Cyclone Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Wrong. Without intuition there would be no science, just blind repetition. It's an interesting assertion, but a bit OT so I won't go there. Also, this isn't a scientific debate, it's a debate about scientists and whether we trust them. It's not really about whether we trust scientists, they're not a homogeneous group who all agree. As a general rule I trust the process of science and the people who follow it, climate science is almost an oxymoron though, climate guesswork might be more accurate, or maybe climate follow the cheque book... OK, well that's a start. So we can't know. That's another good point to start from. We can't. And that's my point. We can't know, so we have to guess (or intuit if you prefer) what sort of risk we are running. We know quite a lot about the generic features of complex systems, perhaps some of that could be brought to bear on the subject. My intuition (remember, none of us can know or claim to know) is that the climate is a complex system. No argument there It is powered by the sun. The biosphere reacts in complex ways to changes in the system thermodynamics, and has been doing so for a billion years or more, preventing runaway heating or cooling. Anyone disagree with this so far? All good so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 You agree that CO2 is a green house gas; simply put a green house gas traps heat like a blanket. You agree human activity is increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so making the blanket thicker. I suppose you should take into account the way gases behave differently depending on where in the atmosphere they are. And that what could apparently cause warming can have all sorts of unexpected affects and not result in the 'obvious' outcome at all. But you think it is an unsubstantiated assumption that humans are affecting temperature and climate. I’m guessing that when you get cold you put on more cloths to trap the heat you generate thereby keeping you warmer. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there is now more of it because of human activity then we must have had an effect. Far too simplistic. It does appear to be a fact that the average global temperature has risen slightly, but we can't explain it with any model we've currently managed to construct, we aren't even sure that we've got all the relevant factors involved. Maybe CO2 is really important, but on the other hand maybe the output of the sun is actually the key thing. Or maybe it's really all about how clouds form, something we don't really understand... Maybe it's all about the amount of soot we pump out, or more likely it's some combination of all these factors that we just aren't capable of analysing and thus aren't capable of making any predictions. Scientists don’t dispute this, they just argue about how much we have affected the climate and the consequences of those changes. They argue about how we are affecting (ie by what mechanisms), by how much and in what way. Without knowing at least a couple of those things we're not in a position to change our behaviour for the better are we? I have already said the climate is affected by many things, but it has to be put in simple terms for people like you that can’t get your head round the fact that humans have and are affecting the climate. Unfortunately trying to put the most complex phenomenon we know of into simple terms might be leading us into thinking that there is some simple answer to a simple problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 So what's your preference then, trigger it by acting or trigger it by not acting. Sounds like hobsons choice to me. sorry, how could we trigger it by acting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 If it were our behaviour that was currently stopping the inexorable slide into icy doom (as was predicted in the 70's) then stopping that behaviour would doooom us all. We're well overdue an ice age, the current length and stability of this interglacial period is unprecedented and may itself be the only reason humans had chance to develop agriculture and hence civilisation as we know it (not the game by sid meirs). If we spend decades working and spending a large portion of GDP only to realise too late that we've now allowed the next ice age to start won't we feel a bit silly, right before we feel a bit cold and then a bit dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsexydoug Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 ***************************************************** * |ACT |DONT ACT | |WORST|waste money |mass death, borked biosphere | |BEST |save future |save money | ***************************************************** what if we act , thus reducing the temperature and we all freeze to death becuase we have brought the earths temperature down, surely the best option would be to stop all forms of wasted investment until we know for CERTAIN that we are affecting the earth ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 ***************************************************** * |ACT |DONT ACT | |WORST|waste money |mass death, borked biosphere | |BEST |save future |save money | ***************************************************** what if we act , thus reducing the temperature and we all freeze to death becuase we have brought the earths temperature down, surely the best option would be to stop all forms of wasted investment until we know for CERTAIN that we are affecting the earth ??? have you ever heard of a tipping point or a point of no return? why risk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 It's an interesting assertion, but a bit OT so I won't go there. It's not really about whether we trust scientists, they're not a homogeneous group who all agree. As a general rule I trust the process of science and the people who follow it, climate science is almost an oxymoron though, climate guesswork might be more accurate, or maybe climate follow the cheque book... No argument there All good so far. OK, well, if you'll permit me to theorize a little further ... I think that these homeostatic mechanisms, the complexities of which are hard to fathom because of the many interdependent factors feeding back into each other, have been at work for a billion years or more, regulating changes in the global climate to make it habitable for life. Not one iota of intention or direction, but evolving directly from the complex system itself. In doing so, a number of stable patterns of varying periodicity have established themselves - weather systems, ocean currents, trade winds etc. These systems have coped with everything that the solar system can inflict upon them, from volcanic activity, tides, sunspots, magnetic storms and so on. Anyone disagree with this yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 If it were our behaviour that was currently stopping the inexorable slide into icy doom (as was predicted in the 70's) then stopping that behaviour would doooom us all. We're well overdue an ice age, the current length and stability of this interglacial period is unprecedented and may itself be the only reason humans had chance to develop agriculture and hence civilisation as we know it (not the game by sid meirs). If we spend decades working and spending a large portion of GDP only to realise too late that we've now allowed the next ice age to start won't we feel a bit silly, right before we feel a bit cold and then a bit dead? Maybe the answer would be to act upon the best scientific information of the day, and not base our actions upon what ifs? The way I see it, many of the changes that are needed to combat "global warming" are also very similar, if not the same changes needed to combat our over consumption, our up coming energy crisis and our pollution levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Maybe the answer would be to act upon the best scientific information of the day, and not base our actions upon what ifs? The way I see it, many of the changes that are needed to combat "global warming" are also very similar, if not the same changes needed to combat our over consumption, our up coming energy crisis and our pollution levels. you'd think it was a no brainer to be honest. and the people who are against it what have you been asked to give up? ooooh, sorry that energy effiecient lightbulbs aren't instnatly bright, having to wait a whole few minutes for them to warm up must be a real inconvinince. car tax going up? no way/? that hasn't been a fixture of every year! the government promoting insulation for houses! I love wasting gas and paying more than I need to so heat can radiate through my house.... what are you missing out on here really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 So what's your preference then, trigger it by acting or trigger it by not acting. Sounds like hobsons choice to me. Only if you believe that Cutting CO2, reversing deforestation and cutting pollution will course an ice age. Fortunately you seem to be the only person that thinks it can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.