Climate Change!

Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
ducknalddon
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by ducknalddon » Wed Feb 15, 2017 8:33 am

C40 wrote:And Two drinks for any new thread participant who tries to convince Steveo
Duty calls.

User avatar
Gilberto de Piento
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Gilberto de Piento » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:49 am

Gilberto de Piento seems to be confusing climate with weather..
No, I'm just baiting steveo. ;)

That said, the day to day weather makes up the climate. If the day to day weather changes enough, the climate has changed. For example, the time to plant early season garden crops is changing in the upper midwest. One year we get a few days that seem unusually warm in the spring. The next year we get a few more. This year we have more February days that seem unusually warm than days that are typical of winter. If this happens every year our climate has changed.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 » Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:58 pm

[quote="Aurane

These predictions have been happening so often and they have one thing that makes them completely consistent - they never come true. Come back in 5 years time and my prediction is that there will be more ice in the world than what there is today. If not 5 years then there will be in 15 or 20 years. I guarantee that your gloom and doom won't come true.

This is where AGW alarmism is failing dismally.

The world isn't anywhere near as fragile as what AGW alarmists want to make out. The piddly tiny little bits of CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere are not going to have anywhere near the effect that what the alarmists want to make out. I got this figure from an alarmist so it's probably massively overstated - "By mass, this extra CO2 is only about 0.0008 percent of the Earth’s total air."

Campitor
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Campitor » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:40 am

[quote="steveo73

I am relaxed and I don't believe humans are bad - you're ascribing to me traits not in evidence. The pollution I've seen and experienced has occurred in the USA in some of the richest states. I don't think humans are malevolent on the whole but I do believe a majority are not good at weighing the long term consequences of certain actions which then cascade into negative outcomes for humans. And I think the argument that holding poorer countries to certain emissions is a red herring. I think a developing country can build better infrastructure using cleaner energy sources without greatly impacting their growth; I think the "let them pollute so they can catch up quickly" is a lazy and shortsighted argument. As the twig is bent so grows the tree - in other words - if your growth is structured around dirty energy, your infrastructure will continue to grow in that direction until negative outcomes are experienced which will be more costly to control or clean up, or at worst causes military tensions with your neighboring countries.

George the original one
Posts: 4136
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Climate Change!

Post by George the original one » Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:31 pm

steveo73 wrote:Come back in 5 years time and my prediction is that there will be more ice in the world than what there is today.
You do realize that the Russians are banking on your prediction being false. They're set to claim the last great untapped oil reserve under the Arctic sea, something they can't do unless the Artic ocean remains ice free. Considering the summer sea trade that has opened up due to the ever shrinking Arctic sea ice, you're very much on the wrong side of this bet.

Military plans & training are already being made by northern nations with the expectation of an Arctic ocean free of ice.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:14 pm

Campitor wrote:
steveo73 wrote:
Campitor wrote:
I'm not worried about the Earth being destroyed. Earth has survived countless asteroid impacts and 5 major extinction events. It's humans that I'm worried about. Regardless if you believe in AGW or not, there is no denying that we are slowly but surely poisoning ourselves with the amount of pollutants we keep pumping out. I'd like clean energy because I love fresh air and smog free skies. I want less mercury in the ocean and beaches that don't coat your toes in petroleum if you sink your feet into the sand. I want to walk into a forest and not see plastic bags floating on trees or smell excrement on the tide because the waste facility was overwhelmed with flash flooding and had to dump raw sewage into the ocean. I'm sure there are lots of financial interests that want to see the AGW money wagon pick up speed. But you don't have to believe in AGW to see the worldwide distress that we as humans are inflicting on ourselves and other species. We don't need AGW as a reason to reduce emissions of every kind.
Relax. Stop buying into the theory that humans are somehow bad. We aren't.

I personally also believe in other environmental issues such as not polluting our local environments but there isn't a massive problem here. If you are though an environmentalist like myself I think you should realise that the local issues tend to occur in poorer locations. The best way to help these locations is to ensure that they get the chance to economically progress. This is a really good reason why we need to stop all this AGW crap. We want the poorer countries to develop. As countries develop they tend to care more about their local environments.
I am relaxed and I don't believe humans are bad - you're ascribing to me traits not in evidence. The pollution I've seen and experienced has occurred in the USA in some of the richest states. I don't think humans are malevolent on the whole but I do believe a majority are not good at weighing the long term consequences of certain actions which then cascade into negative outcomes for humans. And I think the argument that holding poorer countries to certain emissions is a red herring. I think a developing country can build better infrastructure using cleaner energy sources without greatly impacting their growth; I think the "let them pollute so they can catch up quickly" is a lazy and shortsighted argument. As the twig is bent so grows the tree - in other words - if your growth is structured around dirty energy, your infrastructure will continue to grow in that direction until negative outcomes are experienced which will be more costly to control or clean up, or at worst causes military tensions with your neighboring countries.
I just bolded the parts that show factually that you have a distorted view of human beings. Your comments that are bolded are not factually true. The world is not in the bad place that you believe it to be.

Your comments regarding poorer countries is also not true. This also impacts wealthier countries. Your comment regarding the twig and the tree is basically completely bizarre.

We need to discuss facts when it comes to these issues and if can't be so harsh and one-sided.

I think that these debates degenerate because one side honestly believes that they are morally and scientifically right when they aren't. If anything the reverse is true. Luckily the majority of people on this Earth agree with me and we aren't on the whole doing dumb things to placate people that sprout this nonsense.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:17 pm

One thing I know is that when it comes to alarmist predictions they have a great record. It's 100% failure. I bet that this will continue as well. I think I posted it within this thread but they did some comparisons of the best AGW predicting models. The models with the tiniest temperature increases did the best but I think the safest prediction is to state that temperatures won't increase at all.

So I don't care if the Russians are predicting it or whoever. A smart man bets on the most likely outcome and bets against consistently incorrect predictions.
Last edited by steveo73 on Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gilberto de Piento
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Gilberto de Piento » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:29 pm

Luckily the majority of people on this Earth agree with me and we aren't on the whole doing dumb things to placate people that sprout this nonsense.
According to the Pew Research Center:
Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.
A global median of 51% say climate change is already harming people around the world, while another 28% believe it will do so in the next few years.
Most people in the countries we surveyed say rich nations should do more than developing nations to address climate change. A median of 54% agree with the statement “Rich countries, such as the U.S., Japan and Germany, should do more than developing countries because they have produced most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions so far.”
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -7-charts/

Campitor
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Campitor » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:32 pm

steveo73 wrote:
Campitor wrote:
steveo73 wrote:
Relax. Stop buying into the theory that humans are somehow bad. We aren't.

I personally also believe in other environmental issues such as not polluting our local environments but there isn't a massive problem here. If you are though an environmentalist like myself I think you should realise that the local issues tend to occur in poorer locations. The best way to help these locations is to ensure that they get the chance to economically progress. This is a really good reason why we need to stop all this AGW crap. We want the poorer countries to develop. As countries develop they tend to care more about their local environments.
I am relaxed and I don't believe humans are bad - you're ascribing to me traits not in evidence. The pollution I've seen and experienced has occurred in the USA in some of the richest states. I don't think humans are malevolent on the whole but I do believe a majority are not good at weighing the long term consequences of certain actions which then cascade into negative outcomes for humans. And I think the argument that holding poorer countries to certain emissions is a red herring. I think a developing country can build better infrastructure using cleaner energy sources without greatly impacting their growth; I think the "let them pollute so they can catch up quickly" is a lazy and shortsighted argument. As the twig is bent so grows the tree - in other words - if your growth is structured around dirty energy, your infrastructure will continue to grow in that direction until negative outcomes are experienced which will be more costly to control or clean up, or at worst causes military tensions with your neighboring countries.
I just bolded the parts that show factually that you have a distorted view of human beings. Your comments that are bolded are not factually true. The world is not in the bad place that you believe it to be.
Many people are poor at judging outcomes that occur over lengthy periods of time. This is why smokers keep smoking and the overweight keep eating excessively and not exercising, why people throw trash on the street instead of the garbage can 5 feet away; they sacrifice their health and the environment's for short term pleasures. This doesn't make people "bad", it makes them poor at risk assessment. This isn't a distorted view and it's supported by research and history.
Your comments regarding poorer countries is also not true. This also impacts wealthier countries. Your comment regarding the twig and the tree is basically completely bizarre.
I never said it was an either/or, rich-or-poor scenario. I was rebutting your comment about "we want the poorer counties to develop" as if that can only occur by using dirty energy. The "twig" comment is an analogy. As a sapling grows (the twig) into a tree, the direction that it grows (the bend) becomes permanent. The use of this analogy is to point out that growing infrastructure towards dirty-non-renewable energy sources will make it extremely difficult or impossible to change to better/cleaner technology later. If you start off using clean energy, it will be easier to keep moving in that direction.
We need to discuss facts when it comes to these issues and if can't be so harsh and one-sided.


I'm discussing it but so far you called my comments "bizarre", accused me of having a "distorted" view of human beings, etc. Your words denote a certain derision which makes your comments about avoiding harshness somewhat ironic. I am discussing facts. Humans pollute and have a hard time containing pollution - is this not a fact? Our pollution accumulates nearby because we are the generating source - is this not a fact? Reducing emissions reduces pollution - is this not a fact? Am I guilty of the sin of fact omission because I haven't mentioned any Steveo73 sanctioned facts? Where is the common ground here and how can any consensus be reached without a vigorous but friendly debate?
I think that these debates degenerate because one side honestly believes that they are morally and scientifically right when they aren't. If anything the reverse is true. Luckily the majority of people on this Earth agree with me and we aren't on the whole doing dumb things to placate people that sprout this nonsense.
I don't believe it's nonsense - there is evidence the earth is warming. I could care less if the warming is caused by nature or humans. AGW has never been my primary motivator for supporting emission reduction of every kind (CO2, fertilizer runoff, etc) and is a distraction in the effort to scale back pollution. And I don't think reducing pollution output is dumb. Long term research definitively shows that our pollution is negatively impacting our health and environment. And luckily I'm unconcerned with what the majority thinks because the majority is unconcerned about anything that doesn't have an immediate feedback loop which makes their judgement specious in regards to long-term planning.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:56 am

[quote="Gilberto de Piento

You can state this and you can have a bunch of people crying their hearts out but when it comes to the crunch people aren't buying it because they don't want to pay for it. The emissions trading palava has disappeared. The predictions haven't come true.

When it comes to actions people aren't buying it and rightly so.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:08 am

Campitor wrote:Many people are poor at judging outcomes that occur over lengthy periods of time. This is why smokers keep smoking and the overweight keep eating excessively and not exercising, why people throw trash on the street instead of the garbage can 5 feet away; they sacrifice their health and the environment's for short term pleasures. This doesn't make people "bad", it makes them poor at risk assessment. This isn't a distorted view and it's supported by research and history.
I honestly don't understand this. The world has been around for a lot lot lot longer than one human being's lifespan. The climate has been hotter and cooler and so many different things have happened.

No one and this is recognised by alarmists within their lifespan will be able to see the impact of climate change.

I don't think your point is at all relevant to this discussion.
Campitor wrote:I never said it was an either/or, rich-or-poor scenario. I was rebutting your comment about "we want the poorer counties to develop" as if that can only occur by using dirty energy. The "twig" comment is an analogy. As a sapling grows (the twig) into a tree, the direction that it grows (the bend) becomes permanent. The use of this analogy is to point out that growing infrastructure towards dirty-non-renewable energy sources will make it extremely difficult or impossible to change to better/cleaner technology later. If you start off using clean energy, it will be easier to keep moving in that direction.
This simply isn't true. Your analogy again makes no sense. If poorer countries use fossil fuels they will get to use currently the most efficient source of energy. This will lower their costs to produce a certain level of output.
Campitor wrote:I'm discussing it but so far you called my comments "bizarre", accused me of having a "distorted" view of human beings, etc. Your words denote a certain derision which makes your comments about avoiding harshness somewhat ironic. I am discussing facts. Humans pollute and have a hard time containing pollution - is this not a fact? Our pollution accumulates nearby because we are the generating source - is this not a fact? Reducing emissions reduces pollution - is this not a fact? Am I guilty of the sin of fact omission because I haven't mentioned any Steveo73 sanctioned facts? Where is the common ground here and how can any consensus be reached without a vigorous but friendly debate?
The common ground will exist when you start dwelling in reality. You cannot state that the world is heading for disaster because it's a far out there opinion that will be proven wrong. You cannot state that the pollution is so bad because it's not. Reducing emissions also doesn't reduce pollution. This is not a fact and is easily disputed. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We predominantly use clean coal now. In the past when we used poorer quality coal you might have had a point. We've basically fixed that though.
Campitor wrote:I don't believe it's nonsense - there is evidence the earth is warming. I could care less if the warming is caused by nature or humans. AGW has never been my primary motivator for supporting emission reduction of every kind (CO2, fertilizer runoff, etc) and is a distraction in the effort to scale back pollution. And I don't think reducing pollution output is dumb. Long term research definitively shows that our pollution is negatively impacting our health and environment. And luckily I'm unconcerned with what the majority thinks because the majority is unconcerned about anything that doesn't have an immediate feedback loop which makes their judgement specious in regards to long-term planning.
There is no long term evidence stating what you are stating. You appear to have an extremist viewpoint that isn't backed up by reality.

I do like that fact that you aren't concerned with what the majority think about however you also need to have clearer thinking when it comes to reaching your conclusions. Extremist views are fine when they are backed up by evidence but the evidence is overwhelming that humans are doing pretty well. The earth is fine. Humans are consistently ending up wealthier and better off. The technology that we have developed is amazing.

George the original one
Posts: 4136
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Climate Change!

Post by George the original one » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:36 am

steveo73 wrote:No one and this is recognised by alarmists within their lifespan will be able to see the impact of climate change.
That's pure B.S. steveo because I've already pointed out local effects measured in my lifetime. Reduced snowfall and more hot summer days in Portland, Oregon. Increased incidence of domoic acid in shellfish. Horticultural zones getting warmer (Portland Oregon is now 2 zones warmer).

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 8827
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by jacob » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:43 am

*** MODERATOR NOTICE ***

In the name of bandwidth, please stop abusing the the quote function as a reply button. It's really annoying to have to scroll through these yellow walls of text that quote an entire recent post verbatim to provide a three line response. I fixed the couple of last pages with a blunt instrument and managed to make them only half as long which makes it much easier to read through ... especially for people reading on small screens who need to scroll a lot.

Here's how it works!

  • If you're responding to one entire post in general, put @recipient on the first line. Then people can see who you're talking to.
  • If you're responding to several posts in general to that person, still just start with @recipient. The recipient presumably knows what they just wrote, so no need to quote the whole thing again.
  • If you're responding to a SELECT piece of the post, like a paragraph or a sentence, that is when it is okay to use the quote function.
[/b]

Campitor
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Campitor » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:25 am

I honestly don't understand this. The world has been around for a lot lot lot longer than one human being's lifespan. The climate has been hotter and cooler and so many different things have happened.

No one and this is recognised by alarmists within their lifespan will be able to see the impact of climate change.

I don't think your point is at all relevant to this discussion.


I agree that the climate has been hotter and cooler - these temperature changes also cause disruptions some of which were not benign or negligible. The fact that you try to justify decisions based on an alarmist's lifespan reinforces my point that humans are poor at making decisions that have long term effects or detrimental outcomes after a lengthy cycle; this makes my point 100% relevant to this discussion.
This simply isn't true. Your analogy again makes no sense. If poorer countries use fossil fuels they will get to use currently the most efficient source of energy. This will lower their costs to produce a certain level of output.


Actually the most efficient source of energy is nuclear. And when the focus is ONLY on money humans make bad decisions because they are only considering short term consequences over long term effects.
The common ground will exist when you start dwelling in reality. You cannot state that the world is heading for disaster because it's a far out there opinion that will be proven wrong. You cannot state that the pollution is so bad because it's not. Reducing emissions also doesn't reduce pollution. This is not a fact and is easily disputed. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We predominantly use clean coal now. In the past when we used poorer quality coal you might have had a point. We've basically fixed that though.
I am dwelling in reality. Many countries and scientists label artificially produced CO2 a pollutant. Reducing CO2 emissions is important because CO2 release, when generated artificially by humans, emit other harmful gases as a byproduct - reduce man-made CO2 and you reduce the harmful byproducts. Is this true or not true?
The common ground will exist when you start dwelling in reality. You cannot state that the world is heading for disaster because it's a far out there opinion that will be proven wrong. You cannot state that the pollution is so bad because it's not. Reducing emissions also doesn't reduce pollution. This is not a fact and is easily disputed. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We predominantly use clean coal now. In the past when we used poorer quality coal you might have had a point. We've basically fixed that though.
I am dwelling in reality. I never said that the world is headed for disaster and in fact I've stated that the world will be fine. I'm not concerned about the "world" but rather the humans that live on it. We don't predominantly use clean coal throughout the world. Clean coal technology isn't cheap so it's implementation isn't widespread especially in poor areas which consider it too costly. And again - many countries and scientist categorize man-made CO2 emissions as a pollutant so labeling it as such isn't extreme.
There is no long term evidence stating what you are stating. You appear to have an extremist viewpoint that isn't backed up by reality.
The definition of extremist is "a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action." I didn't know that having a position on emissions reduction is considered extreme. I have yet to advocate for anything "extreme" in action other than to state emissions of all kind that have negative scientifically proven outcomes should be reduced. That is hardly an extreme position. You seem to enjoy putting intentions conjured by your imaginations into other people's statements. At this point you seem to have an irrational means of debating a topic that should be open to discussion within a certain decorum. You just run around labeling everything you don't agree with as irrational, distorted, etc. You might as well just copy and paste "BLAH BLAH BLAH" in your responses; you use borderline ad-hominem attacks in all your statements.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 8827
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by jacob » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:24 pm

Some reading suggestions for anyone who prefers to learn by reading instead of debating news articles or watching/responding to youtube videos ...

The science:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1465433643/ - "The 411" on climate change for those who can spare 1-2 hours of reading. Newest edition is updated to AR5. Very quick read. As it says on the front cover, it's pictures and graphs, so "poster-style" presentation of the most pertinent aspects of the scientific argument.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521732557/ - This is an "intelligent layman"-level presentation, so rather thorough. It's "monologue-style". It's "about-the-science" rather than "actual-science" but written above the popularization level, so wonk-level. It was written sometime between AR3 and AR4, however, the basic conclusions haven't changed since then---main difference is that the confidence-level has increase from 90% to 95%+ (not much). Think of it as a 250 page executive summary.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0470943416/ - This is a "textbook for a non-STEM"-level course. You got equations and exercises. Stefan-Boltzmann, slab and 2-zone models (3 zone model as an exercise for the student), Absorption spectra, band-saturation, Doppler effects,... Precocious high school students/graduates should be able to play along. Not really for anyone who whines about algebra though.

The agnotology:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1608193942/ - On how misinformation or anti-science works and did work. An early study in "fake news" or anti-reality---something which has spread from tobacco to climate science and now onto the political sphere.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/163286102X - On how one can be simultaneously "more informed" yet also negatively informed because one has mainly been studying negative knowledge on the alternative channels. Maybe that some folks now have a solid repository of alternative facts or don't feel bound by the convention of reality, logic, or even self-consistency. This is now found almost everywhere in the current political environment, but this "condition" used to be reserved for the rare individual.

Past climate --- and the "climate always changes" shtick (nerds only, maybe after reading those other books):

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061137928 and https://www.amazon.com/dp/0309100615/ --- Enjoy!

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:52 pm

George the original one wrote:That's pure B.S. steveo because I've already pointed out local effects measured in my lifetime. Reduced snowfall and more hot summer days in Portland, Oregon. Increased incidence of domoic acid in shellfish. Horticultural zones getting warmer (Portland Oregon is now 2 zones warmer).
I'll explain this to you. The changes are too insignificant for you to see it. You are just deluding yourself. These changes are just natural changes that are occurring. I quoted previously within this thread how an AGW proponent has stated exactly the same thing. I accept you don't want to read that or accept that but it doesn't change the facts.

@Campitor - honestly I can't be bothered discussing this with you. You are entitled to your beliefs. Let's see how it all turns out for you.

@Jacob - I accept that you are a AGW alarmist. Unfortunately you have to at some point face the reality of the science. In any other field if the predictions didn't match the outcome the science would be revisited. The fake news has been so one sided to the AGW alarmists and there is a simple proof of this. How many of the AGW alarmist predictions have come true ? The answer is basically none.

George the original one
Posts: 4136
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Climate Change!

Post by George the original one » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:45 pm

LOL! Since 1900 there's been a 50% reduction in snowfall and a tripling in number of hot days in Portland. Half of that snowfall shortage and over half of the hot day increase has occurred in my lifetime. That's the facts and no delusion. Very, very obvious and large changes.

Domoic acid levels increase with warm ocean currents; wasn't a problem before 1990, now the crabbing & clamming seasons are annually impacted because of toxic levels that only go away when the water is cooler.

Portland's USDA zone level was static until the late 1970s when astute gardeners noticed they could start growing plants that were impossible before and it was officially recognized in the '90s. In the past decade, Portland is now another USDA zone level warmer again. Two USDA zones warmer is like moving 500 miles further south or dropping 1000' in elevation. Again, not insignificant!

User avatar
BRUTE
Posts: 2022
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by BRUTE » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:48 pm

brute is super excited to check back in 50 years which side was right. or maybe it won't be decided by then. what's a good date?

User avatar
Gilberto de Piento
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Gilberto de Piento » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:50 pm

There's a map of the changes in US hardiness zones at the link below. Many areas have changed to a warmer zone in recent years.
https://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 » Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:16 am

BRUTE wrote:brute is super excited to check back in 50 years which side was right. or maybe it won't be decided by then. what's a good date?
It'll take a lot longer however some people can see it happening now. Mind you I can't wait until I remember this thread on my deathbed and have a little chuckle to myself. That'll learn em.

To be fair to myself here I think the proof is pretty clear cut now. How many of those predictions have come true about our melting ice and we'd all be flooded or there would be fireballs reigning down from above. Hasn't happened and it won't happen.

Here is a pretty good couple of predictions. In 10 years time there will still be no proof whatsoever and there will be no disaster events as per the current status quo. Temperatures will be pretty much aligned to what they are today. The alarmists will still be crying out though how the human race is ending and it's just around the corner. The corner will never quite be there and soon enough there will be another ecological disaster for people to jump onto.

Campitor
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Campitor » Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:43 am

@Brute and Gilberto: https://youtu.be/L72G8TLtTCk. - this video is about a man who spent 40 years diligently recording weather data in his remote area. It's a short video but it gives a good summation of how the climate has changed in this isolated area.

@Jacob - Thanks for linking the reading material.

Campitor
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Campitor » Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:18 am

@Brute

You may have to wait 50 years to see which side is right but you can see some changes right now:

ducknalddon
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by ducknalddon » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:17 pm

steveo73 wrote: To be fair to myself here I think the proof is pretty clear cut now. How many of those predictions have come true about our melting ice and we'd all be flooded or there would be fireballs reigning down from above.
What predictions, nobody serious said we would have a problem by now, the time horizons have always been further out, once we get past 2 degrees of warming. This is the problem, you are just making stuff up, I suspect wilfully.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 8827
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by jacob » Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:35 pm

@steveo73 - You keep using that word, science. I don't think it means what you think it means. I think you just like saying it a lot.
steveo73 wrote:The piddly tiny little bits of CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere are not going to have anywhere near the effect that what the alarmists want to make out. I got this figure from an alarmist so it's probably massively overstated - "By mass, this extra CO2 is only about 0.0008 percent of the Earth’s total air."
Statements like this---which happen so often they make my eyes bleed---also suggest to me that despite your claims to the contrary, you're basically clueless about even the most fundamental aspects of the relevant physics. This one, for example, concerns how gas concentration affects the radiative balance. Hint: Your intuition is wrong. The relation is logarithmic, not linear. "Piddly tiny little bits" matter a lot more for the absorption spectrum when there isn't that much of the gas in the first place. This is also why halocarbons or methane are such powerful greenhouse gases (relative to concentration) compared to CO2 or water vapor.

This is very basic stuff so I find it really hard to reconcile your repeated displays of ignorance (at such a profound level) with your claim of taking a class back in college. Did you actually pass it? Because you should have learned this within the first couple of weeks of the course. Or was it one of those science classes where the students eventually dress up as planets and act out the solar system or something?

I don't doubt your sincerity, but as far as I'm concerned, you've also repeatedly shown that you know far less than you think you do. This isn't a mere difference of opinion of which statistical confidence level one gets to put an A in front of GW. This is a case where your knowledge when it comes to basic science is so demonstrably full of holes (over and over for two years with no sign of improving) that it's not even possibly to begin a rational discussion at the level you desire to have it at. It's not unlike observing the proverbial crazy uncle who has "read all the facts" about politics and is more than happy to discuss his insights. Yet he doesn't know the name of the vice president; what the nuclear triad is; or what the separation of powers means; ... and the list just gets longer and longer, the more he keeps talking. Eventually it becomes clear to the rest of the family that what he actually means by claiming to have "read all the facts" is that he watches every single youtube video on his twitter feed but completely lacks any kind of basic framework of knowledge to understand what he's looking at. I think you're THAT guy. Whenever said uncle gets fact-checked, he just responds with "Eh, that might be ..." and then two weeks later he's back to repeating exactly the same nonsense all over again complete with floods and fireballs. While you know a lot from watching all those videos and are able to use words like CO2, AGW, or alarmist in a sentence, your demonstrated command of the science in both function and form is positively dismal.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 8827
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by jacob » Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:00 pm

@everybody else - You don't have to wait 50 years. You can go back and see what kind of predictions were made in the past about the present. A partial list of predictions that were made more than 50 years which has since been verified by direct [instrumental] measurement: Increased global average temperatures, polar amplification, rising sea levels, cooling stratosphere, heating troposphere, decreasing upward IR radiation to space, increasing down radiation from the atmosphere.

Those predictions made during/before 1960s and 1970s back when people still treated the problem with pen and pencil and which have subsequently been confirmed by direct measurement (meaning some satellite, thermometer, etc. recorded A LOT of data.)

The Charney report from 1979 gives a decent overview of the level of model understanding at the time. It's remarkably similar to today. We do of course have a lot more detail, but the fundamental thesis is the same. The main difference between now and 38 years ago is that computers have gotten vastly more powerful and we can actually include and model all the things they already knew about at that time.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/charney_report1979.pdf

Then there a multiple other indications from different fields that are consistent with the overall thesis that have been found since then. Again, go read one of the books I recommended. Either Mann or Archer.

In terms of actual modeling, computers began to replace pencil and paper towards the late 1960s. Key models here are/were Wanabe, Broecker (1975), Kellog (1979), Hansen (1981 and 1988), FAR (1990), SAR (1995), ... and so on. You can take these as a model of what was understood about the science half a century ago and rerun them with actual CO2 emissions to do a hindcast and thus check how accurate the model was back then. Pretty good it turns out(*).

You can then take them and do scenarios and forecast how the world will look 50 years from now, but you don't need to wait to confirm the older models.

(*) Why is that? Because the basic climate system is actually pretty simple at a fundamental level. It's thermodynamics and radiation physics ... as was well understood a far more sophisticated level by year 1900 already than the level of physical insight that current denialists (and laymen) tend to demonstrate. The rest is detail, timing, and precision.

Locked