Global warming and environmental catastrophe: science or myth?

[farting bob]

The rise in worldwide average temperatures is too sudden for me to be a co-incidence. There is no evidence that such a rapid warming has taken place ever before. Temperatures arent particularly high (they were higher around 500 years ago.), but they have risen by what many scientists consider to be very quick.
Saying that global warming is not true is like burying your head in the sand. Theres no absolute proof, but theres enough to show that its very bad for the ozone and thus earth in general.

 

[Mountain-God]

Why is the theory Aleph-Null posted so hard to believe? We've already got something to show how strongly the sun influences the Earth.

The seasons.

Tilt part of the planet up to a higher angle, and that part of the planet cools off within a matter of weeks. For all this talk about greenhouse gases warming the planet by one degree over the last century, simply turning down the light a little produces much larger changes in temperature, much faster. Pump a lot more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it seems plausible to me that we might see the results in weeks, instead of years.

The only problem I see with that possibility right now is that it doesn't produce the results the global warming people want to reach.....

Why?

Because the research project was necessarily restricted - it is certainly thought provoking, but is, too, an issue that has widely been figured in to research and testing into the issue of global warming.

Ultimately, do you think yourself more able to judge the situation than tens of thousands of scientists with access to sources and equipment that you'd no hope of touching?

It would not be the first time a majority was wrong - but, at the least, it suggests a significant likelihood.

 

[BasketCase]

Ultimately, do you think yourself more able to judge the situation than tens of thousands of scientists with access to sources and equipment that you'd no hope of touching?

FearlessLeader2's post with the graph on solar input showed how easy it is for scientists to screw up--either accidentally or not.....

Science has been a hobby of mine all my life, and the foremost thing I've learned about it is the various ways in which human biases mess it up. Peer pressure is one of the foremost influences; if a given opinion is unpopular, scientists very frequently keep quiet about it.

 

[Mountain-God]

FearlessLeader2's post with the graph on solar input showed how easy it is for scientists to screw up--either accidentally or not.....

Science has been a hobby of mine all my life, and the foremost thing I've learned about it is the various ways in which human biases mess it up. Peer pressure is one of the foremost influences; if a given opinion is unpopular, scientists very frequently keep quiet about it.

So, you suggest that scientists are fallible, but you, whose only claim to 'expertise' is that science is a hobby of yours - does this not strike you as not only hypocritical, but, even, arrogant?

 

[Pikachu]

FearlessLeader2's post with the graph on solar input showed how easy it is for scientists to screw up--either accidentally or not.....

It also shows how easy it is for other scientists to expose those who screw up.

Peer pressure is one of the foremost influences; if a given opinion is unpopular, scientists very frequently keep quiet about it.

If it is only an opinion, yes, but if they have any proof to support it they never keep quiet. Scientists love to question accepted theories.

If someone could come up with proof that GHG may not be a significant contribution to the current global warming, they would quickly become very famous and highly respected in the scientific community. Like the paper with FL2’s graph. It attracted a lot of attention, and the authors became very famous for a while. Unfortunately for them their proof where later shown to be manipulated, but until that was exposed, they were scientific heroes. Even today many hobby scientists worship them and frequently refer to their old paper.

 

[tR1cKy]

Why is the theory Aleph-Null posted so hard to believe?

Because, as i said in the very same post in which i expressed skepticism about Aleph-Null's results:

There is plenty of data, research and scientific consensus over the fact that human activity is indeed the key factor.

Did you miss it?

If we consider the guy's results correct, then we have that all that mass of data and research are wrong, and the most part of the scientific community is wrong. Possible, but quite improbable.

We've already got something to show how strongly the sun influences the Earth.

The seasons.

Tilt part of the planet up to a higher angle, and that part of the planet cools off within a matter of weeks.

And so? How does it relates to global warming? If global warming is due to the Sun pumping more heat, we should have evidence from the astrophysics community of that. Where are the data?

For all this talk about greenhouse gases warming the planet by one degree over the last century, simply turning down the light a little produces much larger changes in temperature, much faster. Pump a lot more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, it seems plausible to me that we might see the results in weeks, instead of years.

BasketCase, there are many cases of things that seems obvious, plausible or what else by laymen, but are proven wrong by science. Many things are counterintuitive but proven to be right anyway. You don't take into account how much air is in the planet, and the amount of greenhouse gases that are released in the atmosphere day by day. The whole Earth atmosphere is not a thing that can be filled with crap in a day, or a week, or a month. See how much pollution we tossed in the atmosphere in the last 250 years. Shouldn't we be already dead? Instead, the composition of the atmosphere hasn't changed much, and we're still alive and breathing oxygen.

The only problem I see with that possibility right now is that it doesn't produce the results the global warming people want to reach.....

This is propaganda. Read post #1 please.

 

[BasketCase]

So, you suggest that scientists are fallible, but you, whose only claim to 'expertise' is that science is a hobby of yours - does this not strike you as not only hypocritical, but, even, arrogant?

All right. Gloves off.

I'm as entitled to my opinion as everybody else. I've stated more than once that I do consider global warming to be a possibility. After that point, I have every right to state why I have reservations about any given theory. I'm not the only one in this thread who has, either.

Science has, in fact, been proven to be wrong much of the time over the course of history. From ancient times to the present--from the "infinitely divisible nature of matter" theory, through alchemy, spontaneous generation, relativity, black holes, to the present day--cherished theories have been proved wrong again and again, pretty much at complete random.

Evolution is good science in spite of the politics on both sides. There's a good explanation for it, which is testable, and which has no competition that meets those criteria; all the other theories ever try to do is shoot evolution down, and the only alternate explanation is "God did it".

There are theories that compete against global warming; I've read several of them, and posted links to some of them in other global warming threads. While the majority of scientists do seem to agree, there is not a 100% consensus, and anybody in CFC who says there is, is either misinformed or lying.

Edit: The intel people in Washington, D.C. are trained experts at intelligence gathering. The minute ONE guy in the CIA, or the armed forces or wherever else, says we screwed up the intel on Iraq--why do so many people dump the MAJORITY and believe this one guy? Policemen and lawyers know a lot more about law enforcement than the rest of us--do we civvies shut up and let the police do their jobs? Do we simply accept the verdicts lawyers produce? No on both counts. We're always telling cops and lawyers what to do (me included).

So, clearly, neither majority opinion nor expertise on a subject are sufficient criteria for us to zip our lips and let the vast numbers of experts do their thing--our own behavior proves otherwise. It must be something else. What? What are the REAL criteria by which we judge a theory?

No, I'm not an expert global warming scientist. Nevertheless--for the same reasons that you CFC'ers disagree with the MAJORITY of EXPERT secret agents, or policemen, or lawyers, or whomever else--I am as entitled to voice my opinion as you are. The only crime I'm committing is holding global warming science to the same suspicious and generally cynical standards to which I hold everybody else.

 

[carlosMM]

All right. Gloves off.

I'm as entitled to my opinion as everybody else. I've stated more than once that I do consider global warming to be a possibility. After that point, I have every right to state why I have reservations about any given theory. I'm not the only one in this thread who has, either.

and everyone here has the right to point out to you that you are arrogant, if they think so.

Your childish anger at that only shows that you are not capable of proper debate.

Science has, in fact, been proven to be wrong much of the time over the course of history. From ancient times to the present--from the "infinitely divisible nature of matter" theory, through alchemy, spontaneous generation, relativity, black holes, to the present day--cherished theories have been proved wrong again and again, pretty much at complete random.

So show me a theory for which there was a plethora of evidence from a multitude of disciplines, one where prediction and testing where played out a gazillion times over many decades - and that THEN was wrong. Just one!

Sorry, but those you name that were wrong where all placed on little evidence or based on philosophical musings and not tested (or not testable a tthat time) od early on KNOWN to be wrong. Using these to bash a solid, often tested and multidisciplinary theory (you are here doubting basic chemistry, e.g.) id just plain - ARROGANT in MY opinion, to which I am, as you just pointed out, entriely entitled.

Evolution is good science in spite of the politics on both sides. There's a good explanation for it, which is testable, and which has no competition that meets those criteria; all the other theories ever try to do is shoot evolution down, and the only alternate explanation is "God did it".

Good to see that you at least see that.

There are theories that compete against global warming; I've read several of them, and posted links to some of them in other global warming threads.

ah, yes, I remember - links to interest groups, mostly. Or debunked articles. What great theories!

While the majority of scientists do seem to agree, there is not a 100% consensus, and anybody in CFC who says there is, is either misinformed or lying.

In peer-reviewed, non-interest science?

Oh yes there is a consensus - man heats up our climate a lot, and whatever comes from itis NOT enjoyable. That's the consensus.

Now details (more heating from feedback, or less, or a turnaround?) are debated, but YOU deny the consensus without bringing anything than conservative interest group 'research' and second-hand statistics.

So, clearly, neither majority opinion nor expertise on a subject are sufficient criteria for us to zip our lips and let the vast numbers of experts do their thing--our own behavior proves otherwise.

says the guy who just tried to use a claim of a majority opinion in this very thread as sufficient

No, I'm not an expert global warming scientist. Nevertheless--for the same reasons that you CFC'ers disagree with the MAJORITY of EXPERT secret agents, or policemen, or lawyers, or whomever else--I am as entitled to voice my opinion as you are. The only crime I'm committing is holding global warming science to the same suspicious and generally cynical standards to which I hold everybody else.

erhm, you again mix free science with interest groups or possible law-breakers - who have a vested interest in their version.

 

[Pikachu]

There are theories that compete against global warming

Excuse my bad memory. What are those theories again? As far as I know, no complete theory can explain all the observed global warming without including effects of human GHG emissions.

While the majority of scientists do seem to agree, there is not a 100% consensus

Like a wise professor once said: “No theory is so stupid that not 10 professors will sign it.” Except for the expected 10 professors or so, I think the scientific consensus is quite strong.

Wikipedia writes: “The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth is warming, and that humanity's greenhouse gas emissions are making a significant contribution.”

Please let me know if you are better informed than Wikipedia!

 

[Savage Discipil]

Wasn't the first earth day created to stop Global cooling,now since that theory is obviously wrong there just going Global WARMING.

 

[BasketCase]

Please let me know if you are better informed than Wikipedia!

All I needed was Google to see that the argument over the subject is still quite spirited.

 

[carlosMM]

All I needed was Google to see that the argument over the subject is still quite spirited.

sure - same as a google search will show yout he debate about evolution and creationism is still 'spirited'

it's just that only IDIOTS still believe in creationism
so a google search as AGAIN an argument from majority, and, may I say, an especially UNinformed majority.....

you're not getting better with your arguments, how about we make ti easy for you?


PROVE that GW is due to NONhuman causes! (simple Q, isn't it?)
or
PROVE that GW is NOT due to human causes! (a bit tougher).

 

[Savage Discipil]

The amount spent on climate studies worldwide has now reached the astonishingly high level of about $5 billion per year.1 In the United States alone, more than $2 billion is spent annually for climate studies, not including the costs of satellites, ships, and laboratory construction. 2 Climatologists have obtained this immense amount of funding by creating the vision of a man-made planetary climate catastrophe.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, computer models of climate prophesied a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere during the next 6O years. The greenhouse effect of this CO2 increase, together with that of other greenhouse gases released by human beings into the atmosphere – CH4, N2O, CFC-11 (freon), and CFC-12 – was supposed to increase the average global surface air temperature by 5°C. In polar regions, the increase was projected to be 10°C. Later, in the 1990s, climatologists truncated the computer model estimates of the man-made increase of global temperature by the year 2100, first to 3,3°C3,5 and then to 2°C.7

According to one American climatologist, the "scare-them-to-death" approach seems to be the best way to get money for climate studies. Dr. Stephen Schneider, a leading prophet of man-made climate warming, stated this bluntly:

"To capture the public imagination... we have to... make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.... Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest". 9

The IPCC reports, which have become bibles for bureaucrats and environmentalist fanatics, ac-cuse modern civilization of being responsible for global warming, and repeatedly state that they reflect a true "consensus" of the scientific community. This statement about consensus is totally false: The assessments, conclusions, and even the working method of the IPCC are criticized by numerous scientists today. A more accurate description of the current situation would not be consensus, but rather controversy. Science does not progress via a process of consensus, or voting. There was no "consensus" for Copernicus's idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; it is for politicians.

 

[tR1cKy]

There was no "consensus" for Copernicus's idea, in his time, that the Earth orbited the Sun. Consensus is not needed in science; it is for politicians.

Sorry, but you're mixing apples with oranges. The opposition against Copernicus' model was based on a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible and not on science. We're talking about scientific consensus here.

And consensus is needed everywhere things cannot be proven or disproven absolutely. A theory cannot be proven true or false, it can only be corroborated (by experimental data confirming it) or discredited (by experimental data not fitting with it). Consensus among the scientific community is needed to give such theory credibility. Consensus is what the layman usually use to decide if something is to be believed or not.

However, you point out a good argument. Consensus sometimes (rarely) leads to believe in what turns out to be wrong. It's an unavoidable tradeoff. And sometimes scientists are dishonest, as every human can be. But usually science corrects itself in the long run. There's always someone willing to reach the truth and expose the bad, dishonest or incompetent behaviour of someone else, not necessary with noble intents.

 

[tR1cKy]

All I needed was Google to see that the argument over the subject is still quite spirited.

You may want to think twice about using Google searches to figure out if a theory is generally accepted by the scientific community or not. Google lists everything. You can easily stumble upon a pile of BS.

A few months ago, i was google searching on superheavy elements. I was puzzled by the Flerov Laboratory in Russia being able to synthetize elements 115 and 113. I did a google search on "element 115" and on page 1 i found several entry about a website claiming that:
1) element 115 is stable (absurd).
2) aliens have given the US the technology to build a stardrive fueled by the radiactive decay of element 115 when bombarded with neutrons. That element would release an anti-proton (totally absurd, if such thing would happen then the most part of today's particle physics would be wrong) that would hit a proton then annihilate and produce energy (matter-antimatter annihilation produce for the most part gamma rays, almost impossible to be used as energy source). Then, in an uncanny and not explained way, such drive would have the ability to repel gravity (negative gravity doesn't exist). This drive is currently tested in Area 51 (oh my god! not this thing again!).

Just an example of what you can find by google searching the web.

 

[TruePurple]

In Venezia there's something called MOSE under construction now. It's a set of submerged barriers that emerge when the sea level goes up and protect the city from being flooded.

You mean Venice? Yeah, saw a PBS special on that, the city is sinking into the sea, which is much different then then sea rising.(though that compounds the problem) Since rising water needs ever increasingly high walls.

Also, Venice can not afford to have such a barrier up for too long too much of the time. Sewage waste (god, 21st century and they still don't have a sewage processing plant?!) which goes directly into the water collects, if this literal crap isn't flushed out to sea ever so often the water becomes too putrid. Plus when the barrier is up, it blocks commerce ships and as the city sinks and the sea rises it will need to be up more and more.

Coupled with a desire to preserve all sorts of historical stuff on the land itself which negates the possibility of total redesign of the city, Venice seems screwed to me.

Also the mose gates block specific land channels into the lagoon. Meaning its a much smaller area then all around the coast of Britain.

If the sea permanently raised you would need a wall that if not up all the time, would certainly have to be up longer then is healthy, due to pollution and commercial interests. And you would have to build it all along vast coastlines, with many unforeseen environmental issues. Its not practical!

 

[TruePurple]

Now Greenland is not green any more, it is covered by ice. .

Greenland (still) is green, on its south end. One online source I found say its about 2 degrees warmer then viking times. (a site that talks about greenlands fluxuating temperatures)

What I do know is greenland is one of those areas where you can view the progress of globel warming. Greenland has lost alot of ice in the last few decades causing trouble like slowing down the gulf stream and adding water to the sea increasing water levels. Greenland was specifically mention in the PBS report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,872609,00.html

 

[TruePurple]

currently, we are experiencing an era of increased solar luminosity, in effect the sun is actually brighter today than it was just a 100 years ago.

Measurements of incoming sun energy reveals that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface has gone down by about 2-3% every decade since the measurements started in the fifties. So measurements prove that the solar energy that reaches the surface is in fact declining, but still the global temperature is increasing. How could that be possible? (Hint: more GHG in the atmosphere will make less energy escape)

Pikachu makes a good point, when searching "global dimming" I found a number of sources that speak of less light reaching earths surface, not more.

 

[GenMarshall]

Global Warming is just a scare tactic by enviornmentalists .

 

[TruePurple]

@Civgeneral
BOO!

Oh yeah, you really know how to win an arguement.

Hey civgeneral, don't look for traffic before you cross the street, the danger of being hit by a car is just a crossing guard scare tactics.