Global Warming: Scientific Consensus Proved Wrong

[Riffraff]

Since when is 10% a significant amount?

10% definately is a significant amount. But as breathing is a natural emission of CO2 in this context, it shouldn't really be considered. Even if breathing amounted to 90% of all human CO2 release, the problem of pumping additional amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmossphere should be adressed.

 

[BasketCase]

Since when is 10% a significant amount?

Ten percent of Doomsday is a lot.

 

[Bast]

10% definately is a significant amount. But as breathing is a natural emission of CO2 in this context, it shouldn't really be considered. Even if breathing amounted to 90% of all human CO2 release, the problem of pumping additional amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmossphere should be adressed.

Ten percent of Doomsday is a lot.

It's not a significant amount. Plus you still don't have proof of this. All you have is your calculations?

Also, let's pretend this is real. Why are we talking about 10%? How about 50% from factories that can be cut down 25%? Why aren't we talking about the other 90%? Ulterior motive?

Doomsday? Are we living in the Middle Ages?

Fighting global warming will be helping to fight off desertification, droughts and floods. No one's talking about Doomsday.

Actually, a lot of impoverished people and Third World governments have been saying exactly that.

Since when does the Third World tell the rest of the world what to do? This isn't just about global warming of course.

 

[The Fjonis]

As you're probably aware, the IPCC is releasing it's Synthesis Report in November. However, some of the content has already been leaked. One key point, which is related to this thread, is the following:

The amount of CO2-equivalents in the atmosphere in 2005 exceeded the IPCC expectations for 2017. More specifically, the assumed content was 385 ppm, while new measurements indicate 455 ppm in 2005. (Leaked by Australian climate scientist Tim Flannery on Australian ABC on monday)

If this is true, it means that we're already at the threshold that the EU considers to be the limit of irreversible climate change, meaning it will cause a global temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celcius by the end of the century.

This would seem to support the findings in the OP, namely that the models are way off. So what to do? If the models were underestimating the outcome this time, what is to say that they can't overestimate next time around? How can we ever know what to do if the scientific models can't give us accurate estimates?

The climate debate is really all about risk management. What we need to do is determine the appropriate course of action based on qualified evaluation of the possible outcomes of various courses of action, and their respective probabilities. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend you to take a look at these very instructive videos, which are concerned with precisely this:

Video # 1
Video # 2

And before you start bashing the first video, watch the second one.

 

[luiz]

Right, yes, the important thing in a story about how things are worse than the doomsayers predicted is that they were wrong. The idiots.

Yeah, for me the important thing here is that anyone who believes in computer models for the environment is an idiot. A total, and complete idiot.

In one case reality might be worse than in the models, in other it will be better. GW is just the latest of a series of doom prophecies that always turn out wrong. I'm still waiting for the massive skin cancer wave that will cause the extinction of mankind because of that gigantic hole in the ozone layer.

 

[Bill3000]

Yeah, for me the important thing here is that anyone who believes in computer models for the environment is an idiot. A total, and complete idiot.

No, the idiot is one who doesn't believe in the scientific consensus for the simple sake of holding onto an ideology.

 

[azzaman333]

No, the idiot is one who doesn't believe in the scientific consensus for the simple sake of holding onto an ideology.

Believing the scientific consensus because Al Gore told you to is much worse than not believing the scientific consensus.

 

[El_Machinae]

Jesus: Basketcase still doesn't comprehend his fallacy with regards to human exhalations???

In the months since he's first had it explained to him, the gears haven't clicked? Cripes.

 

[luiz]

No, the idiot is one who doesn't believe in the scientific consensus for the simple sake of holding onto an ideology.

Firstly, "apocalyptical Global Warming", as I like to call it, is hardly a scientific consensus. People who actually think that GW will cause cataclysms in the forseeable future tend to be vastly uneducated on the subject.

Yes, temperatures are rising and this is a fact. But they were higher in the past. How much is due to human activity and how much is due to natural Earth cycles? And what are the actuall consequences of an increase in the global average temperature? Can you explain me how those models work? Can you show me how each of the tens of thousands of variables were properly isolated and taken into account? I don't think you can.

You talked about ideology, but I see just as much ideology on the apocalyptical field as I see on the denialist one. Or is Al Gore not a politician? Fact is the whole debate is seriously compromised by politics, on both sides, and only partisans fail to recognise it.

 

[Bast]

Jesus: Basketcase still doesn't comprehend his fallacy with regards to human exhalations???

In the months since he's first had it explained to him, the gears haven't clicked? Cripes.

Really?

 

[Merkinball]

I don't even understand how people can swallow "the world is definitely warming" as a concensus. I mean, when it is found that the people taking the measurements are purposefully putting thermometers in places such as heat islands, over blacktop, by heating vents outside buildings, and these finds are so significant that it throws off years and years of recordings, and turns the hottest "recorded" year into something not close to it...

I don't see how nobody can eye all this with suspicion. It seems as though every week there is a retraction of previous data, or acknowledgements in flawed methodology, of flaws in computer models.

The fact of the matter is that right now humans simply do not have the capacity to diagnose whether or not the earth is even warming, much less the scientific capability of indicting humanity as its cause.

 

[azzaman333]

I don't even understand how people can swallow "the world is definitely warming" as a concensus. I mean, when it is found that the people taking the measurements are purposefully putting thermometers in places such as heat islands, over blacktop, by heating vents outside buildings, and these finds are so significant that it throws off years and years of recordings, and turns the hottest "recorded" year into something not close to it...

I don't see how nobody can eye all this with suspicion. It seems as though every week there is a retraction of previous data, or acknowledgements in flawed methodology, of flaws in computer models.

The fact of the matter is that right now humans simply do not have the capacity to diagnose whether or not the earth is even warming, much less the scientific capability of indicting humanity as its cause.

It makes people feel go to completely agree with things in power without thinking. How do you think religion remains so powerful?

 

[Bast]

The fact of the matter is that right now humans simply do not have the capacity to diagnose whether or not the earth is even warming, much less the scientific capability of indicting humanity as its cause.

We have the capacity and the indictment has been served. Most of us - individuals, governments and big business - have moved on the part where we ask, "what can we do about it?" or are taking action already.

This so reminds me of the Earth is flat argument.

 

[Bast]

It makes people feel go to completely agree with things in power without thinking. How do you think religion remains so powerful?

If you think that's why religion is powerful or why people are religious, you've missed the point of religion.

 

[azzaman333]

We have the capacity and the indictment has been served. Most of us - individuals, governments and big business - have moved on the part where we ask, "what can we do about it?" or are taking action already.

Governments and big business are on the part where they think "what is the cheapest and easiest thing we can do about it to look like we're doing something about it?"

Individuals are on the part where they think "I turned off my TV at the wall, I stopped global warming!" while they have every light in their house on.

If you think that's why religion is powerful or why people are religious, you've missed the point of religion.

Religion is powerful now because it keeps people from believing that their existance is futile, despite that it probably is.

 

[Bast]

Governments and big business are on the part where they think "what is the cheapest and easiest thing we can do about it to look like we're doing something about it?"

Individuals are on the part where they think "I turned off my TV at the wall, I stopped global warming!" while they have every light in their house on.

You can let jaded cynicism rule your life or take action. That's your choice. I have too much respect for other people doing something to fight global warming to just generalize and insult them like that.

 

[azzaman333]

You can let jaded cynicism rule your life or take action. That's your choice. I have too much respect for other people doing something to fight global warming to just generalize and insult them like that.

5% of people doing something useful has little or no effect on the 95% of people who want to take the easy way of 'fixing' global warming.

 

[Merkinball]

We have the capacity and the indictment has been served. Most of us - individuals, governments and big business - have moved on the part where we ask, "what can we do about it?" or are taking action already. - Bast

Who is "most of us?" I'm really curious on that one. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the world isn't moving to take action against reducing their carbon footprint. In fact, the vast majority of the world would do anything to have a carbon footprint, or increase their carbon footprint. You still have millions of people on earth without access to electricity. Billions of people without access to electricity you and I are used to. Billions of people without cars, or access to transportation at all. Billions on earth with menial jobs that'd love to work in a dirty family. You have billions of people that are living in shantytowns. Hundreds of millions without access to the basic necessities that you and I take for granted everyday. The idea that you think the billion or so people on this earth living on less than 2$ a day are inclined to do what they can to REDUCE their greenhouse gas emissions at very best naive, at worst, extremely ignorant.

If humanity is indeed causing the earth to warm. We're not going to stop it. The menial pathetic steps that we can take in the western world to reduce our carbon emissions are going to be dwarfed, many times, by the development of the developing world.

And rightly so.

 

[Merkinball]

5%? Keep dreaming on that one...

 

[azzaman333]

5%? Keep dreaming on that one...

Remember, 82% of all statistics are made up.