The end of the world as we know it

[OngBonga]

So anyone who knows more than you about something must be right? Unless they're a scientist?

Do you know what trust means?

[Poopadoop]

Do you know what trust means?

Yes, and it's understandable you trust your friend's mom more than a complete stranger. But I also think there has to be some faith that qualified people who study the matter intensely and have no obvious interest in lying have a better grasp on things like global warming than you or I.

[Poopadoop]

In Ong's defense, there is a difficulty in proving global warming based simply on mean global temperatures. The kind of time scales and fluctuations involved mean it would take probably centuries to 'prove' global warming is for real.

The crux of the matter to me though is the fact that the concentrations of greenhouse gases have been rising exponentially since industrialization began. If that isn't resulting in global warming then they will need to rewrite all the geology texts.

[OngBonga]

In Ong's defense, there is a difficulty in proving global warming based simply on mean global temperatures. The kind of time scales and fluctuations involved mean it would take probably centuries to 'prove' global warming is for real.

The crux of the matter to me though is the fact that the concentrations of greenhouse gases have been rising exponentially since industrialization began. If that isn't resulting in global warming then they will need to rewrite all the geology texts.

Why are you assuming that a build up of gasses implies an increase in temperature? It could, for all we mere mortals know, result in a cooling, as more solar radiation is reflected back into space. There's a logical argument supporting cooling and warming.

Furthermore, there's a balancing act that goes on in nature. The warmer something gets, the more it radiates energy, and thus, the quicker it cools. That's why hot water freezes quicker than cold water. So if the planet is warming up, then it's also losing more heat in the form of radiation. Nature can deal with warming.

There's no need for panic. The sea levels aren't rising like they said they would be. Thermal expansion of the oceans isn't happening, because it's nonsense. The VAST majority of water in the oceans is deep water, and isn't going to be even remotely influenced by a degree or two of surface warming. There's a Pacific nation that has a vested interest in playing the climate change card to get foreign aid... they refused to allow a video to be shown by a Swedish scientist who claims there's nothing for them to worry about.

I'm not buying it. This decade is cooler than last, based on my observations here in the UK. I strongly suspect that the warm period of 2000-2010 was natural fluctuation. There's much more pressing things to worry about... air quality is one of them so the global warming myth at least can do some good.

[Poopadoop]

Why are you assuming that a build up of gasses implies an increase in temperature? It could, for all we mere mortals know, result in a cooling, as more solar radiation is reflected back into space. There's a logical argument supporting cooling and warming.

I'm assuming it for the same reason that if you build a greenhouse it will get hot inside. The extra radiation is trapped, not reflected back to space. Incidentally, one of these gases, CO2 is a big part of the atmosphere of Venus iirc. Pretty fucking warm there.

Furthermore, there's a balancing act that goes on in nature. The warmer something gets, the more it radiates energy, and thus, the quicker it cools. That's why hot water freezes quicker than cold water. So if the planet is warming up, then it's also losing more heat in the form of radiation. Nature can deal with warming.

I don't think there's a consensus on why hot water freezes quicker than cold water, but anyways let's leave that to MMM.

But by this logic, Venus should not be much hotter than Earth.

There's no need for panic. The sea levels aren't rising like they said they would be. Thermal expansion of the oceans isn't happening, because it's nonsense. The VAST majority of water in the oceans is deep water, and isn't going to be even remotely influenced by a degree or two of surface warming. There's a Pacific nation that has a vested interest in playing the climate change card to get foreign aid... they refused to allow a video to be shown by a Swedish scientist who claims there's nothing for them to worry about.

The people with the vested interest in arguing for climate change are outnumbered by a fairly large margin by the people for whom the reverse is true. Oil companies, for example.

I'm not buying it. This decade is cooler than last, based on my observations here in the UK. I strongly suspect that the warm period of 2000-2010 was natural fluctuation. There's much more pressing things to worry about... air quality is one of them so the global warming myth at least can do some good.

It could be, but my argument was about the factors that lead to global warming, not the strength of the evidence that it's already here.

[OngBonga]

I'm assuming it for the same reason that if you build a greenhouse it will get hot inside. The extra radiation is trapped, not reflected back to space. Incidentally, one of these gases, CO2 is a big part of the atmosphere of Venus iirc. Pretty fucking warm there.

Well then you're taking the term "greenhouse gasses" too literally, perhaps victim of semantics propaganda. "Greenhouse gas" is just a buzzword that implies warming by its nature.

Greenhouses are made of glass, and are small. There is no glass casing surrounding the large atmosphere we have, so the conditions are incomparable.

Venus is indeed pretty fucking hot compared to Earth. It's closer to the sun.

I don't think there's a consensus on why hot water freezes quicker than cold water, but anyways let's leave that to MMM.

Oh there is. I might not have hit the nail on the head, but it's definitely been explained. Mojo can indeed clear this one up, no doubt.

But by this logic, Venus should not be much hotter than Earth.

Venus is closer to the sun. Such mechanics maintain a realtive sense of thermal balance, it doesn't maintain a certain temperature.

The people with the vested interest in arguing for climate change are outnumbered by a fairly large margin by the people for whom the reverse is true. Oil companies, for example.

Why do we assume oil companies are losing money as a result of global warming? Because they are so heavily regulated? It just means it's impossible for anyone to compete with the established companies. I have no idea, but like I said earlier, I don't expect it to be costing big business money, quite the opposite.

It kind of goes back to our previous discussion about nutrition. You can't do the experiment that proves conclusively that eating a healthy diet is good for you. So nutrition is a pseudoscience and you can just eat ice cream all day every day and you'll be fine.

Well it's not quite the same, because experiment will support the theory that nutrition is important. If you feed me a diet of bread and water for a month, while you eat a balanced diet, and every day we had a 100m race, my performance would deteriorate while yours would probably improve slightly, or remain stable. Certainly you would outperform me. Thus, the theory would hold up to experiment.

Can the same be said of climate change? What experiment can be done to put to test the theories?

[Poopadoop]

Mercury is closer to the Sun than Venus but with no atmosphere, and it's slightly cooler than Venus. Explain that one Galileo.

How about this experiment? Build several greenhouses but use partially-reflecting glass that allows as much radiation out as it does in, so that just the glass alone won't change the temperature. Fill one with CO2, a few others with other greenhouse gases, and leave the last one with a normal atmosphere. See which ones get hotter than the others.

Or just read the fucking textbook that explains what a greenhouse gas does. I'm sure somewhere in there it describes the experiment that proves it.

[OngBonga]

But I also think there has to be some faith that qualified people who study the matter intensely and have no obvious interest in lying have a better grasp on things like global warming than you or I.

Ok, this is fair enough. But what is it to "study"? If I want to learn about something, such as water filters, I go to wikipedia. I'm learning what someone else has written. If I then filter water as advised, and it's clean enough for me to consider it a success, then I'm going to assume that what I was told is truth. I might even teach other how to make water filters, spreading the knowledge. But how do I actually know that it worked as a result of what I was taught? I'm making a leap of faith. So, too, is every scientist who trusts their education.

The problem isn't necessarily that qualified people are lying directly to the people, the problem might be much more deep rooted than that. Maybe people are being taught lies as they become qualified.

Ultimately, the distrust is still aimed at the system, not the person.

[Poopadoop]

Ultimately, the distrust is still aimed at the system, not the person.

Well obviously I'm biased, but I think the system of science has been shown to work pretty well over the years, no? I'm not saying mistakes haven't been made but on the balance it seems to me that science has been one of mankind's more successful ventures.

[OngBonga]

Well obviously I'm biased, but I think the system of science has been shown to work pretty well over the years, no? I'm not saying mistakes haven't been made but on the balance it seems to me that science has been one of mankind's more successful ventures.

Climate change is theory at best, disinformation at worst. You're putting faith in science, which is fine, but this isn't science. It's theory, and it's highly political in nature, which muddies the waters further. I have no faith in unproven science where there is so much politics involved.