 |
| |
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard
John Miller:
I have admitted that current climatological science cannot positively prove whether or not global warming is going on. But then what are these assertions of yours based on? Not climatological science, certainly, since we all agree that it can't prove much about the long term effects of CO2 emissions. So all this is nothing more than wishful thinking and hot air.
For what it is worth, I will once again state that the chance of a runaway greenhouse effect destroying all life on Earth is slight. But this scenario seems to have a lot more scientific basis than your assertions. And regardless of the chance of a greenhouse doomsday, global warming still seems likely to be A Very Bad Thing.
|
Do you have any concept of what life can take?
the worst that are atmosphere could get to (the hottest it would make the earth), life could still exist here
that is what I base my statements on, the hardiness of life
also have you heard of evolution?, do you have any idea of the scale involved, and what life would do once humans died off?
I don't think that there is anything that global warming can do which would leave only single cell life, and I can't imagine anything which could be done (by global warming) which could destroy all life
I think you should read a little before you do your baseless considerations
you have jsut as much to worry about your next breath killing all life on earth as you do of global warming killing all life on earth
it won't happen
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Looking at Europe, especially Prague, I can't imagine that someone could NOT believe in Global Warming and the horrors it can cause. |
well, a lot of people here disagree with you
and I know a lot of people elsewhere who do also
the environment is in trouble, but not from global warming
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
--"Which is it?"
Well, in my opinion it's that we not only can't tell that there's human caused warming, we can't even be sure there's a warming trend yet.
However... I do like to take peoples arguments and use them against them. That's why I pointed out that even accepting all the IPCC assumptions Kyoto is a worthless treaty.
--"After all, not even the most alarmist eco-nut predicted that the Ross ice shelf would collapse. Yet it has."
That's because alarmist eco-nuts are morons. They didn't realize it was natural occurance, something that has to happen every once in a while. Otherwise they probalby would have, just so they could go "I told you so" later.
--"If this is the case then the sooner we do something the better. Cost is irrelevent."
Did you not read my earlier post? Cost is never irrelevant.
--"then it is only prudent to rely on the best evidence available"
But it isn't the best evidence available. I encourage you to read the IPCC report. The actual report, not the summary. The press and the IPCC have been working from the summary. The original scientists who wrote the report are not part of the IPCC, which is a political body. They have so distorted the actual report that several of the original scientists have been complaining publicly. The IPCC is taking the worst case scenarios, and have omitted all the cautionary language of the original report. And even the people who wrote the report admit that their models are extremely imprecise.
--"When you are not certain of a course of action, you should generally try to move in the direction of Goodness and away from Badness."
Why should we move away from bad-ass-ness? Bad-asses are cool.
Oh, wait...
Thank you for ignoring all my important points, by the way. I was almost positive you were nothing but a troll, and now I'm certain of it.
Wraith
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
Jon Miller: quote:
also have you heard of evolution?, do you have any idea of the scale involved, and what life would do once humans died off? |
Well. It is hard to argue with this sort of long term view. I'm sure that whatever species eventually replaces Man on the hellish greenhouse Earth of the future will appreciate the fact that we didn't sign the Kyoto accord. Touche.
Wraith: quote:
That's because alarmist eco-nuts are morons. They didn't realize it was natural occurance, something that has to happen every once in a while. Otherwise they probalby would have, just so they could go "I told you so" later |
How exactly do you know it is a natural occurance? Did you read it in the National Review? Or some other equally scientific publication?
First you state that science doesn't even know if a warming trend is going on and that all the models are imprecise. But then you turn around and state categorically that the unprecedented collapse of one of the largest ice shelfs in the world is a "natural occurance".
But if the models are so imprecise, then how do you know it is a natural occurance? Are there any rules to this game or do you just believe whatever you find convenient at the moment?
quote:
Did you not read my earlier post? Cost is never irrelevant. |
If global warming due to CO2 emissions is going on, then we have to try to stop it, whatever the cost. We cannot experiment on the entire planet trusting in the hope that everything will turn out alright.
Last edited by Vanguard on 17-08-2002 at 16:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vanguard
Jon Miller:
Well. It is hard to argue with this sort of long term view. I'm sure that whatever species eventually replaces Man on the hellish greenhouse Earth of the future will appreciate the fact that we didn't sign the Kyoto accord. Touche.
|
actually according to evolution, I think they would find it paradise
(note, I am not for polluting with great ammounts of CO2, it is just that I do not think that it is that dangerous and I think that we have more important things to expend effort on)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
--"Did you read it in the National Review? Or some other equally scientific publication?"
Quoted from Nature, IIRC.
It's quite simple to understand, really. Any ice shelf over water will break up at some point. Water is not a stable base. Temperature differences, currents, tidal motion, sooner or later something's going to give.
--"First you state that science doesn't even know if a warming trend is going on"
We don't. We only have reasonable accurate measurements since the satellites were launched, and a couple decades of measurements are not enough to state categorically that there is a warming trend at all, much less assign causation to humans.
--"and that all the models are imprecise"
They are, and are acknowledged as such. The weather is a complex, chaotic system. None of the computer models have accounted for everything that affects the climate, and we're finding out new factors all the time. The ones used for the IPCC report don't, IIRC, factor in the heat reflected/absorbed by clouds or the changing level of solar emissions, just for starters.
--"But if the models are so imprecise, then how do you know it is a natural occurance?"
See above. It's a simple structural problem. One end of the ice shelf, IIRC, is anchored, the rest isn't. The part that's anchored isn't moving, the rest is trying to. Plenty of stress on the rest of the body (and heck, even if neither end is anchored there's going to be stress from different currents, thicknesses of ice, and so on). Flexing a fairly rigid material over and over will break it.
--"Are there any rules to this game or do you just believe whatever you find convenient at the moment?"
You might want to address this question yourself. My rules are quite simple. Reports not based on actual science are ignored or lambasted. When the NY Times goes on about water at the North Pole, I ignore them (until they quietly print a retraction, and which point I can point and laugh at all the "journalists" still referencing the original story).
--"If global warming due to CO2 emissions is going on, then we have to try to stop it, whatever the cost."
So you didn't bother to read my first post in this thread.
In any case, why the focus on CO2? If you knew anything about global warming, you'd know that CO2 isn't even the main factor. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. CO2 isn't even the main anthropogenic greenhouse gas, methane is.
CO2 also serves a very important function. It's called plant food.
It's also rather amusing that CFCs seem to be an anti-warming gas...
--"Not one single one of those articles dispute the reality of global warming."
If you've said "still at it" then you know my opinion of the media, including most of the so-called science magazines, covering the issue. I have presented counters before, and they get ignored, even when they're MIT professors on government panels.
Wraith
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
well, a lot of people here disagree with you |
But a lot of scientists (in fact nearly all) don't. And I think I'll listen to them over you people, thank you very much  . |
Yeh so a bunch of lefty scientists with their budget's on the line agree. So What?
Look here's the logic.
1. I'm a scientist and I need money to live and do my research.
2. The government supplies grants to scientists to do research etc.
3. The government can be forced into doing something if enough people can be hoodwinked into pressuring them to.
4. The scientists (the false ones) issue press statements of one disaster after another due to (insert your own pet disaster cause here).
5. The people become concerned and force the governments to act.
6. The government does not have enough information to act. (How do they know that - from the scientists that advise them) So they decide to fund more research.
7. The scientists are happy and say they will need at least 20 years to prove the issue one way or another.
The only disaster I see is for Science. It is being belittled and perverted to make some unscrupulous scientists a buck.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
--"here is the prediction link"
I'll try to look it over later. From what you've quoted here, it looks like they're using the "double hockey stick" model, right? If that's the case, there's no point in reviewing the links.
Look, I have no problems with some environmental measures. I do agree that pollution is a problem (although hopefully it's apparent that I'm not willing to classify CO2 as pollution). I just think these measure are not the right way to go about things.
Driving a car with good fuel effeciency? Good idea, saves me money. I've got a Honda Civic. High-efficency appliances, a home with good insulation? Saves me money in the long run, it's a good idea. I have no problem with conservation measures like this.
I also don't like companies polluting. For me it's a property rights issue; they should not be able to get away with damaging other people's property. I have no problem with internalizing the externalities of pollution. However, current measures of dealing with this are stupid. Kyoto, even accepting its own assumptions, is an extraordinarily moronic measure. A far simpler method would be to simply tax companies based on type and amount of pollution they emit. That way when there are efficent but less polluting methods available they'll be used, and where there aren't there will be money for remediation (getting the governments to actually use the money for this and not for general purposes is a horse of a different color).
So why would a libertarian like myself suggest a tax? Because it's a measure the government might actually adopt. I'd much prefer other methods, but it would rely on the government not doing things they're doing now (like subsidizing various power industries), so it won't happen.
So this is my objection. If you want to "do something", Kyoto is not the way to go. It's stupid, it's expensive, and it's ineffective. If you are truly an environmentalist there are much better causes to champion.
The only reason this issue is getting such play is the sturm und drang media coverage and widespread willful ignorance.
--"The only disaster I see is for Science. It is being belittled and perverted to make some unscrupulous scientists a buck."
I agree whole heartedly. This sort of thing is exactly why I advocate teaching critical thinking and logic in school.
Wraith
"...if men are to be ruled, then the enemy is reason."
-- Ayn Rand ("The Comprachicos")
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Noone in their right mind can ignore global warming.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Monk
[QUOTE]What if global warming is happening, and is being coused by the ongoing solar maximum? |
If the Earth is receiving more heat due to higher solar flux, then it is extremely important that we do not pump out a lot of greenhouse gases. Doing so would trap a larger amount of the higher insolation----- a climatic double whammy. In the end we may still have to eat an Unhappy Meal of global warming from the increased sunlight. But we don't have to Supersize it with a greenhouse effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
[QUOTE]Nature iirc |
That rag?  Okay, Nature is an acceptable bibliographic note. I retract.
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
[QUOTE]It's a simple structural problem. One end of the ice shelf, IIRC, is anchored, the rest isn't. The part that's anchored isn't moving, the rest is trying to. Plenty of stress on the rest of the body (and heck, even if neither end is anchored there's going to be stress from different currents, thicknesses of ice, and so on). Flexing a fairly rigid material over and over will break it. |
This isn't true if the material is self-repairing, as ice in a cold environment is. I guess it is true that ice and water are an inherently unstable combination, both mechanically and thermally.
But by most estimates the Ross Ice shelf had probably existed in the same basic form (not the same ice, of course) for the last 20,000 years. The reason it is breaking up now, from what I have read, is due to a .5 degree increase in Antarctic water temperatures. Whatever the cause of this, warmer water is at least an indication of "warming", possibly global warming.
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
[QUOTE]I encourage you to read the IPCC report. The actual report, not the summary. The press and the IPCC have been working from the summary |
I read some of it today. It is long and highly repetitive. I'll read the rest of it sometime, but for now I don't intend to waste too much of my vacation reading boilerplate such as:
quote:
Originally posted in "The Scientific Basis"
[QUOTE]Although changes in weather and climate extremes are important to society, ecosystems, and wildlife, it is only recently that evidence for changes we have observed to date has been able to be compared to similar changes that we see in model simulations for future climate (generally taken to be the end of the 21st century as shown in this chapter). Though several simulations of 20th century climate with various estimates of observed forcings now exist (see Chapter 8), few of these have been analysed for changes in extremes over the 20th century. So far, virtually all studies of simulated changes in extremes have been performed for future climate. A number of studies are now under way for simulated 20th century climate, but are not yet available for assessment. Additionally, in the 20th century climate integrations there is usually a significant signal/noise problem (especially for changes in phenomena like storms). Therefore, here we assess changes in extremes that have been observed during the 20th century (see Chapter 2), and compare these to simulated changes of extremes for the end of the 21st century from AOGCMs run with increases in greenhouse gases and other constituents. Agreement between the observations and model results would suggest that the changes in extremes we have already observed are qualitatively consistent in a very general way with those changes in climate model simulations of future climate, indicating these changes in extremes would be likely to continue into the future. |
Instead I'll just concede what appears to me be obvious; that the specific scientific evidence for global warming is not ironclad.
Mere doubt about global warming does not solve our problem however. We still have to decide whether to do something or not. Global warming could be going on. In fact it probably is, to a greater or lesser extent. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its effect, combined with the effect of other gases could generate a self reinforcing warming mechanism
And if it does, then we are going to have to do something about it, or suffer the likelihood of truly stupendous costs.
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
[QUOTE].....omitting all the cautionary language.... |
Hard to blame them really, since the scientific report seems to include cautionary language in every single sentence of the entire report. Was is really neccessary for the authors to constantly repeat that they know nothing whatever about anything at all? One disclaimer per page would have been enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
[QUOTE]In any case, why the focus on CO2? If you knew anything about global warming, you'd know that CO2 isn't even the main factor. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. CO2 isn't even the main anthropogenic greenhouse gas, methane is. |
Because we can do something about CO2. Not much we can do about water vapor. Reducing CO2 emissions also would have local benefits: less smog, acid rain etc. It isn't a cheap option, but a some point we are going to have to prevent CO2 buildup in the atmosphere anyway. We can't continue to increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere forever. So why not do it now? That way, if CO2 does contribute to global warming, we will get maximum enviromental effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
[QUOTE] CO2 also serves a very important function. It's called plant food. |
Food generally isn't a limiting factor in plant growth. Water is more important.
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
[QUOTE]Why should we move away from bad-ass-ness? Bad-asses are cool. |
Now this is an interesting and novel suggestion. Bad-asses are, as you say, cool. Therefore, a sufficiently large number of cool bad-asses should be able to negate the predicted warming effect and allow us to maintain a satisfactory thermal equilibrium within a high emission regime.
While this suggestion is interesting theoretically, I think that it is, ultimately, not technically feasible. The very large number of bad-asses required (I estimate 3 times ten to the ninth) would require a prodigious, and possibly unattainable, effort of global bad-ass reproduction.
Even if this problem could be overcome, the whole scheme seems to be doomed by the Second Law. Bad-asses may be cool, but to maintain such cool they require large cars, enormous breweries and hot babes. This being the case, it seems to me that a program of greatly increased bad-ass production, far from being a viable solution to the warming problem, would more likely exacerbate it.
This post has been edited for stupidity.
Last edited by Vanguard on 21-08-2002 at 05:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
It is of course a spurious argument - even a small improvement is better than no improvement |
Exactly. And since we will have to reduce emissions sooner or later, the sooner we do it the cheaper it will be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
CICSmaster, before you backtalk people who spent several years of their lives working their ass off to get a PhD, you might also benefit from understanding the basics of fundamental research... |
What a load of twaddle.
Just because they spent several years of their lives working their ass off to get a PhD just proves that they have an investment in themselves that has to be collected on.
The basics of fundamental research. Oh Right! let me see if I got it right.
1. you observe nature.
2. you formulate a theory to account for the observations.
3. you publish so that your peers can tell you where you went wrong.
But what if you can't publish because the journals refuse to publish on the basis of three reviewers say so. And you don't know who the reviewers are. And the reviewers biases are not taken into account. So your peers do not get the chance to critique your paper.
There is plenty of evidence to show that the current warming is entirely caused by the Sun. However, this never gets brought up in the media - current or scientific - unless it is said to be a minority view. How, facts can be a minority view is beyond me.
Look, among Solar scientists it is beyond questioning that the Sun has been hotter in the last decade. This increased warmth exactly accounts for the rise in temperatures we see in the satellite record. If the Ground temperature record is adjusted to remove the heat island effect of major cities, then that agrees with the satellite record.
Finally, past concentrations of CO2 have lagged increased temperatures not lead them. This has been definitely proven in the ice core record. And furthermore, the ice core record shows concentrations of CO2 2 to 3 times the current values and no great leaps of temperature.
What does it all mean. It means that the Earth's environment is a lot stabler than anyone thought. Of course this would have to be true otherwise how could we evolved over billions of years. If coral is so sensitive to heat, how has it survived for billions of years?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-08-2002 05:46
Attachment: 
|
