Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[onedreamer]

I was simply noting how people take too seriously scientists, especially when it comes to prediction of future. I swear it is bordering faith when someone comes on a forum and posts: "See, scientists that promote the idea of global warming weren't wrong. In fact, their prediction was too mild and now they corrected it with an even worse picture". By all logics, and I thought Science was based on logic not on faith, by all logics this should mean that Scientists made mistakes in their predictions. In this case it is a mistake that supports the theory of global warming closely chasing us. But who claims this? The same scientists that made mistakes in their predictions. I perhaps should have been a bit more concise and I digressed too much: my point is that I cannot believe any reasonable and truly objective person could claim that a mistake in a theory proves that the general thought behind it is correct. Bear in mind that I am not a negationist of global warming, not at all, but I do find appalling how the majority of posters of this forum believes blindly in everything is said by this or that scientist or group of scientists, while at the same time criticizing people who believe in God.

The second part of my thought, and I add a paragraph for your reading pleasure, means in short that it will always be late to prevent a disaster. The collapse of Greece and Ireland could have been prevented. The problem with our species is that we do not have a common goal, we don't have a grand plan, we have millions small plans all going in their own direction and given this I wonder how can anyone dream we could stop a curve of exctintion and self distruction. Don't you think that it is hilarious how the "western world" struggles and twists and calls for unity of intents to save the planet, when it has shunned communism and favored individualism?

IMVHO, of completely uninformed and ignorant person, as Arwon has thoroughly documented, it is impossible given our current social structure to stop that curve, and all the discussions about the existance or non existance of global warming and its real causes are only a consequence and a proof of this. We want a change without changing anything. To truly save ourselves we would have to start to live in harmony with what surrounds us, harmony means give and take, not unilaterally take, and we all know how this is impossible to achieve now. All of us know well that our lifestyle is unsustainable, we can't always grow in numbers and in production, but at the same time we aren't willing to turn back or even to just change path; not as a species, I mean.

 

[choxorn]

Yeah, that's obvious. I wasn't trying to suggest that if one person says he didn't experience global warming then there is no global warming. This is the argument of someone who has no arguments to reply, if I wanted to support this silly thesis I could have simply said: I didn't experience any global warming, so I refuse the idea of global warming. Asking on an international forum what's everyone's experience seems to be quite different to me. I think intelligent people can discuss and be in disagreement without mocking each other, do you agree Arwon? I simply have a different approach than listen to what someone else I don't even know tells me and take it for granted. That's called faith in my book. And it has become impossible for me to believe to almost anything claimed by scientists or the science community since for any matter of real interest the scientific community itself is in deep disagreement, and with deep I mean "completely at the opposite". Now I could understand scientific debate, Scientist A "Because of global warming, avg temperature on Earth is going to increase of at least 1°C in the next 10 years", and Scientist B "Well I disagree because according to my maths it's more like 0,8°C". Silly and made up example but for ANY topic of interest nowadays, included of course global warming, there are completely opposite thesis backed up by this and that research and study of years. Now I wonder how it is possible, given the definition of science, to have such discordant results. The answer is under your eyes, at my provocation about the level of glaciers I received answers like "boo youuu" or "in my 30-50 years experience glaciers have lowered" (I of course take it for granted that El Machinae saw it with his own eyes). Too bad that this kind of changes of geological proportions must be considered within geological variables, where 30-50 years is a grain of sand. Geology shows us that the level of glaciers have always shifted throughout the history of Earth, even when human beings were not polluting or depriving Earth of its resources. Scientists that back up the "global warming caused by human beings" theory use our survey records that date at best 100 years, again a grain of sand, and make mathematical models based on them, the result is of course obvious. The problem here is that scientists are human beings, they have ideas, they have opinions, they have sub-consciousness, and when they make studies and research they CAN NOT be impartial, they are biased like any other human being. That's exactly the reason why all these studies and researches, on anything I repeat, not just global warming, show us completely different results.
The whole story about global warming is only the last chapter of the struggle of Humanity to predict and control everything that concerns it. I think that we could live a better life once we realize that we cannot do this, if anything because among we ourselves, we have different goals, even in regard of big issues like the future of our planet and species.

You know, if you don't space your words out a bit, it's going to look like a plain, boring wall of text and nobody will read it.

Alternatively, make shorter posts.

 

[BasketCase]

Answer: you can't. BasketCase see's himself as a 'master debater' (his words) and has taken the position of denying global warming.

No, I have not.

If any of you ever wondered why I'm being a jerk, that's why. BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE NOT LISTENING TO ME. A bunch of you need to read the whole thread all over again and figure out what my position on global warming actually is.

 

[choxorn]

It's hard to tell when you can't keep one position, and change between "It doesn't exist" to "It's natural" to "It's beneficial and we should welcome it."

 

[BasketCase]

See? You're not listening. Fine.

Global warming might not be happening. But I'm pretty sure it is. And it might in fact be entirely natural. I posted a bunch of stuff describing how these first two are POSSIBLE. You really need to get your brain wrapped around the P-word there, otherwise it should be no surprise my opinion isn't going to make sense to you. And here's the really important one: global warming will be a random hodgepodge of good and bad effects. That one's a definite.

But that's all stuff I already posted. How about next time, you either actually read the words I typed, or just don't reply to me. Frankly, the way global warming arguments go these days, I tend to prefer the second one.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Oh, fusion! But we don't have that yet. I assumed you were talking about fission, which is the technology we are using today.

Well I was talking about fission yes, but fusion should stay on the table since after all, it is the root of all life. A wonderful technology if we can master it.

Also, I regret to tell you you indeed misunderstand fusion technology. There is no radioactive material involved, AFAIK. Indeed, that is one of the plus points! Fusion is supposed to mimic the processes in the sun, involving, IIRC, helium. Or hydrogen? Or a combination...? Somebody help me on the details, here!

I suppose a misconception based on the fission and fusion titles... always assumed fission broke it up and fusion would put the materials back together...

But I suppose fusing anything works too!

 

[Arwon]

See? You're not listening. Fine.

Global warming might not be happening. But I'm pretty sure it is. And it might in fact be entirely natural. I posted a bunch of stuff describing how these first two are POSSIBLE. You really need to get your brain wrapped around the P-word there, otherwise it should be no surprise my opinion isn't going to make sense to you. And here's the really important one: global warming will be a random hodgepodge of good and bad effects. That one's a definite.

But that's all stuff I already posted. How about next time, you either actually read the words I typed, or just don't reply to me. Frankly, the way global warming arguments go these days, I tend to prefer the second one.

So you're claiming to be a concern troll?

 

[Defiant47]

"1001 misconceptions about Global Warming, you can repeat time and time again even after you've been shown wrong time and time again"
by Farty McSmellypants.

It's a best seller.

Why doesn't this book exist???

!!!

 

[BasketCase]

Because you didn't write it?

The part you left out is this: people have tried to prove me wrong. Many times. I've always pointed out where their attempts failed. Yet you and others simply claim (time and time again....) that I've been proven wrong when I haven't. Your claim that I've been proven wrong is either mistaken or a flat-out lie, I have no idea which and don't really care.

One of the ways in which people fail to prove me wrong is that they misunderstand what I'm actually saying, because they're not reading the words I write. Or maybe they ignore my words intentionally. That's a pretty common debate tactic. If you can't bust down a wall, go around it.

 

[choxorn]

We've attempted to prove you wrong. We fail because it's impossible to prove a sufficiently illogical argument wrong, only prove it's illogical.

 

[Bootstoots]

I suppose a misconception based on the fission and fusion titles... always assumed fission broke it up and fusion would put the materials back together...

But I suppose fusing anything works too!

You're right in that nuclear fusion does take lighter nuclei (e.g. deuterium and tritium) and fuses them into something heavier (like helium). The real trick is to get nuclear fusion to produce net energy that we can harvest. It takes insane pressures and temperatures (= high energy input) to get nuclear fusion in the first place, and we to this day haven't figured out how we would get net energy out of the process. It's been "decades away" since the 1950s and still seems that way - we still haven't gotten close to a solution. Hence, fossil fuels and nuclear fission are still the main mode of energy generation for both now and, probably, the near future.

edit: Oh yes, tritium is radioactive. As are the fast neutrons that get produced by nuclear fusion. But it doesn't produce a bunch of random radioisotopes the way that fission does. I don't think there's much in the way of radioactive waste to store.

 

[Tani Coyote]

That's right in that nuclear fusion does take lighter nuclei (e.g. deuterium and tritium) and fuses them into something heavier (like helium). The real trick is to get nuclear fusion to produce net energy that we can harvest. It takes insane pressures and temperatures (= high energy input) to get nuclear fusion in the first place, and we to this day haven't figured out how we would get net energy out of the process. It's been "decades away" since the 1950s and still seems that way - we still haven't gotten close to a solution. Hence, fossil fuels and nuclear fission are still the main mode of energy generation for both now and, probably, the near future.

Well considering it requires creating a miniature Sun, it's no wonder that nuclear fusion is hard to master. But, we HAVE produced reactors that can be self-sufficient, that is, power themselves, but nothing can be extracted from it. If we can break even, we're not too far away from being able to getting something out of it.

Of course, it's not worth investing (numbers used just for example) one million dollars to earn one dollar a year in profit, even if that's better than breaking even. Scale is important to make it worth the time, energy, and cost.

 

[masonryan]

yeah they lied about global warming.

 

[choxorn]

If we can break even, we're not too far away from being able to getting something out of it.

Doesn't that break one of the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Doesn't that break one of the laws of thermodynamics?

I dunno, but what I meant was that if we can create something self-sufficient, creating something that actually yields a net benefit shouldn't be too far away.

If gov't revenues and gov't expenses break even, they're not too far away from a surplus.

 

[Bootstoots]

See? You're not listening. Fine.

Global warming might not be happening. But I'm pretty sure it is. And it might in fact be entirely natural. I posted a bunch of stuff describing how these first two are POSSIBLE. You really need to get your brain wrapped around the P-word there, otherwise it should be no surprise my opinion isn't going to make sense to you. And here's the really important one: global warming will be a random hodgepodge of good and bad effects. That one's a definite.

But that's all stuff I already posted. How about next time, you either actually read the words I typed, or just don't reply to me. Frankly, the way global warming arguments go these days, I tend to prefer the second one.

I'll ask a specific question: do you think that the ~100 ppm increase in CO2 levels that we've observed since the Industrial Revolution is caused, either entirely or in large part, by human intervention? And if so, do you recognize that an increase in CO2 levels is likely to result in the warming of the atmosphere, both directly (because CO2 absorbs infrared radiation) and because temperature increases cause positive feedback that results in more greenhouse gases? (largely water vapor, because the evaporation rate increases, along with the release of some extra CO2 and CH4)

 

[choxorn]

If gov't revenues and gov't expenses break even, they're not too far away from a surplus.

Also impossible, as per the Third Law of Government Spending: "Expenses must always exceed Revenue."

 

[Bootstoots]

Well considering it requires creating a miniature Sun, it's no wonder that nuclear fusion is hard to master. But, we HAVE produced reactors that can be self-sufficient, that is, power themselves, but nothing can be extracted from it. If we can break even, we're not too far away from being able to getting something out of it.

Of course, it's not worth investing (numbers used just for example) one million dollars to earn one dollar a year in profit, even if that's better than breaking even. Scale is important to make it worth the time, energy, and cost.

Well, it is a worthy area of research - there's no reason to believe that it can't ever produce enough energy to be a good answer to the world's energy problems, and there are some promising experiments in the area. But it's proven to be an insanely hard problem, and it doesn't appear that fusion will be in any position to provide enough net energy to be useful for large-scale energy generation for at least the next few decades.

 

[Bootstoots]

Doesn't that break one of the laws of thermodynamics?

Not at all. The laws of thermodynamics don't forbid profitable nuclear fusion any more than they do profitable fission.

 

[BasketCase]

I'll ask a specific question: do you think that the ~100 ppm increase in CO2 levels that we've observed since the Industrial Revolution is caused, either entirely or in large part, by human intervention?

Possible but unknown. The problems with that claim fall into two major categories. First, the question of whether we're measuring correctly. CO2 is a gas. We can't measure it with great accuracy because it's a gas. Plus, too much of our measuring is being done around cities, which will naturally produce higher CO2 readings because there are cars nearby. Second, assuming we are measuring correctly, we have no way to be sure where that CO2 actually came from, largely because the people actually living in the early times of the Industrial Revolution didn't have the technology needed to find out. Undersea volcanic rifts spew CO2 into the water all the time, in unknown amounts, and God knows where the gas ends up.

And if so, do you recognize that an increase in CO2 levels is likely to result in the warming of the atmosphere, both directly (because CO2 absorbs infrared radiation) and because temperature increases cause positive feedback that results in more greenhouse gases? (largely water vapor, because the evaporation rate increases, along with the release of some extra CO2 and CH4)

No. For three reasons. First, there's the basic physical law of diminishing returns. Each successive unit of CO2 in any given space produces less warming than the previous unit. Second, a warmer body (such as a planet) radiates heat faster, thereby cooling down faster. Which is actually part of the reason diminishing returns works as it does, so maybe this second one is actually part of the first one. Whatever. And the third reason is that the aforementioned positive feedbacks are insignificant compared to the initial effect.