|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 14:43:05 GMT
You reiterate the deniers argument well. It's also your position unless you substantially disagree (I don't think you sensibly can) If so why do you not consider the cost of adjusting to the changes? . If your 'remedy' wasn't likely to cause a mammoth, civilisation ending disaster, we would be faced with an easy choice that could be adequately governed by the precautionary principle and a risk. However , this is not the case. So, we have to balance the risks implicit in your 'best guess' vs the knowledge that dismantling our society is likely to cause a disaster on an unprecedented scale. Which is worse? We simply don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 16:19:57 GMT
You reiterate the deniers argument well. It's also your position unless you substantially disagree (I don't think you sensibly can) If so why do you not consider the cost of adjusting to the changes? . If your 'remedy' wasn't likely to cause a mammoth, civilisation ending disaster, we would be faced with an easy choice that could be adequately governed by the precautionary principle and a risk. However , this is not the case. So, we have to balance the risks implicit in your 'best guess' vs the knowledge that dismantling our society is likely to cause a disaster on an unprecedented scale. Which is worse? We simply don't know. But like anyone planning for the future you have to make guesstimates. And its not as if we don't know at all (Like you keep trying to pretend) We do know that increased heat means increased frequency and strength of Hurricanes and Tropical storms. We have seen REAL evidence to back up the assertions. We do know that warmer atmosphere can hold more water and deliver deluges of rain, we could see that in monsoons in countries adapted to it. We could predict it in countries not adapted to it and now we have seen it many times played out for us. We can predict that if the temperature continues to rise then so will the size of storms, droughts, monsoon type rains etc. We are not stupid animals guessing at this and that is where your argument fails. It fails because its just another 'adsurdium' in which you say that if we cannot predict the exact number of raindrops then we cannot say its raining. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 21, 2023 17:49:08 GMT
It's also your position unless you substantially disagree (I don't think you sensibly can) We don't know what those costs might be because we are unable to make remotely accurate predictions. If your 'remedy' wasn't likely to cause a mammoth, civilisation ending disaster, we would be faced with an easy choice that could be adequately governed by the precautionary principle and a risk. However , this is not the case. So, we have to balance the risks implicit in your 'best guess' vs the knowledge that dismantling our society is likely to cause a disaster on an unprecedented scale. Which is worse? We simply don't know. But like anyone planning for the future you have to make guesstimates. And its not as if we don't know at all (Like you keep trying to pretend) We do know that increased heat means increased frequency and strength of Hurricanes and Tropical storms. We have seen REAL evidence to back up the assertions. Not seeing it..  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 18:18:06 GMT
But like anyone planning for the future you have to make guesstimates. And its not as if we don't know at all (Like you keep trying to pretend) We do know that increased heat means increased frequency and strength of Hurricanes and Tropical storms. We have seen REAL evidence to back up the assertions. Not seeing it.. The new study adds a line of direct evidence that tropical cyclones are getting stronger. The ocean measurements suggest that tropical cyclones are likely intensifying at a rate of around 1.8 meters per second each decade. The study suggests that this strengthening trend holds true for storms all over the world. www.scientificamerican.com/article/even-weak-hurricanes-are-getting-stronger-as-the-climate-warms/#:~:text=The%20new%20study%20adds%20a,storms%20all%20over%20the%20world. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 21, 2023 18:31:12 GMT
But if there are no more hurricanse and typhoons making landfall does it matter if they are getting stronger?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 19:27:21 GMT
But if there are no more hurricanse and typhoons making landfall does it matter if they are getting stronger? What do you think? Would you be happier with a stronger wind or a weaker one? |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 21, 2023 19:56:03 GMT
You reiterate the deniers argument well. Again the deniers argument, which I have just addressed. The decision was that both man and nature are adapted to the current climate and therefore change is very likely to be costly. There is a reason why houses in Spain have flat white roofs and houses in Austria have steep dark ones. The same is true in nature for the creatures that rely on the climate they live in. And your objection to switching to renewable energy? The cost! If so why do you not consider the cost of adjusting to the changes? If you believe there will be no significant change then you are among those who deny Co2 controls temperature and that the heat must effect the climate. How about mansard roofs in Switzerland |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 21, 2023 22:48:21 GMT
But if there are no more hurricanse and typhoons making landfall does it matter if they are getting stronger? What do you think? Would you be happier with a stronger wind or a weaker one? Well surely what matters is the welfare of the people, not what I prefer. Economic growth is what benefits us, and as we have seen for the past decade high energy prices are detrimental to economic growth. In fact global warming is a benefit - although listening to you someone might think otherwise..  |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 23:09:17 GMT
What do you think? Would you be happier with a stronger wind or a weaker one? Well surely what matters is the welfare of the people, not what I prefer. Economic growth is what benefits us, and as we have seen for the past decade high energy prices are detrimental to economic growth. In fact global warming is a benefit - although listening to you someone might think otherwise.. Lets try again, which do you think causes more damage strong winds/weak winds. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 22, 2023 8:05:52 GMT
The huge ball in the sky is pretty regular in its energy output and we measure that regularly. We know why the heat from the ball keeps this planet at a temperature that the current lifeforms adapted to. Its because the heat arrives as ultraviolet light but is trapped as infrared light by Co2 molecules attached to water molecules. We therefore know that as you increase the amount of Co2 you increase the heat of the planet. All the deniers arguments are based on what happens to that heat, none (except the most ignorant) argue that Co2 in NOT the reason our planet is an average 14 degrees Celsius rather than an average -50 Celsius. There is no such thing as a "denier" and you show your lack of understanding of science by using the term. As for knowing that "increasing the amount of CO2 increases the temperature of the planet", we do NOT know that. As I've said many times no experiment has managed to show this in the Earth's system (except at the ice caps or in a desert). And the climate models are built on this hypothesis but DON'T work. Also the figures you quote are wrong (as usual). Your source is either unreliable or you've just misunderstood. And if there were no CO2 there would be no plants - and therefore no heterotrophs (just some bacteria). And if there were no plants we don't know what temperature the planet would be - the calculation hasn't been done AFAIK. Also you need to factor in that the heating caused by CO2 is logarithmic (relative to concentration). In this case the same degree of heat retention is caused by doubling of CO2. So the same amount of warming occurs when changing the concentration of CO2 from 2ppm to 4ppm as occurs when changing it from 200ppm to 400ppm. The other point is that there is absolutely NO argument that without the Sun the temperature of the Earth would be -273C. The Sun generates a vast amount of heat and science always has a problem when it tries to measure effects when there are some factors that generate huge effects and some that generate relatively small effects. It means that the factors that generate the large effects have to be measured VERY accurately - which often can't be done. In these cases science tries to carry out a control experiment by eliminating the big factors, but that cannot be done in this case. That's why many scientists say that all warming can be attributed to the Sun's variations. It's by no means settled that CO2 is the predominant factor in warming. And the only "evidence" that you've come up with is an article by a Guardian hack who says that 95% of scientists say it is - but that has been completely discredited. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 22, 2023 8:08:11 GMT
Well surely what matters is the welfare of the people, not what I prefer. Economic growth is what benefits us, and as we have seen for the past decade high energy prices are detrimental to economic growth. In fact global warming is a benefit - although listening to you someone might think otherwise.. Lets try again, which do you think causes more damage strong winds/weak winds. Well as we have already seen there is no increase in typhoons making landfall and the numbers killed are falling - if the winds are getting stronger its not making things worse. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 22, 2023 8:13:48 GMT
If we have to rely on "science" like this, no wonder there's little hope for reason.
You know that is a theory, right? The other being that it is rising temperatures which raise the CO2 level. So we don't "know" that at all. Everything is a theory, we've been here done that. That you exist is a theory. Bollocks. You have no understanding of science whatsoever Zanygame. Everything is NOT a theory. There are such things as FACTS (e.g. observed data). I'd be interested to know what level you studied science to at school. Did you even get an O-level in any scientific subject? You certainly didn't study it at a university. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 22, 2023 10:08:58 GMT
The huge ball in the sky is pretty regular in its energy output and we measure that regularly. We know why the heat from the ball keeps this planet at a temperature that the current lifeforms adapted to. Its because the heat arrives as ultraviolet light but is trapped as infrared light by Co2 molecules attached to water molecules. We therefore know that as you increase the amount of Co2 you increase the heat of the planet. All the deniers arguments are based on what happens to that heat, none (except the most ignorant) argue that Co2 in NOT the reason our planet is an average 14 degrees Celsius rather than an average -50 Celsius. There is no such thing as a "denier" and you show your lack of understanding of science by using the term. As for knowing that "increasing the amount of CO2 increases the temperature of the planet", we do NOT know that. As I've said many times no experiment has managed to show this in the Earth's system (except at the ice caps or in a desert). And the climate models are built on this hypothesis but DON'T work. Also the figures you quote are wrong (as usual). Your source is either unreliable or you've just misunderstood. And if there were no CO2 there would be no plants - and therefore no heterotrophs (just some bacteria). And if there were no plants we don't know what temperature the planet would be - the calculation hasn't been done AFAIK. Also you need to factor in that the heating caused by CO2 is logarithmic (relative to concentration). In this case the same degree of heat retention is caused by doubling of CO2. So the same amount of warming occurs when changing the concentration of CO2 from 2ppm to 4ppm as occurs when changing it from 200ppm to 400ppm. The other point is that there is absolutely NO argument that without the Sun the temperature of the Earth would be -273C. The Sun generates a vast amount of heat and science always has a problem when it tries to measure effects when there are some factors that generate huge effects and some that generate relatively small effects. It means that the factors that generate the large effects have to be measured VERY accurately - which often can't be done. In these cases science tries to carry out a control experiment by eliminating the big factors, but that cannot be done in this case. That's why many scientists say that all warming can be attributed to the Sun's variations. It's by no means settled that CO2 is the predominant factor in warming. And the only "evidence" that you've come up with is an article by a Guardian hack who says that 95% of scientists say it is - but that has been completely discredited. Denier is not a scientific term at all. Its descriptive. Balh blah middle bit clearly completely wrong, can't be arsed to answer you again. Here Carbon dioxide is Earth's most important greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs and radiates heat. Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb heat radiating from the Earth's surface and re-release it in all directions—including back toward Earth's surface.Then some fantasy about if the sun disappeared. And a stupid claim that we can't measure how much of the suns heat is hitting the planet. As for the guardian article. Who knew the guardian was so powerful. Every leader of every 1st world country is taking actions to lower Co2, many of these decisions not popular. Who'd have thought the Guardian was such a world leader. I thought it was reporting what others said, not leading them. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 22, 2023 11:14:53 GMT
There is a lot of hedging going on in there and a lot of 'suggest','may', 'likely. The actual measurements of storms by the accepted measuring methods, that were supposed to be bringing about definitive evidence that storms were becoming stronger, actually showed that the storms for 2022 were not becoming stronger and if anything were relatively weaker than previous years. There is no direct evidence that extremes are becoming more extreme in terms of storms and that prediction has been around for at least a dozen years and the actuality is not living up to the forecasts. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 22, 2023 11:18:19 GMT
It's also your position unless you substantially disagree (I don't think you sensibly can) We don't know what those costs might be because we are unable to make remotely accurate predictions. If your 'remedy' wasn't likely to cause a mammoth, civilisation ending disaster, we would be faced with an easy choice that could be adequately governed by the precautionary principle and a risk. However , this is not the case. So, we have to balance the risks implicit in your 'best guess' vs the knowledge that dismantling our society is likely to cause a disaster on an unprecedented scale. Which is worse? We simply don't know. But like anyone planning for the future you have to make guesstimates. And its not as if we don't know at all (Like you keep trying to pretend) We do know that increased heat means increased frequency and strength of Hurricanes and Tropical storms. We have seen REAL evidence to back up the assertions. We do know that warmer atmosphere can hold more water and deliver deluges of rain, we could see that in monsoons in countries adapted to it. We could predict it in countries not adapted to it and now we have seen it many times played out for us. We can predict that if the temperature continues to rise then so will the size of storms, droughts, monsoon type rains etc. We are not stupid animals guessing at this and that is where your argument fails. It fails because its just another 'adsurdium' in which you say that if we cannot predict the exact number of raindrops then we cannot say its raining. But all that is very vague. I think the the thing you are forgetting is that your remedy also has significant costs. |
|
