What is some viable proof of Global Warming?

[grey_beard]

Oh, I think they should be required to stop ASAP. But who's going to make them? Only their own people can put that kind of pressure on the government. So whoever can afford to be 'clean and green' should try to set good examples. Is it fair? No. But if the boat is sinking and people keep arguing who should plug their hole first we're just all going to sink.

The boat isn't sinking. The entire thing is a massive, graft-infesting, power-seeking, *lie*.

 

[21%]

Solar is great. Wind can be great. Hydro, geothermal, and other sources are great. Nuclear is great.

But everything has a cost. Greenpeace decades ago agreed to support a dam along the Utah/Arizona at a place called Glen Canyon. They felt it was a victory given that they stopped several BLM projects in the Grand Canyon.

The only problem is that it flooded some of the most majestic canyons in the world, just ones that only a few hundred non-natives had ever seen. Having spent considerable time in the parts that were not flooded, I view it as a crime against the Earth.

Pollution should be minimized. Factories and power plants shouldn't be allowed to pollute excessively.

These are great environmental programs, designed to improve quality of life.

However, following a politicized agenda is not for the environment. It is about money and power and control.

I don't think we're in disagreement here. I believe that on the whole the 'green' movement is really well-meaning. Of course, there will always be greedy people who try to profit from it, but ultimately I feel that this is a step in the right direction. We should put more efforts in trying to make sure everything is as transparent as possible. It's just like the fact that there are always going to be corrupted people in the government. We don't need to overthrow the whole government; we just need to get rid of the corrupted people by perfecting the system. I think there are good NGOs and NGOs that are political tools. We need to find a proper check and balance system for this, which is something we don't have at the moment.

Dams are always controversial. China did something like that. You destroy a pristine natural site but save millions of lives. Is it worth it? I can't answer that. Even now whenever I think about it I want to go "Why would you ever do something like that!" But then it's a million human lives we are talking about. So I really don't have an answer.

 

[21%]

The boat isn't sinking. The entire thing is a massive, graft-infesting, power-seeking, *lie*.

I'd be really happy if that were the case. I still believe we should try our best to plug whatever holes there are in the boat. Even if this turns out to be the greatest hoax of the century, I still fully support the move towards clean energy.

I'm really interested in why you think the whole thing is a lie. Who actually benefits? I tried to look up some counter arguments and only found things like "Winters are getting colder so global warming is not happening", and stuff about polar bears not actually being in danger, and the "Antarctica is gaining ice" argument (which is explained here). I want to hear arguments from both sides, but it's rather difficult to find credible sources.

 

[EcK]

You don't know what you're talking about.

What happens is that incoming solar radiation impinges upon the atmosphere.
It it not monochromatic.
Different molecules in the atmosphere absorb a portion of the solar radiation, according to (for example) their vibrotational modes: jumping between such and such vibrational-rotational level, to a higher level, requires energy of some amount.
Incoming photons corresponding to that amount of energy are absorbed by the molecules.

The molecules *may* radiate the energy latter, but not necessarily going to their original state: perhaps they release a smaller amount of energy; perhaps they collide with another molecule undergoing inelastic transitions; so on, and so forth.

The idea behind "global warming" is that CO2 preferentially absorbs energy in the IR band, and the re-release of this energy warms the planet. The analogy is made to a "Greenhouse".

But there are a number of flaws with this.

One of them ... if you dig for it, is that a greenhouse does not attain its temperatures because all of the solar radiation is absorbed, but because it is *enclosed*. The air is trapped: and being in an enclosed space there are heat transport mechanisms which are not active, which are seen in the big wide world.

Another one, is that the absorption of CO2 is what is known as "saturated": this does NOT imply, as you took it, that the atmospherre holds all the CO2 that it can hold, but rather, the CO2 which *already exists* (in addition to water vapor, btw, should you care to look it up), absorbs basically ALL of the incoming IR band light from the sun.
In other words, adding additional CO2 will not increase the heat absorbed by the atmosphere.

(Think of it this way, in another connection. Let's pretend ISIS or Iran has detonated a small nuke in San Francisco, and you're across the bay in Oakland. You want shielding to protect you from fallout. Let's say your back-of-the-envelope calculation has told you that a three-inch sheet of lead will absorb all of the radiation. At that point, adding another six inches, or even a foot, of additional lead won't absorb any more radiation: all the radiation that came at you is already absorbed by the first three inches of lead.
And so with solar radiation. If the existing CO2 already gobbles up all the incoming IR from the sun, adding more CO2 won't cause any more to be absorbed: it may (depending on the concentration-altitude distribution of CO2 -- and that depends on temperatures, and plant cover, and reflectivity of the earth's surface, and whether you are above land or ocean, and the solubility of CO2 in water, and therefore the temperature of the water...) )

There are a couple of other problems with the models; among them being predicted feedback from changes in CO2, or moisture; the fact that the models are not matching the actual recorded data very well, either qualitatively or quantitatively; poor stewardship/maintenance of the data (e.g. the "hockey stick" and the "hide the decline" emails from East Anglia; the refusal to release some raw data sets to third parties (a scientist refusing to divulge the raw data is ALWAYS a red flag); failure to note that CO2-temperature correlations from the past show CO2 increases as LAGGING the temperature increases, instead of preceding them...

And, as always, follow the money and power trail.

Hint: China has been building one or two coal-fired power plants for YEARS. India likewise has been adding fossil fuel capabilities. Each of their economies (in terms of CO2 emitted per unit of economic output) is far more inefficient than the US; so that the US going back to 1950s levels of pollution will not make up for the increase in Cow by China and India: yet they seem to be curiously exempt from the restrictions. And the number of Democrat donors and cronies who have grown wealthy off of this, even while their companies either go bankrupt (Solyndra) or cause other unforeseen ecological disasters (bird strikes on wind turbines), is very instructive.

If the "no fossil fuel crowd" were intellectually honest, they'd be pushing nuclear power (France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear power). But that was discouraged years ago on orders from the Kremlin, as a back-door way to try to attack the US nuclear weapons capability. Even with that, however, there are more promising forms of nuclear reactors (pebble bed and molten salt reactors, thorium reactors) which don't have the risks of the Cold War era reactors. How come those are never considered or pushed?

ok? I don't really have time for this now but as far as I can see from the tone of the message.
Nothing you said goes against the comment I made about the fact that whoever I was quoting had a flawed argument?! I didn't need to outline ALL the flaws in the argument of course, and did outline a few more in following posts in as pedagogical a way as I could.

So what's your point exactly appart from being pedandic that is.

 

[grey_beard]

ok? I don't really have time for this now but as far as I can see from the tone of the message.
Nothing you said goes against the comment I made about the fact that whoever I was quoting had a flawed argument?! I didn't need to outline ALL the flaws in the argument of course, and did outline a few more in following posts in as pedagogical a way as I could.

So what's your point exactly appart from being pedandic that is.

Your "refutation" is based on a misunderstanding of the central word used in their argument: "saturation". As such it is irrelevant.

The rest of my post, which you didn't read, covered what are known as "systematic errors" in the catastrophist approach.

 

[grey_beard]

I don't think we're in disagreement here. I believe that on the whole the 'green' movement is really well-meaning. Of course, there will always be greedy people who try to profit from it, but ultimately I feel that this is a step in the right direction. We should put more efforts in trying to make sure everything is as transparent as possible. It's just like the fact that there are always going to be corrupted people in the government. We don't need to overthrow the whole government; we just need to get rid of the corrupted people by perfecting the system. I think there are good NGOs and NGOs that are political tools. We need to find a proper check and balance system for this, which is something we don't have at the moment.

Dams are always controversial. China did something like that. You destroy a pristine natural site but save millions of lives. Is it worth it? I can't answer that. Even now whenever I think about it I want to go "Why would you ever do something like that!" But then it's a million human lives we are talking about. So I really don't have an answer.

Global warming would save millions of human lives. Cold brings famine and war. Study the recent cycles in the earth's temperature: we are at the cusp of, or overdue for, glaciation.

 

[Amargith]

Oh, I think they should be required to stop ASAP. But who's going to make them? Only their own people can put that kind of pressure on the government. So whoever can afford to be 'clean and green' should try to set good examples. Is it fair? No. But if the boat is sinking and people keep arguing who should plug their hole first we're just all going to sink.

From what I remember of my days in WWF, the reasons was because they were still developing nations. Since the West was the one to profit the most so far from industrialisation early on, they were to set the example. Meanwhile, some nations are only going through that phase right now, so they were required to do less as to support their economy so they can catch up and have their own eventual conversion. Last I heard, they did, however, have some requirements placed on them.

It's kind of like the older child going 'why does my younger brother get to do that and I don't?
And the mom goes 'Coz you're older and you know better already - he still has to learn.'

First, we crawl and put things in our mouth - then we learn to walk and be selective about what goes down the hatch, basically.


Meanwhile, the West did get to buy their 'quota' in underdeveloped countries which in turn helps those countries develop, while the West gets the time it needs to invest and align their economy with the ecology of it all. Sweden is making some serious progress in that, as is Germany. Meanwhile Norway is mostly still buying their quota and is only starting major conversions now, from what I hear.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

From what I remember of my days in WWF, the reasons was because they were still developing nations. Since the West was the one to profit the most so far from industrialisation early on, they were to set the example. Meanwhile, some nations are only going through that phase right now, so they were required to do less as to support their economy so they can catch up and have their own eventual conversion. Last I heard, they did, however, have some requirements placed on them.

It's kind of like the older child going 'why does my younger brother get to do that and I don't?
And the mom goes 'Coz you're older and you know better already - he still has to learn.'

First, we crawl and put things in our mouth - then we learn to walk and be selective about what goes down the hatch, basically.


Meanwhile, the West did get to buy their 'quota' in underdeveloped countries which in turn helps those countries develop, while the West gets the time it needs to invest and align their economy with the ecology of it all. Sweden is making some serious progress in that, as is Germany. Meanwhile Norway is mostly still buying their quota and is only starting major conversions now, from what I hear.

These trading regimes are rent seeking boondoggle. Most of the "purchases" are for fraudulent benefits. It essential moves money into financial institutions who have exploited the entire system.

The entire concept is based upon a redistributionist ideal anyway, but the like most programs involving money transfers to developing countries the money doesn't go to help the people, but the elites. And increases energy costs that are ultimately borne by the general public.

 

[EcK]

Your "refutation" is based on a misunderstanding of the central word used in their argument: "saturation". As such it is irrelevant.

The rest of my post, which you didn't read, covered what are known as "systematic errors" in the catastrophist approach.

First off, thank you for the post. I appreciate you took the time to answer.
As a note: have you read my subsequent posts then. Where I mention that point exactly (post #24)

The goal of these posts was to outline some logical fallacies from the guy I was answering to, not to give a complete picture. I simply needed him to understand the mistake in his interpretation of the data.

Usually, if you give people the whole picture right away they don't really 'get' where and why they were wrong. So it's useful to simplify the point (yes I know, it's not elegant) as to convey the point. On a side note I wasn't extremely diplomatic there, so I understand you'd want to kick my ass in your answer : P. I'd probably have done the same thing.

Secondly, I am not advocating the catastrophic scenario most politicians use to sell Global Warming. As far as I am concerned I don't have enough data to have a 'final' opinion.
However I would lean towards: as we are now entering a cooling phase, an increase of CO2 through technology can a positive overall impact. Though global warming has negative long-term consequences in countries with very low elevation. Effects which can already be observed today.

I wouldn't call that my opinion, but rather part of an opinion that needs to be completed with additional data (when I have some time / the motivation to go through a few hundred studies and their methodology / we can even have a chat about it later). I'm not one to be convinced by sensationalism. As you know there is an immense body of knowledge on the topic and understanding the whole issue goes through science of course, but also geopolitics etc. and requires a cross-disciplinary 'big picture' to be understood properly (in my opinion).

As far as your post is concerned, I was already aware of, and/or thought of all the points you've mentioned. Though I didn't read it in its entirety so there is always a chance I've missed a few points.

I will go through it after work. Bear with me, I'm an ENTP and my attention is fleeting.

 

[Poki]

From what I remember of my days in WWF, the reasons was because they were still developing nations. Since the West was the one to profit the most so far from industrialisation early on, they were to set the example. Meanwhile, some nations are only going through that phase right now, so they were required to do less as to support their economy so they can catch up and have their own eventual conversion. Last I heard, they did, however, have some requirements placed on them.

It's kind of like the older child going 'why does my younger brother get to do that and I don't?
And the mom goes 'Coz you're older and you know better already - he still has to learn.'

First, we crawl and put things in our mouth - then we learn to walk and be selective about what goes down the hatch, basically.


Meanwhile, the West did get to buy their 'quota' in underdeveloped countries which in turn helps those countries develop, while the West gets the time it needs to invest and align their economy with the ecology of it all. Sweden is making some serious progress in that, as is Germany. Meanwhile Norway is mostly still buying their quota and is only starting major conversions now, from what I hear.

If the kid is asking then I don't think he has learned yet not to do it or he would already know why. I usually give them the option again to do it...if it really was a learning lesson of what not to do it will remind them doing it again and teach them that just because someone else does it doesn't mean they should even if it's still allowed.

I do that to my son all the time...well he gets to do that..then do it...have fun..let me know how it goes.

 

[Amargith]

^^ Sure, gaming the system is human nature, unfortunately. I haven't followed up on it lately, but back when I was, they had just started to execute this system and there was a lot of frustration at the less than ideal way people tried to game the system. It was a way to gain momentum though - which the green movement definitely has succeeded in. I'm not sure if they fine-tuned the system at all lately, though, but I know there were plans for that back when, when everyone was on board and everyone had had a chance to start working on things.

Granted, then Kyoto and Copenhagen happened, where some of the biggest countries decided to hem and ha instead of getting fully on board and the economic crisis hit, so it might not be working as well as it should at this point. I do know there were also talks about putting together a 'disaster fund' for all countries to use (this was after Haiti, if memory serves), and to make that a permanent thing in the future because of the increased risks of drought and hurricane and other calamities that came with climate change. This was meant to especially help those poor countries who already struggle with drought as it is and who are basically paying for the industrialisation of the west in this way. From what I know, that too fizzled, again possibly due to the economic crisis hitting.

The plans are there, and the systems are being worked out - the progress that the green movement has made in technology and general mainstream mind shift is already immense, but unfortunately it wasn't fast enough. I remember back when WWF still had hope to change things around, to keep the water from warming more than 4 degrees C.

Now, they're mostly looking to minimise the damage because we've passed the point of no return, so research shows. The vids of polar bears stuck on ice blocks that have melted too soon are heartbreaking to watch and last I checked, they were producing less and less cubs due to the fact that the females don't get the time to actually store up the food they need for winter with the ice coming in later and later each year. The dead coral reefs due to the rising temperature of the seas are another sad thing to watch happen and devastating to the tourist industry. And then of course there's the spreading deserts that cause problems, as well as the increase in hurricanes, flooding etc.

I'm just hoping that after the Paris meet up, they can make it happen, finally.

 

[Amargith]

If the kid is asking then I don't think he has learned yet not to do it or he would already know why. I usually give them the option again to do it...if it really was a learning lesson of what not to do it will remind them doing it again and teach them that just because someone else does it doesn't mean they should even if it's still allowed.

I do that to my son all the time...well he gets to do that..then do it...have fun..let me know how it goes.

Heh, well maybe it wasn't the best analogy, but older siblings often have to put up with obnoxious behaviour that they would like to do as well, but are penalised for because they should know better (like throw food on the floor, for instance) ,while the younger one is still too young to really comprehend that or simply don't have the coordination yet to do so well. And it works both ways of course, the amount of times i was told I was too young for something that my brothers were allowed to do already, I cannot count

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Now, they're mostly looking to minimise the damage because we've passed the point of no return, so research shows. The vids of polar bears stuck on ice blocks that have melted too soon are heartbreaking to watch and last I checked, they were producing less and less cubs due to the fact that the females don't get the time to actually store up the food they need for winter with the ice coming in later and later each year. The dead coral reefs at the rising temperature of the Ocean are another sad thing to watch happen and devastating to the tourist industry. And then of course there's the spreading deserts that cause problems, as well as the increase in hurricanes, flooding etc.

I'm just hoping that after the Paris meet up, they can make it happen, finally.

Point of no return? Antarctic ice is bigger today than in the past. The earth has been both warmer and colder than it is today. Sea levels have been higher and lower. The earth will change and that isn't always bad.

We do need to be good stewards of the world, but the current direction is flawed, fundementally. It punishes some while encouraging others to destroy, all the while enriching a select few.....

 

[Amargith]

Point of no return? Antarctic ice is bigger today than in the past. The earth has been both warmer and colder than it is today. Sea levels have been higher and lower. The earth will change and that isn't always bad.

We do need to be good stewards of the world, but the current direction is flawed, fundementally. It punishes some while encouraging others to destroy, all the while enriching a select few.....

That's the thing though - just because it is normal for the Earth, doesn't mean that we as a species will be able to cope with the change. Or for that matter, all the species around us which we're interlinked with and depend on. If the change happens too fast, entire species will be lost, hell, entire ecosystems may be lost - and with them, perhaps some that are key to our survival - like the bees. The more species take a hit, the more the biodiversity web we're all part of gets weakened and the more vulnerable we become. Increased natural disasters would also bankrupt most countries economies, trying to deal with the damage and the increase in droughts and flooding would cause famine and disease.

Slowing the process down as much as we can and working *with* the planet and our fellow species on this planet is imho the only way to ensure that we actually can adjust in time to the changes that are ahead. And even then, it is a gamble.

Or we could wait, and see what happens. And pray we can handle it when it is here. I personally prefer being proactive and smoothening out the ride

As for the system being flawed - of course it is, it is in its infancy. Critique it all you want, but it needs *work*, testing, experimenting and doing things wrong to actually get it up and running to a level of mastery and competency. Dragging our heels because it isn't working is only delaying is while we work out the kinks. Imagine doing this when the shit actually fully hits the fan. We've better off bumbling about now and actually putting in the work to figure it out.

 

[jixmixfix]

All I know is that I don't trust the government.From what I notice there seems to be an imbalance in whether patterns and instability.

 

[Poki]

All I know is that I don't trust the government.From what I notice there seems to be an imbalance in whether patterns and instability.

Yeah, i don't think the majority of people trust the government anymore. For good reasons. Of course good reasons creates lack of trust which creates stupid reasons to add to good reasons.

 

[jixmixfix]

Yeah, i don't think the majority of people trust the government anymore. For good reasons. Of course good reasons creates lack of trust which creates stupid reasons to add to good reasons.

Government is its own entity with its own power and its own agenda. The less government the better.

 

[Poki]

Government is its own entity with its own power and its own agenda. The less government the better.

Are referring to federal, state, local, or all the above? Goal should be as little government as possible, because that means we can govern or self without a higher power stepping in. We are not there yet, but I do think our government hinders us from reaching it in some instances.

 

[Mole]

All I know is that I don't trust the government.From what I notice there seems to be an imbalance in whether patterns and instability.

What a difference a country makes!

Oz has nine parliamentary governments and we work with our governments and trust our governments based on compulsory voting.

While the USA has a paranoid view of its own government, and so few bother to even vote.

And the USA paranoia is extreme in that they arm themselves against the imagined tyranny of their own government.

And tragedy becomes dark comedy when the USA seeks to impose its form of government on foreign countries it doesn't even understand, by force.

 

[Tellenbach]

Whether we caused global warming or not, I don't understand why people would not want to push for clean, renewable energy sources like solar energy? I mean, oil is going to run out one day. Think of our great grandchildren.

Not if renewables are twice as expensive. See, if you double the cost of energy in parts of the midwest and the northeast, people on a fixed income, especially the elderly decide they can't afford to use the heater and they freeze. Also, solar thermal power plants have killed hundreds of thousands of birds and bats.

Nuclear power is fairly cheap and it's the safest form of energy, but the same people who want renewables oppose nuclear power. If global warming is as serious as they tell us, you'd think they'd jump on the nuclear power bandwagon.

The goal of these posts was to outline some logical fallacies from the guy I was answering to, not to give a complete picture. I simply needed him to understand the mistake in his interpretation of the data.

There was no mistake. I was going to correct you on your interpretation of "saturation", but I thought: why bother?