Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The science then didn't support it much like the science now does not support man-made GW.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where do you get this from?

The extra CO2 in the atmosphere adds a known forcing equivalent of 1.6W/m2 over the entire surface of the Earth. It's simple and incredibly well understood science. Where do you think this heat is going? It's not disappearing up Gore's proverbial...

What exact science doesn't support man-made GW? The best science we have does indeed support it. Our best estimates of the ranges of the known factors indicates a 0.5 to 2.0W/m2 forcing, with both the low and the high much less likely than the average.

I'm interested to hear what science doesn't support it and what best estimate YOU can make from our current knowledge.

[hitch1978]

I find it fascinating that some people can make claims against the scientific evidence and believe them as fact, or refute all the evidence and intelligent, considered opinion just because it 'isn't prozen', then in another thread chastise someone else for the same route of logic on another topic.

I think we all know what I mean.

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the last two reports. C02 levels have increased dramatically (at a greater rate then anyone would have projected) yet the IPCC's own projections for temperature have decreased dramatically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source please.

[/ QUOTE ]

The IPCC. In 2001 they projected 2100 temperatures would be 2.4-10.8C higher. In 2006 the projections are now 1.1-6.4C higher. In the meantime we have had China and India grow to the point China is going to pass the USA as the largest source of CO2 within the next 10 years.

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested to hear what science doesn't support it and what best estimate YOU can make from our current knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best estimate I can make is that there is evidence for some degree of GW but no evidence that it is cause my human actions.

I could argue against the Co2 vs temperature correlation but I'm trying to multi-table and it is too hard to have an intelligent debate.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless you're seriously claiming the black death or last ice age has some systematic adverse effect on us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I already said it's "some", not "all".

[/ QUOTE ]
?????

Some people lose with AA vs 72 all-in preflop but so what.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that disasters CAN negatively affect future generations. Not that EVERY disaster negatively affects EVERY future generation. This does not equate to me "claiming the black death or last ice age has some systematic adverse effect on us".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"future generations" does not have to mean "all future generations". Those who live through it might be future generations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh you think by future generations I mean those that live through the calamity. I don't, I mean those that live after the calamity. The longer afterwards the more our (that's those who live through it) calamity becomes a footnote in history.

[/ QUOTE ]
So there's a bit of semantic misunderstanding going on. When pokervintage claimed that Al Gore cares about future generations I believe he was including those who would live through climate change. Yes of course the longer afterwards the less relevant it will become,
generally speaking, but that doesn't mean a disaster wont negatively affect people living 500 years afterwards even if it doesn't affect those living 20,000 years later. That's why I'm saying caring about "future generations" doesn't have to mean caring about ALL future generations even if it doesn't include those who lived through it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless you're seriously claiming the black death or last ice age has some systematic adverse effect on us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I already said it's "some", not "all".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


?????

Some people lose with AA vs 72 all-in preflop but so what.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm saying that disasters CAN negatively affect future generations. Not that EVERY disaster negatively affects EVERY future generation. This does not equate to me "claiming the black death or last ice age has some systematic adverse effect on us".

[/ QUOTE ]
well unless you're saying that climate change in the 21st and 22nd centuries has an expected negative affect on people living the year 20,000 then it can't be because of them that we care about climate change. I see from the following that we actually agree so let let it go.

[ QUOTE ]
So there's a bit of semantic misunderstanding going on. When pokervintage claimed that Al Gore cares about future generations I believe he was including those who would live through climate change. Yes of course the longer afterwards the less relevant it will become,
generally speaking, but that doesn't mean a disaster wont negatively affect people living 500 years afterwards even if it doesn't affect those living 20,000 years later.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thank the lord for that, that's what I've been saying. Notice how easy it is to get fixated on the minute fraction of future generations who happen to be close to us - which was the point I made in the first place. It makes not a jot of difference to the (far!!!) future generations and is possible beneficial to them, but it doesn't matter because we don't care a jot about them - the jots cancel out.

Recall that my response was about the world going down the gutter and I was agreeing with pokervintage. My response was about the egotism of people who think they and the (near!!!!) future are especially important in the scheme of things (and a slight abuse of language).

chez

[foal]

I see. That was very "wtf" for me. But I think I loosely agree with you now that I understand what you mean. Issues of human extinction would be an exception.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you're seriously claiming the black death or last ice age has some systematic adverse effect on us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody will make such a claim, because we can't know what the effects of the black death are on us. In order to identify those effects, we'd have to have some basis for comparison - a universe in which the BD never happened. And it's very possible that the people in said hypothetical universe would be much happier or much further along technologically, in which case the plague would be having a real adverse effect on us today (and given the cumulative nature of human progress, probably for millenia to come).

Furthermore, caring about people of the current generation doesn't indicate any lack of concern for people of the far future. We have a greater impact on the people who will live in our own time, so it's logical for us to put our best efforts into helping them. Presumably they will help the next generations, and those will help the next generations, and so on, and our contributions will have a positive effect on the people of the far future - a compound effect, ideally. We also care more when we have a concrete example of something to identify with - we're human, and the year 2500 is so abstract we have trouble conceiving it. Making the present better is the only way we know of making the future better.

Need can drive innovation, but in the modern world I think progress is fastest in a healthy, peaceful society. This is a complex issue and a simplification like "disaster good, peace bad" isn't justified. Also, chaos and destruction fundamentally limit resources and prevent organized collaboration, so if anything it's the other way around.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I see. That was very "wtf" for me. But I think I loosely agree with you now that I understand what you mean. Issues of human extinction would be an exception.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely except then there wouldn't be any future generations so I suppose its still the case that its not going to affect the people who make up the future generations very much [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Making the present better is the only way we know of making the future better

[/ QUOTE ]
don't want to go through all the rest again but I can't see why you believe this to be true. It's an extreme form of hedonism that even I can't buy though I'd like to.

[ QUOTE ]
Need can drive innovation, but in the modern world I think progress is fastest in a healthy, peaceful society. This is a complex issue and a simplification like "disaster good, peace bad" isn't justified. Also, chaos and destruction fundamentally limit resources and prevent organized collaboration, so if anything it's the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. If there's the sort of climate change being envisaged then it will drive massive technological innovation far faster than anything normal.

chez