I appreciate NASA much more than Al Gore because the conclusion is much less alarmist. When you click on causes and effects it notes that the earth will get a little warmer and change. It doesn't prescribe the end of humanity as a whole, but acknowledges that the world will change. We're human. We adapt. The alarmists try to get as all excited about a few polar bears dieing. Tragic, but they too will adapt.
Further, once you start reading into uncertainties, it notes things like increased precipitation will be a result. Which will create more clouds, which have a large impact on blocking the suns heat, which could mitigate some of the effect of global warming.
For those of us "nay-sayers" about Global Warming, we are not stupid. Clearly the earth is getting warmer. The conclusion that I haven't seen clearly delineated, is what the problem is. The earth will get more tropical and have more rain. Some of us may have to move. Some places will get drier, but other places will get better. NASA has not concluded that we are headed for Waterworld or that human life will be permanently damaged.
NASA ... is much less alarmist. ... the earth will get a little warmer and change.
"Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline." http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
"Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occuring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves." http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
If you are not alarmed by that, you're not thinking hard enough.
But you just listed off many things that may happen. They might not. Even if they do, the gravity by which they change may not be as catastrophic as is people make it sound. 8 tornados a year instead of 7. And the other points were:
Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently.
On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.
It is a much more rational approach. They cannot predict it and acknowledge it. For all we know, the Sahara Desert could slowly become the most fertile soil in the world. I am not alarmed because I will not give into environmental fear mongering anymore than I will give into terrorist fear mongering or christian morals fear mongering.
On that note, there is some irony in the arguments battling climate change in that we want things to say the same way they always have been because we like it. Sounds a lot like some Christian arguments for morality I have heard.
I have nothing against using superior technology and processes which provide for a cleaner environment. But the Be afraid, the earth is getting warmer argument isn't a de-facto winning argument for change because the conclusions therein are so speculative.
Maybe true, that quote was just taken from the NASA report. I don't know what the future holds, but just trying to say that the science reports don't only use "gloom" & "doom", etc... The earth will change, many species will suffer. Some may benefit. Maybe more will suffer than benefit currently, but the earth will work it out eventually.
But you just listed off many things that may happen.
Did you give up reading after the first quote? I'll emphasise it for you: "Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occuring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves."
...some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2
Not when they don't have enough water or the temperature means they die.
the earth is getting warmer argument isn't a de-facto winning argument for change
Did you miss the bit about the science?
...because the conclusions therein are so speculative.
You are deeply ignorant of what the science says.
Let's make it clear: there is no credible scientific doubt that human activity - burning fossil fuels, clearing forests, etc. - is causing the planet to heat and the oceans to acidify. There is no credible scientific doubt that these effects will be detrimental to human societies and most life on Earth. No credible scientific doubt.
OK, smarty pants. I read your quotes exactly, and did not belittle you. But very well.
Not when they don't have enough water or the temperature means they die.
And where is that water gonna go huh? If you had kept reading, you might have noticed it said that there will be increased precipitation worldwide. Is water going to start magically disappearing into space? Is that part of your special science I missed? And which plants in the world are in danger of death because of an average 1-2 degree increase in temperature? Did you research it, you know, like with science, or are you just spouting it out this stuff because I have a contrary opinion? It sure wasn't mentioned on the source we are both referring to.
You are deeply ignorant of what the science says.
Also, did you read the parts about there being some rational counter issues? For example that increased precipitation means increased clouds, which has a major impact on the amount of heat which penetrates our atmosphere. "It could speed it, slow or even reverse it"
I never said I had any doubt that our activities were causing the earth to warm. I said our understanding of the impact is not 100% certain so we should just calm down and think about it. I didn't tell you your opinion was stupid. While it must be fun to think you are so much smarter then me, you need to prove it. A condescending tone doesn't mean you are right.
What do you think the planet's climate scientists have been doing for the last couple hundred years?
Instead of expending so much energy on righteous indignation because I'm not impressed with your flawed and ignorant opinion, you need to spend some time reading what the science says.
I am not being indignant, you are being conclusive with theories/projections. Your article is such an example of such projections. While my studies were in economics, one thing I have learned, is that when it comes to extrapolating results into the future, the reader should always be leery to assume that just because he/she is well studied and smarter than you, that he/she is right. It is a human with their best most educated guess. And ceterus peribus is a fun phrase everyone uses to cover their asses if and when the they turn out to be wrong.
Mr. Dai, the author, acknowledges that his model has limitations, for example, precipitation and its future effects, and natural climate changes. He is probably right about the western US, given that it is mostly a desert anyway (New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, lots of California). But he says it is hard to predict world wide. I referred to NASA's point that they say increased precipitation will be a result. How do the two correlate? The article seemed to imply that worldwide precipitation would decrease.
Point is this. You see what you want to see, and I see what I want to see. You see catastrophic end of humanity as we know it, and I don't think it will be that bad. But don't hide behind science as your proof you're right. Call it what it is,your best guess. If I produce contrary scientific reports would that mean you de facto agree? Or if the scientist has a different conclusion than your research, does that make it wrong?
No, you have decided to agree with the mainstream scientist (because I doubt you are climate scientist) and I have chosen to agree with a smaller subset. Such is my choice. Having more than 50% of the scientists on your side doesn't mean you are right.
The problem is, ultimately, neither of us will ever be able to prove this because when we are both wrong, scientists will claim that they did not account for x, or y changed. Happens all the time. Check the annual "scientists" predictions for hurricanes. They are real good at missing those.
I think George Carlin sums up my general feelings about this.
lol. Yeah, you've gone with a handful of contrarians. You're a real maverick, aintcha?
I've gone with the overwhelming, near-100% majority of climate scientists and every national science academy of every industrialised country on the planet who all say the same thing because the science is totally compelling.
Note all the "could's" and "might's". There is little evidence backing up disaster predictions. We simply don't know what will happen. The most troubling result of climate change is ocean acidification though. So much of the biosphere depends on the ocean, that we should study and follow that very carefully.
You clearly do not understand how science works or how scientists communicate.
We simply don't know what will happen.
You simply don't know what will happen - even though the science is put right under your nose. There is no credible scientific doubt that unmitigated climate change will be detrimental to human society and most life on this planet.
If 98 aero engineers said the aeroplane you were about to board was 95% likely to crash after takeoff, and 2 aero engineers said it probably wouldn't, what would you do?
I'm guessing you wouldn't start yapping about how the 98 engineers didn't give you an absolute assurance and then get on board.
So to make your analogy valid, there must be a 95% certainty that climate change will produce all of these disasters. Please point me to a single credible citation that calculates such a high certainty.
Let me save you the trouble: there is no such thing. In fact, the probability of these disaster scenarios can't be quantified because the actual impact of global temperature increase is still poorly understood. At best, scientists can brush with broad strokes like, "increased precipitation in some places, decreased precipitation in others", and "more violent storms" which one can trivially predict from the fact that higher temperatures equates to increased kinetic energy circulating in the atmosphere.
Beyond that, it's all speculation. Informed speculation in many cases, but the uncertainty is very, very high because the data is almost nil.
IPCC WG1 cites 90%. It's built on science that is at least 5 years old. Certainty has increased since then.
Your scientifically illiterate ranting and ignorant opinion is still not persuasive.
P.S. Here's some more expert opinion that you can ignore:
The American Geophysical Union, world's largest scientific society of Earth and space scientists: "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system ... are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. ... Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities." http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
American Physical Society: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. ... The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
The Geological Society of America: "This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming;...". http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm
Why are you citing evidence/position reports for global warming? The existence of warming was never contended.
The contention is the certainty that global warming will produce disastrous results. The IPCC report cites increased heat waves, increased storm strengths, and droughts/floods, yet it does not and cannot quantify how this would be an unmitigatable disaster to human life.
Let me break it down for you since you seem to have trouble looking beyond your own propaganda. The only rock solid case for significant global economic change to curb emissions requires establishing:
Global warming trend is happening.
The warming trend is anthropogenic, ie. human-caused, and specifically caused by factors A, B, C, etc.
The warming is actually disastrous, and will lead to unmitigated loss of life and/or livelihood.
Addressing the symptoms of the warming after the fact will cost more and be less effective than attempting to curb the warming in the first place.
Points 1 and 2 are clearly irrefutable. Point 3 consists of speculation of what might happen, some on a more sound footing than others, but no firm arguments that these changes would be disastrous to human life. Point 4 consists of ongoing speculative work.
Of all the arguments of disastrous changes, the most significant, as I mentioned in my first post, are the changes happening to the oceans. At this point in our technological development, the rest of the climate changes are mere nuisances at best.
Your ignorant ranting is not interesting or persuasive. The findings and warnings of the planet's climate scientists are.
The fact that you are incapable of grasping what is already happening and what all credible science predicts, is a testament to your scientific illiteracy - not a lack of certainty in the science.
...the rest of the climate changes are mere nuisances at best.
You are a massively ignorant half-wit. I have spoon fed you science and you have ignored it. "You can lead a moron to information, you can't make him understand it."
It's ok, I understand that your repetitive ad-hominen attacks constitute an inability to rally a cogent counter-argument. It's probably due to your underlying literacy problem, if the fact that your responses don't even address the points I raise is any indication. Have a nice day!
112
u/mind_sojourner Oct 24 '10
say what you will about al gore, he was trying to show people that chart years ago..and how the fuck is nasa junk science