11 Thousand Scientists Warn Of Global Ecocatastrophe.

[Corraled]

So you can test the earth is flat by observation. So could you not observe the insulating effects of co2 in an experimental setting and then correlate cause and effect with historically rising co2 measurements from the atmosphere?

No, because some isolated environment in a lab is not a good representation of the earth. You cant mimic a mini earth in a lab and do a test. For the same reason i cant prove the earth is round by looking at a globe, you need direct experimental evidence.

I get the basic idea that CO2 blocks infrared, but its hard to go beyond that. Basically, how do you correlate temperature with CO2 in a complex system? Venus is hot but has 200.000 times more CO2 (plus its closer to the sun). What would be the effect of 1000 or 10.000 or PPM on Earth? 0.1 degrees heating? 1 degree? 10 degrees? Nobody knows, so we get goal-seeking GIGO computer simulations.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

No, because some isolated environment in a lab is not a good representation of the earth. You cant mimic a mini earth in a lab and do a test. For the same reason i cant prove the earth is round by looking at a globe, you need direct experimental evidence.

That's a fair point. We can however observe the dramatic increase in atmospheric changes etc. We can see that this increase appears to be AFAIK quicker than anything else in the geological record. I think it's not unreasonable to imply a cultural cause. If we accept a dramatic change in climate has happened, then what has been the cause if not us?
Nb. I of course realise climatic change happens without human influence, but as far as I can see no other period has seen such drastic change, with the possible exception of meteor strikes.

 

[Divine Trinity]

What experiments can you conduct to prove a correlation between CO2 and global warming? None! Because its impossible. So you cant follow the scientific method. It doest matter how smart your argument sounds, without an experiment you are not following the scientific method.

BTW, most of astronomy and almost all of astrophysics is not science, for the exact same reason. Its cool to theorize about the inner structure of the sun but nobody will ever "prove it".

No, because some isolated environment in a lab is not a good representation of the earth. You cant mimic a mini earth in a lab and do a test. For the same reason i cant prove the earth is round by looking at a globe, you need direct experimental evidence.

I get the basic idea that CO2 blocks infrared, but its hard to go beyond that. Basically, how do you correlate temperature with CO2 in a complex system? Venus is hot but has 200.000 times more CO2 (plus its closer to the sun).

I think before coming to a conclusion you should be educated on said topic, you're contradicting yourself.

Venus is the 2nd closest planet to the Sun, but is the hottest planet in the solar system. It's atmosphere is mostly CO2.

Mars is further from the Sun, and has a thinner atmosphere than Earth, yet is able to reach temperatures warmer than certain parts of Earth. Its atmosphere is mostly CO2, Earth's is not.

CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and coincidentally we've had near annual record-breaking temperatures within 1 decade?

What do all of these things have in common?

 

[drake4871]

Media gets your attention by playing with your fear, the more they can scare you the more likely you'll open their headlines. I don't doubt that climate change is important, but they skewed the charts... they all have different years on it and are scaled to be as steep as possible. First of all, we are able to measure, record and capture events more accurately and better than before as such we'll have more recorded. That being said we definitely need to change our environmental footprints but I'm not okay with the way media fear mongers the general public

The difference between a fear mongering and research chart "https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/"
What media won't talk about cause it isn't scary: http://allaboutalgae.com/benefits/

Also, our new generation has school climate strikes in which they skip school to protest for the environment; so at the very least they somewhat care (or just want a break from school) :)

 

[Crystal Labeija]

Which 11.000? There are milions of scientists in the world, you can find 11.000 people to agree on anything

11,000 issued a warning. That doesn't mean the rest don't agree.

 

[Death_is_Escape]

Global warming is not a good reason to commit suicide. What if it's proven wrong? You''d look like a complete idiot...

For you Global Warming isn't a good reason to CTB, but for others it might be: do you mind? ( besides, if you bother to do your homework, then you'll learn that anthropogenic planetary overheating kills off many species, including ones humans use very frequently: are you feeling smug?)

Media gets your attention by playing with your fear, the more they can scare you the more likely you'll open their headlines. I don't doubt that climate change is important, but they skewed the charts... they all have different years on it and are scaled to be as steep as possible. First of all, we are able to measure, record and capture events more accurately and better than before as such we'll have more recorded. That being said we definitely need to change our environmental footprints but I'm not okay with the way media fear mongers the general public

The difference between a fear mongering and research chart "https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/"
What media won't talk about cause it isn't scary: http://allaboutalgae.com/benefits/

Also, our new generation has school climate strikes in which they skip school to protest for the environment; so at the very least they somewhat care (or just want a break from school) :)

Are you a scientist? If not, then I'll take your word for a grain of sodium chloride ! Pfft!!!

Lol I'm not committing suicide for global warming. The thought makes me chuckle though

The effects of Global Warming include loss of species and agricultural viability: still laughing?

Yes, and our collective SI are going to make sure there will be nothing left.

Plenty of traditional people's seemed to have lived in quasi harmony with Gaia. --- https://www.akpress.org

When i was a kid and up until 10 years ago, scientists used to take pride in going against the current, and thought it was a noble thing a-la-Galileo. Once the nazis published a book called "100 authors against Einstein", and he countered by saying "Why 100 authors, if i was wrong only one would suffice". This was supposed to be "funny smart quirky" and everybody was supposed to marvel at his genius retort..The history of science has many examples of lone scientists going against the current, and it was drilled to us in school that science was not a democracy. How times have changed.

For me, the worst is the shameless abandonment of the scientific method, which is supposed to settle scientific disputes. Its a damn shame you cant conduct actual experiments with the climate and get some statistics, because you cant just take a bunch of earths, pump their atmospheres with CO2 and record what happens. Which is the only way to actually test a scientific theory, with experiments. This idea of warming due to CO2 cannot be formally tested, so its still a hypothesis. The fact that is really hard or impossible to test does not waiver the need to do experiments, if one is to actually follow the scientific method.

The alternative to the scientific method is endless speculation, thinking and running of calculations, which is more something a philosopher would do than a scientist.

Are you a scientist? Ever heard of the Precautionary Principle?

It's probably going to be a global economic catastrophe but highly unlikely that it's because of climate change lol!

Are you a scientist? Do you believe that humans don't affect the rest of the biosphere?

This is exactly what the world deserves. This is 100% humanity's doing.


Proven wrong? 11,000 SCIENTISTS are saying it's a problem. It's like going to a hospital and telling doctors that they don't know their stuff.

Indeed! It appears We have quite a few Don't-Give-A-Damners replying to My OP . . . .

I deeply regret I won't be alive to witness it.

It's already happening.

The effects will likely be slow and insidious, not some big catastrophic spectacle like in a disaster movie (unfortunately...).

It's already happening: simply ask anyone whose lived in the High Latitudes the past four decades.

Which 11.000? There are milions of scientists in the world, you can find 11.000 people to agree on anything

Have 11,000 other scientists disproved them? All it takes is one: where the fuck are they then?

There's a possibility of a feedback loop being triggered, which can exponentionally accelerate warming. When permafrost from arctic regions begins to melt (which has already showed early signs of happening) scenarios that are predicted to happen 60-100 years from now could happen in as little as 5-10 years.

While not exactly a 2012 blockbuster, it would be hell on Earth for billions of people.

Thank you! It's good to see normal, reasonable responses on this thread instead of irrational replies.

What experiments can you conduct to prove a correlation between CO2 and global warming? None! Because its impossible. So you cant follow the scientific method. It doest matter how smart your argument sounds, without an experiment you are not following the scientific method.

BTW, most of astronomy and almost all of astrophysics is not science, for the exact same reason. Its cool to theorize about the inner structure of the sun but nobody will ever "prove it".

Are you willing to gamble with the lives of babies? It seems like it . . . .

 

[Lethe]

It's already happening: simply ask anyone whose lived in the High Latitudes the past four decades.

I'm well aware.

 

[snowman626]

Why does every fucking site has these annoying newsletter boxes that pops up 5 seconds after landing in the site.

 

[Death_is_Escape]

No, because some isolated environment in a lab is not a good representation of the earth. You cant mimic a mini earth in a lab and do a test. For the same reason i cant prove the earth is round by looking at a globe, you need direct experimental evidence.

I get the basic idea that CO2 blocks infrared, but its hard to go beyond that. Basically, how do you correlate temperature with CO2 in a complex system? Venus is hot but has 200.000 times more CO2 (plus its closer to the sun). What would be the effect of 1000 or 10.000 or PPM on Earth? 0.1 degrees heating? 1 degree? 10 degrees? Nobody knows, so we get goal-seeking GIGO computer simulations.

Computer modeling has been accurate for storms; why blow off those same computers, the scientists that use them and their models when it comes to Global Warming? Will you ignore weather forecasters for now on?

No, because some isolated environment in a lab is not a good representation of the earth. You cant mimic a mini earth in a lab and do a test. For the same reason i cant prove the earth is round by looking at a globe, you need direct experimental evidence.

I get the basic idea that CO2 blocks infrared, but its hard to go beyond that. Basically, how do you correlate temperature with CO2 in a complex system? Venus is hot but has 200.000 times more CO2 (plus its closer to the sun). What would be the effect of 1000 or 10.000 or PPM on Earth? 0.1 degrees heating? 1 degree? 10 degrees? Nobody knows, so we get goal-seeking GIGO computer simulations.

The conclusion those eleven-thousand scientists at took years, if not decades, of planet-wide off-the-field research. That included sample collection and modeling. We're not talking about a high school science project.

 

[BlueWidow]

Ever hear George Carlin's take on saving the planet?

Yes, I love his take on saving the planet. I also love the jokes he used to tell about death and the two minute warning. And how if you know ahead of time you're going to die you should have fun with it. He was such a great comic.
I have several of his shows on DVDs and most of his comedy albums on CD.

 

[WilliamKline]

Scientific discussions between laymen will always get to this point Unless you truly are an expert in a field this is so much more about belief / conviction. If rapid climate change = true and we don't act, we're all screwed, if not and we don't act, we could be okay.

Regardless of how CO2 emissions contribute to the problem, wouldn't it just be a good idea to stop having to burn dead dinosaurs?

What I think is worrying is a shifting public opinion on science as our best guideline instead of some politician's 'opinion'.

 

[FTL.Wanderer]

It was in the news a few days ago: Seems like a good enough reason to CTB .

Just business as usual among humans on planet earth. :/

 

[Jojojo]

The planet is just getting ready to cleanse itself from parasites

 

[Heart of Ice]

For you Global Warming isn't a good reason to CTB, but for others it might be: do you mind? ( besides, if you bother to do your homework, then you'll learn that anthropogenic planetary overheating kills off many species, including ones humans use very frequently: are you feeling smug?)

You're right, I'm sorry if you feel I disrespected your choice. But the only one who sounds smug here is you.

Granted, I don't know much about global warming / climate change. The numbers that the media likes to parade around kind of go into my right ear and come out the other one. I honestly don't care that much. Global warming / climate change might be a real threat facing humanity or just a clever scheme by the elite; either way, it doesn't interest me.

I just don't want to be the guy that kills himself because of something that turned out to be a hoax. I'd compare it to Romeo who drinks poison after thinking Juliet is dead.

 

[Darkhaven]

Good riddance.
If it were up to me all life would be destroyed!!!!!!

 

[Rollo]

It's called astronomy. What's the difference between the atmospheric composition of Earth and Venus? You can compare Mercury to Venus, or Earth to Mars, distance from the Sun is irrelevant.

It's a well-founded theory not a hypothesis. The only topics up for debate on climate change is the rate of warming, which is practically impossible to confidently estimate in scientific journals. There's also the question of which molecules is accelerating warming the most, we mostly hear about CO2, but hardly anyone talks about methane or any other gases that are much more potent than CO2.

Simply put, couple billion or so years ago the Earth was comparable to Venus, 100s of millions years later organisms terraformed the planet by extracting green house gases out of the atmosphere and into the ground. Fast forward to the late 19th century, humans begin to extract those fossils and reserves out of the ground and release back into the atmosphere.

Does it take a genius to guess what will happen?

See it's actually a very neatly sounding theory. Bacteria formed fossil fuels, this prescious planetary shit, by extracting crap from atmosphere, thus either creating our current airy atmosphere or at least making it possible. Thank you, oh primeval guardian of enviroment! But now humans looking to use them for comfort dug them out and are creating another VENICE. Almost like a movie plot.

The first thing that strikes me about this is why I haven't heard of it before. You would imagine if climate scientists had such an eloquent theory then they would bring it up at every possibility. Instead all I heard is simply claims that greenhouse gases are making Earth warmer.

Second thing is I just looked at how say petroleum is created and wikipedia says it's created by accumulation of dead bodies of zooplankton and algae. It's not produced by bacteria's metabolism. Or is wiki wrong here?

Third thing is I live in Russia and there were some recent major reveleations about the extent of corruption here. So now whenether I hear government official speaking about any kind of project or raising any kind of topic the only thought that I have is - they want to come up with another interesting way to steal money. And given that scientists are usually on government payroll - I can't help but think that they have a big financial motivation here to push anthropogenic global warming theory.

 

[Jean Améry]

Global warming is not a good reason to commit suicide. What if it's proven wrong? You''d look like a complete idiot...

It's an observable and well-documented fact. How can it possibly be proven wrong?

I do agree global warming by itself (unless one is severely and directly affected by it) does not seem like a very strong or at least comprehensible reason. It'd be extremely altruistic to remove oneself from the planet in order to combat CO2-expulsion plus it won't make a real difference anyway.

 

[Corraled]

Computer modeling has been accurate for storms; why blow off those same computers, the scientists that use them and their models when it comes to Global Warming? Will you ignore weather forecasters for now on?

The conclusion those eleven-thousand scientists at took years, if not decades, of planet-wide off-the-field research. That included sample collection and modeling. We're not talking about a high school science project.

I disagree. Many high school science projects are better science than the whole global warming thing. I remember one of my high school experiments, we dropped a weight from a known height and record as it fell. Then we analized the footage frame by frame and fitted a curve of its position vs time. From that curve we calculated the acceleration of gravity. This extremely simple high school physics experiment actually conformed to the scientific method because it was an actual experiment. The global warming simulations are not an experiment, and cannot be called science.

11,000 issued a warning. That doesn't mean the rest don't agree.

Im a scientist and i dont agree. I know a few other scientists that also dont agree. We are in a minority and understand we can sort of express our opinions but we have to be discreet because of career suicide. It would be unthinkable to go around collecting lists of "supporters". You can find videos on Youtube of dissident scientists vocalizing their opinions on global warming, for each one who talks theres a thousand that keep quiet.

Some people are openly calling for jail for opponents of the global warming hypothesis. They say they are dangerous.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I disagree. Many high school science projects are better science than the whole global warming thing. I remember one of my high school experiments, we dropped a weight from a known height and record as it fell. Then we analized the footage frame by frame and fitted a curve of its position vs time. From that curve we calculated the acceleration of gravity. This extremely simple high school physics experiment actually conformed to the scientific method because it was an actual experiment. The global warming simulations are not an experiment, and cannot be called science.

You make a good argument and I tend to agree with you to a certain extent. However, I think the simulations, whilst not technically rigorously scientific, are valid observations based on our understanding of causality. They do not predict the future but I don't think such observations should be dismissed out of hand.