Global warming debate continued

[BasketCase]

The way the Earth DOES work, the tipping points are at other values. With your much-vaunted uncertainty about where they are, we should therefore not push the system around, because we risk running into one.

Oops, forgot to do this one. I mention the following in EVERY global warming thread, dunno how I forgot this time around........

We already risk running into a tipping point--specifically, the next Ice Age. Which is already overdue. We better warm up the planet to prevent it from occurring.


See? The "do it my way just in case" method doesn't work. There are land mines on EVERY side of us.

 

[Shaihulud]

Three people check into a hotel. They pay £30 to the manager and go to their room. The manager suddenly remembers that the room rate is £25 and gives £5 to the bellboy to return to the people. On the way to the room the bellboy reasons that £5 would be difficult to share among three people so he pockets £2 and gives £1 to each person. Now each person paid £10 and got back £1. So they paid £9 each, totalling £27. The bellboy has £2, totalling £29. Where is the missing £1?

Adding the bellboy's £2 to the three guests' £27 is meaningless. Your hacked-up example is the same. (The hotel manager has £25, the bellboy has £2, and the three guests each have £1. Grand total: £30.)

Global increasing temperature is not a linear addition with increasing co2 increase though. I have read some articles that suggest otherwise, as in everything that requires evidence, we should bring out everything. Evidence for and against global warming, heh! Propably been posted before but it would be nice to see one of those arguments again

 

[Shaihulud]

We already risk running into a tipping point--specifically, the next Ice Age. Which is already overdue. We better warm up the planet to prevent it from occurring.

Eerm.. we are not experiencing a coming Ice Age, temperatures are increasing not decreasing. the only one that might be it was a 70s report from NASA because they predicted that aerosol pollution will decrease overall global temperature, but underestimate the effects of co2 in the role as a greenhouse gas. Ever since we use cleaner fuels, we have been producing less crap that shields earth from the sun (see the post about using sulfur dioxide to prevent global warming)

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Oops, forgot to do this one. I mention the following in EVERY global warming thread, dunno how I forgot this time around........

We already risk running into a tipping point--specifically, the next Ice Age. Which is already overdue. We better warm up the planet to prevent it from occurring.


See? The "do it my way just in case" method doesn't work. There are land mines on EVERY side of us.

1) What reason do you have to believe that the next Ice Age is "overdue"? Why do you think that they must follow a regular schedule?
2) We've been pushing the system in one direction; complaining "there are mines on every side" is not a reason to stop pushing and go back where we were unless you think that the mines move.
3) The Earth can trap far higher amounts of heat (cf: Venus) than it can lose and has a more and easier methods of getting more heat in than it has of losing heat, so an Ice Age is less of a worry than overheating
4) By one definition, we're IN an ice age (there are large amounts of ice hanging around), meaning that being in an ice age isn't really a worry, and we're heading OUT of it at high speeds: [wiki]Retreat of glaciers since 1850[/wiki].

Once the following starts coming back, I'll consider it a legitimate reason to worry about entering the Ice Age that you're being all Oh Noes about. As long as it still not only points downwards but is turning further downwards in the second derivative, I will have few worries about entering an ice age.

 

[El_Machinae]

Ice ages take place in cycles covering tens of thousands of years. The current carbon cycle (that we're causing) is happening at a much faster rate.

And of course there are ecological tipping points. That's why a ~70% vaccination penetration can wipe out a disease. That's why species can be brought below unrecoverable numbers. That's why ice 'magically' transitions to water at a specific temperature. There are flash points.

 

[BasketCase]

Eerm.. we are not experiencing a coming Ice Age

True, we don't appear to be.

Why....? That's what we don't know.

1) What reason do you have to believe that the next Ice Age is "overdue"?

Two reasons: number one, because several highly-credible scientists said so. And number two, because the Earth's climatological record over the last couple million years shows that the Earth's Ice Ages do in fact occur very regularly.

Ice ages take place in cycles covering tens of thousands of years.

Certainly. But the event that starts it off is.....what?? Global warming alarmists have theorized that an extremely short and sudden event, such as polar ice melt dumping fresh water into the Atlantic Current over a period of just a few years, could shut off that current and trigger an Ice Age.

Suppose there's a tipping point that will render the next ten-thousand-year onset of an Ice Age inevitable....?


And that's why you don't use logical fallacies to press a case. Because, like swords, they cut both ways.

 

[El_Machinae]

Your posts are valueless. An ice age has nothing to do with our present carbon pollution and its effects on the planet. It's like arguing about the seasonal temperature changes when I'm complaining about a room being too hot

"It's hot because the thermostat is up, I don't like it"
"Well, winter is coming, we might want to have that heat when it gets here"
"Winter ended two months ago, it's hot, turn down the thermostat"
"Well, we don't know when winter will show up because scientists have argued that excessive CO2 pollution might cause too much warming, melting glaciers and triggering an ice age!"
"Right. Shut up. Turn down the thermostat."

 

[Woody1]

Statistical record from the recent centuries indicates that global temperature has on average been increasing, this is correlated with increased co2 emmision during the Industrial revolution. I have no idea why people are still denying so vehemently that global warming is happening and from all we understand will be getting worse.

You have a problem with logic.

I have not seen anyone deny that global warming has ocurred over the past 100 years. I think the figure is about +0.6C, give or take a margin of error (that's smaller than 0.6C). I think scientists are capable of measuring this.

But that does NOT imply:

1. That global warming was primarily caused by human activity.
2. Global warming is going to continue into the future.

The problem with the GW alarmists, is they don't know how to reason.

The Kyoto-like GW theories are just very bad theories, because there is no way to prove or disprove them. Their only purpose is to scare people.

The real Kyoto agenda appears to be a social policy to transfer wealth from developed countries to developing countries.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

What a great debate! Sure puts a sock in the mouth of any who claim the debate is over. It is really dishonest to group global warming/climate change/end of the world into the same meaning. The truth is the globe was warming ever so slightly the past 100 years. Now it has leveled out in the last decade and will either cool or warm a little more in the years to come. The slight warming effect has done far more good then harm. Look at Greenland they will soon claim their Independence from Denmark and it's all due to GW . See article

The truth is there are many theories about why we warmed a little and the best one in my opinion is the Solar Constant. It is funny how Greenland is losing alot of its ice and the Arctic ice is growing. Funny, maybe we should leave the earth and its climate alone and concentrate on more real issues that actually effect people.

The earth has warmed much more in the past 100 years than in any warming period in the last 10,000 years!

It didn't level out in the last decade (why would Arctic ice still be decreasing if it had leveled???)

The slight warming effect is slight now, but increasing rapidly as China and India and not to mention the US increase their emissions. Polar bear populations are at record lows, glaciers too, as is water in the Sahel and, thus, food.

Plus, Greenland is propbably the only place that will be affected in a good way. Bangladesh will be underwater in 50 years! Bangladesh has a population of 150 million people, which is more than the UK and France and Portugal and Iceland and Norway and Sweden combined!

Also, the warming of temperature has correlated exactly with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere! I wonder why!

You should have checked the facts before you posted this ignorant post.

 

[Shaihulud]

You have a problem with logic.

I have not seen anyone deny that global warming has ocurred over the past 100 years. I think the figure is about +0.6C, give or take a margin of error (that's smaller than 0.6C). I think scientists are capable of measuring this.

But that does NOT imply:

1. That global warming was primarily caused by human activity.
2. Global warming is going to continue into the future.

The problem with the GW alarmists, is they don't know how to reason.

The Kyoto-like GW theories are just very bad theories, because there is no way to prove or disprove them. Their only purpose is to scare people.

The real Kyoto agenda appears to be a social policy to transfer wealth from developed countries to developing countries.

Accusing me of having a problem with logic. What statement did I make that was fallacious? Maybe I should challenge you over that error bar of 0.6 degrees celsius that you make. Should you wish to challenge over whether global warming is entirely due to human factors here is one from NASA. Do note this:

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.

The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers. Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures.

The records from nature most fit the simulation where humans and nature play a part in the global warming. I dislike false accusation, especially when you offered nothing to prove your theory, nor reason. Why do you think that Kyoto has an alternate agenda? Could you prove your theory here?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Their only purpose is to scare people.

The real Kyoto agenda appears to be a social policy to transfer wealth from developed countries to developing countries.

I repeat what I told BasketCase: Be very, very wary of attributing evil motives to those you disagree with. Down that road lies cultishness.

If I say that my purpose in promoting a "Kyoto-like" (what does that mean, anyway?) theory on global warming is not to scare people, will you accuse me of lying?

 

[Gooblah]

IMO, whether or not one agrees with Global Warming or not, one would be pretty dumb to say that all our oil-powered technology should stay status-quo.

First of all, gas/coal pollute. Multiple studies:

Living near a motorway damages child health

Spoiler :

The study is the first to link permanent lung damage, which can shorten life expectancy, to traffic pollution. Previous research by the same scientists showed that children who grew up in areas of high pollution and car fumes were more likely to develop asthma. But the new study provides strong evidence that car emissions stunt crucial lung development in children between the ages of 10 and 18. The researchers suggest that diesel fumes are to blame.

They studied 3,677 children in 12 areas of southern California where a wide range of air qualities was recorded. They measured their lung capacity according to three measures annually between the ages of 10 and 18.

They also took air quality readings in each area, recorded the distance the children lived from a motorway or major road and created a model that took into account local traffic statistics to measure their exposure to traffic.

At the end of the study they found "pronounced deficits" in lung development among children who lived closest to motorways - under 500 metres - even when factors such as exposure to cigarette smoke were factored in. The "significantly reduced" rates of growth were found even in teenagers who had never experienced any asthma or respiratory illness.

"In view of the magnitude of the reported effects and the importance of lung function as a determinant of adult morbidity and mortality, reduction of exposure to traffic-related air pollutants could lead to substantial public-health benefits," the researchers, led by Dr James Gauderman of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, write.

The Liberal Democrat shadow health secretary, Norman Lamb, said: "This report will be disturbing reading for parents. [It] strongly reinforces the environmental case for reducing emissions from road transport."

Phil Gervat of the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection, said: "We've known for a long time that it [car pollution] affects health, but not long-term lung development. This is a major study and deeply significant. This is permanent effects on children's health and the government is going to have to think again on their policy."

Dr John Moore-Gillon, president of the British Lung Foundation, said the study "demonstrates the urgent need for more initiatives to reduce harmful emissions and improve the quality of air."

Diesel Traffic makes Asthma Worse

Spoiler :

A total of 60 adults, half of with mild asthma and half with moderate asthma, walked for two hours along Oxford Street, where only buses and taxis are allowed, and then on a separate occasion walked for two hours in traffic-free Hyde Park.

Lung function tests done before and after the walks showed a greater reduction in lung capacity after participants had been exposed to diesel traffic than in the park and more inflammation in the lungs.

The negative effects were greater in those with worse asthma to start with.

Particles

Diesel engines can generate more than 100 times more particles than petrol engines, said the researchers.

The smaller the particle, the deeper it can be inhaled into the lungs and very small particles may even be absorbed into the bloodstream.

Researchers found three times as many ultra-fine particles (less than 0.1 microns in diameter) on Oxford Street compared with Hyde Park.

Oxford Street also had more than three times more nitrogen dioxide in the air and six times as much elemental carbon.

Dr Cullinan, honorary consultant in respiratory medicine at Royal Brompton Hospital in London, said the results were applicable to other urban environments.

"However, we don't know if you would find the same effects with petrol traffic or in people without asthma," he said.

"The real message is not for individuals with asthma but for people who plan traffic and build engines.

show that car/truck/bus emissions worsen overall health, in terms of air quality, lung health, etc. So even if you don't care about global warming, we should still get off the oil habit. Reducing the amount of emissions we put out, negligible or not, will still help the local environment and ourselves.

 

[Woody1]

If I say that my purpose in promoting a "Kyoto-like" (what does that mean, anyway?) theory on global warming is not to scare people, will you accuse me of lying?

Perhaps. More likely, I would accuse you of ignorance. The Kyoto protocol does nothing to address global warming, even if we make the [unproven] assumption that CO2 from humans is to blame. So, it's either completely useless, or there is another hidden agenda. It's pretty obvious from the carbaon-credit trading scheme, that it's a wealth transfer from western countries to the developing world. And seeing that the developing world was eager to sign on with absolutely no carbon-restrictions, that's no surprise.

 

[Murky]

Why don't these deniers ever just admit that they're wrong and either help to solve the problem or get out of the way so the rest of us can?

You have these scummy sell-outs like Avery and Singer giving false hope that we can just ignore climate change and continue on with business as usual.

Then you have all these other idiots who are crying that the environmentalist want to take their SUVs away and make everyone walk to work instead of driving.

I do see some rays of hope on the pro-science/environment front of things. More people are becoming educated and are actively working to solve the climate crisis.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Perhaps. More likely, I would accuse you of ignorance. The Kyoto protocol does nothing to address global warming, even if we make the [unproven] assumption that CO2 from humans is to blame. So, it's either completely useless, or there is another hidden agenda. It's pretty obvious from the carbaon-credit trading scheme, that it's a wealth transfer from western countries to the developing world. And seeing that the developing world was eager to sign on with absolutely no carbon-restrictions, that's no surprise.

Ahem.

The Kyoto Protocol is shoddy and not very helpful, and I'll drink to that, although it might be a start to more serious agreements that people are protesting against. What I was talking about was "Kyoto-like" theories of global warming, and I wanted a definition of "Kyoto-like".

For instance, is the following a Kyoto-like theory?
"There is an ongoing net average increase in temperature on the Earth, starting roughly a hundred years ago, that has begun due to geologically recent human output of CO2 and other gases above and beyond what the ecosystem can naturally compensate for. Unless this is stopped and fixed the Earth should be expected to heat up several degrees over the next decades to hundreds of years, resulting in natural disasters such as inundation of low-lying areas due to ice melting, massive changes in weather patterns leading to droughts, floods and reduced farming output, in turn resulting in starvation, and general unpleasantness."


And this one's for BasketCase: A joint statement by

the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Acadeny of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Academia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).

which states:

The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

BasketCase, how is your scaremongering essentially different from Pascal's Mugging, by the way?

 

[El_Machinae]

I have not seen anyone deny that global warming has ocurred over the past 100 years. I think the figure is about +0.6C, give or take a margin of error (that's smaller than 0.6C). I think scientists are capable of measuring this.

We are looking at an escalating trend, so we expect the increments to increase in each unit of time. This is what we're seeing after we've made the prediction.

When a theory's prediction continue to be born out 10 years after the theory is popularized, then you can see that the scientists are onto something

The real Kyoto agenda appears to be a social policy to transfer wealth from developed countries to developing countries.

Not really, though it might look that way. "Sweatshops" might appear to be a wealth transfer policy, too, but they're not.

Carbon credits are a way of paying poor people to do work that we don't want to do. We're perfectly capable of implementing policies such that we don't have to purchase carbon credits, but it's just easier not to.

If I've got a parking lot and my neighbor has a field, it's easier to pay him to grow me carrots than it is to grow my own carrots. Hopefully, someday, he'll own a car (and then I'll rent out part of my parking lot).

The advantage of putting a price on carbon is that we quickly sweep up the low-hanging fruit. And then we let poor countries sop up some of our excess while innovators figure out new ways of making money.

If you have a problem with the earlier Kyoto agreement: everyone does, clearly. It was meant to be a stepping stone.

 

[Shaihulud]

Perhaps. More likely, I would accuse you of ignorance. The Kyoto protocol does nothing to address global warming, even if we make the [unproven] assumption that CO2 from humans is to blame. So, it's either completely useless, or there is another hidden agenda. It's pretty obvious from the carbaon-credit trading scheme, that it's a wealth transfer from western countries to the developing world. And seeing that the developing world was eager to sign on with absolutely no carbon-restrictions, that's no surprise.

Damn you respond to me! You accuse me of the lack of logic, you could at least show me the courtesy of responding to my question. What does the Kyoto treaty has to do with global warming anyway? At best it was an attempt to slow down global warming. Even if the attempt was shoddy, it does not invalidate global warming. Did you read my link or my post? Nature does not account for global warming, only when human factors are included does the data compute. i am still waiting for your data about 0.6 degrees error bars for global temperature.

 

[BasketCase]

I repeat what I told BasketCase: Be very, very wary of attributing evil motives to those you disagree with.

All people who intentionally use bogus statistics and fear tactics to get their way are evil.

All hail the BasketCase Cult.

 

[BasketCase]

Damn you respond to me! You accuse me of the lack of logic, you could at least show me the courtesy of responding to my question.

If somebody thinks you're being illogical, why should they respond to you?

Or maybe Woody's girlfriend stepped into the room, wearing nothing but a necktie? (I'll skip the obvious jokes about a "Woody"--too easy)

People drop out of threads all the time for pretty much random reasons. I've confirmed with a couple of polls that people almost never drop out of threads as an act of surrender--they got distracted or swamped by the sheer number of threads. Speak your piece, and if you don't get any replies, tough.

 

[Shaihulud]

If somebody thinks you're being illogical, why should they respond to you?

Or maybe Woody's girlfriend stepped into the room, wearing nothing but a necktie? (I'll skip the obvious jokes about a "Woody"--too easy)

People drop out of threads all the time for pretty much random reasons. I've confirmed with a couple of polls that people almost never drop out of threads as an act of surrender--they got distracted or swamped by the sheer number of threads. Speak your piece, and if you don't get any replies, tough.

I made that half drunk at 3am in the morning after a party, nevertheless Woody made an unfounded accusation of myself having a problem with logic, I am justified in attempting to get a proper answer from him. In my prior post, I mentioned that Global warming is undisputed and almost a scientific concensus, and that what should be on discussion is whether it will be getting worse or not. Here is his reply

You have a problem with logic.

I have not seen anyone deny that global warming has ocurred over the past 100 years. I think the figure is about +0.6C, give or take a margin of error (that's smaller than 0.6C). I think scientists are capable of measuring this.

What did i mention that was directly illogically by his statement and his lumping me with "GW alarmist" and them being unable to reason? I challenged his assertion that the margin of errors for global warming is 0.6 degreees celsius and made a reply to show that there are research that shows that global warming is due to human impact on the enviroment. He could show a report that supports his POV.

I have given up hope that people change their minds through discussion, and I do not expect woody to give a satisfactory answer.