Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 380 of 944 (799790)
02-15-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by foreveryoung
02-15-2017 1:55 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
I am very aware of all of this. However it makes many unwarranted assumptions.
Heres one: " The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." ..."
Again, this is rudimentary initial scientific work from 1859. Since that time it has been shown to be substantially correct, as is detailed in the Bloomburg article mentioned in Message 333 and Message 379.
He completely ignores the possibility that instead of radiating heat back to the surface, co2 could give its heat to other molecules and thereby heating the atmosphere to an even higher degree as you even saw. He didnt even stop to think that perhaps reflectinv some of its heat back is not powerful enough to cause the temperature of todays earth.
Perhaps because the evidence did not show that to be the case.
Again, this is rudimentary initial scientific work from 1859. Since that time it has been shown to be substantially correct, as is detailed in the Bloomburg article mentioned in Message 333 and Message 379.
Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity.
Until you deal with the evidence clearly presented in the Bloomburg article your arguments are irrelevant.
Let me quote from Message 333 reformatted slightly:
quote:
This article goes through ALL the purported causes of climate change to show which ones cause how much change.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
I know this is a bare link, but all I can do is take screenshots:
When you add them all together you get a very very very strong match between the model and the observed data, and the only element that significantly adds to the warming is the greenhouse gases. And it would have been worse if we had not banned aerosols.
Should be pretty self-explanatory because the explanation actually matches the actual data.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 1:55 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 9:24 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 382 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 9:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 384 of 944 (799801)
02-15-2017 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by foreveryoung
02-15-2017 9:35 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
See Dan Pangburns article here: provide sound reasoning why it is wrong.
Climate Change Drivers
quote:
Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
Hmmm ... taken down because it is falsehoods? So I googled it
You should change your pet link to Climate Change Drivers
quote:
Licensed mechanical engineer, MSME, ASME Life member, first GW related paper was made public in 2008 at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html.
He is also listed as an Aerospace Engineer. Can you tell me what qualifies him to talk about climate science? It looks like his listings on Google Scholar amount to vanity press publications - in a magazine he is a member of, and which did not appear to have a single bonafide climate scientist. Curious. Do you know of any article in a peer reviewed climate science publication?
Also I tried to look him up on wikipedia but there was no article about him or that mentioned him. Doesn't sound like a credible source to me, sorry.
quote:
Approximately 98% of atmospheric molecules are non-ghg nitrogen and oxygen. They are substantially warmed by thermalization of the photonic energy absorbed by the ghg molecules.
In other words greenhouse gases account for warming the atmosphere and that energy is transferred to other molecules in the air, warming them in the process. It would be shocking if only some gases heated up.
Thanks that's all I need.
Here is what your bloomberg article failed to look into as for reasons for warming since 1850:
" Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. Reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98% match with measured trend) explained by a combination of ocean cycles (41.7%), sunspot number anomaly time-integral (38.0%) and increased atmospheric water vapor (20.3%)."
Does co2 match the temperature record by 98%? No, it doesn't. Levels of high reflecting low level clouds, ocean cycles including ENSO, and levels of water vapor do.
Nope. Increased water vapor is due to the atmosphere being warmer, not the other way around. He/You are looking at symptoms of warming and claiming they are causes.
Here is what your bloomberg article failed to look into as for reasons for warming since 1850:
It did look at sun temperature that includes the effects of sunspots ...
That dead flat yellow line is just about as zero a driver of climate change as one could find.
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization
quote:
wiki: In physics, thermalisation (in American English thermalization) is the process of physical bodies reaching thermal equilibrium through mutual interaction. In general the natural tendency of a system is towards a state of equipartition of energy or uniform temperature, maximising the system's entropy.
The page "Reverse-thermalization" does not exist.
When someone tries to baffle you with scientific sounding nonsense, they are trying delude you. Again, water vapor is a symptom of climate change not a cause. Putting more water vapor in the air than it naturally carries does not warm it, it results in precipitation.
In addition no scientist I know would make the extrapolations see here:
quote:

Where the drop at the end is pure fantasy and not properly supported by the data. Note that several volcanoes are listed as data points. In contrast we have, from the Bloomberg article again:
That looks like zero or negative effect effect to me, rather than explaining the warming trend.
When ALL the natural causes are combined you get:
And the result is zero or negative effect, so ALL natural causes do not explain climate change.
Conversely when you combine the man-made components with the natural ones you get:
If Pangburn's "thermalized" and "reverse-thermallized" water vapor is not included in these graphs, then why do they match the data so well? Is it included in the natural causes (and hence is not important) or is it included in the man-made causes (in which case it is AGW) ... inquiring minds want to know.
Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that actually explains this data differently, then the information is un-refuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity.
Until you deal with the evidence clearly presented in the Bloomburg article your arguments are irrelevant.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 9:35 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 2:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 388 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 5:29 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 385 of 944 (799802)
02-15-2017 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by foreveryoung
02-15-2017 9:24 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
What exactly has been shown to be substantially correct? Please be specific.
That global warming is caused by human activity. See the information in Message 333 that is repeated in Message 379 and referred to again in Message 380 and repeated again in Message 384.
Continuing to ignore rather than explain these graphs with your alternate reality does not make them go away nor benefit your alternate reality.
The data shows nothing of the kind. ...
An argument devoid of substance or explanation.
... I gave you my argument and the evidence for it. It explains the data much better than the fairytale you presented.
Except that it doesn't explain the graphs at all. See Message 384. It refutes your guy's quack alternate science.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 9:24 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 391 of 944 (800137)
02-20-2017 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by foreveryoung
02-20-2017 5:29 AM


Re: Explain the observed evidence.
Dana Nuccetelli blogs about climate and co2 over at the Guardian. He also works at Tetratech as an environmental scientist. What qualifies him to talk about climate science? Here is a link to his linked-in page listing his resume:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dana-nuccitelli-661a447
Anyone can talk about climate change. People that cite peer reviewed articles that are backed up by the majority of such articles in the field are reporting on it -- it is the science that is credible not the person.
If someone is going to argue against the 98% to 99% consensus then they better have some peer reviewed science articles in the field to report on, otherwise it is fake news about fake science.
So, he is not a professional climate scientist. The paper he is published in doesn't have any professional climate scientists in it. If Dana Nuccitelli can get paid to blog about climate science while being in another branch of science, why can't dan do the same as a mechanical engineer? I can go on google scholar and see all the articles in climate science publications. AGW is a flawed theory. Very little is accepted in climate science publications that does ot support the notion that co2 is the cause of global warming. Why would I post that stuff here? No pro AGW article I have ever seen even attempts to address any of the issues Dan brings up.
Perhaps because he doesn't have peer reviewed article in climate science journals?
... AGW is a flawed theory. ...
Perhaps because nobody has demonstrated scientifically that it is flawed.
... Very little is accepted in climate science publications that does ot support the notion that co2 is the cause of global warming. ...
Perhaps because all the scientific evidence says CO2 IS a major cause of global climate warming. Again see the graphs.
Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. A person or organisation can be right about 90% of the time and still be wrong on some things because what they are wrong about is foundational to the rest of their conclusions. Climate change is one of those things. The argument can be totally sound but still be false because the foundation has serious flaws in it.
Credibility is in the science, not the people or the organization. If the science is wrong then that needs to be demonstrated scientifically or it's just opinion.
Another point is that climate change is a controversial topic and so sources for both sides of an issue can be equally credible
That is pure bullshinola, it is only "controversial" in the eyes of the denialists. Within the field 98% to 99% of the scientists agree that the science shows global climate change is caused by humans. There are people that still think the earth is flat -- is their view equally credible with the scientific consensus?
That's all you need for what? You think he made your point for you? All the gases are heated up by either thermalization from co2 or from contact with the warm ground. How does that make your case for co2 being the cause of a warmer atmosphere than would be without it?
Again, because he was treating symptoms as causes. But more directly, the atmosphere, ground and oceans show a definite heating trend, and there is also an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. So when you say "All the gases are heated up by either thermalization from co2 or from contact with the warm ground" you are agreeing that the change in CO2 levels accounts for the change in temperatures that have been observed.
How all the gases in the atmosphere get warmed up is not the cause of the atmosphere getting warmer it is the process, the symptom. The source is the CO2 that transmits the heat to the rest of the atmosphere.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by foreveryoung, posted 02-20-2017 5:29 AM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by jar, posted 02-20-2017 9:33 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 411 of 944 (823248)
11-08-2017 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by NoNukes
11-07-2017 9:24 PM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
... What I am debating is that the fact can be considered obvious. ...
To people in affected areas. On Monday the end of our street and the cross street were flooded, and the only rain was a little sprinkle that hardly generated any runoff. What we had was a Harvest Super Moon, and very high tides, and the storm sewers backed up onto the streets. Similar in many places in Florida. Engineers don't design sewers to back up onto streets.
... If there were natural processes, some of which raised temps and some of which lowered temps, it could turn out that the human contribution is relatively unimportant, and that none of efforts will prevent the east coast from moving to Atlanta by the end of the decade. ...
Future waterfront.
But the evidence shows that it is human generated rather than natural.
... As jar is found of saying, it is the best case if humans are in responsible for the bulk, or a substantial part of global warning, because it is only the part within human control that we have a shot at fixing.
Only as long as we elect people that aren't climate change denying idiots.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2017 9:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2017 9:56 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 415 of 944 (823261)
11-08-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by NoNukes
11-08-2017 9:56 AM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
imilar in many places in Florida. Engineers don't design sewers to back up onto streets.
Let's distinguish between climate and bad weather. Where I lived as a kid in Atlanta, the sewers did back up after an occasional rain.
I thought I had, I'm talking about the roads flooding via the sewers due to high tide not storms. If tides had been that high when the sewers were designed a different system would have been used that prevented such back-flows.
Likewise the roads would have been built higher to avoid such flooding.
That makes it obvious that such flooding has some other cause: global warming is the only known possibility.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2017 9:56 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2017 12:41 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 420 of 944 (823267)
11-08-2017 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by NoNukes
11-08-2017 12:41 PM


Re: Climate Is Warming And Humans Are The Cause
The question here is not just global warming, but AGW, meaning human-induced effects.
Again, let's remember that you are not debating a skeptic.
The best presentation of the evidence that I've seen yet is this one:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
(can't reproduce the animated graphics here)
It runs through all the different considered causes of global warming and shows that the overwhelming contribution comes from man's fossil fuel usage.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by NoNukes, posted 11-08-2017 12:41 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 426 of 944 (823508)
11-11-2017 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by jar
11-11-2017 11:16 AM


Kathleen Hartnett White has no clue ...
The REAL point is that the cause is totally irrelevant. It's a stupid attempt to avoid addressing tough issues.
The FACT is that the only things we have any control over are those contributions made by humans.
quote:
Kathleen Hartnett White, President Trump’s pick for Council on Environmental Quality, sat before her first senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday and like many of Trump’s appointees, White demonstrated an astounding lack of knowledge on the very subject she would be in charge of overseeing. A former Texas environmental state regulator who once actually compared belief in global warming to paganism, at best, stammered through the line of questioning.
When asked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) roughly how much of the excess heat captured by greenhouse gasses has been absorbed the the ocean, White countered by saying she didn’t have numbers like that. Even when Whitehouse followed up, asking her if she knew whether it was more or less than 50 percent, White asked for him to repeat the question, noted that she had read about that, but ultimately could not provide an answer.
White then incorrectly noted, I believe there are difference of opinions on that, that there’s not one right answer, to which Whitehouse incredulously shot back, Really? Do you think there’s actual serious difference of opinion on whether it’s below 50 percent? Um, unless I’m mistaken, yes, White responded.
When asked a followup about the basic principles of thermal expansion, and whether or not that applies to seawater, White gave another mind boggling response. Again, I do not have any kind of expertise or even much layman’s study on the ocean dynamics and the climate change issues, she stated. Just enough to know that you think there’s enough science that establishes clearly how much of the heat has been taken up by the oceans you knew that, you said you knew that, Whitehouse fired back, before exasperatedly shutting down the line of questioning.
When you elect an idiot, they will appoint idiots because they don't know any better.
Too bad Sheldon didn't ask her your question
Enjoy?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by jar, posted 11-11-2017 11:16 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by jar, posted 11-11-2017 12:52 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 430 of 944 (823519)
11-11-2017 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by NoNukes
11-11-2017 2:56 PM


Re: The REAL point is ...
It does matter what portion of GW is human caused when we are deciding which actions to take. Policy can deal with either coping with the problem or stopping/reducing the effects, or some combination. It is not feasible to make rational policies without assessing causes as best we can.
At what point should action be taken ...
<1% human caused?
1% to 5% human caused?
5% to 10% human caused?
10% to 50% human caused?
>75% human caused?
Hint: it's over 75% and climbing ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by NoNukes, posted 11-11-2017 2:56 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by NoNukes, posted 11-11-2017 5:18 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 437 of 944 (823540)
11-12-2017 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by NoNukes
11-11-2017 5:18 PM


Re: The REAL point is ...
Apparently, I am leaving the wrong impression. I believe that we are already well passed the point where action should be taken, and have in fact reached the point where our failure to act has had negative consequence.
So we agree that it's >75% human caused.
I am taking issue with the claim that the relative size of the human contribution is of no importance. That's simply incorrect.
Allow me to come from a different angle: what can we do ...
What action can we take that gives the most "bang for the buck" in reducing climate change?
reduce atmospheric CO2 emissions (fossil fuel use)?
reduce volcanic action?
reduce solar radiation?
change the earth's orbit?
enhance natural CO2 take-up systems (trees, algae, etc)?
other _______?
What action can we take as individuals to assist reducing climate change?
reduce motor-vehicle use?
reduce plastic use?
utilize solar panels?
utilize wind power?
campaign for political change?
educate others?
Does the relative size of human caused climate change affect these answers?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by NoNukes, posted 11-11-2017 5:18 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 514 of 944 (842009)
10-25-2018 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Percy
10-25-2018 7:49 AM


Re: Climate Change Comes to Hawaii
try link instead
https://e3.365dm.com/...52/skynews-hawaii-island_4463733.jpg
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ??
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Percy, posted 10-25-2018 7:49 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 516 of 944 (851008)
04-18-2019 1:45 PM


Another Denialist recants
quote:
Former climate 'denier' regrets 'how wrongheaded but certain I was'
John Kaiser wheeled a cart with a TV and VCR into the lobby of an academic building on the campus of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, popped in a well-worn VHS cassette, and played a video extolling the virtues of an atmosphere rich in CO2.
“It was a video that was made to look like a news show; there were people who looked like anchors in it,” recalled Kaiser. It was part of a campaign to attract students to join a conservative movement on his undergraduate campus.
“[The video] was all about how CO2 levels are rising, but that’s great! Because plants need CO2, and the more CO2 there is, the more plants will grow and the more crops we’ll have. And the more we’ll have to eat and this will be an age of abundance because of all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Kaiser recounted the spin with a dash of wry humor, “So don’t worry about what the lefties and the liberals tell you, this is actually going to make things better.”
“I remember playing that video so many times,” he mused. Of all the types of information the group shared, this one garnered the most ardent pushback. Kaiser described a memorable instance when a challenger confronted him, “Do you realize the damage you’re doing peddling this s***?”
Kaiser’s confidence at the time was telling: “I was so certain in my convictions, that I said, ”I’m not lying, you can see the citations in the video, right?’ But I didn’t realize the extent to which they were twisting the references they had. I mean, I was 19 years old, and the video confirmed what I already believed, and so my confirmation bias was really strong at that moment. I didn’t have enough experience to overcome it. I’m ashamed I believed this stuff.”
”I should have looked more deeply’
Kaiser says he now is motivated to publicly share his turnabout on climate change. “I just feel guilty that my generation was part of setting up the politics of today. That we played a role in spreading misinformation. That we were unwitting allies of merchants of doubt . . We didn’t realize that coal companies and oil companies were funding all of these things we were showing about the positive benefits of CO2.”
“I do feel some responsibility that I should have known better, that I should have looked more deeply into the issue, into who was funding the stuff that I was putting out there.”
“If I can do something to remedy it, it would be a good penance,” he had written to me prior to our interview. In that vein, Kaiser offers four takeaways drawn from his former role as a spokesperson against climate action.
1. Make it personal and local.
“So much of what you . care about, when you’re conservative, relates to the people who are in your circle,” explained Kaiser. “If you know people who are in your circle who are gay, well then you’re going to be more forgiving or more open on the gay marriage issue.”
“Maybe when climate change starts affecting their hometown, that’s when they’re going to accept it because that just seems to be ingrained within conservatism, that it has to be something that I can feel locally in my community. I think one of the quintessential aspects of conservatism is a distrust of outsiders.”
“[Climate change] has now suddenly become personal and so you can push the [conservative] ideology aside a little bit to actually address it because you are willing to trust and accept that it’s happening. Because now you’re getting testimony from the inside.”
Kaiser suggests shifting to a strictly economics-based argument. “If you want to move people quickly in the next five to 10 years, it’s probably easier to present an argument that solar and wind energy are now entirely viable than it is to present an argument that climate change is real and we need to address it.”
What? Me worry? Yes . ”thought horrifies me . I worry’
Kaiser reflects on his contributions to stall action on climate change, and grapples with the implications for the future. “Now I’m a 39-year-old man with children who are going to reach maturity . in a world that will be worse than the one that I came to maturity in. That thought horrifies me, especially because I was out there on a weekly basis telling people, don’t worry about global warming, it’s not going to be a problem.”
“I’d like to say that there’s a part of me that believes that, politically and technologically, we will figure this out in time. And that the technology of geothermal, solar, wind, all of that, will advance . to fully replace coal, and a big chunk of oil. There’s a part of me that wants to believe that. But, having been a part of climate change denial, I worry about whether we can get to that point. And I worry especially as we see active attempts at sabotaging things like renewable energy industries.”
“Time will tell, we will see. I worry that it won’t be enough.”
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 546 of 944 (865623)
10-28-2019 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
10-24-2019 2:37 AM


Carbon Sequestration. OR Grow HEMP
Faith, this may be what you heard about:
quote:
MIT Scientists Say They Found a New Way to Scrub Atmospheric CO2
Carbon Capture
A team of MIT engineers claims to have figured out how to scrub harmful carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, potentially giving the world a new weapon in the fight against climate change.
While many scientists argue that carbon capture technology is a necessary part of preventing the worst effects of climate change, current approaches to the tech have never scaled enough to be practical. Now, the team which founded a company called Verdox to commercialize its system thinks it may have cracked the code. By sending air past an electrically-charged plate of carbon nanotubes, they say, the system can literally suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Scaling Up
The key to the MIT researchers’ carbon capture system is that it requires much less energy it could theoretically be built up to an industrial scale without requiring so much heat that it ends up harming the environment, according to research published in the journal Energy & Environmental Science.
ie -- it may or may not be a net benefit.
Easier and more cost effective is to use proven technology to produce renewable energy electricity and to reduce the use of fossil fuels in all manufacturing and energy generation.
Hemp can replace plastics and fuels. Growing hemp also reduces CO2 more than the same acreage of trees, and provides a reliable crop for farmers. win-win.
... without having to butt heads with the producers of the fossil fuel, no?
Only if they get their heads out of their butts and join the human race plans for survival instead of profits.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by Faith, posted 10-24-2019 2:37 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(5)
Message 552 of 944 (869145)
12-24-2019 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 548 by Faith
12-24-2019 3:26 AM


Worse than we thought, effects already seen.
Since not a single climate-change prophecy has ever come true, ...
Like the "prophecy" of average temperature increases that have occurred for the last several years, each year outdoing the previous years?
quote:
Climate Change: Global Temperature
Rebecca Lindsey and LuAnn Dahlman
September 19, 2019
Given the size and tremendous heat capacity of the global oceans, it takes a massive amount of accumulated heat energy to raise Earth’s average yearly surface temperature even a small amount. Behind the seemingly small increase in global average surface temperature over the past century is a significant increase in accumulated heat. That extra heat is driving regional and seasonal temperature extremes, reducing snow cover and sea ice, intensifying heavy rainfall, and changing habitat ranges for plants and animalsexpanding some and shrinking others.
Change over time
Though warming has not been uniform across the planet, the upward trend in the globally averaged temperature shows that more areas are warming than cooling. According to the NOAA 2018 Global Climate Summary, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07C (0.13F) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.17C / 0.31F) is more than twice as great.
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and 9 of the 10 have occurred since 2005. The year 1998 is the only year from the twentieth century still among the ten warmest years on record. Looking back to 1988, a pattern emerges: except for 2011, as each new year is added to the historical record, it becomes one of the top 10 warmest on record at that time, but it is ultimately replaced as the top ten window shifts forward in time.
Like the "prophecy" of sea level rise that has the city of Miami rebuilding roads at higher elevations so they don't flood?
https://www.bbc.com/...3-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise
Miami is racing against time to keep up with sea-level rise
Like the islands that have disappeared due to sea level rise?
Five Pacific islands disappear as sea levels rise - BBC News
The sea is rising because it is being warmed, and warmed water expands. Simple physics. This is augmented by the melting of glaciers (ice that was resting on land) due to higher average temperatures and changes in air temperature distributions (changing jet stream, warmer polar regions, etc).
Then there are the increased size, severity and number of fires around the world. Australia, for example, with new record temps recorded and then superseded.
Australia fires: 'Catastrophic' alerts in South Australia and Victoria - BBC News
Australia weather: 50C temperatures could become the norm as hundreds of climate records broken in 90 days, report finds | The Independent | The Independent
What is Australia doing to tackle climate change? - BBC News
You have to be willingly ignorant to not be aware of a single effect of climate change.
... why should we believe this one?
Because it is based on science and facts, not wishful thinking.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by Faith, posted 12-24-2019 3:26 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Faith, posted 12-25-2019 1:30 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 555 of 944 (869192)
12-25-2019 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Faith
12-25-2019 1:30 AM


Scientific predictions are not prophecies ...
So I guess we just ignore all the older prophecies that failed completely, and now rely on some much more recent ones that are based on a known trend?
Perhaps because we are talking about scientific predictions rather than belief prophecies.
The difference between science and belief is the ability/willingness to change when new information is available.
When scientific predictions are based on limited or incomplete information, then they will likely need to change when new information is added. Early predictions were based on data that was incomplete or lacking in certain areas -- the arctic/antarctic poles and the deep ocean for instance.
When the predictions don't match the results, the model is revised ... because a model that doesn't predict accurate results is useless.
The first models of hurricane behavior were fairly poor at predicting hurricane paths. The ones we have now are much better (... and they are WAY better than orange-top with a sharpie).
I don't have a problem with SOME rise in temps since I know glaciers have been melting for instance. ...
Cherry picking what evidence you use again? The overall trend shows a sharp increase in the temperatures around the earth commensurate with the rise in CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
... But I also think in terms of an ice age, just one, ...
Except the actual evidence shows many ice ages of different lengths.
quote:
Ice Age
An ice age is a period of colder global temperatures and recurring glacial expansion capable of lasting hundreds of millions of years. Thanks to the efforts of geologist Louis Agassiz and mathematician Milutin Milankovitch, scientists have determined that variations in the Earth’s orbit and shifting plate tectonics spur the waxing and waning of these periods. There have been at least five significant ice ages in Earth’s history, with approximately a dozen epochs of glacial expansion occurring in the past 1 million years. Humans developed significantly during the most recent glaciation period, emerging as the dominant land animal afterward as megafauna such as the wooly mammoth went extinct.
Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth’s history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the Ice Age, reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago.
At the height of the recent glaciation, the ice grew to more than 12,000 feet thick as sheets spread across Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and South America. Corresponding sea levels plunged more than 400 feet, while global temperatures dipped around 10 degrees Fahrenheit on average and up to 40 degrees in some areas. In North America, the region of the Gulf Coast states was dotted with the pine forests and prairie grasses that are today associated with the northern states and Canada.
Five biggy ice ages and several smaller ones.
... that started at the end of the Flood ...
Which never happened.
... and encroached very far south before it began to retreat, which it's been doing for some long time. It's now almost completely retreated, and of coruse as it retreats the planet warms.
Except that it's the other way around: as the planet warms the ice melts. Ice doesn't melt on it's own and not only do we have more ice melting than before, but there is less snow each year to replenish the ice.
Not that there mightn't be some human input but the ice age retreat was going to happen in spite of us. Yeah I know....
That you are wrong. Again. And it is the details again Faith. The details show that the major contributor to climate change in the last several thousand years is human activity.
That means we should be able to fix it or ameliorate it ... if we get off our hinnies and work on it.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmericanZenDeist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Faith, posted 12-25-2019 1:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024