1 edit
Originally posted by Eladar…If it ISN’T significant, then it ISN’T the CO2 causing the rising sea levels, it is the natural cycle. .…[/b](my emphasis)
[b]I don’t know what the latest best official estimate of “how much” is but does it matter? -the fact remains that the estimates are that it is going to be enough to cause significant problems such as rising sea levels etc.
If it isn't significant, then it isn't the CO2 causing the rising sea levels, it is the natural cycle.
Who said that it ediction is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change. It was based on computer models.
1, In my previous post I have implied that virtually all the current estimates say it IS going to be significant.
2, why couldn’t warming through a natural cycle AND through CO2 BOTH contribute towards global warming and rising sea levels? -I am not suggesting it will turn out that way, I am just suggesting it could turn out that way for all we know.
…IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100
….
….
Sorry, it was 1 F per decade. Even that isn't happening.
..…
Of course that “that isn't happening” -we are still just over 9 whole decades away from year 2100! The computer prediction is a prediction for the future rather than the present or the past.
Where does it say that their computer prediction says that warming must have already happened?
Of course that “that isn't happening” -we are still just over 9 whole decades away from year 2100! The computer prediction is a prediction for the future rather than the present or the past.
Perhaps this is where we are not understanding each other. Today is the future for predictions made in 1990, even predictions made in 2000. According to your logic, no prediction can ever be proven incorrect because the predictions will always be about the future, never about the present.
2 edits
Originally posted by Eladar…According to your logic, no prediction can EVER be proven incorrect because the predictions will always be about the future, never about the present.
[b]Of course that “that isn't happening” -we are still just over 9 whole decades away from year 2100! The computer prediction is a prediction for the future rather than the present or the past.
Perhaps this is where we are not understanding each other. Today is the future for predictions made in 1990, even predictions made in 2000. According to yo ...[text shortened]... ven incorrect because the predictions will always be about the future, never about the present.[/b]
. .…(my emphasis)
Err…no.
How does it logically follow from:
1, “the predictions will always be about the future, never about the present”
That:
2, “no prediction can EVER be proven incorrect”
?
-any given particular future date will eventually become the present date and then we would know if the prediction made for that date was incorrect -yes?
Say a prediction was made in year 1990 about year 2000, well, we are already past year 2000 so either such a prediction would have been proven correct or incorrect (or possibly proven “partly” correct and “partly” incorrect) -yes?
The predictions made about the global climate from now to the year 2100 will, by 2100, be either proved or disproved (or possibly proven “partly” correct and “partly” incorrect) -yes?
The predictions made about the global climate from now to the year 2100 will, by 2100, be either proved or disproved (or possibly proven “partly” correct and “partly” incorrect) -yes?
For all practical purposes, it will never be proven. By the time 2100 rolls around, we'll be dead.
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarWell, WE may never know -but, in practical terms, our children’s children will know.
[b]The predictions made about the global climate from now to the year 2100 will, by 2100, be either proved or disproved (or possibly proven “partly” correct and “partly” incorrect) -yes?
For all practical purposes, it will never be proven. By the time 2100 rolls around, we'll be dead.[/b]
Perhaps in the year 2100 people will be cursing us (now all long dead) in 2008 for selfishly not doing enough to prevent significant future problems for future generations.
1 edit
I am not qualified to make an accurate assessment of whether global warming is mainly due to anthropogenic effects or not...however, I would concur with the view that "global warming" is currently a man-made occurence.
Whilst it is true that science has been wrong about many things, it is largely agreed by most people in the industry that increases of CO2 emissions change the climate, and have an effect on ecosystems.
e.g. oceans acidified by the increase in CO2 = problems for the coral reef ecosystem. (I had a 6 month work period based exclusively on environmental science. I hope that those people studying the effects on the ocean ecosystems working in Cambridge, Stanford, Florida, Okinawa et al. aren't being taken for fools by nature itself)
With respect to Governor Palin, it would be refreshing were the opinion of a politician based on their own research, and not a mindless and uneducated faith in the viewpoint of their party. Unfortunately, the issue is split along (yes/no) politically partisan lines in the USA, and thus attracts all sorts of ignorant people ready to spout their totally unqualified opinions purely on the basis of the party line.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarThis is my first foray into the world of internet debating, and that was a badly chosen opening line. Whilst poorly worded, I was simply attempting to convey that I could not deliver an authorative assessment on this matter - that job is entrusted to the IPCC - and their findings are what is disputed. However, my opinion on the matter does have some basis, substance (and qualifications).
[b]I am not qualified to make an accurate assessment of whether global warming is mainly due to anthropogenic effects or not
Then the rest of your post is hog wash.[/b]
My scientific outlook is based on my stint as an undergraduate working at research facilities in Okinawa, in which I submitted a peer review assessed paper for publication. This paper, whilst quite trivial in the grand scheme of things, was based on the effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere - one which included the view that CO2 emissions are anthropogenic. I don't happen to believe that the CO2-time graph (which seems to indicate anthropogenic causes) is an example of a confounding relationship. Unless a paper conclusively shows me that somehow, the methods involved with collections and historical measurements of CO2 levels at Vostok are fundamentally flawed...I will be quite content in my belief that the reason CO2 levels are far higher than they have ever been in the last 500,000 or so years is due to anthropogenic causes.
My reason for saying I lack 'qualification' in this field is largely due to my planning on never returning to work in it. Indeed, you certainly seem to have looked at more 'sceptic' websites than I've seen recently. The fact that the uninformed opinion of someone such as Palin (or, for that matter, Al Gore) will garner one-million fold the recognition that any of my studies (even were I to produce one that is irrefutable) would gain is depressing.
I wouldn't make an uninformed guess at who would win a basketball series between say, Utah Jazz and the LA Lakers - I know almost nothing about the subject at hand, I only know of the team names. I couldn't comment on the matter without researching the views of non-partisan people involved - and some statistical evidence, before coming to a more informed decision. I wouldn't rely on the opinion of my friend from Salt Lake City for that information!
Back to the topic at hand, my assumptions may be incorrect, but I at least have relevant experience investigating this field. Perhaps the basis of my opinion hinges on the fact that each senior researcher (i.e. dept heads, professors...) I have questioned about this topic has expressed that global warming is manmade. The scientific consensus is heavily weighted one way, and I happen to bow to the scientific consensus on the topic. That is, climate change is occurring, likely caused by human activities affecting the atmosphere.
As it is quite clear on your opinions, my question to you is:
Who do you feel is qualified to make the assessment on the matter at hand?
Originally posted by EladarSorry did I miss something here? What exactly makes him less qualified than you to talk about this?
[b]I am not qualified to make an accurate assessment of whether global warming is mainly due to anthropogenic effects or not
Then the rest of your post is hog wash.[/b]
Personally I have a degree in geology.... This Is a relevant subject to the topic at hand and I have actually studied this material somewhat extensively . However Even I (and I'm great đ ) don't have the arrogance to say I can make ACCURATE predictions as to what the primary cause of climate change is. I believe it to be anthropogenic acceleration of a natural phenomenon but I haven't devoted my life to answering this question. I've only read a few papers and wrote an essay or two.....
Saying he isn't qualified to make predictions isn't the same as saying he doesn't understand. Actually the more you understand about any subject the less inclined you are to make sweeping statements about it.
Tell me what qualifies you as an authority on the subject.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarYou are hogwash.
[b]I am not qualified to make an accurate assessment of whether global warming is mainly due to anthropogenic effects or not
Then the rest of your post is hog wash.[/b]
It's amazing how white supremacist ideology and global warming denialism so often coexist.
3 edits
Originally posted by Eladar…It is JUST as likely, if not MORE that they will see this as a giant hoax..…(my emphasises)
It is just as likely, if not more that they will see this as a giant hoax. As I said, look at the present weather pattern. 30 years of cooling then 30 years of warming. That's the basic cycle.
And you base this on….?
Basic science tells us that adding extra CO2 into the atmosphere should increase global temperatures and the computer simulations predict that this will result in a significant enough rise to cause what most people would regard as “significant” problems -have you got any particular reason to think that these particular computer simulation are ALL erroneous?
-if so, exactly what basic physics or mathematic or whatever do you think these computer simulations have got wrong?
-and are you more qualified to judge that than the people that designed the computer models?
(note that I, at least, HAVE studied BOTH basic physics AND computer programming at university so I probably have slightly greater authority on this matter than you do?)
…As I said, look at the present weather pattern. 30 years of cooling then 30 years of warming. That's the basic cycle...…
So there is natural cycles -the mere fact that there are cycles doesn’t in any way contradict the greenhouse theory.
The greenhouse theory obviously implies that, given the current stage of whatever cycles that are occurring in the present and regardless of whether or not the correct temperature is currently going up or down as the result of temporary temperature fluctuations, the temperature would be higher that what it would have otherwise have been if there was no extra CO2 put in the atmosphere -do you deny this?
1 edit
Regardless of whether global warming is man-made or not (I believe it is, at least for a significant part), it's always a good idea to use our resources more efficiently. However, the current approach by Gore and his pals is flawed because it relies too much on consumer responsibility (yeah right) and consensus between governments (who are afraid of losing votes). A much easier way of tackling the problem is simply to tax energy consumption heavily and let the free market create energy efficiency. There is a reason European cars are more fuel efficient than American cars - this is not because Europeans are tree huggers but because gasoline is more expensive in most European countries due to tax policy.
3 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's amazing how people who can't argue the point rely on personal attacks to try to win a point.
You are hogwash.
It's amazing how white supremacist ideology and global warming denialism so often coexist.
I suppose it is only natural that after a point is lost that people on the losing side feel the need to try to win by piling on.
Bobson,
Back to the topic at hand, my assumptions may be incorrect, but I at least have relevant experience investigating this field. Perhaps the basis of my opinion hinges on the fact that each senior researcher (i.e. dept heads, professors...) I have questioned about this topic has expressed that global warming is manmade. The scientific consensus is heavily weighted one way
If you were go to back to that time and tell those same professors that we would be experiencing global cooling even though CO2 levels are still rising, they would have said you were crazy. As I said earlier, the idea that we could have simply been in a warming cycle and that a few years later we would be cooling due to a cooling cycle wasn't taken into consideration back then.
Who do you feel is qualified to make the assessment on the matter at hand?
Given the scientific facts, I feel as qualified as the rest of the people in this thread to make make an assessment on the topic at hand. I do not feel that anyone is qualified to simply sit on high and tell me how things are, even though what I see around me contradicts what is being said.