Originally posted by inimalisthttp://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm I see that in there. It is assumed by the analogy that global warming is as obvious and irrefutable as a solar eclipse, which it isn't, thus: false analogy.
[b]The Reality of 'Climategate'
Benjamin Radford
Livescience.com
http://www.livescience.com/environment/091206-climategate-emails.html [/B]
Originally posted by inimalistI think i've given myself a base understanding of global warming by reading the first link, it's late so i won't read the rest now, but apparently, the only thing that can be attributed to us are greenhouse gasses. so what are we looking at, in theory, if nothing is done to prevent global warming? sauron skies with obsidian ground?
I'd start with this: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.htmland the wiki for climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
for any particular questions you might want addressed that aren't explicitly covered there, I'd suggest: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
for instance, here is their answer to the idea that past climate change disproves anthropogenic climate change:
A much more thorough answer is given at this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
as is done with all "skeptical" questions answered by the site.
EDIT: this link specifically answeres the charge that there is no empirical evidence for man-made climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
massive loss in biodiversity, increased conflict in Africa and other drought sensitive places, increased aridity in places like Arizona, major disruptions in 3rd world economies.
In real terms, its not a huge threat, per se, to the west, though it will cause problems. Drought in what is now farmland will be much more common, though agriculture may just move further north.
The kicker is that unless carbon sequestering is possible, most of this is unavoidable regardless of policy. The pollution is already there. I've largely thought that, in this respect, the origin of climate change is irrelevant and adapting to a changing world should be the crux of policy, not trying to fight an already lost battle.
EDIT:
Most scientists would agree with this [that global warming isn't some sort of apocalypse], it is the radical environmentalists who might better be criticized for such doom saying.
Originally posted by inimalistThat's my stance on the issue, too. We should see what we can do about it now to make it not so much of an issue. I'd also assume that places that are now hostile mostly would become livable so perhaps there even comes some good for it. What probably isn't going to help though is what we do atm which is try to reverse the problem with disastrous effects on other areas.
massive loss in biodiversity, increased conflict in Africa and other drought sensitive places, increased aridity in places like Arizona, major disruptions in 3rd world economies.In real terms, its not a huge threat, per se, to the west, though it will cause problems. Drought in what is now farmland will be much more common, though agriculture may just move further north.
The kicker is that unless carbon sequestering is possible, most of this is unavoidable regardless of policy. The pollution is already there. I've largely thought that, in this respect, the origin of climate change is irrelevant and adapting to a changing world should be the crux of policy, not trying to fight an already lost battle.
EDIT:
Most scientists would agree with this [that global warming isn't some sort of apocalypse], it is the radical environmentalists who might better be criticized for such doom saying.
Originally posted by inimalist
adapting to a changing world should be the crux of policy, not trying to fight an already lost battle.
Obviously adapting will be necessary but if we just let people continue with actions that contribute to climate change won't the effects get worse and worse?
Not to mention that the human causes of climate change are bad for us in plenty of other ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification (afaik this isn't in dispute)
This is my viewpoint, humans are not causing climate change!!
There are other factors like volcanoes, the sun´s cycles and the fact that climate isn´t a set thing that always stays the same, its fluctuates.
BUT!!, its obviously not good for our health to pump crap into the air & water, whether it be by cars kicking out Co2 or factories throwing their toxic waste into the seas and rivers, nature has many cycles and if you start poisoning it eventually were going to poisen ourselves.
And this pointless conference in Copenhagen is a joke, all those people are going to waffle on and achieve nothing, ok they are bound to come out with some "agreement" or "goals" at the end, but nothing will change.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
This is my viewpoint, humans are not causing climate change!!There are other factors like volcanoes, the sun´s cycles and the fact that climate isn´t a set thing that always stays the same, its fluctuates.
BUT!!, its obviously not good for our health to pump crap into the air & water, whether it be by cars kicking out Co2 or factories throwing their toxic waste into the seas and rivers, nature has many cycles and if you start poisoning it eventually were going to poisen ourselves.
And this pointless conference in Copenhagen is a joke, all those people are going to waffle on and achieve nothing, ok they are bound to come out with some "agreement" or "goals" at the end, but nothing will change.
👆
Originally posted by Bicnarok
This is my viewpoint, humans are not causing climate change!!There are other factors like volcanoes, the sun´s cycles and the fact that climate isn´t a set thing that always stays the same, its fluctuates.
BUT!!, its obviously not good for our health to pump crap into the air & water, whether it be by cars kicking out Co2 or factories throwing their toxic waste into the seas and rivers, nature has many cycles and if you start poisoning it eventually were going to poisen ourselves.
And this pointless conference in Copenhagen is a joke, all those people are going to waffle on and achieve nothing, ok they are bound to come out with some "agreement" or "goals" at the end, but nothing will change.
I lol'd.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
This is my viewpoint, humans are not causing climate change!!There are other factors like volcanoes, the sun´s cycles and the fact that climate isn´t a set thing that always stays the same, its fluctuates.
BUT!!, its obviously not good for our health to pump crap into the air & water, whether it be by cars kicking out Co2 or factories throwing their toxic waste into the seas and rivers, nature has many cycles and if you start poisoning it eventually were going to poisen ourselves.
And this pointless conference in Copenhagen is a joke, all those people are going to waffle on and achieve nothing, ok they are bound to come out with some "agreement" or "goals" at the end, but nothing will change.
From: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
The Skeptic Argument: "Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer."What the Science Says: As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change. Consequently there have been many studies examining the link between solar variations and global temperatures.
The correlation between solar activity and temperatureThe most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.
However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.
Other studies on solar influence on climate
This conclusion is confirmed by many studies quantifying the amount of solar influence in recent global warming:
* Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming"
* Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
* Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is −1.3% and the 2σ confidence level sets the uncertainty range of −0.7 to −1.9%."
* Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
* Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
* Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
* Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
* Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
* Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
* Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
* Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
* Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
* Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
* Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
* Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
* Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"Ocean Thermal Inertia
http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/sun-climate/climate_l.gif
Usoskin 2005 also found that over 1150 years, temperature lagged solar activity by 10 years. Due to ocean thermal inertia, it takes the climate a decade to catch up to long term changes in solar activity. This is exactly what's observed in the 20th century - in the early decades, solar activity rose sharply with temperature lagging a decade behind. When solar activity leveled out in the 40's, so too did global temperatures.
Links to all mentioned studies can be found on the web page
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously adapting will be necessary but if we just let people continue with actions that contribute to climate change won't the effects get worse and worse?Not to mention that the human causes of climate change are bad for us in plenty of other ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification (afaik this isn't in dispute)
I agree entirely. I was more addressing the extremes at both ends, as (I think) you mentioned in another thread, it was environmentalists who killed nuclear power.
I'm totally for protecting the Environment, even though I consider it largely a human aesthetic (though I do believe that impact on any part of the ecosystem will make life harder for humans in the long run, if we have to some how account for things which nature does for us now, like honeybee pollination of food crops). I just think that there are better ways to address human suffering, though, I think all of these initiatives suffer mostly from inept politicians rather than being competing ideals.
