Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Global Warming

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_guest_

Recommended Posts

Politicians love to do this kind of phony P.R. driven crap. It is akin to when they called Jane Fonda before Congress to testify about the dangers of nuclear power or the time they asked Jessica Lange to brief Congress on the "farm crisis".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the time to look through the whole topic, so if my post is in some way redundant, please do take it off.

While there seems to be a consensus that there is global warming but that it is not man-made, it still seems to me that a search for some way to deal with the problem needs to be sought. Ski slopes have melting snow and are losing available terrain, animals are adjusting to warmer temperatures, etc. It's difficult to know how high water levels will rise since most numbers are fudged or at best loosely based on real calculations. But it is certainly a hurdle for society and industry to adjust to warmer weather. Do we have evidence either way if warming will cause disasters, and if so, what should be done (not necessarily political action)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a Yale poll about global warming. Clearly the pro-GW guys have managed to convince a majority that GW is a problem.

The survey has a lot of questions, and gives one an idea of how U.S. residents think on a wide variety of issues. Here's a very small sample:

  • It is my responsibility to reduce the impacts of GW: 55% mostly agree, 26% somewhat agree
  • Our country is in as much danger from environmental hazards such as air pollution and GW as it is from terrorists: 39% mostly agree, 24% somewhat agree
  • Preventing GW is part of our religious duty: 23% mostly agree, 20% somewhat agree
  • How would you rate the overall quality of the environment in the U.S. today: 4% excellent, 28% good, 44% only fair
  • How would you rate the overall quality of the environment in your local community today: 13% excellent, 43% good, 31% only fair

And, if you're wondering who these people are, here is some more:

  • As the Bible says, the world literally was created in six days: 42% mostly agree, 16% somewhat agree
  • I consider myself an intellectual: 32% mostly agree, 39% somewhat agree

I think that while we curse Republicans and Democrats, this survey adds some credence to the notion that people get the government they deserve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While there seems to be a consensus that there is global warming but that it is not man-made

Although it may be true that this is a consensus amongst many communities, I still perceive that the industrial activities of man generally do contributed to global warming. However, it remains unclear to me to what extent the industry of man is largely responsible for the climate changes and if the benefits of striving towards a previous average global temperature outweigh the costs. Considering the accelerating pace of industrial globalization, the burgeoning economies of developing, populous nations such as China, India and Brazil, the limitations (in terms of reduction of effluents that contribute to global warming) of currently proposed green technology (see some of the Robert Samuelson op-eds I have been linking on Objectivism Online) and the difficulty of accurately modeling global climate fluctuates, it seems as if developing a plan of action to obviate global warming will be an essentially impossible task that may not even be worthwhile.

However, given that global warming is happening to some degree, I think individuals should attempt to learn what some potential consequences of global climate change are. Particularly those who own large real estate that is vulnerable to natural disasters such as hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis, flooding and the like.

Aren't continued innovation and technology the best means of dealing with any problems that global warming might present? Let the market find the solutions.

I always get worried with responses like this because unlike other markets, there is a lack of clear, objective ownership on "global resources" such as the atmosphere. Game theoretic paradoxes such as the tragedy of the commons can arise when ownership cannot be established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it may be true that this is a consensus amongst many communities, I still perceive that the industrial activities of man generally do contributed to global warming. However, it remains unclear to me to what extent the industry of man is largely responsible for the climate changes and if the benefits of striving towards a previous average global temperature outweigh the costs.
I underlined the part of interest. In the hierarchy of things, you've got an "and so what", "not totally because of" and a "partially because of". I'm interested in the logically lower issue, namely the idea that there is a "contribution" of man to global warming. While I'm willing to retreat to a "mere minor contribution" position, I now understand how an unjustified intellectual retreat is horrifyingly immoral (and I hope that you don't ever have the nauseating "OMG what have I done" moment because you granted an assumption).

So in that spirit, on what basis, basis in fact, do you perceive that the industrial activities of man contribute to global warming? I don't mean "is it imaginable", I'm referring to the "do" part. For example, it's imaginable that man as never landed on the moon, and that he has only landed on a Hollywood sound stage. But I can't offer any evidence to support that idea, other than "It is possible that...". Have you seen credible scientific evidence that tells you that the patterns of temperature on Earth cannot be explained on the basis of whatever climatological science we have that accounts for the range of temperature patterns before the existence of "industrial man" (somewhere between 2,000 BJ and 1900 PJ)? I really have not seen a single shred of evidence that whatever measurements we've got are in any measurable way influenced by man. But I admit that my interests are more focused elsewhere, so I'm wondering if you have seen something that I ought to be reading up on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always get worried with responses like this because unlike other markets, there is a lack of clear, objective ownership on "global resources" such as the atmosphere. Game theoretic paradoxes such as the tragedy of the commons can arise when ownership cannot be established.

I was responding to aleph_o when he asked the following questions:

While there seems to be a consensus that there is global warming but that it is not man-made, it still seems to me that a search for some way to deal with the problem needs to be sought. Ski slopes have melting snow and are losing available terrain, animals are adjusting to warmer temperatures, etc. It's difficult to know how high water levels will rise since most numbers are fudged or at best loosely based on real calculations. But it is certainly a hurdle for society and industry to adjust to warmer weather. Do we have evidence either way if warming will cause disasters, and if so, what should be done (not necessarily political action)?

I can't think of a better method than allowing the market to deal with whatever "problems" rising temperatures might cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it may be true that this is a consensus amongst many communities, I still perceive that the industrial activities of man generally do contributed to global warming. However, it remains unclear to me to what extent the industry of man is largely responsible for the climate changes and if the benefits of striving towards a previous average global temperature outweigh the costs. Considering the accelerating pace of industrial globalization, the burgeoning economies of developing, populous nations such as China, India and Brazil, the limitations (in terms of reduction of effluents that contribute to global warming) of currently proposed green technology (see some of the Robert Samuelson op-eds I have been linking on Objectivism Online) and the difficulty of accurately modeling global climate fluctuates, it seems as if developing a plan of action to obviate global warming will be an essentially impossible task that may not even be worthwhile.

However, given that global warming is happening to some degree, I think individuals should attempt to learn what some potential consequences of global climate change are. Particularly those who own large real estate that is vulnerable to natural disasters such as hurricanes, typhoons, tsunamis, flooding and the like.

I always get worried with responses like this because unlike other markets, there is a lack of clear, objective ownership on "global resources" such as the atmosphere. Game theoretic paradoxes such as the tragedy of the commons can arise when ownership cannot be established.

Largely responsible? Where is the evidence that man is in any [significant, non-trivial and therefore worth worrying in any way about] manner? It matters not how many scientists beleive something if they cannot present evidence, their beleif in something is not a reason to choose to beleive it too, unless they can give you a rational argument and some evidence of their claims.

By choosing to beleive unproven claims you risk falling into the hands of those that do not wish you to see any proof of nonsense, irrational claims [eg global warming], and in fact do not want you to look for [real] proof, but just to accept whatever claims they make. If you have not looked for real facts, it is harder to dispute a lie.

Also if it is happening, reliable data suggests that is such a small amount no rational, reasonably informed person would worry about it. Less than 1 degree over a hundred or so years or so? Im not too worried. Go ahead and research the consequences of disatrous global warming all you like, however keep me out of it at this stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the evidence that man is in any [significant, non-trivial and therefore worth worrying about in any way] manner?

I'd go further and omit the bracketed qualifications. Assuming arguendo that man contributes to CO2 levels, and that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas, the evidence contradicts a forward causal relationship between CO2 levels and climate change. If enviros want to connect man to climate change, they need to find a new way to do it; one that doesn't involve CO2 driving climate change.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd go further and omit the bracketed qualifications. Assuming arguendo that man contributes to CO2 levels, and that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas, the evidence contradicts a forward causal relationship between CO2 levels and climate change. If enviros want to connect man to climate change, they need to find a new way to do it; one that doesn't involve CO2 driving climate change.

-Q

Agreed, I would go and delete the brackets and their contents as well. I had forgotten about that CO2 thing, thanks for reminding me. Let me make that:

"Find ANY connection between the activities of man and global warming'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how we measure "Global Mean Temperature", we will find that it goes up and down with seasons, and goes up and down over various longer time-frames. If we were to plot this data and identify a straight-line trend the most shocking thing would be to find that it has a "zero slope". Given our observation of change, one would expect the earth either to be "warming" or "cooling".

Here is the data from 1978 to today.

NCDC_absolute.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness, both the peaks and the minimums are higher later in the series. Admitttedly, the increase is small and is dwarfed by the seasonal fluctuations but, judging from the position of the peaks and the minimums, the temperature does appear to have risen very slightly over the timeframe shown.

I am against the entire global warming scare for sundry reasons, many of them elaborated on this thread, but it does appear that a small increase in the measured temperature has occurred since the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is not quite NO rise, but just a very small rise that no sensible person would worry about. Now if only the Alarmists would look at some of this datga instead of whatever data they seem to be looking at!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in that spirit, on what basis, basis in fact, do you perceive that the industrial activities of man contribute to global warming?

I am confused by some of the wording of your post but I think I answered your main question anyway.

In retrospect I should have changed some of the wording to my last post as it suggests that I give too much credibility to alarmist arguments.

Anyway, it is my understanding that human industry has led to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases and that greenhouse gases trap heat. However, it is also my understanding that most atmospheric carbon dioxide (most estimates (edit:) on this board say around 95%) results from the Earth's hydrogen cycle. Thus, it seems that humans are making some contribution to climate change as we are contributing to the concentration of CO2. However, the exacerbation of global climate change that stems from human industry is at best quite small.

Does this sound so unreasonable to you?

I do not do research in this area, but I generally find The Skeptical Environmentalist to be quite helpful on debunking exaggerated claims of environmental catastrophe using analytical, fact-driven arguments. Most of my opinions come from there and sometimes from the sources provided by Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson.

Furthermore, the above text features a nice section where the author argues that it is unlikely that the current global warming trends will lead to an increase in extreme weather. So perhaps existing research in this area is already sufficient.

Largely responsible? ... By choosing to beleive unproven claims ...

I certainly do not believe that man is largely responsible for global climate change as my previous post implied that there was a lack of evidence from that camp. So if you wish to rant about individuals choosing to believe unproven claims, please leave me out of it.

the evidence contradicts a forward causal relationship between CO2 levels and climate change.

Can you please provide some evidence? I would like to read it.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, it is my understanding that human industry has led to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases and that greenhouse gases trap heat. However, it is also my understanding that most atmospheric carbon dioxide (most estimates say around 95%) results from the Earth's hydrogen cycle. Thus, it seems that humans are making some contribution to climate change as we are contributing to the concentration of CO2. However, the exacerbation of global climate change that stems from human industry is at best quite small.

There are a few problems with your understanding. First, in addition to being responsible for only ~5% of CO2, there is that fact that CO2 itself is only responsible for less than 5% of the greenhouse effect. And the greenhouse effect itself has not been proven to be responsible for the kind of climate change it is being blamed for. It mostly affects nighttime temperates and we're still quite sketchy on the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, in addition to being responsible for only ~5% of CO2, there is that fact that CO2 itself is only responsible for less than 5% of the greenhouse effect.

Where did you get this information from? According to The Skeptical Environmentalist, carbon dioxide accounts for roughly 60% of the greenhouse effect. Methane is another 20%, nitrous oxide is another 6% and 14% is for Halo-carbons. The author does cite the official 2001 report of the IPCC, which is the UN climate panel so I suppose that we should take this for what it is worth.

And the greenhouse effect itself has not been proven to be responsible for the kind of climate change it is being blamed for. It mostly affects nighttime temperates and we're still quite sketchy on the details.

Can you please elaborate on this or provide a source that does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Water? Water vapour has been proven as a significiant contributer to the greenhouse effect as well (it causes about 35%-70% of the greenhouse effect, according to whom you beleive. If anyone can find some more reliable, definite figures on this could they let me know?)

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DarkWaters are you aware of the fact that other planets in the solar system, such as Mars are experiencing global warming as well? Are you also aware that their has been increased solar activities (such as solar wind and sun spots)? There is no way that there can be a coincidence there. Coincidences don't exist and even if they did that one would be too unlikely to be worth consideration. Giant balls of fire that are the size of 1,000,000 Earths are not to be ignored as a potential source of global warming if one wants to be rational. Especially when they are as hot as the sun.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, it is my understanding that human industry has led to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases and that greenhouse gases trap heat.
Well, my understanding is that in order to say that, you'd have to have accurate records of atmospheric gases over a long enough period of time, so that you could determine not that there has been some measurable rise in CO2 over the past 5 years, but that the amplitude and period of such rise can't be explained by attributing the cause to something other than the actions of man. If the concentration of CO2 varies as a function of things not related to man (sunspots, zebra migrations, lightning strikes, potato rust, amount of snow at the North Pole), you would have to show that those factors have been controlled for, and that the factor of man's actions cannot be denied as a significant contributor to CO2 levels. I don't perceive that this has actually been done.
Does this sound so unreasonable to you?
Only in the sense that I couldn't just say "Okay, as a compromise, I'll accept the claim that man has definitely caused an increase in atmospheric CO2". If it were proven to be true, it would not be such a shocking revelation (compared to, say, proof that Koko can talk), so it's not unreasonable in the earth-shakingly unimaginable sense, but it is unreasonable in the "uses reason" sense.

I admit that my position is extreme if most estimates given by my esteemed colleagues here hold it to be evident that man has caused a 5% rise on CO2. But I'd rather reject my position based on scientific fact rather than opinion. So here's a proposed experiment. Measure the level of atmospheric CO2 using, say, a 50 year window, and get such data from multiple locations going back 60,000 years or so. Then treat the past 200 years as being the industrial age, everything else as the pre-industrial age. Is there a significant difference in the measured CO2 mean for "industrial" and "pre-industrial" years?

Has this experiment been performed? If not, how else can you establish that man's activities cause a rise in CO2? I'm not touching the "are we causing warming" question yes, I'm starting with what I take to be the logically fundamental question. If the issue devolves to "scientists agree that...", then we have Korthor's problem, namely accepting conclusions with no idea on what basis the conclusion was validated by which scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to what DavidOdden said, there are some scientists saying that increased CO2 levels are a result of warming not the other way around. I don't know if this is true, but the graphs they showed implies it is. They explain that as the temperature heats up, the oceans increase their CO2 output.

Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Water? Water vapour has been proven as a significiant contributer to the greenhouse effect as well (it causes about 35%-70% of the greenhouse effect, according to whom you beleive. If anyone can find some more reliable, definite figures on this could they let me know?)

Good point. Water vapor should be included in that graph. I will read over that section again to see if it is addressed.

DarkWaters are you aware of the fact that other planets in the solar system, such as Mars are experiencing global warming as well? Are you also aware that their has been increased solar activities (such as solar wind and sun spots)?

Yes and no. I will look into the latter.

I admit that my position is extreme if most estimates given by my esteemed colleagues here hold it to be evident that man has caused a 5% rise on CO2. But I'd rather reject my position based on scientific fact rather than opinion. So here's a proposed experiment. Measure the level of atmospheric CO2 using, say, a 50 year window, and get such data from multiple locations going back 60,000 years or so. Then treat the past 200 years as being the industrial age, everything else as the pre-industrial age. Is there a significant difference in the measured CO2 mean for "industrial" and "pre-industrial" years?

This seems reasonable; I wonder to what extent the pertinent data is available to perform this (that is atmospheric concentrations from as long as 60,000 years back). The hypothesis testing would also need to establish that all other factors (I suppose solar activity would be one) during these two time periods were essentially equivalent. But you know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you get this information from? According to The Skeptical Environmentalist, carbon dioxide accounts for roughly 60% of the greenhouse effect. Methane is another 20%, nitrous oxide is another 6% and 14% is for Halo-carbons. The author does cite the official 2001 report of the IPCC, which is the UN climate panel so I suppose that we should take this for what it is worth.

That's the opposite of what I've heard:

Over 95% of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by atmospheric water vapor inhibiting the escape of radiant heat from earth's atmosphere. The remaining 5% is caused by so-called greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide, most of which comes from nature.

This has been confirmed for me in several places. I think they may mention it in Swindle.

There's also this:

The Greenhouse Effect is not the major factor controlling Global Warming. The news media and certain politicians often speak of "global warming" and "greenhouse effect" interchangeably, like they were one and the same. This is misleading, because global warming occurs in cycles caused mainly by changes in the sun's energy output and the sun's position relative to the earth.

Can you please elaborate on this or provide a source that does?

found it here.

The source is here.

Also note this:

Interestingly, in the 18 years that satellites have been recording temperature they have actually showed a slight decrease in average global temperatures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...