Jump to content


Photo

Another global warming thread. Hurrah.


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 02 December 2010 - 06:19 PM

I found something a while ago that stated fairly categorically that around 50% of carbon dioxide was formed by decaying leaves, which I found rather amusing given how so many people insist we need more trees to combat global warming. Nertea, you seem to know best the real science to do with this. Is there anything to what I just said?

I also believe that global warming is due to a lack of men in knee-high boots. There is a direct correlation. The sooner we all start with the awesome footwear again, the sooner we'll solve the problem. :)
I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#22 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:42 PM

I'm sorry what? Do you honestly think we ignore the fact that cyclical climate is taught in grade 11 geography?

Oh, and fyi, the people involved in the IPCC report are also not hungry for government funding for their research, as some skeptics like to say - in fact, my department doesn't see any money at all from that. All the money for 'combating climate change' goes to various companies and think tanks, not the people who do the research on it. So really, we have no monetary incentive to become alarmists.


There is a difference between scientists and scientits. Scientits will tell you anything you want to hear to continue their grants and remain employed. Scientists actually study and research. I'm all for the research part but not too interested with hearing science from a scientit who has shaken hands with a politician anymore than I want to hear from an economist with a political agenda.

I see first hand, companies jumping on the "green" bandwagon simply to have some kind of credibility or to market some products. This is sick. They feed on peoples compulsive disorders in order to sell shit. It muddies the waters for people who are REALLY trying to figure out what/why/and how the climate is changing.

Johnny is not going to save a polar bear by turning off a light switch...

#23 Námo

Námo

    ***

  • Project Team
  • 1,291 posts
  • Projects:Middle-earth Lore, Cartography & Linguistics
  •  ...

Posted 02 December 2010 - 08:20 PM


For some controversial, yet 'middle of the road' opinions on Global Warming, read the Danish scientist and 'sceptical environmentalist' Bjørn Lomborg

The thing that absolutely mystifies me, however about this issue is how little people trust scientists.

Maybe because of whistleblowers like this scientist:


Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal


... elen síla lúmenn´ ómentielvo ...
... a star shines on the hour of our meeting ...
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

#24 Allathar

Allathar

    これを翻訳する

  • Project Team
  • 2,752 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Projects:RJ-RotWK
  •  Greedy capitalist and cynical bastard.

Posted 02 December 2010 - 09:11 PM

Sorry, Nertea, but are you suggesting the IPCC as a reliable source? Missed the whole climate-gate affair where scientists who were sceptic of global warming were boycotted from the community, and statistics were being manipulated to suit the theories? Saying the IPCC is an objective source on global warming is like saying the Bible is an objective source on which God to believe in. And of course the scientists advocating man-made global warming aren't admitting they're getting money from the government to twist the statistics :)

Curious, though, what is your field of study?
It has been reported that some victims of rape, during the act, would retreat into a fantasy world from which they could not WAKE UP. In this catatonic state, the victim lived in a world just like their normal one, except they weren't being raped. The only way that they realized they needed to WAKE UP was a note they found in their fantasy world. It would tell them about their condition, and tell them to WAKE UP. Even then, it would often take months until they were ready to discard their fantasy world and PLEASE WAKE UP

#25 Nertea

Nertea

    ...lo sa raptor!

  • Hosted
  • 3,349 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Projects:Star Villains and Space heroes, The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member
  • Division:BFME/Unity

Posted 03 December 2010 - 08:06 PM

Curious, though, what is your field of study?

Microscale urban climatology. It does not make me qualified to make statements about global-scale climatology, but does mean that I've read a lot of atmospheric and environmental science literature. Oh, and I have an intimate understanding of radiation laws.

Sorry, Nertea, but are you suggesting the IPCC as a reliable source?

If you read that section of the report, you'll know that they're not actually generating any data or conclusions there, they're just summarizing those papers. If you'd rather go back to the source, I can cite those instead, like I said. I just figured that it would be nice to provide it in summary form. By all means, provide me with some non-IPCC papers that take an alternate view, because I'd like to read them.

By the way, the auditing report for what people like to call Climategate came back and showed no anomalous data manipulation. You know, the one done by an independent review board. I know that people aren't so easily convinced, but really... that issue never bothered me in the first place. See, the thing I really like about science is that we tend to self-police. This thing would have come out anyways at any rate.

Johnny is not going to save a polar bear by turning off a light switch...

Nah, Johnny will save a polar bear if he stops using manufacturing processes that dump heavy metals into ecosystems, which are a far greater threat to their populations. However, if 5000 Johnnys turned out their lights, they'd also help fix your country's horrible electricity deficit, stopping you from importing more oil! And isn't that what even Republicans want? Less energy dependency?

Also... greenwashing is reprehensible, but morally, is it any worse than all the various washings that go on already? "wear size 0 clothes", "democrat are commies" etc. It's just another in a long string of dishonest marketing tactics that corporations use to increase their profits.

Re: natural carbon release:
Yeah, there are many sources of carbon release that are perfectly natural, like a dying tree. However, they're all cyclic - the tree dies, it decomposes, releasing carbon dioxide because the things that eat it use cellular respiration. The carbon is emitted into the local environment or stored in the ground nearby in less complex forms, which is then immediately used by the plants around the tree to make new trees. Carbon release from decaying plant matter is only a contributor to any kind of atmospheric effects when the plants aren't replaced, which is why mass deforestation is a big issue.

This is why anthropogenic carbon combustion is an issue, because it's not cyclical... when you burn some coal, the carbon doesn't exactly get recycled by the power plant. I read some argument once about how the planet produced tens billions of tons of CO2 per year, and we only produced a couple hundred million, therefore our CO2 contribution was meaningless. The key there is that our CO2 isn't part of the system, so has atmospheric persistence. Keep putting it in without taking it out, and the buildup becomes significant. Besides, if you do a bunch of atmospheric transmissivity math, you find that it only takes a small change in the absorption numbers to produce a large change in radiation balances.

Re: Lomberg, from his own website:

Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists?
A: No. In Cool It he writes: "global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century" (p8).

He takes almost exactly my POV, which is that current mitigation methods are retarded.

sig.png
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.


#26 _Haldir_

_Haldir_

    Mapper

  • Project Team
  • 1,203 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Projects:The Dwarf Holds, The Elven Alliance: Community Edition
  •  T3A Team Chamber Member

Posted 03 December 2010 - 11:22 PM

Yeah i'm with Nertea on this one. Regardless of the whole Climate skeptics vs believers debate, it seems pretty clear that the earth is going through a period of warming. Whether this is man-made, a natural cycle or both is debatable, but it makes sense to minimise the impact if we can. If it's a sunny day outside and you have the heater running, then the logical thing to do is turn it off! Even if global warming isn't man-made at all (i doubt it), it's not going to hurt to be a bit lest wasteful.

What annoys me most about some climate skeptics though, is the way that the debate is made as an excuse for inaction. It's almost out of laziness. Yes there are a lot of people and companies that are going to try and exploit people's fears, but you can't argue that things like recycling, using less fuel, planting trees and being less wasteful are helpful to the environment.

There's also an ethical side to the debate that hasn't been touched on yet. Even if all our waste and pollution was sustainable, it doesn't mean that we should do it anyway. It's like littering - it might not harm anybody directly, but it sure isn't the right thing to do. I definitely don't think it would hurt to show a little more respect and care for our planet as a whole.

Posted Image Posted Image


#27 Elvenlord

Elvenlord

    Polis Ranger

  • Advisors
  • 3,838 posts
  •  T3A Chamber Member

Posted 04 December 2010 - 01:29 AM

^This. I don't think we're affecting the climate that much, but there's not harm in being less wasteful.

elvenlordbanner.jpg
 


#28 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 04 December 2010 - 07:06 PM

Climate science suffered a black eye over the past 12 months, following revelations that the latest report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained numerous errors and relied too heavily on questionable sources. At the latest climate conference in Cancun, the group will stress that its research must continue.
But while governments try to push through an accord, the fighting over the science -- and the IPCC's role -- continues unabated. And the body blows seem as violent as ever.
"The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency," Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, declared in an interview with FoxNews.com. "Thus, it is no longer in a position to claim to speak for climate scientists."
Ouch. Former weather forecaster and climate-change blogger Anthony Watts isn't as outspoken as Easterbrook, but he agrees that the IPCC is failing.

"Recent sloppy work such as the 'Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035' blunder, the questionable use of scientific citations in the last IPCC report, and the suspect business dealings of IPCC chairman Rajenda Pachauri have pretty much taken what most saw as a grade A scientific paper when first published and reduced it to a D minus today," Watts told FoxNews.com.
Even those who believe man's actions are raising the planet's temperature admit that the U.N.'s climate group has struggled. "It's been a tough year for the IPCC," Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com.
He believes the organization is learning from its mistakes, as well as the suggestions of the group that publicly detailed its flaws just a few month ago. "To its credit, the IPCC is taking recommendations from the InterAcademy Council to heart, and I think their future reports will be better for it," he said.
And Huertas defended the group and its work with language just as loudly as the climate skeptics criticized it.
"Groups that oppose action on climate change spend a lot of time attacking the IPCC. But they never attack the National Academy of Sciences, even though they are making the same basic points."
Easterbrook argues that in the case of climate change, the scientific method has been compromised by the sheer size of the government grant money involved. That and the research he feels is one-sided, of course. Blam!
"Climate research has now been so thoroughly contaminated by politics and power/money brokers that it has lost credibility," Easterbrook wrote in an e-mail to FoxNews.com. "The only way to regain lost scientific credibility is by allowing scientific debate (which has been totally stifled by CO2 proponents), showing the public the scientific evidence for claimed conclusions, and opening up funding for other than CO2 proponents."
"In other words, include the so-called skeptics in debates and agencies dealing with climate instead of ostracizing them," Easterbrook said.
Watts agreed. "We've witnessed science make a sea change from intellectual curiosity to a role of active and impassioned advocacy," he told FoxNews.com. "The only way to return to the scientific method is to remove the huge amounts of funding associated with climate change, and to hire people to do studies that have no financial incentive to maintain further research. The current process is like a welfare system for on-board scientist."
Nevertheless, Huertas said the science is sound ... depending on whom you listen to, of course.
"I follow the skeptical blogs, and most of what's on there I wouldn't even call science," he said. "A lot of it is just politics. At the end of the day, I ask people: 'Who do you trust? A pundit on the radio talking about climate science or the scientists at NASA?'"
"I'm going with the scientists at NASA," Huertas said.
Kapow!
Neither the IPCC nor the U.N. returned FoxNews.com's requests for comment.


http://www.foxnews.c...cience-warming/

#29 Allathar

Allathar

    これを翻訳する

  • Project Team
  • 2,752 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Projects:RJ-RotWK
  •  Greedy capitalist and cynical bastard.

Posted 04 December 2010 - 09:13 PM

By the way, the auditing report for what people like to call Climategate came back and showed no anomalous data manipulation. You know, the one done by an independent review board.

Heh, with the huge political thing that global warming has become, there ain't such things as 'independent' review boards ;)

Re: natural carbon release:
Yeah, there are many sources of carbon release that are perfectly natural, like a dying tree. However, they're all cyclic - the tree dies, it decomposes, releasing carbon dioxide because the things that eat it use cellular respiration. The carbon is emitted into the local environment or stored in the ground nearby in less complex forms, which is then immediately used by the plants around the tree to make new trees. Carbon release from decaying plant matter is only a contributor to any kind of atmospheric effects when the plants aren't replaced, which is why mass deforestation is a big issue.

What about vulcanoes? Vulcanoes emit huge amounts of greenhouse gasses when erupting, and I mean really huge - like the total amount of CO2 comparable with a dozen years USA normal activity.

Re: Lomberg, from his own website:

Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists?
A: No. In Cool It he writes: "global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century" (p8).

He takes almost exactly my POV, which is that current mitigation methods are retarded.

Regardless of what mr. scientist says, I see very basic graph manipulation in the 'scary' data:

Posted Image

The line rises indeed a bit, but that's no reason whatsoever to let it climb further and further in the future as a means to scare people! Also notice how entire periods are cut out from the graph by compressing them, thereby mitigating cycles into mere means. Perhaps because they didn't support the idea of manmade global warming?
It has been reported that some victims of rape, during the act, would retreat into a fantasy world from which they could not WAKE UP. In this catatonic state, the victim lived in a world just like their normal one, except they weren't being raped. The only way that they realized they needed to WAKE UP was a note they found in their fantasy world. It would tell them about their condition, and tell them to WAKE UP. Even then, it would often take months until they were ready to discard their fantasy world and PLEASE WAKE UP

#30 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 04 December 2010 - 09:57 PM

That graph is ridiculous, Allathar. Don't tell me anyone actually considers that genuine evidence? All it does is put me in mind of this:
Posted Image
I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#31 Allathar

Allathar

    これを翻訳する

  • Project Team
  • 2,752 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Projects:RJ-RotWK
  •  Greedy capitalist and cynical bastard.

Posted 04 December 2010 - 10:33 PM

Exactly my point, Vort, and yes, it is considered genuine evidence. Ever watched Al Gore's an Inconvenient Truth? It's filled with those kind of graphs. The sad thing is, almost all of the global warming graphs do it. It's like "this year it's half a degree warmer than five years ago, so in twenty years the Earth will be 4 degrees warmer if we don't give money to counter it!
It has been reported that some victims of rape, during the act, would retreat into a fantasy world from which they could not WAKE UP. In this catatonic state, the victim lived in a world just like their normal one, except they weren't being raped. The only way that they realized they needed to WAKE UP was a note they found in their fantasy world. It would tell them about their condition, and tell them to WAKE UP. Even then, it would often take months until they were ready to discard their fantasy world and PLEASE WAKE UP

#32 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 05 December 2010 - 05:25 PM

I don't think it really comes down to being lazy like Haldir said, or about how much it costs. I think that if you could step into peoples minds you'll find on the surface they make a good claim about caring. But deep inside I think most people simply don't give a shit. I know I don't. Some people lose sleep at night worrying about everything while the rest of us sleep like a baby because WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Especially if you're agnostic like me. Do I care what the Earth looks like in 100 years from now? I'll be dead in the ground and let evolution do it's job for the rest of humanity. So who cares if the temperature goes up and most living things die? Let us start fresh and clean without humans. Who are we saving the Earth for? Our children? Fuck'em...

Can't we just let nature take it's course? Aren't we also a part of nature? Maybe we're actually doing the Earth a favor...you know, like those pesky flora things that pumped oxygen into the air some time back and got the whole fauna thing going. Maybe we're part of the process for a new beginning. The world minus humans. Who are we to slow the process down, I say speed it up. :p

#33 Mathijs

Mathijs

    Post-modern Shaman

  • Network Leaders
  • 13,756 posts
  • Projects:Age of the Ring
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Leader

Posted 05 December 2010 - 08:11 PM

Apathy's cool, man.

No fuel left for the pilgrims


#34 Allathar

Allathar

    これを翻訳する

  • Project Team
  • 2,752 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Projects:RJ-RotWK
  •  Greedy capitalist and cynical bastard.

Posted 05 December 2010 - 09:37 PM

Meh, I'm indifferent towards it.
It has been reported that some victims of rape, during the act, would retreat into a fantasy world from which they could not WAKE UP. In this catatonic state, the victim lived in a world just like their normal one, except they weren't being raped. The only way that they realized they needed to WAKE UP was a note they found in their fantasy world. It would tell them about their condition, and tell them to WAKE UP. Even then, it would often take months until they were ready to discard their fantasy world and PLEASE WAKE UP

#35 Nertea

Nertea

    ...lo sa raptor!

  • Hosted
  • 3,349 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Projects:Star Villains and Space heroes, The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member
  • Division:BFME/Unity

Posted 06 December 2010 - 01:00 AM

Exactly my point, Vort, and yes, it is considered genuine evidence.

Yeah, no. It's not. Major poisoning the well argument by any skeptic is "I see that you've just gone and extrapolated what must evidently be a natural trend". Guess what - climate science is not about making linear regressions from trends! If somebody were to show me that graph without the actual evidence, I would be naturally unswayed. It doesn't look great. I'm going to outline what has actually happened over the years.

a. People who studied historical climate data looked at temperature measurements over the years. They found some weird things, like the medieval warm period, and the climbing trend in recent years. They decided to try to figure out why. This is generally how scientists operate. Note that this was back in the 70s, long before any politics influenced anything.

b. They looked at the 'known' climate variables, which is pretty logical first step - I mean, if the Earth is farther away from the sun, it would be cooler, right? There are 3 major cycles that are invariant, reliable and dependent on orbital mechanics. They didn't explain the patterns the scientists saw in their data as the timing is wrong. Check out this graph which shows them pretty well. These are what causes ice ages and the like. According to models of the Milankovitch cycles, we should be in a period of global cooling. So this doesn't explain it at all!

c. They looked at solar variations - I mean, if the sun is brighter, things would be warmer. This has been an area of complex debate for a while, because the sun is complicated. I like these three papers though. The abstracts are pretty clear, but in summary, it seems like solar forcing has an effect on global temperature, but not enough of one to explain the current trend, and one that doesn't explain the medieval warm period either!

d. So, what's left? if the sun isn't getting brighter and the Earth isn't getting closer to the sun, it must be something on the planet that's changing things. So, the atmosphere! What if energy was getting to the surface (because the atm is transparent to what we call shortwave radiation, which the sun outputs), but wasn't getting out (because in general the atmosphere is more opaque to radiation the earth reemits). That would be the easiest way, by radiation laws, to warm up the planet. If you made the atmosphere more opaque, it would keep more heat in. Pretty simple. So the theory kinda makes sense. But what evidence do we have that an increase in atmospheric opacity would increase temperature? Here's what:

1 - It is an indisputable fact that increasing CO2, H20, CH4 and similar gas concentrations in a theoretical cloud would increase its opacity and therefore absorption. It can be derived from radiation laws and a simple 1-layer model of a gas over a surface.

2 - The Earth's temperature is defined by the fact that these gases exist, without them the Earth would be like Mars. This point isn't as concrete as my first one, but it follows pretty easily. We can see the effects of too much CO2 on Venus (which is far hotter than it should be) and Mars (which is far cooler than its far orbit would make us think). If anybody wants to dispute this, I can do a bit of research.

3 - It kinda follows from these points that if you added more of these so-called 'greenhouse gases' to the atmosphere, it would become more opaque and increase temperature. But science is not content with 'kinda follows'. Enter the Russians, who used a giant drill in the antarctic to core up 400,000 years of ice accumulation.

Ok, so ice is basically made of water. There is a correlation between atmospheric temperature and composition of the O2 in the H20 molecule (you get more O13 as I recall in warm atmospheres). So, you can measure the type of O2 in each layer of the ice and in doing so, calculate the approximate temperature. Because ice is water, things also get dissolved in it, like CO2. You can therefore get CO2 concentration from the ice core as well. This is what you find!

I do not see any debate here. That's a better correlation than could possibly be expected. It seems evident that through the last 400,000 years, when you have more CO2, you have higher temperatures. There's even a little lag time - you increase CO2, and it takes about a hundred years for temperatures to change. There have been additional ice cores taken in different locations since then that show the same trend. You can also do the same thing with sediment deposit cores from lakes and deep oceans. The results are just as basic radiation physics predicts. Therefore I come to...

4 - The earth's temperature depends significantly on atmospheric opacity,which translates to CO2, CH4 and such concentration.

There are a couple counterarguments thrown around by skeptics. One significant one can be boiled down to "sunspots are magical". The major proponent of this theory refuses to publish it anywhere, saying that he'll be lynched if he does, but still touts it as a super theory that explains everything with sunspots. See, it's not just climate scientists that study the sun - astrophysicists do this as well. Lots of people have worked on this problem, and to have studied the sun for years and years (with billions of dollars of RS equipment) trying to explain everything about our favorite star. Nobody seems to have found this mystical proof. I mean, I'm open to it being there, because that's a good bit of what science is about (being able to admit you were wrong). however, I find it unlikely, and I'll believe it when I see it published and read it myself.

That's the thing about alternate theories behind reasons for warming. They all rely on strange explanations, that often are not generalizable and overly complex. Increase in greenhouse gases is elegant and simple, and by Occam's Razor, simple is better, right?

Ok, so in this post I have outlined why we think greenhouse gas concentrations lead to global warming. Debate this and tell me why we're wrong (we = about 98% of the scientific community) - note that I haven't started on the actual question of man-made climate change yet. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page with what I view as the most concrete and 'proven' part of the science.

Edit - Oh, and Allathar's graph is silly, just look at the x-axis scale, which is a kind of strange logarithmic one. Stretch that out to the "proper" scale and you might actually see that the temperature anomaly nowadays looks a lot weirder!

Edited by Nertea, 06 December 2010 - 01:02 AM.

sig.png
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.


#36 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 06 December 2010 - 08:28 AM

I think you are a great person but you are failing to understand the fundamental item. Common people simply don't give a shit. It's not that we don't believe you, it's the fact that everywhere we turn we face doom and distruction and quite frankly, we're sick of it. A couple of weeks ago I turned on the news and we had a near Earth collision with an asteroid. If it would have been a direct on collision, there would not have been any news.

I'm tired of being bombarded with doom and damnation. I don't want to hear about the climate, asteroids, 2012, fucking tnunamis, UFO's, volcanos, plagues, famine, forest fires, tornados, and people who's goal is to die so that we die in greater numbers.

What ever happened to the Christmas Tree, mommy and daddy, and the dream I had as a child to be better than what I came from?

#37 Allathar

Allathar

    これを翻訳する

  • Project Team
  • 2,752 posts
  • Location:Netherlands
  • Projects:RJ-RotWK
  •  Greedy capitalist and cynical bastard.

Posted 06 December 2010 - 10:03 AM

Nertea, indeed, it's not that I/we don't believe you, it's that I think it's greatly exaggerated. Of course CO2 has influence on temperature, the question is whether 'manmade' CO2 is the major cause of global warming. You've also ignored the effects of landice masses on the temperature (yes, I'm familiar to the subject as well :good:). Furthermore, I think the big player is natural outbursts of greenhouse gasses. Those vulcano eruptions in Iceland this year? Tons and tons and tons of CO2, I believe the same amount as the entire amount of the USA of a decade. Sure, mankind can have some influence as well, but it's laughably small compared to the natural causes on global warming/cooling.

Also have to second Hostile's opinion on the fact that I don't give a shit anymore - our lives suck enough without us having to worry about the climate too, let alone that we have to pay taxes to counter global warming. George Carlin sums it up quite nicely:



It sickens me that it's being used as a political tool for the leftards and greens to get into office and waste money to counter this problem that could've been used for healthcare instead.



The Earth is warming up by half a degree? Yeah, totally must be us. We're sinners, and we have to pay for it, otherwise we're doomed.
It has been reported that some victims of rape, during the act, would retreat into a fantasy world from which they could not WAKE UP. In this catatonic state, the victim lived in a world just like their normal one, except they weren't being raped. The only way that they realized they needed to WAKE UP was a note they found in their fantasy world. It would tell them about their condition, and tell them to WAKE UP. Even then, it would often take months until they were ready to discard their fantasy world and PLEASE WAKE UP

#38 Imdrar

Imdrar

    The Dark Apprentice

  • Members
  • 430 posts
  • Location:The Borderline of Night and Day
  • Projects:Tol-in-Gaurhoth
  •  Villain On Demand

Posted 06 December 2010 - 11:12 AM

In the end, we're doomed no matter what we pay for / struggle to achieve. That's why nobody of us actually needs to give a shit.
Death is a holiday, and we should be grateful for being mortal. Imagine the opposite case ... that would mean true responsibility for the future.

Edited by Imdrar, 06 December 2010 - 11:13 AM.

Defender of the Lawful Evil


Posted Image


#39 Mathijs

Mathijs

    Post-modern Shaman

  • Network Leaders
  • 13,756 posts
  • Projects:Age of the Ring
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Leader

Posted 06 December 2010 - 11:43 AM

I think you are a great person but you are failing to understand the fundamental item. Common people simply don't give a shit. It's not that we don't believe you, it's the fact that everywhere we turn we face doom and distruction and quite frankly, we're sick of it. A couple of weeks ago I turned on the news and we had a near Earth collision with an asteroid. If it would have been a direct on collision, there would not have been any news.

I'm tired of being bombarded with doom and damnation. I don't want to hear about the climate, asteroids, 2012, fucking tnunamis, UFO's, volcanos, plagues, famine, forest fires, tornados, and people who's goal is to die so that we die in greater numbers.

What ever happened to the Christmas Tree, mommy and daddy, and the dream I had as a child to be better than what I came from?


He isn't failing to understand anything. You are the one changing the "fundamental item" to hide the fact you are unable to properly argue your points.

I'm sorry if the real world is too much for you to handle, but it's not a viable argument in this discussion.

Edited by Matias, 06 December 2010 - 11:44 AM.

No fuel left for the pilgrims


#40 _Haldir_

_Haldir_

    Mapper

  • Project Team
  • 1,203 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Projects:The Dwarf Holds, The Elven Alliance: Community Edition
  •  T3A Team Chamber Member

Posted 06 December 2010 - 01:22 PM

Also have to second Hostile's opinion on the fact that I don't give a shit anymore - our lives suck enough without us having to worry about the climate too, let alone that we have to pay taxes to counter global warming.

It sickens me that it's being used as a political tool for the leftards and greens to get into office and waste money to counter this problem that could've been used for healthcare instead.

There's plenty out there that is more sickening then a political agenda in climate change. How much money do you is spent on weaponry and unnecessary warfare? How much money is spent on corporate pay-offs and CEO paychecks? Of all the things that are a waste of money, why would you choose environmentalism to get upset about? Atleast something positive might actually come out of the so called "leftards and greens". Most climate skeptics are really just apathetic and disillusioned - people who will find any excuse to dismiss ideas and give up straight away. It's pathetic.

I don't understand why you can't do something positive, regardless of scientific proof, political agendas or whatever other excuse you happen to come up with. Why can't you just accept that something good might come out of people being a little less selfish and wasteful? It's worth a shot at least. If all the apathetic pessimists could actually be arsed to open their minds a little, then maybe their lives wouldn't "suck so much".

In the end, we're doomed no matter what we pay for / struggle to achieve. That's why nobody of us actually needs to give a shit. Death is a holiday, and we should be grateful for being mortal. Imagine the opposite case ... that would mean true responsibility for the future.

Your house is going to be demolished one day, so why look after it? You might as well just let your bins overflow with garbage and shit all over the floors.

You're right, we are all doomed. But death isn't the point, life is. Life is there to be experienced and enjoyed while it lasts - not lived like an airport terminal while you wait for your "holiday". And by being incredibly selfish and declaring "we're all gonna die, so fuck it", you're depriving countless people (now and in future) of a better quality of life. Yourself included. It's the same reason you don't trash your house, and it's the same reason why you wouldn't like it if you moved into a house that has been trashed.

Yes climate change is probably exaggerated. Yes there are a people who are only looking for personal gain. But the fact remains: we are having a negative impact on the planet, no matter how small you think it is. It's our moral resonsibility to try and minimise this as much as possible. True responsibility is looking after something when you don't have to.

Posted Image Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users