By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Anybody who believed global warming was man made are having questions now?

Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
kowenicki said:
Now everybody (all scientists) accept that we had a very warm period in the middles ages.. vineyards in england.. etc etc. and that was followed by a very cold period round about 1600(little ice age).

So if those extreme climate conditions werent caused by man then why does this one have to be caused by man?

There are various explanations, I think having read all of them that "man made" is the least compelling.

We can neither stop it nor cause it imo..... only learn to live with it.

Are you saying CO2 in the air doesn't affect the climate, or that there is no CO2 in the air?

The CO2 in the air effects the climate... however the effect it has on the climate is very tiny I think appears to be the most llikely case.

With Global Warming being a mostly natural effect.

I will just start off from here in the thread.

Ever hear of the straw that broke the camel's back? Because I think this is might be one of those amazing situations where that ridiculous statement may be true. Just as an example I came up with while I was writing the previous sentence, women have periods, they bleed at regular intervals. Now if you stick an IUD up in her, she bleeds worse. Yes, she will always bleed every month in a cycle, but the IUD also makes it worse, more blood, more pissy, you get the idea.

Basically what I am saying is that humans have caused SOME effect, we don't know what it is and since the planet does it every so often cyclically as well we don't really know what's normal or not. If there is indeed a balance between keeping the earth alive, and a destructive loop, and we don't know how much even a little more emissions effect the weather, and our small amount of added CO2 could compound results, and most mportantly the fact we don't have another planet to move to currently I say that we tread lightly until the risk (only habitableplanet we have could become uninhabitable) becomes smaller not to tread lightly, either by being pretty damn sure about our real effetcs, or by finding another accessible planet. Sorry I feel like that sentence turned out to be too long for its own good.


I understand what your saying... but there isn't anything that supports this. As such i'm going to have to go with the "null" until actual research is shown otherwise.

On the other hand we don't really know that it doesn't affect anything in a way that could tip something irreversible. We just don't know enough to say either way. For instance, just because no one knew of calculus and gravity before Newton, doesn't mean those laws didn't exist beforehand. There has always been a cost/risk with many decisions, and I wager that the risk here far outweighs several trillion dollars in potential damages. Another example, remember that anesthetic they used to give women during labor? Once the tools and the ability to detect it, it turned out it was pretty ahrmful to the babies, even if they were just barely exposed to it. Same thing here, we just don't have the tools and abilities to gauge what we're doing, since the end of the world is at stake, it only makes sense to act liek adults and see the consequences first.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
tombi123 said:
Sqrl said:
tombi123 said:
Sqrl said:

Actually, even the hurricanes have been called into question.

Granted there was plenty of data on the fact that hurricanes haven't increased in frequency or severity well before this recent run of scandals but it's easier to find links for the recent stuff.

No climate models predict that hurricanes will increase in frequency with rising temperature, only that they will increase in intensity (which is obvious if you think about it). That is why there is no evidence to suggest an increase in frequency of hurricanes. 

I am pretty sure there is evidence which suggests hurricanes/storms are getting more intense in the mid latitude regions. Give me a minute to find it.

Last I knew there was no trend in severity either (which I mentioned, see bolded above).

Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1697-1700.

Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M.  (2001) Science 293, 474-479.

Well models show that if CO2 emissions are doubled the peak wind intensities increase by 5-10%. 

This is because the land surface temperature rises with increased CO2 quicker than the ocean surface temperature (which lags behind by about 30-40 years). This creates a steeper temperature gradient between ocean and land, which will in turn increase the intensity of hurricanes/storms. 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jyin/IPCC_paper_GRL_Jeff_Yin_final.pdf 

(Really long read, there is a short summary at the end). 

The explanation I would give as to why hurricane wind speeds haven't increased from 1950 to 2000 is because we haven't increased CO2 in the atmosphere enough to see a difference yet (doubling CO2 emissions only gives an increase of 5-10%).

So in effect the increase is negligable for the amount of C02 and temp increase we are talking about over even the next century?

I'd have to look up the numbers to be exactly right, but since the beginning of the industrial revolution atmospheric C02 has only increased by about 40%.  If we take this argument that this trend will result in increased hurricane severity as a given (and thats not a short leap considering the number of other factors at work aside from C02 and temp) then we would have to at least double and probably quadruple our current atmospheric carbon before we would see noticeable/measureable increases.

Also I have to raise the issue that models are not a substitute for empircal data.  In fact models are probably best defined as a part of the process of coming up with a theory which then needs empirical data and testing to prove.  Or put another way, models justify the need for scientific inquiry but they don't constitute it.



To Each Man, Responsibility
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
kowenicki said:
Now everybody (all scientists) accept that we had a very warm period in the middles ages.. vineyards in england.. etc etc. and that was followed by a very cold period round about 1600(little ice age).

So if those extreme climate conditions werent caused by man then why does this one have to be caused by man?

There are various explanations, I think having read all of them that "man made" is the least compelling.

We can neither stop it nor cause it imo..... only learn to live with it.

Are you saying CO2 in the air doesn't affect the climate, or that there is no CO2 in the air?

The CO2 in the air effects the climate... however the effect it has on the climate is very tiny I think appears to be the most llikely case.

With Global Warming being a mostly natural effect.

I will just start off from here in the thread.

Ever hear of the straw that broke the camel's back? Because I think this is might be one of those amazing situations where that ridiculous statement may be true. Just as an example I came up with while I was writing the previous sentence, women have periods, they bleed at regular intervals. Now if you stick an IUD up in her, she bleeds worse. Yes, she will always bleed every month in a cycle, but the IUD also makes it worse, more blood, more pissy, you get the idea.

Basically what I am saying is that humans have caused SOME effect, we don't know what it is and since the planet does it every so often cyclically as well we don't really know what's normal or not. If there is indeed a balance between keeping the earth alive, and a destructive loop, and we don't know how much even a little more emissions effect the weather, and our small amount of added CO2 could compound results, and most mportantly the fact we don't have another planet to move to currently I say that we tread lightly until the risk (only habitableplanet we have could become uninhabitable) becomes smaller not to tread lightly, either by being pretty damn sure about our real effetcs, or by finding another accessible planet. Sorry I feel like that sentence turned out to be too long for its own good.


I understand what your saying... but there isn't anything that supports this. As such i'm going to have to go with the "null" until actual research is shown otherwise.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=frw&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=co2+absorption+rate+oceans&start=10&sa=N

 



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:

I understand what your saying... but there isn't anything that supports this. As such i'm going to have to go with the "null" until actual research is shown otherwise.

On the other hand we don't really know that it doesn't affect anything in a way that could tip something irreversible. We just don't know enough to say either way. For instance, just because no one knew of calculus and gravity before Newton, doesn't mean those laws didn't exist beforehand. There has always been a cost/risk with many decisions, and I wager that the risk here far outweighs several trillion dollars in potential damages.

Except that people in third world countries are dying because of environmental policies meant to fight global warming.  Without access to their country's coal to raise themselves out of poverty, like the developed world was able to do, they are living a life where survival is constantly in doubt. 

In short, to the extent that there are things we can do that genuinely do not have downsides (such as conservation, advancing research in Fusion power, etc...) we should absolutely do whatever we can because those things have other upsides typically as well.  But that line has to be drawn at policies which do have a cost measured in human lives and yes even monetary costs that threaten economic stability.



To Each Man, Responsibility
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
kowenicki said:
Now everybody (all scientists) accept that we had a very warm period in the middles ages.. vineyards in england.. etc etc. and that was followed by a very cold period round about 1600(little ice age).

So if those extreme climate conditions werent caused by man then why does this one have to be caused by man?

There are various explanations, I think having read all of them that "man made" is the least compelling.

We can neither stop it nor cause it imo..... only learn to live with it.

Are you saying CO2 in the air doesn't affect the climate, or that there is no CO2 in the air?

The CO2 in the air effects the climate... however the effect it has on the climate is very tiny I think appears to be the most llikely case.

With Global Warming being a mostly natural effect.

I will just start off from here in the thread.

Ever hear of the straw that broke the camel's back? Because I think this is might be one of those amazing situations where that ridiculous statement may be true. Just as an example I came up with while I was writing the previous sentence, women have periods, they bleed at regular intervals. Now if you stick an IUD up in her, she bleeds worse. Yes, she will always bleed every month in a cycle, but the IUD also makes it worse, more blood, more pissy, you get the idea.

Basically what I am saying is that humans have caused SOME effect, we don't know what it is and since the planet does it every so often cyclically as well we don't really know what's normal or not. If there is indeed a balance between keeping the earth alive, and a destructive loop, and we don't know how much even a little more emissions effect the weather, and our small amount of added CO2 could compound results, and most mportantly the fact we don't have another planet to move to currently I say that we tread lightly until the risk (only habitableplanet we have could become uninhabitable) becomes smaller not to tread lightly, either by being pretty damn sure about our real effetcs, or by finding another accessible planet. Sorry I feel like that sentence turned out to be too long for its own good.


I understand what your saying... but there isn't anything that supports this. As such i'm going to have to go with the "null" until actual research is shown otherwise.

On the other hand we don't really know that it doesn't affect anything in a way that could tip something irreversible. We just don't know enough to say either way. For instance, just because no one knew of calculus and gravity before Newton, doesn't mean those laws didn't exist beforehand. There has always been a cost/risk with many decisions, and I wager that the risk here far outweighs several trillion dollars in potential damages. Another example, remember that anesthetic they used to give women during labor? Once the tools and the ability to detect it, it turned out it was pretty ahrmful to the babies, even if they were just barely exposed to it. Same thing here, we just don't have the tools and abilities to gauge what we're doing, since the end of the world is at stake, it only makes sense to act liek adults and see the consequences first.


Before global warmin people believes in global cooling. That CO2 was making the world colder. additionally if it truley was a "camel's back" situation then global tempeture trends should be even more significant then ever. there actually is proof against your hypothesis.

Around the Network
Sqrl said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:

I understand what your saying... but there isn't anything that supports this. As such i'm going to have to go with the "null" until actual research is shown otherwise.

On the other hand we don't really know that it doesn't affect anything in a way that could tip something irreversible. We just don't know enough to say either way. For instance, just because no one knew of calculus and gravity before Newton, doesn't mean those laws didn't exist beforehand. There has always been a cost/risk with many decisions, and I wager that the risk here far outweighs several trillion dollars in potential damages.

Except that people in third world countries are dying because of environmental policies meant to fight global warming.  Without access to their country's coal to raise themselves out of poverty, like the developed world was able to do, they are living a life where survival is constantly in doubt. 

In short, to the extent that there are things we can do that genuinely do not have downsides (such as conservation, advancing research in Fusion power, etc...) we should absolutely do whatever we can because those things have other upsides typically as well.  But that line has to be drawn at policies which do have a cost measured in human lives and yes even monetary costs that threaten economic stability.

Link that for me please.

I know of two major effects on the third world, severe and extended droughts and also food pricing due to biofuel production, but i have never heard that coal is restricted in these countries at all, and further more that is our fault for causing it.



“When we make some new announcement and if there is no positive initial reaction from the market, I try to think of it as a good sign because that can be interpreted as people reacting to something groundbreaking. ...if the employees were always minding themselves to do whatever the market is requiring at any moment, and if they were always focusing on something we can sell right now for the short term, it would be very limiting. We are trying to think outside the box.” - Satoru Iwata - This is why corporate multinationals will never truly understand, or risk doing, what Nintendo does.

@Sqrl

The increase in intensity is negligible at the moment. But remember that even if we stopped increasing our CO2 emissions tomorrow, ocean temperatures would rise for the next 30-40 years releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere which then increases land surface temp etc. leading to increasing hurricane intensity.

5-10% increase doesn't sound like a lot, but it would cost more lives and money, especially in low lying developing countries.



megaman79 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
kowenicki said:
Now everybody (all scientists) accept that we had a very warm period in the middles ages.. vineyards in england.. etc etc. and that was followed by a very cold period round about 1600(little ice age).

So if those extreme climate conditions werent caused by man then why does this one have to be caused by man?

There are various explanations, I think having read all of them that "man made" is the least compelling.

We can neither stop it nor cause it imo..... only learn to live with it.

Are you saying CO2 in the air doesn't affect the climate, or that there is no CO2 in the air?

The CO2 in the air effects the climate... however the effect it has on the climate is very tiny I think appears to be the most llikely case.

With Global Warming being a mostly natural effect.

I will just start off from here in the thread.

Ever hear of the straw that broke the camel's back? Because I think this is might be one of those amazing situations where that ridiculous statement may be true. Just as an example I came up with while I was writing the previous sentence, women have periods, they bleed at regular intervals. Now if you stick an IUD up in her, she bleeds worse. Yes, she will always bleed every month in a cycle, but the IUD also makes it worse, more blood, more pissy, you get the idea.

Basically what I am saying is that humans have caused SOME effect, we don't know what it is and since the planet does it every so often cyclically as well we don't really know what's normal or not. If there is indeed a balance between keeping the earth alive, and a destructive loop, and we don't know how much even a little more emissions effect the weather, and our small amount of added CO2 could compound results, and most mportantly the fact we don't have another planet to move to currently I say that we tread lightly until the risk (only habitableplanet we have could become uninhabitable) becomes smaller not to tread lightly, either by being pretty damn sure about our real effetcs, or by finding another accessible planet. Sorry I feel like that sentence turned out to be too long for its own good.


I understand what your saying... but there isn't anything that supports this. As such i'm going to have to go with the "null" until actual research is shown otherwise.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=frw&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&q=co2+absorption+rate+oceans&start=10&sa=N

 


See the temepture changes being negligable despite the fact that tempeture change was much more when carbon rates were much less. Such a fact goes completely against said theory.

tombi123 said:
@Sqrl

The increase in intensity is negligible at the moment. But remember that even if we stopped increasing our CO2 emissions tomorrow, ocean temperatures would rise for the next 30-40 years releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere which then increases land surface temp etc. leading to increasing hurricane intensity.

5-10% increase doesn't sound like a lot, but it would cost more lives and money, especially in low lying developing countries.

We shouldn't be throwing exorbitant amounts of the people's money on what ifs. I could tell you that Skittles cause cancer, and you could possibly die a horrible death as a result of eating them with no proof whatsoever. Would you give me millions of dollars with no discernable proof to force people to stop eating them?



sguy78 said:
tombi123 said:
@Sqrl

The increase in intensity is negligible at the moment. But remember that even if we stopped increasing our CO2 emissions tomorrow, ocean temperatures would rise for the next 30-40 years releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere which then increases land surface temp etc. leading to increasing hurricane intensity.

5-10% increase doesn't sound like a lot, but it would cost more lives and money, especially in low lying developing countries.

We shouldn't be throwing exorbitant amounts of the people's money on what ifs. I could tell you that Skittles cause cancer, and you could possibly die a horrible death as a result of eating them with no proof whatsoever. Would you give me millions of dollars with no discernable proof to force people to stop eating them?

Increasing hurricane intensity due to increasing land surface temperature (relative to ocean surface temperature) isn't a what if. It is a fact. 

Just so you know, my position on Climate Change is in between the advocates and sceptics. I believe we are contributing to global warming because carbon has been shown to absorb/trap heat, and we emit carbon. But I think we need more data to get a clearer idea of how much we are contributing to global warming.