Climate Science Is Not Settled

[Moonbeam]

:ninja:

Ahh, it's as I thought... :biggrin::thumbsup:

He actually gave you far more credit than you deserve. He's convinced you're stupid rather than incapable of reasoning even though you may have adequate IQ. He believes you could see if you wanted to. He is frightened by the thought that you are hopeless and not capable of rational thought. He keeps throwing a rope into o the air hoping to reach the sky if it will just catch on something.

 

[Attic]

Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss.
-George Orwell


The science is not settled on man's effect on the climate. It is known that our behavior effects the environment around us:
-The extent of which is obviously unknown
-The extent of which obviously a negative to the overall equilibrium of the earths climate


It's a fair article.

There is the world as it is and the world as we'd like it to be. Fortunately this guy is focused on the world as it is, understanding that fully is where the real change can leapfrog from. Real change comes from accepting the way things are, more debate, not less should open up points of leverage for folks to push off in the right direction on how to handle mans negative effect on the earth.


I don't think China gives a fuck though.

 

[Jaskalas]

No it is only a relative threat today compared to the more devastating destruction in the next decades. By relative I mean more than subtle by not necessarily black or white destruction but just influencing shit.

2009: President 'has four years to save Earth'

"Saving" the Earth is past due, if we're to listen to the foremost scientists on the subject. So why would you dismiss the imminent nature of the crisis? Perhaps you're as much a skeptic as me, without even knowing it.

The efforts I'm willing to support with natural gas, thorium, solar, and fusion will take decades to produce. In the meantime I'm perfectly happy with business as usual without resorting to the EPA forcing draconian measures to shut coal plants. It's not the notion of shutting them that I oppose, but the urgency - the rush to do it before we are ready.

This topic speaks to questioning the dogma surrounding the certainty of that urgency. If you don't feel like we have to shut down the nation tomorrow, then I welcome you to the land of skepticism. Where we can plan ahead for reasonable alternative energies and deploy them at a steady pace.

It would be interesting, I think, to plot out how soon we imagine those technologies will be put in place. How much of our energy dependence they can each cover. And the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as a result.

 

[IGBT]

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...ch-were-prostituting-the-weather-and-climate/

“If you really paid attention to what happened, the mask is off, and I appreciate that those people that organized this came out and let us know who they were. If you look at the list of people, Communist Party USA, Socialists. Fine, if you want to have that debate, that debate should be done at the polling place and should be done in the halls of Congress or try to change laws. It shouldn’t be prostituting the weather and climate for your own needs.”

 

[Paratus]

Yah his argument is strawman at best.

I will make an argument though for human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. Core samples have shown that CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been much higher with many historical periodic spikes that dwarf the current amount in the air now. What caused those spikes and then relatively quick dissipation afterwards we as humans don't know. There are many historical climate changes that have happened in the past that we can verify happened, but have no clue how they came about.

Are humans contributing CO2 to the atmosphere. Sure we are. How bad is it? Don't know yet. Does that mean we shouldn't work to reduce CO2 and other green house gas emissions along with other forms of pollution? Nope. That is all good stuff to do and I have never heard anyone argue against that.

What I have heard is the argument against the claims that within our current lifetimes, the world's climate will be so bad as to be unsustainable to life as we know it. OR some such nonsense. That is utter crap.

It has been higher in the past. You have to know what happened in the past to know if we or nature is contributing the most to the increase in CO2.

The nice thing is, we know exactly how much CO2 we are putting into the air each year. So it's very easy to measure the total CO2 and subtract out the yearly man-made contribution to get the yearly natural contribution.

So while our contribution is small overall, it's responsible for the lions share of the imbalance.

The imbalance in Carbon isotopes in the air correlates with the increase due fossil fuel use:

orignally posted by: NOAA

The relative proportion of 13C in our atmosphere is steadily decreasing over time. Before the industrial revolution, δ13C of our atmosphere was approximately -6.5‰; now the value is around -8‰. Recall that plants have less 13C relative to the atmosphere (and therefore have a more negative δ13C value of around -25‰). Most fossil fuels, like oil and coal, which are ancient plant and animal material, have the same δ13C isotopic fingerprint as other plants. The annual trend–the overall decrease in atmospheric δ13C–is explained by the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that must come from the terrestrial biosphere and/or fossil fuels. In fact, we know from Δ14C measurements, inventories, and other sources, that this decrease is from fossil fuel emissions, and is an example of the Suess Effect.

Recall that the Suess Effect is the observed decrease in δ13C and Δ14C values due to fossil fuel emissions, which are depleted in 13C and do not contain 14C.

The impact is about an extra half dinosaur killer worth of energy in the last 50 years.

 

[fskimospy]

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...ch-were-prostituting-the-weather-and-climate/

“If you really paid attention to what happened, the mask is off, and I appreciate that those people that organized this came out and let us know who they were. If you look at the list of people, Communist Party USA, Socialists. Fine, if you want to have that debate, that debate should be done at the polling place and should be done in the halls of Congress or try to change laws. It shouldn’t be prostituting the weather and climate for your own needs.”

Lol. This quote comes from a guy who says CO2 can't cause global warming because of the laws of thermodynamics.

Ie: he is totally clueless. A high school physics student likely knows more about the physics here than he does.

 

[Moonbeam]

Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss.
-George Orwell


The science is not settled on man's effect on the climate. It is known that our behavior effects the environment around us:
-The extent of which is obviously unknown
-The extent of which obviously a negative to the overall equilibrium of the earths climate


It's a fair article.

There is the world as it is and the world as we'd like it to be. Fortunately this guy is focused on the world as it is, understanding that fully is where the real change can leapfrog from. Real change comes from accepting the way things are, more debate, not less should open up points of leverage for folks to push off in the right direction on how to handle mans negative effect on the earth.


I don't think China gives a fuck though.

Neither does the CBD.

 

[chucky2]

:ninja:

He actually gave you far more credit than you deserve. He's convinced you're stupid rather than incapable of reasoning even though you may have adequate IQ. He believes you could see if you wanted to. He is frightened by the thought that you are hopeless and not capable of rational thought. He keeps throwing a rope into o the air hoping to reach the sky if it will just catch on something.

Hey man, it's not like I'm professing deep belief in the Global Warming!, wait, Global Cooling!, wait, Man Made Climate Change! computer model of today and spouting gloom and religious concern for Gaia, and then burning more hydrocarbons in a single needless personal joy trip than a house of people will use all year. But hey, troll away man, we know it makes you feel better... :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Hey man, it's not like I'm professing deep belief in the Global Warming!, wait, Global Cooling!, wait, Man Made Climate Change! computer model of today and spouting gloom and religious concern for Gaia, and then burning more hydrocarbons in a single needless personal joy trip than a house of people will use all year. But hey, troll away man, we know it makes you feel better... :thumbsup:

I think it's funny that the two terms you use are "global cooling", which was never a mainstream scientific opinion, and "climate change", which was a term developed by republican pollster Frank Luntz specifically to try and make global warming sound different.

It's always interesting to see how emotion and culture war induced rage can affect people. I guess so king as you're happy fighting the evil city people right?

 

[chucky2]

I think it's funny that the two terms you use are "global cooling", which was never a mainstream scientific opinion, and "climate change", which was a term developed by republican pollster Frank Luntz specifically to try and make global warming sound different.

It's always interesting to see how emotion and culture war induced rage can affect people. I guess so king as you're happy fighting the evil city people right?

Nick Nick Nick...I'm just saying what the Gaia is dying! folks have been saying for 30 years, no need to deflect! Look, Gaia is either being seriously harmed or she isn't. If she isn't, no need for the doom and gloom and teeth grinding. If she is, then, well, all the Believers don't need to wait for Cap and Trade, or anyone else to cut their emissions, they simply can all start going for Max Tree Hugger ASAP. In fact, that others aren't taking the problem they view as so serious, seriously, would indicate they need to do more themselves to make up for the Deniers, right?

Just as soon as we see people curbing their needless pleasure trips on highly polluting airplanes and boats, cutting to a true bare minimum their needless energy and goods consumption, we'll know that they actually truly Believe there is a problem.

But - they haven't. Which really tells us all we need to know in their belief of the science they profess to Believe in, right? I mean, if they really believed it as they said they did, they'd literally be taking any and all steps themselves to conserve. But, they aren't. Why is that? :hmm:

 

[fskimospy]

Haha, all this time and you still don't understand a collective action problem.

Maybe moonbeam is right. At some point stupidity is no longer a plausible explanation. Eventually I guess we should start considering alternate explanations.

 

[Zorkorist]

50 years ago, we were supposed to run out of oil. But yet, oil today is all over the place.

So pardon, if we don't all take a step back, and not go crazy that earth is going to die tomorrow without action.

It's not going to die tomorrow.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Consumption is ridiculous. Paper Towels, Styrofoam cups. The waste is egregious.

But we live in a world of bounty, and science keeps finding ways to support, or enhance our lives.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

As a poster above said... curtail yourself!

Stop your emissions.

That will be a fine start, and you can always congratulate yourself...

-John

 

[chucky2]

Haha, all this time and you still don't understand a collective action problem.

Maybe moonbeam is right. At some point stupidity is no longer a plausible explanation. Eventually I guess we should start considering alternate explanations.

Exactly man, collective action. That's why I say, there is literally no need for anyone to conserve anything, waste literally as much as you possibly can. We know it's a collective action problem because you say it is, and thus, no one can individually contribute to the problem, nor, combat it. Until Everyone collectively bans together, reigning in consumption is moot.

I'm glad we agree! :biggrin::thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Exactly man, collective action. That's why I say, there is literally no need for anyone to conserve anything, waste literally as much as you possibly can. We know it's a collective action problem because you say it is, and thus, no one can individually contribute to the problem, nor, combat it. Until Everyone collectively bans together, reigning in consumption is moot.

I'm glad we agree! :biggrin::thumbsup:

see this is what I'm talking about. At some point a reasonable individual has to stop chalking posts like this up to someone who might just be particularly dim. Lol.

 

[Zorkorist]

No Eskimo, you don't get it.

He's calling for help, and saying that if and when there is a problem, we WILL all come together and address it.

But there isn't a problem.

-John

 

[Moonbeam]

Exactly man, collective action. That's why I say, there is literally no need for anyone to conserve anything, waste literally as much as you possibly can. We know it's a collective action problem because you say it is, and thus, no one can individually contribute to the problem, nor, combat it. Until Everyone collectively bans together, reigning in consumption is moot.

I'm glad we agree! :biggrin::thumbsup:

But, for all the world, you do make your CBD look like stupidity so I can see how easily Eskimo could be deceived.

 

[Moonbeam]

No Eskimo, you don't get it.

He's calling for help, and saying that if and when there is a problem, we WILL all come together and address it.

But there isn't a problem.

-John

Not for the pot of frogs approaching boiling. They will be dead before they know why because they have a defect that doesn't allow them feedback data regarding the external or internal temperature. They have a. FBD.

 

[Zorkorist]

Yeah, no, Moonbeam. Not even close.

There is no problem. If you want to go full VEGAN, and do all you can, to stop your perceived problem, go for it.

Those guys in India.. that wander around starved to death, and worshipping cows... they are way ahead of you buddy.

-John

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, no, Moonbeam. Not even close.

There is no problem. If you want to go full VEGAN, and do all you can, to stop your perceived problem, go for it.

Those guys in India.. that wander around starved to death, and worshipping cows... they are way ahead of you buddy.

-John

Not really. They worship methane generators. I eat them. Not to mention that what you tried to pass off as fact was just a CBD invention.

 

[norseamd]

Seems more like the timeline was because of or justified by political reasons than environmental necessities in the timeframe. In fact he says the tipping point is here and it is already too late. Whether or not he is manipulating his words for the perceived reaction is not known to me but I doubt that I care what he says. Just start ignoring these guys and read up about some of the general science like some of the articles on wikipedia. The main problem that keeps this political with or without left wing partisans is that republican politicians usually dump any environmental programs or laws and allow industry to pollute as much as they want to for their own benefit. There is such thing as clean coal which needs further research without political meddling from republicans.

2009: President 'has four years to save Earth'

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.
Soaring carbon emissions are already causing ice-cap melting and threaten to trigger global flooding, widespread species loss and major disruptions of weather patterns in the near future. "We cannot afford to put off change any longer," said Hansen. "We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead."
Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.

 

[chucky2]

see this is what I'm talking about. At some point a reasonable individual has to stop chalking posts like this up to someone who might just be particularly dim. Lol.

Nick, I can't help you want to have it both ways. It sounds like you're mad at something and are wanting to shunt your anger to me. I'm not angry man, I pollute like crazy, because I know there are no laws against me doing so and thus I have no affect on the environment. It's like...you're mad that city lifestyle is so polluting, you're duhverting to me. Why is that? :biggrin:

 

[chucky2]

But, for all the world, you do make your CBD look like stupidity so I can see how easily Eskimo could be deceived.

So says someone that has an obsession posting about something that doesn't exist, and hates Gaia. Why do you hate Gaia like eski Moonbeam? What did Gaia do to you?

 

[Greenman]

I think it's funny that the two terms you use are "global cooling", which was never a mainstream scientific opinion, and "climate change", which was a term developed by republican pollster Frank Luntz specifically to try and make global warming sound different.

It's always interesting to see how emotion and culture war induced rage can affect people. I guess so king as you're happy fighting the evil city people right?

I distinctly remember studying global cooling in the 7th grade. We spent a great deal of time discussing the coming ice age and what it would do to modern society. So while "global cooling" might never have been a main stream opinion, it was certainly in our text books.

It's odd that way back then it was presented not as a pending disaster, but as an event that we would have to deal with.