Global warming

[Squilliam]

Allow me to make a Godwin-like analogy.
during the unstoppable march towards the war against Iraq, the effects and outcome of it, or their scale were unknown.

yay, don't listen to "alarmists".
if the effects of global warming on, yay, "human economic activity and quality of life" in regions that are not northeastern America or western Europe is anything like the "alarmist" scientists hint at, you may end up with horrors one order or even two orders of magnitude worse than my little Godwin example.

The issue I raise with the alarmists is that it seems that almost without exception they have a tendency to make major mistakes with their predictions of doom.

The first is that they seem to take an economist's 'ceterus parabus' view which means that all other things remain the same. So when predicting that 100,000,000 children will die over the next 30 years because of climate change they fail to take into account any development of the economy and infrastructure. People don't realise that the development and life expectancy increases in Africa are mirroring places like the U.S. and are infact developing faster than western countries did back in the day. Africa as a whole is not stagnant.

The second issue is theres a very real selection bias when you're looking for problems caused by human induced climate change you'll tend to find them all over the place even if the root causes aren't even related. The climate changes regardless and not all of it is rooted in CO2/CH4 emissions. For example there may have been a dry region which was unusually wet for a few hundred years which caused humans to settle there, however recently it moves back towards its long term dry phase and the humans in that region starve. Does that mean it was caused by human induced climate change?

The third issue is a tendency to throw out big numbers as if they actually offer any meaning. The most common one is the value of coastal property which will be destroyed. If I was a home owner 4 houses back from the ocean and two houses in front are destroyed, the value of the land under my house would increase if that yields a coastal view for me. Furthermore how much of coastal property is actually going to reach the age where the original structure is still intact 50 to 100 years from the present in order to be destroyed by rising waters? Whenever I walk on the beach near my home I struggle to find houses which would be in the firing line which are over 20 years old.

 

[gamervivek]

It's clearly not flat as you see a ship's sail before you see the hull. QED.

must've been sea breeze

Yes, science can be wrong and sometimes older, less precise, theories are good enough. For example, Kepler's laws regarding the motion of planets are close enough to reality for most of us.

I'd say that for most of us,

"But the Solar System ! " I protested.
" What the deuce is it to me ?" he interrupted impatiently

Is space-time flat or curved? For most of us, it's flat. But if you want your GPS satellites to be accurate, then you have to do better
-FUDie

Similarly if they want nations to commit to something that will cost them billions and even trillions, they need to do better. Like the example I gave of medical science, it's amazing that dieting americans are now so obese even though science was supposedly guiding them.
And Chalnoth goes along like a school kid who knows every book in his class from first page to the last, and expects everyone in the class to believe in their wisdom. A few years later, everyone is is college, and the kiddie books are already in the dustbin and no one remembers them, well, except for Chalnoth.

 

[KimB]

Well, with a sexist moron like gamervivek, this is the kind of post I expect.

Umm science itself makes mistakes and then corrects them, what's the reliability in that, except that of being reliable of being possibly wrong?

Absolutely everything can possibly be wrong. It is only an enterprise which rigorously checks for and corrects its errors that has a chance in hell of being remotely right.

 

[KimB]

And Chalnoth goes along like a school kid who knows every book in his class from first page to the last, and expects everyone in the class to believe in their wisdom. A few years later, everyone is is college, and the kiddie books are already in the dustbin and no one remembers them, well, except for Chalnoth.

Yet another idiotic post.

Memorization is worthless. Being able to think is what is important. But then, it's not as if we can expect that from you.

The important issue in this thread is that the evidence we have for human-caused global warming is strong and varied. We could still find a large number of errors in the existing data and it would fail to overturn this conclusion, because the data we do have attacks the issue from such a wide variety of directions.

 

[Blazkowicz]

They observed the earth was flat around them, ergo the earth was flat.
observation, inference, deduction.

Yes, until they figured out the earth was spherical 2500 years ago.

 

[corduroygt]

The important issue in this thread is that the evidence we have for human-caused global warming is strong and varied. We could still find a large number of errors in the existing data and it would fail to overturn this conclusion, because the data we do have attacks the issue from such a wide variety of directions.

Yet there are vast variations on the extent of the warming, and the actual damages it may occur. It's not conclusive or certain enough to destroy the world's economy. Besides, it doesn't help that many who urge to reduce our carbon footprint are also against Nuclear. Honestly, I'd rather drown in the rising oceans than concede to that hippy bunch that wants me back in the stone age.

Mind you I am already pretty energy efficient in my life, because I like saving money. I live close to work, I have ecobulbs, turn off the light when I don't need it, etc. What I am not going to do is increase my electric bill by 30% to make it all come from wind power. I'll do that when the costs are the same.

 

[rpg.314]

It's not conclusive or certain enough to destroy the world's economy.

Your misunderstanding that combating AGW will "destroy" world economy is no less extreme than the those of the hippie bunch you so despise.

 

[Frank]

And so far, the effects of global warming have been worse than the mainstream predictions.

Subjective/no content.

 

[Frank]

I don't think belief in a god has anything to do with it. In fact, that can go either way, because many Christians believe that the world is going to end soon, so it really doesn't make any difference what we do in the long term.

And many are still being killed everyday because The Pope tells them using condoms is worse.

What does matter, however, is simple empathy. Just caring about other people. I mean, sure, if you are an evil sociopath, it makes sense to not give a rat's ass about peoples' lives other than your own. But if you are a normal, well-adjusted human being, it makes damned good sense to care that we leave the next generation a habitable planet.

Ah, so I'm a sociopath, because I am sceptical about AGW?

Thanks.

I thought being sceptical was a requirement for being a scientist. Live and learn.

 

[Frank]

The issue I raise with the alarmists is that it seems that almost without exception they have a tendency to make major mistakes with their predictions of doom.

The first is that they seem to take an economist's 'ceterus parabus' view which means that all other things remain the same. So when predicting that 100,000,000 children will die over the next 30 years because of climate change they fail to take into account any development of the economy and infrastructure. People don't realise that the development and life expectancy increases in Africa are mirroring places like the U.S. and are infact developing faster than western countries did back in the day. Africa as a whole is not stagnant.

The second issue is theres a very real selection bias when you're looking for problems caused by human induced climate change you'll tend to find them all over the place even if the root causes aren't even related. The climate changes regardless and not all of it is rooted in CO2/CH4 emissions. For example there may have been a dry region which was unusually wet for a few hundred years which caused humans to settle there, however recently it moves back towards its long term dry phase and the humans in that region starve. Does that mean it was caused by human induced climate change?

The third issue is a tendency to throw out big numbers as if they actually offer any meaning. The most common one is the value of coastal property which will be destroyed. If I was a home owner 4 houses back from the ocean and two houses in front are destroyed, the value of the land under my house would increase if that yields a coastal view for me. Furthermore how much of coastal property is actually going to reach the age where the original structure is still intact 50 to 100 years from the present in order to be destroyed by rising waters? Whenever I walk on the beach near my home I struggle to find houses which would be in the firing line which are over 20 years old.

Agreed.

To add: as alarmists always extrapolate a single thing from a static world view, they're conservative by nature. Like corduroygt said, they're also against innovation. Unless it benefits them personally, of course.


"Science" isn't some abstract concept, but it exists through the actions of many scientists, which are all human. Most of the US ones readily agree to believe in God, for example. And scientists like a raise in salary and/or recognition just as much as everyone else. Telling the person(s) who pay their bills that they're stupid morons won't help with that.

 

[KimB]

Subjective/no content.

See here:
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/

It was this review of the previous predictions of the IPCC reports that I was referencing. Specifically:

Recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many
aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC
range of projections.

 

[KimB]

Ah, so I'm a sociopath, because I am sceptical about AGW?

If you accepted AGW and still didn't want to do anything about it because the only negative impacts you see are those that don't affect you, then that would make you a sociopath.

If you just think AGW is wrong, then that just makes you either ignorant or an idiot.

Skepticism, by the way, does not equate to thinking everything is wrong.

 

[corduroygt]

See here:
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/

Those climate researchers can't even set up a web server correctly, since I see internal error 500 message when I clicked on that link.

I haven't seen anyone or anybody affected massively negatively by AGW, so I am skeptical that its impacts are as severe as the scaremongers say. So I simply don't see anything wrong with a little warming myself.

I also feel that oil prices and petroleum economics are going to be enough in working this problem out, since they're only going to go up, and demand is only going to go down. US is using 8% less gasoline compared to 2006 already, and people are getting more efficient vehicles to save money, way before they think anything about carbon.

Now if the envirowackos stopped blocking new Nuke plants, we'd also stop burning coal, which has far worse immediate environmental consequences than CO2 and get some clean electricity for cheap.

 

[KimB]

Those climate researchers can't even set up a web server correctly, since I see internal error 500 message when I clicked on that link.

Try this link:
http://www.iaruni.org/events/past/m...imateChangeCongress_SynthesisReport180609.pdf

I'm not sure what the issue with their website is. Works in Chrome, but not IE or Firefox.

I haven't seen anyone or anybody affected massively negatively by AGW, so I am skeptical that its impacts are as severe as the scaremongers say. So I simply don't see anything wrong with a little warming myself.

You probably also don't know anybody that was killed by industrial pollution. Do you advocate removing all controls on industrial pollution?

Look, this is why we do things like collect evidence. Personal experience just sucks as a means to understand the world beyond our small, short lives. Take some time to educate yourself on what the evidence says the effects of global warming are, instead of just assuming that there are no effects because they're not blatantly obvious to somebody who hasn't bothered to examine them.

I also feel that oil prices and petroleum economics are going to be enough in working this problem out, since they're only going to go up, and demand is only going to go down. US is using 8% less gasoline compared to 2006 already, and people are getting more efficient vehicles to save money, way before they think anything about carbon.

We have reached peak oil. Peak oil means that roughly half of the available oil has been tapped. If we burn it all, we will ensure that we end up on a path to disaster.

 

[gamervivek]

Well, with a sexist moron like gamervivek, this is the kind of post I expect.

You are a woman/girl? well, colour me surprised.

Absolutely everything can possibly be wrong. It is only an enterprise which rigorously checks for and corrects its errors that has a chance in hell of being remotely right.

So?

Yet another idiotic post.

Memorization is worthless. Being able to think is what is important. But then, it's not as if we can expect that from you.

my personal data says that that statment is hilariously wrong.

The important issue in this thread is that the evidence we have for human-caused global warming is strong and varied. We could still find a large number of errors in the existing data and it would fail to overturn this conclusion, because the data we do have attacks the issue from such a wide variety of directions.

Well, I'm a sociopath, fear me.

Yes, until they figured out the earth was spherical 2500 years ago.

And were responsible for the wide-spread fear of falling off the edge of the earth if you went too far into the woods.


Anyway, not related directly and yet still related to all this brouhaha:

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2010/12/erroneous-scientific-beliefs.html

http://dissention.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/scientific-bullshit-and-scams-dec-23-2010/

 

[corduroygt]

You probably also don't know anybody that was killed by industrial pollution. Do you advocate removing all controls on industrial pollution?

I've seen the effects of that on TV and the news. Smog is visually apparent, and I've seen pictures of cities in China where it looked horrible. So there is a difference. Katrina is not attributable to AGW, since cities were being flooded and destroyed by hurricanes, etc. for a long time. All I see is old people dying because it's too hot, but then again, they also die when it's too cold, along with the homeless, so I don't see how hot weather is worse than cold weather.

We have reached peak oil. Peak oil means that roughly half of the available oil has been tapped. If we burn it all, we will ensure that we end up on a path to disaster.

Good thing we have thousands of years worth of Uranium and Thorium then. Also, people like you were saying we've reached peak oil in the 70s as well, but new deposits keep being discovered. As the price of oil goes up, it becomes feasible to get it from other sources like tar sands or coal gasification, or new, hard to reach deposits.

I also don't shut off my car when I'm parked for a couple minutes when it's cold. I'm sure this pisses you off too, huh?

 

[gamervivek]

I also don't shut off my car when I'm parked for a couple minutes when it's cold. I'm sure this pisses you off too, huh?

Since in the long run we're all dead, what's the point of not being a sociopath and leaving behind a half-polluted and slightly cooler planet than a fully-polluted and a bit hotter one?
I'd rather the future generations upload their consciousness onto silicon and leave all such trivialities behind.

PS- Cue the cooling solutions jokes.

 

[KimB]

I've seen the effects of that on TV and the news. Smog is visually apparent, and I've seen pictures of cities in China where it looked horrible. So there is a difference. Katrina is not attributable to AGW, since cities were being flooded and destroyed by hurricanes, etc. for a long time.

The difference is the frequency of strong hurricanes. Strong hurricanes are getting more and more frequent (though the overall number of tropical cyclones shows no trend). So while AGW almost certainly didn't cause Katrina, it probably made it worse. Without global warming, more dikes would probably have survived, and the damage would have been much, much less.

In the future, rising sea levels will make this problem even worse, as the same-strength hurricane with higher sea levels will make for dramatically more flooding.

There will also be more floods in some inland areas (due to more rainfall being concentrated in storms), more droughts in other areas (due to higher temperatures). Some areas may even get both more droughts and more floods.

Oh, and the biggest change so far is that 40% of all plankton has died since 1950. Plankton, by the way, produces about half of the world's oxygen. See here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population

Good thing we have thousands of years worth of Uranium and Thorium then.

Thousands of years? Only if we make the transition to breeder reactors. Though I support that transition, it seems to hardly be happening at all.

Also, people like you were saying we've reached peak oil in the 70s as well, but new deposits keep being discovered.

That was the peak oil for US production. And it's correct. Oil production in the US has continued to fall since the 70's. But crude oil production has been flat or falling since 2005, despite rising prices. This is a clear indication that peak oil has been reached.

As the price of oil goes up, it becomes feasible to get it from other sources like tar sands or coal gasification, or new, hard to reach deposits.

The logistical challenges of obtaining this oil ensures that it's never as efficient, so that oil production falls regardless of the increase in demand.

I also don't shut off my car when I'm parked for a couple minutes when it's cold. I'm sure this pisses you off too, huh?

Why would you do this? It's just a stupid waste. Unless you're routinely driving around Antarctica, your engine will remain warm for a little while after you've turned it off.

 

[corduroygt]

The difference is the frequency of strong hurricanes. Strong hurricanes are getting more and more frequent (though the overall number of tropical cyclones shows no trend). So while AGW almost certainly didn't cause Katrina, it probably made it worse. Without global warming, more dikes would probably have survived, and the damage would have been much, much less.

Really? How do you know about the frequency of strong hurricanes 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 100000 years ago? Do you think it was always the same? Maybe the earth's climate changes on its own even without any human input?

In the future, rising sea levels will make this problem even worse, as the same-strength hurricane with higher sea levels will make for dramatically more flooding.

Maybe we settled in the wrong place since we did not have climate and sea level information for the past 10000 years, and it used to be flooded back then? Maybe that's just how the Earth's climate rolls and we're to powerless to change it anyways? Why not look into proven methods of barriers and relocation instead?

Thousands of years? Only if we make the transition to breeder reactors. Though I support that transition, it seems to hardly be happening at all.

Blame the ecomentalists then. I support all forms of nuclear energy, which is the ONLY acceptable substitute for oil as an energy source. We still don't have an acceptable substitution for oil as energy storage though.

The logistical challenges of obtaining this oil ensures that it's never as efficient, so that oil production falls regardless of the increase in demand.

I don't follow that logic. Yes it's not as efficient, but still profitable. Not to mention that it can be made more efficient if there'sn't any easier place to get oil left. It's not like the costs of extracting are higher than the value yet, that's some ways off.

Why would you do this? It's just a stupid waste. Unless you're routinely driving around Antarctica, your engine will remain warm for a little while after you've turned it off.

Don't want to wear out my engine, since cold starts are horrible for IC engines. I only do this when my temperature gauge isn't where it normally is, i.e. when the engine is still colder than normal.

 

[KimB]

Really? How do you know about the frequency of strong hurricanes 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 100000 years ago? Do you think it was always the same? Maybe the earth's climate changes on its own even without any human input?

a) We don't need to go back that far, because AGW has only been significant since the 1970's.
b) The Earth's climate cannot change by the magnitudes it has without some sort of input or other. Past changes in climate are almost completely recovered by a combination of CO2 in the atmosphere and solar irradiance. The changes in climate early in the century, for example, closely match solar irradiance.

Basically, the internal changes involve things like the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, which basically involve heat transfers between one area and another, or between the ocean and the atmosphere (a strong El Nino cools the ocean while warming the atmosphere, while a La Nina does the opposite). But these are short-term oscillations that effect the Earth's weather on the order of 3-5 years. They cannot impact the climate in the long term.

The only way to change the climate in the long term is to change the radiative balance: to change the amount of radiation coming in, or the amount going out, or both. Right now, the radiation coming in is mostly steady (there is some increase due to the melting of arctic sea ice, as the darker seas absorb more radiation than they reflect, but the Sun has been less active and less warm of late, so there is little net effect). The only big change has been the change in greenhouse gases.

I don't follow that logic. Yes it's not as efficient, but still profitable. Not to mention that it can be made more efficient if there'sn't any easier place to get oil left. It's not like the costs of extracting are higher than the value yet, that's some ways off.

The problem is that the logistics get more and more difficult to manage. Just look at oil production in the US if you don't believe me.

Don't want to wear out my engine, since cold starts are horrible for IC engines. I only do this when my temperature gauge isn't where it normally is, i.e. when the engine is still colder than normal.

I still don't see how five minutes can make a difference. The engine will still be warmer than its typical summer starting temperatures by the time you get back. And if you're leaving it for, say, 20 minutes, then that's just a waste.