Poll

[POLL] Is AGW a sure thing?

Yes, no doubt at all.
46 (34.1%)
No, something smells fishy.
39 (28.9%)
The IPCC's "very likely" 90% scenario sounds about right.
50 (37%)

Total Members Voted: 135

Author Topic: [POLL] AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers  (Read 33350 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Hensingler

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Country: gb
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's a 97% consensus among engineers
« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2017, 10:30:22 am »
OTOH it is also true that until ~200 thousand years ago everything everywhere north of the mediterranean

Peak glaciation of the last ice age was 22,000 years ago many places were still under a km of ice 11,000 years ago. Most of the land in northern Europe is still rising at about 1cm/year recovering from the weight of ice being removed.
 

Offline retrolefty

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1595
  • Country: us
  • measurement changes behavior
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2017, 10:33:47 am »
Hahaha, Dave, are you kidding me? You've added a third option!
You now provide TWO pro AGW options to choose from? Why not add say ten more, just in case?

Yes, because the only pro option was "Absolutely certain" which is ridiculous. Even the IPCC are not "absolutely certain". Go read the report.
Have more than one option will not skew the result.

  Well so far 1/3 of the responders to the poll voted for ridiculous.  :-DD
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27958
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
I just looked up a summary of the IPCC report and it basically sums up trends which where observed and which are likely to continue. Only history will tell if AGW is some kind of mass extinction event or an incovenience.

There is practically no chance it's a mass extinction event. At least in any time frame that would concern us, our children, or our children's children.
Even the most dire model predictions are not mass extinction.
 

Offline HackedFridgeMagnet

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1917
  • Country: au
Ridiculous, ambiguous, loaded title and poll.  http://www.gesa.org.au/about-gesa/australian-gastroenterology-week-agw/.
Typical of Trump style alternate facts.

Apparently this thread is about climate change.
Well the way I see it is some people study climate change, some people don't. Some people have a direct monetary interested in the outcome of this debate, some people don't.
So who do you believe?
I believe the people who do the science with the greatest integrity. That seems to put me in agreement with the bulk of the Scientific community at least here in Aus.
For me I am somewhat worried about climate change and believe the risks should be reduced at the expense of economic growth.

I believe when our generation dies we should leave the ecosystem of the Earth as close to the way it was before industrialisation as we can.
Then the future generations than Fc*k it up as they please.
 
The following users thanked this post: Wuerstchenhund, mtdoc

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3574
  • Country: us
I just looked up a summary of the IPCC report and it basically sums up trends which where observed and which are likely to continue. Only history will tell if AGW is some kind of mass extinction event or an incovenience.

There is practically no chance it's a mass extinction event. At least in any time frame that would concern us, our children, or our children's children.
Even the most dire model predictions are not mass extinction.

Well if you use the standard definition of a mass extinction (a period of less than about two million years in which at least 70 percent of species go extinct), we are currently undergoing the 6th great mass extinction (aka the Holocene extinction or anthropocene extinction) and global warming is just getting started.  :-[

 
The following users thanked this post: DenzilPenberthy

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4027
  • Country: nl
Well if you use the standard definition of a mass extinction (a period of less than about two million years in which at least 70 percent of species go extinct), we are currently undergoing the 6th great mass extinction (aka the Holocene extinction or anthropocene extinction) and global warming is just getting started.  :-[

Most caused by habitat destruction rather than climate change. We chopped down the vast majority of forest in Europe long before the CO2 based AGW theory came onto the horizon, even before anthropogenic climate change theories period ... although those predate CO2 based theories by centuries.

CO2 isn't the most impacting way we know how to change the natural environment, even if the IPCC is correct. We are a mass extinction event.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 12:42:34 pm by Marco »
 
The following users thanked this post: Kilrah

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3574
  • Country: us
We are a mass extinction event.

Agreed.
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
A significant amount of pollution is caused by people driving cars to work, so in 20 or 30 years when far more is automated and much more work is done remotely over the Internet there will be a very large reduction in car caused pollution because far fewer people will be driving daily. Also, a great many people will have much smaller or even no incomes so they will have a smaller energy footprint. The changes will be the biggest in developed countries. This has been the consensus for decades.
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline cdev

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5082
  • Country: 00
Two words:

Methane Clathrate
"What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3574
  • Country: us
Two words:

Methane Clathrate

Oh no you didn't!  :scared:
 

Offline Halcyon

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3385
  • Country: au
I've given up trying to have an adult conversation about the subject of Global Warming, Climate Change etc...  with most people. You generally get two sides of the camp, either people believe that science has proven everything about climate change is real and the world is going to end or it's all complete horse shit and the Greenies need to quit it.

Very few people can actually shut the hell up and let the experts (who are much smarter about the topic) do the testing, experimenting and arguing for us. Science continues to improve and data sets are getting larger. What we think we know today may be different tomorrow.

I find people with a strong (and often biased) view one way or another bloody irritating as no matter what anyone says, their minds are already made up.

If you want to argue about climate change, I think you're best off not doing it on an EE forum (which hardly belongs in the "EEVblog specific" section). It'll only end in tears for everyone.
 
The following users thanked this post: Richard Head, Ian.M

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1531
  • Country: pl
Back in the day the establishment were the earth flatters, it took quite a long time but in the end the skeptics won.  >:D
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 08:35:47 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9283
  • Country: 00
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2017, 09:43:46 pm »
little brainfood/snack ;)
why is greenland called greenland ?

We don't know.

And you're claiming it's because it was sooooo green and leafy when they arrived then you're making a huge ASSumption.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9283
  • Country: 00
Very few people can actually shut the hell up and let the experts (who are much smarter about the topic) do the testing, experimenting and arguing for us. Science continues to improve and data sets are getting larger. What we think we know today may be different tomorrow.

Yep. It's interesting that very few people would claim to be able to turn a bucket of sand into a cellphone or perform rocket surgery but everybody is a climate expert.

(all you need is ten minutes watching FOX news then go outside in the garden and say "yup!")

 

Offline Kilrah

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1642
  • Country: ch
You generally get two sides of the camp, either people believe that science has proven everything about climate change is real and the world is going to end or it's all complete horse shit and the Greenies need to quit it.

Very few people can actually shut the hell up and let the experts (who are much smarter about the topic) do the testing, experimenting and arguing for us.

That's because the government and media constantly bash that into people's heads so hard that they're basically forced to have an opinion about it. You can't not have an opinion on something everybody talks about everyday.
 

Offline AF6LJ

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2894
  • Country: us
Re: AGW, let's find out if there's 97% agreement among engineers
« Reply #40 on: May 07, 2017, 10:32:53 pm »
This was a ridiculous poll. Only giving the option of "absolutely certain", and "I smell bullshit"
The IPCC themselves put AGW generally as "very likely", which if you bother to read the report footnotes (most people don't), "very likely" has a specific meaning which is >=90%.
It does not say "virtually certain" which means >=99%.

Warning, if this thread tuns into a mess it will be shut down.
You can always tell what the agenda of the pollster is by how they ask their questions.
Sue AF6LJ
Test Equipment Addict, And Proud Of It.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kilrah

Offline X

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • Country: 00
    • This is where you end up when you die...
Agenda or otherwise, arguing about global warming seems pointless when so much pollution and waste is being scattered all over the place thanks to rubbish like planned obsolescence, and political rubbish like RoHS, banning incandescent light globes, and similar kinds of "green" "eco" junk policies implemented in spite of insufficient evidence/research supporting it.

Global warming and climate change is really the last thing to worry about. Not many people get into fights over the situation regarding environmental pollution, but they have a barney over a bunch of cow burps and electric farts.

I'm even "greener" than the greenies, but being "green" also involves being sensible and practical.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 11:07:38 pm by X »
 

Offline mleyden

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 14
  • Country: ie
There is practically no chance it's a mass extinction event. At least in any time frame that would concern us, our children, or our children's children.
Even the most dire model predictions are not mass extinction.

This is most likely true, however there could be very rapid changes in environment that will have huge societal effects. For example, the Gulf Stream could alter its course, plunging Northern Western Europe into very cold, Canadian style winters - stuff we are not prepared for. Plankton seed clouds over the Atlantic (https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/blooming-phytoplankton-seed-clouds-southern-ocean) and they could move / disappear as the water gets less saline due to the melting ice. Basically, it is such a complex, inter-dependent system, we don't quite know what will happen! Also there is much evidence to suggest that a lot of immigration into Europe / unrest in Middle East / North Africa is partially caused by drought.
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4027
  • Country: nl
Also there is much evidence to suggest that a lot of immigration into Europe / unrest in Middle East / North Africa is partially caused by drought.

There's even greater evidence that it's caused by population growth and the resulting fossil water depletion and fragile economies. Once again, climate change is a drop in the pond compared to other ways we have of depleting our environment.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 04:07:49 am by Marco »
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3574
  • Country: us
Also there is much evidence to suggest that a lot of immigration into Europe / unrest in Middle East / North Africa is partially caused by drought.

There's even greater evidence that it's caused by population growth and the resulting fossil water depletion. Once again, climate change is a drop in the pond compared to other ways we have of depleting our environment.

The difference is that climate change is global. It is also irreversible on any human time scale (though the same can be said about fossil water depletion).

Of course overpopulation is the root problem.  For an ex 1980s punk rock fan like me and given the current political climate, it brings to mind this song...

 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4027
  • Country: nl
The difference is that climate change is global.

Climate change is also a constant, a big rock can fall from the sky, big rifts on the earth crust can tear open ... shit happens.

If we create a global population load and agricultural/distribution system which absolutely requires a near constant climate to not face systemic collapse then we'll face systemic collapse sooner or later. Population growth is making the human world far too fragile.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3574
  • Country: us

Climate change is also a constant, a big rock can fall from the sky, big rifts on the earth crust can tear open ... shit happens.

If we create a global population load and agricultural/distribution system which absolutely requires a near constant climate to not face systemic collapse then we'll face systemic collapse sooner or later. Population growth is making the human world far too fragile.

But the rate of change is important.  Biological systems (including humans and the species we depend on) can easily adapt to the slower rate changes in atmospheric CO2 and temperature (warmer or cooler) of the sort which have occurred over the past 50 million years or so. But if you accept the current models of what will result if current trends in temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels continue then it is not at all clear fast enough adaptation will be possible.  And of course depending on the end point for temperature and CO2 level rise, it's conceivable that if those trends continued the earth would no longer have an environment compatible with large mammalian life.  Even if one feels that the probability of that outcome is low, it seems rational to do what's possible to make it even lower.

But, it's very difficult for humans to think in those sorts of timescales and even harder to make sacrifices in the present that may have a beneficial impact in the distant future.  So, regardless of any political outcomes or societal changes, I'm fairly certain we'll just continue our current fossilized sunlight binging until the last drop of affordable oil and last shovel full of affordable coal is burned.  Party on Garth  ???
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4027
  • Country: nl
The theories about the precedent of the speed of change are extremely shaky, they had to make the MWP/LIA disappear just to make it work for historical time ... and the evidence we have for everything else is far from conclusive (also it provides evidence that CO2 change can lag temperature change by thousands of years, suggesting there are much bigger forces at play).
« Last Edit: May 08, 2017, 05:04:15 am by Marco »
 

Offline German_EE

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2069
  • Country: de
I like to think that there are some intelligent people on this board, with that in mind it's interesting to see that so far the three options are about equal.

I voted 'something fishy'

Why?

Firstly, although I have seen the evidence of global warming, I am not 100% certain that mankind is the source. Secondly, we know that there has been a warm Earth in the past, and our climate may therefore be cyclical in nature.
Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.

Warren Buffett
 

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1531
  • Country: pl
Population growth is making the human world far too fragile.

And there's more:

int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf