U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-29-2018, 06:41 AM
 
Location: Macon, Georgia
461 posts, read 181,813 times
Reputation: 282

Advertisements

This is sad news. The don of humans as we know it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c5d_story.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2018, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Maryland
798 posts, read 234,862 times
Reputation: 1836
...not to worry. Indications are that it’s just business as usual. A quick look indicates that the climate has fluctuated wildly over the millennia, irrelevant of CO2 concentrations and especially man, since we are only present as a little hair line at the end of the graph.

Edit: Hmmm, says graph is too large.

Here’s a link, click to enlarge.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 09:08 AM
 
1,069 posts, read 1,725,059 times
Reputation: 1225
Quote:
Originally Posted by the tiger View Post
This is sad news. The don of humans as we know it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c5d_story.html
Is this supposed to be a news story, because it's sure written like an editorial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
16,143 posts, read 7,089,742 times
Reputation: 9150
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid View Post
...not to worry. Indications are that its just business as usual. A quick look indicates that the climate has fluctuated wildly over the millennia, irrelevant of CO2 concentrations and especially man, since we are only present as a little hair line at the end of the graph.

Edit: Hmmm, says graph is too large.

Heres a link, click to enlarge.
Thats true. You will note that humans evolved under a world-wide temperature regime that was relatively stable, but not typical. And also that humans developed agriculture under those same circumstances. What will happen when those circumstances change radically?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 03:53 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
9,994 posts, read 4,140,412 times
Reputation: 6334
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid View Post
...not to worry. Indications are that it’s just business as usual. A quick look indicates that the climate has fluctuated wildly over the millennia, irrelevant of CO2 concentrations and especially man, since we are only present as a little hair line at the end of the graph.

Edit: Hmmm, says graph is too large.

Here’s a link, click to enlarge.
Not an accurate claim. It's not business as usual.

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with pre-industrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

Points to consider from this link: What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

Quote:
Myth: Climate's changed before

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age.
So why is the myth wrong?

The myth is wrong for two reasons:
  1. First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur). Humans are changing the climate today mainly via greenhouse gas emissions, the same mechanism that caused climate change before humans.
  2. Second, to imply we have nothing to fear from today's climate change is not borne out by the lessons from rapid climate changes in Earth's past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Maryland
798 posts, read 234,862 times
Reputation: 1836
^^^^

Hard to take any of that seriously when the very first sentence on your referenced link (“Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record.”) directly contradicts the published graph I linked.

Here’s the bottom line on all this stuff. If one is going to argue from the gelologic record, then it can’t be both ways. The facts are that all of this data has been collected under highly variable conditions by an assortment of methods and subjected to numerous revisions of computer modeling. NONE of it is empirical science. NONE of it is done with scientifically valid experimental controls. There is no possible way to set up a control, a duplicate Earth, minus humanity, and measure the difference.

ALL of these studies are statistical correlations and, except in exceeding rare instances and special circumstances, even if a correlation is shown, which is highly debatable, correlation does not prove causation. This is established enough to be recognized as a fallacy of its own often times.

“In statistics, many statistical tests calculate correlations between variables and when two variables are found to be correlated, it is tempting to assume that this shows that one variable causes the other.[1][2] That "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy when two events occurring together are taken to have established a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as *** hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this," and "false cause." A similar fallacy, that an event that followed another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is the post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this.") fallacy.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corr...mply_causation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
9,994 posts, read 4,140,412 times
Reputation: 6334
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid View Post
^^^^

Hard to take any of that seriously when the very first sentence on your referenced link (“Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record.”) directly contradicts the published graph I linked.
Hard to take any of what seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid View Post
Here’s the bottom line on all this stuff. If one is going to argue from the gelologic record, then it can’t be both ways.
What can't be both ways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesLucid View Post
The facts are that all of this data has been collected under highly variable conditions by an assortment of methods and subjected to numerous revisions of computer modeling. NONE of it is empirical science. NONE of it is done with scientifically valid experimental controls. There is no possible way to set up a control, a duplicate Earth, minus humanity, and measure the difference.
I'm speechless here. We don't need such a control when we have evidence of what the climate was on earth before the industrial revolution. The human generated CO2 footprint began with the industrial revolution...and it's measurable.
Quote:
Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, global average CO2 was about 280 ppm. During the last 800,000 years, CO2 fluctuated between about 180 ppm during ice ages and 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods. Today’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended.
Source: CO2 at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory reaches new milestone: Tops 400 ppm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2018, 11:04 PM
 
5,016 posts, read 1,525,865 times
Reputation: 4897
These threads are pointless.

And all the models have been wrong. The Arctic was supposed to be ice free by now, based on previous models' predictions. And Al Gore. Speaking of hot air.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2018, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Maryland
798 posts, read 234,862 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
These threads are pointless.

And all the models have been wrong. The Arctic was supposed to be ice free by now, based on previous models' predictions. And Al Gore. Speaking of hot air.....
I agree, pointless discussion. Some people are believers in MMGW and I am not. Even if there is warming, throughout ALL of millenia, it has been happening just fine with no input from man whatsoever. Indications are that if it is happening, its just part of an inexorable natural planetary processes....because it always has been.

More importantly, IMO, is that we have real and immediate threats that are being more largely ignored. We are due any time now for a significant CME event. Plastics are beginning to poison the oceans with their physical presence, being ground into fine particles and interfering in the food chain. Im even much more interested in funding an asteroid/comet early detection/deflection system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2018, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 N, 🌄W
9,994 posts, read 4,140,412 times
Reputation: 6334
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
These threads are pointless.
Speaking to climate deniers is what's pointless.

It's analogous as in trying to talk science with a scientifically illiterate person or an anti-science mind. Their confirmation bias is so strong that any evidence presented goes in one ear and out the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
And all the models have been wrong.
LOL ALL the models have been wrong? What exactly have ALL the models been wrong about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
The Arctic was supposed to be ice free by now, based on previous models' predictions.
I've never seen any valid published reports stating this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantompilot View Post
And Al Gore. Speaking of hot air.....
Arctic sea ice is, without question, on a declining trend, but Gore definitely erred in his use of preliminary projections and misrepresentations of research.

You can't blame science on the folks who misrepresent it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top