Climate Change!

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Locked
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I think the good news is that every time I try to trace up the system from me, I find that the people who should be concerned and taking action, are concerned and taking action. For instance, at the University of Illinois Plant Breeding Center, they are working on projects to breed varieties of major crops that will produce well in changing climate. It remains possible that my great-grandchildren, will enjoy taking a trip on a train to visit the main branch of the New York Public library with me, followed by a ride on an elevator to a restaurant where they serve small scoops of vanilla ice cream in glass bowls with linen napkins.

It has recently occurred to me, based on happenstance combination of reading novels based on post-peak oil/climate change future, while watching 1930s/40s movies, that some of what is going on is that we are experiencing a sort of lagged mourning for some aspects of civilization that we have already lost. This doesn't change my sturdy level of belief in the underlying science, but it does change my outlook on likely consequences or possible futures.

Gilberto de Piento
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Gilberto de Piento »

2016 was the hottest year on record:
Global temperatures have continued to rise, making 2016 the hottest year on the historical record and the third consecutive record-breaking year, scientists say. Of the 17 hottest years ever recorded, 16 have now occurred since 2000.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ecord.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/scie ... ecord.html

I posted this as it's own thread but it probably makes more sense here.

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by ducknalddon »

steveo73 wrote: 1. The greenhouse effect is a natural effect on Earth.
Everything is a natural effect, including what we do.
2. A greenhouse gas that has minimal impact on the greenhouse effect is CO2.
What observations would you consider proof that CO2 is causing warming?
3. The earth has been warming for about 200 years.
Since the start of the industrial revolution then?
4. Humans have released into the atmosphere a minimal amount of CO2 compared to natural CO2 within the environment.
https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/ ... ioxide.png
5. CO2 within the Earth's atmosphere has been significantly higher.
So?
6. The Earth's temperatures have been significantly hotter and cooler than what they are today.
Yes, at one point the Earth was a snowball, not very desirable nor is the other extreme
7. Statistical models have been produced that state that increased CO2 leads to significant temperature rises primarily due to feedback mechanisms.

8. No one has been able to prove that these feedback mechanisms exist as per the models predictions.
We will find that out very soon.
9. The models aren't working well at all. They are at the lower boundary of statistical relevance (getting close to the 5% level). This is despite the increased warming over the last two years.
In 1988 Hansen made predictions on warming over the next decade that proved to be remarkably accurate. We have just had another year of record temperatures, you can't keep ignoring that.
10. No scientist with any idea that uses the scientific method believes in any of the alarmist BS that the political morons keep shoving down our throats. I'm calling this a done deal now. It's over. It's debunked.
There you go again calling people names, this just tells me your arguments are weak.

People on this forum are pretty smart and open minded, I'm sure we would welcome some proper evidence but that needs to be more than a few links to dodgy YouTube videos.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

ducknalddon wrote:What observations would you consider proof that CO2 is causing warming?
You would need to have a controlled environment where increasing CO2 is clearly related to increased temperatures. We don't have that at this point. For instance if you look at Jacob's chart you can see the Earth has been warming for a while however we have only really increased CO2 in the last 50 years.
ducknalddon wrote:
steveo73 wrote: 3. The earth has been warming for about 200 years.
Since the start of the industrial revolution then?
CO2 has only increased via humans in about the last 50 years. This is another point that suggests that the AGW theory is full of holes. It could just be natural warming that has nothing to do with humans.
ducknalddon wrote:
steveo73 wrote: So?
Pretty simple really. There is probably nothing wrong with the levels of CO2 at the moment. The counter argument is that we're adding this to the Earth's atmosphere rather than it occurring without human intervention. So we could be impacting the natural cycle.
ducknalddon wrote:
This here is where you really need to take a step back and use logic and the scientific method. When your predictions fail then you need to go back and reassess your theory. This is where we are at with AGW at this point in time. You can't keep waving your hands and bypassing this.
[/quote]

Great argument. You go me there.

This has been debunked. Read the quote from the global warming proponent who clearly states that the alarmist BS which is what so many people on this thread are buying into is completely unscientific. You have to drop this if you want to use science.

It's been debunked and no scientist worth anything at all would continue to state that this is factual.

All you have remaining for you is the precautionary principle. That is your only argument that can stand up to any sort of scrutiny and when you argue from that point all you can state is that we don't know what the effects will be so we should be careful because we only have one planet.

You can't continue rationally arguing that AGW is proven and that the effects will be dire.
Last edited by steveo73 on Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

bryan
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:01 am
Location: mostly Bay Area

Re: Climate Change!

Post by bryan »

7Wannabe5 wrote:I think the good news is that every time I try to trace up the system from me, I find that the people who should be concerned and taking action, are concerned and taking action.
Ditto. I am quite happy with China's momentum here, especially bringing down the cost of photovoltaics.

@steveo73, I mostly wonder what your motivation/incentive is for taking this side of the debate? I don't mind listening to "climate change science" sceptics so long as they make sense because certainly the other side of the aisle is guilty of misleading the public, in some ways, and both sides should be heard until such time as the science is better settled. However, your latest 10 point list is extremely misleading. Your facts are more dishonest than, say, @jacobs facts. So, what may I ask is your motivation/incentive? (@jacob's seems pretty clear given this whole ERE thing).

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

bryan wrote:
7Wannabe5 wrote:I think the good news is that every time I try to trace up the system from me, I find that the people who should be concerned and taking action, are concerned and taking action.
Ditto. I am quite happy with China's momentum here, especially bringing down the cost of photovoltaics.

@steveo73, I mostly wonder what your motivation/incentive is for taking this side of the debate? I don't mind listening to "climate change science" sceptics so long as they make sense because certainly the other side of the aisle is guilty of misleading the public, in some ways, and both sides should be heard until such time as the science is better settled. However, your latest 10 point list is extremely misleading. Your facts are more dishonest than, say, @jacobs facts. So, what may I ask is your motivation/incentive? (@jacob's seems pretty clear given this whole ERE thing).
I don't get this. I provide facts. They can't be dishonest. Why do this ? I find this a little frustrating. My facts are freaken spot on. I provide links to reputable scientists. I describe the real facts and the real science. There was an earlier post stating that CO2 increases warmth just like a flashlight or something that heats up something or other. That is factually completely untrue. Debating these types of points to me is amazing. I wonder if people are really that dumb ? Is that the case or is it just a political viewpoint that is so extreme that the facts don't matter ? It's one of the two. I suppose it could be that people are completely uneducated on the topic. I think that the uneducated part is definitely true. I haven't heard on this thread I think one good scientific argument that AGW is real.

As for my motivations. I answered this earlier. I studied the topic at university and I've always found it fascinating. I continue to keep myself informed about it.

Honestly I don't understand why the AGW proponents/alarmists take the high moral ground here. I think if anything the reverse is true.

Gilberto de Piento
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Gilberto de Piento »

As for my motivations. I answered this earlier. I studied the topic at university and I've always found it fascinating. I continue to keep myself informed about it.
Steveo also said he has a lot of time on his hands. I think he's just bored and likes to argue.

black_son_of_gray
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 7:39 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by black_son_of_gray »

@steveo73: I'm wondering, because you emphasized that you are "extremely well educated" on the topic, and also that others are 1) self-delusional with their politics or biases or 2) just dumb/uneducated... could you please fill me in as to what you specifically did to become so enlightened about climate change?

For example, could you provide more details about your university studies or what your routine is to keep informed?

bryan
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 2:01 am
Location: mostly Bay Area

Re: Climate Change!

Post by bryan »

By "dishonest facts" I mean of course the application of facts (often statistics) in a dishonest way (to mis-represent or confuse the state of things, in this case). Again, I think both sides are guilty but your ten point list left me really scratching my head as to their pertinence to the topic.

> There was an earlier post stating that CO2 increases warmth just like a flashlight or something that heats up something or other. That is factually completely untrue.

I hadn't read that but I could see the correctness if the post was simply an attempt to simplify the explanation of what the greenhouse effect is (i.e. that the "flashlight" was the sun and within the flashlights beam next to each other were two identical enclosures with a thermal probe inside each, the only difference being what gaseous masses were inside the sphere). Of course if people are suggesting the primary heating of the planet's surface in recent years is a result of more CO2 giving off radiation...

What in particular do you find fascinating on the topic of climate change that keeps you so engaged?

ducknalddon
Posts: 249
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by ducknalddon »

Gilberto de Piento wrote:
As for my motivations. I answered this earlier. I studied the topic at university and I've always found it fascinating. I continue to keep myself informed about it.
Steveo also said he has a lot of time on his hands. I think he's just bored and likes to argue.
I don't think we are posting here to convince steveo, rather for other people who may come across this thread, who will see some vague postings on one side of the argument and a lot of reasoned facts on the other. I doubt there are many people who approach this with an open mind would come out thinking climate science is bunk so it has been worth participating.

Gilberto de Piento
Posts: 1942
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:23 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by Gilberto de Piento »

I don't think we are posting here to convince steveo, rather for other people who may come across this thread, who will see some vague postings on one side of the argument and a lot of reasoned facts on the other. I doubt there are many people who approach this with an open mind would come out thinking climate science is bunk so it has been worth participating.
I completely agree, and said the same thing back a few pages.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

bryan wrote:By "dishonest facts" I mean of course the application of facts (often statistics) in a dishonest way (to mis-represent or confuse the state of things, in this case). Again, I think both sides are guilty but your ten point list left me really scratching my head as to their pertinence to the topic.

> There was an earlier post stating that CO2 increases warmth just like a flashlight or something that heats up something or other. That is factually completely untrue.

I hadn't read that but I could see the correctness if the post was simply an attempt to simplify the explanation of what the greenhouse effect is (i.e. that the "flashlight" was the sun and within the flashlights beam next to each other were two identical enclosures with a thermal probe inside each, the only difference being what gaseous masses were inside the sphere). Of course if people are suggesting the primary heating of the planet's surface in recent years is a result of more CO2 giving off radiation...

What in particular do you find fascinating on the topic of climate change that keeps you so engaged?
I don't understand why you would be scratching your head with the points that I raised. They are factual. The point regarding the flashlight was a long long way from the truth. It's the AGW proponents who consistently use dodgy facts. They can't even face the fact that their models aren't working and then they state they are using science. Anyone who believes in the scientific method has to see that this is crazy stuff.

I find the topic fascinating because the evidence is so poor and yet the political clout/alarmist beliefs are so strong.

A couple of points:-

1, There is some truth I like arguing. The point is that it has to be something I find interesting.
2. I have the reasoned facts on my side and it's not close. I've provided a tonne of links on this thread to well reasoned arguments. When it comes to the alarmists there has been some terrible facts laid out. I suggest you go and check this by re-reading through the thread.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by BRUTE »

sometimes brute wonders if there is an actual, objective truth, or if it's all subjective.

steveo73
Posts: 1733
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by steveo73 »

BRUTE wrote:sometimes brute wonders if there is an actual, objective truth, or if it's all subjective.
I think that there is but in a complex system like climate and with the knowledge that we now have there isn't a way to definitively conclude that AGW is a complete non-issue or possibly an issue.

The problem is that people want a black and white answer that the facts definitely do not support.

I also think that AGW ties into some self-loathing of people and the human race in general. It's the theory that the Earth is ending. This has been around forever. For some reason people love this stuff. AGW is giving them a justification for this and they buy it without utilising clear reasoning.

I've come into this debate/discussion from a viewpoint of utilising facts to draw reasonable conclusions. The facts need to be based on science. I still stand by this approach however AGW is not a scientific rational discussion. It's a political/sociological debate and it should be viewed from the basis that people have an urge to believe that human impact on the Earth is inherently bad. This is the predominant belief of AGW alarmists. It isn't based on science.

I think in time the science though will improve. It's just going to take a lot of time.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by BRUTE »

yea, brute hates that Malthusian bullshit ("humans suck"). humans DO suck, but so does the earth, and especially nature. if humans create an extinction-level event, they should at least have the balls to take everything else down with them.

(only a little bit joking, brute does actually hate Malthusianism).

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Human beings are a critically important keystone species. IMO, that is the objective ecological perspective. My subjective perspective is that human beings are one of my favorite species because they are the only one capable of providing me with decent conversation.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Climate Change!

Post by BRUTE »

they aight

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by jacob »

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-psycholog ... -news.html

This is an interesting take/new approach to understanding how facts and alternative facts enter human brains using concepts from virology. Someone who has read at least a book or two combined with some scientific background(*) is somewhat inoculated. This is likely why scientists and intellectuals usually call for "more education" as the solution to misinformation. However, this "more education"-strategy only works a small fraction of humans, so what about the other 95%+ who "don't read books". The problem is that it takes time to read a book.

According to this study, alternative facts cancel out objective facts, if they are presented like this ...

A says: "Here is _objectivefact"
B says: "No, here is _alternativefact"
A says: "That's a lie. Here's _objectivefact"
B says: "No, that's a lie. Here's _alternative fact"

... and so on and so forth.

You see an example of this process in the Facebook's newsfeed, twitter feeds, ... and in this thread above. Some people really enjoy this process.

It also happens when journalists lazily figure they can just present "both sides" (the earth is spherical <-> the earth is flat) and then let viewers decide on the actual shape figuring they've done their job in presenting some good TV-compatible material with two people arguing with a moderator in the middle chair. What happens in humans who lack the intellectual immune system for a particular field of expertise is that alternative facts cancel out facts and vice versa. A side-effect is that other humans think the matter is unsettled/being debated.

Obviously, this kind of immune-deficiency can be exploited by those who provide alternative facts, i.e.

The black hat play book:
1) Provide an alternative fact whenever a fact is provided. Not just to cancel out the fact but also the maintain the idea that the subject is unsettled.
2) Whenever asked to back up or otherwise explain the alternative fact in detail, just ignore the request and provide some other unrelated alternative fact.
3) Repeat ad nauseum.

Now, traditionally, the recommended way to counter misinformation was to provide a detailed counter-argument to each made-up assertion. The problem with that is that it requires the audience to read and think + it plays right into the black hat book because they can simply make up something else. It's much more effort to defend than to attack when the target is a mostly uneducated mind. Figure most of the audience won't easily be able to tell the difference between sound theory and made up assertions. Non-experts can't tell a difference of quality. Those with a bit more experience will be able to tell [meta-level] if one side is composed of random lists of kettle logic or whether there's more structure behind it. However, the random person who doesn't really pay attention (because tl;dr) won't easily be able to tell the difference between someone who claims to be an expert and someone who actually is an expert. In particular, the random person will inclined to side with whoever is more relateable/etc. Rhetorics matter a lot to a layman audience.

(*) Where the standard is a good deal higher than taking an elective class twenty+ years ago or having watched a lot of youtube videos.

Therefore assuming that the other party is actually willing to play by the scientific rules is a mistake. (Easily countered by them just saying something like "I've laid out my argument in a scientific manner, and ... here are my alternative facts". The black hat book works almost as well on the meta-level as in "I may not be a real doctor but I play one on youtube" (and that's good enough for some people).

So apparently, what has actually turned out to work (see link) based on real testing on real people rather than what intellectuals think should work when it comes to learning is to pre-inoculate people whenever one makes a statement. You can see this strategy being applied when for example facebook is talking about tagging fake news with a cute piece of warning sign graphics.

What does this mean in terms of virology?

It means that pretty much every single piece of publicly available research needs to come with a disclaimer. Either a general one like "Some politically motivated think tanks use misleading tactics to try to convince the public that <general subject>" or a highly specific one involving details, e.g. "A common but misleading objection is to say that temperatures haven't increased for 16 years. This is done by only showing the most recent two decades and and cherry-picking the starting year as 1998 (an unusually strong El Nino year with high surface temperatures) while deliberately ignoring that 15 warmest years recorded in human existence have all happened in the past 18 years or showing a longer timeline. Another misleading tactic is to only consider tropospheric data (2.3% of the heat absorption) while ignoring the continuously increasing ocean temperature that accounts for 93% of the heat absorption as well as the melting cryosphere."

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Climate Change!

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@jacob: So, you are saying that the most effective method is to figure out what alternative fact or exception to the rule etc. etc. might be offered, and then include it in a clause prior to your statement? For instance, "Since most human beings are not built like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Iskra Lawrence, BMI is well-correlated to various health risks associated with visceral fat deposits."

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Climate Change!

Post by jacob »

@7wb5 - Okay, you might have missed the news cycle over the past 48 hours?!

"Alternative fact" as in belonging to an "alternate universe" but not to this universe. So it has nothing to do with exceptions to the rule ... or outliers to the dataset or attempts to explain details or increase accuracy. Rather it concerns statements about the dataset that say that the dataset is something completely different than what it is in reality.

The Disclaimer method only applies in fields where there is an existing [manufactured] controversy in which there is a list of [widely believed] "alternative facts" than can be demonstrated to be false. Read the link I posted or the last paragraph in my post for an example.

In other words ... if there is a "Snopes" (or equivalent) article wherein some statement about X that has been labeled False ... then [the existence of] that... is a highly pertinent piece of information that needs to be included in your discussion of X.

This method is much more effective than just talking about X and then eventually getting into a back and forth debate about X.

Locked