Is Man-Made Global Warming A Thing?

Discussion in 'The Thinking Cap' started by AxelTheGreatest, Oct 8, 2016.

Tags:
  1. Ser_Fergus

    Ser_Fergus Knight of the DiploGuard

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,777
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    Yes, but statistically normal. The current trend already far outstrips the roc of any previous temperate change.

    This thread is another classic "my ignorance>your education"
     
    • This This x 1
    • What What x 1
  2. AxelTheGreatest

    AxelTheGreatest Heda

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    165
    No?
    I believe that both I and ABDeL have said that we are not denying that the climate and the global average temperature can change, but we are simply skeptical of the hysteria being told to us, and wonder why there are still so many flaws in the wide-spread global warming theory. Being skeptical = being ignorant? It's actually quite the opposite.
     
    • This This x 1
    • Illiterate Illiterate x 1
  3. Ordo

    Ordo Lore Judge

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes Received:
    2,132
    Well so far Germany is setting a "come and we will handle it" precedent.
     
  4. Ser_Fergus

    Ser_Fergus Knight of the DiploGuard

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,777
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    No, the term ignorance comes from the disregard of facts. The NASA research is both peer reviewed and vetted. To be skeptical of it is no different than claiming vaccines cause autism. Man mad climate change is real. End of discussion. If you'd like to change the name of the thread to 'what will the impacts of global climate change be' then yes, Pi would be entering the realm of healthy skepticism.

    The constant assault on scientific process in the world is far more dangerous than anyone is willing to give credit.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. ABDeL

    ABDeL Site Advisor DiploGuard Our Creator

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    9,387
    Likes Received:
    2,004
    Oh really? NASA's temperature records are a joke compared to the CRU's and they were either vetted and peer reviewed when their records were released or they weren't and released anyway. Either way, unethical breach of public trust.

    The scientific equivalent of this would be the CDC fudging numbers to show that the correlation between vaccination and autisim is much less than previously thought. Not to mention that the link between autism and vaccination is primarily celebrity-driven and not scientifically driven. There are many climate scientists who are climate deniers, and a corrected version of the 97% consensus of scientists puts it at closer to 43%, hardly a majority.

    Lol no its not the end of the discussion. To what extent is man responsible if its caused by man? Is there anything we can do to change or reverse it? Which scientific organizations can be trusted to record the data in an unbiased fashion? Is climate denial still be regarded as protected speech?

    Says the person who sees completely no reason to react with suspicion to scientific organizations that manipulate the data to create hysteria, to then push for a policy which would then create a wealth transfer from the 1st world to the 3rd world.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Ser_Fergus

    Ser_Fergus Knight of the DiploGuard

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    4,777
    Likes Received:
    1,422
    This is exactly what I'm speaking about. On my phone right now, but the NASA papers on the topic come from a variety of monitoring services.

    Source? Yet to see one that did not rely on including unrelated fields.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    Literally nothing you mentioned contradicts my statement except the one on trustworthiness and this is exactly why publicly funded scientific institutions exist. As well, academics are extremely harsh upon each other. The reason the west succeeded at all is purely based on the power of scientific advancement. To start questioning these institutions now after so many centuries of success is to call into disregard everything we've built.

    This is unrelated. Hysteria creation is left purely to non scientific organizations, such as green peace. You are arguing with points I'm not made. I am not saying that we're all gonna die. But to deny that the industrial revolution had an effect on climate is directly contradicting the research in the field.
     
    • This This x 1
  7. SteakOnSpear

    SteakOnSpear ᛊᛏᛖᚨᚲ ᛟᚾ ᛊᛖᚨᚱ Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,806
    Likes Received:
    3,003
    You don't even have to trust anyone's sources. If you just know the scientific facts of how nature works, then it's a very reasonable thing to believe in.
    But i agree with your point about blindly believing in scientific data. This forum does have a bad track record, from previous discussions..

    I don't think it heavily favors the third world. Most of all these shitty third world countries rely heavily on exports of oil and other fossil fuels to make their economy run. Eventually when it's more accepted the climate change is a thing and everyone is driving electric cars, those countries won't have that as a primary source of income.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2016
  8. AxelTheGreatest

    AxelTheGreatest Heda

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    604
    Likes Received:
    165
    A thing I'd still like to say. Let's say that there has been global warming since the industrial revolution and that NASA's data are correct. Global warming would mean that the icecaps of the North Pole would (partially) melt. As a result of this, fucktons of fresh, cold water would blend with the Gulf Stream, which is the main reason that area's in Europe are warmer than area's in America on the same lattitude. This would than lead to a colder climate in western Europe and decrease the average temperature there. How is this compatible with data saying that the average temperature has risen, even in Europe? Once again, I am not 'assaulting scientific process', just skeptical and curious.
     
  9. Potatoe_Head

    Potatoe_Head Diplomunion.com CEO

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,664
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Just on my phone so I can't provide a longer answer with details.
    Your question is a good one, but to understand the gulf stream it's a big topic to get into. As someone who took A-Levels in Geography/Geology it was a widely covered topic during that time at school.

    It has a lot to do with water density, salt water level and density, cold and warm water streaming differently depending on water deepees and other complexities of similar matter.

    But back to your initial point: why global warming if ice melting. Obviously, arctic ice has been shrinking over the course of ten thousands of years, but during the last couple decades they shrank enormously. A fact that speaks infavour of climate change. Anyway, the greenhouse effect is short and simple said more significant than ice melting. But in the wost case scenario, it'll probably have the same cataclystic consequences as in the movie The Day after Tomorrow.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. ABDeL

    ABDeL Site Advisor DiploGuard Our Creator

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    9,387
    Likes Received:
    2,004
    NASA's climate data is terrible, the best comes from the CRU and they have engaged in unethical behavior in the past.

    http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

    Manipulating data to make climate change seem worse than it actually is, is the definition of hysteria creation.
     
  11. SteakOnSpear

    SteakOnSpear ᛊᛏᛖᚨᚲ ᛟᚾ ᛊᛖᚨᚱ Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    9,806
    Likes Received:
    3,003
    Like this common type graph which is often used.
    [​IMG]

    Looks like a huge increase but it's not.
     
  12. ABDeL

    ABDeL Site Advisor DiploGuard Our Creator

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    9,387
    Likes Received:
    2,004
    Why did the five year average stay unchanged between 1940-1980 even though CO2 emissions increased during that period? I'm not denying human caused climate change, but these are questions that need answers, and I would definitely change my mind if a good answer comes from a trusted source. The only thing I am observing is that I, and many other skeptics, are being told to "listen and believe" that climate change is real.

    [​IMG]
     
    • This This x 1
  13. Potatoe_Head

    Potatoe_Head Diplomunion.com CEO

    OFFLINE
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    6,664
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Alright let's get scientific here aswell.
    You bring up a fair point about the cooling phase after WW2. So if climate change is real and mainly caused by athropogenic greenhouse effect, why was there a period of cooling post war? There are several reasons for such thing to happen that need a lot of time to read through and to comprehend. I've never considered the tiny temperature cooling in the cold war era as significant, but for the sake of this debate I looked it up and so far I've come to the same conclusions as of why natural climate change appears.

    1.) First the actual greenhouse gases and their effects.
    From Wikipedia: "On Earth, naturally occurring amounts of greenhouse gases cause air temperature near the surface to be about 33 °C (59 °F) warmer than it would be in their absence.[66][d] Without the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's average temperature would be well below the freezing temperature of water.[67] The major greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7%.[68][69][70] Clouds also affect the radiation balance through cloud forcings similar to greenhouse gases."

    While CO2 production has increased since the industrialization, it is only now one of the leading gases causing rampant greenhouse effect. So to say, from our industry emitted CO2 is a leading reason of climate change but it's by no means the only suspect. Eventhough there was a growing amount of CO2, climate needs to recover and emitted gas is not just within a few years all the way up there in the atmosphere causing damage. It takes its fair time. More to what causes earth to cool down in the next points.

    2.) Aerosoles and other pollutants.
    A not so old German article I've just found that focused on the "incoming ice age", which was expected from scientist in the 80's. It was a collection of quotes form articles from that time and it was theorized why there was a cold period, which by the way is minimal in comparison to the "little ice age" between 1600-1800. So what was actually happening? It just makes sense that the anthropogenic climate change did not play much of a role after WW2. Shrinking industrial production, decline of population around the world, nature winning back territory and other reasons of such magnitude. But it's true, populations, industries all these climate change causing factors recovered fully and became even bigger. To answer the question of what else must have happened, you need to take a look of our sun providing earth with energy. There are two leading GLOBAL factors that determine how much energy of the sun actually reaches earth.
    One being the availability of sun rays to hit earths surface and the other being the albedo, which is the reflection rate in comparison to arbsorbation rate of earth surfaces. Pollution rates were much higher and so were emitted aerosoles from planes, cars and what not which again created a layer around the average atmosphere, which blocked off sunrays. Albedo is rather uninteresting in this case, since it only really matters when there's lot's of ice.

    3.) Solar activity.
    It's more of a reason to take into consideration that no increasing nor decreasing solar irradiance and activity have occured since 1978. That's not really explaining why there was a cooling period but another reason that get's taken off the natural climate change list.

    I am sure there are many more plausible reasons for that, like earth orbiting around sun but I can not find any source yet of how it was happening between that time. Anyway, since earth recovered and atmosphere did aswell, it opened up the window for greenhouse effect of our current understanding. I am by no means an expert on these things, but if scsientist in the vast majority and we speak from a really BIG majority speak of anthropogenic climate change I very well believe them.
     
  14. Mizmoon

    Mizmoon Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2015
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    117
    As someone (possibly the only one here) with formal education on the matter: There is no doubt that anthropogenic climate change is real. The only question is by how much we're affecting it. Scientists use a term called "climate sensitivity", which is basically the expected increase (in degrees celsius) from doubling the amount of CO2eq in the atmosphere. This value is normally distributed between 1,5 and 4,5. At my university, they have developed a calculator which lets you simulate the expected temperature increase depending on a chosen number for climate sensitivity. The increase with 0% reduction is calculated as if the rate of increase in emissions continued the same way as it does today. Regardless of how you put it, a reduction in emission is absolutely necessary, and it needs to start soon. Even when accounting for technological improvements, it will be a tight race. An increase in 3 degrees would be absolutely cataclysmic.

    You can find the calculator here.

    There is debate regarding how responsive the climate is as a system. It is very well possible that the changes we are seeing now are an effect of a process which we started a century ago, and that we have yet to see the full impact of our current activities.

    And yes, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is twice as high as it has been in the last 300,000 years (acutally longer, since the Vostok ice cores go back 800,000 years).

    True, and this is important to understand: the earth has natural deviations in its eccentricity and axial tilt. These are called Milankovitch cycles and have a period of 41,000 years. The difference in solar irradiance during these periods is actually very small - the main temperature difference comes from feedback effects related to the earths albedo (due to increased/reduced snow) and the carbon absorption of the oceans. The cycles are just what gets the ball rolling, the rest is done through feedback - this is why seemingly moderate man-made changes can have a large impact on the general climate.

    It is in fact a huge increase. Did you know that the global temperature difference between a warm period and an ice age is only 3 degrees?

    Regarding people discussing tree planting - the net change in climate impact of this is actually zero. Trees don't continuously absorb CO2, they only tie it up while they grow and then release it when they die and rot. Also, a forest has lower albedo (reflectiveness) than a field, so technically deforestation has actually helped stall global warming (even though it is really, really bad for other reasons).
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 6
  15. Ice

    Ice Map Maker

    OFFLINE

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    547
    There have been times where there has been no ice on the planet, before my birth for example. Sorry I had to make that joke. But in all seriousness, back 70 million years ago, it's believed there was no ice on the planet and the global temperature was hotter than it is today, not just because of green house gases and things but because the actual earth was hotter. The core of the earth emits heat outward and during the age of the dinosaurs it is believed that the global addition to the temperate from this effect was about 10 degrees Celsius. (This might be incredibly outdated information so I apologise if it is)
    Climate change is certainly real and humanity is having an impact on it, even a miniscule change of half a degree has an incredible impact on the planet. The reason it's worrying is not because it's irreversible, it very much is, the earth has reversed it before, but the life on this planet isn't adapted to change so quickly. Generations of Tibetans have lived in mountains and have adapated to the climate, should you take an average person from this site and dump them there I'm sure we'd have a joke thread about how they'll die out there and then have a genuine mourning thread. There are few animals can survive in such changes but they certainly exist, humans are one and it's theorised that wolves are another. We've certainly been changing the climate but it will revert back over a long enough time period.
    Let's all burn some coal or something.
     
Affiliates
Make Me Host  HiveWorkshop  Brigand's Haven  BlizzMod  Warclave