Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[niky]

Wonder how the poll would look if we started it from scratch, at this point.

Right now, only 19.6% disagree that global warming is occurring.

And only 29.9% believe that human activity plays no part in it.

Which puts total denial at about 49.5%, more or less.

And belief that humans are the main factor at 32.2%.

I'd wager the numbers would shift further towards the "pro" side, but any new poll will have to be arranged to give choices along a more discrete spectrum.

 

[Touring Mars]

Incidentally, the poll is not as old as the thread... I added the poll after the thread had been going for quite a while. I also added the last option much more recently than the original poll.

 

[sk8er913]

Wonder how the poll would look if we started it from scratch, at this point.

Right now, only 19.6% disagree that global warming is occurring.

And only 29.9% believe that human activity plays no part in it.

Which puts total denial at about 49.5%, more or less.

And belief that humans are the main factor at 32.2%.

I'd wager the numbers would shift further towards the "pro" side, but any new poll will have to be arranged to give choices along a more discrete spectrum.

Incidentally, the poll is not as old as the thread... I added the poll after the thread had been going for quite a while. I also added the last option much more recently than the original poll.

It would be interesting to archive the old results and set up a new one and see how much they've changed.

 

[Imari]

Because the temperature rose to above 0C or 32F ...

D: Something else entirely.

Modern refrigerators have a built in de-ice function.
In turn, it evaporates your ice cubes over time.

I see that you're both determined to avoid the obvious metaphor.

 

[ryzno]

I see that you're both determined to avoid the obvious metaphor.

Is it because someone left the door open, or is it because your fridge is breaking down? Or a bit of both? Or something else entirely?

I get exactly what you meant:

• Is it cause of our pollution?

• Is it cause the Ozone is "failing"?

• Is it a combination of these 2 factors?

• Or is it something else, or is it out of our control?

I honestly have no idea, but I'll share my thoughts since I wanted to get technical about refrigerators.

• Does our pollution damage the environment and the Ozone? I say yes.

• Are we the cause of the Ozone failing? I say probably. But how far back does data go, to prove the Ozone was not beginning to fail, before mankind started to change the Ozone.(I'm sure cows weren't the first animals to have "farts that destroy the Ozone and cause global warming")

Now as far as it being something else and it being in our control. I say its a combination of everything. The worlds weather has change immensely over the life our our planet and we have no control over it. But I don't think trying to live a cleaner way of life, would hurt anything.

Is there any proof the Ozone can repair itself? Or is it just the theory of if we clean up our act, it will slow down the degradation?

 

[Dotini]

My opinion, in terms of the poll, is:

Some global warming has occurred in the recent past that is partly due to human activity with the exact percentage unknown. However, due to cyclic changes in the Sun-Earth system, a magnetic field weakening is certainly underway (and field reversal quite possible) which will result in global cooling, and thus render futile many of our efforts and expenditures to combat global warming. Efforts to reduce pollution and contamination of the soil, water and air are nevertheless justified.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I get exactly what you meant:

• Is it cause of our pollution?

• Is it cause the Ozone is "failing"?

• Is it a combination of these 2 factors?

• Or is it something else, or is it out of our control?

I honestly have no idea, but I'll share my thoughts since I wanted to get technical about refrigerators.

• Does our pollution damage the environment and the Ozone? I say yes.

• Are we the cause of the Ozone failing? I say probably. But how far back does data go, to prove the Ozone was not beginning to fail, before mankind started to change the Ozone.(I'm sure cows weren't the first animals to have "farts that destroy the Ozone and cause global warming")

Now as far as it being something else and it being in our control. I say its a combination of everything. The worlds weather has change immensely over the life our our planet and we have no control over it. But I don't think trying to live a cleaner way of life, would hurt anything.

Is there any proof the Ozone can repair itself? Or is it just the theory of if we clean up our act, it will slow down the degradation?

Pretty sure the ozone protects us from UV and has nothing to do with global warming.

 

[ryzno]

Pretty sure the ozone protects us from UV and has nothing to do with global warming.

I was under the impression that it also acts as a "bubble" to "protect" our environment system.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I was under the impression that it also acts as a "bubble" to "protect" our environment system.

Not from global warming.

 

[huskeR32]

I was under the impression that it also acts as a "bubble" to "protect" our environment system.

The ozone layer absorbs UV radiation from the sun, and this does have a slight warming effect on the stratosphere.

However, UV light is a very small part of the sun's output - only around 8% of the radiation that reaches our outer atmosphere is UV, and the ozone layer cuts that down to around 6% by the time it reaches sea level. In other words, take away the ozone layer, and an additional 2% of the sun's heat might reach the surface.

The other 92% of the sun's output - approximately 50% visible light, and the other 40-odd% infrared - is responsible for transporting most of the sun's heat to us.

Even then, the amount of heat reaching the surface isn't the problem. It's the increasing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide that "traps" solar radiation - of all spectra, UV, visible, IR - and prevents it from bouncing back into space. Ozone plays no part in this process.

 

[Danoff]

Wonder how the poll would look if we started it from scratch, at this point.

Right now, only 19.6% disagree that global warming is occurring.

And only 29.9% believe that human activity plays no part in it.

Which puts total denial at about 49.5%, more or less.

And belief that humans are the main factor at 32.2%.

I'd wager the numbers would shift further towards the "pro" side, but any new poll will have to be arranged to give choices along a more discrete spectrum.

I would vote now as I did then. Global warming is occurring, the causes are not known. Until the various models used to describe our general temperatures are able to predict accurately into the future on the order of a decade or so, I will not put much stock in them. There has been an explosion of research very recently in this field of study, and much of it has been refined or redacted (as is the case with science). I continue to wait for a scientific model that holds up under the scrutiny of new data rather than merely attempting to fit old data.

 

[TenEightyOne]

However, UV light is a very small part of the sun's output - only around 8% of the radiation that reaches our outer atmosphere is UV, and the ozone layer cuts that down to around 6% by the time it reaches sea level. In other words, take away the ozone layer, and an additional 2% of the sun's heat might reach the surface.

The problem with those numbers is that firstly they play down the effect of a celsius rise at the Equator and secondly they presume that the only heat increase that will result is that 2% of the Equatorial 50C. The warming effects will be much greater as the gases emitted by sea-borne algae whose presence is further diminished - UVB radiation is very harmful to organisms.

 

[ryzno]

Thanks for the info .

 

[Imari]

I get exactly what you meant:

• Is it cause of our pollution?

• Is it cause the Ozone is "failing"?

• Is it a combination of these 2 factors?

• Or is it something else, or is it out of our control?

No, no you don't. That would be:

• Is it because of human activities?
• Is it because of natural phenomena?
• Is it a combination of the two?
• Is it something else entirely?

We know that the climate has been pretty variable in the past, from what limited information we have. Serious temperature record keeping hasn't really been around for that long, after all, so we're mostly forced to rely on second or third hand inferences.

We know that there are natural events that can have big impacts on the climate. We know that the sun's output is variable. We know that actual surface temperature depends on an enormous laundry list of things at best, only some of which are affected by humans.

And we have an incredibly poor understanding of how the whole system fits together, because it's so complex. People are making decent efforts, and it's a fairly new field, but there's nothing currently available that's anything like a reliable predictive system for even moderate timescales. They just don't know. Which is why if you read IPCC reports or anything like that, you'll see that the error bars on most of their estimates are pretty large.

So this is the problem. While everyone can agree that we might as well reduce human contributions to climate change, there's vast disagreement as to how important it is that we do so. Some people might think that the human impact is rather small, and thus we should only do what is cheap and easy. Some think that without major action we'll all be dead in fifty years, and so all available funds and resources should be dedicated to the problem.

The proper answer is likely somewhere in between, but until we know more we won't know exactly where. And to me, blowing up the economy on a problem that may not actually be a problem seems foolish. As things get worse, if things get worse, then more and more funds and resources will be dedicated to it. As is appropriate.

 

[Danoff]

Which is why if you read IPCC reports or anything like that, you'll see that the error bars on most of their estimates are pretty large.

...and Scientists are notorious for botching uncertainties. Usually uncertainties are best handled by engineers - the people whose jobs are on the line if they're wrong. Often if you take a dozen scientific papers estimating the same parameter and plot their estimates with uncertainties against each other, you'll get wild disagreement. Disagreement of 6 sigma or greater, numbers that are impossible to reconcile. All you know is that one, or perhaps most of the numbers HAVE to be incorrect by amounts that make the uncertainties ridiculous. This is especially true when the filed of study is young (like climate change) and has a bunch of shiny new tools (like climate change). Much less the case when the field of study is hundreds of years old and has had an opportunity to be debunked a thousand times over - in those cases it's the bleeding edge of research where you see these kinds of discrepancies.

 

[FoolKiller]

The ozone layer absorbs UV radiation from the sun, and this does have a slight warming effect on the stratosphere.

However, UV light is a very small part of the sun's output - only around 8% of the radiation that reaches our outer atmosphere is UV, and the ozone layer cuts that down to around 6% by the time it reaches sea level. In other words, take away the ozone layer, and an additional 2% of the sun's heat might reach the surface.

The other 92% of the sun's output - approximately 50% visible light, and the other 40-odd% infrared - is responsible for transporting most of the sun's heat to us.

Even then, the amount of heat reaching the surface isn't the problem. It's the increasing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide that "traps" solar radiation - of all spectra, UV, visible, IR - and prevents it from bouncing back into space. Ozone plays no part in this process.

The problem with those numbers is that firstly they play down the effect of a celsius rise at the Equator and secondly they presume that the only heat increase that will result is that 2% of the Equatorial 50C. The warming effects will be much greater as the gases emitted by sea-borne algae whose presence is further diminished - UVB radiation is very harmful to organisms.

It should be noted that what UV the ozone blocks out is, as pointed out by @TenEightyOne, very harmful to organisms. I imagine that if we suddenly lost the ozone layer that global warming would be pretty far down the list of our troubles.

 

[huskeR32]

The problem with those numbers is that firstly they play down the effect of a celsius rise at the Equator and secondly they presume that the only heat increase that will result is that 2% of the Equatorial 50C. The warming effects will be much greater as the gases emitted by sea-borne algae whose presence is further diminished - UVB radiation is very harmful to organisms.

It should be noted that what UV the ozone blocks out is, as pointed out by @TenEightyOne, very harmful to organisms. I imagine that if we suddenly lost the ozone layer that global warming would be pretty far down the list of our troubles.

Quite right, the both of you. I was oversimplifying things in an attempt to answer ryzno's questions about the ozone layer, and the scope of its role in global warming.

 

[ryzno]

Thanks for the info.
I'd like to also apologize to @TenEightyOne, for previously tagging him for what I misunderstood and ranting.
I'd also like to apologize to everyone, for what can be interpreted as stupid or trolling posts. I guess it's a combination of my ignorance to subjects and my quick trigger defense mechanism.

I'm trying to get better at my posting habits. And thank you to everyone for the info, simplified or not, so I can learn.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Don't like the data you're getting from the weather bureau? Commission an investigation into their process to either skew the results in your favour, or at least tarnish their reputation to turn the public against them:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...bom-investigation-over-climate-change/6799628

 

[Johnnypenso]

Don't like the data you're getting from the weather bureau? Commission an investigation into their process to either skew the results in your favour, or at least tarnish their reputation to turn the public against them:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...bom-investigation-over-climate-change/6799628

You must have linked the wrong article. I see - newspaper publishes report questioning the methodology of the weather bureau, government launches investigation, no issues found, public confidence restored, thanks for coming out, have a nice day.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You must have linked the wrong article. I see - newspaper publishes report questioning the methodology of the weather bureau, government launches investigation, no issues found, public confidence restored, thanks for coming out, have a nice day.

The Australian is pretty much the mouthpiece of the conservatives. Our conservatives are known climate change skeptics. We're the only country that has gone backwards in our climate change legislation, and the government has repeatedly tried to shut down green energy initiatives, reduce emissions targets and actively promote new coal projects.

There was never any public questioning of the bureau's methodology - there was just a newspaper with a documented right-wing bias pushing an agenda. It would have given the government an excuse to review the bureau and change the way the data was presented to be more consistent with their belief that climate change is not a problem.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The Australian is pretty much the mouthpiece of the conservatives. Our conservatives are known climate change skeptics. We're the only country that has gone backwards in our climate change legislation, and the government has repeatedly tried to shut down green energy initiatives, reduce emissions targets and actively promote new coal projects.

There was never any public questioning of the bureau's methodology - there was just a newspaper with a documented right-wing bias pushing an agenda. It would have given the government an excuse to review the bureau and change the way the data was presented to be more consistent with their belief that climate change is not a problem.

It's not hard to figure out the politics of the situation just from the wording of your first post on the subject . Point is, you suggested they would either skew the results in their favour or turn the public against them. Neither happened, so your inference was wrong. The obviously impartial results should strengthen the data coming out of the weather bureau.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The obviously impartial results should strengthen the data coming out of the weather bureau.

In theory, yes - but our government never would have let something as inconvenient as impartial data get in their way. They blocked an emissions trading scheme when in opposition, forcing the then-government to adopt a carbon tax, which they then used as a big stick in their election campaign. After getting into government, they scrapped the carbon tax and replaced it with "direct action" which nobody understands and which has been completely ineffective. They have slashed emissions targets and cut piblic funding for clean energy projects, and they have relied on junk science - claiming that wind farms come with health risks - to justify it. They have also tried to crack down on environmental groups protesting infrastructure projects by denying them the ability to challenge in court, and have authorised massive coal mining projects.

So it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they tried to manipulate the data to alter public perception of climate change. One of the cornerstones of their ideology is individual enterprise, where the self-made man is the biggest contrubutor to society. A part of that is reduced government interference in business, and climate change policies naturally represent something that they oppose. It's why we wind up with policies like direct action that appear to do something but achieve nothing.

 

[Danoff]

The Australian is pretty much the mouthpiece of the conservatives.

Why is it that we never say that climate change organizations are a mouthpiece for big climate change? Afterall, many many many scientists entire careers, their whole livelihood, and many organizations entire existence is owed to the continuation of climate change research and legislation. How are these institutions not biased?

You can only talk about climate change if you work in an entirely unrelated field.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Afterall, many many many scientists entire careers, their whole livelihood, and many organizations entire existence is owed to the continuation of climate change research and legislation. How are these institutions not biased?

But this organisation isn't pro-climate change. It's the Bureau of Meteorology - the institution that gathers all of the data on the weather, the data that is used to produce weather reports. Monitoring climate change falls within its purview, but is not its purpose. And that's what makes this proposed review so concerning: it could be used to deliberately misrepresent reality to suit a political purpose.

 

[Biggles]

Why is it that we never say that climate change organizations are a mouthpiece for big climate change? Afterall, many many many scientists entire careers, their whole livelihood, and many organizations entire existence is owed to the continuation of climate change research and legislation. How are these institutions not biased?

Follow the money.

Taking 2013, the worldwide revenue of the oil & gas industry amounted to $1,256,941 million US dollars. If climate scientists were only concerned about their own employment & career opportunities they could find funding (as some do) working for Big Oil. There would be vast sums of money available for research for climate scientists willing to work as a mouthpiece for the fossil fuels industry.

The consensus on climate change was not reached by an organisation called "Big Climate Change" it was arrived at by many scientists working in many different organisations & institutions around the world & in a variety of different fields related to climate study. As prisonermonkeys points out: most of these scientists & researchers would be pursuing their work regardless of whether or not it pointed to the reality of climate change.

This is not to say that in recent years there hasn't been something of a climate change industry, but its influence is dwarfed by the cash, & the lobbying & political power of global Big Oil.

 

[sk8er913]

Apparently the words "global warming" or "climate change" have been banned in North Carolina, Louisiana and Tennessee, Florida, Wisconsin, ... Yep, pretending something isn't there always fixes the problem! Maybe next time someone is attacked by a shark they should just pretend that it isn't there and maybe it will go away. LOL!

 

[DK]

Speaking of bank-rolling:
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/ - Big Oil has shifted to practically untraceable forms of funding for climate denial lobbyists. In 2014 a leaked document showed a conspiracy by oil lobbyists to fund astroturf-roots groups.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups - this article refers to the above link from Drexel.

 

[Dotini]

In the last 300 years we have burned vast amounts of wood, coal and petroleum. It is no coincidence that this happened at the same time as technology and human population took off like rockets. In my lifetime alone, world population has tripled.



A lot of these people are becoming aware of how well we in the west live, and want to emulate our lifestyle of flying in jets and eating beef.

Demand for energy will of course accelerate.

 

[sk8er913]

In the last 300 years we have burned vast amounts of wood, coal and petroleum. It is no coincidence that this happened at the same time as technology and human population took off like rockets. In my lifetime alone, world population has tripled.



A lot of these people are becoming aware of how well we in the west live, and want to emulate our lifestyle of flying in jets and eating beef.

Demand for energy will of course accelerate.

Drive towards Human extinction while we still can. As many say. if our demand for energy follow the same patterns as they have since 1900, we will have about a 6C temperature increase within 100 years, most large species will not survive the transition.