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

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
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.
Which might be the case very well, while my last post seems not well considered afterwards.

We just have to look to Hiroshima. Little Boy may have killed between 90k and 200k people in 1945. But today Hiroshima is a glowing city and an important industrial location with more than 1 million inhabitants. We have more than 6 billion humans on the planet...

We may have 30k bombs around the globe. But the fact that the energy of all daily thunderstorms equals ~900k Hiroshima bombs, make look our bombs just like bagatelles. And thunderstorms by far are not the worst and most powerful natural events.

By the way: the comparison of atmoic bombs and thunderstorms is not my idea. I got it from a German meterologist, who used it in almost the same context.

Moon walker wrote:
[I do not disagree to reduce our emissions.]

This is good news. Consider yourself cyber-hugged.:cheers:
Well, even a crackpot like me knows that our emissions, polutions and altering of the surface can't be good for the nature on the long run ;)

But it has to be mentioned that "air pollution" has decreased in the most industrial nations within the last decades. It is not that much worse as most people think. While air pollution is a significant problem in developing countries, China and Russia as well as in other threshold countries.

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...?.
Well, you should address your question to climatologists and geophysicists. It is their phrase ;)

But since I use it too, I explain you why I tend to use it:

We did not contribute anything at all to past climate changes, which is more than rather obvious, because we simply did not exist in the wide past, but also did not have any industrialization in the near past of the Earth. Currently we realize that our measurements show a slight warming trend (yes, it's slight, not massive). But what can we do against it? Exactly nothing. Because we don't know what to do exactly beside reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as a potential cause. All we do is to assume and to talk shop. But there is nothing practical left to really influence the cimate like it would be an air condition.

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.
That's what I meant earlier in this thread. We should not become megalomaniac because of our technological achievements and sciences. We can't compare little airplanes and rockets with climate change and natural processes we depend on.

We fly and we travel into space. But we do not make weather. We can't even predict it on the long run, nor are our short term predictions right all the time.

We can do the impossible in our dreams and often our dreams come true if we exert our will.
I agree. But also, everything has its borders too. Less than ever life...
 

pete.dakota

Donator
Donator
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
621
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Surrey, UK
But what can we do against it? Exactly nothing. Because we don't know what to do exactly beside reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as a potential cause.
Faulty argument laden with redundancy.

The 'slight warming trend' as you put it, is, certainly, due to man-made CO2 emissions. This you have agreed to. How can you claim that reducing our emissions futile when you have admitted that our emissions have caused a raise in the mean temp anomaly?

What proof do you have saying that reducing emissions will have NO effect on the climate?

'Potential cause'? CO2 emissions in the only cause of above expected warming since man's industrialisation, as shown by scientific data. Reducing our emissions is the smartest and most appropriate course of action.

Bah, what's the point. I'm sure you'll come back with some blanketing written argument again, citing no credible science or research, claiming that anything man does ever is futile in your 'big picture'.

I'm out.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The 'slight warming trend' as you put it, is, certainly, due to man-made CO2 emissions. This you have agreed to. How can you claim that reducing our emissions futile when you have admitted that our emissions have caused a raise in the mean temp anomaly?
I do not strongly agree that our emissions have caused a raise of some mean temperatures (not all and everything is warming on the globe by the way). I say it is not for sure what caused it.

It is too early to conclusively say that we have caused the current global warming trend basically, and to bite on 0,038% CO2 only. We still don't know all climate drive and change factors. There is a lot of research to be done still. It's not over. The mistake which some serious IPCC members also mention, was to be too much conclusively already, since the UN now considers to cut budgets for the IPCC.

What proof do you have saying that reducing emissions will have NO effect on the climate?
You really have to make a difference between will and might. I do not say it will have no effect. I say it might have no effect. Nobody knows what will happen exactly.

'Potential cause'? CO2 emissions in the only cause of above expected warming since man's industrialisation, as shown by scientific data.
What tells you that there are no different impacts? Yes, there is now 0,038% CO2 within the atmosphere. But the Earth's climate does not only depend on 0,038% CO2. There are a lot of more factors within the nature, but also the solar system has to be considered. There is much research missing still...

'Reducing our emissions is the smartest and most appropriate course of action.
I agree. Reducing our emissions can't be wrong at all.

But it is also possible that such reductions do not show a significant impact. What if even the CO2 level would not really decrease significantly?

Remember that man-made CO2 emissions are only ~6% of all natural CO2 emissions. And I'm not yet convinced that we really know what happens exactly to all the CO2 contents within the nature. Science is not impeccable, less than ever climatology.
 

Omhra

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Salt Lake City
Website
www.myspace.com
OK,
I, now, understand.
You say that through science we should learn that science is not scientific...
And that the most likely thing to happen is the thing we should least expect.
And that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of ignore.
But you do acknowledge that we could improve "things" because it wouldn't be wrong yet you maintain that it is not what would be the right thing to do.
I agree that it might be a bit useless to continue with the thread.
Science is not being used here by all sides and because climate study is a science and one side (37%) using the shaking of their head as main translator for an idea (not necessarily Data) while the rest of us are using compiled Data to base our reason this has rendered the discussion into fractured monologues...
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That is right. But it is much more accurate as all alternatives.
There are not even real alternatives to be honest, which sounds rather conclusive on the one hand. But on the other hand, much more accurate or even most accurate does not necessarily mean accurate.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,561
Reaction score
76
Points
138
Location
Wolfsburg
There are not even real alternatives to be honest, which sounds rather conclusive on the one hand. But on the other hand, much more accurate or even most accurate does not necessarily mean accurate.
Yes, but it also means: If you have no better alternative as science, predictions made by scientific methods, even when possibly wrong, are still more accurate as any prediction made by non-scientific methods. This includes the logical fallacy "Because scientific theories can be wrong, AGW is wrong. The predictions are just alarmist and will not come true."

Until you have a scientific alternative, which survives peer review and testing of your predictions, without assumptions (=fictional hypothesis), you are better served with trusting the scientific theory with-in it's own error bars.

And currently, no error bar allows global cooling and no natural phenomena is capable of explaining it. A lot of stuff needs to be wrong, to make the theory of AGW completely wrong.
 

tblaxland

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Addon Developer
Webmaster
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
11
Points
113
Location
Sydney, Australia

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
True, but since when has there ever been 100% accuracy in anything?
I think that the Earth orbits the sun is a 100% accurate observation for example ;)

Yes, but it also means: If you have no better alternative as science, predictions made by scientific methods, even when possibly wrong, are still more accurate as any prediction made by non-scientific methods. This includes the logical fallacy "Because scientific theories can be wrong, AGW is wrong. The predictions are just alarmist and will not come true."
Right. But I don't say that GW will not come true. I say that the latest IPCC assessment report does not convince me regarding AGW and predicted future trends (while past predictions got changed significantly partly). The report by far is no proof that the current trend will continue for sure. Beside observations, it's mainly a summarization of assumptions which are based on computer models.



 

simonpro

Beta Tester
Beta Tester
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
7
Points
0
I don't have time to respond to everything, so I'm just responding to this:
I think that the Earth orbits the sun is a 100% accurate observation for example
No it's not. Other planets/heavenly bodies affect our orbit, so in the strictest use of the word we're not orbiting the sun.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,561
Reaction score
76
Points
138
Location
Wolfsburg
Moonwalker: It does not have to convince you. It is a scientific theory, written from climate scientists for climate scientists. But you can also not argue against it, without doing science yourself - otherwise, you are doing exactly what you accuse the IPCC of.

If you have no alternative scientific theory, which is still valid, you have to base your decisions on the best you have. If you have 90% chance for AGW being true and 10% chance for something else, you are on the safe side by investing 90% into the AGW theory and it's possible mitigations, and only 10% into alternative theories or general risk mitigation.

No it's not. Other planets/heavenly bodies affect our orbit, so in the strictest use of the word we're not orbiting the sun.
In the strictest use of the word orbiting, you are right. The orbit of Earth is no two-body-problem, and thus, no original Kepler orbit. But Earth's trajectory is dominated by the gravity of the sun - the sun is our central body, and the other planets (and our moon) only perturbations of the Kepler solution.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hairsplitting. The Earth still orbits the Sun periodically, no matter if other objects do cause deviations.


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


It is a scientific theory, written from climate scientists for climate scientists.
It's written for politics. While a few authors (and even lead authors) do not even strongly agree to AGW on the whole.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,561
Reaction score
76
Points
138
Location
Wolfsburg
It's written for politics. While a few authors (and even lead authors) do not even strongly agree to AGW on the whole.
You also don't "strongly agree" for 1,000,000 € bonus payments for you - if I am defining what "strongly agree" means. ;)
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I've often heard the allegation that dissidents get "bonus payments". In another forum, people alleged that even me must be payed by the oil industry:rofl:
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
35,561
Reaction score
76
Points
138
Location
Wolfsburg
I've often heard that dissidents get "bonus payments". In another forum, people alleged that even me must be payed by the oil industry:rofl:
Are you? AFAIK the oil industry is among the biggest investors for solar energy in Europe. :p
 

Omhra

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Salt Lake City
Website
www.myspace.com
Its not splitting hairs... Science is not simple. and if you wish to land a probe in a crater on Mars you have to account for everything that might throw your orbital trajectory off. Even galactic spin and and that itch in your pocket.
You want it simple.. so do we. Just isn't at the moment.
But I bet you do get some "mula" from some oil related secret consortium bent on destroying Earth for us while moving the climate to a warmer more lizard friendly environment.

I kid.
 
Top