Falsifiable Hypothesis: Revisiting Hansen's 1981 'Global Warming' Paper

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by hulugu, Apr 10, 2012.

  1. hulugu, Apr 10, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2012

    macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #1
    Two Dutch researchers reviewed Hansen's 1981 paper that included a projection of increasing temperatures. Compared current data to that trend line, the researchers found that Hansen was very close, if not slightly under the actual observed data.

    From the Atlantic:

    [​IMG]

    As paper's authors note, effectively, this proves that 'global warming' is based on sound science.
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    Bunch a hocus pocus mumbo jumbo if you ask me. Can't trust them so-called experts with their high falootin fancy degrees.

    (edit) My pappy once told me you cain't tell if it's gonna be warmer or colder cuz dem weathermen are wrong just as much as they be right.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #3
    What most people really debate is not wether global warming is happening or not, but wether it is a product of human activity or not.
     
  4. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #4
    With the right graph, you can prove anything.
     
  5. macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #5
    Show as a graph that proves intelligent design.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #6
    Or love.
     
  7. HarryPot, Apr 10, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 10, 2012

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #7
  8. Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
  9. macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #9
    My "love" challenge was largely sarcastic.

    I believe you overstated when you said anything can be proved with a graph. .Andy challenged you to find a graph that would essentially prove religion. My point was that if the absence of a graph proving god means there is no god, then the same is true about love, or friendship, etc. But I digress...
     
  10. macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #10
    While that is true (and of course is an interesting debate), it means bugger all when we're in the middle of it and Pacific Islands are disappearing.

    In a real political perspective, what caused global warming is completely beside the point.
     
  11. macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #11
    Here's a summary of why we know it's manmade. I've posted a link to both the simplified explanation and a link to more advanced explanation several times here and I have yet to see any of the climate change deniers attempt to debunk it.

     
  12. thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #12
    Hansen's graph incorporated the increase in CO2 production due to human activity and then modeled it. The temperature is increasing along that same line, ergo, Hansen's idea that the increase in temperature is driven by human activity seems more likely.

    So, you're arguing that the graph is flawed? Which one, the original graph or the new one. Care to review the findings and see if you get a different graph.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #13
    Well, if global warming is a natural phenomena, there is little we can make to prevent it. We can prepare for it, but not prevent it.

    As for the "going green" insanity as of lately. I actually like it. Everything we can do to take care of our environment is always good. But, onto what point should we use this green technologies? Sometimes this green technologies are very expensive, and doing it the old and dirty way is a necessity if we don't want to make drastic changes that could affect the economy.

    Sometimes I feel people should care less about how it all began, and start investigating towards cleaner and more economically viable alternatives. But we are stuck in the middle of a fight between people who either want it all or nothing. It seems now everything must be either black and white, no middle point.

    That doesn't mean we shouldn't investigate towards how we affect our environment, but we shouldn't let ourselves fall into extremes were nothing is gained.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #14
    Just because a large number of un-educated people who don't wan't to face facts which are agreed on by the vast majority of the relevant scientific community doesn't mean there is a debate.

    There isn't actually a scientific controversy or debate between evolution vs. intelligent design either.

    But as long as those who refuse to face reality can say "there's a debate on this" they can use it as a tool to claim we don't really know what's going on.

    ----------

    The problem with this viewpoint is you assume that the world must behave in some sort of "moderate" manner which will respond positively to your moderate political position.

    In reality we are facing catastrophic changes, and sometimes that means a black and white choice. Like either you keep coal power plants or you say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of square miles of global coastline.

    ----------

    Show me the evidence.
     
  15. thread starter macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #15
    So, a car is rolling downhill towards an intersection? Do you A)push it as hard as you can? B) Try to slow or halt it? C) Ignore it because there's not much you can do about.

    Right now, we're doing A and C.

    There's a false equivalence here. If the economic argument holds significant weight, we have to account for the cost of Climate Change in those calculations. A short-term gain may not be worth long-term costs.

    With that in mind, "economically viable" shifts. The extremes are 1) People who have evaluated 30-years of climate research and are worried about the runaway effects of a shifting climate. 2) People who argue that everything is fine (or that we can't do anything about it.)

    Once you accept that climate change is anthropogenic, you can start thinking about what policies are viable and what technologies are necessary. But, if you don't accept the conclusion in the first place, than there's no point in doing anything and all this "green" tech is a waste of money. (This argument usually conveniently ignores the health benefits of non-petroleum based economies.)
     
  16. macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #16
    You might want to rethink the whole "don't make drastic changes because it might upset the economy" concept, because the whole system will soon crash and burn if we do nothing...

    [​IMG]
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #17
    I'm no expert in this topic, I studied Civil Engineering, but my interest was more in structural design than in the "ecology" part of the career.

    One book I remember reading is Climate of Extremes, by Patrick Michaels. I found it to be a good read, but to be honest, I don't remember much about it.

    Still, I remember reading how CO2 production by humans is minimal when compared to the natural emissions, and how CO2 is just a small part of the Greenhouse Effect. Link.

    I will gladly hear what you think about it. I read your links, the first one is indeed a little simplified. The second one says something about examining the trees layers. But, how back in time can these measurements go?

    See, this is exactly what I mean. You immediately associate people who think differently from you as "un-educated". And what's really the point in bringing evolution and intelligent design? That is a COMPLETELY different topic, since you aren't debating only with science, but with the beliefs of people. Global warming is science 100%, so a debate must exist for scientists to reach a conclusion.

    And besides, you evidently failed to see my point. I haven't even said if I believe wether global warming is human made or not.


    So, we should close coal plants right now? No matter what?

    See that I didn't propose to keep doing it the "old and dirty way" forever, but that we should also realize that we need those ways to maintain the economy. So no, it is not a black or white situation, there are many external factors that need to be analyzed.
     
  18. macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #18
    This is but an update on "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." - Mark Twain

    Just a toss-off comment, not to be taken seriously.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    #19
    If you know you can't stop it, why try? Better make sure nobody is at the end of the path so they won't be hitter by the car.

    What I really think is that we should be pursuing this technologies because, even if there were no global warming, our current energy sources are bound to finish. And sooner or later this will make them very expensive and so new technologies will be needed.


    Well, so far what they have predicted is very obvious. The fun part (going downhill) is yet to come.
     
  20. macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #20
    The problem with most people is that they don't understand basic chemistry.

    Alas, the isotope of CO2 in the atmosphere produced by the burning of fossil fuels is different than the one output by natural forces.

    Care to take a guess which isotope is dramatically over-represnted in our atmosphere right now?
     
  21. localoid, Apr 10, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2012

    macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #21
    According to the article I linked to: "Sequences of annual tree rings going back thousands of years have now been analyzed for their 13C/12C ratios."

    While there aren't living trees that old, there are dead, preserved trees that can be examined. To quote from one example of the types of research some are doing re:isotope analysis...

    Another example, re: tree rings...

    That "fun part" of the economic collapse of society is predicted from the model because of the continued consumption of non-renewable resources. As supply diminishes, society will be less able to produce the volume of food, goods, and services needed to sustain the earth's population. Read more about that at: Looking Back on the Limits of Growth

    [​IMG]
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #22
    It is also possible to look at rock formations to determine acid levels. That is important because when the Himalayan mountains began to rise, the elevation caused a change in the weather patterns (which we still see today) causing monsoons and massive wet seasons in the Indian subcontinent. The rocks appear to show an increase in acid rain which depleted the atmosphere of CO2. The corresponding reduction may have led to the last big ice age.

    In addition, you can look at ice cores at the poles and evaluate the composition of the atmosphere. I don't think there is much debate left about whether greenhouse gasses cause global warming. The only question is whether our adding to those gasses is somehow exempt from the rule that increased greenhouse gasses leads to global warming.

    I don't see how you can logically argue that our adding to what happens naturally will have zero effect. Perhaps less than some people believe, but zero is an illogical argument. [/spock]
     
  23. AP_piano295, Apr 11, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2012

    macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #23
    So you are admitting you are un-educated on this subject :confused:. I would explain this to you but there was another long thread about climate change recently so I suggest you read the numerous and detailed explanations supplied there.

    Ice cores give us atmospheric data from hundreds of thousands of years ago.


    You admitted earlier that you are un-educated, now what percentage of people who don't believe in climate change actually know anything about it? Education is not a generalized thing, understanding electrical engineering doesn't even remotely qualify you to make a comment on the nature of global warming unless you've done some real re-search.

    If you had done some real research you would know that peer reviewed articles which contradict global warming basically do not exist. The very few articles that do have been widely debunked, are published in 3rd rate journals, and funded by oil and coal lobbies.

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102309_2102324,00.html


    The Ocean level doesn't care about the economy have you heard about The Maldives? You should visit soon because they wont be there much longer:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives

    EDIT: If you would like to read through this thread:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1346901&page=2

    It has quite in depth explanations as well as a number of solid sources to read through.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #24
    I do not believe anyone is realistically arguing the human activity has zero effect, the argument is that the human effect is a vanishingly small fraction of one percent. So, the deniers come up with all kinds of ways to show how other causes correlate more directly than CO2, CH4, etc. so far, none of their arguments have been shown to hold water (a major greenhouse gas). Some of them are absurd (the solar system is crossing the galactic plane) or just plain wrong (ibid).

    It looks a lot like the deniers are desperately grasping at straws. Which is kind of ironic in a way: most of the deniers are RWers, "personal responsibility" is a RW mantra, and yet the actions we should take to deal with AGW strongly resemble being more responsible.

    In the 80s, CFCs and the ozone layer became a big deal. We acted, and the results have shown that the science was good, the antipodal ozone hole is starting to recede. Human action can have a major global effect. Inaction, in this case, would probably be much worse.
     
  25. macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    I find it interesting that RWs insist that their theory of lowering taxes somehow improving the economy is true, despite very little evidence to support the claim, yet, if a Lefty makes a claim, no amount of evidence is enough.

    I would be happy to abandon my views about drilling, the environment, taxes, and many other things if the RWers could support their claims. Heck, in many cases they have, and the Democrats have agreed with them, but anymore, that's just not good enough.
     

Share This Page