Global warming basically "confirmed"

[Straha]

Yes, exactly like some scientist just "proved" Global Warming is caused by humans now. He's pointing out that over this issue you could probably get a scientist to "prove" little green men are making the world get warmer. The fact that you are too dense to catch that is... shocking.

If you are implie he was using sarcasm I neither got it nor do I think he ever attempted to claim so afterwards. And no, you probably can't "prove" something like little green are doing something to the weather because that will require a fallacious argument.

Yet there are scientists out there who have "proven" that god made us all... When you're dealing with a political issue, fallacious arguments don't matter.

Well word speak louder than... words. Your original statement would've necessitate a violation of the laws of physics.

No it wouldn't have. Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg (I think he did too...) have "proven" that Global Warming isn't man-made before... that certainly didn't violate the laws of Physics.

Given the latest finding they would have, or at least the part about GW in general

Alright this is what I'm saying:
"Respected authors and scientists have proven that, while Global Warming seems to exist, we don't have evidence correlating Human activity with an increase in global temperature."

And this is what you're saying:
"OH YEAH? Well those people would accept global warming as fact NOW!"

In short, I (they) am/are not not disagreeing with you over Global Warming, they are disagreeing with the assertion that it's man-made.

Problem is, this study basically limits you to only two possible explanations: 1.) The sun is getting brighter or 2.) The Earth is trapping more heat via the greenhouse effect because the warming is shown to be coming from energy originating outside the planet itself. Since the sun isn't really getting brighter, or at least not enough, greenhouse gases come down as practically the only possibly explanation.

or 3) We really are ignorant in this area and in the future it'll look like we couldn't find our ass with both hands regarding this. Think about it, we've been recording data pertinent to this field for, what, about fifty years, tops? Compared to engineering, biology, most-physics, etc. we've got zilch info, and what little info we have was being interpretted as Global COOLING not to long ago. I also doubt any global warming "proof" based on a one degree change, we've had more serious changes than that throughout history and those were NEVER man-made, so why are we jumping all up and down over this?

This is a blatant appeal to ignorance! Did read the part where said GW is more or less "confirmed" and it would break the laws of physics to be otherwise? It'll take an complete upending of science for what you claim is true to happen. Sorry, but the debate over GW that is happen right now is over. Only the argument of who's causing it is left, and that's 80-90% or so over as we are the only suspects left. Everything else such as the validity of the data or previous GW is irrelevant.

Yes, I read the part where it said it was confirmed. I've also read numerous statements saying that it was "confirmed" that the world was turning into an ice-ball for the very same reasons listed above, but I digress. You seem to have missed my point, I'll sum it up for you: "It is proven that the world has risen one degree in temperature... but there's no proof it was us, the world has done this before too, and it was never because of humans. Further more, the same people who are jumping up and down about data that proves 'it's humans making global warming' are using the same proof to say that we were causing global cooling ten or twenty years ago. So I think I'll hold off any judgement in this field untill Global Climatology grows out of its juvenile phase..."

[Alan Bolte]

Can you come up with any evidence that well-respected groups of scientists agreed on anything other than that the northern hemisphere had been cooling for the past few decades and that a lot more research would need to be done before they could even hope to make predictions? Because I don't think you can.

[Darth Wong]

Can you come up with any evidence that well-respected groups of scientists agreed on anything other than that the northern hemisphere had been cooling for the past few decades and that a lot more research would need to be done before they could even hope to make predictions? Because I don't think you can.

Sure you can. All scientists agree that the "greenhouse gas" mechanism works. What they disagree on is its significance, not whether it works. And the average temperature rise is a fact, not really subject to debate at all.

In short, the real debate is over what's causing the temperature increase, and it is heavily coloured by the idiotic delusion that if it's natural then it must be harmless to humanity hence not worth worrying about.

[Lord Zentei]

In short, the real debate is over what's causing the temperature increase, and it is heavily coloured by the idiotic delusion that if it's natural then it must be harmless to humanity hence not worth worrying about.

The claim of those who maintain that the temperature rise is natural is more along the lines of "we cannot influence this" and "cutting greenhouse gas emisions won't make a difference" than "it is harmless".

Combine this with "cutting emissions to the degree you are asking would be terrible for the economy" coming from the business sector.

[Castor Troy]

Well, the arguement is also if it's harmful or not, and the consequences of the actions that we take.

So far, I've seen a wide band of arguements from many scientists, so I'm not so sure there.

[Darth Wong]

The claim of those who maintain that the temperature rise is natural is more along the lines of "we cannot influence this" and "cutting greenhouse gas emisions won't make a difference" than "it is harmless".

No it isn't, otherwise they would be acknowledging that the problem exists and asking what we can do about it. Instead, they basically act as though "it might be natural" is synonymous to "we can ignore it".

[Lord Zentei]

The claim of those who maintain that the temperature rise is natural is more along the lines of "we cannot influence this" and "cutting greenhouse gas emisions won't make a difference" than "it is harmless".

No it isn't, otherwise they would be acknowledging that the problem exists and asking what we can do about it. Instead, they basically act as though "it might be natural" is synonymous to "we can ignore it".

I am under no illusions as to the stupidity of the majority politicians, journalists and pundits who are making such claims, but they are not involved in the scientific debate itself.

My point was mostly in reference to the scientists who are still skeptical about the importance of greenhouse emissions. I doubt they go in for such thinking.

[MKSheppard]

Why? You have a PhD in planetology and you are therefore a legitimate peer reviewer of their work?

I was unaware you had a PhD in Planetology, Mike....fact is, you're talking out of your ass as much as we are, so quit with your "I'm an engineer so I'm
more qualified than the rest of you schmucks" schtick.

[Darth Wong]

Why? You have a PhD in planetology and you are therefore a legitimate peer reviewer of their work?

I was unaware you had a PhD in Planetology, Mike....fact is, you're talking out of your ass as much as we are, so quit with your "I'm an engineer so I'm
more qualified than the rest of you schmucks" schtick.

You don't need a PhD in planetology to defer to the people who do, fucktard. You only need one if you're going to say that they're full of shit, which is what people like you do.

[Alan Bolte]

Once again, my writing is shit. I meant as of the 1970s, in response to Straha's mention of global cooling.

[Chris OFarrell]

FFS this debate is pointless.

Global Warming is a fact. Empirical evidence supports it. Mike posted a whole heap of nice pictures a while back, which showed 'before' and 'after' pictures of areas that have slowly been turning from artic to temperate over many years. Which would be impossible without a significant rise in energy in the season cycle.

The ONLY questions are:

HOW much temperatures will rise?
HOW long for?
HOW much of it is out fault?
WHAT will it do to human civilisation?
HOW can we adapt?

We're not a simple group of loosely distributed hunter gatherers here and despite what green peace is screaming about, we aren’t going to kill 70% of our populations and abandon our cities. However if we ARE making a major impact on the climate change, either by speeding it up or increasing its severity, we have the ability and NEED to make an impact in slowing it down or reducing its effects. Which we are more then capable of doing. Mostly through a Fission/Fusion + Hydrogen fuel cell power cycle and overhauls of industrial production means. Which when fully implemented will dramatically decrease mankind’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

Its simple self interest. Human civilisation is hardly going to be destroyed by global warming, but it may well dictate that we're going to have to make HUGE changes to the nature of civilisation to keep going. Food production, water availability are the two most blindingly obvious needs which WILL be effected in a massive global weather shift. We have the technology to make the adjustments and still operate effectively ‘as usual’ through a cycle of global warming, but only through a concerted and sustained effort in logistical change and infrastructure development over the long term.

QED.

[Straha]

In short, the real debate is over what's causing the temperature increase, and it is heavily coloured by the idiotic delusion that if it's natural then it must be harmless to humanity hence not worth worrying about.

No, it's not that, it's more "If it's natural then do we really need to enact measures like the Kyoto Protocals?" Which does matter, because we really shouldn't make train-wrecks of our economies if it wont do shit to stop Global Warming.


By the way, Bolte, I don't have quotes in front of me but I know that Ehlrich had some real howlers regarding global cooling, there were others too who were/are quite prominent in the Global Warming movement, I'll get you some quotes later when I have the time...

[Lord Zentei]

FFS this debate is pointless.

Global Warming is a fact. Empirical evidence supports it. Mike posted a whole heap of nice pictures a while back, which showed 'before' and 'after' pictures of areas that have slowly been turning from artic to temperate over many years. Which would be impossible without a significant rise in energy in the season cycle.

Nobody is arguing against any of that.

The ONLY questions are:

HOW much temperatures will rise?
HOW long for?
HOW much of it is out fault?
WHAT will it do to human civilisation?
HOW can we adapt?

BZZZT! Wrong! Another question is: are greenhouse gas emissions by humans a primary cause or not?

We're not a simple group of loosely distributed hunter gatherers here and despite what green peace is screaming about, we aren’t going to kill 70% of our populations and abandon our cities. However if we ARE making a major impact on the climate change, either by speeding it up or increasing its severity, we have the ability and NEED to make an impact in slowing it down or reducing its effects. Which we are more then capable of doing. Mostly through a Fission/Fusion + Hydrogen fuel cell power cycle and overhauls of industrial production means. Which when fully implemented will dramatically decrease mankind’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

Our ability to affect global warming is contingent upon it's primary causes (BTW, the rising temperatutures can and do cause an increase in atmospheric CO2, not just the reverse).

That said, I'm mostly convinced that human emissions are at the very least a contributing factor due to the majority of experts taking this position, and that new sources of energy should be looked into.

[Uraniun235]

The ONLY questions are:

HOW much temperatures will rise?
HOW long for?
HOW much of it is out fault?
WHAT will it do to human civilisation?
HOW can we adapt?

BZZZT! Wrong! Another question is: are greenhouse gas emissions by humans a primary cause or not?

HOW much of it is out fault?

[Thinkmarble]

By the way, Bolte, I don't have quotes in front of me but I know that Ehlrich had some real howlers regarding global cooling, there were others too who were/are quite prominent in the Global Warming movement, I'll get you some quotes later when I have the time...

Is it fun to engage in a typical creationistic tactic ?
Do you take the fact that scientists were wrong about newtonian gravity being the correct theory as an argument againt the general theory of relativity ?
Aside, their never was a scientific consense about global cooling, to quote real Climate:

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton?s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

and

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

But their is a large scientific consensus about antrophogenic climate change.
If you want to disbelieve I have one question.
Why should the Co2 produced by burning coal in a power plant behave differently then the Co2 exhaled out of the lung of an animal ?

[Lord Zentei]

The ONLY questions are:

HOW much temperatures will rise?
HOW long for?
HOW much of it is out fault?
WHAT will it do to human civilisation?
HOW can we adapt?

BZZZT! Wrong! Another question is: are greenhouse gas emissions by humans a primary cause or not?

HOW much of it is out fault?

My bad.

[Civil War Man]

The ONLY questions are:

HOW much temperatures will rise?
HOW long for?
HOW much of it is out fault?
WHAT will it do to human civilisation?
HOW can we adapt?

The bolded question, IMHO, is the most important one, though it should be expanded to "WHAT will it do to human civilization and the planet's ecology as a whole?"

So far, global warming has not resulted in the catastrophes that so many people have been predicting. If this continues to happen, and no evidence shows up that that is going to change at any point, then we can probably let it be while we work on more critical environmental and societal problems.

[Lord Zentei]

The ONLY questions are:

HOW much temperatures will rise?
HOW long for?
HOW much of it is out fault?
WHAT will it do to human civilisation?
HOW can we adapt?

The bolded question, IMHO, is the most important one, though it should be expanded to "WHAT will it do to human civilization and the planet's ecology as a whole?"

So far, global warming has not resulted in the catastrophes that so many people have been predicting. If this continues to happen, and no evidence shows up that that is going to change at any point, then we can probably let it be while we work on more critical environmental and societal problems.

The catastrophes were predicted for the long term, not the short term. Thus the absence of catastrophe thus far doesn't mean we are off the hook. In the context of politics, question #3 is the lynchpin, particularly as Kyoto would be expensive, and everyone agrees that it is only the first step that would need to be taken if humans are to blame for the warming.

On a related note, the warming of the oceans is bad news, since they contain more CO2 than the atmosphere and the solubility of gases in water drops as the temperature rises: i.e. more heating leads to more greenhouse gases. This relation is less controversial than the human emissions -> heating one.

[Thinkmarble]

So far, global warming has not resulted in the catastrophes that so many people have been predicting. If this continues to happen, and no evidence shows up that that is going to change at any point, then we can probably let it be while we work on more critical environmental and societal problems.

What do you mean when you say catastrophe ?