The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Mid

Gerontion

Again, you make no sense. I don’t have to be able to fix a smashed egg to prove that I have the ability to crush it. Why would I?

Quote:

This is your evidence - probabilities?

Don’t be so asinine. Of course they’re not proof that anthropogenic climate change is real. They’re proof that the IPCC says it’s real. And, clearly unlike you, on scientific matters I respect what scientists say.

Quote:

Yes, I can.

Well go on then. Do. Line them all up. I’d love to see them. But please make sure (a) it’s all recent research (b) it’s from peer-reviewed publications and not corporate wank from the capitalist media. Perhaps you could begin by posting rebuttals to the recent IPCC report. As this represents a kind-of base line of thought on anthropogenic climate change it should be fairly easy for you to do so. You can find a copy of the report at IPCC WG1 AR4 Report

Quote:

A bunch of scientists quoting probabilities is NOT evidence. It is speculation.

What does that mean? You seem not to have read the last line of my previous post. Let me repeat it for you:

Boon Mee

Read a newspaper lately.

shehiredahitman

Absurd comments such as

are the ones making no sense. Stick to language normal people can understand & I will have more of an idea of what you are trying to convey.

This is what I have been saying from the start.

Not all scientists agree with each other, therefore providing a list of who said what is pretty pointless. The bottom line is - unless they all agree is is not a scientific fact. It is speculation.

We could be here all day. Let's agree to disagree.

Gerontion

No, because this is not an argument about whether Arsenal are better with or without Henry but whether or not at the end of this century we’re going to have a biosphere. As awful as Iraq is, as intractable and problematic as the issues around debt repayments are, there is nothing more important in (and to) the world than confronting and dealing with climate change.

My apologies. I had thought my meaning was transparent. You said thought you would ‘believe’ in climate change if you were presented with evidence that the process could be reversed but many processes occur only in one direction. This does not mean that they don’t occur and nor does it mean that no proof can be offered for their occurrence. Does this make sense? I hope so because I’m not sure how to show the fallacy in your reasoning any more clearly.

As I thought my use of the quotation function made clear, this was in response to your question about who said it.

Anyway, some (extremely brief) facts about ACC.

1. As I have already said, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen sharply since the industrial revolution from 280ppm to around 430ppm CO2 equivalent at the moment. This is mainly due to burning of fossil fuels, change in land use, changes in agriculture and the ‘development’ of industrial products. At no time in the previous 800,000 years have they been this high.

2. CO2 has a greenhouse effect (investigated by Arrhenius in the late 19th century so not exactly ground-breaking stuff) with a radiative forcing calculated according to the formula Delta F = 5.35 ln (C/Co), where C is CO2 concentration in ppm by volume and Co is the reference concentration. Other greenhouse gases include, as I have said, methane, CFCs (also responsible for the ozone hole) and nitrous oxide. These are much less prevalent than CO2 but have a much greater effect. Concentrations of these gases have risen too.

3. The world has warmed recently and continues to warm (in the last 50 years by I think 0.65 degrees centigrade). Melting land and sea ice, the migration of species toward the poles and changes in weather patterns are all further evidence of this warming.

In that case, you’re using the vocabulary in a peculiar and unusual way and by your standards very little (possibly nothing other than truths of definition) can be said to be a fact (Certainly, with your use of the words we don’t know that evolution is a fact). To think that because some people who (at a very generous stretch) can be said to be scientists dispute key aspects of ACC means that there is any real disagreement is grossly to misrepresent the facts and as I have said, reviews of the scientific literature show an extraordinary unanimity of opinion. To say that you can match, post-for-post, proof-for-proof, author-for-author those who agree that climate change is real with those who deny is just not true. However, don’t take my word for it. Let’s, in good scientific fashion, test the validity of my thesis. I've given links to the IPCC report and realclimate so after you…

shehiredahitman

Proof, Gerontion.

Instead of banging on just show me the proof. Then we can put this to bed, one way or another. Your posts are very comprehensive & I commend you for that, but they jump from one place to another & define no clear answer on the question I have asked. We produce no more greenhouse gases than farting cows & saying that the world is going to end unless we do something differently is nonsense.

I'll try again.

Show me the proof, please?

Gerontion

Ok but what would constitute proof? My points 1 - 3 give a very brief explanation. Namely, (2) CO2 has a greenhouse effect (1) CO2 concentrations have risen so we would expect global temperatures to rise, which is indeed shown in (3). Isn't this sufficient?

And by the way, I've been good enough to supply references, formula, facts and figures. Perhaps you could justify claims such as "we produce no more greenhouse gases than farting cows & saying that the world is going to end unless we do something differently is nonsense". Thanks.

shehiredahitman

They are valid points, I agree, but it does not constitute actual proof of the original argument. The earth has been around something like one million times longer than man & it is not man who dictates how hot or cold the earth is/should/was/will become.

Show that man-made global warming is contributing to the end of the world & I will be the first to change my ways. The earth's temperature has been changing between hot & cold since time immortal. Nothing, whatsoever, suggests it is our job to tell mother nature how to run her planet.

Gerontion

I'm not suggesting the anthropogenic climate change is an explanation for every episode of warming the earth has experienced. Clearly, as a matter of definition, anthropogenic climate change cannot explain events which predate the evolution of mankind so I'm afraid that your response is utterly irrelevant. Or to rephrase that, an effect can have multiple causes. I’m repeating myself here but given what we know about changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and what we know about their effect of temperature, the best explanation of the warming that we have experienced is that it is caused by greenhouse gases; computer models can only explain this change in temperature by including these forcing effects.

IPCC forecast show that by 2100, global temperatures will increase by between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees centigrade. The uncertainty is caused largely because forecasts of economic/technological activity in 50 year’s time is a little tricky. However, recent increases in the rates of emissions mean that we are well on target for the higher end of this forecast. What does this mean? No one is too sure at the top end of the forecasts as it’s such unknown territory but everyone agrees that it’s somewhere between apocalyptic and game-over. Some effects will include,

1. More extreme weather events with increased precipitation but with this happening more violently.
2. Disruption to long established weather patterns. This will affect billions of people, leaving them without access to sufficient water.
3. Melting glaciers will first cause floods but then contribute to water stress.
4. At low temperature increases, some crop yields may rise but even the low end forecasts will almost certainly result in lower crop yields. Higher night-time temperatures will reduce rice yields, resulting in considerable ‘problems’ for Asia.
5. A huge number of species will go extinct with incalculable consequences.
6. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in water, increasing its acidity. This prevents the formation of shell structure which in turn restricts the growth of microscopic sea life, one of the foundations of the world’s food chain.
7. Rising sea levels will flood coastal areas, which tend to be the most heavily populated areas of countries.
8. All of this will lead to massive migration away from areas that are more severely affected.
9. Most diseases thrive in warmer weather.

Billions will be affected.

This is before we start to look at the positive feedbacks. Some studies show that the Amazon is very sensitive to minor increases in temperature. Increases at the higher end of the IPCC forecasts could cause it to dry out and turn to desert. The resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 would be astronomic. Worse is the potential for warming oceans to release methyl hydrates and trigger unstoppable warming. If this happens, it’s the cockroaches' turn at the helm.

I think my earlier response addresses this sufficiently.

All breakages must be paid for.

shehiredahitman

Repeating yourself & banding about doomsday scenarios isn't going to convince anybody.

Your posts contain nothing but speculation.

I have asked for proof - you have not provided it. Again. Saying there is a high possibility of something happening is not proof. It may be likely, but it is not a certainty.

I am not ignorant. If there was a genuine concern for what is supposed to be going down I would go with the flow & we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact is, there are smarter men than me who have yet to be convinced there is anything to worry about & until they also say there is a genuine problem then you do not have a real case. Scaremonger all you like, apocolypse indeed, until you - or anyone - prove it, it is all speculation, nothing else.

Gerontion

I'll ask you again: What would constitute proof?

(And if you expect certainty in this, there is none. But that is no reason to do nothing.)

Gerontion

My post is drawn from the recent IPCC report. I strongly suspect that you have no idea who or what that is but trust me, I didn't make up these predictions; these guys know what they are talking about.

And far from trying to scare you with 'doomsday scenarios' my post was a direct reponse to your request that I "show that man-made global warming is contributing to the end of the world." You seem to have profound difficulty following the thread of a discussion but don't worry. For your benefit, I shall use clearer signposts in future.

So - what would a proof look like?

And - why don't you have a stab at explaining what has caused the increase in world temperature (which you agree has occurred)?

And - could you show how the well-established principle of CO2 warming has been surpressed, given concentrations have increased by 30%?

shehiredahitman

These guys have said they are 90% sure of something. Again, this is not proof. By default they admit to a 10% chance they are wrong. You have finally admitted you cannot provide me with the proof I asked you for over two hours ago & are now asking me - in a way - to provide it for you.

We have reached a dead end.

I appreciate the time you have taken to post the information you have & it is a subject that is obviously close to your heart. Good luck with convincing anybody else you may encounter who doubts this whole business but I'm afraid I still stand where I did at the beginning.

Just to show willing, suggest to me a couple of things I can do to help your 'cause' & provided they are not OTT I will do my best to comply.

shehiredahitman

Just a shot in the dark - could it be the same thing that has caused the earth's temperature to increase hundreds of thousands of times before throughout the planet's history?

Don't answer that. Please.

Gerontion

Jesus wept. I'm not asking you to provide me with proof. I'm asking you what would convince you. What type of statement would make you go, "Yes, you're right. I see it now."? Most (all?) of science relies on having the best explanation amongst competing theories. There is no 'certainty' (in the sense which you use it) that evolution is true and that intelligent design is false but you would, I hope, accept that evolution is an established fact. Any truth which is not true by definition can be proved wrong; this is the problem of induction but all of science depends on inductive reasoning so if this is a dead end it is so because you have set the burden of proof at a point which no experiential science can reach. In other words - if you want to discard science, that's your call but it hardly makes for an impressive position and it leaves me wondering how you can justify supporting any beliefs you have about the world which are not immediately available on the basis of first person knowledge.

Anyway, a couple of things which you can do:

1. Replace incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents.
2. Don’t leave electrical appliances on stand-by.
3. Walk or share lifts.
4. Buy locally produced food.
5. Turn your heating down a few degrees or turn your A/C up a few degrees.
6. Insulate.
7. Look at generating your own, renewable power. If you’re in Thailand, you can (in theory) sell power you generate back to the grid.
8. Cut down on your flights.
9. Eat less meat.
10 Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Of course, the problem with doing things that aren’t ‘OTT’ is that there’s fuck-all point doing them. To stabilize CO2 emissions at a level which does not pose a danger requires such deep cuts that this kind of tokenism is utterly pointless.

No. But I'm sure that the fact that there is no scientific support for this won't put you (or the rest of the Daily Mail reading classes) off.

shehiredahitman

:borladuck:

Lumping me in with Daily Mail readers is almost a compliment to me. Insults are not what I thought this was supposed to be about. I have been nothing but pleasant to you, Gerontion, but now you are resorting to name calling there isn't much point continuing this conversation.

Somebody said you were a troll but I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Gerontion

A troll? Don't be pathetic. I have provided you with coherent arguments based on solid, uncontroversial facts and for which I have cited highly respectable sources. In reply you have completely failed to provide any intelligent response.

Here's your chance. Deal the whole conspiracy that knock out blow you must have. Or failing that, just come up with something.

shehiredahitman

How's that?

Gerontion

Very impressive. Any objections to me taking that as an admission that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and that you have nothing intelligent to contribute? No? Lovely.

benbaaa

Here we go. Watch carefully.

CMN's interesting posts since you last viewed this thread: 0