|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 6, 2009 22:29:46 GMT -8
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 7, 2009 8:38:16 GMT -8
- Has global warming really been established?
- What are the parameters of "normal" and why?
- Do we know this is unique in history or is it cyclical?
Finally,
- If "green" is the goal, why is it always sooooo much more expensive?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Dec 7, 2009 8:45:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 7, 2009 11:29:09 GMT -8
I suppose I should have put a "I don't believe the planet is warming" option but the "wha?" can work for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 7, 2009 18:14:06 GMT -8
My understanding is that although certain areas are getting hotter and certain areas colder, the general average temperature is increasing.
Are you saying that even this is debated?
Don't you think the melting of polar ice caps at the very least, and regardless of cause, is going to produce some challenges that we need to be prepared to face?
|
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Dec 7, 2009 21:58:33 GMT -8
I went to a debate on global warming here in Vancouver and I wondered about the polar ice caps. The scientist against the global warming theory stated the the ice polar caps are a cyclical sequence. Some places are warming and some are getting colder. There was a journalist who challenged Al Gore recently on the polar bear extinction. It seems the polar bears are populating instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Dec 8, 2009 3:07:12 GMT -8
The funny thing is, that where I live there is no debate at all. I used to be very skeptical towards global warming a couple of years ago, because I distrust ideology groups like Greenpeace (for very good reasons, I believe). Back then, there was a debate. But all of a sudden this changed. Today, politicians from the far left to the far right agree that global warming is happening and that it is manmade. The same goes for the media. You pretty much don't get to hear anything else. The most reputable newsbroadcast show animated little videos explaining what is going on and how. That's why I like to read foreign news and see how an issue is portrayed elsewhere in the world. And the American perspective on things is often remarkably different. It seems to me, the USA have a far more developed pressure group system, which makes sure that particular interests are being heard and opposite interests under fire. I already noticed that a couple of times in very different realms. Creationists, homosexuals, anti-global-warmers, etc. - they are much better organized and way more media savvy in the US than in Europe and as a consequence, you get debates on things that seem to be set in stone here. I'm rambling again. As for global warming, the thing looks quite obvious to me. The greenhouse effect is remarkably easy and testable. Carbon dioxide is a gas and as every gas it shares out equably over time. This process is called diffusion, if my school chemistry knowledge doesn’t desert me. Carbon dioxide has the effect of saving heat. Sunbeams, which are light waves, extend once they hit the surface of the planet. Normally those longer light waves would reflect back to space, but CO2 holds them within and reflects them back to the surface. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more sun energy will remain on the planet. I think, unless I made a mistake, this is testable fact. Now, I keep hearing that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is measurable. And due to diffusion it can be traced back in history – through the ice of the poles and glaciers all over the world. I keep hearing, that since 1840 (the Industrial Revolution) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of the planet has gone up 40%. I also keep hearing that before 1840, the amount of CO2 has been inconstant, but on the whole on a constantly significantly lower level. I think this is strong evidence for the influence of humans. And it is only logical: The number of humans is exploding and with it the number of consumption. The fact that we produce CO2 is indisputable. With more humans, more consumption, more industry and fewer forests (trees bind carbon) it is only logical, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. I don’t know what there is to argue. I also keep hearing educated estimations of how many tons of CO2 we produce every year. Again, I can only wonder what the American debate is all about. Even if the temperatures haven’t gone up in the last ten years, the on the whole trend since temperatures have been measured has gone up. Ten years is geologically speaking a peanut amount of time. The explanations for a temporary stop of increasing temperatures go from sun activity unsteadiness to sea current influence. As most things, the climate depends on several factors which interdepend. Global warming can lead to ice ages, ironic as it may seem. Someone said above, that the sun activity is the major factor. Of course that’s true. If no sunbeams hit the earth, than all the CO2 in the atmosphere has no sunbeams to reflect and hence no effect. It’s as simple as that. But should the sun activity be higher than usual one day (and it will, because the pendulum doesn’t only swing within the scale of “usual” and “unusually low”), we have a problem. From all the information I get, I have no doubts anymore that global warming is happening. The question is only, whether or not our share is significant. If the figures I quoted are correct, then I think we have reasons to believe that. But even if global warming is entirely a natural process, the only reasonable reaction of mankind can be to countersteer. That’s why I think the question of who’s responsible is only distracting from the much more important question of what we can do. Okay, this has already been long, but I still have some thoughts on the current events. There has been a massive hacker attack revealing the improper behaviour of scientists. I find some of the revelations scandalous. Especially those, that show that scientists have been throwing their weight around in order to silence and discredit enemies. Peer reviewed articles in renown science mags are crucial for the credibility of scientists. Where such publications are being inhibited, we have an authentic scandal. Everybody must be alarmed. On the other hand it would be naive to pretend as if such misbehaviour was confined to global warming. It happens all the time in all branches of science. We also have to keep in mind that this hack-attack doesn’t come at this point by coincidence. One week or so before the world climate conference in Copenhagen… come on. I think it is safe to assume that the hack-attack has been established by the opposition of global warming and if that is the case, their findings are remarkably untelling. Should all the hard facts about global warming be thrown to the dustbin because some scientists are slaggers? That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Here in Germany, the scandal only produced small waves. Media, politics and science on the contrary responded with a tsunami of reminders, that the revealed e-mails don’t change any fact. This very unusual consensus of the political parties here (which usually never fail to argue about everything) combined with the media consensus and the scientific consensus kills my doubts. But why is it so different in the USA? I already mentioned my observation about well organized and media savvy pressure groups. Let’s not forget that the energy market is big business and there are many people with a lot to gain or to lose. The oil industry, the atomic industry, the renewable energy industry, the carbon industry, the list goes on. Pressure groups, as well as politically ideological groups, are organizations I distrust very much. Because they put their interests above everything else and they don’t shrink from twisting and turning the facts to make them fit. They effectively create a state of confusion in which nobody knows who to trust and what to believe anymore. A couple of weeks ago, our conservative chancellor Angela Merkel spoke in front of both US houses. It didn’t escape my attention, that when she spoke about the challenge of global warming and the necessity of countersteering, she received standing ovations from the Democrats while the Republicans remained seated. There you have it. Global warming is a politicum in the United States. Nothing more and nothing less. Political interests and allegiances, as always. It comes as no surprise, because it so happens that the United States outnumber any other nation in terms of per capita CO2 pollution. “Climate sinner USA”. That also means, that the United States would be hit harder by measurements against global warming. The United States have more to lose and that’s why within the United States there is a debate, that can hardly be found anywhere else. Same old story. Okay, this has been way too long again, but it was good for me to write down those thoughts that have been running through my head lately. Josh, I assume that you will be the only one to read this. I count on that  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 8, 2009 10:07:14 GMT -8
I read it, and I think you put forth a good argument. (I don't know why you would assume only Josh reads your posts ). Of course, I'm no expert in this field so I cannot make any other judgment than what I hear from reputable sources. And it seems to me that reputable sources still disagree on the issue (your conspiracy argument notwithstanding). But I will say your argument is sound and believable from someone like me that doesn't know much about it. However, the thing that still makes me scratch my head in wonder about the whole thing is how special interest groups could get reputable scientists (or are they) in their back pocket to create a debate. I could see the media thing being possible. But, if there weren't any credible scientists producing contrary data, how would there even be a debate? Also, I haven't heard any figures about acceptable CO2 thresholds, only trends (which can be deceiving since it's only one part of the bigger picture). I'm still uncertain how many plants and trees are needed in the world to manage CO2 levels and what those levels need to be. Any reasonable person would of course agree with a course correction if it can be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt. But as you point out, there is a lot at stake here and it can't be approached recklessly if it's only based on inconclusive evidence and assumptions. That all needs to be fleshed out as far as I can tell. Again, I'm no expert, just one of the confused  . |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 8, 2009 10:07:57 GMT -8
BTW, there's still 0 votes for human causes. What did you vote Moritz?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Dec 8, 2009 11:36:12 GMT -8
BTW, there's still 0 votes for human causes. What did you vote Moritz? I voted for "equal combination" because I think that both humans as well as nature play their parts. Who's more responsible ultimately doesn't matter to me. Only whether or not we can do something about it. |
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Dec 8, 2009 21:12:59 GMT -8
Step One: Identify where we are on this timeline. Step Two: Any questions? Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 8, 2009 21:29:53 GMT -8
Well, we aren't on the timeline because it only goes to 1950, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Dec 8, 2009 22:15:35 GMT -8
Technicality.  The temps since then went slow, then fast up to where they were in 1999 (or 1998?) where they peaked at something like .5 degrees C above the highest temp on that chart. Temps since 1998 have been flat, and in the past two years, have gone down. Also, the CO2 since 1950 has continued to skyrocket -- the two lines, which for 400,000 years had paralleled each other -- have split, therefore seeming to suggest that there may not be a correlation. The point of the graph is to say that at least four times before this present time, we have seen periods of global warming. In fact, the pattern existed before the first SUV was ever produced, and most likely before Al Gore was born (though that is up for debate). The pattern also shows that the warming (even without SUV's) happened relatively quickly, and the cooling started slowly, then dropped, then went slow again. I think it is interesting to watch a channel like the National Geo Channel, and in the course of two hours you can watch a show that talks about the dinosaurs living in a hot, steamy world where the temperatures were higher than any in our recorded history, and that these temps contributed to the ability for abundant life and giant sizes to exist. Then the next show is an hour long rant about the melting glaciers and the dying polar bears and how it is all our fault. The apparent dual identity that exists in the various fields of the paleo sciences is largely ignored for the sake of politics. When science fails, or cannot produce proof, but the politicians keep talking -- follow the money. Al Gore is a very, very wealthy man, and it's not because of his speaking engagements. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 8, 2009 22:15:49 GMT -8
Ok, I'm really going unveil my scientific density here...  ...but how on earth do you tell the past temperature of the earth from ice cores? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Dec 9, 2009 2:51:45 GMT -8
(I don't know why you would assume only Josh reads your posts ). I for one am annoyed by long posts and have a hard time reading them. That's the irony, as I'm perhaps the producer of the longest posts here. I'm glad you worked your way through though  And it seems to me that reputable sources still disagree on the issue. That is the weird thing I was getting at. The reputable sources here in Germany - scientists, media, politicians - aren't disagreeing. Although lately they've noticed the foreign debate, they are still pulling in the same direction. I honestly don't know how reputable the opposite side really is. I guess "reputable" is subjective in the end. But to make you understand my situation better: imagine Bush Jr., Cheney, McCain, Palin, Obama, Clinton, Gore, The New York Times and Fox News etc. sitting on the same table and telling you in absolute extraordinary agreement the same story... However, the thing that still makes me scratch my head in wonder about the whole thing is how special interest groups could get reputable scientists (or are they) in their back pocket to create a debate. I could see the media thing being possible. But, if there weren't any credible scientists producing contrary data, how would there even be a debate? Over here, there is no debate. But generally speaking: When facing science one always has to be careful. I think I already said the following thing to you in a thread about Evolution: Everybody has to be skeptic when facing science, as scientific studies are often funded by people or organizations with interests and statistics can be manipulated (in terms of emphasizing certain data and bypassing contrary data, etc.). However, the scientific community has an auto-supervision system called peer review. Now, it rarely happens that there is complete mutual agreement among scientists. So they create a debate. They present their theories and data to the scientific community where they are evaluated by the others. And usually this leads to a "prevailing doctrine" (herrschende Lehre in German, don't know if I translated that correctly). In the case of global warming, the vast majority of scientists supports the conclusion of manmade climate change. We are speaking of figures over 90%. For sure, we are both layman and all science is fallible, so it's absolutely okay for you to remain undecided. But as long as the proportions are the way they are, I tend to believe the "prevailing doctrine". But I'll keep an eye on the thing and follow the evidence where it may lead. Any reasonable person would of course agree with a course correction if it can be demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt. But as you point out, there is a lot at stake here and it can't be approached recklessly if it's only based on inconclusive evidence and assumptions. Perhaps the evidence is not as inconclusive as you say. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much agreement among the notoriously wrangling European politicians. I can absolutely understand that you see it differently, given that your notoriously wrangling politicians are wrangling "come d'habitude". As I said, I didn't believe in global warming five years ago, when there still was a debate going on. For your (and everybody's) information: here's a useful and well-arranged lineup of the main arguments of the skeptics and their counterparts by, I believe, a reputable source : news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Dec 15, 2009 20:09:54 GMT -8
here is a great article by one of my mentors and his brother www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978 It deals with the concept of "Balance is Bias" in other words the extreme minority of Scientists who disagree with Climate Change are given proportionally more time than Scientists who follow the mainstream of science in favor of Climate change. |
|
.
