Global warming, human or not?

[Scott B]

Originally Posted by darkmoon

Eh, AFAIK Michael Chrichton is not a scientist, so how is this relevant?

He is, actually. His credentials say so.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Scott B

He is, actually. His credentials say so.

Doesn't mean he's infallible and omniscient

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by stephencp

"I'll go with the scientific journals because that's where the studies are published, and it supports what I have read myself."

Studies that are "peer reviewed" typically tend to reflect the collective view of all of the "peers", in this case who are all convinced global warmed is due to mankinds actions.

I don't see how the fact that "the collevtive view of the scientist is global warming is due to mankinds actions" can be seen as a argument against "global warming is due to mankinds actions".

He is, actually. His credentials say so.

Wikipedia says that he has graduated at Harvard Medical School, gaining an M.D. in 1969. That makes him a doctor, not a scientist.

[topher1181]

Originally Posted by stephencp

"I'll go with the scientific journals because that's where the studies are published, and it supports what I have read myself."

Studies that are "peer reviewed" typically tend to reflect the collective view of all of the "peers", in this case who are all convinced global warmed is due to mankinds actions.

I don't know the answer but am not going to form my opinion based on a great movie or article.

I don't understand your argument. There are plenty of scientists studying global warming that agree that humans are the cause - those "peers" are convinced for a reason. This is what they do. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant, but are you saying that peer reviewed articles aren't a good source of information?

I'm not a scientist, so books, articles, and documentaries are the only way I'm going to learn about some of these things. I have to trust the experts, and those with credibility say that we are the cause. How else do you recommend one form an opinion on something like this?

[darkmoon]

Today I discovered that someone is developing a simulation game about global warming, named Melting Point. According to the website the game is based on the real science and economics. This might be very interesting!

Originally Posted by topher1181

How else do you recommend one form an opinion on something like this?

By reading science-fiction books, like someone suggested earlier in this thread!

[wolfgang]

I JUST saw "An Inconvenient Truth"

It seems that burning coal for power is the biggest contributor and to keep up with populations and energy demands there won't be enough energy without building more power plants and they are going to have to be nuclear.

Of all the solutions outlined in Inconvenient Truth, I was surprised that eating meat was not in the list. Apparently there is a big difference in our CO2 emmisions between eating meat and mot eating meat!

[cliffski]

I find it bizzare that people who are not climate experts post on the global warming topic with a "I believe that..." It really is not a matter of 'belief', but a matter of hard science. Theres is not 100% consensus on the causes, there is not 100% scientific consensus on any topic, but there is an overwhelming majority suggesting man amde c02 emmissions are a major contributor. Those same scientists overwhelmingly recommend reducing our C02 emmissions drastically.

Now to compare the topic of the planets health with our personal health, take a situation where 99 doctors says this to you
"We have carried out tests, which are not 100% accurate, but we are pretty certain you will die within 6 months unless you quit smoking immediately."
and 1 doctor says this:
"We did some test, but to be honest we can't be 100% certain what they mean. We might know in a few years. Feel free to keep smoking"

What would you do?

I would LOVE all the climate experts to be wrong and us be able to take long haul holidays for the rest of my life. However, the possible negative outcome is so terrifying, and the evidence ammassed so far, so overwhelming, that I don't think it's prudent to just cross my fingers and hope they are all wrong.

When a science fiction author (regardless of credentials, he is not a climate expert, show me his published papers) is the hero of the contrary viewpoint, I think the argument is pretty much over.

Also I think any suggestion that the peer-review process leads to the paper being just the consensus position is very unfair. My wife is a scientist who takes part in these things. The peers are checking for technical innaccuracies and ensuring proper scientific method is followed, they are not there to edit the results.

[Amadeus]

The sad truth is that we will have to continue our global output of C02 at this rate in order to avoid worldwide starvation and death. This is something we can't go back on. It takes this machine to continue to feed a World population of .6.5 billion people. There is no turning back unless we want to deal with letting millions of people die of starvation.
You may say, "well then let's not consume as much today or not buy a new pair of tennis shoes". However we are all interconnected and by making that choice you would contribute to the closing down of some factory in China.
You may say that we should go to other forms of energy. However, it takes a great about of oil in order to set up alternative energy sources. Most of these other energy sources do not give us the output we need. If you were to line up solar panals or windmills from the tip of Maine all the way down to Miami and run it for a day it would only give you enough energy to run the US's energy consumption for a couple of minutes. We are still afraid to use nuclear power for energy which is a tragedy.

[darkmoon]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

The sad truth is that we will have to continue our global output of C02 at this rate in order to avoid worldwide starvation and death.

Do we? I don't buy that. How many people will die from driving a smaller cleaner car? How many people will starve from eating less meat?

I think there are a lot of (small) things you can do right now, to decrease your CO2 emissions.

Read this post by Steve. It's better to start with yourself instead of waiting for governments and corporations to fix the problem!

Originally Posted by Amadeus

We are still afraid to use nuclear power for energy which is a tragedy.

Indeed. Currently I'm all for nuclear energy! At least when it's produced by modern safe plants that are run by intelligent people.

[icesar]

Coming from a science background (I went to the California Institute of Tech) I have to say that this thread is a little worrisome.

If there is this much confusion and uncertainty among highly conscious people about whether global warming is happening and whether it is man-made, then we are all really in trouble

To set the record straight:

YES, global warming is happening.
* There is complete agreement in the scientific community
* There is a wealth of data that backs up this claim
* No, it's not part of the natural cycle

YES, man-made greenhouse gases are the cause.
* The science is well understood.
* The data is also available.

If you haven't already done so, please do me this favor and watch An Inconvenient Truth. It's not political, it's a little dry, and it's the best (and most digestible) presentation of the facts that I've seen so far. Don't believe me, just keep an open mind and go rent the DVD. Thanks

[RT Wolf]

I may be being a prick here (seeing as how I believe in global warming and that humans are causing it), but I've seen very little hard evidence in this thread and in the real world.

If someone can point out links to papers (even dry ones), or just talk about specific studies or data, that would be much appreciated.

I know that there are ice core samples taken in the tundra, which capture the level of CO2 levels in the atmosphere in that time. That is, you drill down and the deeper you go, the older you get and they're finding that the current levels are much higher than any previous level. Yes, it is outside the normal range of a natural cycle.

[topher1181]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

I may be being a prick here (seeing as how I believe in global warming and that humans are causing it), but I've seen very little hard evidence in this thread and in the real world.

If someone can point out links to papers (even dry ones), or just talk about specific studies or data, that would be much appreciated.

I know that there are ice core samples taken in the tundra, which capture the level of CO2 levels in the atmosphere in that time. That is, you drill down and the deeper you go, the older you get and they're finding that the current levels are much higher than any previous level. Yes, it is outside the normal range of a natural cycle.

I'm not really sure what you are looking for, but I guess you could always read the IPCC report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf

Explaining evidence ourselves is probably beyond most of us if we don't have science backgrounds.

Or, as has been recommended here, just watch An Inconvenient Truth, or read the book.

[icesar]

I'm sure the vast majority of people don't want to read through dense scientific papers, but often a simple graph has the greatest impact.

CO2 Levels and Temperature for Last 1000 Years


From here.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by darkmoon

Amadeus :
We are still afraid to use nuclear power for energy which is a tragedy.

Indeed. Currently I'm all for nuclear energy! At least when it's produced by modern safe plants that are run by intelligent people.

I agree too (20 years of efficient govermental communication maybe?) but it won't be enough, and won't work unless other major changes are made.

This summer during the heat wave in Europe, France suffered a lack of electricity. Why? Because the nuclear plants cooling systems get their water from rivers... and the rivers were too warm to cool the plants properly. So for security reasons plants had to be run under their full capacity.