Yo do know that hundreds of millions are starving today? The threat of possible death by starvation is meaningless to those who a) are already starving or b) those who have to deal with today’s problem of feeding their kids and cannot set aside anything to fight off the possibility dying in 40 years (most of them would be dead anyway)
Cite that AGW **WILL **cause famines? I’m sure it can and for some people that would happen, but unless AGW is an evil Saturday morning cartoon character it will benefit some, be bsasicccaly-the-same, and better for others.
Well, 95% of Peru’s poor live at an altitude the realy makes them sea-level-rise proof. The other 5% can 1 or 2 km and be safe and continue being fishermen.
Saving wildlife has absolutely zero to do with AGW.
If the poor stop being poor they’ll start pumping more CO2 (e.g. India and China) so if you save them from poverty you make AGW worse.
It would require a massive switch to green energy to test that :eek:
But I agree with the gist of it. If CO2 levels decline, and temperature continues to rise (globally and consistently), it’d be data that undermines AGW.
Or, if CO2 levels continue to rise and yet temperatures fall (globally and consistently), along with a reversing of the trend of accelerated glacial retreat, that too would be data that undermines AGW.
GIGOBuster already addressed this well but I thought I’d add a comment. What we are comfortable with is not a cause following an effect but the idea that causation can go in both directions and, in fact, when two quantities are as closely correlated as CO2 and temperature are over the past 750,000 years, it is often precisely because the causation goes in both directions, tying the two together quite tightly. And, indeed, while the start of the temperature changes may proceed the start of the CO2 changes by several hundred years, much of the temperature change occurs after the CO2 changes have kicked in.
It has been generally accepted since the mid-1970s that the ice age - interglacial cycle are triggered by the Milankovitch cycles involving the earth’s orbit. However, these cycles alone provide very little net annual global forcing to cause a significant global temperature change. Rather, it is necessary that feedback processes that they initiate cause most of the temperature change. The most obvious feedback is that the orbital changes, by changing the geographical and seasonal distribution of solar radiation, cause the ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere to grow or shrink and this then affects the albedo. However, another feedback is that the CO2 levels change. By estimating the radiative forcing due to these ice sheet albedo changes and the radiative forcing (known quite accurately, in fact) due to the change in CO2 and other greenhouse gases, as well as a smaller radiative forcing change due to changes in aerosol composition of the atmosphere, one can estimate that CO2 is responsible for about 1/3 of the global temperature change…with all the greenhouse gases together pushing that up to maybe 40%.
Furthermore, I believe that it is difficult to understand how the temperature changes in the two hemispheres get synchronized without the contribution due to the greenhouse gas changes.
As for the general issue of “falsifiability”, I think this is mainly a red herring due to an overly naive, very binary (i.e., black-and-white) view of the scientific process. In the real world, a hypothesis, once it has gained status as a theory because it is supported by lots of different evidence, will not be overturned by one piece of data. For one thing, the data is seldom unambiguous or without potential known or unknown flaws. For a second, when the theory already explains so much, there will be considerable attention given to how the theory might be modified to accommodate the evidence without being completely overturned. What “AGW skeptics” really seem to want is for AGW to be treated differently than any other theory in science and to be immediately abandoned if there is any experimental data or observations presented that seem to be in conflict with it. If we applied this to theories across the board in science, we would still be in the Dark Ages with no accepted theories about anything!
I think this difference between the naive view of science and science as actually practiced is one of the reasons that one sees such a dichotomy where you have people (most, but not all of them, not scientists) who are saying things like, “AGW is not falsifiable and hence not science” while at the same time you have the most prestigious scientific societies in the world essentially all weighing in on the other side.
And, as others have noted, AGW has passed a lot of falsifiability tests already. Going back a ways, for example, it was believed by many…if not most…scientists earlier in the 20th century that the oceans would be capable of absorbing essentially all of the CO2 we emit and thus that our burning of fossil fuels would not significantly change atmospheric CO2 levels. It wasn’t until the late 1950s when Keeling did his measurements showing CO2 levels were increasing and, at around the same time Revelle and others came up with a better theoretical understanding of how the ocean buffering processes worked and how that would limit the amount of CO2 that they could absorb, that it became clear that AGW was not falsified on these grounds.
Much more recently, there has been considerable work using satellite data to investigate whether the water vapor feedback really operates in the way that climate models predict, since it plays such an important role in the theory in amplifying the effects due to CO2 alone. It was quite possible that it could have been found that there was a large discrepancy between what the theory predicted and what the data showed…and this would have, at the very least, posed a considerable challenge to the AGW theory. However, as it turns out, the data strongly support the idea that the water vapor feedback is working about as it is expected to. (See, e.g., here or here.)
And, back in the 1990s, when the satellite data for lower tropospheric temperature were first published, they showed a global cooling trend rather than the warming trend seen at the surface. Again, this was a potential problem for AGW theory but it turned out that the combination of a longer temperature record and the correction of errors in the data analysis (such as the need to correct for orbital decay of the satellites) led to a resolution that showed that the lower troposphere was really warming and at approximately (within error bars) the expected rate based on the surface warming. [While no longer a disparity globally, there is still some apparent discrepancy of the trends in the tropics…but this also seems on the road to being resolved.]
One can presumably go on and on with examples. But, the basic point is: The science in the field of global climate change is proceeding basically as any scientific field does. Yes, it is more difficult than in some fields to do laboratory-scale experiments and, yes, the observational data is often fraught with uncertainties and artifacts. But, that doesn’t mean that the standard methods of science, including falsification, cannot be used. One just has to be a little more creative and patient than one might be for a theory where it was easier to do laboratory-scale experiments or where the observational verification could proceed more rapidly.
Blake: Don’t take this question personally, I just want to understand your position. Is it:
The Earth isn’t warming.
The Earth is warming, but it doesn’t have to do with greenhouse gasses/human activity.
or 3. The Earth is warming, and it is because of greenhouse gasses/human activity, but the AGW theory is bad science.
China and India aren’t impoverished nations, and especially China has no particular issue with co-opting brute labor for the sake of massive infrastructure projects. I wouldn’t be surprised if China would have an easier time of it than us, for precisely that reason.
Africa and South America are the places where you would be most likely to find nations that don’t have the resources to adapt to a changing climate.
China and India are definitely impoverished. Though, to be honest, I’m not sure what you mean by impoverished, exactly. To clarify what I mean: China and India are still third world, or rather, developing nations. Outside the big cities, it is mostly subsistence farming conditions, no different than Africa. In addition, I believe China is the largest producer of CO2.
They passed us in 2005 I believe. And yeah, they are certainly a developing nation still.
(I’m not a lefty so don’t really have any input into the thread…from my perspective I suppose I’m cautiously in agreement with the theory in question, though I’m a bit dubious about some of the over the top assertions and conclusions some are drawing from it. I’m also a bit dubious about some of the plans and agendas being forwarded by some on the left wrt AGW…but then, I’m more than a bit dubious about some of the anti-AGW agendas too).
And you don’t perceive that the two statements below are compatible with each other? :dubious:
I believe that human activities have and are causing a measureable warming to the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans.
I believe that every additional emission of greenhouse gases has the potential* to increase the Earth’s average temperature and change the general state of Earth’s climate.
Both are true for the value “I”=wevets
*I use the word “potential” because we never really know what will happen in the future. If in 2013, a Yellowstone supervolcano eruption, asteroid impact, or nuclear war tosses Teragrams of particulates into the air, then that would be a powerful enough effect to more than outweigh any CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions or other GHGs, and the Earth would get colder even with AGW being correct. Obviously, it is relevant to policy decisions not only to demonstrate that AGW happened at some point, but that it is a likely future occurrence.
If you think I’m lying, Pit me. Accusations of lying are not permitted in GD, and I’m willing to debate, but I think your accusing me of lying about my own positions does not foster an atmosphere of good will or honest debate, but rather one of personal acrimony.
I don’t want to intrude, but a couple of people (Martini Enfield for one) mentioned that that they want to see the effects of climate change for themselves before they come to a conclusion? Doesn’t that attitude have two fatal flaws.
It discounts anything that takes more than a human life span to become evident. So we need never worry about anything that hasn’t occurred during our own life as we haven’t personally seen the consequences. I’ll give a example if you need one but I don’t want to get to bogged down.
And 2) What if by the time there are observable effects its too late already? Shouldn’t there be some default on the prevention of harm? Prevention is better then cure and all that. So a judgement has to be made now, on whether it is worth taking action to reduce emissions based on the available evidence. To simply say ‘I dunno’ is a cop out in my opinion.
In fact I think the real distinguishing question is whether you support action being taken against greenhouse gases or not. Those who do are operating on the principle that available evidence suggests there is a threat and we should mitigate it now. Those who don’t, generally think the available evidence says there isn’t a threat.
The ones who say there isn’t enough evidence are de facto on the latter side’ of the argument when it comes to policy making, which is why it can seem to them that the former are ‘hysterically’ attacking them. They’re not hysterical at all, the middle ground people are blocking the goals of those who want action and through their equivocation aiding the deniers.
What mazinger_z said, plus you’re exactly making my point. As more Indiand and Chinese come out of poverty their carbon footprint goes up.
Whether as countries they can be considered impoverished I won’t contest.
That hundreds of million live in knee-deep poverty there is unquestionable
Except for that nobody was talking about India and China in the first place.
You can’t make the argument that global warming is bad because if it grows it will grow even more! Exacerbating things which don’t matter, still doesn’t matter. Either AGW does or doesn’t hurt someone.
Life in China and India suck because of limits in their societies, not because they don’t have the resources to accomplish amazing tasks. India might not bring those resources to bear to deal with AGW, but China certainly will. In the former case, it’s their own fault for not doing what they should if they don’t, so I can’t really care all that much. In the latter case, life will continue to suck for the Chinese people, but in the same old way not in a new AGW-sort of way. If India does act, they’ll similarly just suck in all the old ways, and not due to AGW.
The places that actually get hurt, that can’t be blamed for not utilizing their resources, is going to be failed or poor -nations-.
An impoverished -people- is not what I mean when I say “impoverished nations”. China and India could probably put people on the Moon, the capabilities of those nations is not lacking.
I never said it woudln’t hurt or that it didn’t exist or that it wasn’t bad. I said that rising oceans would be of little concern for most poor people in my country simply by the fact the they live 2 to 4 km above sea level.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Poor people have smaller carbon footprints that rich people. Your dog has a bigger carbon footprint than 25% of Peruvians*. A poor farmer with ni access to technology who becomes middle-class will buy a car and get electricity and hot water and many things that will severly increase their AGW share.
Exactly. But if the really bad stuff is going to happen 50 years from now, but NOW you’re starving, you’ll focus on whatever helps now, even if it quadruples your AGW share adn you will oppose any policy that would make your life suck even harder.
Sure, but both have poor people in the hundrerds of millions, linguistic issues aside.
Yes, but this whole tangent only exists due to a misunderstanding of what I meant. I’m debating that life doesn’t suck in India/China/whereaver. I’m explaining what I was saying in my original post. India and China are entirely unrelated to that.
By saying that “Correcting AGW is about saving people in impoverished nations”, I mean nations that don’t have the resources to adapt. China and India have those resources, so they’re entirely unrelated to my point.
They are perfectly interesting topics in their own right, but still unrelated to my originating post.
Although I completely disagree with your contention that life doesn’t suck in India/China/wharever and I also disagree with your saying the China/India/wherever have the resources to fight it…not even EU countries are reducing the GHG emmisions in a menaingful way.
however, we’d be going completely out of topic so I think you’re right in it being a tangent.
There was a “not” in my head as I wrote the second sentence. Life does suck, for many, in India and China. But that’s irrelevant to my point.
Reducing GHG gases is, again, unrelated to my original point. I’m talking about the -effects- of global warming. Dealing with the -effects- of global warming is something within the scope of abilities of non-impoverished nations. They can build stronger dams, they can build aqueducts, relocate farms, or change their output crops to whatever grows in the new climate.
