Politics Climate Change Paradox

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    157

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Jul 30, 2018
7,233
9,116
AFL Club
Fremantle
We don't know. Its a theory like so many others.
If I had to guess I'd be looking more at the geology and thermodynamics for answers. Many planets have CO2 atmospeheres and show no signs of those temperatures so i'd guess it is likely something else causing the temps. From memory its a similar temp to Mercury and could be explained by gravitational mass, internal geology, surface morphology etc. For instance does it have graphite volcanoes belching carbon ? Carbonate rich ? Could be 1000 reasons. Being much closer to the gravitational effect and strain caused by the mass of the sun makes another 1000 theories possible. I don't think the probes we've sent provide that many answers yet. We have a theory HERE that increased CO2 leads to increased temps but it may be the complete opposite. Chicken or the egg stuff we cannot prove either way yet. Did proximity heat lead to a CO2 atmosphere ? which led to the high density ? which then leads back to increased heat ? or some sort of runaway greenhouse effect ? Any number of possibilities. Nobody can answer it with conclusive evidence.

Regardless, it isn't easy therefore to explain how cold Mars is with a similar CO2 rich atmosphere, even when taking distance into account. There are some seriously bizarre places in our solar system, with processes we would have never guessed and our theories often fail miserably to explain. What we have learnt though is that most theories based upon our planet cannot be applied elsewhere with much confidence.

I imagine anyone claiming the temps on Venus are some sort of "proof" of anything are just kidding themselves (and others).
Venus is further from the sun than Mercury and hotter than Mercury, even the side of Mercury that is tidally locked to the Sun. How is that possible using your caveats?

Why does Mars not get as cold as the moon?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bollox

Show Pony
Jun 29, 2006
15,182
8,297
Nthn Beaches
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
BBGFC and LRGC
:rolleyes:
Didn't I just explain it could be one of 1000 reasons ?
Didn't I just explain WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE.

What are u trying to fish for ?
Do you want me to pretend it can only be one reason ?...because not even those who study that planet can be sure.
We are dealing with theory not fact. I hope you arnt about to argue something silly.
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Jul 30, 2018
7,233
9,116
AFL Club
Fremantle
:rolleyes:
Didn't I just explain it could be one of 1000 reasons ?
Didn't I just explain WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE.

What are u trying to fish for ?
Do you want me to pretend it can only be one reason ?...because not even those who study that planet can be sure.
We are dealing with theory not fact. I hope you arnt about to argue something silly.
We don’t know anything for sure. Is petroleum abiotic or biotic in origin?
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Jul 30, 2018
7,233
9,116
AFL Club
Fremantle
Likely both. We once thought it was purely biotic. More recent work even points to it being renewable.
What is the purpose of this quiz ?
Hurry it along....its a footy forum. We're here for fun.
Renewable to what degree? Any Ghawar fields of abiotic origin?

The purpose of the question is to show that scientific uncertainty does not mean nothing in science is certain to within a reasonable degree. We don’t know for sure whether the K-Pg extinction was caused by the Chicxulub impactor or the Deccan traps, but the science for both theories is sound, and the fact there is lingering uncertainty does not mean they don’t follow the scientific method, as mouncey2franklin wishes to imply re climate science.
 

mouncey2franklin

Club Legend
Jun 16, 2018
1,930
2,865
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Renewable to what degree? Any Ghawar fields of abiotic origin?

The purpose of the question is to show that scientific uncertainty does not mean nothing in science is certain to within a reasonable degree. We don’t know for sure whether the K-Pg extinction was caused by the Chicxulub impactor or the Deccan traps, but the science for both theories is sound, and the fact there is lingering uncertainty does not mean they don’t follow the scientific method, as mouncey2franklin wishes to imply re climate science.
Does the scientific method rely on majority opinion? Yes or no.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fat Yak

Club Legend
Oct 4, 2017
1,868
2,543
AFL Club
Fremantle
Over the last 5 years we have allowed our LPG Autogas industry to evolve into the red-haired stepchild of the major retailing chains and take on a pariah image.

Last winter in Melbourne warnings were issued regarding high levels of polluting particulates in the air quality. The wearing of face masks is becoming more and more common as both Melbourne and Sydney move into mega-city status. Much of Air Pollution is directly attributable to vehicle emission.

 

Socrates2

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 11, 2015
6,330
7,066
AFL Club
Richmond
What sort of thread has 45% of people saying don't act now on climate change in their poll?? Is this some right wing fake news or bigfooty.GMAB . It's an anti-science redneck wonderland on this thread, it's disgusting.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
13,171
8,803
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Regardless, it isn't easy therefore to explain how cold Mars is with a similar CO2 rich atmosphere, even when taking distance into account.
CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas on Earth. Water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) are the primary greenhouse gases. While there is water vapour in Mars' atmosphere, it is at very low levels compared to the quantities experienced here on Earth.

While Mars' atmospheric composition is primarily carbon dioxide-based, it also has a much thinner atmosphere, with an atmospheric volume less than 1% of Earth's.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
13,171
8,803
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
So why do I keep hearing about a 'scientific consensus'?
A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus.

The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that Anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon.
  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
  • NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
  • The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
  • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
  • UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Just to name a few.

Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence

No national or international scientific body has rejected anthropogenic global warming.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
13,171
8,803
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Roylion

If science is not about popular opinion then why does it matter that major scientific bodies (funded by governments who collect taxes) all agree with each other?
For anyone trying to take a scientific approach to knowledge about the world, we must rely heavily upon experts, or those who are more knowledgable than we are. There is no choice – there is simply too much specialized scientific knowledge for anyone to be an expert in everything, or even a significant portion of scientific disciplines.

Further, being an educated layperson is usually not enough to form your own opinions on specific scientific questions. Forming a reliable opinion often requires a level of detailed knowledge that only an expert in the field can obtain. Even experts can be wrong, of course, and since lay opinions are likely to span all possibilities, some are bound to be correct. Experts, however, are far more likely to have an opinion that accurately reflects the evidence and to understand how to incorporate new evidence as it comes in.

Proper scientific authority does not rely in any individual. Individuals are quirky and may have biases and influences that lead them astray.

Scientific authority, rather, lies in the consensus of scientific opinion. When many experts look at the data and come to the same conclusion, it is more likely to be accurate than anomalous. A consensus of many experts is simply more reliable than the quirky opinions of a single expert.

It should be therefore the consensus of opinion that determines what goes in the science textbooks, what is taught is science classrooms, how applied sciences are regulated, and how society spends its resources.
 

its free real estate

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Jul 30, 2018
7,233
9,116
AFL Club
Fremantle
Consensus opinion is insufficient. What matters is whether the theory parsimoniously derives from the base principles and whether evidence / experiments fit the theory. Climate science clears both bars.
 

mouncey2franklin

Club Legend
Jun 16, 2018
1,930
2,865
AFL Club
North Melbourne
For anyone trying to take a scientific approach to knowledge about the world, we must rely heavily upon experts, or those who are more knowledgable than we are.
That doesn't sound at all like a scientific approach, that sounds like a religious and/or dogmatic approach.

'We have to trust the experts' is an obvious and overt appeal to authority.

This is antithetical to the scientific method.

It becomes more clear with every passing year that 'science' as parroted by the masses is very different to the scientific method.
 
Top Bottom