at the same time. This certainly would be a kind of "volcanic eruption" the planet has not seen before I think. This would even significantly change the Earth's climate quite likely.

The example looks powerful and frightening, But has nothing to do with the current climate change and climate driving factors. It shows that we are self-destructive, but it does not show that we are changing the climate right now.

Also, nature can destroy us rather quick in the very worst case. Imagine a collision with another, very big heavenly body. It's quicker than the logistics which would be required to kill us all with atomic bombs.
 

Eagle

The Amazing Flying Tuna Can
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
1,109
Reaction score
3
Points
0
It may be somewhat disingenuous to compare carbon influence with nuclear weapons. The 'carbon problem' is almost equatable with an overpopulation of a natural process (perhaps a hydrocarbon eating microbe which causes the resulting gasses to enter the atmosphere even for underground deposits).

The other is a localized energy impulse with the side effect of toxic radioactive dispersal. Meteor impact is the closest natural equivalent. Volcanoes have some problems with not enough energy for the amount of new material introduced into the biome.

Oh, and life is going to survive any nuclear holocaust (given that some of Earth's crust remains on its surface). I'd give good odds for some human civilization to live on too.

...

Also, nature can destroy us rather quick in the very worst case. Imagine a collision with another, very big heavenly body. It's quicker than the logistics which would be required to kill us all with atomic bombs.
Perhaps the maximum destruction that could be gained from the 30k bombs would be to fly an Orion starship to nudge a rock.
 

Omhra

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Salt Lake City
Website
www.myspace.com
Moon walker wrote:
[I do not disagree to reduce our emissions.]

This is good news. Consider yourself cyber-hugged.:cheers:

Moonwalker wrote:
[The atmosphere by far is not an adjustable aircondition, nor will it take any care of us.]

Here I must ask.
Who are you to impose or recognize limits on Human potential with such certainty...?
People used to say that flight was for birds only because God wanted it so. Now look at the computer models by which we enact the dream of interplanetary flight. Models that got us there in the first place. All of it possible because of the simple fact that its the methodology and not the partial success that matters.
As a species we have become aware of our potential at a very pivotal point in our history... And our technology is also up to a level where we can dream and realize currently impossible and seemingly improbable technologies, recently flight and, latter, space flight.. just in the 60's; and finding out, for a fact, what we suspected for so long... the world is not flat after all.
But your argument requires us to be complacent and contemplative, in which case, if that methodology had been held through out our history, we'd still be guessing and arguing as to whether it (the world) is flat or not.
We can do the impossible in our dreams and often our dreams come true if we exert our will.
 
Top