|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Will anthropogenic global warming be revealed as a political sham? |
| Yes, in the next 6 months |
|
32% |
[ 11 ] |
| Yes, in the next 12 months |
|
11% |
[ 4 ] |
| Yes, in the next 24 months |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
| Yes, but long after we're all dead and buried. |
|
5% |
[ 2 ] |
| No |
|
41% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 34 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:26 am Post subject: The anthropogenic global warming poll, take deux |
 |
|
| Once more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:19 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I'm bumping this in response to recent posts.
| Quote: |
| Did you see the OP? The "scientific community" was hoodwinked by a liar. |
LOL! Mine was the OP. It said no such thing. As for your post, you're hooking everything into one study.
Moreover, when OWT asks you about the polar ice shelf that disappeared, all you have to say is:
| Quote: |
Why would it be global warming that broke the shelf when the complete data suggests global cooling? |
Are you suggesting global cooling did that to the ice shelf?
OK. Claim. Evidence?
| Quote: |
People arguing against global warming are incredibly suspicious individuals.
Why? Claim, evidence. The evidence isn't there. The open mind will question dogma. |
Because, at least in your case, you posted evidence from an oil and tobacco lobby as legitimate evidence.
Yes. The "tide" of opinion on Anthropogenic climate change is moving in the same direction as evolution and the WTC being loaded with thermite.
And look! It's the oil and tobacco report being posted again.
Can we keep it all on one thread to avoid repetition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You forgot a maybe/probably not option.
Anyway, I voted no, but wanted to opt for 'very likely not' as anyone with even basic training in science ought not to deal in certainties.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
Umm Maybe it was colder temperatures that melted the ice? That makes sense.
Most of the worlds scientists are pretty much in the warming camp here. Those who aren't usually have an agenda.
But you know better? What makes you an expert on climate science? Investing and business maybe but climate science no.
We're all basically arguing from authority on this thread. Unfortunately, most climate scientists come down on my side. I'd like to be wrong here |
I have to agree with OneWayTraffic. The overwhelming consensus among scientists in this field is that human activity is creating serious changes in our atmosphere/environment. Only a small handful of scientists disagree.
I do not have any background in environmental science, and while being mindful that one must keep an 'open mind,' am therefore inclined to accept that, very likely, it is the majority of climate scientists who are correct, and not the minority. I am therefore not inclined to pay much heed to those without any background in the relevant sciences who claim this is not the result of human activity. Nor am I interested in debating them.
The general consensus among medical scientists is that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes cancer. A few scientists disagree. Fewer now, than before.
It's good that scientists disagree. Scientists should be able to challenge accepted theories and thinking, and this contributes to more scientific progress. Thus I am interested in proper scientific debate on this subject - by scientists - not armchair critics, that is.
However, while I believe that scientist should be able to dissent, like other posters, I am wary of the dissenters, and their motives for dissenting. I keep an open mind, but I am very sceptical on this issue, as it seems to be people who are married to certain ideologies who trumpet this particular dissent. A scientist in the pocket of the oil industry may well find incentive to attempt to 'disprove' the findings of his peers.
And like OneWayTraffic, I wish that the general consensus were wrong. Like him I have small people in my keeping and their future is of great concern to me. But sadly, I very much doubt they will be found wrong.
Those who believe them to be wrong are caught up in wishful thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
What really worries me is that they'll be wrong and not in a good way. It's happened before. XYZ isn't considered a threat because no one thought of ABC.
Maybe they are wrong. Maybe things will be far worse than the worse fears of the most extreme environmentalists. It's just as likely as them being wrong in a way that means things will be fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
we already know that global warming is having an effect. The rising sea levels are causing problems in many pacific countries. Some islands in PNG have been flooded already and the people turned into internal refugees.
Others are facing rising levels of salt water in the ground, making it difficult to grow crops. Others have seen rising tides flooding thier front yards and washing under thier houses.
Even if you don't accept global warming, at least accept the melting ice and the effect it is having in the tropics and the rising sea levels. Maybe it will affect developed countries in 50 yrs, but some developing countries are facing it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
we already know that global warming is having an effect. The rising sea levels are causing problems in many pacific countries. Some islands in PNG have been flooded already and the people turned into internal refugees.
Others are facing rising levels of salt water in the ground, making it difficult to grow crops. Others have seen rising tides flooding thier front yards and washing under thier houses.
Even if you don't accept global warming, at least accept the melting ice and the effect it is having in the tropics and the rising sea levels. Maybe it will affect developed countries in 50 yrs, but some developing countries are facing it now. |
It's not global warming that's being disputed (except perhaps by mises who champions global cooling), rather anthropogenic global warming is this thread's concerned with. People who dispute that recent global warming has occured due to anthropogenic causes do not accept that we need to make urgent changes to the way we do things, because (in their mind) it won't help mitigate global warming anyway. They want business as usual (often in its literal sense). That's a rather reckless outlook. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't got much time, so I can't read all your articles. Firstly I discounted any article from a Murdoch owned outlet (The Australian, for example) as Murdoch has been a champion of climate skeptics for years, making a deliberate choice to give more space to skeptics than those adhering to the consensus.
I chose to read The New Scientist article you supplied. At the bottom of that article was a link to another article (relating to that article). It warns that any cooling is just a natural fluctuation, and not necessarily a sign that there is no longer trend toward global warming:
Climate myths: Any cooling disproves global warming
| Quote: |
| In fact, even if the world does cool over the next few years as some predict, it in no way undermines the certainty about long-term warming due to greenhouse gas emissions |
| Quote: |
People who claim we can stop worrying about global warming on the basis of a cooler year or a cooler decade � or just on questionable predictions of cooling � are as naive as a child mistaking a falling tide, or a spring low tide, for a real long-term fall in sea level. Just as the underlying change in sea level is swamped by the daily and monthly changes, so the annual variation in global temperature masks any underlying trends.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've just had an idle read of the BBC article you listed, and read:
| Quote: |
"We have to take into account that there are uncertainties in our model; but it does suggest a plateauing of temperatures, and then a continued rise," said Dr Keenlyside.
'No distraction'
The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon.
"We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to year and decade to decade," said Richard Wood from the UK's Hadley Centre, who reviewed the new research for Nature.
"We expect man-made global warming to be superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas emissions)."
Dr Wood cautions that this kind of modelling is in its infancy; and once data can be brought directly from the Atlantic depths, that may change the view of how the AMO works and what it means for the global climate.
As with the unusually cold weather seen recently in much of the northern hemisphere - linked to La Nina conditions - he emphasises that even if the Kiel model proves correct, it is not an indication that the longer-term climate projections of the IPCC and many other institutions are wrong.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists |
This is the key point. I need evidence of this. I need to see that they had models 15-20 years ago that said the climate would stabilize. Then I need to see models from the last 10 years that showed the climate would cool. And these models have to be within the "scientific consensus" that was informing their predictions. I need evidence that their models can predict anything other than an Armageddon "soon". I work with these kind of predictions in my vocation (though we try and predict other stuff). They're only worth a pot if the men building them are honest. The hockey stick shenanigans confirms my suspicion that we're dealing with rent-seeking ideologues.
| Quote: |
| People who claim we can stop worrying about global warming on the basis of a cooler year or a cooler decade � or just on questionable predictions of cooling � are as naive as a child ... Just as the underlying change in sea level is swamped by the daily and monthly changes, so the annual variation in global temperature masks any underlying trends. |
The hockey stick, now corrected for an honest man and honest data (not cherry picked by an ideologue) shows a stable climate that is well within historical variation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists |
This is the key point. I need evidence of this. I need to see that they had models 15-20 years ago that said the climate would stabilize. Then I need to see models from the last 10 years that showed the climate would cool. And these models have to be within the "scientific consensus" that was informing their predictions. I need evidence that their models can predict anything other than an Armageddon "soon". I work with these kind of predictions in my vocation (though we try and predict other stuff). They're only worth a pot if the men building them are honest. The hockey stick shenanigans confirms my suspicion that we're dealing with rent-seeking ideologues.
| Quote: |
| People who claim we can stop worrying about global warming on the basis of a cooler year or a cooler decade � or just on questionable predictions of cooling � are as naive as a child ... Just as the underlying change in sea level is swamped by the daily and monthly changes, so the annual variation in global temperature masks any underlying trends. |
The hockey stick, now corrected for an honest man and honest data (not cherry picked by an ideologue) shows a stable climate that is well within historical variation. |
Nonsense. Scientists always knew this was not a smooth linear transition. Science is advancing all the time. Science has always dealt with theory as much as fact. Theories are refined (and discarded) all the time. The fact that 15 years ago their ability to model wasn't as good as it is now, doesn't necessarily mean that the theory (that current changes in climate are caused by human activity) is wrong. One of your articles actually discusses how difficult it is to predict the climate in the short-term, and that they are far more confident about their predictions for the middle of this new century than for the beginning of it. The fact that they couldn't model in 1999 what would happen in 2009 doesn't prove that they have got the big picture wrong. They knew in 1999 that they couldn't model the climate for 2009. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What evidence is there that they have the 'big picture' correct? Or that they can predict anything? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| What evidence is there that they have the 'big picture' correct? Or that they can predict anything? |
I just couldn't resist answering this. Climate is not weather. Predicting the weather over the next year or even week is fraught with difficulty. Predicting it over the next year on average is much much easier. I predict that this year it will get colder and dryer in Seoul every day, with the occasional cold snap and warm period. January will be the coldest month. I can state that with high confidence despite not having the slightest idea what the weather will be on any one day.
Similarly, you know that the US dollar will probably trend down over the next few decades, unless the US redresses its deficit spending, current accounts and stops printing money. That's not difficult to predict. On the other hand I bet you couldn't tell me what the US dollar will be on any one day I care to nominate in ten years time. I bet you couldn't even give me monthly averages.
CO2 adsorbs and reradiates infrared radiation reducing the mean free path of photons leaving the earth. So do lots of other gases. The net effect of that is a warmer environment. It's easy to calculate the current warming effect: without this our surface temperature would approximate the moons. Calculating the effect of any one gas on this warming is more complex; they absorb on overlapping wavelengths and some gases are caused directly or indirectly by others (read water vapor.)
Calculating feedback effects is a nightmare. There's dozens of known and unknown factors. This is where the uncertainty comes in. But all known feedbacks (clouds are a prime factor, along with increased plant growth) will at most partially mitigate warming, not remove it. Many more may make it far worse, (Melt water on the top of ice absorbing sunlight, melting methane calthrates suddenly releasing CH4 into the atmosphere, warming oceans holding less CO2 etc.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
bumpity bumb.
It's incredible how easy the leftists are fooled. All you have to do is wrap a lie in "green" and they'll eat it up. No matter how obvious the fakery is. They'll lap it up.
What's next fellas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
