Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

2015 looking like another world record year for the global warming trend.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    You're one of those people who are incapable of detecting humour and sarcasm in text unless it's spelled out for them, aren't you?
    Well . . . ah, humor and sarcasm have its place, and its misuse with obvious foolish statements to derail a discussion have no value.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Well . . . ah, humor and sarcasm have its place, and its misuse with obvious foolish statements to derail a discussion have no value.
      I was derailing this thread... seriously?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        I was derailing this thread... seriously?
        If you're not post something relevant and serious instead of nonsense.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          If you're not post something relevant and serious instead of nonsense.
          Woaw, ease off and get some friends, I think you're taking this discussion way too seriously.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
            Lao Tzu might have a temper I don't agree with, but I agree with his conclusions. Global Warming is happening, CO2 in the atmosphere is the driver. The fluctuations in solar activity can in no way explain the rapid rise in temperature since the fifties.
            We had some rollicking good discussions on global warming back when Glenn Morton was posting, maybe five years ago. There were bunches of us in on those, though most of the heavy lifting was done by sylas. Glenn was being Glenn, but in the process of looking up the answers to his objections, we all got an education on datasets, measurements, adjustments, and forcings.

            But yeah, that was something like five years ago.

            We're kinda beyond answering "why are there still monkeys" questions. AR5 has been out for over a year now. There's not much to discuss with folks who haven't yet managed to read the executive summary (PDF). None of these new folks are ever going to read it, and so none of them will ever be able to discuss the science.

            Why is that, do you suppose?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
              We had some rollicking good discussions on global warming back when Glenn Morton was posting, maybe five years ago. There were bunches of us in on those, though most of the heavy lifting was done by sylas. Glenn was being Glenn, but in the process of looking up the answers to his objections, we all got an education on datasets, measurements, adjustments, and forcings.
              Those discussions were great. I remember his peak oil thread which was good until Truthseeker article blasted it to death, being the sole poster for for five dozen posts at a time. Thankfully he's only allowed one thread like that, and won't be allowed to do it again.

              Glenn Morton was a dissenter I respected, because his dissent from the mainstream consensus was based on the problems and doubt he saw in the data. I don't think his doubts were well founded, and his methods were a bit kludge and excel based, taking the data, subtracting it from the raw files in order to figure out the corrections that were 'inserted'. Not sure what conclusions could be drawn from that, but it was interesting to read.

              He did make some false calculations now and then. He was convinced that you'd have to cover 20% of the US in order to supply it with solar power. Where as its more like 3%, and the only way I can get that number is if you take the total energy content of all the oil barrels consumed daily by the US, and calculated how many solar panels it would take to produce the same amount, though I still couldn't produce his back-of-the-envelope. When it came to solar power he quoted statistics from the seventies. So I believe he was wrong, but a kind of wrong I can respect.

              He had some hard questions about the economic viability of a transition to renewable that anyone who believes its the right thing should answer.

              We're kinda beyond answering "why are there still monkeys" questions. AR5 has been out for over a year now. There's not much to discuss with folks who haven't yet managed to read the executive summary (PDF). None of these new folks are ever going to read it, and so none of them will ever be able to discuss the science.

              Why is that, do you suppose?
              I don't think most people here are dubious about global warming because of any ill will, or any anti-intellectualism as such. I think its basically because Al Gore decided to make it a gigantic political platform for his presidency, and the polarizing tendencies of the political sphere just made it a 'fact' that liberals had it wrong on climate change, and was using these 'dubious' 'scare-mongering' claims to bolster support for the political ends.

              This is a historical accident and could have been turned around. Though it is actually an interesting hard question for laissez-faire economics. If you're dealing with problems of environmental pollution that effects everything globally, but over a hundreds years and it'll cost a lot in the short term to deal with it (losing competitive edge), then its not clear what such a completely free market economics could do to steer people towards the more economically sound option.

              But things are actually changing very rapidly with conservatives. Fox News has pretty much from one day to another stopped laughing at electrical cars after the success of Tesla Motors, and their car becoming an iconic luxury sedan. Its now shown that electrical cars don't have to be odd, weird looking golf cars, that aren't fun to drive and can't go very far, or very fast. The success of this change in people's perception of what an electrical car can be, can't be underestimated. Secondly, I know Conservatives are starting to strongly back solar power tax breaks for homeowners who want to install them. The values of independency are very strong with conservatives, and they don't like the idea that anyone, except money issues, is prevent them from producing their own power.

              So while I don't think we'll see Conservatives suddenly adopt the leftists approach to renewable energy, and a strong focus on the dangers of climate change. I do think the Conservative political platform will champion the growing companies in this sector, defend tax breaks for them. Then if their campaigns dominate, they'll just eventually claim that Global Warming is happening, but it was us who solved it, not the leftists. In the short one they might do things that'll slow solar power down somewhat... killing feed-in tarrifs, and stuff like that, but those things mostly act as catalysts.

              That's the world of politics.

              We're still some way away from solar panels being cheaper than coal, but not as far as people think. Mostly its land space, installation and electrical utilities to be wired in that's costing the most money. The solar cells themselves have now after much development become the cheapest part. If they can wring out another factor of two improvement in price, then it'll be cheaper than coal in most places.

              I'm not laissez-faire type of person, I like some government intervention where it makes sense, health and science for instance... still, I think its going to be the private companies who make this transition.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                The point is, what is a normal temperature range for the earth? There isn't one.
                The point is, what is an ideal temperature change for the earth? There is one, and it's zero.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Poor Debater View Post
                  The point is, what is an ideal temperature change for the earth? There is one, and it's zero.
                  What?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    The point is, what is a normal temperature range for the earth? There isn't one.
                    How is that relevant to whether 2015 wil be "another world record year for the global warming trend"?

                    The answer is: nothing.

                    One doesn't need to show state a "normal temperature range" for Earth, in order to show that AGW is occurring or that 2015 is a warmer relative to other years.
                    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      That's not what I meant. The world didn't burn to a cinder and life still existed just fine.
                      I've never understood why some people made this sort of argument. It's sort of like saying:
                      Billions of years ago, the Earth's atmosphere was low-oxygen. But various extremophile bacteria did just fine. So an low-oxygen atmosphere is nothing to worry about.

                      The problems here should be obvious: extremophiles aren't humans. Human have biological needs different from those of extremophiles. So if you want to understand how a low-oxygen environment would affect humans and other animals alive today, then looking at extremophiles isn't much help. You instead need to look at the effect of an low-oxygen environment with respect to human needs and the needs of other animals alive today.

                      Parallel point for anthropogenic global warming. It's not very helpful to point out that life existed in environments warmer than today. You instead need to look at how those other environments would have affected current humans. And once you do that, you realize it largely would have been a disaster for us. For example, sea levels were much higher then, which would be a disaster for human coastal cities. And that's one of the negativ effects AGW is going to have on humans: rising sea level. OF course, there will be organisms that benefit from that sea level rise, much as organisms in the past did better with sea level rises in the past. But that does nothing to show that humans will do well, anymore than pointing out that some extremophiles do will in a low-oxygen environment, means human will do wel in that environment as well.
                      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                        I've never understood why some people made this sort of argument. It's sort of like saying:
                        Billions of years ago, the Earth's atmosphere was low-oxygen. But various extremophile bacteria did just fine. So an low-oxygen atmosphere is nothing to worry about.

                        The problems here should be obvious: extremophiles aren't humans. Human have biological needs different from those of extremophiles. So if you want to understand how a low-oxygen environment would affect humans and other animals alive today, then looking at extremophiles isn't much help. You instead need to look at the effect of an low-oxygen environment with respect to human needs and the needs of other animals alive today.

                        Parallel point for anthropogenic global warming. It's not very helpful to point out that life existed in environments warmer than today. You instead need to look at how those other environments would have affected current humans. And once you do that, you realize it largely would have been a disaster for us. For example, sea levels were much higher then, which would be a disaster for human coastal cities. And that's one of the negativ effects AGW is going to have on humans: rising sea level. OF course, there will be organisms that benefit from that sea level rise, much as organisms in the past did better with sea level rises in the past. But that does nothing to show that humans will do well, anymore than pointing out that some extremophiles do will in a low-oxygen environment, means human will do wel in that environment as well.
                        You made some unsupported assertions, especially that GW would be disastrous overall. I think I recall that some people asserted on the basis of a few studies that GW would create more arable land, especially in Siberia and Canada.
                        The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                        [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          You made some unsupported assertions, especially that GW would be disastrous overall.
                          Here's a laymen's introduction:
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

                          The claims on sea level rise are well-supported.

                          I think I recall that some people asserted on the basis of a few studies that GW would create more arable land, especially in Siberia and Canada.
                          Feel free to provide evidence for those claims.
                          Last edited by Jichard; 07-15-2015, 06:37 PM.
                          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                            Here's a laymen's introduction:
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgqv4yVyDw

                            The claims on sea level rise are well-supported.



                            Feel free to provide evidence for those claims.
                            The Youtube you linked to above showed a newspaper headline, "Global Warming would BOOST British crops by 10pc."[per cent]
                            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                              The Youtube you linked to above showed a newspaper headline, "Global Warming would BOOST British crops by 10pc."[per cent]
                              Newspaper headlines aren't scientific evidence, Truthseeker. The conservative press is notorious for misrepresenting and lying about science.

                              If you have a genuine interest in seeing the truth, then actually address the scientific evidence discussed in the video, as opposed to just cherrypicking press headlines you find amenable to your position. For example, the scientific evidence on crop yields discussed from 8:15 to 12:20.
                              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                                That's Breitbart, Watts, and Goddard you're posting, a veritable three ring circus if ever there was one. Goddard, in particular, qualifies as the village idiot in the idiot village, an embarrassment so extreme Watts kicked him out of WUWT. Looks like you haven't been keeping up with the news:
                                This, combined with his inability to openly admit to and correct mistakes, is why I booted him from WUWT some years ago, after he refused to admit that his claim about CO2 freezing on the surface of Antarctica couldn’t be possible due to partial pressure of CO2.

                                "This" is a reference to Goddard's 2014 claims of jiggery-poke in the data.
                                So let's see, I present facts, you present a genetic fallacy.

                                Whatever you say, boss.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X