Global Warming Debate

[PBzeer]

Okay, let me see if I have this right. It isn't global warming that is the problem, but the POSSIBLE effects of gw on mankind that is the problem. We ascertain what these POSSIBLE effects are by reading the report of the same organization that recently admited to getting the AIDS thing wrong. A report, not written by the scientists whose findings are used, but by a committee of bureaucrats. We are to assume that this report, written by a political organization, has no political purposes, merely a concern for mankind (somewhat similar I would imagine to their concern over the genocide in Darfur).

[StuMyers]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Okay, let me see if I have this right. It isn't global warming that is the problem, but the POSSIBLE effects of gw on mankind that is the problem. We ascertain what these POSSIBLE effects are by reading the report of the same organization that recently admited to getting the AIDS thing wrong. A report, not written by the scientists whose findings are used, but by a committee of bureaucrats. We are to assume that this report, written by a political organization, has no political purposes, merely a concern for mankind (somewhat similar I would imagine to their concern over the genocide in Darfur).

Instead of "possible" effects, "highly probable" effects. Also, you're black-boxing the climate science community, black-boxing the UN, and conflating the two unknowns (to you) in your mind.

There is (much) more to AGW theory (again, "theory" used in the scientific sense) than the IPCC report. Most climate scientists agree that IPCC is too conservative in it's conclusions and weighting (though agree with the raw data).

AGW has widespread scientific support. You are being duped by ExxonMobil (and others) into thinking there is a scientific dispute of the basic science. There isn't. As proof, find me a recently published university meta-study skeptical of AGW theory. You won't.

It's the same blatant wedge strategy used by the tobacco companies. It depends on the public not being able to discern between a scientific argument, and an argument which merely sounds scientific.

[PBzeer]

Originally Posted by Stu

It's the same blatant wedge strategy used by the tobacco companies. It depends on the public not being able to discern between a scientific argument, and an argument which merely sounds scientific.

Would that be the scientific arguements found in the, to be kind, slightly exaggerated film An Inconvienent Truth? But, I digress. I'm still trying to learn what is acceptable warming of the planet.

Mankind is part of the enviorment, and like all other parts of the enviorment, his actions have effects on the enviorment. Now, if gw comes to it's most dire pass, we will see massive flooding of coastal areas, as I understand it. My question then is, since this has been the case in earlier times, what would we do if this "crisis" was NOT the result of mankinds effect on the enviorment?

In other words, the planet has warmed and cooled before, as it will continue to do. At what point do we interfere with this process to avoid the inevitable results?

As an aside, I didn't know a scientific truth could be arrived at by who opposes it.

[PBzeer]

One other small question. Will the climate models they use, accurately predict known conditions?

[retclt]

Originally Posted by StuMyers

Part of the discussion IS about carbon sequestering (OK, but not cost-effective compared to fission). Nobody is talking about "banning" anything. That's a strawman, popular with the tin-foil hat crowd (you know... UN, black helicopters, and so on) .

Of course there's no need to ban. They know they can tax me out of my bad behavior.

[Rockter]

Stu...

If you efforts to enlighten on the global warming debate typified by this...

Quote...

The AGW denier claim re:climate, is that climate is chaotic and inherently unpredictable. My claim, is THAT claim is confusing 'weather' and 'climate'. Climate is not chaotic, and IS much more easily predictable than weather. The fact that a time-averaged chaotic system is a non-chaotic system (on a similar time scale) is not something I'm able to explain on this forum. Any advanced PDE book will detail for you. On a simpler level, a sophmore thermo text will explain how when you add (via global radiative forcing in this case) energy to a system, the temperature of that system will rise. It really IS that simple. Add energy, temp goes up. I'm saying nothing about predicting LOCAL climate shifts. I don't know how hard that is.

And it WAS predicted 'long ago'. Like I wrote earlier, Carl Sagan, at least as far back as Cosmos, talks about it.

...unquote.

You are waffling there man. So the seemingly chaotic "weather", time averaged, becomes your definitioin of "climate". So you mean that temperatures are going up!!!!! That is not often disputed. The Carl Sagan explanation, is manifest every time you go out into your greenhouse!!!! So one again, you have concluded that the cause of global warming is human CO2 emmissions, supposedly proven each time you go into a greenhouse.

Stu, this is DOGMA. This is proof of NOTHING!!!! This is you saying that there is an amplified greenhouse effect, and if it is amplifying, man made it. Proof????... because there is a greenhouse effect (undisputed). Go to Venus... it's there too.

Then you wonder why there are sceptics.

Rockter.

[majorm]

I don't know why I keep reading and posting on this thread, but I can't help myself. There seem to be questions that should be "answerable", but then it doesn't seem like people want the answer or the source. Anyway, here goes:

The difference between predicting weather and climate:
"...it is the statistics of changes in weather over time that identify climate change. The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about
75.

Models have shown be to be accurate in predicting global average temperature over time based on principles of physics.

[StuMyers]

I can't even figure out exactly what the deniers are objecting to.

Are they trying to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? That its concentration is unknown? That our contribution to the concentration is unknown? That the magnitude of forcing due to a change in concentration is unknown? That the magnitude of forcing due to other sources is somehow higher?

All these questions have clear explicit answers and quantified error. The link I provided answers them. I don't really know what else I can do.

Quick question though (something just occurred to me) ... how old do you guys think the Earth is? This might be a bit of a time-saver for me. If you answer 6000 years (or similar) please ignore what I write. It doesn't apply to you.

[retclt]

Hey Stu,

I don't argue most of the science of it. I argue the politics of it. My simple mind hears "Bob - you're evil and destroying the planet. I'm going to force you into submission", and then I think - what a load of crap!

On the last paragraph . . . there should be a bar fight thread to go to. Did you get beat up after school a lot when you were a kid?

[majorm]

retclt- I am just curious. Since you agree with the science of global warming, what, if anything, do you think our government should do about it? Do you think there are things our government should do when there are problems in the world, i.e. Iraq?