The Problems with the Global Warming Debate

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

LoFr3Eq:
I'm still sceptical of the man made part of global warming.

Also, humans generate less than 2% of the atmosphere's CO2.

I fully support the growing of more trees etc, but I'm sick of what will be a fraudulent 'carbon credits' market (even though my country has much to gain from it).

Why is the last bit of the solar activity readings missing? The temperature makes a sharp rise, but before that rise the solar activity curve just stops. Am I supposed to believe that's a coincidental mistake?

I don't believe in coincidences. The person who made that chart just skipped the last decades where the temperature does not correlate with solar activity to hide the possibility of anthropogenic global warming, didn't he?

Elcarsh:

LoFr3Eq:
I'm still sceptical of the man made part of global warming.

Also, humans generate less than 2% of the atmosphere's CO2.

I fully support the growing of more trees etc, but I'm sick of what will be a fraudulent 'carbon credits' market (even though my country has much to gain from it).

Why is the last bit of the solar activity readings missing? The temperature makes a sharp rise, but before that rise the solar activity curve just stops. Am I supposed to believe that's a coincidental mistake?

I don't believe in coincidences. The person who made that chart just skipped the last decades where the temperature does not correlate with solar activity to hide the possibility of anthropogenic global warming, didn't he?

Yeah, it's from The Great Global Warming Swindle, they were basically lying out their arses.

When the guy that you're actually citing tells you you're full of shit, that's a sign to quit while you're behind.

Oirish_Martin:

LoFr3Eq:
Although correlation is not the same as causation...

dodgy as fuck graph

I'm still sceptical of the man made part of global warming.

Also, humans generate less than 2% of the atmosphere's CO2.

I fully support the growing of more trees etc, but I'm sick of what will be a fraudulent 'carbon credits' market (even though my country has much to gain from it).

Ooh, I think I've seen this one before.

Isn't that the graph where they left off the last decade of data because it blatantly doesn't match?

I'll be back when I can be arsed digging further.

The graph is from 1991 and it only includes solar data up to 1975. There is a very good reason for this, after 1975 the correlation ended. There are a couple of papers from the early 2000s that correct the paper that the graph came from, it was helpful that we had another decade of solar readings that did not correlate, resulting in nearly 30 years of data that did not correlate.

image

This graph shows the true story as it includes data well into the 2000s. It is clear that there is no longer a correlation.

pyrate:
This graph shows the true story as it includes data well into the 2000s. It is clear that there is no longer a correlation.

Yup, that's the one.

Also, this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM

Brett Dumain:
Thanks for the strawman, my diet needs a lot more fiber in it. Also I notice you didnt tackle my main assertion, that the Sun has a hell of a lot more to do with any climatic change than my lone self does.

What the devil? Were you seriously under the impression that anyone had ever claimed that you personally had a greater impact on the climate than the sun? How on earth did you come to believe that?

Of course your contribution to global warming is neglige...negil...incredibly tiny, but you're not the only human on the planet. There are some seven billion other people around. Nobody cares about your personal contribution to climate change, but in the big picture, there is no doubt that humanity as a whole is having an impact on it. Saying otherwise when there are dozens of peer-reviewed articles presenting clear evidence for it is plain ignorant.

Brett Dumain:
But of course, why bother answering dangerous questions from a heretic of the church of AGW?

Just drop the persecution complex, please. I realize that you want to view yourself as the rebel who opposes the evil reign of the "alarmists", but that rings somewhat hollow considering that you are on the same side as the multinational corporations investing millions of dollars in phony research to ensure that they can keep producing and selling petroleum products to make as much money as they can.

When you've got billions of oil dollars on your side, you've lost the right to play the "I'm the dissident with a free mind!" card.

Elcarsh:

Just drop the persecution complex, please. I realize that you want to view yourself as the rebel who opposes the evil reign of the "alarmists", but that rings somewhat hollow considering that you are on the same side as the multinational corporations investing millions of dollars in phony research to ensure that they can keep producing and selling petroleum products to make as much money as they can.

When you've got billions of oil dollars on your side, you've lost the right to play the "I'm the dissident with a free mind!" card.

I think that's what annoys me most about this debate. The insinuations of conspiracy on the part of scientists (whose MO is to uncover facts about the world we live in via a method that discourages making shit up) by people who apply nowhere near the same level of suspicion to a bunch of dissenters funded up the ying-yang by businesses (whose MO is 1. Make moar money, 2. Fuck you guys).

There also seems to be a lingering misapprehension that merely dissenting makes you some kind of scientific rebel supergenius like Galileo or Einstein. It doesn't, you need evidence too - Galileo and Einstein had - and the anti-AGW side doesn't.

Yes, there's kind of a pattern present. A very annoying one.

So-called "skeptics" like Dumain and Powder don't act like skeptics normally do act. They act with derision and certainty, assuming that everyone who disagrees has been brainwashed. And then, when they get called on their bullshit, when their sources are demonstrated to be either dated, dishonest, proven wrong, or all three, when they are revealed to be using nothing but hack blogs as sources... They double down, and either ignore their mistakes or act like it doesn't matter. This kind of behavior would be inexcusable from someone who did have the science on their side! They're absolutely self-assured, despite being shown just how wrong they are on sub-issues time and time and time again.

Look, I'm convinced that the current climatological consensus is both accurate and trustworthy. But I'm not going to claim that everyone who isn't is a fool, brainwashed by the oil industry. That would be fucking stupid. There are legitimate skeptics - Friis-Kristensen. Svensen. Their ilk. They are legitimate scientists, with legitimate (albeit refuted) hypotheses. But somehow, whenever one of us tries to refute (however accurately) something brought up by the "can't be wrong" folks over in the denialist camp, no matter how obviously and blatantly wrong it is, it's clearly us being brainwashed. The "church of AGW". I've seen more rational geocentrists. And more polite ones.

double post. stupid forum

Sleekit:
nice that you mentioned the ozone hole.

if anything its worth remembering that we have previously seriously negatively effected the environment on this planet and taken serious global action to counter it.

It is also worth noting in this particular example, that despite a global ban on CFC's, the Ozone hole is still growing.

This is an example of mans's vanity.

It turns out, man wasn't the problem. Man made CFC emmissions have stopped, Ozone hole growth has not.

Millions of perfectly good fridges scrapped world wide. At a cost of billions. Money that could have been put to better use. (Space exploration, healthcare, medical research, world hunger, beer and fags..).

So the lesson here is that fashions can spread worldwide and you can call it science, but it wasn't good science only mankind's hubris.
Most people on the planet can't readily distinguish between the two. In the end, history decides. We take our best shot and hope we get lucky. That is all.
Scientifc research is nothing if not hit and miss. With litterally thousands upon thousands of theories remaining unproven or more likely disproven over time.
The default position of a scientific theory, is for it to be wrong. Almost all are. Almost all of them in the history of mankind have so far turned out to be.

Scientific reasearch was described to me as a scatter gun approach. Fire a lot of bullets in the general direction and one might well hit. But it's not a precision operation where we follow in inescapable path of logic to it's ultimate and logical conclusion.
It's one in which we take a thousand guesses and over a period of time see if any of them match our controlled and accurate measurements.

There certainly is an element of brainwashing involved in Global Warming.
The BBC for example pushes this agenda very heavily and admittedly deliberately.
It's infomercials had to be withdrawn as they failed to meet the legal requirements for honesty and they most certainly fail to meet their charter obligations for impartiality.

Kids may be taught about it in school, (WTF? Creationism too!) and if you are under a certain age, you simply wouldn't have known that you can get a long sustained series of hot summers, and the cold ones will still return anyway.

The rhetoric about "denialists" and such words are a deliberate attempt to dismiss debate and counter argument as those made by loony's rather than face up the facts that the science is not anything approaching conclusive.

The political debate in my opinion has almost nothing to do with science.
You can read as many in depth studies of climatology as you like, but if you don't have a strong enough scientific or mathematical education you will be quite unable to understand the specific limitiations of any and all studies. There is no point in trying to learn more about the advanced studies, if you haven't understand the basics.
That science is about controlled repeatable, measurable experiments and not idle conjecture about the results of open ended studies into uncontrolled enviroments. (This would be called Philosophy and is a different academic subject).
Maths of course is the other part of the education defecit. It is critically important when dealing with statistics to understand the limitations of displaying data in various ways.
Safe margins of error, accuracy of measurement. Reliability. As opposed to just going with something because the way it is displayed reinforces your prejudices.

Pretty much the debate has long since left the scientific arena and entered into the public one.
And now it's just faith and fashion that sets the agenda.

So it is my conclusion that people with opposing views should be dismissing each other out of hand.
Attempting to enter into scientific debate with some twonk who failed at maths an science in school is pointless.
He isn't going to take my word for it, and I'm not going to take his.
And we can all read scientific studies until the cows come home. There are zillions of them and they are all bias in favour of whoever paid for them's agenda. This does not help.

So while this may be an area of scientific study that intrests you and hence intellectually worth pursuing further, as it has been for me, it is critical to a scientific mind that you do not draw any conclusions from studies that offer none and label this "science".

Leave that sort of nonsense to the hippies the oil barons and the just plumb dumb.

The core of the issue however seems to be over. Humans have a new doom to worry about instead, the economy.
Mankind has a human need for an impending apocalpyse. If there wasn't one, we'd invent it.

Baff:

Sleekit:
nice that you mentioned the ozone hole.

if anything its worth remembering that we have previously seriously negatively effected the environment on this planet and taken serious global action to counter it.

It is also worth noting in this particular example, that despite a global ban on CFC's, the Ozone hole is still growing.

This is an example of mans's vanity.

It turns out, man wasn't the problem. Man made CFC emmissions have stopped, Ozone hole growth has not.

Uh, A quick read up on ozone depletion indicates that CFC concentrations in the atmosphere have been on the decline since 1994, and that the effect of this is a reduction in the size of the antarctic ozone hole by more than 1 million square kilometers, with projections of ozone returning to pre-1980 levels by 2050.

So, uh, that doesn't exactly align with your claim that the ozone hole is growing.

Baff:

It is also worth noting in this particular example, that despite a global ban on CFC's, the Ozone hole is still growing.

This is an example of mans's vanity.

It turns out, man wasn't the problem. Man made CFC emmissions have stopped, Ozone hole growth has not.

Where are you getting your into, Newsmax?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/earth/04ozone.html?_r=1

Any debate on this subject is clouded by a very simple fact: if conservatives ever agree that climate change is man-made (most likely true, but considering how all these scientists have all their research grants depending on it being so, I believe that the effects are commonly exaggerated and in some cases fraudulent), the scientists will immediately use that statement to demand immediate governmental action on a massive scale that will interfere greatly with markets. The Solyndra case comes into play here: conservatives like me don't think that governments should be funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into research that acts more as a political favor than anything else, and does nothing to resolve the issue. Nuclear power is the only long-term viable alternative to fossil fuels, and a number of researchers (mentioned in the book SuperFreakonomics) believe that it would be much, much easier to develop stalling technology to allow our technological development to wean us off of oil instead of delivering a devastating blow to the world economy.

Giza:
"I was snowed in unable to leave my house today. So much for global warming."

Sometimes people forget "Permanent Winter" can be an effect of climate change if cold areas can't receive warm air.

Also, xpowderx is a complete failed troll. In another thread he supported Santorum's views on "morals".

EDIT: Yes, I am using the world "troll" correctly.

Bymidew:

Where are you getting your into, Newsmax?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/earth/04ozone.html?_r=1

image

It's doubled in size since the worldwide ban on CFC's in the late 1980's. (1987?)
Had man made CFC's been the issues it should have stayed stable at the very least or perhaps even reduced slightly.

But it hasn't. It's kept on growing just the same.

Further to this, where there used to be just one ozone hole over the Antartic, there is now a new one over the Artic too.

Not only has the original hole has pretty much doubled in size since the ban on manmade CFC's, and despite a drop in CFC's estimated to be in atmosphere currently, a second additional (smaller) hole has appeared.

Baff:

image

It's doubled in size since the worldwide ban on CFC's in the late 1980's. (1987?)
Had man made CFC's been the issues it should have stayed stable at the very least or perhaps even reduced slightly.

But it hasn't. It's kept on growing just the same.

Further to this, where there used to be just one ozone hole over the Antartic, there is now a new one over the Artic too.

Not only has the original hole has pretty much doubled in size since the ban on manmade CFC's, and despite a drop in CFC's estimated to be in atmosphere currently, a second additional (smaller) hole has appeared.

If you bothered to read The site you got that chart from, you might have noticed that THEY'RE saying the ozone hole is due to CFCs, and that it's recovering thanks to the ban.

Those evil commies at physicalgeography.net:
The average areal coverage of the Antarctic ozone hole has now leveled off at about 24 million square kilometers (Figure 7e-5). Scientists believe that the ozone hole over Antarctica will maintain this size till about 2018. After this date, the ozone hole should begin to recover and be completely gone by about 2070.

(Apparently, atmospheric CFCs have a very long half-life.)

I didn't get that chart from a website.
I got it from Google images.

I'm quite sure there are a load of denialists out there, but it's the science I am intrested in. I don't need another person to interpret it for me. Only to accurately collate the data.

Bringing this back for the heck of it, and because I really like this discussion. Also, I missed my crack at this little gem:

Baff:
I didn't get that chart from a website.
I got it from Google images.

I'm quite sure there are a load of denialists out there, but it's the science I am intrested in. I don't need another person to interpret it for me. Only to accurately collate the data.

Imagine that a town dumps a large amount of nuclear waste in the water supply. Then, after 10 years, it removes it. A little while after said removal, people start getting cancer at an alarming rate. Scientists add that such radiation has a relatively long lifespan, and that there's a certain action lag involved. Would it be reasonable to take that information and say, "Well, it's still going up, therefore it couldn't have been the nuclear waste"?

We understand the relationship between CFCs and Ozone very well. We understand the lifespan of CFCs in the atmosphere as well. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together and see that such statistics are a lousy way of proving that CFCs have nothing to do with the hole in the ozone layer.

In fact, all of your posts in this thread are absolutely full to the brim with incredibly faulty logic, and a complete misunderstanding of both science and the available facts. I welcome you to cite any of the bullshit you spouted in your first post on this page, because otherwise I'm going to place it next to what it fucking sounds like: creationist garbage. Seriously, replace "global warming" with evolution, and you'd have a Ken Ham lecture.

I'm going to just come out and say this: you DO need another person to interpret it for you, because if you try to interpret it with your sickeningly weak grip on the facts, you're going to get it wrong. Every. Single. Time.

'death by a thousand cuts' I think applies here, only a thousand is really x billion number of people on the planet. Can I alone do anything to effect the planet? no, but multiply me by several billion and I can. I personally have taken to the term 'climate change' as it seems more encompassing of the weather extremes, and to just block the 'its snowing' idiots. Admittedly, I am guilty of arguing for it without keeping up with resources and having cites on hand, but neither do I expect in my day to day to run into someone who I could actually convince. It's a fairly set belief from person to person that will mostly change over time, not a single talk, and those in doubt would look it up themselves if truly bothered enough to truly care.

While yes common sense is fairly divorced from science, it depends upon the knowledge and experience each person has, and it can be a stepping stone for science, either to see why my sense seems to be correct, or why what I perceive to be impossible is happening. The problem emerges when people take common sense alone, look at scientific data(and an expert majority in the field) and say that they know better from what they have seen firsthand. I've often thought that intellectual flexibility is the main issue on the topic, some people can work around it and agree its an issue, some say it is possible, others won't trust the data, and others will just stick to their views because they just can't be wrong. Myself, I'll trust that a near universal consensus of scientists have it more or less right over my personal perception.

Baff:
I didn't get that chart from a website.
I got it from Google images.

I'm quite sure there are a load of denialists out there, but it's the science I am intrested in. I don't need another person to interpret it for me. Only to accurately collate the data.

CFK's take years to rise to ozone layer levels through the atmosphere. The increase in the hole is the effect of CFK use in earlier days.

But CFK's weren't globally banned in the 1980's. The Montreal agreement was only signed in 1987, the actual ban only went into effect in 2010. The ozone layer has been slightly recovering since 2006, but we can expect a new dent when the CFK use from China and India, who began later, rises up. And even at steady recovery, it will take untill well after 2050 before the actual gap is gone, and none of us will live long enough to see full recovery even in the ideal case scenario.

Seekster:
The thing that bothers me is that its pretty clear the climate is actually changing so then why are we spending so much time trying to find evidence that its linked to man's action (which would be circumstantial evidence at best) instead of trying to come up with common sense ways of adapting to and preparing for any effects of a warmer climate? In short, find out how high the water is going to rise in a certain location so they can start building levees tall enough.

Oh, sure we should start getting ready to adapt to a warmer climate; we are going to see some degree of climate change no matter what we do at this point. You are absolutely right about that; and people are thinking about it, although not really enough at this point.

Even more important, though, is to reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere. Every ton of coal we burn adds carbon to the atmosphere that is going to keep heating up the Earth for at least the next hundred years. We can adapt to a 2 or 3 degree rise in the world temperature (well, we're going to have to). On the other hand, a 10 degree rise in the next century would be catastrophic for us; it would basically destroy most of the good farmland in the world, it would cause hundreds of millions of people to lose their homes and become refugees, ect, not to mention what it would do to the rest of the world's ecosystem. Most plants and animals are evolved to live on one specific climate, and a change that radical and that rapid would likely drive many of them to extinction, and large parts of the ecosystem dying out would have pretty drastic impacts on our lifestyle as well.

Anyway, it's not really about finding evidence about a link between human action and climate change; that's been known for quite a while now. Most of the research now is trying to figure out the details; we know the world is going to keep heating up because of the carbon we put into the air, but exact ally how much and how fast, and what effects that will have on the environment, are still open questions.

LoFr3Eq:

Also, humans generate less than 2% of the atmosphere's CO2.

A system is in balance. Every year X carbon is added and X carbon is removed.

Now increase the amount added every year by 2%, and do not change the amount removed, and keep doing that every year for decade after decade. Over time, you will have more and more.

There is a reserve of trillions of tons of carbon buried deep in the earth in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. It's been down there for hundreds of millions of years. Now we're digging it all up and putting it all into the atmosphere, while not doing anything to remove carbon from the atmosphere. That is going to increase the amount of carbon in the air.

Let me show you what the result of this looks like:

image

Edit: Basically, the thing you have to understand is that the actions of natural life don't really add or remove carbon from the atmosphere in the long run. A tree grows, the carbon in the atmosphere is absorbed by the tree, and the tree grows. That tree dies, it rots, or burns, or is eaten by termites, or whatever; the carbon in the tree goes back to the atmosphere. It's a balanced cycle.

What we're doing by digging up carbon and burning it is very, very different from the natural carbon cycle, since there's no counterbalancing force pulling carbon out of the air.

While I have little to add to this argument, I must say you structured your points very well.

An easy read and something I shall continue to ponder.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked