|
How Come No One Will Admit To Global Warming? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
There's a big differnce between laws of physics that are supposedly constant through time |
[aside]Actually, the very derivation of these "laws" are contingent on assumptions of temporal and spatial invariance. That these assumptions are correct is taken on faith.[/aside]
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
What I'm getting at is the best we can do is what we have now. Maybe someday our science will be able to put a definite all-encompassing law on gravity, and maybe even make a fully functional climate model. However, right now we don't have that. We don't have "god damn solid" science on this issue, or I assure you this would not be a topic of conversation. Right now we have very limited "science" on the matter, and in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, it is very weak science. We are able to say that today is warmer or cooler than yesterday, but we can put very little context behind it. |
As stated in one of my previous posts (and over and over again in the thread I linked to) I'm talking about greenhouse gases ability to reflect heat emission back to Earth. This *is* "god damned solid":
From the EPA:
| quote: | | "According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalw...ssions.html#GHG) - primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalw...ertainties.html) exist about exactly how earth's climate responds to them." |
"Undisputed" it says.
Now given that greenhouse gases reflect heat emission, it's a logical consequence that increased volume of these in the atmosphere, all other things being equal, leads to raised temperatures or less ice or more steam (the latter of which would contribute even further to heating).
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
Pop science and true science are two completely different things.
...
You don't believe me? Ask your physics professor why a positive charge is attracted to a negative charge and why when dealing with quantum physics many attractions are directly proportional to distance instead of inversely? |
Don't patronize me. You have still to face up to my challenge about documenting your claims on "misinformation being spewed" by "both sides".
On that matter, I do think that it's interesting that people who advocate the view that no global warming is taking place, often accuse people advocating the opposite view for belonging to some world-wide conspiracy to hurt the US. This is a most paranoid worldview.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
You probably should feel that way, especially given that even the dubious IPCC Third Assessment Report concedes, in practically every section, that model uncertainties require more critical assessment than is currently possible in order to draw reliable and specific conclusions regarding many issues related to global warming.
Of course, there's also the small matter of their failure to explain the overwhelming lack of correlation between recorded climate variations and the reconstructed pCO2 in the phanerozoic eon...
But I suppose small things like 500 million years of geological history aren't that relevant to a true believer, or a sufficiently motivated "scientist." |
Never one for passing on the chance of scornfully ridiculing your opponents?
Anyway, as I wrote in my answer to Neo, when talking about rock solid science, I'm talking about greenhouse gases ability to reflect heat emission. Unlike Neo, you have been told so before (in the thread I linked to), and there's really no excuse for misrepresenting my statement, and then attack this representation.
That being said, I'd sure like to address your arguments, but they're kind of vaguely stated, so it's like fighting ghosts. For instance, I took a look at the IPCC report, to see how it addressed the science of greenhouse gases, but I found no statements about unusable models in any of those sections? I did see that the entire report had a chapter on model critique. This is to be expected of a scientific report, and from what I saw there, it was most dutifully explained, so that the assumptions for the strengths of the conclusions of the report were quite clear?
As to the relationship between CO_2 and average temperature over time, I'm unsure of what specific study/posed problem you're referring to. I could certainly think of explanations for such a lack (e.g. the estimated CO_2 concentrations must have been calculated from some model itself, there's other greenhouse gases, melting of ice takes up a lot of energy, etc.), but with no clear definition of setting it's useless.
Turning to the issue of whether the Earth *is* heating and if so whether CO_2 emissions by man contribute significantly to this, or other causes are to blame, I think that the above statement by the NAS is pretty clear on what way the jury is leaning. Further, in response to the infamous OISM-petition, the NAS reacted in this way:
| quote: | | The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." |
Considering the lack of loads of observational data, I think this statement together with the conclusions of the IPCC report is as close to a scientific validation that we can get.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
As the others have eloquently stated, nothing is unambiguous in science.
The only facts we can conclude are based on the data we collected within our tiny slice of time.
I was never a firm believer in the dogma of "terrestrial scientific fact" as it's always being dispeled by the wonders of nature.
Call me a romantic if you wish, I see myself more as understanding our true place in this world; to look in awe and make of it what we can. |
Sounds beautiful, but I still hold you to your previous empathy with Neo's statements on the undecidability of it all being sufficient cause for inaction: I seem to remember you having defended the Iraq war as a result of reasonable evidence of WMDs in Iraq? If that's correct, how do you merit acting on clearly non-conclusive evidence such as was the case, but not on evidence on global warming which is seemingly better than the WMD-evidence? |
|
|
| Radagast |
| Good job there trancaholic. Wouldn't want to pay attention to anything you don't want to believe, now would you. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Sounds beautiful, but I still hold you to your previous empathy with Neo's statements on the undecidability of it all being sufficient cause for inaction: I seem to remember you having defended the Iraq war as a result of reasonable evidence of WMDs in Iraq? If that's correct, how do you merit acting on clearly non-conclusive evidence such as was the case, but not on evidence on global warming which is seemingly better than the WMD-evidence? |
Two entirely different situations and you want to pigeon-hole me?
The answer is actually quite easy though.
The Iraq war is in a quantifiable finite time frame, global warming is not. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
"Global Warming" has two very important postulates;
1 - The Earth's average temperature is rising, and rising artifically and unnaturally.
2 - This artificial rise in temperature is a direct result of human activity.
As I have said before, I think the first assumption can in no way be proved with the data we have and by the non-use of strong rhetoric. We simply don't have the science or background information to say that the rise in temperature we have witnessed over such a short scale is "artifical," in that this is not a natural occurance that would have happened in the absence of humans, or that this "rise" in temperature is nothing more than a blip on the climatological radar.
If you cannot say that the change in temperature we seem to have found is artifical, then you cannot say that it is soley based on the interactions of humans and the environment. You can say that greenhouse gases "undisputedly" cause a rise in temperature, and as I've said regardless of the circumstances humans shouldn't willfully do more harm to the environment then neccessary. However, you cannot place the blame of recent warming on humans with our current information, such that the greatest modern increase in mean temperature happened pre-industrial revolution and that in fact humans are responsible for roughly 0.28% of "greenhouse gasses." Source
In the end, we can say that we need to be careful, but there is no way to draw a real conclusion as to if and why the Earth's climate is changing.
Even your own quote states "evidence" not undisputed reality, and "uncertainty" when it comes to the human actions of warming in the environment. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
It's articles like this that keep us wondering...
I have to admit though, it's a lot like the, "Eggs are good for you / eggs are bad for you" debate...
| quote: |
New source of global warming gas found: plants
Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:07 PM GMT8
LONDON (Reuters) - German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.
The culprits are plants.
They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.
The scientists measured the amount of methane released by plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to sunlight.
"Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field," Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature.
Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.
Concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced annually.
The scientists said their finding is important for understanding the link between global warming and a rise in greenhouse gases.
It could also have implications for the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for developed countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead plants.
Scientists had previously thought that plants could only emit methane in the absence of oxygen.
David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the findings are startling and controversial.
"Keppler and colleagues' finding helps to account for observations from space of incredibly large plumes of methane above tropical forests," he said in a commentary on the research.
But the study also poses questions, such as how such a potentially large source of methane could have been overlooked and how plants produced it.
"There will be a lively scramble among researchers for the answers to these and other questions," Lowe added.
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
It's articles like this that keep us wondering... |
Although it does raise the question as to why global warming is accelerating while forested areas are decreasing... |
|
|
| Purple |
I live in India and my country dosent give a about Global Warming and pollution.
My dad is a chemical industrialist and have various manufactoring units spread all over India. He makes this very very toxic chemical which is not allowed to be made in EU. Its a very essential chemical required in different industries and EU countries always has to import it from us.
India, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia all of us dont give a about pollution, and in India government dont give a rat ass about pollution unless someone is spewing rat poison into rivers.
Having said all that USA pollutes this planet more than any other country on this planet; first it has to cut its emissions by more than atleast 10% before even thinking of asking us to do something about it. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Having said all that USA pollutes this planet more than any other country on this planet; first it has to cut its emissions by more than atleast 10% before even thinking of asking us to do something about it. |
Not that I disagree that efforts should be made to cut emissions, but why is it that someone else must do it before you in order to make it OK? |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Not that I disagree that efforts should be made to cut emissions, but why is it that someone else must do it before you in order to make it OK? |
If you pull on figures on who is polluting and who is not, than you will see that US alone emits more than a large number of countries combined. So US have to take the first step (even it is as a godwill measure).
US has been polluting planet since ages and countries like India and China have only started recently.
US economists know that even a small cut will effect there economy to a large extend. They are just being greedy.
So you see noone wants to be Mother Teresa and give up its country developments at stake for the development of humanity as such.
Also UN dont believe in quick fix sollutions like Bush (invade and the country). UN wants to solve this problem once and for all, a long term policy which ensure that countries adhere to it for centuries.
And this long long term solution involves UN nations to sign a uniform emmission agreement in accordance to the 'percentage' of gas they are emmiting. And you see US has the 'highest' percentage. So it has to cut 'highest'. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Also UN dont believe in quick fix sollutions like Bush (invade and the country). |
What, unlike Saddam burning all the oil wells in Kuwait?
Short memory indeed...
I think you put too much emphasis on the States.
While they certainly are a contributor they are by no means the scapegoat in the picture you paint.
G7 countries at least HAVE emission protocols unlike a lot of 3rd world countries which appear to have none at all. |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
G7 countries at least HAVE emission protocols unlike a lot of 3rd world countries which appear to have none at all. |
But these emission protocols are largely factory emission protocols, like someone has to recycle acid a number of times before releasing it in nearby water and stuff.
But global warming is not caused by them, Global Warming is the result of Cars/SUVs spewing CO2 into atmosphere. And this emission is rising with every passing day. Thats the core of it. And you have to get to the core reason to stop global warming.
Even if you shut down all factories and keep the cars running and growing at the present rate Global Warming will hit us. |
|
|
| Purple |
The debate that countries like India and China are putting forward is that their 'Per Capita Emission' is very low.
And countries with higer per capita emmissions should reduce their emissions first.
Its not making US scapegoat, because India and China are willing to forget past and how much they emitted in past. They are willing to forget quantity itself. No matter how large is your percentage of quantity emissions; just reduce it in accordance to per capita.
Because obviously they are benefitting in this deal because of their large population.
 |
|
|
|
|
