The real climate change catastrophe

[sandy whitelinger]

I have but what difference does it make if i havn't seen it?

I'm just curious if you have any first hand knowlege of how it happened, about ocean systems, or the Carbon cycle, how temperatures are actually measured...things like that, or if you just take it on faith that everything is being faithfully reported.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Think of it like homeostasis. Your body naturally produces 98.6 degrees of heat. Increase that by five percent and you're looking at possible brain damage or death. The same is true of the atmosphere's CO2 content.

What is this supposed to mean? That a 5% increase on atmospheric co2 will kill...what?

 

[Gunfingers]

That a 5% increase will have significant effects. Try not to take the metaphor too literally. The point was that even a small change can have a large impact.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That a 5% increase will have significant effects. Try not to take the metaphor too literally. The point was that even a small change can have a large impact.

Do you have evidence to back this up?

 

[Gunfingers]

Do i have evidence that a fever over 103 is bad? Yes.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Do i have evidence that a fever over 103 is bad? Yes.

I was speaking in terms of an increase in CO2 levels in the atmospere.

 

[Falvlun]

I'm just curious if you have any first hand knowlege of how it happened, about ocean systems, or the Carbon cycle, how temperatures are actually measured...things like that, or if you just take it on faith that everything is being faithfully reported.

Do you realize how silly this argument is?

Do you question whether your doctor has first hand experience of a drug he prescribes you? Has he felt the side-effects himself? Was he there when it was going through drug trials? Has he done the chemical analysis to make sure that the active ingredient really is what they say it is?

Do you just "take it on faith" that the sun produces heat and light through nuclear fusion? Have you ever actually seen hydrogen fusing together? How do you know it's hydrogen at all and not little, purple, sentient dust motes?

If you don't question all of this, and demand first-hand knowledge, then why do you do so for global warming? Science is science. The only thing that changes is how people respond to it.

What's more, I am not a climatologist. It is not my field. I am not expected to be an expert. The experts are expected to be experts. They are the ones who are the best equipped to figure this stuff out. Why don't you trust them, but you will trust your doctor or an engineer? Why would you prefer a layman's pronunciation over an expert's well-researched results?

Just like I don't question how the sun works, I don't see the need to question global warming. There is a broad consensus among scientists that this is what is happening. It might be modified in the future. That's the beauty of science. It can change with new data. But for now, according to our current knowledge, global warming is occuring, and humans are contributing to it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Do you realize how silly this argument is?

Do you question whether your doctor has first hand experience of a drug he prescribes you? Has he felt the side-effects himself? Was he there when it was going through drug trials? Has he done the chemical analysis himself to make sure that the active ingredient really is what they say it is?

Do you just "take it on faith" that the sun produces heat and light through nuclear fusion? Have you ever actually seen hydrogen fusing together? How do you know it's hydrogen at all?

If you don't question all of this, and demand first-hand knowledge, then why do you do so for global warming? Science is science. The only thing that changes is how people respond to it.

What's more, I am not a climatologist. It is not my field. I am not expected to be an expert. The experts are expected to be experts. They are the ones who are the best equipped to figure this stuff out. Why don't you trust them, but you will trust your doctor or an engineer? Why would you prefer a layman's pronunciation over an expert's well-researched results?

Just like I don't question how the sun works, I don't see the need to question global warming. There is a broad consensus among scientists that this is what is happening. It might be modified in the future. That's the beauty of science. It can change with new data. But for now, according to our current knowledge, global warming is occuring, and humans are contributing to it.

Yet those are not political situations that have far reaching consequenses. For example, if it turned out that the sun worked differently there is no plan to change how it does work.

Let's take this statement of yours, "There is a broad consensus among scientists that this is what is happening." Do you know about this because you have read the consensus reports or because you have heard about them in the media? Have you studied the peer reviews of any of those reports? Have you compared them against any contrasting reports?

Just curious.

 

[Adso]

Not good.

However, the data was thrown away in the 1980's. I think that was before global warming was such a hot button political issue. It's not like it was thrown out last year-- Oops, our bad, now you can't see it.

It also states that the data was obtained from weather stations around the world. Would not these weather stations still have the data? It would just need to be compiled again.

Yes, but the raw original data is pretty important in relationship with the value-added data. It makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible to evaluate theoretical error deviations. There's just no raw data vs. value-added data possible.

As for the weather stations having the data, there is apparently a big issue.

"Climategate" -- Forget the Emails: What Will the Hacked Documents Tell Us? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

The link has some pretty damning information in reference to a man whose job it was to fix modeling programs from weather station data. The above has a link as well to the entire script of this mans struggle with fixing the program. It's actually kind of scary...

EDIT:
I work in a quality control chemistry lab. I'm pretty sure we only keep our original data-- chromatographs, etc-- for only two years. And then it gets pitched, too.

Yeah, but there is a wee difference between quality control and climate change. I wouldn't want quality control to be relying on old raw data, whereas climate change requires a much larger spectrum of information that is unchanging. More simply, if your theory requires the ability to look back thousands of years, it's best to hold on to that kind of data. Or am I wrong?

 

[Ozzie]

The issue of climate change is likely to propogate armed conflict in future as a result of failure to act now. Vote Green. Sack the deniers. And move on with a reality based approach now that might protect the interests of our children.

 

[Adso]

The issue of climate change is likely to propogate armed conflict in future as a result of failure to act now.

How would you see that happening exactly?

Vote Green.

So...burn my voter registration card...?

Sack the deniers.

Ahhh yes, the true form science should take... Silence opposing viewpoints. Really though, what on earth would this accomplish?

And move on with a reality based approach now that might protect the interests of our children.

Yes, we should protect the interests of future generations, but from what seems to be the sticking point.

 

[Ozzie]

How would you see that happening exactly?

Any number of scenarios.

So...burn my voter registration card...?

Stick it up your a--e.

Ahhh yes, the true form science should take... Silence opposing viewpoints. Really though, what on earth would this accomplish?

Nothing scientific about denial.

Yes, we should protect the interests of future generations, but from what seems to be the sticking point.

More denial. "From what": simpleton.

 

[Adso]

Any number of scenarios.

Can you pick one? I can't see it happening.

Stick it up your a--e.

I was merely joking as I am a Third Party voter myself. Apologies if you were actually offended by my sense of humour.

Nothing scientific about denial.

You're just repeating that opposing viewpoints should be silenced... I don't see how having open debate and discussion squashed is a precedent we should be establishing, nor do I see the benefit of science becoming a majority-rule system.

More denial. "From what": simpleton.

It's not a matter of denial, Ozzie. On one hand we have the implications that we are causing irreversible damage to our planet, or on the other hand there is the implication that if we enact a great deal of legislation based on a hypothesis that is wrong, the real problem is not dealt with and the legislation could damage economies or more importantly, developing nations.

I would rather be a simpleton who asks in a meager state of knowledge all possible problems and the solutions to those problems over seeing through the glass darkly and state something objectively as the correct path.

 

[Ozzie]

It's not a matter of denial, Ozzie. On one hand we have the implications that we are causing irreversible damage to our planet, or on the other hand there is the implication that if we enact a great deal of legislation based on a hypothesis that is wrong, the real problem is not dealt with and the legislation could damage economies or more importantly, developing nations.

I would rather be a simpleton who asks in a meager state of knowledge all possible problems and the solutions to those problems over seeing through the glass darkly and state something objectively as the correct path.

I suggest you be a simpleton that accepts we are destroying the planet through our activities as humans and simply hope that your legislators are willing to do something about it.

 

[Adso]

I suggest you be a simpleton that accepts we are destroying the planet through our activities as humans and simply hope that your legislators are willing to do something about it.

If you actually want something done, don't ask a legislator.

 

[Ozzie]

If you actually want something done, don't ask a legislator.

I'll only ask a legislator with clear leadership potential on this issue. Lets ignore the denial dinosaurs, they are gone. Who wants to be part of the future?

 

[Troublemane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI&feature=player_embedded

A sobering look at the scientists' deception.

 

[Copernicus]

Yet those are not political situations that have far reaching consequenses. For example, if it turned out that the sun worked differently there is no plan to change how it does work.

Sandy, I thought that Falvlun's point was very well made. Your pattern of response to people has been to ask rhetorical questions to imply that the scientific consensus either doesn't exist or is mistaken. But the same technique could be applied to you. Have you studied all of the climate reports that affirm global warming? Have you verified that the coral reefs remain healthy? Of course not. But that has little bearing on whether scientists are right or wrong in their consensus that global warming is real and is largely caused by human pollution of the environment.

Let's take this statement of yours, "There is a broad consensus among scientists that this is what is happening." Do you know about this because you have read the consensus reports or because you have heard about them in the media? Have you studied the peer reviews of any of those reports? Have you compared them against any contrasting reports?

Again, this is a hypocritical response, because you haven't done so either. You do not deny the broad consensus, but you imply it might not be there. Why would you think that? From reading articles in the British right wing tabloid press? I would rather take the US National Academy of Sciences or the IPCC as a better indication of what the consensus is. I think that they represent much more reliable sources on that subject.

 

[Alceste]

No! thats highbrow! for me , I am a Sun Man, and anyway i got it free on a special offer

so look i am new to this , i havnt taken much notice i have had other things on my mind, so this guys (Ian Pilmer ) article are you saying its rubbish and why?

Well, for starters, it's a tabloid. Science reporting in your daily newspaper - regardless of which one, and which country - is appallingly bad. Reporters are (usually) not scientists - they're overworked hacks trying to churn out a fixed word count every day. Much of the time they simply rework propaganda pieces provided for them by free market think tanks and / or PR agencies for whatever corporation stands to profit.

For decent science coverage (for laymen) you need to look at something like New Scientist, or look at any one of the dozens of reports, studies and papers published on the web by various universities and professional organizations. (Google scholar is useful). Or look at an information website maintained by climatologists.

Anyway, I don't know where to begin, honestly. To be honest, I didn't even read Ian Pilmer's article. When you mouse over a link, the url appears in the bottom left corner. Nothing in the mainstream papers is worth reading, especially if it relates to science. And I say this after pretty extensive perusing of mainstream papers.

Anyway, Real Climate is currently the best resource on the web for laymen trying to get a decent grasp on climate change, IMO. Go to "Start Here" - there are a lot of links to other resources and a lengthy Q and A.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

....snip....
Anyway, Real Climate is currently the best resource on the web for laymen trying to get a decent grasp on climate change, IMO. Go to "Start Here" - there are a lot of links to other resources and a lengthy Q and A.

I readily second this. Realclimate.org is an EXCELLENT site with a lot of informative research and discussions; as well as lots of useful links.
Frubals. :yes: