• Member Statistics

    15,529
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    davisinstruments
    Newest Member
    davisinstruments
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
Jonger

Climate Change Banter

Recommended Posts

It is NOT a free market when government subsidies,( i.e your tax dollars) are assisting energy companies with renewables. All these "BIG OIL" companies which are demonized want to do is make money. That is all they care about and this is what they should care about. If  government subsidies help them make money they will develop renewables and you and I will pay the price....higher energy costs. If we decarbonize our energy sources it will be more expensive and punishing for the middle class and downright evil for the poor. The BIG OIL companies still make tons of money. Its the middle class scleps like you and I that foot the bill and 3rd world nations that suffer the most. This is all over a trace gas that has very little influence on the climate. This will go down as the biggest scam in the 21st century which ultimately will lead to more worldwide poverty and with that environmental destruction!!! Ever see the treeless country of Haiti??  Check out google earth sometime...this once was an island full of tropical rainforests....just look at Dominican republic which is not as poor they still have some tropical forests left.   Such fools...  

There will be large die-offs due to climate change, probably a total wipeout of the third world as organized countries and mass-migration from the tropics to northern countries. Nature will eliminate the problem for us if we choose not to act. You decide what you want your legacy to be.

 

You can't escape that conclusion, you can either force people to be responsible and recouple your loss, or let them be victims of our lifestyle over the past 150 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be large die-offs due to climate change, probably a total wipeout of the third world as organized countries and mass-migration from the tropics to northern countries. Nature will eliminate the problem for us if we choose not to act. You decide what you want your legacy to be.

 

You can't escape that conclusion, you can either force people to be responsible and recouple your loss, or let them be victims of our lifestyle over the past 150 years.

 

You have gotten very drunk on the cool aide I see. wow. Unfortunately most posters on this forum know very little about radiative transfer and how the atmosphere really works. I feel sorry for you. The climate will change....it ALWAYS changes...warming....cooling...warming etc. CO2 is a small component of this system...maybe 1% at best. we can get to 600 ppm and there will be no significant changes to our climate. no doubt in my mind. the ice core data is very clear...temps warm CO2 goes up and vice versa in an almost one-to-one correlation which clearly illustrates that CO2 passively follows the climate system. The notion that it is the thermostat is ludicrous and shame on the PHD climate "scientists" who are pushing for this....follow the grant money my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no doubt in your mind?  Well that settles it.  Lets go boys, lets pack up science and go home.  Blizzard1024 has got this.

We seem to go down this path once a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a recent video from Alley on CO2's role in past climates. This "minor" gas has kept the earth's climate well suited for life.

 

http://climatestate.com/2015/07/31/richard-alley-4-6-billion-years-of-earths-climate-history-the-role-of-co2/

It's just a matter of figuring out if the carrying capacity of the Earth is really 8 billion people and if it is lower during the Greenhouse Earth mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the extreme alarmists contributed to the unraveling of the scientific debate over climate change a long time ago. We mostly are observers of extremists (both alarmists and deniers) which dominate the blogs/media/etc. A denier isn't interested in 3.71 W/Mor what a time of observation (TOBS) adjustment is and alarmists aren't interested in ECS = F2xCO2 ⨯ ΔT / (ΔF-ΔQ) or what the term natural variability means.

 

Reading the actual literature is really the only way at this point.

I bet my life's savings that my current position would be considered conservative or denier-esque in 2050. The deniers outnumber the alarmists 3:1, to say otherwise would a blatant lie. Alarmism is not why we are in our predicament, fossil fuels were simply the cheapest source of energy. If anything, the only way to overcome an economy-based incentive is to use an emotional methodology or religion-like structure. You can see how radicalism is now rampant in the world. ISIS doesn't care about the economy.

 

We aren't doing enough. The reason why I ratchet it up because I know we don't have much time left. Sitting around debating the science on a settled topic is useless. I don't see anyone debating the lighter nuance of climate science such as the range of ECS. The best we could get was anywhere between 1.5-3.5C warming per doubling. However, this range guarantees a need for universal concern and action no matter what side of the aisle you stand. I hope to see this whole situation transition into a less taboo environment.

 

20 years later, supporting a fossil fuel driven economy will be equivalent to asserting that smoking is good for your health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet my life's savings that my current position would be considered conservative or denier-esque in 2050. The deniers outnumber the alarmists 3:1, to say otherwise would a blatant lie. Alarmism is not why we are in our predicament, fossil fuels were simply the cheapest source of energy.

 

We aren't doing enough. The reason why I ratchet it up because I know we don't have much time left. Sitting around debating the science on a settled topic is useless. I don't see anyone debating the lighter nuance of climate science such as the range of ECS. The best we could get was anywhere between 1.5-3.5C warming per doubling. However, this range guarantees a need for universal concern and action no matter what side of the aisle you stand. I hope to see this whole situation transition into a less taboo environment.

 

20 years later, supporting a fossil fuel driven economy will be equivalent to asserting that smoking is good for your health.

 

This entire post is based on pure conjecture and zero facts.

 

Thank you for at least keeping it in the banter thread this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire post is based on pure conjecture and zero facts.

 

Thank you for at least keeping it in the banter thread this time.

You are still a troll and nothing will change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are still a troll and nothing will change that.

 

 

Opinion presented as fact...you are very consistent at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion presented as fact...you are very consistent at least.

 

troll

One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing out your posts have no facts or science in them isn't trolling.

So fossil fuels were not the cheapest source of energy in the last 20 years? I think you are trying to convince yourself otherwise, you are emotionally weak and behind the times intellectually. Classic GenX archetype. 

 

Figured you would want to break free of generational stereotypes. I would appreciate this right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So fossil fuels were not the cheapest source of energy in the last 20 years?

 

That wasn't the premise of your posts.

 

Of course they are. But fossil fuels being the cheapest source of energy isn't the main reason for people viewing your posts as alarmist and without science. The type of predicament you claim we are in is not supported by facts. Stating fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy doesn't make your argument true and it's not a fact that is supportive of your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So fossil fuels were not the cheapest source of energy in the last 20 years? I think you are trying to convince yourself otherwise, you are emotionally weak and behind the times intellectually. Classic GenX archetype. 

 

Figured you would want to break free of generational stereotypes. I would appreciate this right now.

 

 

You really like to pile on the conjecture...nice edit to add this on to the original non-bolded part.

 

It only makes your lack of scientific literacy more apparent to anyone reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really like to pile on the conjecture...nice edit to add this on to the original non-bolded part.

 

It only makes your lack of scientific literacy more apparent to anyone reading.

In the end, you have a clear preference for rationalism vs subjectivity and the human experience. That is the only thing of value I can gather from this exchange. As an individual, you should aim to be rational while also considering the emotional fallout of your actions. It's called emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

 

As you mentioned previously, the powers that be are governed by two extremes (deniers vs alarmism). I am just saying that I am not an alarmist, but I am just critically reacting to the data that is coming in. I don't think you monitor the climate system in real time and are capable of identifying these warning signals due to the worst form of tunnel vision. It is not good to react after the fact with a tombstone mentality, especially considering the slow-burn hysteresis dynamics of climate change.

 

Hysteresis.png

 

 

So I see the blame game and finger pointing are going strong here. As a "boomer" I was subjected to the liberal rant at college in the mid '60's. Civil rights, female lib, Vietnam for those who forgot. It seems to me that what is lacking now is the same as back then: critical thinking.

The arguments for/against most ideas are based on emotions rather than facts. To paraphrase a woman from CA, we have to try it to see what it will be like. A little critical thinking and some decision trees would have helped tremendously. But those of us that did so were pooh-poohed as not caring.

 

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.

Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, you have a clear preference for rationalism vs subjectivity and the human experience. That is the only thing of value I can gather from this exchange. As an individual, you should aim to be rational while also considering the emotional fallout of your actions. It's called emotional intelligence and critical thinking.

 

As you mentioned previously, the powers that be are governed by two extremes (deniers vs alarmism). I am just saying that I am not an alarmist, but I am just critically reacting to the data that is coming in. I don't think you monitor the climate system in real time and are capable of identifying these warning signals due to the worst form of tunnel vision. It is not good to react after the fact with a tombstone mentality, especially considering the slow-burn hysteresis dynamics of climate change.

 

 

 

Climate change is a science. If you want to talk about it in an emotional way, then perhaps you should join the political side of it...and become a lobbyist or join an advocacy group. Emotion isn't going to help you understand the science better. It will only cloud your judgement.

 

It is evident from your posts that you don't read the literature. Or at least read it in depth...perhaps only a few abstracts or a stray paper or two. I am not trying to be intentionally insulting when I say this, but it is something you should improve on if you want to discuss the science in a comprehensive manner.

 

Claiming I don't monitor the climate system "in real time" and you do as evidence of your superior knowledge on the subject comes across as thoroughly misinformed. There is nothing you could possibility gain from "real time" monitoring of the climate system as opposed to a slight delay that would give you any extra knowledge on the topics that matter in climate change such as attribution, climate sensitivity and seal level rise. It is far important to stay current on the literature that gets published than worry about what a weatherbell map says the current global temperature is for December. It is a much better use of your time to read 10 papers on how GHCN data is calculated and how it gets adjusted and what hadcrut4 does different from GISS or NCDC and why the adjustments are different on each dataset....or 10 papers on how ENSO affects the heat distribution of the globe and why there are residuals in Atlantic and NW Pacific long after an El Nino is over....or you could spend 10 hours looking at weatherbell global temperature maps instead or GFS runs with lots of red shades on the arctic to post on here. But if you do the former, you'll be a much better informed poster and have ability to discuss the topics in here scientifically.

 

Whether you have the interest to do that or not, I'm not sure. Hopefully you'll find the wherewithal to immerse yourself in the literature if you care about knowledge of climate change as much as you say you do. If you care more about emotional response, then go the advocacy route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is a science. If you want to talk about it in an emotional way, then perhaps you should join the political side of it...and become a lobbyist or join an advocacy group. Emotion isn't going to help you understand the science better. It will only cloud your judgement.

 

It is evident from your posts that you don't read the literature. Or at least read it in depth...perhaps only a few abstracts or a stray paper or two. I am not trying to be intentionally insulting when I say this, but it is something you should improve on if you want to discuss the science in a comprehensive manner.

 

Claiming I don't monitor the climate system "in real time" and you do as evidence of your superior knowledge on the subject comes across as thoroughly misinformed. There is nothing you could possibility gain from "real time" monitoring of the climate system as opposed to a slight delay that would give you any extra knowledge on the topics that matter in climate change such as attribution, climate sensitivity and seal level rise. It is far important to stay current on the literature that gets published than worry about what a weatherbell map says the current global temperature is for December. It is a much better use of your time to read 10 papers on how GHCN data is calculated and how it gets adjusted and what hadcrut4 does different from GISS or NCDC and why the adjustments are different on each dataset....or 10 papers on how ENSO affects the heat distribution of the globe and why there are residuals in Atlantic and NW Pacific long after an El Nino is over....or you could spend 10 hours looking at weatherbell global temperature maps instead or GFS runs with lots of red shades on the arctic to post on here. But if you do the former, you'll be a much better informed poster and have ability to discuss the topics in here scientifically.

 

Whether you have the interest to do that or not, I'm not sure. Hopefully you'll find the wherewithal to immerse yourself in the literature if you care about knowledge of climate change as much as you say you do. If you care more about emotional response, then go the advocacy route.

All of the above is relevant but it is simply immoral (or unethical?) to act as if the science is not settled in a way we care about (cause and effects upon the human experience). Trying to say 1+1 thus alarmism is irrelevant doesn't really serve any purpose and you claim this forum is science based but climate change is not a science-based issue anymore. It's a core problem that intersects every aspect of our lives from cradle to grave.

 

Whether you intended or not, you have casted doubt on the necessity of climate change policy and activism while giving deniers freedom to continue their lifestyle and to spread disinformation.

 

I am just here to understand the nature of climate denial, and the emotional rejection of the data. I can meet deniers in the middle and they should voice their concerns especially related to carbon taxes and middle class dynamics. I share these concerns and don't want a global oligarchy in the first world. I just know that AGW is real and a strong response is needed.

 

As far as I am concerned, I am well versed on the science of greenhouse warming as well and have cited papers many times before on here. Only in the last 3 years have we become aware of climate tipping points as a real possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The postcautionary principle is a principle of de facto environmental management formulated by John Paull in 2007.[1] It is suggested that the postcautionary principle, as the antithesis of the precautionary principle, has guided environmental management, as it is actually practised.

 

Taking the Rio 1982 formulation of the precautionary principle as a guide, the postcautionary principle has been stated as follows: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, the lack of full scientific certainty shall be used as a reason for not implementing cost-effective measures until after the environmental degradation has actually occurred" [1].

 

Examples of this principle include: the extinction of the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger), which was, after decades of government bounty hunting (starting in 1888), declared a protected species on 10 July 1936 by the Fauna Board of Tasmania, only weeks before the last one died in captivity (on 7 September 1936); the 2003 Forestry Tasmania burning of Tasmania's largest tree El Grande,[2] a tree protected under legislation, and its subsequent demise, after which "new standard operating procedures" were implemented;[3] and seven months after Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared without trace, the airline introduced a monitoring system where the onboard communication system will issue an electronic ping every few minutes[4]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't the premise of your posts.

 

Of course they are. But fossil fuels being the cheapest source of energy isn't the main reason for people viewing your posts as alarmist and without science. The type of predicament you claim we are in is not supported by facts. Stating fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy doesn't make your argument true and it's not a fact that is supportive of your argument.

You are disagreeing with the findings of the IPCC as my views are synonymous with that line of thinking. That we have an emergent climate crisis that requires a response. Unfortunately, the IPCC does a bad job of extrapolating on outcomes and to them, it's just a number with no emotional meaning or backstory.

 

A 3.5C rise by 2100 guarantees a global extinction level in the range of 25-50% when you factor in human land use and habitat restriction/movement. That temperature rise is like going from Ice Age to Eemian Interglacial in 150 years but from a much warmer state. That's nutty and unprecedented, not to mention unacceptable.

 

 

 

Current projections[edit]

The scientific consensus in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is that

"Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."

"There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5 °C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 °C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe."

 

Your idea of a fact must be something that has already 'concretely' happened. The true facts that are relevant reside in the fast and slow feedback processes. Albedo decrease/Arctic tipping points/GHG saturation and Ocean Heat Content/Water Vapor increase are the hard facts that guarantee the future that to you, appears to be hyperbolic and not supported by fact. What you say is true but it is disingenuous and not posted in good faith.

 

The only way to avoid said outcomes is to act in a precautionary manner before the "facts" take effect. Not to mention, the warming process is slow yet non-linear occuring over a extended human lifetime. It is perfectly wired to kill us. In the future, assuming we survive, people will call this time the 'Carbon Implosion Era' or something noteworthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least I tried.

Rationalizing ignorance of the literature isn't getting you any closer to being informed.

I'll disengage now since it will just be talking in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AH, your previous post to that one was very hyperbolic  A record lock after 6 hours?  Really?  

I think people like you do more harm than good.  And as such, reading your exaggerated posts that have no validity really annoy me and go against the the purpose of this forum (to discus scientific information - not baseless speculation).  I've conceded that the mobs are not going to remove you, but the least you can do is confine this type of posting to the banter thread where I can avoid it.

 

Your posts add nothing.  If you want to leave data, then please do.  But can you please spare us the sky is falling routine?  At best your preaching to the choir but at worst you're frustrating and annoying the choir.

Well said. :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least I tried.

Rationalizing ignorance of the literature isn't getting you any closer to being informed.

I'll disengage now since it will just be talking in circles.

It's mostly on your end, it's staring you in the face and you fail to acknowledge basic facts. Rather you assume my argument does not imply anything because of my reputation.This is about as ignorant and irrational as one can be.

 

Do we have a problem? Yes

 

Does the literature tell us if we have a problem verbatim? No, each paper is a small piece of the puzzle and individually authored by multiple sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

CO2 impact on global warming underestimated

 

 The rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels would have more catastrophic impact on the climate than currently estimated, suggests new research, reports IANS. The researchers found that climates on Earth may be more sensitive to rise in CO2 levels than was previously thought.

The new data suggests that past predictions significantly underestimate the impact of greenhouse warming and that Earth’s climate may be more sensitive to increased carbon dioxide than was once thought, said one of the researchers Tim Lowenstein, professor at  Binghamton University in New York.

The study examined nahcolite crystals found in Green River Formation in Colorado, US.  The crystals were formed 50 million years ago during a hothouse climate. They found that CO2 levels during this time may have been as low as 680 parts per million (ppm), nearly half the 1,125 ppm predicted by previous experiments.

“The significance of this is that CO2 50 million years ago may not have been as high as we once thought it was, but the climate back then was significantly warmer than it is today,” Lowenstein explained.

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere today have reached 400 ppm. According to current projections, doubling the CO2 will result in a rise in the global average temperature of three degrees Centigrade.

This new research suggests that the effects of CO2 on global warming may be underestimated. “These are direct chemical measurements that are based on equilibrium thermodynamics,” Lowenstein said.  “These are direct laboratory experiments, so I think they are really reliable,” he noted. The findings appeared in the journal Geology.

http://www.freepressjournal.in/co2-impact-on-global-warming-underestimated/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's mostly on your end, it's staring you in the face and you fail to acknowledge basic facts. Rather you assume my argument does not anything because of my reputation.This is about as ignorant and irrational as one can be.

 

Do we have a problem? Yes

 

Does the literature tell us if we have a problem? No, each paper is a small piece of the puzzle.

 

I never claimed there is no problem. That's a nice red herring if I ever saw one.

 

 

Spouting a bunch of hyperbole and telling someone that they aren't emotional enough to understand the problem we have is all I need to see that proves you aren't interested in the science or getting it right. Instead, you only seem to be interested telling other people how bad it is and using hyperbole and conjecture to get your point across.

 

 

At any rate, I just broke my own rule in saying I was done engaging with you. If you ever are interested in discussing actual climate science in a serious manner, then you'd go a long way toward improving your credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, this applies to a nest crapper - those who feel they must protect forms of nest crapping as in planetary nest crappers when exhibited. They carry a superior form "in the name of nest crapping" and have free reign ad all of them here ad everywhere need to be challenged.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, this applies to a nest crapper - those who feel they must protect forms of nest crapping as in planetary nest crappers when exhibited. They carry a superior form "in the name of nest crapping" and have free reign ad all of them here ad everywhere need to be challenged.   

Agreed on all grounds. All you see is an endless pattern of ad hominem attacks in a endless cycle. This forum is an echo chamber for skeptics and deniers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I've always found it pretty funny how quickly extreme alarmists stoop to the levels of deniers...both when it comes to anti-science histrionics and ad hominem arguments.

 

You would think they would try and avoid the very traits that they condemn.

 

 

This forum has a few good posters and that is where the serious debate on important aspects of climate change usually lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.