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.
Another thing all this made up "global warming" and "climate change" fairytale talk reminds me of is the recent ship that went to Antarctica to study the slowing growth of the ice pack and got iced in because it grew so fast around them.
Recent news.... Water is eating away at the Antarctic ice, melting it where it hits the oceans. As the ice sheets slowly thaw, water pours into the sea — 130 billion tons of ice (118 billion metric tons) per year for the past decade, according to NASA satellite calculations. In the worst case scenario, Antarctica's melt could push sea levels up 10 feet (3 meters) worldwide in a century or two, recurving heavily populated coastlines.
Read more: Antarctica melting ice threatens Earth sea level - Business Insider
Yes, because we have never heard this sort of alarmist hyperbole from you people before.
{yawn}
Talk about "the boy who cried wolf" to the millionth power. Geez.
Can someone explain to me....what exactly is WRONG with climate change....The Earth's cimates self regulate, a change in one area will just shift the wind patterns and climates in another area. Big deal, thats always happened. Look at North Africa. Its been a growing desert for thousands of years, we didnt do that with cars or coal emissions, its just climate change. So what if sea levels rise, we will have to move...big deal. We would also have to have moved down the road when they rose ANYWAYS. "But its happening faster"....so what? Move faster.....Maybe we as a species shouldnt have lived on a coastline in the first place....
Can someone explain to me....what exactly is WRONG with climate change....The Earth's cimates self regulate, a change in one area will just shift the wind patterns and climates in another area. Big deal, thats always happened. Look at North Africa. Its been a growing desert for thousands of years, we didnt do that with cars or coal emissions, its just climate change. So what if sea levels rise, we will have to move...big deal. We would also have to have moved down the road when they rose ANYWAYS. "But its happening faster"....so what? Move faster.....Maybe we as a species shouldnt have lived on a coastline in the first place....
If, like Contrarian Econ says, we have are in for a cooling because warming trips a trigger that allows for more cooling, well that sucks.
But otherwise, if we are steadily warming, I see it as a net benefit for everywhere except the coasts.
I think Contrarian Econ has valid points. Scientists, even if its a lot of them, need their hypotheses challenged and seeing as there are no quick and obvious rebuttles to his claims, they may be worth looking into.
Soot from 100 years ago would have been covered with snow or washed away by the melting, which would have led to a re-cooling of the planet. The water vapor would then condense and return to the oceans.
For soot to cause climate change, you would need a steady and large amount of it being dumped onto the glaciers for a long time.
Or just have it sit in layers on an ice sheet, and as that sheet melts, the layers compound and the soot gets blacker and the ice melts faster.
As do I. Saying that paper is wrong because the person that wrote it is a paid hack for the oil companies is just like saying that the paper is wrong because it is a government conspiracy. I use the papers you approve of to argue my points.
There are levels of plausibility that need to be taken into account here.
Saying the oil companies are trying to protect their profit margins isn't exactly on the level of saying an international cabal of government Bond villains are corrupting science to steal everyone's money and take over the world.
And legitimate papers 'prove' your point because you're misinterpreting them. It's like the people who link to an article that talks about more sea ice in Antarctica and think that it means global warming is over, science is a fraud, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
Let us take apart Al Gore's an incontinent truth. What he said he did was to look at what was happening in his lifetime and extrapolate back from there. This is not a bad starting point. But the movie was designed to elicit a strong emotional response. It has done this. There are now fanatical followers of the AGW movement. The problem with strong emotions about a subject is that it clouds your judgment. It makes you less objective. I watched the movie, I thought about it, I questioned what I saw, I reviewed what I knew. I came to the conclusion that AGW started with a soot input and that it continued with a feedback loop off of the initial heat input from the soot's effects. This is a non emotion clouded judgment.
It's also an unscientific and unprofessional one, and probably more politically motivated than you're willing to admit to yourself. You're not quite on the level of the people who just want to prove that liberals are always wrong, but you don't immediately strike me as someone who has written extensively on any academic subject, let alone a scientific one. I get that you're putting effort into this but this isn't really the kind of subject where laymen can best the professionals with simplistic and superficial theories.
And I really hope you're not saying that everyone who agrees with Gore is only doing so because of some kneejerk reaction to his movie. If you're not even willing to be charitable enough to assume that others have logical reasons for believing what they do, then there is little point in discussing anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
What the science did was to start with the assumption that it was CO2 that was driving global warming and set about proving it. Al Gore looked at the end of the curve and worked back from there. I looked at where it diverged from the prior normal and looked for an explanation for the divergence. A lot of effort has been put in to prove CO2 did it. This has been driven by the emotions derived from Al Gore's movie. It is stinking hard to cross a group think. It is hard to admit you are wrong.
That's not how science works and that's not what happened. Examinations of climate data from tree rings, ice cores, recent climate trends, etc... all strengthen the probability of CO2 as a climate driver. They looked at the evidence and it confirmed the theory. Over and over again, study after study confirms it.
They didn't set out to 'prove' anything... science is about discovery, not dogma. I know that the people on this board have a hard time understanding that, but it's true. The facts come first, the theories come second. If the facts confirm a certain theory, then it becomes a consensus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
Soot started it. the feedback loop of warmer water adding moisture to the air kept it going forwards, CO2 as an also ran. You guys just have to much emotion invested into the CO2 thing to look at this one.
So the fact that you're so obviously proud of 'your' theory has no bearing whatsoever in how emotionally invested in it you are? The fact that right wingers in general have invested so much time and energy into labelling everything associated with liberals as totally and utterly stupid and wrong doesn't have any effect on how they perceive this issue?
How can you possibly believe that your theory holds up better than NASA's? Do you even have the remotest sense of how little you know about climate science?
Okay. I will buy a condo high enough so the flood waters won't reach me.
400th floor high enough?
220 feet and you're good even if all the land based ice on Earth melts into the ocean, assuming no change in plate tectonics pushing the land masses up or down in relation to the ocean volume.
So more like the 20th floor. And you need to have that property paid for by the year 7015, since under the most catastrophic prediction, total global ice melt needs 5,000 years.
There are levels of plausibility that need to be taken into account here.
Saying the oil companies are trying to protect their profit margins
very plausible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
isn't exactly on the level of saying an international cabal of government Bond villains are corrupting science to steal everyone's money and take over the world.
Not very at all.
But what was Al Gore publicly up to? Trying to cap carbon emissions? This has the very real effect if adopted of keeping the have nots from becoming haves. And that is on the same level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
And legitimate papers 'prove' your point because you're misinterpreting them. It's like the people who link to an article that talks about more sea ice in Antarctica and think that it means global warming is over, science is a fraud, etc.
I didn't say 'prove' I said I was going to use them as reference to argue from because you accept them. If the papers support my position then they support my position. What is, is. You can misinterpret laws. You can find internal inconsistencies that invalidate conclusions.
Misinterpret is what you do with the bible. It is what you do with religion.
The problem with AGW is they started with a conclusion and worked backwards from there. The conclusion was that AGW was a bad thing and needed to be stopped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
I watched the movie, I thought about it, I questioned what I saw, I reviewed what I knew. I came to the conclusion that AGW started with a soot input and that it continued with a feedback loop off of the initial heat input from the soot's effects. This is a non emotion clouded judgment.
It's also an unscientific and unprofessional one, and probably more politically motivated than you're willing to admit to yourself.
Unprofessional yes. I do this as a hobby. Unscientific? Science is simple the study of how things are. I looked at how things were, or as close as I could get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
You're not quite on the level of the people who just want to prove that liberals are always wrong, but you don't immediately strike me as someone who has written extensively on any academic subject, let alone a scientific one.
I have a disability, it hits me in the heart of writing. I haven't written a paper ever. Well I take that back. I did write one in junior high school. One on history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
I get that you're putting effort into this but this isn't really the kind of subject where laymen can best the professionals with simplistic and superficial theories.
Really? Ya should've told that to Al Gore. My theories are neither simplistic nor superficial. Heat transfer and thermodynamics is my strong point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
And I really hope you're not saying that everyone who agrees with Gore is only doing so because of some kneejerk reaction to his movie.
No I'm not. Groupthink. Groupthink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome." Al Gore is a politician. His skill set is to get a group of people to vote for him. He built a consensus around AGW and CO2 as the cause. There were some flaws in his assumption, and he didn't take a big enough look at things. (I'm a big picture person, not so much a fine detail person.) One of the aspects of groupthink is to defend the group from outside threats. The underlying flaws in his position require defending. The better approach is to correct the assumptions to be valid and then draw new conclusions. The flaws are critical though. Big picture we are headed into an ice age long term. What they have said about warming isn't as bad as what cooling does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
If you're not even willing to be charitable enough to assume that others have logical reasons for believing what they do, then there is little point in discussing anything.
Logical reasons are all well and good, but what I've seen here is that emotion is ruling and not logic. If you are willing to talk about the emotions of the situation then we can get to the logic. People see what they want to see. If you aren't willing to talk about what you want to see and why you want to see it then no amount of logic will prevail. Like it or not this is a political issue not a solely scientific one. Politics is emotion. We can't have a meaningful conversation about the subject without talking about both logic and emotion. Emotions limit what you can see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
That's not how science works and that's not what happened. Examinations of climate data from tree rings, ice cores, etc... all strengthen the probability of CO2 as a climate driver. They looked at the evidence and it confirmed the theory. Over and over again, study after study confirms it.
The hardest lie to see is the one you tell yourself. I'm not denying CO2 as a climate driver. Just look at Venous. I've got an alternative explanation that is shall we say interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
They didn't set out to 'prove' anything... science is about discovery, not dogma.
That is what it should be about. But you know the discussions about changing raw data to fit the expected result? Those aren't without merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
I know that the people on this board have a hard time understanding that, but it's true. The facts come first, the theories come second. If the facts confirm a certain theory, then it becomes a consensus.
So the fact that you're so obviously proud of 'your' theory has no bearing whatsoever in how emotionally invested in it you are? The fact that right wingers in general have invested so much time and energy into labelling everything associated with liberals as totally and utterly stupid and wrong doesn't have any effect on how they perceive this issue?
How can you possibly believe that your theory holds up better than NASA's? Do you even have the remotest sense of how little you know about climate science? [/quote]
[quote=Spatula City;38776419]
So the fact that you're so obviously proud of 'your' theory has no bearing whatsoever in how emotionally invested in it you are?
I have lots of ideas. Lots of them. Lots and lots of them. There are some that I like more than others. I've laid out a piston engine based heat cycle at over 80% efficiency. Two at over 50% but less than 55%. And one at 45%. The 45% efficiency one is interesting. It has a thermal efficiency at 20% load of around 40%. That should just about double the fuel mileage of cars. For my own personal use I want to build a vehicle that gets over 600 mpg at 50 mph. And that is without using any tricks on thermal efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
The fact that right wingers in general have invested so much time and energy into labelling everything associated with liberals as totally and utterly stupid and wrong doesn't have any effect on how they perceive this issue?
I thought Ronald Reagan was the man when he was in office. Now I think he was the worst president ever. I am aware of my personal emotional bias and do reasonably well at looking past it. My emotions would be about 80% or 90% the same if it had been Ronald Reagan that had been all for CO2 reduction. Not 100% but close.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
How can you possibly believe that your theory holds up better than NASA's?
Repeated past experience. NASA's ideas about turbocharging airplanes are 180 degrees out compared to mine and mine work far better. Their ideas about how to turbocharge piston engines suck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Do you even have the remotest sense of how little you know about climate science?
Do you know how much difficulty I have in writing? I bet you would form a different opinion of how much I know if you talked to me rather than read what I wrote.
The entire AGW scare has nothing to do with science. ...
And he is very correct. Reducing carbon emissions has everything to do with not sharing the wealth. If we effectively reduce emission globally we keep the developing countries from developing or doing so as fast.
It also has the function of providing the moral justification for outsourcing our manufacturing jobs.
We can't capture and hold a climate state. We have the choice of warming things up or letting them cool off.
My opinion is warming is less painful than cooling, on balance.
We are warming things up, and that is a good thing. If we hadn't warmed them up we still very likely would be in the little ice age.
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.
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.
