Global warming

[pjbliverpool]

As far as every other species are concerned, we are gods and can do whatever the hell we want.

Your attitude really is quite ammusing. Lets hope there's no such thing as aliens who think the same way eh? Although I'm sure you personally wouldn't blame them for whatever they do to us given their natural right to exploit us as technologically superior beings.

What are you're thoughts on the slave trade and the dislocation of native americans by the way?

Lol, I meant Liverpool, not UK.

Yes so my question still stands. What baring does that have on my personal opinion?

Petty theft is a sport there besides stadium disasters

Ah yes make fun of the tragic accidental deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians. And you claim my attitude does me no favours.

Besides which, of the two of us, I'm pretty sure I know Liverpool a bit better than you do. And even if what you said is true,which it isn't, it still has no baring on our discussion and was clearly raised merely as a cheap shot to insult me. Clever.

and by the way, we also own your football club.

Yup, thanks for screwing that up btw.

Just as a tip, I'm not a football fan and no longer live in Liverpool so if you want to anger me with personal jibes then you'll have to get a bit more creative.

My personal emissions are not that much to begin with, so I really don't see how it effects people in other places all by itself.

I'm sure they're far higher than the vast majority of the worlds population. And you're not advocating that you're resource use stays the same while everyone elses goes down. You're advocating that you're whole countrys resource use stays the same (or goes up as needed). And that does have a global effect.

Not that saying "I as an individual don't make much difference" is an excuse anyway since its a shared problem and thus a shared responsiblity. You specifically are only a small part of the problem so it's your responsibility to fix that small part. Not someone elses to shoulder both theirs and your contribution to it.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I have nothing to worry about AGW personally, and that's all that matters to me.

If you're driving at night and hit a child, but no-one see's, would you drive away without a care because since you won't be caught "you have nothing to worry about personally"?

Your attitude does seem to be that you'll do whatever the hell you want regardless of the pain and suffering that it will cause to others as long as there is no come back on you. I think they have a word for that.

 

[corduroygt]

If you're driving at night and hit a child, but no-one see's, would you drive away without a care because since you won't be caught "you have nothing to worry about personally"?

How do you equate direct physical harm with just living my normal life, I never understand. My personal emissions do not directly cause anyone any harm by themselves alone. I don't think emissions are a big deal and I'm not really changing my life around it too much. I do value using less energy since it means less expense to me, but I'm not going to give up my car or suburban setting, that's my limit. I'd get a PHEV when they were more affordable and mainstream and you should not expect anything more from US.

 

[rpg.314]

My argument is that they admit their models are shaky right there on the webpage,

You'd find doubts presented on their own research by every pretty much every author in pretty much every paper, even those sciences where you can have a control group. By your logic we should not believe any science that deals with more than thought experiments or pure math.

and even if they're right, effects of AGW in North America are not very significant. I have nothing to worry about AGW personally, and that's all that matters to me.

That's because you are an ignorant psychopath living in denial.

 

[Gerry]

Lol, I meant Liverpool, not UK. Petty theft is a sport there besides stadium disasters, and by the way, we also own your football club.

What stadium disaster has occurred in Liverpool then you despicable lowlife?

And we sent the previous American owners packing with a £140M loss and the tail between their legs.

 

[corduroygt]

What stadium disaster has occurred in Liverpool then you despicable lowlife?

It'd be stupid to collapse your own stadium, but you can ask the Belgians...

And we sent the previous American owners packing with a £140M loss and the tail between their legs.

LOL, that's not something to brag about, especially given how terrible LFC is doing ATM.

 

[corduroygt]

You'd find doubts presented on their own research by every pretty much every author in pretty much every paper, even those sciences where you can have a control group.

The amount of doubt and uncertainty varies by field. Climate science is pretty low in that list.

.

That's because you are an ignorant psychopath living in denial.

Ooh, psychopath, moron, despicable, etc... nice language you guys have, and then you ecofreaks have the audacity to call me aggressive.
You're closer to Stalin than I am to Hitler.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Ooh, psychopath, moron, despicable, etc... nice language you guys have, and then you ecofreaks have the audacity to call me aggressive.
You're closer to Stalin than I am to Hitler.

The Facts:

"The Hillsborough disaster was a human crush that occurred on 15 April 1989 at Hillsborough, a football stadium, the home of Sheffield Wednesday F.C. in Sheffield, England, resulting in the deaths of 96 people[1], and 766 being injured, all fans of Liverpool F.C. "

"The Heysel Stadium disaster occurred on 29 May 1985 when a masonry wall failed then collapsed under the pressure of escaping fans in the Heysel Stadium in Brussels, Belgium, as a result of rioting before the start of the 1985 European Cup Final between Liverpool of England and Juventus of Italy. 39 people died"

Your recent comment:

"Lol, I meant Liverpool, not UK. Petty theft is a sport there besides stadium disasters"

And you wonder why people use words like that to describe you?

 

[corduroygt]

Your recent comment:

"Lol, I meant Liverpool, not UK. Petty theft is a sport there besides stadium disasters"

And you wonder why people use words like that to describe you?

I guess you really didn't notice the smiley and the LOL in those posts. They were stated on a less serious and more playful manner than the rest of the stuff I post there. Nothing to get your panties up in a bunch about, that stuff's all in the past. Liverpool does have a reputation of hooliganism and disregard for other people's property rights though, you just don't appreciate how I worded it.

 

[Frank]

Obviously the data shows AGW is happening, they're going to believe that. The best models also show that it's going to continue. However with a small tweak, the same models can also show much different results. I'm questioning the ability of the current models to predict the future.

Agreed. Especially if you take all the "improving" of the measurements into account.

 

[Frank]

Err the fact that they enabled a massive increase in resource use and population expansion which resulted from the free/cheap energy means that I don't think it was the best thing for the other creatures on the planet. Trust me, you can chop down a hell of a lot more trees with a bulldozer and a chainsaw in a place far away where you can get to with a car.

But im not here to argue about that, moving on...

I agree, but then again (as you agree as well), an abundant increase in available energy has always been a great enabler. It's a two-sided edge.

How about reasons to do stuff which aren't related to AGW.

1. Conserving fuel supply and transitioning to new sources of energy. Fossil fuels will run out regardless of whether its 20 years or 50 years from now. Starting the transition now will keep fuel costs lower given the inelastic nature of energy demand.

2. Saving money with energy efficiency, fewer inputs = same or more outputs. How can this be considered bad? It's free economic growth.

3. Many of the marine organisms at the bottom of the food chain are sensitive to PH levels. If the CO2 levels continue to rise then it may damage the overall ability of the ocean to support the level of fish biomass we remove on a regular basis.

4. Many of the investments in renewable technology look practically free when seen over a 50 or 100 year time scale. In my country the hydro dams costs a mere few cents per KW/H and have been producing electricity for over half a century. Once you've paid for the pylons, all you need to do is stick new ones on after 20 years in the case of wind power and you've instantly gained improved power output and the cost per KW/H would be sickeningly low because all you're paying for is new blades and turbines less the money returned for the old equipment. Solar is a similar deal as well.

5. Nuclear, cool technology. Will look even better with a rational approach to the construction of these plants.

6. More free energy = more cool exotic materials. Most of the really really cool materials you hear about for strength to weight ratios especially never leave the lab because they take so much energy to produce as compared to current materials.

Absolutely, and I totally agree. Much more should be done with those things.

But that goes back to the "don't care" argument: as long as it's still cheaper to simply pump up oil and burn that, not much happens in that respect.

AGW being used to support all that is the best argument in it's favour. But it's still "telling sweet lies, because they don't know any better". And I don't like that.

Too much politics, too little education all around.

 

[KimB]

Obviously the data shows AGW is happening, they're going to believe that. The best models also show that it's going to continue. However with a small tweak, the same models can also show much different results. I'm questioning the ability of the current models to predict the future.

Say what? You just pulled that out of your ass. Go ahead, try to demonstrate that "small tweaks" can make global warming go away.

 

[Squilliam]

Chalnoth is Captain Planet!

 

[corduroygt]

Say what? You just pulled that out of your ass. Go ahead, try to demonstrate that "small tweaks" can make global warming go away.

I pulled it from NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

Clouds have an enormous impact on Earth's climate, reflecting back into space about one third of the total amount of sunlight that hits the Earth's atmosphere. As the atmosphere warms, cloud patterns may change, altering the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth. Because clouds are such powerful climate actors, even small changes in average cloud amounts, locations, and type could speed warming, slow it, or even reverse it. Current climate models do not represent cloud physics well, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently rated clouds among its highest research priorities. NASA and its research partners in industry, academia, and other nations have a small flotilla of spacecraft and aircraft studying clouds and the closely related phenomenon of aerosols.

 

[KimB]

I pulled it from NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/

And what makes you think that this is in any way likely to occur? Look, the fact of the matter is that cloud cover hasn't slowed global warming yet. To assume that it might in the future is to be in complete contradiction of all evidence.

 

[corduroygt]

And what makes you think that this is in any way likely to occur? Look, the fact of the matter is that cloud cover hasn't slowed global warming yet. To assume that it might in the future is to be in complete contradiction of all evidence.

What makes you think that it won't occur? What makes you so sure? It's not science for sure, it's more of a belief system, the need to believe in something in the absence of a God to help you not feel empty. Just like those people in the Climategate scandal, if you pray for your results to turn out one way or the other, or even more, fudge the data to make it so, it's called "climate science," or "fraud" for short.

The models are inaccurate and we only have cloud cover data for a very short time. Need I remind you, the global warming models have all been revised down over time. In 2000, we were going to get twice as much heating up as what they're saying today. I never saw any AGW "scientist" underestimate the effect of warming, ever.

For the record, I am not saying AGW will stop or continue, as I can simply accept that we don't know enough It's obviously been happening for a while, but the models are completely unreliable when you want to know about the next century. I don't trust climate scientists and their models based on what I saw and how they quickly revise their predictions yearly. There is no saying if it will continue or at what rate it will continue.

 

[AlphaWolf]

What makes you think that it won't occur? The models are inaccurate and we only have cloud cover data for a very short time. Need I remind you, the global warming models have all been revised down over time. In 2000, we were going to get twice as much heating up as what they're saying today. I never saw any AGW "scientist" underestimate the effect of warming, ever.

Probably because you ignore all data that doesn't support your preconceptions.

I am not saying it will not occur or not, It's obviously been happening for a while, but the models are completely unreliable when you want to know about the next century. It's not any more reliable than going to Vegas. I don't trust climate scientists and their models based on what I saw and how they quickly revise their predictions yearly.

I'm not sure you want to use vegas as your example as those games are all known statistical data. The house has the edge.

 

[corduroygt]

Probably because you ignore all data that doesn't support your preconceptions.

Where is this data, I doubt you know it either. Besides there is nothing you or anyone else here can do to make me reduce my emissions any more, I go by the market forces and we're not getting any crap and trade in this country anytime soon.

 

[Frank]

Probably because you ignore all data that doesn't support your preconceptions.

It doesn't support my preconceptions either, or the research I put into it. I call it a fraud as well.

Not outright, but I haven't seen or read anything so far that is above the uncertainty level of the models proposed, or has any projected value.

And why are preconceptions bad on forehand? They have to be debunked first, because they might turn out to have been spot-on. That's how models evolve into Theories.

 

[Squilliam]

Global warming is a fake invented by oil companies in order to jack the price of crude.

edit: