Global Warming

Post Reply New Topic

Would suggest reading [url=https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/the IPCC's Fifth Assessment report (link)[/url] - it might be a little difficult but it's very comprehensive.

I think one issue is that a lot of "denial" comes out of ignorance or contrarianism rather than genuine informed disagreement. Think about something you consider yourself an expert on - whether it's your favourite TV show or the contents of your fridge. How would you feel if somebody came along and started saying things that you knew were wrong, and that they clearly hadn't bothered to check, but they said it extremely confidently and accused you of being ideologically driven?

The deal is, I read a little and struggle with a question I can't answer by myself, I then turn to people more educated and ask questions, sometimes stupid questions, or criticize a hole that appears to me. Then usually someone will correct me and explain in detail how I'm wrong and where my error in thinking is. I do this as a means of learning and have learned a lot by using this process. I have learned a decent bit about some complicating things by using this learning process, as I only have, technically, a 7th grade education yet know more about science than your average joe. I don't compare to very educated people, I use them as a tool to learn off of. I like to understand things, like really understand them and it's hard for someone with such a low education to do so, especially adding in my disabilities, autism and ADD. Then to add my school was horrible, so my 7th grade education is more like a 5th grade education. Yet I understand things like particle/wave duality(Particles are peaks of energy within a wave, which is how particles can appear to be in many places at once), and the photon particle is the particle representation of the electromagnetic force.

It's been a rough road arguing with scientists in attempts to learn, they aren't always that nice, lol. But it gets the job done and I'm able to learn new and kool things.

The_Walrus, perhaps what I just said in this reply will answer your question. I understand where you are coming from, this is simply the tactic of an uneducated man attempting to question in order to learn. I will read the source you supplied. In the scenario you provided, I would do exactly as you have done, prove to the person that they are wrong. I can't just pick something to read and get it, too much ADD, when I try to debate something I can focus much better in my attempts to learn, without the driving factor of debate it's much more dificult for me, I can read a paragraph 5 times and still not remember it or get it, I have to ask stupid questions and attempt to make arguments in order to get schooled and learn from the experience, lol. A crude method of learning but it works! Just working with what I have. If I were rich I would honestly hire a group of scientists to teach me, one of my fantasies, but I don't have that option, I'm dirt poor.

Also, I like to actually learn how I'm wrong versus just accepting an answer, I can be a little hard headed also. The way I see it, it's better for me to make arguments and get proved wrong and actually learn something versus just taking an answer I'm skeptical about, 'because the consensus says so'. If I were to just take that as an answer, if someone were to challenge me the only answer I could give is 'because the consensus says so' which doesn't make for a strong argument, the census isn't always correct, like the higgs particle.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 104611.htm

For a while now, the scientific community has known that global warming is caused by humanmade emissions in the form of greenhouse gases and global cooling by air pollution in the form of aerosols.

However, new research published in Science by Hebrew University of Jerusalem Professor Daniel Rosenfeld shows that the degree to which aerosols cool the earth has been grossly underestimated, necessitating a recalculation of climate change models to more accurately predict the pace of global warming.

Aerosols are tiny particles that float in the air. They can form naturally (e.g., desert dust) or artificially (e.g., smoke from coal, car exhaust). Aerosols cool our environment by enhancing cloud cover that reflect the sunlight (heat) back to space.

As for the first, clouds form when wind rises and cools. However, cloud composition is largely determined by aerosols. The more aerosol particles a shallow cloud contains, the more small water droplets it will hold. Rain happens when these droplets bind together. Since it takes longer for small droplets to bind together than it does for large droplets, aerosol-filled or "polluted" clouds contain more water, live in the sky longer (while they wait for droplets to bind and rain to fall, after which the clouds will dissipate) and cover a greater area. All the while, the aerosol-laden clouds reflect more solar energy back into space, thereby cooling the Earth's overall temperature.

To what extent do aerosols cool down our environment? To date, all estimates were unreliable because it was impossible to separate the effects of rising winds which create the clouds, from the effects of aerosols which determine their composition. Until now.

Rosenfeld and his colleague Yannian Zhu from the Meteorological Institute of Shaanxi Province in China developed a new method that uses satellite images to separately calculate the effect of vertical winds and aerosol cloud droplet numbers. They applied this methodology to low-lying cloud cover above the world's oceans between the Equator and 40S. With this new method, Rosenfeld and his colleagues were able to more accurately calculate aerosols' cooling effects on the Earth's energy budget. And, they discovered that aerosols' cooling effect is nearly twice higher than previously thought.

However, if this is true then how come the earth is getting warmer, not cooler? For all of the global attention on climate warming, aerosol pollution rates from vehicles, agriculture and power plants is still very high. For Rosenfeld, this discrepancy might point to an ever deeper and more troubling reality. "If the aerosols indeed cause a greater cooling effect than previously estimated, then the warming effect of the greenhouse gases has also been larger than we thought, enabling greenhouse gas emissions to overcome the cooling effect of aerosols and points to a greater amount of global warming than we previously thought," he shared.

The fact that our planet is getting warmer even though aerosols are cooling it down at higher rates than previously thought brings us to a Catch-22 situation: Global efforts to improve air quality by developing cleaner fuels and burning less coal could end up harming our planet by reducing the number of aerosols in the atmosphere, and by doing so, diminishing aerosols' cooling ability to offset global warming.

According to Rosenfeld, another hypothesis to explain why Earth is getting warmer even though aerosols have been cooling it down at an even a greater rate is a possible warming effect of aerosols when they lodge in deep clouds, meaning those 10 kilometers or more above the Earth. Israel's Space Agency and France's National Centre for Space Studies (CNES) have teamed up to develop new satellites that will be able to investigate this deep cloud phenomenon, with Professor Rosenfeld as its principal investigator.

Either way, the conclusion is the same. Our current global climate predictions do not correctly take into account the significant effects of aerosols on clouds on Earth's overall energy balance. Further, Rosenfeld's recalculations mean fellow scientists will have to rethink their global warming predictions -- which currently predict a 1.5 to 4.5-degree Celsius temperature increase by the end of the 21st century -- to provide us a more accurate diagnosis -- and prognosis -- of the Earth's climate.

Still much to learn. I still think it's odd that people are so sure that the planet is heating up so fast due to human activity. Though what I have discovered is it's not just talking about putting chemicals in the air, even things like cutting down trees, paving roads, all kinds of things, our existence(we breathe out CO2). Cattle poop, how many other animals poop? I think it's a bit of a stretch to think we can actually gauge everything to the accuracy of determining that the current warming is so bad because humans exist, and that is what they mean by 'humans causing fast global warming'. It's all a very complicated thing. Humans aren't the only reasons CO2 gets put in the atmosphere, there are tons of ways it gets put into the atmosphere. Soil, insects, animals, volcanoes, lake deposits, forest fires, solar activity, and the list just goes on and on. Apparently our very wide-spread car emissions help cool the planet down. I think the bulk of people just religiously believe the planet is heating up so fast because of humans, just the same as religiously believing the opposite, completely different from human pollution by the way. Human pollution is simply one factor among a lot of factors like us breathing and using the bathroom, just as all animals and creatures do. I'm not saying it's either way, I'm just saying it's a very big and complicated thing and they are learning new things every day.

Yes, I would agree with that entirely; and I believe that to a large extent it's unavoidable - firstly, because humans seem to find absolute statements easier to deal with than probabilities; and secondly, because none of us can perform, or even understand the technicalities of, all of the research for ourselves. In other words, there will always be an element of trust involved, and we have to live with the fact that science always involves margins of error. In part, my little tantrum earlier came from the fact that I saw the word "proof" used a lot when skim reading the posts - a scientific hypothesis can only be "proved" incorrect, whereas correctness is always probabilistic (nor is it possible to "prove" the absence of a conspiratorial political agenda.)

I'm one of those geeky people who loves to gorge on information about science, politics, and history. I've been reading science reports for four decades now about how ice-cores can tell us about previous climate, how the weather has been disrupted by volcanic events, what studies of tree-rings and pollen can tell us about ancient ecosystems etc. I have also observed scientific theories becoming ever more precise with time, and listened to farmers, naturalists, gardeners, etc. who find that their traditional seasonal rules of thumb seem to be less effective now. Climate science didn't just spring out of nowhere when "global warming" became a political hot-potato, and it involves correlating data from many different disciplines - in a sense, it's been studied ever since humans first started growing crops.

Throughout the same time period, and in the history that I read, I have noted that politicians/industrialists of all ideologies cherry-pick science, sensationalise it, or paint it as the work of the devil arbitrarily according to whatever suits their pursuit of power and/or wealth. Overall, they seem more inclined to be economical with the truth, to change their opinion for material advantage, to adhere to factional dogma, and to crawl out of responsibility for their mistakes or hypocritical behaviour. That's just a personal impression, of course, and no doubt colours my belief systems; and I don't consider myself immune to confirmation bias, either (and generally disregard the opinions of people who do claim that.)

So, on balance, I am inclined to trust what I learn from scientists more than what I learn from politicians/industrialists, while recognising that science is done by human beings, so can never be free of vice. The contribution of volcanic activity, other life forms, solar activity etc. to the climate, can be studied through science which looks at pre-human climatic changes; and it is by comparison with these that, on balance, I find the evidence for changes since human industrialisation more compelling than the null hypothesis that we haven't really changed anything.

I often think that when people ask for "proof" of climate change, that this isn't really what they're looking for. What they often seem to really want is "proof" of who they should trust. But asking for "proof" is a fool's errand; we don't have a bunch of spare Earth's to run different scenarios on, we are the first species to develop industrial technology, and we can only work with the evidence available. People who seek "proof" from an omniscient entity whom they trust completely will have to ask whatever deity they happen to believe in!

Still, I just see things as odd. Like someone brought up that Koch brothers fund denier scientists, the opposing argument to that is government funds the opposing sides. I find it very odd the climate change is political view points mostly, republicans doubt that it's from humans, democrats say it's from humans? Do scientists that vote republican exist? Like I said, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, but from where I sit, it just seems odd that political divide would be like that, surely the majority of republicans aren't against science and surely all scientists aren't democrats. Democrats want to extend government power, so surely the government gains power by extending itself, the government machine, therefor would naturally want to pay people to prove climate is controlled by man. It's just the same as dirty corporations wanting to reduce government so they can get away with doing obviously bad things like pumping toxic chemicals in the ground. A scientist should just be a scientist. I wounder if I can find any scientists which vote republican yet feel climate change is being driven by humans??

I'm basically just about to give up, I don't think it's possible for me to understand the answer. I find it very odd that it's a political thing though, not quite the same but almost like republicans believe cancer isn't real while democrats do, why would cancer have anything to do with a political side(poor example I know, maybe you get what I'm saying though). But it doesn't matter, I don't vote based on belief in climate change, that doesn't help me and honestly I don't really vote. If Andrew Yang makes it I will probably vote for him. It's not like I have a big company that's going to make money and pollute. Polluting is obviously bad and has a huge negative impact on people.

Climate change scientists refer to complicated statistical models that use unknown variables, unknown math, selective/preference data to show that climate change is happening -- not simple, easily understood, easily verifiable measurement data.

A statistical model can prove anything, so everyone should doubt these people.

In the age of GPS devices, drones, websites, and remote data collection, if this is so important, a reasonable person would wonder why they won't report their temperature data collection on a website, so others can verify. That would increase their credibility.

Yeah, I'm not buying it. They have like 40 weather balloons to measure the 'world', or another method is like 1000 thermometers. No offense but that sounds like horse s**t that one can expect to know the global average temp with such low amount of readings. So even there yearly measurements can be questioned. The world is a very vast space, seems we don't even have the technology to study global averages.

But we can guess temperature from ice sheets and glaciers.

Also: yes, we poop and animsls poop.
Humans and their livestock make up 96% of mammals on the planet, and, yes, going vegan is, after stopping to fly on airplanes, the best thing you can do to reduce greenhouse gases.

Regarding aerosols: at some point, some drowning nation like bangladesh will be willing to take the gamble and shoot a rocket full of aerosols into the higher atmosphere, mimmicking the cooling effects from large volcanic eruptions.
This would cool down earth, but would likely destroy the ozone layer (ozone is highly reactive. It blocks UV radiation, and breaks apart in the process. It's a buffer-layer).
This would result in more UV radiation, meaning we shouldn't go outside in t-shirts and shorts and without sunglasses anymore.
Plus, it'll be a total gamble as to just how much it will cool down the planet.
But for some nation where the people are being displaced by drought or rising sea levels, it might be worth it.
THAT scares the s**t out of me.
And THAT is why first world nations need to lead the way on this.

I wonder how they come up with this stuff, I'm willing to bet they haven't went around and counted all land mammals. Not to add we will more than likely discover more mammals we don't even know exist yet. Of course they will be small, I just don't understand how you can know how much of something exists without being able to count them.

We don't even have to guess; infra-red sensing satellites can provide temperature maps of the entire planet, not only at the surface of the land and sea, but also for different heights in the atmosphere. The same goes for measuring cloud cover, how big the ice caps at the North and South poles are, or working out which areas are covered by vegetation.

It seems like the general population goes on about believing in a science that they don't really understand. They parrot what they they read on the internet, but they don't really know anything about it. They go on about 97% of climate scientists but most probably don't even know the names any of those scientists much less anything about them. If they read on the internet that someone they know nothing about says such and such is happening, they accept it as fact and panic over it. And what they ultimately want is a new world order government that will be in control of virtually everything in order to "save the planet".

I don't think climate change SJWs have a monopoly on that behaviour!

What proofs do you need?

The sheepeople panic effect has been seen on a smaller scale before. Like Y2K. Like George Bush winning a second term using bogus levels of danger from terrorists, which somehow stopped being a thing after he was reelected.

according to the appendix of the appendix of the study this is from, the data is from official numbers on population and livestock - there's clearly error bars on that, but there's reasonable ways to estimate populations and livestock. - in first world countries, these are tracked anyway, so the numbers are exact.

But you have to be aware that if they're off by 20% on both numbers, the split would be roughly 90-10 (or 98-2) rather than 96-4.
And 20% is an awful lot- but its the orders of magnitude that matter.
At the current rate of extinction of wild animals, species are going extinct before they're discovered.
Either way: there'll be no discovery of a new species of elephant or whale that covers a whole continent/ocean - which would be needed to change the ratios.
A previously undiscovered species of bat in the brazilian jungle is not going to make a dent in this. You can be certain that anything big enough to make a dent in this has been discovered long ago, and likely be hunted to critical endangerment since, unless it's cattle, pigs or sheep or any of the mammals we actually produce for food.
The error bars on the estimates are definitely more important, but they're unlikely to be off to an extent that makes the estimate of 96-4 appear ridiculous.

there's just not much space where large amounts of animals can live left. All the good, fertile land is taken up by humans.


and then there's the insect-loss numbers from germany, where they actually went around with nets and weighed insect-mass per km² of nature reserve. there's been an 80% drop in insects in 30 or so years. But this is mainly attributed to farming methods.

The biologist James Lovelock already named the coming geological period: the eremozoicum - the lonely age.

I've heard about the nature preserve. They run around with nets in one area close to civilization and appearntly that amounts to the insect population of the entire planet. Flying insects aren't around the nothern hemisphere six months out of the year anyways .

Were I live there's virtually no insects to be seen and most of the foliage looks dead. Areas that are lush in the summer look post apocalyptic right now.

But six months from now it will be teaming with flying insects. They're so thick in the river area I feel like wearing a bee keeper's hat to keep from inhaling zillions of little flying insects. One cloud of them after another. Not to mention the endless amount of mosquitoes.

Towards autumn there's millions of spiderwebs to deal with. Constantly having to pull the stuff off my face. Thousands of big fat orb-weavers everywhere. Sometimes you need to use a switch like a windshield wiper to keep all webbing out of your face.

Driving through the river valley at dusk in the summer will guarantee massive bug-splat.

But I'm supposed to get panicked over a low insect count at a nature preserve.