Global warming still happening

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the climate change people are wrong we've invested a lot of money into new technologies that give us renewable energy and a cleaner environment. If the there is no climate change people are wrong...I'd rather go with the ones that if they're wrong we still get something good out of it rather than the ones that if they are wrong mammals become extinct and roaches take over the world.
 


The real difficulty comes in determining if CO2 actually is causing changes, that would take some sort of a cohort type of trial (e.g. you have a control in addition to the experimental group) which is not possible. CO2 could very well be a confounder- we just don't know and can't definitely prove it.

Why does the entire earth have to be a controlled experiment when it can be broken up into multiple experiments?
Click to expand...

Because that's how you elucidate the actual processes going on to cause climate. Otherwise it's just a "well, we see that some of these things appear to be related but can't really test them" philosophical observation. That's great for COMING UP with a hypothesis, but very poor in trying to actually prove it.

Even if you don't believe the process is up to par, certainly you have to consider the empirical evidence to be pointing in a certain direction?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Climate is a very complex process where changes are typically measured over millions of years and we know that we don't understand a lot of it. Looking at a very short 30-130 year period is also likely not going to tell you about any actual meaningful relationship. That's similar to a few month, n of 10 medical study. It might be interesting but often the huge mega-trials lasting years which have adequate statistical power show something completely different. Otherwise, we'd still be recommending diethylstilbestrol to every pregnany woman, PSA testing to every middle-aged man, yearly Pap smears starting at age 13, hormone replacement therapy for every postmenopausal women, the Atkins diet, avoiding MMR vaccines due to risk of autism, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

The fact that you just said that all that is behind the CO2 experiments is a perceived relation to temperature shows me that you haven't looked at the studies in depth. I guess its safe to say that you believe in the propaganda that the models are inaccurate?
Click to expand...

There is no good way to test the hypothesis other than to wait an extended period of time to see if the temperature changes are as predicted in the models, regress to the mean, or do something else entirely. My opinion is that we don't know.

Reminds me of the people who use to say lead naturally occurred in the environment and didn't harm us at all.
Click to expand...

You can actually prove that lead is harmful. You simply do a cohort trial or RCT l and test various things in people with more lead exposure vs. people with less exposure. You can't do that with one Earth and CO2 global warming.
 

As it got colder, they started wearing animal skins and traded in their camels for woolly mammoths.[/sarcasm]



Another article for your consideration; Two New Studies Show That The West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt Is 'Unstoppable' And Collapse Is Inevitable. Some would read that headline and begin freaking out over the notion that the ice shelf is going to collapse and start carrying on about rising sea levels; especially after passages like this...
The fast-moving Thwaites Glacier will likely disappear, researchers say, raising sea level by nearly 2 feet. That glacier also acts as a linchpin on the rest of the ice sheet, which contains enough ice to cause another 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 meters) of global sea level rise.
Click to expand...
Holy crap! Anyone living in the flood plains, low-lands, or along any of the coasts better start planning their exit strategy, post-haste! However, if you read further, there is also this...
While collapse seems inevitable, we have at least 200 years before it happens.
Click to expand...
Huh?! What's that?! At least 200 years before it happens?! So, the ice sheet will melt and take about 200 years, plus or minus a few decades, to raise the sea level 10-13 feet worldwide.

One thing I often note goes unspoken when talking about climate change is the time scale in which the changes are being made. 200 years to a human seems so immediate given our (relatively) short life spans but 200 years is less than a blip on a geological timeline.

If I did the math correct, assuming the sea level will rise 13 feet and take 200 years, that equates to .78 inches a year between now and many years after me and my great-great-great-grandchildren will be long dead.

If human beings are still inhabiting this planet in another 200 or so years and aren't wiped out by a super-asteroid, the Yellowstone Caldera, tectonic shifts, a changing orbit, a pole shift, or just flat out annihilating each other; my guess would be that humans will manage to adapt to climate changes just fine. After all, humans managed to live through the last ice age.
 


While you make a good point on not being able to have a control group the observations and evidence we have gathered all point to the same thing, climate change. The models that are constructed around the gathered data only match current trends when man made causes are included in the calculations.

Of the 13,950 articles in peer reviewed articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. There is a reason that the entire concept of the denial of man made climate change is based on talking points. That is because there is literally no evidence to the contrary. If there was any real evidence against climate change you can believe that there are groups out there that would do everything they could to find it but yet they cannot.

The only really good point I have ever heard from a denier is the one you presented about not being able to have a control group because of the scale of the climate. However, I think that the evidence and observations are so overwhelming that this is less of a concern that it normally would be.
 
A good start would to be elect government officials that are able to see reason. A new and improved kyoto protocol that the U.S actually participates in, is also critical.
 
Why is USA (scapegoat) participation required? We're not even a top 10 per capita C02 emitter. Didn't the old Kyoto work?
We could elect Al Gore (I'm okay with that), but that doesn't answer the question. So ..... What do we do about it?
 


"A new and improved kyoto protocol" where the other major countries (China/India/Russia) have to actually do something might be helpful as well.

The original one was "Oh, I don't have to actually do anything? And if i sign this I look good and the US looks bad? Give me that pen !!"
 
Ok so the world is due for a super volcano eruption which would trigger giant increases in CO2 gases and other "global warming" conditions.

Let's look at it seriously. We can prove through ice core samples that CO2 levels were higher and lower than post 1900 and beyond readings. We have proven ice samples showing higher green house gases in the atmosphere and we have proven ice core samples shower lower CO2 readings.

Please explain to everyone how that indicates humans are the sole, or vast majority, of the reason why "climate change" exists.
 
Climate change exists apart from humans. Humans contribute to climate change. RATE of climate change is beyond what has been seen historically. Climate change is Economic change. People fear change.
 

I'd be very interested in hearing that answer as well...


The idea of the rate of change I think is what is at the heart of the issue regarding AGW. I do not believe there is enough evidence to fully support the assertion that humans are the primary cause of an increase in worldwide climate changes.Given the age of the earth and the recorded climate changes of centuries past, it seems alarmist to claim that after only 100 years of industrialized society that we've pumped enough emissions to radically change the global climate.

Also, I wouldn't say people fear change as much as people are unable to perceive the world much beyond what is in their daily lives. Add to that the realization that climate change is being driven by economics and all most people see is corruption, out of control government, and a lot of background noise about how humans are destroying mother earth.
 
1st industrial revolution, 1760 - 1840
2nd industrial revolution,1840 - 1870
Editing your sentence:
It seems reasonable to claim that after only, say, 144 years of industrialized society that we've pumped enough emissions to change the global climate.
 


The old Kyoto did work to a point but all gains were wiped out by China's increase among other developing countries.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/nov/26/kyoto-protocol-carbon-emissions

Some things are already being done like requiring higher MPG ratings out of vehicles. There is a large amount of options regarding this and all you have to do is look them up. There are even things you can do in your own house like solar panels, better light bulbs, better insulation. Solar panels on public buildings are another good idea. There are buildings being built that run entirely on renewable energy. Imagine how much money would be saved by using energy that is literally already there without the need to mind or refine it.
 


Its really quite simple. The only way to account for the change of the composition in the climate is by including the data that represents our emissions. If you calculate the natural cycles of the plant life, oceans, volcanoes and other natural sources its impossible to have a balanced equation. Only by adding in the input provided by man can you have an equation that is balanced. We are not the sole part of the equation but our contribution is overwhelming the natural processes.

 


No.. not at all. That is the EXACT reason why the models are consistently proven incorrect. We take all this data that we have over the last 100 years from sampling, then we take data from core samples, and then assume humans are the reason for the change. Therefore, regardless, humans are the issue and the variable in the equation, humans, constantly changes to make the model work correctly.

Did you know that in Los Angeles, at night time the green house gas levels drop drastically because of the water temperature change? This study came out a couple months ago. Water, or the oceans, have some odd effect that are removing green house gases from the atmosphere and dispersing them into the ocean where plant life utilize it.

This was just found out - now, given that we didn't know that a year ago, all the models must now adjust and add in that empirical data into the models. The only factor that we can dynamically adjust is humans. No matter what, that's the variable to make the equation come out correct.
 
 


I think you understand what is going on here. We are stuck doing n of 1 observational studies with no control on a very complex, dynamic system that we all can agree we do not completely understand. The global warming folks think they understand the system well enough to be able to attribute any significant changes in temperature to human activity-produced CO2 emissions. One of the big global warming skeptic arguments is that we do NOT understand the system well enough to be able to make that assertion. The models from the CO2 global warming folks' models continually being proven incorrect over time means that the skeptics are at least correct in the fact the CO2 global warming folks don't understand the system well enough to make their assertions.
 
Lets
DO
something.
Operative word "DO" instead of "say" like johnsonma's post.

1. Ration gas to 10 gallons / car / week
2. Illegal to water lawns
3. Illegal to have air conditioning setting below 80 deg F
4. Stop coal mining.

This is a good start. And yet these measure won't come close to the changes Gropouce et al want the US to approach. No.4 is probably the largest job loss. But as Gropounce would say, C'est la vie.

But really; I could live with these changes in my life.
 

Yeah, that was over the top. But I do have a problem with you giving me targets that are unrealistic with our economy and culture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom