Does the Reality of Global Warming Burn Your Arse?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Natty Bumpo, Jul 26, 2018.

  1. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good luck
    Like many things this has become a highly partisan, near religious issue. Imo it is largely a usa political issue, most of the rest of the world is consolidating in one view

    Our politics will continue to swing left and right. When the left returns to power the issues will be addressed again. In the mean time we have more fuel efficient cars, houses, appluances, etc. solar and wind power are growing. Coal is being phased out. Life goes on
     
    PeppermintTwist likes this.
  2. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are called Representative Climate Pathways by the IPCC. They aren't predictions. They are assumptions. Computer models are run under different RCPs. Different RCPs lead to different evolutions of the climate system. The IPCC publishes the results for each RCP. The RCPs represent scenarios such business as usual, moderate mitigation, aggressive mitigation, fast population growth, slow population growth, etc.
     
  3. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,054
    Likes Received:
    15,999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And, you prove the concept that facts and data are adjusted and chosen- to support the 'popular". The 100 year research? Funny, but the claims of global warming are about 30 years old.

    There is no doubt that human activities contribute to the problem- but there is a wide belief that is the sole source. The danger in this is that making the assumption that it is all human related causes in turn says it can be humanly fixed, as if nature had nothing to say about it. Some pretty sophisticated science, well corroborated, covers the changes going on in the sun right now, which indicates we may actually have a mini-ice age starting 15 years from now. IF that happens, we will be looking for way to warm the earth, and some fool will say the global warming obsessed people over-did it and brought on arctic conditions. We might be looking for ways to warm the planet then, .artificially- not cool it.

    Sadly, science is made up of humans who do indeed need to be right, who do want the support of their peers, who do want their theories praised- and are not all above playing games to get that. Many firmly believe a theory and convince others. Some have just faked it.

    There used to be a planet between mercury and the sun, called Vulcan, discovered in the middle 1800's many sightings confirmed it. Took over 30 years for the discovery to be accepted as false.

    People for hundreds of years, until recently- were thought to be born without any formative elements as to character, personality or proclivities. All nurture, no nature- the blank-slate belief. Wrong.

    Even Einstein at one point believed in a "static universe", unchanging in size and configuration.

    Look into what is called "Superseded scientific theories". Sort of like an "oops" list for the scientific community.....
     
  4. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,330
    Likes Received:
    18,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense!

    Obama went from negative growth to sustainable positive growth. That's much harder than producing a fragile short-term growth.

    But what good is economic growth if it's not sustainable? Sure.. makes for a great campaign line to impress the gullible. But how does it impact you or me.

    If Trump were focused on long-term economic growth (beyond the next year or two) there would be a huge component dealing with Global Warming . Because, without it, AGW is likely to wipe out any growth in a second.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read the wikipedia article regarding molecular vibration for a brief introduction to the fundamental physics that causes CO2 and other multiatomic molecules to act as greenhouse gases. In a nutshell photons of certain frequencies activate vibrational modes of molecules and give them an electric dipole moment. This dipole moment represents a force vector that causes the molecule to accelerate in the presence of an electric field which the atmosphere is awash with. These molecules are then forced to increase their kinetic energy and thus the temperature as a result. CO2 happens to have it's bending and stretching modes activated by outgoing longwave photons whereas incoming shortwave photons do nothing to the molecule. In other words sunlight passes through while the infrared radiation that is induced as a result gets absorbed and thus trapped. The equations that govern these interactions will be in a quantum electrodynamics textbox. A good thermodynamics textbox will be useful as well.
     
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well considering we've already seen a 1C increase since 1960 I'd be willing to bet the observed sensitivity is going to be much closer to the IPCC estimate of 3C than the 1C figure.
     
  7. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    20,054
    Likes Received:
    15,999
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The earth as well as the universe isn't playing by our rules, but by it's own. That includes all the elements you do not know of or take into consideration in your calculations.The idea that they are being dwarfed by anthroprogenic induced processes is like saying the seas are rising because we are not conserving water, or that continental drift (tectonic movement) is being caused by the added weight of human beings and their structures. The scale of natural forces doesn't just dwarf our own most prominent efforts, it makes them infinitesimally minute.

    If humanity disappeared today, nature would take back everything we have built; it would disappear- most of it in 1000 years or less, even the greatest of it in 10,000..... Which, on the geological clock, is the equivalent of the blink of an eye.
     
  8. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,570
    Likes Received:
    8,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To make that statement I know the issue and have done my homework.
     
  9. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CO2's greenhouse properties have been known since the 1860's. We even had the first estimates of it's contribution to warming on Earth in the 1890's. This all occurred long before the quantum mechanical explanation matured and long before computers were even a thing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  10. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,570
    Likes Received:
    8,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The next 2 deg C of warming is net beneficial. And that won’t happen for another ~ 150 years.
     
  11. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,330
    Likes Received:
    18,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Am I supposed to find anything of interest in this message? No, right?
     
  12. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,879
    Likes Received:
    10,987
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't care how you characterize it, assumptions are used and those assumptions affect the outcome. When you are making predictions years in the future, very small differences in the assumptions make major differences on the results. .
     
    AFM likes this.
  13. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,570
    Likes Received:
    8,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wouldn’t expect anything from one who thinks the science is in the coding and not in the general circulation models.
     
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,330
    Likes Received:
    18,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't need to know how much. All I need to know is that it needs to be reduced. Or, at least, that we should do so it doesn't increase. Why should I care how much?
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought the same thing once as well. I then started learning more about the topic and that's when I realized how naive I was.
     
  16. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Scientists handle this in computer models by running ensembles in which there are many individual members that have their assumptions perturbed to fully account for the range of possibilities in the system. In fact, I know of no climate model that makes any specific assumption. They all run with hundreds or even thousands of members to better represent the range of possibilities that could happen as a result of the range of possible values the assumptions could take on.
     
  17. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very familiar with the carbon oxygen double bond.
    Are you suggesting the atmosphere is the same closed system as the bottle of CO2 under a lamp?
    Now, figure out all of the variables involved in this multivariable system and apply some quantum theory. Hint: we've only solved the simple two bodied system, hydrogen, and even the simple three bodied system, helium, is an approximation based on linear combinations of orbitals. So have fun
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  18. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read Arrhenius' prediction from 1896 or Callendar's prediction from 1938. Both predicted that humans would one day be the cause of a warming planet. Ironically both underestimated the timing and magnitude in which it would happen. And, of course, they are both way older than 30 years.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  19. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    HITRAN has the wave number activation points documented quite well. Infrared spectroscopy kinda depends on it otherwise the technique wouldn't work so well. So yeah, we pretty much know exactly how molecules absorb and reemit photons of various frequencies.
     
  20. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,570
    Likes Received:
    8,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You absolutely need to understand the cost benefit of any government policy. And you need to know the morality of any government policy.
     
  21. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,330
    Likes Received:
    18,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    .
    I don't know how other than you making it up.

    Absolutely wrong! As a matter of fact, 40 years ago researchers hired by Exxon had already proven Global Warming. Except that they were forbidden to publish their findings. At the time there was a "debate" between those who believed there would be a global Warming, and those who thought it would be a Global Cooling. The Consesus was established somewhere around 2000

    Depends: the sole source of what? Humans are the sole source of the anomalies. The anomalies are comparatively huge, but are a tiny part of the system. I mean, the temperature in space is about -270 degrees C Average temperature of the Earth Surface is about 14 Degrees C. It takes much more to go from -270 to 14 then it takes to go from 14 to 16. But these 2 degrees are enough to create a human disaster. And that's the part for which humans are responsible.

    No. Science is a method. The Scientific Method. It's the process that humans have invented to eliminate the human element from discovery. It's not perfect, but it has been extremely successful.

    That's exactly why the Scientific Method requires much more than "observation". for something to be considered Science.

    And for that reason, what people "think" or "believe" is irrelevant in Science. Only thing that matters in Science is what they can prove.

    Of course! Science has made many many mistakes. And those mistakes have allowed us to perfect the Scientific Method.

    Modern Science was born, generally, with Galileo. He proposed a strict method. And there was a huge leap forward in human knowledge at that time. As time goes by, Science advances more and more rapidly. This is because the Method is perfected. The Scientific Method was immensely better in the 20th Century than in the 16th. We still remember the errors, though. The Pitdown Man. N-Rays.... you already mentioned Einstein's worst mistake. None of those mistakes would have been possible by the end of the 20th Century. But there were still some. The so-called "Sokal Incident" was earth-shattering in the 1990s. But that would never happen today. The Scientific Method evolves and gets better. Can there be big errors today?. Who knows..... there hasn't been one of the magnitude of those mentioned in this century. And Scientific knowledge progresses faster than it ever did.
     
  22. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,330
    Likes Received:
    18,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. So then why are you saying that instead of showing us the case you are referring to?
     
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,330
    Likes Received:
    18,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most experts in the field, who have been pretty accurate so far, beg to differ. My own experience with warmer and warmer summers, and shorter winters as I remember them for the last 20 years (at least) tends to agree with them rather than with you.

    And hundreds of peer-reviewed studies also tend to differ.

    Basically, you are pretty much on your own.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  24. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,570
    Likes Received:
    8,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The consensus of economic analyses on global warming show that actually the next ~ 3 deg C temperature rise is net beneficial. That’s good company.
     
  25. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    35,570
    Likes Received:
    8,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do your own homework. I have.
     

Share This Page