Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For all of you doubters
- Thread starter apple2991
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Off to political... but before that happens.
1) Yes temperatures are higher than they were 100 years ago.
2) Yes people are pumping insane amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
3) I will even grant you that the heat increases aren't just heat island effects.
You also have to remember
1) Its still cooler than it was 800-1200 years ago.
2) It is far cooler than it was 150,000 years ago.
3) All of the CO2 from oil and coal etc, started out in the atmosphere.
4) Models are crap. "Experts" screw up simple FE models of simple mechanical structures. Much less the infinitely more complicated non-linear atmospheric models. If an expert says anything about there model other than its less crappy than the next guys, he's full it.
5) The first rule of modeling is throw out any set of parameters that don't match the theory.
1) Yes temperatures are higher than they were 100 years ago.
2) Yes people are pumping insane amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
3) I will even grant you that the heat increases aren't just heat island effects.
You also have to remember
1) Its still cooler than it was 800-1200 years ago.
2) It is far cooler than it was 150,000 years ago.
3) All of the CO2 from oil and coal etc, started out in the atmosphere.
4) Models are crap. "Experts" screw up simple FE models of simple mechanical structures. Much less the infinitely more complicated non-linear atmospheric models. If an expert says anything about there model other than its less crappy than the next guys, he's full it.
5) The first rule of modeling is throw out any set of parameters that don't match the theory.
Plus
I did some real estate speculating and if all goes well.... in 400 to 500 years I'll have that Ocean Front property I can not currently afford!
Don't email us - email Ford, and all the automakers who are sitting on their hand with new solar and hydrogen fuel cells. Cause they are under the oppressing thumb of Exxon and the other oil cartels. Exxon by the way is now the largerst company in the world... ahead of GE and Microssoft! They are not too fond of cars that get lots of miles to the gallon.
Tell them! Meanwhile... I've got some ocean front property in arizona....
PS - eat more beef! The more cows we consume - the less methane will be released by them!
I did some real estate speculating and if all goes well.... in 400 to 500 years I'll have that Ocean Front property I can not currently afford!
Don't email us - email Ford, and all the automakers who are sitting on their hand with new solar and hydrogen fuel cells. Cause they are under the oppressing thumb of Exxon and the other oil cartels. Exxon by the way is now the largerst company in the world... ahead of GE and Microssoft! They are not too fond of cars that get lots of miles to the gallon.
Tell them! Meanwhile... I've got some ocean front property in arizona....
PS - eat more beef! The more cows we consume - the less methane will be released by them!
MongoTheGeek said:
MongoTheGeek said:
Didn't intend for it to be political. Maybe it is inevitable, though.
Just wondering why people think they know better than intelligent scientists who have dedicated their lives to this field of study. Doesn't mean they are infallible, or even right a lot of the time. But if they are just plain dead wrong, what's the point at all?
OK, and new models are being created, tested, and improved upon all the time. It's not as if this is just one "model" that scientists have cooked up to represent the global climate. There are thousands of different models being tested and improved upon, and then cross-referenced with each others all the time. And the fact is that a strong human influence in global warming has been a conclusion of ALL of these models in the past 15 years and has withstood any test that might suggest otherwise.
If your model is less crappy than the next guy's enough times, eventually it'll get pretty darn good.
It really all just comes down to one thing - too many people - and all of those people are farting...
A good article, stubeef.
I recently read a summary in the journal Science about global warming and fossil fuels/reduced forests etc. The consensus among most scientists seems to be (to summarize):
1. Global warming is taking place but global temperature is and has always been a dynamic natural phenomenon tied to a large number of poorly understood meta-climatic factors. It's going to change, much as it did a thousand years ago, or during the ice ages etc.
2. Computer models are currently inconclusive/inaccurate, i.e. there is insufficient data to construct a reasonably accurate model for such a complex global event. they are getting better, but right now we just don't have enough data due to the number of variables involved. c.f. the butterfly effect.
I recently read a summary in the journal Science about global warming and fossil fuels/reduced forests etc. The consensus among most scientists seems to be (to summarize):
1. Global warming is taking place but global temperature is and has always been a dynamic natural phenomenon tied to a large number of poorly understood meta-climatic factors. It's going to change, much as it did a thousand years ago, or during the ice ages etc.
2. Computer models are currently inconclusive/inaccurate, i.e. there is insufficient data to construct a reasonably accurate model for such a complex global event. they are getting better, but right now we just don't have enough data due to the number of variables involved. c.f. the butterfly effect.
No argument - the planet is warming.
No argument - pollution is bad.
Argument - man is causing global warming.
Interesting Fact - the US is a carbon sink, we scrub more CO2 with our forests than we produce.
Interesting Fact - An increase in the Solar Output of 1/1000th% has MORE effect on earth warming than doubling the present CO2 levels worldwide.
If we screw this up, we could easily make thinks worse, like when the "experts" introduced insects/vegetation/animals to new enviorns that ending up causing more problems than the pests that were there.
No argument - pollution is bad.
Argument - man is causing global warming.
Interesting Fact - the US is a carbon sink, we scrub more CO2 with our forests than we produce.
Interesting Fact - An increase in the Solar Output of 1/1000th% has MORE effect on earth warming than doubling the present CO2 levels worldwide.
If we screw this up, we could easily make thinks worse, like when the "experts" introduced insects/vegetation/animals to new enviorns that ending up causing more problems than the pests that were there.
apple2991 said:
it all depends which scientists you believe. just because the most recent puplication says something not all scientists have exactly this opinion. there are as many scientists out there who doubt this article and they are also intelligent and devoted their life to research. they just puplished their opinion month or years ago.
btw: i don't believe that human influence as driving force of global warming is already proven. nevertheless i'm all for Kyoto and energy preservation and I buy only fuel efficient cars.
my 2 cents,
andi
andiwm2003 said:
Remember that scientists are people who have political leanings and that these leanings will tend to color their views, studies and conclusions.
One large volcanic eruption can do more to change the global climate than the combined actions of man over a short period of time. Life on this planet depends on a balancing act of many, many forces that we don't fully understand. Yes pollution is bad ( but in many cases pollution is better today than it was in the past) but that doesn't mean it will cause the end of all life as we know it on this planet.
I agree with your thinking here. There are so many more things that impact the climatology that are too complex to model. The recent surge in solar activity is a great example.stubeeef said:
That doesn't mean that we should pollute to our hearts' content, safe in the "knowledge" that the sun will probably bake us before we bake ourselves. In the end, we have finite resources and, it seems anyway, infinite capacities for consumption. Managing fossil fuel usage and moving to renewable energy sources makes sense not just from an environmental standpoint but from a sustainable technology standpoint.
As for making it worse if we try too hard, I would agree with the insect analogies, but I don't think we'll make the world a worse place if we could eliminate large portions of pollution. The effect of pollution has impact well beyond "global warming" - killing species in lakes, potentially causing cancers, etc.stubeeef said:
I think each side of the debate has one major flaw:
- The global warming believers are wrong to believe that one century's worth of measurements proves a worldwide, long-term trend. There is good reason to believe that the current warming is part of the end of the last ice age because the planet is cooler now than at many times in the past. The temperature increases are not uniform in different parts of the world and in fact some parts are getting colder. It's well-known that there have been larger temperature swings in the past even within longer trends, trends that are far longer than the entire span of human civilization. The climate system of the earth is complex and not well-understood by even the latest science. Shouting about how dire the situation is doesn't change that fact.
- The global warming naysayers are wrong to think that just because science can't be completely sure about what's happening, that's a good reason to do nothing. There's a lot of overlap between these skeptics and those who oppose regulating pollution in general, think asbestos doesn't need cleaning up, and believe Big Business knows best. In this sense their heads are even farther under the sand than the worriers. It's been proven repeatedly that humans have had a large effect on the environment in many ways and some of them have taken a while to recognize and understand. It's also true that if we are causing global warming, then we have to act sooner rather than later.
My personal feeling is that our contribution is only a partial cause of global warming and we should do what we can to limit our impact on the earth in many more ways. We're on an unsustainable path of resource consumption right now and we have to do something about it. Other forms of pollution are easier to fix and recognize than carbon dioxide emissions. Reducing many forms of pollution also often reduces formation of carbon dioxide too.
And there's one thing that I'm very sure of: if major climate change is happening -- regardless of what causes it -- we'd better prepare ourselves. The last drastic climate shift occurred before human civilization began and the next one won't give us a free pass.
- The global warming believers are wrong to believe that one century's worth of measurements proves a worldwide, long-term trend. There is good reason to believe that the current warming is part of the end of the last ice age because the planet is cooler now than at many times in the past. The temperature increases are not uniform in different parts of the world and in fact some parts are getting colder. It's well-known that there have been larger temperature swings in the past even within longer trends, trends that are far longer than the entire span of human civilization. The climate system of the earth is complex and not well-understood by even the latest science. Shouting about how dire the situation is doesn't change that fact.
- The global warming naysayers are wrong to think that just because science can't be completely sure about what's happening, that's a good reason to do nothing. There's a lot of overlap between these skeptics and those who oppose regulating pollution in general, think asbestos doesn't need cleaning up, and believe Big Business knows best. In this sense their heads are even farther under the sand than the worriers. It's been proven repeatedly that humans have had a large effect on the environment in many ways and some of them have taken a while to recognize and understand. It's also true that if we are causing global warming, then we have to act sooner rather than later.
My personal feeling is that our contribution is only a partial cause of global warming and we should do what we can to limit our impact on the earth in many more ways. We're on an unsustainable path of resource consumption right now and we have to do something about it. Other forms of pollution are easier to fix and recognize than carbon dioxide emissions. Reducing many forms of pollution also often reduces formation of carbon dioxide too.
And there's one thing that I'm very sure of: if major climate change is happening -- regardless of what causes it -- we'd better prepare ourselves. The last drastic climate shift occurred before human civilization began and the next one won't give us a free pass.
Let us all acknowledge that you can find a person with a degree that is willing to say ANYTHING that you want. Just because there's a scientist that will attest to the world imploding in 100 years, does not mean that it's true; or, for that matter, that the majority of scientists believe it. I feel that if anyone believes that scientists are all-knowing, are just ignorant... even if the majority of scientists believes that same thing. For MANY years, scientists have found fault in previous ideas and continue to revise what they previously thought. I find it VERY difficult to believe that suddenly, all of their beliefs are infallible for the rest of time.
Regarding this topic, if you would actually pay attention to other beliefs, you might gain a better understanding on the topic. Here's an article you may find interesting: LINK. So to conclude that global warming is the result of human (in)action, put it forth as fact, and that there's no reason anyone should believe otherwise, is controversial in itself.
If there's one thing that I learned from my high school goverment teacher, it's to always question what you read or hear.
Sorry for the rant... my $0.02
Regarding this topic, if you would actually pay attention to other beliefs, you might gain a better understanding on the topic. Here's an article you may find interesting: LINK. So to conclude that global warming is the result of human (in)action, put it forth as fact, and that there's no reason anyone should believe otherwise, is controversial in itself.
If there's one thing that I learned from my high school goverment teacher, it's to always question what you read or hear.
Sorry for the rant... my $0.02
apple2991 said:
That was my point
apple2991 said:
My reason is that I learned at the feet of learned scientists. I learned the math and the tools and the techniques. I had numerous respected PhD's explain the ways that the models are crap and will be for a long time to come.
apple2991 said:
Eventually. I'll say the model is pretty darn good if it accurately predicts yearly mean world wide temperatures for 10 years out within a degree. Then I will trust it out 30 years.
emw said:
As the second link explains, planting CO2 sinks (large forests) may actually contribute to Global Warming in the future, ergo, what once was a no-brainer, is now exposed to be a bad news idea. Tinkering on a global scale aint a good idea.
Pollution is bad tinkering and must be mitigated and darn quick.
edit:
and this story minutes old with another hyopthetical.......
Link
