Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Global Warming

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_guest_
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 months later...

http://getthescienceright.com/page1.php

This is an article against global warming, its the kind I was looking for. It uses data and analysis not finger pointing politic.The Author was a professional in the semiconductor industry and had engaged various other professions, although he was not an expert of atmosphere science, his interpretation on data and calculation were convincing. This is a unique article that proves the point without using any fancy mathematical model, every technical detail was described with straightforward algebra, all one need to understand it is high school physics and plan common sense. If any of you study atmosphere science, welcome to correct mistakes if there is any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It's odd, I took chemical thermodynamics in University as well as several other chemistry courses but I never even considered analyzing the global warming argument in this way. I was never really sure where to stand. Those calculations involving the heat capacity of CO2 vs H20 are simple, but drive the story home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Guest ArenaMan

Over the last few years I haven't gotten too involved in the global warming debate. I have the same hesitancy toward taking environmentalist agendas at face value that I'm sure many of you do.

It seems that the scientific community is more-or-less in consensus about global warming at this point. This, in addition to the fact that we are facing a new level of human influence on the planet, has led me to think a little about how rights fit into the picture, now that we are able to more indirectly affect each other. It's not that hard for an organization to now directly influence the health and livelihood of individuals who do not live in proximity to it.

So I pose a few questions:

  1. Is it ever okay for one person to consciously, but indirectly harm another individual?
  2. If so, is it okay to do so if the individual contribution is not harmful, but multiple of the action in aggregate is?
  3. What rights does an individual have that are relevant to such scenarios?
  4. What prerogative does the government have to get involved with an individual coming under indirect harm from others?

I understand that 'indirect harm' is a little vague. I'm hoping that responses will help to hammer out the specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you need to get your horse and cart sorted out in the right order. Define "indirect harm" first.

If you cannot draw a *DIRECT* line of causality - how can one assign responsibility?

If I throw a dart in the air and it randomly lands on an innocent bystander - there is a direct line. I threw the dart.

If I dump caustic chemicals in the water and the local town is poisoned - there again is a direct line. I dumped the toxins.

If I burn 100 acres of forests down to create a clearing on which I build a medical campus that treats children with terminal illnesses and researches cures, and a glacier melts in Greenland - how do you draw a connection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that the scientific community is more-or-less in consensus about global warming at this point.

When scientists are incentivized to produce conclusions that keep their funding flowing, and the funding is provided by governments with political motivations, it should not be surprising that scientists will attempt to over-represent the utility of their models in predicting reality. I myself came to this forum 3 years ago, believing that the evidence was conclusive, that the consensus was unquestionable. Here are the responses I received.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that the scientific community is more-or-less in consensus about global warming at this point.

Global climate has been going through cycles of significant cooling and warming for millions of years and it will continue to do so. There is no scientific consensus about the significance of human effect on global climate. This topic has been debated here many times.

Link to one of such discussions.

And here is another one

If you want to discuss the "what if it is true" scenario in terms of proper function of government - there is already a tread started on this very topic very recently.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ArenaMan

I think you need to get your horse and cart sorted out in the right order. Define "indirect harm" first.

If you cannot draw a *DIRECT* line of causality - how can one assign responsibility?

If I throw a dart in the air and it randomly lands on an innocent bystander - there is a direct line. I threw the dart.

If I dump caustic chemicals in the water and the local town is poisoned - there again is a direct line. I dumped the toxins.

If I burn 100 acres of forests down to create a clearing on which I build a medical campus that treats children with terminal illnesses and researches cures, and a glacier melts in Greenland - how do you draw a connection?

You're right. I suppose I am trying to characterize those actions for which the parties involved might be more removed from each other than we would normally see... for example, a factory emitting large amounts of unhealthy airborne waste throughout the surrounding population. There is still a direct offender and offended.

Consider a hypothetical city with extreme population density and terrible pollution (not that it's hard to find a real one). Suppose the root cause of the population, which has tangible, harmful effects on citizens who breathe the air, is automotive exhaust. Is any one person responsible for contributing to the harm? If not, is that it? Does the government have the moral authority to step in in any way? Certainly if there is no single responsible party, no one's rights are being violated and it appears that the government lacks the prerogative to impose regulative legislation.

Regardless of whether man-made global warming is a real problem, eventually we will have the technological capacity to influence the global ecosystem in major ways. Speaking in purely hypothetical terms, when this eventually happens, is it possible that we will be the victims of our own natural self-destruction, with no one, at-fault individual, but an unfortunate collectively-caused demise? Even if this self-extinction had been properly anticipated, but disregarded, would there be no responsible party? Is there some sort of state of emergency that a government should declare as a justification for restricting the activities of organizations or individuals in the interests of protecting its citizens... if it is not specifically protecting their rights from one another (or outsiders)?

I'm asking these questions because I don't have good answers for them.

When scientists are incentivized to produce conclusions that keep their funding flowing, and the funding is provided by governments with political motivations, it should not be surprising that scientists will attempt to over-represent the utility of their models in predicting reality. I myself came to this forum 3 years ago, believing that the evidence was conclusive, that the consensus was unquestionable. Here are the responses I received.

Global climate has been going through cycles of significant cooling and warming for millions of years and it will continue to do so. There is no scientific consensus about the significance of human effect on global climate. This topic has been debated here many times.

Link to one of such discussions.

And here is another one

If you want to discuss the "what if it is true" scenario in terms of proper function of government - there is already a tread started on this very topic very recently.

At this point in the global warming debate, I can only concede that if I do not devote a significant amount of time (months to years of study), I cannot draw conclusions with any legitimacy. There are too many experts on both sides of the fence.

Sophia, you may be right that there is no consensus about global warming. To be honest, I'm more interested in the moral and political aspects. If you could point me to the post that you are referring to, I'd like to take a look. There is one from 2008 but I think this thread could benefit from having a fresh start.

Edited by ArenaMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic. sN ***

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

It looks like far more heat is released into space than predicted or thought.
 

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged with an earlier topic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Any appeal to peer-reviewed climate science papers is now immediately suspect. We all know the closed circle of AGW advocates was approving each other's papers and black-balling dissent.

Here is an argument not covered by that site: increasing atmospheric CO2 can have only a miniscule effect on global climate because of the physics involved. See Cold Facts on Global Warming and the explanation of Beer's Law. In short, the temperature response of the atmosphere as a function of the percent of CO2 is logarithmic, meaning it must have diminshing returns, and the current amount in the atmosphere is already way past the knee of the curve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... ...it has covered virtually every anti GW argument i have encountered so far.
You claim 97% of climate scientists agree that man is causing global warming, while some anti-AGW site claims that 1000 scientists disagree. If both of you are correct, then we can assume that the 3% are at least 1000 strong, giving us a total of over 30,000 scientists whose opinion matters! If this area of study is like any other, surely there are just a handful of people who know what they're talking about.

The elephant in the room is that the AGW argument is about politics and not about the detailed science. Most lay-people would not be bothered if there were no political implications. If the 32,000 scientists were saying "man caused a bit of GW, and that's been just great, and governments do not need to act", we would probably not discussing this subject here. Over the decades, quite a few people have got used to the way in which environmental "scientists" make claim after claim about some hazard that will confront us. We've seen the damage to lives and property wrought by laws inspired by environmental "scientists". Add to this the large social and financial incentives pushing many scientists to agree with the AGW thesis, as evidenced by multiple scandals in the area. Sometimes, a shyster's argument sounds like you can't poke a hole in it , but you still refuse to give him your wallet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Ayn Rand does talk about the "ecological campaign" in this interview http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-works/speaking-freely.html about 13.20 minutes in, which is equivalent to todays global warming campaign.

But on the topic of global warming, reading the introduction in the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming it's supported by the majority of the scientific community, and as they say, it's not refuted by any institution of national or international standing (it's referenced)..we take what science deems to be true for everything else, why not global warming? For myself, I do think that carbon emissions need to be reduced, HOWEVER not at our expense. I support finding alternative means of generating the energy that we need, but it is not the governments responsibility to force that upon us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it matter what some people allege that the majority of experts think, when the claims presented are often illogical / unsupported or easily demonstrated to be false?

A rational person does not believe the alleged scientific consensus just because it is claimed to be one or because it is one. A rational person first listens to what they say and makes some attempt to see if there is at least any alleged evidence for their claims and whether the claims can be readily shown to be false.

Any rational person with high school knowledge of correct scientific methodology that does research into the matter properly will hopefully find that the allegations are largely derived using highly suspect methodology. In order to form conclusions which even the layman can find arguments which make it clear that the claims are largely false.

Besides,in this case the reality is that it is far from a consensus.

Edited by Prometheus98876
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i sure can experience GW myself. I m in Europe in medditerean climate

Almost every year is hotter than the last one(almost)

Also, there used to be no snow around here for tens of years:

It falls every year or 2 now.

Medditerrean climate is supposed to be mild

You can now see 20 degrees difference in just two weeks

weather IS getting more extreme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about global climate change here, not localized changes. What is more, we are talking about rises in global temperature averages which are caused by MAN, not some unknown alleged climate changes which may be caused by any number of other things ( including solar activity for instance). Natural things which are beyond human control.

Even if the temperature where YOU are is fluctuating more than normal and is rising on average, where is your evidence that it is AGW?

Plus, I am pretty sure regional temperatures are well known for rising or lowering for years at a time for reasons not always well understood. Lets not assume its manmade without any actual evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i sure can experience GW myself. I m in Europe in medditerean climate

Almost every year is hotter than the last one(almost)

Also, there used to be no snow around here for tens of years:

It falls every year or 2 now.

Medditerrean climate is supposed to be mild

You can now see 20 degrees difference in just two weeks

weather IS getting more extreme

Weather changes. Humans can change much faster than weather.

I doubt your "facts" though. In my experience, people are always commenting on how much the weather has changed since they were young, and they're almost always exaggerating by orders of magnitude. A 1 degree change becomes a 10 degree change in their selective memory. Or, "the snow used to be really high when I was young" turns out to be "I was really small then, and it seemed much higher to me". So, I suspect you too are exaggerating because of the error of your approach of not checking the actual recorded data of the place you live, to find that though there has been change, it is far less than you might think from your own unreliable memory.

Anyhow, if it is snowing now, go skiing, change the types of flowers you plant, change the time of year you start planting, make those windows more weather proof, and enjoy the diversity of climate change.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@softwarenerd

Most of it is actually very recent.

Looking at some of the threads here i see some misundarstandings of GW, and i want to explain some things with my limited knowledge on the subject.

Here is the global temperature graph since 1880Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif

As we can see, it is rising(and hottest years on record are moslty after 1990 as you can see). Ofcourse, it may seem insignificant because the rise here is barely one degree celsius, but that makes enourmous amounts of energy, and as we all know, energy on earth is not equally distributed, which would mean that we dont experience hot weather everywhere on the Earth at the same time, but we do experience more extreme local weather(Temperature amplitudes are getting bigger, sudden weather changes, and ultimately more hurricanes and such)

Here is the link regarding hurricanes and GW

http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm

quoted from the link

"Globally (not just in the North Atlantic), there is an average of about 90 tropical storms every year. According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR4), globally "[t]here is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones." However, in the North Atlantic there has been a clear increase in the frequency of tropical storms and major hurricanes. From 1850-1990, the long-term average number of tropical storms was about 10, including about 5 hurricanes. For the period of 1998-2007, the average is about 15 tropical storms per year, including about 8 hurricanes. This increase in frequency correlates strongly with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperature, and recent peer-reviewed scientific studies link this temperature increase to global warming"

Now ofcourse, this might be the Sun, but according to this graph, its not

Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

quote from wikipedia

"The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[39][40][41] Clouds also affect the radiation balance through cloud forcings similar to greenhouse gases.

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[42] These levels are much higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores.[43][44][45][46] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were last seen about 20 million years ago.[47] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. The rest of this increase is caused mostly by changes in land-use, particularly deforestation.[48]"

As we can see, water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, but it is relatively constant(before GW). CO2 and methane are not. Take into account that one degree change in temperature i was talking about in my last post, greatly reflects on water vapor amount, which further intensifies GW.

On the contrary, it is not that bad... Yet.

Treehuggers are still idiots, deforestation does not leave a dent in CO2 amount(unless its deforestation by burning) since most of CO2 processings is done by planktons in the sea, and we are not going to all die tommorow because of GW.

However, it is a real problem, and will get very bad in a century or maybe two.

Altho effects of GW are indeed showing up right now and are bad for alot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the global temperature graph since 1880
Though there is contention about the historical numbers, you don't mention your source. There is no such thing as "global temperature", even the definition makes a huge difference.

...we do experience more extreme local weather(Temperature amplitudes are getting bigger, sudden weather changes, and ultimately more hurricanes and such).
Whether the average climate rises or falls, the resultant changes are going to be a mix of good and bad. It is completely unclear that the bad outweighs the good. Even if it does, it is completely unclear that any government ought to do anything about it. People need to figure out how it will impact them, and act accordingly. This is not something that is happening in a single decade.

As i said, the elephant in the room is that the issue is about politics, not about science. Isn't it true that you yourself are concerned about the science only because of the political implications. Isn't it true that if you thought there were no political implications -- aka government force being used to change behavior -- you would definitely not be advocating one side of the argument... perhaps you would not even delve into the science. If the politics are not your concern, and you want to convince people of the scientific argument, the easiest way would be to convince them that the impacts are nothing they cannot plan for and deal with, without a government forcing them to do various things.

The political motivations seem pretty clear to me: it is the age old Christian ethic asking people to give up, give up, give up...some value or the other. Here's how it is implemented:

  • do some research and find a few areas where something is changing
  • choose one or more areas where such changes may have a few negative effects
  • of these, choose one of more areas where a major change in human behavior would slow the change
  • then start fear-mongering about it, make people feel guilty, get governments to force people to be "good"

The politics are pretty obvious once one has seen this procedure repeated again and again, once one has seen so much wealth lost as a result, once one has seen lives harmed and even lost as a result. Sorry, not buying it!

Edited by softwareNerd
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...