Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicted in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall. Many scientist have refined the theory in the last century. Nearly all have reached the same conclusion: if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth will warm up."
"if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" AND NO OTHER VARIABLES CHANGE DIRECTLY OR AS A RESULT OF THAT INCREASE AND WE ARE NOT AT THE SATURATION POINT OF ANY ONE OF THE COMPONENT GASSES IN THE GHG VOLUME, the Earth will warm up.
The all-caps part I added is the infinite variability/complexity of which I speak. All variables are not accounted for, and are instead lumped into some constant in order to turn the CO2-temp relationship into a simple linear equation. Even just saturation makes the relationship between added CO2 and actual absorption a decaying exponent. Right off the bat, the composition and nature of the GHG volume contradicts a simple linear relationship between CO2 and global temp. That simplistic model begins to fall apart even more when you consider the countless feedback effects.
The proof is wildly incomplete to pass the muster of mathematical rigor.
Meaning diversity, acquired at a uniform rate over time, potentially ramping up the acquisition rate somewhat in downturns but it is not necessary.
If you want to do well with individual stocks you will need to do more research and legwork. The pattern I just mentioned doesn't really require the same level of effort, and has predictable results over a long span of time.
Not sure I entirely agree, at least with respect to your words of encouragement I put in bold...
These little AGW debates here on C-D, or other forums, or in the media, are pointless. The discussions are not rational when one side is not up to speed on the topic and keeps bringing up old arguments that have long ago been dealt with, or when there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic due to lack of training and background.
This is why I think the debate should be between the experts. The AGW believers have their scientists and the non-believers get their scientists and let them go at it. The thing is, this has largely occurred and is pretty much over. If someone here has read all the relevant papers and still does not believe it, I cannot do anything about it and won't try. It is like trying to change someone's belief, or non-belief, in a religion.
What I find both worrisome and curious is where this distrust in science is coming from? It is worrisome because America's strength is high technology and that requires training and belief in the sciences. It is not a good sign that we have a huge swath of people who seem to think there is a conspiracy in science to defraud the public.
True our ill-informed little exchanges in this forum amount to nothing, but where we do tend to make a difference is with respect to who we elect to represent our interests, flawed as our political system tends to be in so many ways. Experts matter, of course, but how we as a society respond to what the experts tell us determines public policy that truly does matter.
I share your concerns about just how much ignorance surrounds us, about what's happening around us, whether it be politics, religion, science, the environment. You name it! If there is anything this forum tends to prove it's the extent of this problem.
I make living by doing scientific research, but not related to atmospheric science.
Based on my limited knowledge of climate/earth science and how scientific researches are conducted, I think climate change theory is a pretty decent try but not tested/proven. Given the complex nature of our nature, I don't think I can reach a conclusion on whether the theory is true or false with very high confidence.
Isn't it great to leave the problem to the science community?
Politicians(on both sides) want lay people who have very little understanding of science background to choose a side(preferably theirs), to serve their political agenda. Climate change has always been a scientific hypothesis made of many speculations based on limited data, it's not a fact but not a hoax either. Today, climate change/global warming is totally politicized. The proponents/opponents of climate change are more like different religions rather than schools of thought.
I guess it comes down to who you believe, climate scientists or the likes of Limbaugh and FOX
These little debates here on C-D, or other forums, or in the media, are pointless. The discussions are not rational when one side is not up to speed on the topic and keeps bringing up old arguments that have long ago been dealt with, or when there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic due to lack of training and background.
This is why I think the debate should be between the experts. The AGW believers have their scientists and the non-believers get their scientists and let them go at it. The thing is, this has largely occurred and is pretty much over. If someone here has read all the relevant papers and still does not believe it, I cannot do anything about it and won't try. It is like trying to change someone's belief, or non-belief, in a religion.
What I find both worrisome and curious is where this distrust in science is coming from? It is worrisome because America's strength is high technology and that requires training and belief in the sciences. It is not a good sign that we have a huge swath of people who seem to think there is a conspiracy in science to defraud the public.
This is why I try to mostly avoid the climate threads around here. Unfortunately, I do get suckered into the debate from time to time and always end up regretting it. The science moved on long ago and something like 98% of ALL scientists concur that climate change is real and that we are already feeling the impacts all over the world.
The deniers are determined to hang onto their ridiculous conspiracy theories and the fake science put out by the Heartland Institute and the scientists for hire who claimed it's harmless to smoke tobacco. Climate denial has become a major plank of republican orthodoxy, and the conservatives here and elsewhere will continue to hang on to their denial even as the West continues to experience ever more horrific wildland fires, drought dries up the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers, and category 6 hurricanes devastate our coastal cities, etc., etc.
I follow the actual scientific discussion and even if we were to cease burning carbon based fuels today, we have already hardwired in at least 2 C of warming - a disaster for our planet. One of the biggest concerns I and other scientists have is the melting of the offshore permafrost in the arctic regions. This permafrost has lain there undisturbed since the last ice age and contains plumes of frozen methane. Methane has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) TWENTY FIVE times that of CO2. Once methane hydrates begin to melt all bets are off.
Have you read A Farewell to Ice by Peter Wadhams? If not, you may find it very interesting. Wadham is Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University and has dedicated his long career to the study of the polar icecaps. We would all do well to heed his words.
I’m always skeptical of doom and gloom predictions, especially when those predictions are used for political and monetary gain. The earth’s climate is effected by things more powerful than man. The sun and volcanic activity plays a big part in climate. One massive eruption caused a year without summer in the 1800s. Realistic precautions should be taken but the nutjobs go so far over the line that they make the science look bad
"if we increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" AND NO OTHER VARIABLES CHANGE DIRECTLY OR AS A RESULT OF THAT INCREASE AND WE ARE NOT AT THE SATURATION POINT OF ANY ONE OF THE COMPONENT GASSES IN THE GHG VOLUME, the Earth will warm up.
The all-caps part I added is the infinite variability/complexity of which I speak. All variables are not accounted for, and are instead lumped into some constant in order to turn the CO2-temp relationship into a simple linear equation. Even just saturation makes the relationship between added CO2 and actual absorption a decaying exponent. Right off the bat, the composition and nature of the GHG volume contradicts a simple linear relationship between CO2 and global temp. That simplistic model begins to fall apart even more when you consider the countless feedback effects.
The proof is wildly incomplete to pass the muster of mathematical rigor.
What sort of "other variables" are you imagining that might change how our increase of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will warm up the Earth?
Reads like an argument that proof of cancer from smoking cigarettes is similarly "incomplete," because other "variables" may intervene.
Do you really believe your math properly refutes what the vast majority of scientists (who also tend to be good at math) are convinced about here? What gives you that level of confidence? I happen to know a university professor in physics who is also absolutely convinced that man is having a detrimental effect on climate change. Why should anyone think your math and understanding is better than these scientists?
I guess there's no point in providing the countless links/reading that explains why so many scientists are so convinced, because like I explained before, we've all got our preconceived notions about this regardless the facts, reason and logic that most scientists seem to be in agreement about.
I’m always skeptical of doom and gloom predictions, especially when those predictions are used for political and monetary gain. The earth’s climate is effected by things more powerful than man. The sun and volcanic activity plays a big part in climate. One massive eruption caused a year without summer in the 1800s. Realistic precautions should be taken but the nutjobs go so far over the line that they make the science look bad
Wow. You should really write to the scientific community about your insights. No doubt none of them have thought about how the Sun or volcanic activity might factor into this subject. Never thought about that before! Reminds me about someone else who was going on about some crazy notion involving dinosaurs once roaming the Earth, then suddenly extinct. I recommended he write to the scientific community too. They need to know this stuff!
I recommend you focus less on "doom and gloom," politics and money, and more on the facts as scientists have been trying to explain. You might be surprised to learn they know more than you give them credit for. Most of them not idiots anyway...
Wow. You should really write to the scientific community about your insights. No doubt none of them have thought about how the Sun or volcanic activity might factor into this subject. Never thought about that before! Reminds me about someone else who was going on about some crazy notion involving dinosaurs once roaming the Earth, then suddenly extinct. I recommended he write to the scientific community too. They need to know this stuff!
I recommend you focus less on "doom and gloom," politics and money, and more on the facts as scientists have been trying to explain. You might be surprised to learn they know more than you give them credit for. Most of them not idiots anyway...
The idiots are those who demand outrageous things (laws, regulations, taxes, etc) in the name of global warming or global climate change. Their demands and public statements only make the whole science and movement look crazy (think AOC’s recent statements as one example.
Exactly. The accuracy and utility of our knowledge increase in proportion (not necessarily linear) to sample-size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
These little AGW debates here on C-D, or other forums, or in the media, are pointless.
They're pointless in the sense of substantially altering anyone's preconceived notions. But they are useful in gauging the tenor of opinions, and learning of the basis and justification given for those opinions. I'm learning that AGW-denial is often rooted in a deep, overarching skepticism of professionals or experts in any field, be it law, physics, history, philosophy, statistics or whatever else. If we establish as postulate, that corrupt and sinister motive overwhelmingly motivate (or at least corral) the formal acquisition of knowledge, then we conclude that the organizations, schools and societies which promote such knowledge not only can't be trusted, but are a pernicious and caustic influence. That has implications far beyond global-warming.
Less cynically, I've learned from these discussions how much the "average person" resents intrusion by schoolmarm sanctimony imposing "good behavior", where the definition of "good" is very much subjective and ridden with ulterior motives. When faced with such intrusion, it's very easy to so bristle with resentment, that we come to hate the cause behind said imposition, even if initially we were perhaps receptive (or at least lukewarm) to said cause. For example, I might value the aesthetics of well-cared lawns, but if my neighbors start putting nasty notes in my mailbox, to the effect that I ought to mow my grass more frequently, then I'll grow resentful, and will cease mowing out of wounded pride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
What I find both worrisome and curious is where this distrust in science is coming from? It is worrisome because America's strength is high technology and that requires training and belief in the sciences. It is not a good sign that we have a huge swath of people who seem to think there is a conspiracy in science to defraud the public.
Every nation has its jarring paradoxes! America's great paradox, it seems, is the broadness of the bell-curve in any of its trends. America has the finest runners, weight lifters, swimmers, gymnasts and so forth, that the world has ever seen. Yet the average American is sedentary and obese. We simultaneously have extraordinary and supreme excellence of the very best, and truly forehead-slapping mediocrity of the median. Mere population size doesn't explain it. China and India are far larger, and yet, to the extent that I'm aware, the difference between the best Chinese persons 100m sprint-time, and the average one's, isn't as stark as its American counterpart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
