homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » No need to worry about climate change. The people in charge say God's in control (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: No need to worry about climate change. The people in charge say God's in control
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So before your right-wing government destroyed your bus service, how often did your bus service run? (This one's a real question.) I'm curious, because I don't see how enough people can want to go to the same places at the same time to make a bus service rational in such a rural area.

Some routes daily, some others weekly, some in between. The real losers are those who live in rural areas, need medical transport to places where treatment is provided, elderly who cannot drive, courier services for businesses - farm machinery parts is a big deal among other things.

The point is that some services are not rational in terms of making a profit. And that rationality ≠ making money in all circumstances. If it was, then we wouldn't have electric, natural gas, phones (land and cell), internet, water, sewer, mail. We've always subsidized rural basic services.

Posts: 10501 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We really need a thread on one dumb quote? or is this about more demonising those that dissent. Of course that's a silly thing to say. But it's funny how these are the kinds of quotes that people like to use to deface those that disagree.

The climate changes, so far we've seen nothing noteworthy in our small swatch of careful study over about 50 years. (before that we didn't really collect that much data and instruments weren't even calibrated).
Of course we have harmed the planet with pollutants, but I think it is highly interesting that so many are brainwashed into believing that CO2 is what is really going to kill the species.

It's ridiculous. Yes, we are that dumb - all of us.


It is well known that the sun is putting out more radiation over the last 100 years, but that doesn't get publicity. No, instead politicians are fear mongering so they can control the feeble minded population.

He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
http://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html


It is so fashionable to talk about greenhouse gasses that people will say nonsense like that.

".... even if there WERE a link".

Just ponder the full fledged pinheadery of that statement. It demonstrates the outright rejection of all contrary evidence

Why do people put in qualifiers to their articles like that? They know that if they don't support the POLITICS of climate change, they don't get funding!

Climate change is simply a narrative now, it's a vehicle for funding technology innovation. It's a way of galvanizing people toward a common cause that feels good and is blended with other things are are responsible and natural.

Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)

If anything the increase in C02 is probably due to deforestation and modern farming practices and herbicides and poisoning of life that consumes CO2 naturally.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 167 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:


Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)

If anything the increase in C02 is probably due to deforestation and modern farming practices and herbicides and poisoning of life that consumes CO2 naturally.

Bullshit.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9033 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aijalon:
There is a convergence of evidence from multiple data sourses: pollen, tree rings, ice cores, coral, glacial and polar ice melting, sea-level rising, plant and animal shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the rate of temperature increase. It all converges on the same conclusion. To say a single thing may be out of line with the others doesn't mean much. Convergence of data is the evidence. For you to overrule the consensus, you will have to explain all the data, not just your two little points.

And about the sun, the data don't support your point. Link.

[ 05. June 2017, 18:53: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posts: 10501 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is well known that the sun is putting out more radiation over the last 100 years, but that doesn't get publicity. No, instead politicians are fear mongering so they can control the feeble minded population.

He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
http://www.space.com/2942-sun-activity-increased-century-study-confirms.html

Yep, so well known you can apparently only cite a non-scholarly article from over a decade ago to support this "well know" fact. Here's a link to an article by the Union of Concerned Scientists which, interestingly enough, cites the same article being cited by your space.com article. (It's footnote [1]):

quote:
The second hypothesis relies on the fact that changes in solar activity also change the flow of small, charged, highly energetic particles (known as galactic cosmic rays) that travel through the atmosphere toward Earth [1, 2]. These particles in turn create more ions (charged atoms or molecules) from air molecules in the atmosphere, and it has been suggested [3] that these ions might modify cloud formation, causing large changes in weather and temperatures below.

So far, there is no convincing evidence that either of these ideas adequately demonstrate a causal links between small changes in solar irradiance and the relatively large, measurable changes in Earth’s surface temperature over the past century.

Of course, we don't have to rely on forensic evidence of high energy particle residue in meteors (a partial data set by definition) to check for a recent correlation. Solar irradiance has been measured directly by satellites for the last four decades, so we can see the correlation for ourselves, or the lack thereof.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It is so fashionable to talk about greenhouse gasses that people will say nonsense like that.

".... even if there WERE a link".

Just ponder the full fledged pinheadery of that statement. It demonstrates the outright rejection of all contrary evidence

Yeah, like the fact that the radiative heat-trapping properties of certain gases has been known since the nineteenth century.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Why do people put in qualifiers to their articles like that? They know that if they don't support the POLITICS of climate change, they don't get funding!

Yep. Exxon, BP, and other fossil fuel megacorps just can't compete against the massive funding of scientific grants!!! Interestingly, this climate change conspiracy you posit would be one of the most successful in human history: thousands of people doing primary research all coming up with the same generally-agreeing results without any defectors, leaks, or accidental posting of the real data.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose 1995 (the year mean CO2 levels were at 360 ppm) as your baseline? It would seem more straightforward (and honest) to use the starting point of the data set (316 ppm in 1959) as your baseline, but maybe you've got a reason (aside from "+10% sounds a lot less scary than +28%").

And arguments from very small numbers is not terribly convincing except to scientifically illiterate laymen. For example, the LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of exposed persons) for hydrogen cyanide is somewhere between 100 ppm and 300 ppm, yet no one ever says "That's impossible! That's only one hundredth of one percent." Well, I suppose they might if they were defending themselves in a cyanide poisoning liability suit, but I wouldn't expect anyone to take them at their word or conclude that since it was such a small number the amount of cyanide was therefore "insignificant".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10178 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The climate changes, so far we've seen nothing noteworthy in our small swatch of careful study over about 50 years. (before that we didn't really collect that much data and instruments weren't even calibrated).

In addition to what others have said in response to your post, I'd point out that although we only have a few decades of instrumental data (as you note) we have proxy data that has allowed us to reconstruct the climate over several 10s of thousands of years. So, we know that the current rate of warming exceeds that of the start of the current interglacial and that current temperatures exceed the maximum of the last few interglacial periods. We also know that CO2 concentrations are greater than at any time over the last million years, and almost certainly several 10s of millions of years.

quote:
Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)
As noted, the actual increase over modern historical periods is more like 20-40% (it really does depend on what you consider to be the baseline). But, to call that insignificant misses how atmospheric chemistry affects IR radiation transmission. Most of the gases in the atmosphere are transparent to IR, it's as though they weren't there. So, what's important is the amount of CO2, methane and water vapour, and some trace components such as CFCs.

As an analogy if you're used to drinking beer containing 3% alcohol and switch to beer with 4% alcohol you will notice the effect after a few pints. Even though the increase in alcohol content is small compared to the total volume of beer consumed.

quote:
If anything the increase in C02 is probably due to deforestation and modern farming practices and herbicides and poisoning of life that consumes CO2 naturally.
Of course, deforestation and other practices (eg: draining of peatlands) has contributed to global climate change. But, we can easily test whether it's the dominant effect. CO2/CH4 originating from contemporary sources (eg: burning forests) contains a modern 14C concentration. Fossil fuels contain no 14C. If we examine 14C concentrations in the atmosphere then a dilution below what should be present must have come from fossil sources. Guess what? If you do that experiment you find a lot less 14C than you should. We recently published a paper on 14C in tree rings near a new expressway that was suddenly closed (because it went through the Fukushima exclusion zone) - 14C concentrations dropped when the highway opened, then rose again when it was closed in 2011.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31745 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
why 360ppm? It's about as far back as I felt relevant to go, basically that number is where the Climate change movement got started, so it works. I don't think we really need to go into the ice cores at this point. LOL.

The space.com article was chosen for the quote it contained which exposes the thought suppression ... outright fear of pointing out the emperor has no pants on.

And you think generally there is just no way so many could be wrong on this? Sure, the planet is warming up a degree F (give or take some error), I'm good with that, I don't even think warming is bad - that's not the question.

Many Many complex factors contribute to the greenhouse effect. The most important factor are clouds. The more clouds the more reflected radiation.

And there are many other factors such as the magnetic field of the earth and sun and solar system, solar wind, solar radiation, sun spots.

The conclusion that it MUST be greenhouse gas sounds so simple, and of course greenhouse gas is in effect. Point is, the manmade portion of the greenhouse effect through petroleum fuels is not the issue. The issue is damage to the econsystem of the earth by the machines that burn the fuel. The direct CO2 exhaust is a minor contributor.


Look, I'm all for not poisoning the earth and the water. but

The alarmism started early on, with massive ocean level increases, etc... its fear mongering plain and simple.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 167 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
why 360ppm? It's about as far back as I felt relevant to go, basically that number is where the Climate change movement got started, so it works. I don't think we really need to go into the ice cores at this point.

Actually, we should go into the ice cores. Because they record the natural cycle in CO2 concentrations, as well as the historic record. Which would give a more realistic base line of around 280ppm - the concentration before the start of the industrial revolution, and also the maximum of the previous four interglacial periods stretching back 400,000 years.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31745 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:


The conclusion that it MUST be greenhouse gas sounds so simple, and of course greenhouse gas is in effect. Point is, the manmade portion of the greenhouse effect through petroleum fuels is not the issue. The issue is damage to the econsystem of the earth by the machines that burn the fuel. The direct CO2 exhaust is a minor contributor.


Look, I'm all for not poisoning the earth and the water. but

The alarmism started early on, with massive ocean level increases, etc... its fear mongering plain and simple.

Kindly listen to the vast majority of scientists who know what they're talking about rather than spouting further rubbish. You don't know what you're talking about, the more you type the more that becomes evident.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9033 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
from the IPCC synthesis report 2014

quote:
Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 78% of the total GHG emissions increase from 1970 to 2010

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.



--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9033 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The alarmism started early on, with massive ocean level increases, etc... its fear mongering plain and simple.

If you can show me where scientists reported that we'd draw our curtains one morning to find a dead cow floating past at sill height, then fine.

They're reporting sea level rises in the time frame of decades to centuries. Perhaps they should be more alarmist, because once that shit goes down, our grandkids will be digging us up and hanging our remains.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8414 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
why 360ppm? It's about as far back as I felt relevant to go, basically that number is where the Climate change movement got started, so it works. I don't think we really need to go into the ice cores at this point. LOL.

Yeah, I'm not sure I can take a position of "the world started in 1995" seriously.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The space.com article was chosen for the quote it contained which exposes the thought suppression ... outright fear of pointing out the emperor has no pants on.

A thought suppression so pernicious it's managed to exert its insidious mind control on almost all of the Earth's climate scientists, and yet somehow manages to get published on the internet and is still up eleven years later? I have to say as "thought suppression" goes that seems pretty small beer.

In any event, I suspect it's more a case of "the article doesn't say what you think it says" rather than "a shadowy group of thought suppressors sent their agents to silence anyone telling the truth". For example, here's an article co-authored by the same climate scientist cited in your space.com article studying long-term correlation between solar activity and global temperature. He takes the trouble to note in the abstract that "In this time [i.e. the last thirty years, or 1975-2005 given the publication date] the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other". In other words, the long-term correlation you're citing seems to break down in mid-twentieth century.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
And you think generally there is just no way so many could be wrong on this?

Pretty much, yeah. It's not that scientists are never wrong. (For starters, they often disagree with each other.) It's that in the history of science there has never been a major scientific consensus overturned because scientists all happened to forget about a well-known phenomenon until they were reminded of it by laymen. Your basic proposition is that the entire scientific community has forgotten about clouds. That one day they're all going to listen to you and say "OMG! We completely forgot clouds were a thing! How could we forget that?"

Let's just say I find this scenario implausible.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Many Many complex factors contribute to the greenhouse effect. The most important factor are clouds. The more clouds the more reflected radiation.

And there are many other factors such as the magnetic field of the earth and sun and solar system, solar wind, solar radiation, sun spots.

This bit seems to be "it's complicated and I don't understand it, therefore no one understands it". That and throwing out a Gish gallop of other things you likely don't understand particularly well either.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The conclusion that it MUST be greenhouse gas sounds so simple, and of course greenhouse gas is in effect. Point is, the manmade portion of the greenhouse effect through petroleum fuels is not the issue. The issue is damage to the econsystem of the earth by the machines that burn the fuel. The direct CO2 exhaust is a minor contributor.

"Econsystem" is too good a Freudian finger fail to not point out. At any rate, let's make this a little more specific. As Alan Creswell pointed out a baseline CO2 level for Earth in recent millennia seems to be about 280 ppm. In 1959 it was 316 ppm. In 2016 it was 404 ppm and shows no sign of either leveling off or decreasing. Your argument, as near as I can make it out, is that current levels of CO2 provide a negligible effect on climate. Please show us your work. You claim to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is "a minor contributor" to global temperature increases. How minor? And, more importantly given that the trend towards higher CO2 concentrations is continuing, at what concentration would you consider it to be an actual problem worth addressing?

Again, please show your work. I'm pretty sure that between Alan and myself we'll probably be able to follow the math.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10178 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

The point is that some services are not rational in terms of making a profit.

Oh, sure. I was thinking in terms of "frequent enough to meet people's needs, and containing an average of more than one or two passengers." Because if you're only moving one or two people about, it's not rational to do it with a large bus.
Posts: 4480 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

Just stop and consider that even though CO2 levels have risen 10%, CO2 is still insignificant at just 4-hundredths-of-one-percent. (up from .00036 to .0004)

Please explain why you consider that "insignificant"? I'm suspecting it's the typical schoolboy "it's a small number so it can't matter" argument, and unfortunately for you, that's really not how the planet works.

quote:

If anything the increase in C02 is probably due to deforestation and modern farming practices and herbicides and poisoning of life that consumes CO2 naturally.

Certainly deforestation contributes to the increase of CO2. Everybody agrees with that. It's not the largest contribution, but it's a decent-sized chunk of the man-made CO2 emissions.

What's your point here?

Alan has pointed out that the change in atmospheric carbon-14 tells you how much long-sequestered (fossil fuel) carbon we're burning. There's a lot of science here, and it's all consistent.

Atmospheric C02 is increasing - there are a large number of different ways of measuring that. We are causing it (burning fossil fuels, deforestation, etc...) That's not in doubt by anyone sensible.

Posts: 4480 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mexico City and other cities in Central and South America employ small buses known as combis, each holding from 5 to 15 passengers. I took the combi frequently during a stay in Mexico City a while back. It's certainly not the epitome of comfort and convenience but it served its purpose.

--------------------
"We're not in Wonderland anymore, Alice." – Charles Manson

Posts: 10059 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
if you're only moving one or two people about, it's not rational to do it with a large bus.

But, it may not be irrational to do it with a small bus. Especially if that bus can serve other purposes as well. A common example would be a postbus - combining a bus service (once or twice a day) with mail delivery and collection. Though the UK has all but eliminated this service, despite it's popularity with users in rural areas as Royal Mail deemed them unprofitable.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31745 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What about pedal-powered vehicles?

"TU Buscycle - the human-powered bus, from Sustainable Engineering Research Unit" (YouTube). And many other PPVs on that page.

Or solar?

"The World’s First 100% Solar Powered Bus" (EnergyMatters). It's in Oz, BTW.

Lots of other links out there. I searched on "pedal-powered bus" and "solar-powered bus".

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17254 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
why 360ppm? It's about as far back as I felt relevant to go, basically that number is where the Climate change movement got started, so it works. I don't think we really need to go into the ice cores at this point. LOL.

Yeah, I'm not sure I can take a position of "the world started in 1995" seriously.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The space.com article was chosen for the quote it contained which exposes the thought suppression ... outright fear of pointing out the emperor has no pants on.

A thought suppression so pernicious it's managed to exert its insidious mind control on almost all of the Earth's climate scientists, and yet somehow manages to get published on the internet and is still up eleven years later? I have to say as "thought suppression" goes that seems pretty small beer.

In any event, I suspect it's more a case of "the article doesn't say what you think it says" rather than "a shadowy group of thought suppressors sent their agents to silence anyone telling the truth". For example, here's an article co-authored by the same climate scientist cited in your space.com article studying long-term correlation between solar activity and global temperature. He takes the trouble to note in the abstract that "In this time [i.e. the last thirty years, or 1975-2005 given the publication date] the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other". In other words, the long-term correlation you're citing seems to break down in mid-twentieth century.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
And you think generally there is just no way so many could be wrong on this?

Pretty much, yeah. It's not that scientists are never wrong. (For starters, they often disagree with each other.) It's that in the history of science there has never been a major scientific consensus overturned because scientists all happened to forget about a well-known phenomenon until they were reminded of it by laymen. Your basic proposition is that the entire scientific community has forgotten about clouds. That one day they're all going to listen to you and say "OMG! We completely forgot clouds were a thing! How could we forget that?"

Let's just say I find this scenario implausible.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Many Many complex factors contribute to the greenhouse effect. The most important factor are clouds. The more clouds the more reflected radiation.

And there are many other factors such as the magnetic field of the earth and sun and solar system, solar wind, solar radiation, sun spots.

This bit seems to be "it's complicated and I don't understand it, therefore no one understands it". That and throwing out a Gish gallop of other things you likely don't understand particularly well either.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
The conclusion that it MUST be greenhouse gas sounds so simple, and of course greenhouse gas is in effect. Point is, the manmade portion of the greenhouse effect through petroleum fuels is not the issue. The issue is damage to the econsystem of the earth by the machines that burn the fuel. The direct CO2 exhaust is a minor contributor.

"Econsystem" is too good a Freudian finger fail to not point out. At any rate, let's make this a little more specific. As Alan Creswell pointed out a baseline CO2 level for Earth in recent millennia seems to be about 280 ppm. In 1959 it was 316 ppm. In 2016 it was 404 ppm and shows no sign of either leveling off or decreasing. Your argument, as near as I can make it out, is that current levels of CO2 provide a negligible effect on climate. Please show us your work. You claim to accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is "a minor contributor" to global temperature increases. How minor? And, more importantly given that the trend towards higher CO2 concentrations is continuing, at what concentration would you consider it to be an actual problem worth addressing?

Again, please show your work. I'm pretty sure that between Alan and myself we'll probably be able to follow the math.

I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

The mass assumptions about various aspects of the sun affecting earth centuries ago can only be viewed with a certain level of error considered. There is no way to know what solar weather was like in the past, but we can just make big assumptions.

yet the act that is put on is that science is just flawless and exact. Then we're told that a half degree of warming is killing us.

I am just standing back and looking objectively at this. I is basically politically induced mass hysteria. It's a like mass hypnosis. I guess you can't see it, you're one of the hypnotized ones.

Math just doesn't help us in the discussion here. The assumptions behind the math are the point here.

Posting the article as I did - again - was simply to demonstrate the thinking process of scientists truly inquisitive enough to question the "facts" of climate change as expressed.

Climate Change is a policy, not really a true science.

Sure sure, we have satellites and we are getting better about measuring things, but in a global experiment of tenths of a degree I just don't believe that in the recent past a few decades back that any of this was ever a real problem.

There is the unpublished research that doesn't agree with presumption behind all this as well. They just keep crunching new numbers and when they find one that agrees with the big big problem, they praise it as groundbreaking.

It's an inflated problem that enables the politicians to stuff regulations down our throats - and you like it! It's rather amazing actually.


The planet is warming up!
The greenhouse gas keeps us warm...
hmmmm.
must be carbon dioxide - has to be.

Boom.

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 167 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

Excuse me for asking, but you know that you are trying to debate physics with a nuclear scientist and someone with a doctorate in planetary geophysics, do you?

And, of course, not only that but thousands of climatologists whose job it actually is to make these predictions. You lack credibility here and you certainly lack credibility in the wild.

--------------------
my new book: Biblical But Bollocks. Available in all good bookshops.

Posts: 9033 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

This, and your subsequent comments about science not being exact are not at all the same thing. The politicians show way more disagreement than those who do science. Most of the politicians who disagree are illiterate in science and are either mostly American or American politicians who dispute climate science get the most press.

First, that scientists do not all agree isn't relevant. Some scientists have been providing expert commentary because they've been paid to do it, on the side of saying the data do not fit with warming. The money has been largely American and largely fossil fuel companies.

Second, science is about explaining data. The data do consistently show from multiple independent sources as I posted above that the planet is getting warmer. No-one is going to accept "alternative facts" on this.

You have an unusual understanding of science. Your comments about unpublished data - How did you then learn about it? Is it unpublished because it did not pass peer review? Are you alleging data suppression and a conspiracy to suppress data contrary to climate change? Which seems very odd, because the documentation is rather clear the shows that companies and people who profit from fossil fuels are the ones putting out data, e.g., Koch brothers, Exxon. Some of it since the 1980s.

quote:
Aijalon:
I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

This is demonstrably false. The data converges from independent data sources. Things as diverse as ice cores, coral, carbon which is contained in rocks, changes in the ecology of plants (where they live over millennia).

[ 06. June 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posts: 10501 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In any event, I suspect it's more a case of "the article doesn't say what you think it says" rather than "a shadowy group of thought suppressors sent their agents to silence anyone telling the truth". For example, here's an article co-authored by the same climate scientist cited in your space.com article studying long-term correlation between solar activity and global temperature. He takes the trouble to note in the abstract that "In this time [i.e. the last thirty years, or 1975-2005 given the publication date] the climate and solar data diverge strongly from each other". In other words, the long-term correlation you're citing seems to break down in mid-twentieth century.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

Given that you're posting on a thread that started out by citing several politicians who disagree with science, yeah it's funny. Not "funny ha ha" more "funny how Aijalon keeps just making shit up and ignoring everyone else's points". So yeah, it's "funny" that when it's pointed out that you're mis-representing the work of Dr. Usoskin you pretend that it hasn't happened and just continue to repeat the same point as if it's still valid. Your linked article even says:

quote:
The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present.

"During the last few decades, the solar activity is not increasing. It has stabilized at a high level, but the Earth's climate still shows a tendency toward increasing temperatures," Usoskin explained.

He suspects even if there were a link between the Sun's activity and global climate, other factors must have dominated during the last few decades, including the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

If you want to claim there's scientific disagreement on this subject, how about citing some actual scientific disagreement?

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

It's fairly amazing how you can pivot from "I'm not a scientists" to "let me give you my analysis of the robustness of this scientific data set". You're either not qualified to make that determination, in which case you need to provide some kind of citation that actually agrees with your claim, or you are qualified, in which case show your work.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I am just standing back and looking objectively at this. I is basically politically induced mass hysteria.

Another finger fail too good to pass up.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
It's a like mass hypnosis. I guess you can't see it, you're one of the hypnotized ones.

Seems like conspiracy theory thinking to me. You're "looking objectively at this". Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously a pawn of the conspiracy.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Math just doesn't help us in the discussion here. The assumptions behind the math are the point here.

I disagree. Saying "don't look at the numbers" is one of the warning signs of someone trying to pull a fast one. I'm not expecting you to re-create a full and accurate climate model. A back of the envelope "Earth as a blackbody at solar wavelengths/grey body at thermal wavelengths" would be sufficient to give us a rough order of magnitude and see how change-sensitive such a system is.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Posting the article as I did - again - was simply to demonstrate the thinking process of scientists truly inquisitive enough to question the "facts" of climate change as expressed.

Except, as has been pointed out repeatedly to you, that article doesn't say what you claim it says!!! Your complete unwillingness to address this point is not something we'd expect from someone who is making a good faith effort to "look[] objectively at this". Usually when someone's stated evidence has been shown to be insufficient to their point (or in this case, completely contrary to their point) some effort is made to address the problem. Since you seem unwilling to do this I can only conclude that evidence isn't what drives your conclusions.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
There is the unpublished research that doesn't agree with presumption behind all this as well. They just keep crunching new numbers and when they find one that agrees with the big big problem, they praise it as groundbreaking.

Can you expand on this? What "unpublished research" are you referring to, and how, as a non-scientist, were you able to access it and assess its accuracy? Who exactly is "They" who keep doing all that math you say we shouldn't pay attention too? A few more details on this conspiracy you're suggesting would be helpful.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10178 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists

I am. So is Alan. So are others.

I had my first lecture in the science of global warming from someone in the Met Office in, I think, 1988. The data was a bit sketchy, and there was insufficient modelling as to potential effects. But it was enough to call it even then.

Literally everything we've found out since has confirmed those original conclusions, refining models and exploring the feedback loops.

You don't want to believe this because you don't want to believe it. That's okay. We don't want to believe that we're fucking up the climate that we depend on to feed ourselves and keep our cities above sea level. Unfortunately, we have to face facts. That's what we're doing.

Whatever reason you're using not to believe, accept that you have zero scientific evidence that you're right. Stop trying to argue this scientifically, because for you, this is not a scientific argument, but a theological/philosophical argument. Don't confuse the two.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8414 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
RuthW

liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13

 - Posted      Profile for RuthW     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Whatever reason you're using not to believe, accept that you have zero scientific evidence that you're right. Stop trying to argue this scientifically, because for you, this is not a scientific argument, but a theological/philosophical argument. Don't confuse the two.

And this is the problem, right here. Climate change is not something to be believed in. It's not an article of faith. It's a goddamned fucking fact, and anyone who treats it otherwise is supporting the destruction of the climate that supports life as we know it.
Posts: 24224 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree.

Except quite a few right wing politicians do disagree. This thread starts with someone quoting some of them.

quote:
I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.
The problem is that if you don't give concrete examples here to justify your assertions it just looks like you're whistling in the dark.
You've already said you don't want to talk about the ice cores. Obviously if you don't want to talk about any of the evidence the left-over evidence will be sketchy.

quote:
yet the act that is put on is that science is just flawless and exact. Then we're told that a half degree of warming is killing us.
Well, no, it isn't. If you pay attention you'll see that climate scientists say that the data is consistent with anything between half a degree of warming, which might be a little uncomfortable, to two degrees, which is about the point things start to get serious, up to ten, which means a wholesale destruction of the earth's ecosystem as we know it.
So your statements here are based on misinformation.

That said, the data that is coming in tends to be more consistent with the more alarmist predictions.

quote:
I am just standing back and looking objectively at this.
The evidence for this seems sketchy and based on a few marginal data points.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10146 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aijalon
Shipmate
# 18777

 - Posted      Profile for Aijalon   Email Aijalon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
lately been betrayed by the firefox spell checker lines a bit. Some good finger fails for sure.... [Ultra confused]


quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I'm not a scientists, and I simply know that scientists DO disagree on this subject, but the Politicians don't disagree. Funny eh?

I do know math and I do understand physics, and what I can tell you is that the overall effort is based on some very sketchy stuff, and some very delicate and marginal data points over a very narrow period of study in recent decades but looking back many centuries.

Excuse me for asking, but you know that you are trying to debate physics with a nuclear scientist and someone with a doctorate in planetary geophysics, do you?

And, of course, not only that but thousands of climatologists whose job it actually is to make these predictions. You lack credibility here and you certainly lack credibility in the wild.

Well okay boys. To Cheesy and all. No I didn't know what their professions were.

I don't have a go-to source by the way and personal research on all this ended back in the early 2000's so all your recent things you have to point out, I cannot say anything about it.

I stated the sun was hotter over the last century, that was based on a number of sources, such as NASA, and I never said that radiation was significant.

I posted the article just after typing the "100yrs" not because it inherently agreed with my statement - it just happened to pop up in google search. (funny that Google would present me with old old old articles when my search was not that precise, I suspect foul play by google, but then it is on me to get a true search going properly). So then I hastily posted THE QUOTE not because it agreed with my statement, but because it surprisingly and comically ended with a conclusion that amounts to this: "there is no data from the sun that would ever convince that it is the key to climate change".

The reason I disregard the IPCC, Paris, and all other climate change issues in general is because I long ago concluded it's bogus.

I don't meant insult the integrity of an astrophysicist - I'm sure he's real smart. But as a saying goes "none of us is as dumb as all of us".

I could post any number of articles, and most of those articles are later cleared up by some other study, because all the notice is given to the people hunting for climate change. Follow the money! Too much is invested in climate change now. It's a scarrrrrrrrry global problem! It's really part of the opression of the working class thought... but that's for another day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

That is an example of the system at work. There was a hiatus, then there wasn't. You may follow some of the links therein for what cites you like.

Some reasons why In the end, this is a silly discussion and Climate change is silly talk.

1) all the hysteria has calmed down and the world is doing nothing to really stop climate change because people actually understand it's hype because anyone can follow the money.

2) Climate change as viewed through a couple years or a few events is foolish. As one example the severity of weather events is tied to growth in human population centers and such things as monetary damages by weather... In other words, the more money and people inflation....the more SCARRRRY the weather seems to get.

3) Ok, planet is a little warmer as measured. No evidence exists to show that warmer is worse. Can't forget that one.

4) instrumentation is getting more and more precise and as they do this data is merged and force fit into older and more inaccurate data and manipulated for mass consumption - at a glance. The manipulation is evident in graphs such as those shown in the link above. Small slice cuts of the temperature rises SEEM to show drastic change in temperature that would indicate out of control temperature increases. But when viewed from farther back or zoomed out, one realizes that a half degree is really insignificant the face of all the fluctuation. In other words, the data is full of noise, but the presentation of the data is on one high note.

The wiki article above also points out that climate should be measured in 30 year increments, kind of nifty thought.

Last but not least..... the unpublished data. I would like to see it too. [Biased] We only have a small window into the officially released data issues as we saw with climate gate and so on. There must be many many computer models that don't show any warming. Scientific consensus though, causes people to throw out results that contradict that consensus. Consensus isn't proof, but sadly these days it amounts to actionable proof.

Oh wait, there is no action on climate change, everyone is content to burn the planet down...I almost forgot. Why bother! Maybe it's just a fun subject, see you tomorrow with some unpublished articles!

--------------------
God gave you free will so you could give it back.

Posts: 167 | From: Kansas City | Registered: May 2017  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm sorry. That's completely incoherent and nonsensical.

1. All the money was coming from the oil companies. They knew about this before governments did, and hid the data.

2. No one is doing this. Weather =/= climate.

3. This is the exact opposite of what shown.

4. You don't understand statistics. At all.

To repeat: this is not about science for you. This is about something else, and it'd be far more honest (and less headache inducing for the rest of us) if you just admitted it.

--------------------
Improbable Botany

Posts: 8414 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I stated the sun was hotter over the last century, that was based on a number of sources, such as NASA, and I never said that radiation was significant.

That's new. A lot of climate denialists will dump a lot of irrelevant data into a discussion hoping that their random shit-stirring will derail the conversation, but they almost never just come out and admit that's what they're doing. Full marks for originality, if nothing else!

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
So then I hastily posted THE QUOTE not because it agreed with my statement, but because it surprisingly and comically ended with a conclusion that amounts to this: "there is no data from the sun that would ever convince that it is the key to climate change".

Originality again! Most climate denialists take it as an affront that the data doesn't correlate with their preferred conclusion, but they don't typically admit that they feel they're owed a supporting data set.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I don't meant insult the integrity of an astrophysicist - I'm sure he's real smart. But as a saying goes "none of us is as dumb as all of us".

Translation: "I don't mean to insult your integrity, just your intelligence." There really is no polite way for saying "you're stupid because you disagree with my evidence-free assertions".

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Follow the money!

Good idea.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10178 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I don't have a go-to source by the way and personal research on all this ended back in the early 2000's so all your recent things you have to point out, I cannot say anything about it.

So why are you saying anything about it? There's been a lot of climate science in the last 15 years. The models are a lot better than they were 15 years ago. A lot of the vague "well, this might not be right" handwaving that might have squeaked by in a dim light 15 years ago is simply not tenable any more.

quote:
The reason I disregard the IPCC, Paris, and all other climate change issues in general is because I long ago concluded it's bogus.
You "long ago concluded it's bogus" based on prejudice and made-up claptrap, and now make the assumption that all the data and all the scientists are lying to you, because you don't like the answers.

Presumably you'll be here promoting Lysenkoism next week.

quote:

I don't meant insult the integrity of an astrophysicist - I'm sure he's real smart. But as a saying goes "none of us is as dumb as all of us".

And this simply isn't good enough. You don't get to argue science with platitudes. If you have different interpretations of the data, let's hear them.

quote:

Scientific consensus though, causes people to throw out results that contradict that consensus. Consensus isn't proof, but sadly these days it amounts to actionable proof.

More vague handwaving.

We don't "prove a scientific theory" - that's not how it works. We have a theory that fits the existing data, and we can use it to make predictions. We take more data, and it agrees with the theory. Great - the theory still works.

If the data doesn't match the theory, there's something missing from the theory. This doesn't mean that the theory is "wrong" - it might, like Newtonian mechanics, be a perfectly acceptable approximation almost all the time. But it does mean we have to add something to our theory.

Posts: 4480 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My governor: "Challenging Trump, Gov. Brown plans world ‘climate action summit’ in SF" (SF Gate).

Go get 'em, Jerry!
[Cool]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?"--Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon"
--"I'm not giving up--and neither should you." --SNL

Posts: 17254 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools