Page 3 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

StickyVicky
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 23

05 Aug 2018, 2:49 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'm also somewhat familiar with the studies that came back suggesting that the predictions made about global warming have come back on the low end of the register. I'm really glad of that because it means we can innovate our way out of it rather than putting an already complex social system under some type of strict central planning.

The problem is that while the temperatures stayed low, CO2 emissions continued to increase. This necessarily means the entire hypothesis regarding CO2's impact on climate is wrong. Fundamentally, irredeemably, completely wrong.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,677
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

05 Aug 2018, 3:22 pm

There was an interesting video I watched on this topic on Independent Man's page back in July of 2017 called 'Coming out as a Lukewarmer on Climate Change' where he addresses his disagreements with both climate-change apocalypse prophets and wholesale climate change deniers. One could try saying that he's just showing a central tendency bias which doesn't count as actually grappling with the data and he included an excerpt from a guy called potholer54 who does his best to wring the politics out of the topic and keep it to brass tacks.

Among a lot of useful information in the video he made the CO2 comparison only, held it up against the planetary temperature graph and - no match. He then held up increased heat from the sun over 500 million years - again, no match. Multiply the two together, ie. solar output and CO2 levels, you get a much more convincing match.



Unless someone has scientific journal articles falsifying the claim that CO2 traps reflected heat and that scientists now know they were doing that simple laboratory experiment all wrong it sounds like the fundamental principle - ie. that heightened CO2 retains heat - stays intact. If we know that it's multivariate, ie. that there are several causes, that just means there are several causes. To say that one cause on its own isn't causing the whole thing is both entirely correct in isolation and utterly misleading if we're asked to follow that up with some notion that because it's not the whole phenomena then it's having no effect. The later sounds a bit like gender wage gap logic.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


StickyVicky
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 23

05 Aug 2018, 3:40 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Unless someone has scientific journal articles falsifying the claim that CO2 traps reflected heat and that scientists now know they were doing that simple laboratory experiment all wrong it sounds like the fundamental principle - ie. that heightened CO2 retains heat - stays intact.

No, the question isn't whether CO2 reflects certain wavelengths of light. This is very empirically demonstrable. The question is whether a system as complex as the global climate necessarily responds in a 1:1 fashion to increased CO2 concentrations with measurably increasing temperatures. And we know for a fact that it does not.

And this makes sense when you consider that CO2 has an exponentially declining effectiveness in trapping IR radiation with increasing concentration. It is technically true that increasing the concentration of CO2 results in more heat trapped, but unless we're talking orders of magnitude higher concentrations--like Venusian scales of atmospheric concentration--it has no measurable impact.

Image


It continues to blow my mind how such elementary level reasoning seems to escape even people in the scientific community on this subject.



StickyVicky
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 23

05 Aug 2018, 4:02 pm

And just another "sanity check" point of interest, even though it is being only indirectly discussed. There isn't even any evidence that humans are having a measurable impact on animal extinctions, despite constant claims in certain circles that humans are causing a "Sixth Extinction." Let's look at the data first.

Image


Animal genera are not presently in any kind of downward trend. But let's even consider how you would even measure this to begin with: You count the number of differentiable species fossilized in sedimentary deposits. How do we know that there was a mass extinction event that wiped out half of the Earth's species 65 million years go? Because the number of species in the geologic record decreased by half at this time. So how do you state that there is a "mass extinction event" happening currently when you don't have a fossil record to verify this?

You don't.

It's a complete and utter lie.



Last edited by StickyVicky on 05 Aug 2018, 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,677
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

05 Aug 2018, 4:07 pm

I just took a look at the article below:
http://www.bitsofscience.org/do-the-mat ... -ppm-7237/

There's no reason to deny that a lot of people are trying to bake this data one way or the other for their own political gains. It's so bad that most people generally just go with whatever their political alignment is and stick with it. That's part of why I tend to stay out of this topic usually as well because it seems to be as much a can of worms as debating cosmology or the implications of abortion - just I sometimes think even the abortion issue is argued in better faith because you can only strong arm so much in the way of politics with that whereas you could try hijacking and centrally planning the entire thing (and wrecking it) if you could sell people on the idea that global warming necessitated the destruction of grass-roots markets.

As a rule when people come to topics like this, with even controversy, and proclaim a sort of gnostic attunement on the matter I typically don't think I'll gain much insight from what they have to say because they've drank their own Koolaid. Someone can be arguing in good faith and be quite sure of themselves but their emotional and social engagement looks a lot different than watching DK in motion. If I do see DK in motion the best I can hope is that the person offering all the exceptions, or all the crisis charts, is somewhere in there showing me something I haven't heard before and that it's yet another thing I can get my head around to figure out what to make of the topic.

That said I don't think we're headed for earth becoming Mars, nor do I think the climate change issue will lead us to NWO out of Brussells, the three 'cities within cities', or any of that. If the freemarket can take care of the problem then the weight of the political panic is off of our shoulders and we can just enjoy the progress as well as voting with our dollars for those who are bringing said progress. As far as I can tell it's neither whole-cloth, nor is the planet going to eat us, it's just another priority we have that also falls rather well in line with finding more renewable replacements for oil and improving other energy technologies.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,677
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

05 Aug 2018, 4:12 pm

Another side note - for as much as I think VICE sucks on a lot of things political I found their coverage of the coral breeders interesting. The bleaching problem is getting bad enough that they're trying to breed coral to engineer more robust strains that can handle the warmer waters without going white. Very cool and innovative strategy, sounds like they're able to get it done on nearly a shoestring budget, it would be awesome if they were getting more funding for this sort of work (patrons, grants, etc.) because they're down in the trenches getting things done. It sort of reinforces the concern though - ie. that we're dealing with a whole amalgam of problems that fit together into a larger one and that's wise of us to do what we can to abate them wherever possible.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


StickyVicky
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 23

05 Aug 2018, 4:39 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
The bleaching problem is getting bad enough that they're trying to breed coral to engineer more robust strains that can handle the warmer waters without going white.

I haven't looked into this in any major depth. Can you share data that specifically demonstrates that coral reefs are experiencing a larger dieoff now than they have in the geologic record? If it's just due to "warmer waters," as you state, then it's likely that there is no such data.



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,677
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

05 Aug 2018, 5:20 pm

I saw probably ten or twelve abstracts behind paywalls. A couple that weren't log-in or pay protected:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr ... re&f=false

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467- ... rigin=ppub


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,124
Location: The Infodome

05 Aug 2018, 5:25 pm

StickyVicky wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
The bleaching problem is getting bad enough that they're trying to breed coral to engineer more robust strains that can handle the warmer waters without going white.

I haven't looked into this in any major depth. Can you share data that specifically demonstrates that coral reefs are experiencing a larger dieoff now than they have in the geologic record? If it's just due to "warmer waters," as you state, then it's likely that there is no such data.


Coral don't suffer directly because of the warmer waters. Most of the harmful effects global warming are side effects of the warming. The warming is not all that bad by itself, but it comes with a myriad of harmful side effects.

Coal suffers because the sea level is rising. Coral has a symbiotic relationship with algae. Algae can only survive near the surface of water, as it is photosynthetic.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


StickyVicky
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 23

05 Aug 2018, 5:46 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I saw probably ten or twelve abstracts behind paywalls. A couple that weren't log-in or pay protected:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr ... re&f=false

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467- ... rigin=ppub

Neither one of those links demonstrates what I asked for. They need to be able to demonstrate a higher die-off rate presently occurring than in past warm-water scenarios that I described in earlier posts. We have geologic records of coral reefs from those time periods, so we should be able to establish a baseline from, say, 38 "warm periods" from the past several million years to determine whether what is happening now is unusual.

Got that data?



techstepgenr8tion
SomeRandomGuy
SomeRandomGuy

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 20,677
Location: The 27th Path of Peh.

05 Aug 2018, 5:57 pm

I didn't take much time with it. I'd say sate your own curiosity - Google's wide open to your fingertips.


_________________
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privelege of owning yourself" - Rudyard Kipling


Syd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Dec 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 999

05 Aug 2018, 6:40 pm

StickyVicky wrote:

Image




You're citing data by Richard Lindzen??

Thanks for the laugh. :lol:



Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,165
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

05 Aug 2018, 6:59 pm

StickyVicky wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'm also somewhat familiar with the studies that came back suggesting that the predictions made about global warming have come back on the low end of the register. I'm really glad of that because it means we can innovate our way out of it rather than putting an already complex social system under some type of strict central planning.

The problem is that while the temperatures stayed low, CO2 emissions continued to increase. This necessarily means the entire hypothesis regarding CO2's impact on climate is wrong. Fundamentally, irredeemably, completely wrong.

The temperatures has raised, there is more than enough proofs about that; and it would continue to rise even if we stopped our emissions now, as it take time to go through the atmosphere thermal inertia.

StickyVicky wrote:
And just another "sanity check" point of interest, even though it is being only indirectly discussed. There isn't even any evidence that humans are having a measurable impact on animal extinctions, despite constant claims in certain circles that humans are causing a "Sixth Extinction." Let's look at the data first.

Image


Animal genera are not presently in any kind of downward trend. But let's even consider how you would even measure this to begin with: You count the number of differentiable species fossilized in sedimentary deposits. How do we know that there was a mass extinction event that wiped out half of the Earth's species 65 million years go? Because the number of species in the geologic record decreased by half at this time. So how do you state that there is a "mass extinction event" happening currently when you don't have a fossil record to verify this?

You don't.

It's a complete and utter lie.

That graph is misleading, as the further we go back in time, the more rare are fossils of that time. Also, the sixth mass extinction begun, or at least intensified, in the last two centuries, a scale of time way bellow that what the graph is showing.

Humans have modified their environment way back in time, before even any historical reccords; that it didn't cause extinctions, or don't today with our massive capabilities in engineering and exploitations, is simply ludicrous.

StickyVicky wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
The bleaching problem is getting bad enough that they're trying to breed coral to engineer more robust strains that can handle the warmer waters without going white.

I haven't looked into this in any major depth. Can you share data that specifically demonstrates that coral reefs are experiencing a larger dieoff now than they have in the geologic record? If it's just due to "warmer waters," as you state, then it's likely that there is no such data.

It's not only heat that destroy corals, it's also, and mostly, ocean acidification, as ocean absord large parts of atmosphere CO2.

StickyVicky wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Unless someone has scientific journal articles falsifying the claim that CO2 traps reflected heat and that scientists now know they were doing that simple laboratory experiment all wrong it sounds like the fundamental principle - ie. that heightened CO2 retains heat - stays intact.

No, the question isn't whether CO2 reflects certain wavelengths of light. This is very empirically demonstrable. The question is whether a system as complex as the global climate necessarily responds in a 1:1 fashion to increased CO2 concentrations with measurably increasing temperatures. And we know for a fact that it does not.

And this makes sense when you consider that CO2 has an exponentially declining effectiveness in trapping IR radiation with increasing concentration. It is technically true that increasing the concentration of CO2 results in more heat trapped, but unless we're talking orders of magnitude higher concentrations--like Venusian scales of atmospheric concentration--it has no measurable impact.

Image


It continues to blow my mind how such elementary level reasoning seems to escape even people in the scientific community on this subject.

Climatologists know what they talking about, and I'm pretty sure they have take that in account.
Beside, if you stack the blue bars then it become signifiant; only a small part of the warming, but enough for signifiant change in climates.



StickyVicky
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 23

05 Aug 2018, 7:04 pm

Tollorin wrote:
StickyVicky wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I'm also somewhat familiar with the studies that came back suggesting that the predictions made about global warming have come back on the low end of the register. I'm really glad of that because it means we can innovate our way out of it rather than putting an already complex social system under some type of strict central planning.

The problem is that while the temperatures stayed low, CO2 emissions continued to increase. This necessarily means the entire hypothesis regarding CO2's impact on climate is wrong. Fundamentally, irredeemably, completely wrong.

The temperatures has raised, there is more than enough proofs about that; and it would continue to rise even if we stopped our emissions now, as it take time to go through the atmosphere thermal inertia.

StickyVicky wrote:
And just another "sanity check" point of interest, even though it is being only indirectly discussed. There isn't even any evidence that humans are having a measurable impact on animal extinctions, despite constant claims in certain circles that humans are causing a "Sixth Extinction." Let's look at the data first.

Image


Animal genera are not presently in any kind of downward trend. But let's even consider how you would even measure this to begin with: You count the number of differentiable species fossilized in sedimentary deposits. How do we know that there was a mass extinction event that wiped out half of the Earth's species 65 million years go? Because the number of species in the geologic record decreased by half at this time. So how do you state that there is a "mass extinction event" happening currently when you don't have a fossil record to verify this?

You don't.

It's a complete and utter lie.

That graph is misleading, as the further we go back in time, the more rare are fossils of that time. Also, the sixth mass extinction begun, or at least intensified, in the last two centuries, a scale of time way bellow that what the graph is showing.

Humans have modified their environment way back in time, before even any historical reccords; that it didn't cause extinctions, or don't today with our massive capabilities in engineering and exploitations, is simply ludicrous.

StickyVicky wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
The bleaching problem is getting bad enough that they're trying to breed coral to engineer more robust strains that can handle the warmer waters without going white.

I haven't looked into this in any major depth. Can you share data that specifically demonstrates that coral reefs are experiencing a larger dieoff now than they have in the geologic record? If it's just due to "warmer waters," as you state, then it's likely that there is no such data.

It's not only heat that destroy corals, it's also, and mostly, ocean acidification, as ocean absord large parts of atmosphere CO2.

StickyVicky wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Unless someone has scientific journal articles falsifying the claim that CO2 traps reflected heat and that scientists now know they were doing that simple laboratory experiment all wrong it sounds like the fundamental principle - ie. that heightened CO2 retains heat - stays intact.

No, the question isn't whether CO2 reflects certain wavelengths of light. This is very empirically demonstrable. The question is whether a system as complex as the global climate necessarily responds in a 1:1 fashion to increased CO2 concentrations with measurably increasing temperatures. And we know for a fact that it does not.

And this makes sense when you consider that CO2 has an exponentially declining effectiveness in trapping IR radiation with increasing concentration. It is technically true that increasing the concentration of CO2 results in more heat trapped, but unless we're talking orders of magnitude higher concentrations--like Venusian scales of atmospheric concentration--it has no measurable impact.

Image


It continues to blow my mind how such elementary level reasoning seems to escape even people in the scientific community on this subject.

Climatologists know what they talking about, and I'm pretty sure they have take that in account.
Beside, if you stack the blue bars then it become signifiant; only a small part of the warming, but enough for signifiant change in climates.


I've already addressed every single point you've tried to make here. Scroll up.

Quote:
You're citing data by Richard Lindzen??

Am I?

Rather than attempting to discredit the data by attacking the source, why don't you produce some contrary data?



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,200
Location: Adelaide, Australia

06 Aug 2018, 4:04 am

sly279 wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Presently, we add 83 million people to the planet every year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

Any solution needs to figure out how those additional people will be provided with food, homes, electricity, transportation.

The solution is to lower their infant mortality rate and improve their standard of living. First world people don't have such a high birth rate but we used to. To put the brakes on population growth we must bring the third world into the first world.

People in first world have 8-10 kids too. How will you stop them?

Why stop them? They're only a fraction of a percent of the population.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short