-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Climate Change Poll
- Thread starter Laika
- Start date
I don't get why: "Climate change is a theory and has not been proven" wouldn't be considered the most aligned with scientific understandings?
Also don't get why man made things are somehow deemed 'unnatural.' It's all natural in (or to) the physical world. I'm unaware of any man-made occurrences that are unnatural.
Also seems like the data appears to match up, historically, with when science really found its legs within human existence. Hence, the more we adopt scientific conveniences to our daily affairs, the more physical phenomenon appears to impact our climate. Some of the wonderful technological advancements that science proudly takes credit for, seem to be associated with climate change, such that science is partially / entirely responsible for the change. To the degree this is not true, strikes me as similar to the degree of non-man-made events being the factor for earthly climate changes. I do think if science got us into this predicament, it can help us get out, but not sure why it ought to be treated as having supreme awareness/knowledge on such matters.
Much of the proposed solutions strike me, continuously, as highly politicized. I think it is intended to be as such.
Also don't get why man made things are somehow deemed 'unnatural.' It's all natural in (or to) the physical world. I'm unaware of any man-made occurrences that are unnatural.
Also seems like the data appears to match up, historically, with when science really found its legs within human existence. Hence, the more we adopt scientific conveniences to our daily affairs, the more physical phenomenon appears to impact our climate. Some of the wonderful technological advancements that science proudly takes credit for, seem to be associated with climate change, such that science is partially / entirely responsible for the change. To the degree this is not true, strikes me as similar to the degree of non-man-made events being the factor for earthly climate changes. I do think if science got us into this predicament, it can help us get out, but not sure why it ought to be treated as having supreme awareness/knowledge on such matters.
Much of the proposed solutions strike me, continuously, as highly politicized. I think it is intended to be as such.
Mickdrew
Member
Because that phrasing is implied to mean that the basics of climate change are somehow disputed or uncertain - which is completely false. We have a very good understanding of the physics, and the science regarding its truth has reached the level of evolutionary theory and many other fields of science.
Agreed. This recent rise in greenhouse gases isn't even unusual. There have been many times where natural causes have led to higher amounts of CO2 than there is today.
HOWEVER this doesn't change the fact that higher amounts of greenhouse gases and warming is harmful to life (just as it was in the past), and it doesn't change that current increases of greenhouse gases are largely caused by us.
Growing industrialization is the cause of the recent warming. All areas of our lives have grown as a result (economically, socially, and yes, scientifically).
To that extent, I suppose you can find a way to say that "science has contributed to this", but this seems more like pointless finger pointing and playing the blame game.
Science is, in essence, the concerted efforts of people to know more. Blaming this for the invention of the car and factories to pollute is kind of ridiculous (and how is this not "highly politicized"?)
I see the understanding of the phrasing as completely, or mostly, false. Climate change is a scientific theory that hasn't been proven. Generally scientific theories are not proofs, but explanation of evidence that can be validated with repeated observation / experimentation.
And that doesn't change the fact that it is still natural.
You see it as ridiculous, I see it as highly pertinent to the current debate and plausible resolutions.
Mickdrew
Member
Climate does always change. Who is arguing that it never had?
You know what else happens? The average earth and atmospheric temperature increases as greater amounts of greenhouses gases that trap long wave radiation bouncing off the planet at wavelengths that usually leave the atmosphere. If you don't agree with this, then you don't believe (or maybe you just don't understand) physics.
That myth was popularized during the 1970s from Time Magazine - NOT the scientific literature. There actually were a few papers which at the time said there might be cooling as a result of aerosol pollution, but even these papers were heavily outnumbered by scientific papers predicting global warming.
Don't believe me? Here is the proof:
Scientific Literature Predicting Cooling (1965 - 1980): McCormick and Ludwig (1967): 67; Barrett (1971): 14; Rasool and Schneider (1971): 144; Hamilton and Seliga (1972): 12; 4 Chýlek and Coakley (1974): 38; Bryson and Dittberner (1976): 31; 7 Twomey (1977): 19
Scientific Literature Predicting Warming (1965 - 1980): Revelle et al. (1965); Manabe and Weatherald (1967): 306; Sellers (1969): 191; Benton (1970): 0; Report of the Study of Critical Environmental Problems (1970): 130; Budyko (1972): 36; Machta (1972): 31; Mitchell (1972): 36; Sawyer (1972): 8; Federal Council for Science and Technology Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (1974): 1; Kellogg and Schneider (1974): 30; Sellers (1974): 33; Broecker (1975): 54; Manabe and Wetherald (1975): 211; Ramanathan (1975): 63; Reck (1975): 13; Schneider and Mass (1975): 82; Schneider (1975): 94; Thompson (1975): 49; Budyko and Vinnikov (1976): 0; Damon and Kunen (1976): 29; Mitchell (1976): 50; Wang et al. (1976): 89; Flohn (1977): 7; Idso and Brazel (1977): 1; Lee and Snell (1977): 8; National Academy of Sciences (1977): 1; Nordhaus (1977): 13; Panel on Energy and Climate (1977): 78; Woronko (1977): 1; Budyko et al. (1978): 0; Cooper (1978): 0; Gilchrist (1978): 5; Idso and Brazel (1978): 2; Mason (1978b): 0; Mercer: (1978): 48; Ohring and Adler (1978): 25; Stuiver (1978): 101; Berger (1979): 6; Charney et al. (1979): 50; Houghton (1979): 0; Hoyt (1979): 13; Rotty (1979): 1
SOURCE: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Please tell me you're trolling lol
Astrologers don't publish each of their findings in publicly available journals for anyone to check and verify. How many scientific studies have you read through and verified, Guy Threepwood? I'm guessing none.
Wrong again. Please read a scientific paper for once in your life
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Mickdrew
Member
The semantics you are employing are meant to make science look dodgy and untrustworthy. Do you accept the Theory of Evolution? Do you accept the Germ Theory? Plate Tectonic Theory?
Would you agree that each of these are as reliable as the theory of climate change? (hint hint: they are)
Very well, then we have reached an understanding
Would you not agree that since humans are nonetheless responsible for this warming, we should try to minimize our effects to prevent harm to life on Earth?
Blaming science as the cause of this and demanding they find a magic way to fix the problem when you yourself have also contributed to it seem hypocritical (and again, a very political move).
For the record, there are people looking for ways to remove CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but that in no way absolves us from our responsibility.
Crude oil is not a self-perpetuating substance; it will run out at some point at our current rate of consumption. (But before it actually runs out, it will become increasingly expensive to extract.)
I'm using the semantics science uses. Do you think scientific theories amount to (absolute) proofs?
Depends on what is being called forth and what is being ruled out as plausible solutions.
I'm not demanding science find a way to fix the problem. I'm not even technically blaming, just observing applied scientific knowledge (to inventions, modern day conveniences) is observably partially to mostly responsible for what is noted as man-made problem.
The politics around resolution is what I see still being sorted out, but strikes me as fairly one sided. Perhaps that will change today.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That's certainly the pop-science version we are all familiar with, usually accompanied by a stock photo of cooling towers (emitting steam)
But if you think that 1 or 2 molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air can trap enough heat to make any significant difference, far less a deleterious one, then you not only don't understand physics, you would have to argue this assertion with most scientists in related fields, even most climastrologers.
The entire theory relies 100% on hypothetical computer simulated feedback loops, primarily involving water vapor (what actually powers Earth's greenhouse effect) NOT CO2.. to multiply a tiny forcing into a Hollywood disaster movie.
Most believers are not stupid, they simply have no motive to delve into the 'problem' when they like the sound of the 'solutions' regardless-
Cooling or warming, It's the same solution looking for a problem, just as it was thousands of years ago, replacing scary masks with computer sims doesn't make it any more scientific!
Mickdrew
Member
Well, now we're moving into epistemology. I'm saying that the theory of climate change is as solid as scientific theories regarding the tides, gravity, germs, orbits, etc.
Since you didn't answer this question, I will ask again: do you not agree with this?
Figuring out what constitutes "absolute proof" is debatable - and many philosophers such as Descartes thought very few things are "absolutely true". How close to that you believe scientific positivism gets depends on your worldview, but I do think solid scientific conclusions are trustworthy. Surely you must agree with that...
That we shift our economy to one which produces as few emissions as possible (the closer to zero the better) and that we embrace green energy. Sounds fair?
Fair enough. I have no issue with you having disagreements with proposed policies - just as long as you recognize that it is a problem that we absolutely should not delay in fixing.
I say this because most of the people who say they disagree with actions taken are happy to sit back and feel no urgency to do anything besides stall further action.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
The same argument could be, and was, made 100 years ago, we could have banned oil then and missed out on a century of unprecedented growth, prosperity, standards of living- and still be stuck with a medieval reliance on wind and sun to determine where and when we may be productive.
Also as an aside it's not entirely clear whether or not oil is, for practical purposes, self perpetuating, we've only skimmed the surface, the deeper we go, the greater the pressure and rates of replenishment.
Mickdrew
Member
I would think coal power plants would be a more popular stock photos than steam being emitted from nuclear plants or other things... but what do I know
I do understand the physics on this perfectly well, and I will tell you that such a small percentage of CO2 most definitely CAN trap as much heat as scientists are saying.
If you doubt me, then let me ask you: how much ozone is there in the atmosphere? In case you didn't know, ozone is what prevents the sun from showering us with deadly UV rays. Since ozone protects us so much, it must be abundant in the atmosphere, right?
Wrong. The amount of ozone is typically less than 1 ppm (parts per million).
If 1 ppm of a gas makes this planet habitable for humans, why is it difficult to imagine 400 ppm of CO2 (the current amount in the atmosphere) can warm it?
Water vapor most definitely is a greenhouse gas, and it does trap heat from leaving into space. The problem is that water only traps the suns rays on certain wavelengths. Much of the heat is still able to pass through and escape into space (this is a good thing, because we need some heat to be trapped or this planet would freeze). CO2, on the other hand, traps MUCH more of this heat across a BROADER WAVELENGTH.
This is not me making things up. Scientists have been saying this for decades, and research shows this.
"Carbon dioxide forces the Earth’s energy budget out of balance by absorbing thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by the surface. It absorbs thermal infrared energy with wavelengths in a part of the energy spectrum that other gases, such as water vapor, do not."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php
Most deniers are not stupid, they simply have no motive to delve into the research and read any of the scientific literature.
These are not based on simulations. We can see evidence of greenhouse gases having effects on climate by studying ice cores, tree rings, and just about every other method of looking into past climate and past CO2 concentrations.
I do not agree with this. For various reasons. I generally don't think of scientific theories as 'equally reliable.' Such assertions strike me as type of stuff dogmatic thinking is made of.
I do not. I'm entrenched in scientific discussions (very familiar with actual scientific studies) regarding eCigs/smoking and have seen enough I find inherently untrustworthy that it has made me more skeptical of scientific approach / understandings. I had that before hand, with my philosophical / theological background, but that issue has not helped whatever cause science thinks it has for being an endeavor that people can safely / inherently trust. I now see science as depending greatly on who funds it as to what is deemed reasonable approach and plausible conclusions. IOW, as inherently biased. Items that are strictly hard sciences, like orbits of planets, are items I really have little to no issue with. Items dealing with human behavior and current popular political aims, I tend to have issue with. Depending on the issue, I may have significant disagreements with what I find to be a discernible dogmatism masking itself as a philosophy wrapped around the 'basis of science.' I see all of it as taking away from (otherwise) credible science.
Depends on a few factors, for me. Like, I feel we've had this game plan somewhat in effect for last say 20 years. But airplane industry, from what I understand, dwarfs the auto industry in terms of emissions. Having a POTUS that feels entirely justified flying around on AF1 as part of his duties strikes me as a) par for the course in terms of that job and b) undeniable hypocrisy given stated rhetoric around Climate Change and the (alleged) problem. I'm not big on flying. I have flown many times and would do so again. But I'll start to think things are getting serious if that industry is addressed foremost as 'problematic.' Currently, it really seems like heavy lobbying and denial allows elite types to say that isn't the problem (at all) and we need for individuals driving 50 miles a week to take a good hard look at how they live their life.
I currently feel no urgency for a variety of reasons. Feel I've hinted at or directly stated some of that in this post. Another aspect is the jaded factor. I do honestly think elite / scientific types will justify whatever they think needs to be done (for purposes of science, they'll say) is okay in terms of emissions, but if business person did similar thing, it would be treated as absolutely unnecessary and is worthy of ridicule/blame for 'causing the problem we are in.' Would go along way for me to hear scientists say, "hey, our endeavor is partially to blame for this perceived problem. We really don't wish to hide from that. How science is conducted in the 21st century will need to be more primitive if it is to align with plausible solutions for Climate Change." Without that type of assertion being conveyed (in a very well known way), I see no reason to feel things are urgent. Literally, none at all.
Here's an idea. Let's have yet another conference on Climate Change somewhere in the world, and have everyone fly to that conference and drive from airport to the conference location so we can meet and discuss what the information age would allow us to do from our own homes. C'mon, it'll be fun! Hypocrisy, sure, but fun!
Mickdrew
Member
Is that so? Well, you may be right. If that is true, then how well does climate change stack up against these other theories? I assume you have quantified this, or you wouldn't raise this objection. So by all means, educate me on how a theory as solid as climate change falls short of the standards set by other well established theories.
A fair point, but you have not factored in the scientific process at all in your reasoning. Your logic boils down to "science that has political implications can't be trusted".
It would take a massive conspiracy over several decades and many unrelated fields of science in order for this to be false.
Do you not know how the peer-reviewed process works? It is designed so any new proposal is ruthlessly tested so any errors are discovered. Anyone who submits false or misleading conclusions would have their work torn apart, and their research would be discredited. That is how the scientific method works. It may not be perfect, but it is the best method humans have for finding truth - and that fits my criteria for being trustworthy
I'm no elite, and I'm not one to say how politicians carry themselves or travel, but I would guess that having a jet set specifically for the President is a necessity. I doubt Obama is taking many joy rides, he uses it because he often needs flights to several parts of the world at a moment's notice and at inconvenient times. I think it's asking too much for the President to schedule flights with commercial airlines.
Politicians being hypocrites is no surprise, and it will never change. I honestly don't know how scientists could go to a zero carbon approach in this day and age if not enough has been invested in the infrastructure to accommodate it. Asking for scientists to be carbon free in that environment is pretty much asking for barely any science to be done at all (unless they get a great deal more funding.
If you are not worried about the consequences, then that means you are not aware enough of what the research says.
Why would I quantify this? The objection is one of general logic.
My logic boils down to the possible solutions are not inherently scientific and those claiming they are are likely trying to mask their philosophy under the auspices of science, thinking they are just righteous enough to do so.
Depends on who's funding it as to how much it'll be discredited. What you are speaking to is so 1975 or before. Scientific publications are under a whole world of scrutiny right about now, and takes away from what I would call the naive framework you are conveying.
Best method for finding the truth? Hilarious!
How about not fly at all if Climate Change is a BFD that needs to be dealt with, with sense of urgency?
So, I suggest admitting to being partial responsible and you equate that to call for carbon-free? Even more reason why the urgency claim is a farce. Can't even agree on the philosophical approach and you want me to accept the dogmatic thinking?
All this from responding to a poll in which I still think the answer I went with is the most scientific one. To the degree that is debated strikes me as degree that dogmatic thinking / righteousness is how everyone must understand this issue or kindly stay out of the way of the hypocritical elitists. I just assume ignore them and realize they aren't even half serious about own actions toward reducing the problem.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
yes but steam looks more dramatic
I do take your point, but this is one area where both sides actually have pretty close agreement- the direct effect (due to enhancement of the GH effect) of doubling CO2 levels would roughly translate to 1 degree of warming (disproportionately at higher latitudes, altitudes, at night).
Bearing in mind that since the industrial revolution we have achieved less than half of this- we would need another century of massive industrial growth to acheive this modest result- and to achieve another degree, (the point at which the IPCC sees problems beginning) would mean another century or two of similarly exponential growth in CO2 output, since each added molecule provides diminishing returns. I can only pray our economic future could possibly be that rosy. Again none of this is particularly controversial on either side
Everything else as I said, disaster scenarios or even significant climate alteration- is entirely down to those computer simulated positive feedback loops. There is no direct scientific causal link between CO2 and increased temps at these levels- other than the fact that observed temp variations- unambiguously- precede C02 variations by 8-900 years.
right, but at such minuscule quantities... as above the direct effect is minimal- and not much debated (even ignoring negative feedback loops altogether btw) - which is why feedback loops such as water vapor and albedo are utterly essential to any problematic scenario.. Not to say they are impossible, automatically incorrect- but at the very least it's not nearly as simple as 'our added CO2 = significantly more trapped heat' as is so often inferred in popular material.
If this were true I'd agree we had a problem, but it's not.
I think it's fair to say that I have, but there is frustratingly little hard science to delve into, once you get beyond this minimal direct effect, you run into the same brick wall of 'the computer sims say so' every time
Ordovician ice age >4000 ppm CO2.
Long term, there is no correlation at all.
short term CO2 fluctuations LAG temp variations, not the other way around..
Last edited:
Mickdrew
Member
General objection to all of science..... I see.... (what was all that you were saying about dogmatic thinking again? lol)
You know, for as much hypocrisy as you like pointing out in politicians and scientists, one could say you show tremendous hypocrisy yourself in distrusting science on forums, and then going on with your day trusting science in real life.
The effects of different solutions on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions can be calculated, and the effects of that on climate can also be substantiated. There are scientific solutions.
Every major scientific body in the world (Including those with governments that are hostile to climate change) say that athropogenic climate change. We had a federal government here that denied climate change for 10 years, but all research still pointed in the same direction.
You are making claims to knowledge that you do not have. It is very easy to "critique" science as corrupt, it is much harder to actually know what you are talking about. Independent verification is a thing in science - so no one institution is contributing to the idea of climate change being a reality. It is you who is being truly naive here, in my opinion.
By all means, give me a better one. I am actually curious to hear your response, so I hope you don't ignore this portion of my post.
. . . .
So should they drive to different locations? No wait, that uses gas.... dammit....
Maybe they should bike their way across the country until teleportation devices are invented. Maybe then they can meet with foreign leader to discuss trade agreements.
Who doesn't admit to being partially responsible? lmao
So you're saying scientists need to apologize publicly? So wait, the people who are working on discovering the extent of the problem need to take responsibility for causing it? I have no idea what you think this will accomplish, but a solution definitely isn't part of it.
As you wish. Seems people such as yourselves are only good for making excuses to do nothing anyway. You'd make a very good politician, I assure you
Mickdrew
Member
Source needed.
Incorrect. A review of all scientific literature (not just the cherry-picked low figures) shows a doubling of CO2 gives us an increase of 2 - 4.5 degrees
Source: http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Knutti_nature08.pdf
Yes and no. More CO2 absolutely does mean more trapped heat. That is impossible to deny.
But it is more complicated to see if this will lead to an overall warming of the earth since there are other factors that influence to total temperature of the earth besides CO2. That is why scientists say a doubling of CO2 might be as high as 4.5 degrees - cuz there is positive and negative feedback from many other factors other than CO2. For example, clouds might increase from a warmer earth and reflect more light causing a higher albedo, but clouds also reflect outgoing radiation leaving the earth and thus giving us a positive feedback too. It's complicated, but scientists have been making calculations on this - and research has come out saying 2 - 4.5
Please watch in the video I posted here at 5:47 - 9:40 for a rebuttal to all these points (you might need to watch another to debunk the "CO2 lags temp" argument)Ordovician ice age >4000 ppm CO2.
Long term, there is no correlation at all.
short term CO2 fluctuations LAG temp variations, not the other way around..
False observation. But it does help your straw man.
That's fine. I get to rest comfortably that scientific fields are only half serious about doing anything and that what little I could do, am probably already light years ahead of the curve. So, I'm feeling comfortable about addressing this overhyped problem in my own feeble way.
1. Philosophy
2. Spirituality
3. Arts / Creativity
4. Actual science, minus political nonsense
78. Science of the political varieties
Take responsibility. If science is responsible for every conceivable invention in the last 200 years and some of those are contributing to global warming, then science ought to have no problem connecting the dots of how responsible they are with this (so called) man-made problem. Or perhaps its just coincidental.
Whatever part of science wishes to take credit for all products currently existing, that part of the endeavor could strongly advocate for no more products being produced, foremost in the name of science. Or...... just pretend like it's not really a big deal, and we can keep on going on as if some purposes outweigh overhyped problems.
No one has proposed to "ban" the use of oil for energy production or ban the use of other forms of energy production, have they?
There is a limited volume inside the planet where oil can exist. If you know of any evidence that crude oil is a unique substance that self-perpetrates indefinitely, please cite it.