Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 124 (434796)
11-17-2007 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by New Cat's Eye
11-17-2007 12:04 AM


On Planning and Insurance.
Right. The whole thread is , really, a hypothetical situation. What if those results are erroneous, and Global Warming is just going to flutter out. No catastrophe. No problem.
The "suppose there is no crisis" argument is among the stupidest presented.
Most reasonable people buy insurance. We buy life insurance, health insurance, liability insurance, collision and comprehensive insurance, homeowners insurance and policies to address other risks.
I have not had a flood, yet I have flood insurance.
My house has not had a fire yet I insure against the risk.
I have not had an accident in forty years or so, yet still insure my automobile.
A reasonable person prepares ahead of time to try to mitigate the harmful effects of the risks faced.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-17-2007 12:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taz, posted 11-17-2007 2:07 PM jar has replied
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2007 12:27 PM jar has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 47 of 124 (434797)
11-17-2007 12:28 PM


Question
I'm coming into this from an 'agnostic' perspective. My understanding is that due to a number of observations and measurements we conclude that the global temperature is rising. My question is: do we have evidence that such conditions have occurred in the past and, if yes, wouldn't that contradict the theory that human-produced emissions are responsible?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 12:35 PM Legend has replied
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2007 1:17 PM Legend has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 48 of 124 (434798)
11-17-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Legend
11-17-2007 12:28 PM


Re: Question
See Message 3.
It doesn't really matter whether or not "human-produced emissions are responsible", human-produced emissions are the only parts we actually have any control over.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Legend, posted 11-17-2007 12:28 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Legend, posted 11-17-2007 2:45 PM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 124 (434805)
11-17-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Legend
11-17-2007 12:28 PM


Re: Question
My question is: do we have evidence that such conditions have occurred in the past and, if yes, wouldn't that contradict the theory that human-produced emissions are responsible?
Why would it?
It would only be contradictory if two things were true:
1) We had reason to believe that the same conditions that caused anomalous warming periods in the past were also present today (they aren't);
2) We had reason to believe that the natural carbon sinks were able to keep up with the increased CO2 production from human industry (we don't; quite the opposite.)
Imagine a house on fire. It's getting warmer - a lot warmer. But the fact that, in the past, your house got warmer when you turned the furnace up is not evidence that your house is not on fire, now. Sometimes more than one thing can cause the same effect. That the effect was caused by something different in the past is irrelevant if we know that there's a different cause, this time.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Legend, posted 11-17-2007 12:28 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Legend, posted 11-17-2007 2:49 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 124 (434807)
11-17-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Fosdick
11-17-2007 12:05 PM


Re: The coming ice age?
Do we know enough about it to say with any certainty that the year 2100 we be warmer or colder than the historical average?
Once we know we've exceeded the stability of the midrange, does it matter? We know where the climate is headed. Does it matter how accurate our guess is?
What's the difference between "too arid to support sufficient human agriculture" and "really too arid to support sufficient human agriculture"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Fosdick, posted 11-17-2007 12:05 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 51 of 124 (434812)
11-17-2007 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
11-17-2007 12:27 PM


Re: On Planning and Insurance.
jar writes:
The "suppose there is no crisis" argument is among the stupidest presented.
Not necessarily.
My asian friends have explained this to me that in a lot of asian cultures the concept of insurance is the most insulting thing there. It's almost as bad as a curse, if not as bad. To them, it's practically saying "break a leg" or "your house will burn down" when insurance is mentioned.
I can see how some supersitious people like nem_jug would be offended by the very idea of insuring against possible disaster in the future.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 12:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 2:15 PM Taz has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 124 (434815)
11-17-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taz
11-17-2007 2:07 PM


Re: On Planning and Insurance.
To the best of my knowledge the US is not an Asian Nation.
In addition, unless you can provide some support for your assertion that Nemesis is superstitious and offended by the idea of insurance, I suggest you consider apologizing.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taz, posted 11-17-2007 2:07 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Taz, posted 11-17-2007 3:27 PM jar has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 53 of 124 (434824)
11-17-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
11-17-2007 12:35 PM


Re: Question
It doesn't really matter whether or not "human-produced emissions are responsible", human-produced emissions are the only parts we actually have any control over.
Do we know the extent to which human-produced emissions are responsible for the warming? If the extent is minimal, then what we do won't really make a difference.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 12:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2007 2:50 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 56 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 2:50 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 54 of 124 (434825)
11-17-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by crashfrog
11-17-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Question
We had reason to believe that the same conditions that caused anomalous warming periods in the past were also present today (they aren't);
Do we know which conditions caused warming periods in the past and that they're not present today?
Imagine a house on fire. It's getting warmer - a lot warmer. But the fact that, in the past, your house got warmer when you turned the furnace up is not evidence that your house is not on fire, now. Sometimes more than one thing can cause the same effect. That the effect was caused by something different in the past is irrelevant if we know that there's a different cause, this time.
I see your point. Have we identified all potential causes of warming so that we can definitely tell that the cause this time is different?
So, in your example above, if we detect extreme heat in the house it would make sense to first check that the furnace is off before we can conclude that there's a fire in the house. Have we checked that all other potential causes of global warming are actually 'off' ? Do we know what they are?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2007 1:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2007 3:01 PM Legend has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 124 (434827)
11-17-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Legend
11-17-2007 2:45 PM


Re: Question
Do we know the extent to which human-produced emissions are responsible for the warming?
Solar output has been dropping, slightly, for most of the past several decades, throughout the major period of warming we've observed.
What else do you suppose has changed in the past 200 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Legend, posted 11-17-2007 2:45 PM Legend has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 124 (434828)
11-17-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Legend
11-17-2007 2:45 PM


Re: Question
Do we know the extent to which human-produced emissions are responsible for the warming? If the extent is minimal, then what we do won't really make a difference.
That is pretty much irrelevant. The only part we can influence is the part we can control. It is certainly possible that no matter how much we do we will not succeed, but if we do nothing that is the sure outcome.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Legend, posted 11-17-2007 2:45 PM Legend has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 124 (434830)
11-17-2007 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Legend
11-17-2007 2:49 PM


Re: Question
Do we know which conditions caused warming periods in the past and that they're not present today?
Insolation changes would be the big factor, and yes, we observe insolation changes - the sun has actually been cooling throughout the major period of warming.
So that's clearly not it.
Have we identified all potential causes of warming so that we can definitely tell that the cause this time is different?
Climate is complicated, but in regards to warming, we can simplify it into two aggregate factors:
1) The energy incoming into the climate from the sun;
2) The degree to which that energy is retained by the climate system instead of radiating out into space.
It's sort of like filling a bathtub with the drain open. At a certain size of drain, and a certain setting at the faucet, the water level remains constant because what comes in is balanced by what goes out. This system even reaches a certain level of positive stability, because if the tub starts to fill, the increased pressure at the drain pushes water out faster. If the tub starts to empty, the pressure is reduced, and water flows out more slowly. So the water level stays constant even with slight variations in the faucet flow.
There are two ways to make the tub fill, though. One is to start plugging the drain. As the drain closes up, water outflow is reduced and there's a net gain in water level. The other is to open the faucet more. More incoming water exceeds the drain outflow, and there's also a net gain in water level.
The climate change deniers say, essentially, that climate change (if it exists) is being driven by the sun, and they'll point to any number of spurious indications in support - "it's warming on Mars;" "it's related to sunspots;" etc. They'll do everything except show you a chart of insolation (that is, the incoming solar energy to the Earth) levels for the past couple of decades, because that data clearly shows a decline in solar output over the past decade or two, when we've seen the most warming.
So the only possible explanation is that the climate change is being driven by a reduction in how much heat energy the climate releases to space (albedo), and we know what can reduce that - greenhouse gases.
And we can measure the degree to which those gases have increased, directly. And we can estimate from various sources how much greenhouse gas is produced by human industry every year.
The question really isn't "how do we know humans aren't responsible", the question is really "why wouldn't humans be responsible, when we know exactly how much greenhouse gas we're putting in the atmosphere, and we know exactly what greenhouse gases do in the atmosphere." Climate change deniers never seem to have an answer for that question, but the burden of proof is really on someone who's essentially asserting that human greenhouse emissions disappear from the atmosphere, by magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Legend, posted 11-17-2007 2:49 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Legend, posted 11-17-2007 3:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 124 (434834)
11-17-2007 3:21 PM


An interesting discussion

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 59 of 124 (434836)
11-17-2007 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
11-17-2007 2:15 PM


Re: On Planning and Insurance.
You're right. I apologize to nem.
I was just suggesting that the argument "what if there's no disaster" isn't completely invalid. Some do get offended at the suggestion that there might be a disaster.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 11-17-2007 2:15 PM jar has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 60 of 124 (434837)
11-17-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
11-17-2007 3:01 PM


Re: Question
Ok, thanks for the info. One last thing: how do we know that the Earth is indeed warming up? I'd imagine that natural temperature variation occur periodically and that we haven't got enough historical data to determine what the natural deviation is, i.e. if current conditions are abnormally warm ?

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2007 3:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-17-2007 4:11 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2007 4:30 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 65 by Dr Jack, posted 11-18-2007 7:07 AM Legend has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024