Global warming

[Mintmaster]

If CO2 was the only contributing factor, we would have had a runaway greenhouse effect for some time by now, and we would all be cooked. Well, except for the eskimos and people with AC everywhere.

No we wouldn't. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever - theoretical or experimental - that suggests runaway is required for AGW to be valid.

Maybe you can find some suckers to buy your strawman argument, but not at B3D.

 

[Frank]

Ok, perhaps a bit of explanation is in order.

I'm an engineer. I design and develop things, hardware and software.

In my experience, what is best to an engineer is completely different from what is best to a politician (manager). For the engineer it has to be logical, and the definition of success (it works) is defined by how close it fulfils the technical goals stated. That engineer will talk about the requirements as the technical things needed, and defines the possibilities scientifically.

Politicians have quite different goals. They need it to be emotionally satisfying, and the definition of success (it works) is defined by how much they benefit from it. That politician will talk about the requirements as the organizational goals that have to be met, and defines the possibilities commercially.

In effect, that means that engineers have to jump through hoops to meet those political goals, and that the political interactions are the ones that are made public, not the scientific or technical ones. Because the politicians pay the bills.

That's why I always have second thoughts and try to figure out the technicalities if someone tries to sell me something. The truth is a subjective matter of opinion. It depends on many things, with the laws of nature coming in somewhere at the end.


That's not to say it's all bullocks; it's just how things work. And it's great if you understand why something is better or worse before you buy it. Which is also extremely subjective.

Take cars: most people are only interested in the price, looks, feature list and brand, simply because they cannot be bothered to figure out the technical details. They don't matter to them, because they expect all of them to at least be dependable, economic and safe.


In short, as an engineer I have learned and am able to look at those technicalities, which are in general quite different to the advertising. AGW is just one of those things.


Edit: and this: "If you cannot beat them, join them." What is the use arguing against something if they have won the public opinion and nobody listens? Something for me to remember.

Edit2: It's like religious scientists. They tend to do that if they're mostly political, live in a society where it is required, or grow old.

 

[rpg.314]

So like is anyone living in a place where they can honestly state they would benefit/have benefited from a warming of the planet?

Obviously, there will be a few places which will benefit from global warming, but mostly people worldwide would lose.

 

[rpg.314]

Consider this: what we're experiencing at the moment is far from unprecedented, it's all part of the interaction between climate and how life influences it. A thousand years ago the same happened.

It is unprecedented because there is no record of humans causing climate change in the past.

AGW as a theory is needed because other mechanisms responsible for climate change are insufficient to explain present levels of warming.

 

[KimB]

You mean, just after the coldest decade of the century, where many people predicted a new ice age?

Where did you get this from? Did you bother to look at the data? Or did you just grab it from some denialist website?

Because if you'll look back at post #26, where I actually presented the temperature data for this time period, you'll see that up until that point, the 60's were just about the warmest decade yet, with the coldest decade in the 20th century being either the 00's or the 10's. The warming during the first half of the 20th century, however, has been tied to differences in solar irradiance.

Yes, it is true that there were some claims of a new ice age in the popular press. However, if you actually look at the scientific papers published, those in support of cooling where always outnumbered by those in support of warming. See here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Still, that doesn't make any of that climate, it's just weather, and well within the expected deviations.

Sorry, but changes over decades are not weather.

 

[KimB]

That's why I always have second thoughts and try to figure out the technicalities if someone tries to sell me something. The truth is a subjective matter of opinion. It depends on many things, with the laws of nature coming in somewhere at the end.

Well, this website should answer all of your questions, and then some:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Furthermore, the only significant entities pushing against the strong scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming are industry-funded conservative think tanks. Basically, you've been snookered by business interests pushing a political agenda to prevent laws that they feel would curb their profits. See here:
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/06/why_the_right_wing_attacks_sci.php

The punch line is that basically all of the denialist literature stemmed directly from books published by conservative think tanks, with the scientific literature almost unanimously in support of anthropogenic global warming.

 

[zed]

So like is anyone living in a place where they can honestly state they would benefit/have benefited from a warming of the planet?

well here in nz, since we're an island nation we're not gonna be affected that much.
A little bit warmer, wetter on the west + drier on the east + windier everywhere.
We could do with some rain now here in nelson. 296 hrs of sunshine last month + only 6.8mm rain for the whole month. The grass is going brown and we're still only in spring

 

[Frank]

Ok.

I accept that AGW is an unavoidable thing from now on. Even if it starts getting colder for years, people will say that the theory is still valid, better called Anthropogenic Climate Change, and that it needs some minor adjustments, because the getting colder is clearly a reaction from all the other feedback mechanisms involved on the massive human increase of CO2.

So, I will agree to it, as the new label to describe the climate interactions in general.

But I'm still very interested in the coming winter.


So, to recap: humanity did increase the amount of CO2 significantly, it definitely has an impact, and it's much easier to simply agree with it and all the marketing around it instead of trying to form my own opinion about the scope and impact.

I'll try to do so from now on, and call it like that.

 

[Mintmaster]

I'm an engineer. I design and develop things, hardware and software.

You don't sound like one in this discussion.

In short, as an engineer I have learned and am able to look at those technicalities, which are in general quite different to the advertising. AGW is just one of those things.

And we all encourage you to do so. You can read all the literature if you want to know all the "technical details".

I accept that AGW is an unavoidable thing from now on. Even if it starts getting colder for years, people will say that the theory is still valid

What is going to convince you? As Chalnoth pointed out, it's been predicted for a long time. Back then people were saying the same thing you are, thinking that cooling is just around the corner. For much of the last decade, it looked like cooling was about to occur until the past few years erased that theory.

it's much easier to simply agree with it and all the marketing around it instead of trying to form my own opinion about the scope and impact.

Nobody is telling you that you have to stop independent thought and cease debate. Just be rational in your approach. My favorite skeptic site is www.drroyspencer.com. The guy will admit when he's wrong, post raw satellite data even when it's showing warming, and doesn't cling to the stupid arguments that most AGW skeptics regurgitate over and over.

I accept the science of AGW's existence. However, I am skeptical about the certainty with which future projections are made, and completely disagree with the value of urgent action that environmentalists are blowing out of proportion.

 

[KimB]

Ok.

I accept that AGW is an unavoidable thing from now on. Even if it starts getting colder for years, people will say that the theory is still valid, better called Anthropogenic Climate Change, and that it needs some minor adjustments, because the getting colder is clearly a reaction from all the other feedback mechanisms involved on the massive human increase of CO2.

Er, no. Absent some major, unexpected climate forcing (such as a significant drop in solar irradiance), a drop in global average temperatures that lasts more than 10-15 years or so is pretty much impossible. Basically, the internal climate variance changes things on the order of 3-5 years, and has less and less impact on longer time scales.

So, to recap: humanity did increase the amount of CO2 significantly, it definitely has an impact, and it's much easier to simply agree with it and all the marketing around it instead of trying to form my own opinion about the scope and impact.

I'll try to do so from now on, and call it like that.

Well, ideally you should educate yourself about the data so that you can form an informed opinion. But absent that, the safest thing to do is just accept the scientific consensus and be done with it. After all, if you can't trust a large, diverse body of independent persons who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate and come to the same basic conclusions, who can you trust?

 

[Squilliam]

well here in nz, since we're an island nation we're not gonna be affected that much.
A little bit warmer, wetter on the west + drier on the east + windier everywhere.
We could do with some rain now here in nelson. 296 hrs of sunshine last month + only 6.8mm rain for the whole month. The grass is going brown and we're still only in spring

It just seems strange that its all doom and gloom. For instance during the medieval warm period life and human civilization flourished in Europe. It just doesn't seem to fit that the world would be harmed that badly by a few degrees of heat.

 

[dizietsma]

Could be that during the medieval warm period Europe flourished but then again Europe is a pretty cool to temperate place, if Europe had been on the equator it might have gone the other way. Lot more people in the world now to benefit and lose out.

I do wonder whether biodiveristy changes will overtake AGW as a major concern, it does actually worry me more. I certainly think there are too many people on the planet and if everyone in South America and Africa suddenly got zapped by space aliens and nobody allowed to live their permanently then we would be better off. I have to hastily add I hope that doesn't happen of course, or if it does then attractive Brazilian ladies wearing thongs are spared.

 

[KimB]

I do wonder whether biodiveristy changes will overtake AGW as a major concern, it does actually worry me more.

Seems doubtful to me, particularly since AGW will having increasingly negative impacts on biodiversity in the coming decades. People should see these concerns as complimentary concerns, not one or the other.

I certainly think there are too many people on the planet and if everyone in South America and Africa suddenly got zapped by space aliens and nobody allowed to live their permanently then we would be better off. I have to hastily add I hope that doesn't happen of course, or if it does then attractive Brazilian ladies wearing thongs are spared.

That's really asinine.

 

[KimB]

It just seems strange that its all doom and gloom. For instance during the medieval warm period life and human civilization flourished in Europe. It just doesn't seem to fit that the world would be harmed that badly by a few degrees of heat.

Well, first of all, the medieval warm period appears to have been a particular, local phenomenon. There isn't any good evidence that the global average temperature was actually noticeably warmer than the centuries before/after, though admittedly temperature proxies that far back are somewhat difficult and have rather large errors.

That said, yes, there will be some positive benefits to global warming. But the areas where the positive benefits outweigh the negative aspects are a much smaller fraction of the globe than the areas where the negative aspects win out. One change that has already happened, for instance, is that more and more precipitation is falling in severe storms. This means that droughts are longer and typical rainstorms more severe than they were before. That's a bad situation basically no matter where you are, and is expected to be even more the case in the coming decades.

Another really nasty one is sea level rise. Current estimates are looking at over a meter of sea level rise by the end of the century, which will be especially nasty for poor island nations.

 

[dizietsma]

That's really asinine.

You only say that because you can't help speaking with a species centric viewpoint.

 

[dizietsma]

Seems doubtful to me, particularly since AGW will having increasingly negative impacts on biodiversity in the coming decades. People should see these concerns as complimentary concerns, not one or the other.
.

Why is it doubtful? Politicians will go from one thing to another to promote as the population worries about different things. If the population worries about biodiversity rather than CO2 then you can kiss goodbye to support for combatting AGW.

Increasing CO2 will have very little effect on biodiversity compared to the effect of man. Name me the species extinct in the last 100 years due to rising CO2 levels ?

 

[KimB]

You only say that because you can't help speaking with a species centric viewpoint.

Sorry, but arguing for the extermination of brown people is just disgusting.

Why is it doubtful? Politicians will go from one thing to another to promote as the population worries about different things. If the population worries about biodiversity rather than CO2 then you can kiss goodbye to support for combatting AGW.

Given that most of the actions to combat AGW would have similarly positive impacts on biodiversity, this is really a silly claim. Besides, my bet is that increased worry about AGW would come along with increased concern about environmental issues in general.

Increasing CO2 will have very little effect on biodiversity compared to the effect of man. Name me the species extinct in the last 100 years due to rising CO2 levels ?

Uh, you do realize that most of the effect of CO2 on biodiversity is yet to come, right? Noticeable changes on climate only began ~30 years ago. Humans have been changing local environments for far, far longer than that, so obviously we've caused many more extinctions. We've had more time to do it through more traditional means than through AGW.

 

[dizietsma]

Sorry, but arguing for the extermination of brown people is just disgusting.


Given that most of the actions to combat AGW would have similarly positive impacts on biodiversity, this is really a silly claim. Besides, my bet is that increased worry about AGW would come along with increased concern about environmental issues in general.


Uh, you do realize that most of the effect of CO2 on biodiversity is yet to come, right? Noticeable changes on climate only began ~30 years ago. Humans have been changing local environments for far, far longer than that, so obviously we've caused many more extinctions. We've had more time to do it through more traditional means than through AGW.

Brown people? I said South America and Africa, I just picked two continents with very large biodiversity. Read it more carefully so you don't get upset!

Is it a silly claim that people move on from worrying about one thing to another? No it's not. People don't worry about the ozone hole any more, or acid rain, or Russians. Politicians are jumping on the band wagon as they always do. It seems that concern about AGW is wavering in the general population is waning though to some extent, so lets see what happens.

I don't realize anything about things yet to come, you are making claims CO2 will affect biodiversity but you don't really have any thing solid to back it up, at least not compared to history. You can't name a species that has become extinct from AGW and you can't name any species in the future that will become extinct due to it, so I think there are some very big uncertainties to your claims.

 

[Gubbi]

People don't worry about the ozone hole any more, or acid rain, or

Political action was taken. CFCs were outfased, the ozone hole is recovering.

The same (in Europe at least) regarding acid rain. All coal-fired powerplants are fitted with sulphur-filters today.

I don't realize anything about things yet to come, you are making claims CO2 will affect biodiversity but you don't really have any thing solid to back it up, at least not compared to history.

We already have coral reefs dying in various places because of changes in sea temperature, - a result of AGW. Increased ocean acidity is not going to benefit crustaceans. If AGW continues, we're likely to see changing changing weather patterns. Imagine the Monsoon being absent 2-3 years in a row; destruction of entire foodchains.

... and you can't name any species in the future that will become extinct due to it, so I think there are some very big uncertainties to your claims.

Polar bears.

And not because we're invading their habitat.

Cheers

 

[KimB]

Brown people? I said South America and Africa, I just picked two continents with very large biodiversity. Read it more carefully so you don't get upset!

Here's the thing: due to the interrelatedness of the world economy, extermination of, say, all Americans and Europeans would also do tremendous things to help stop/slow reductions in biodiversity in those areas.

But the fact is this sort of argument is completely pointless, even if it were possible to do so, because people would simply repopulate those areas and you'd have the same problems all over again.

I don't realize anything about things yet to come, you are making claims CO2 will affect biodiversity but you don't really have any thing solid to back it up, at least not compared to history. You can't name a species that has become extinct from AGW and you can't name any species in the future that will become extinct due to it, so I think there are some very big uncertainties to your claims.

Coral. Look up the effect of ocean acidity on coral reefs. And remember that such reefs are some of the most biodiverse ecosystems on the planet.