Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 488 of 944 (830406)
03-28-2018 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by Faith
03-28-2018 2:40 PM


Faith writes:
Evaporation has a cooling effect.
Condensation has a heating effect.
The problems of both weed killers and transportation costs would be decreased if personal gardening got popular.
Weed killers aren't a problem for climate change, and smaller farms would burn more fossil fuels than larger farms per unit of food. Urban farming is even less efficient at food units per acre.
Health effects aside, eating lower down in the food web would reduce the amount of land needed for agriculture. There is about 90% energy loss at each ecological level meaning that we only get 10% of the energy from meat that we would have received from eating the plants the animals ate. We could feed a lot more people if we fed those veggies to humans instead of cattle.
Long term, with the right planning, even rivers and rainforests can be restored.
There is always going to be a struggle between growing food and preserving habitat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 2:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 495 of 944 (839937)
09-19-2018 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by Percy
09-18-2018 9:16 AM


Re: Anyone still doubt climate change?
Percy writes:
As I listen to what's left of Florence thunder down on my roof here in New Hampshire, and keeping in mind that a record typhoon just hit the Philippines with 165 mph winds before moving on the Hong Kong and China, and that a record hurricane just hit Houston last year dropping a national record 60 inches of rain, can there be any doubt that we are in the midst of climate change where storms are wetter and slower moving and more dangerous?
The data demonstrates that ocean temperatures have risen over the last few decades:
https://www.epa.gov/...ge-indicators-sea-surface-temperature
Higher ocean temps means more storms and stronger storms. There is no way around that. I guess people could argue that the increase in temperature isn't man made, that temperature cycles naturally. However, it is getting rather difficult to deny the facts of temperature increases and the impact it has on long term climate trends.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Percy, posted 09-18-2018 9:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-19-2018 10:09 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 09-20-2018 12:47 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 499 of 944 (839969)
09-20-2018 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Faith
09-20-2018 12:47 AM


Re: Anyone still doubt climate change?
Faith writes:
Yes, that's the question, what is the cause of the rise in temperature.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas which means it traps heat in the atmosphere. The increase in temperature correlates with the massive increases in carbon dioxide. That massive increase in carbon dioxide correlates with humans burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.
The cause seems pretty clear to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 09-20-2018 12:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by Faith, posted 09-20-2018 11:08 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 504 of 944 (839999)
09-21-2018 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by Faith
09-20-2018 11:08 PM


Re: Anyone still doubt climate change?
Faith writes:
I wonder how the assumption of billions of years for the age of the earth affects calculations of natural causes of CO2 production as opposed to thousands of years. Just wondering.
All we need is the data from the last 200 years or so.
reference
There is also a shift towards 12C in the isotope concentrations in atmospheric CO2, and fossil fuels are rich in 12C compared to other natural sources like dissolved CO2 in the ocean and CO2 from volcanic eruptions. All of the evidence points to humans increasing atmospheric CO2 by more than 30%.
Also, if the theory that there is a natural trend of warming since the Flood is true, human contributions might be speeding it up now, but it would still continue in any case.
That's a made up fantasy, not a theory. There is a difference between the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Faith, posted 09-20-2018 11:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 531 of 944 (863318)
09-24-2019 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 523 by Faith
09-23-2019 7:01 PM


Re: Is this the right thread?
Faith writes:
What for? Hysterically pointing the finger at people for a catastrophe she doesn't understand and has only been brainwashed into accepting? The Left should be prosecuted for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. This is insane.
So you deny the 150+ years of science on the greenhouse effect?
It's the Left that is destroying the next generation with its scare tactics.
Just because you are scared of science does not make science scary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Faith, posted 09-23-2019 7:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 544 of 944 (865460)
10-25-2019 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by Faith
10-24-2019 2:37 AM


Re: Carbon Sequestration.
Faith writes:
OK but then we can address each of those situations with the carbon-grabbing technology separately without having to butt heads with the producers of the fossil fuel, no?
Good ol' thermodynamics still raises its head. When we add oxygen to long chain carbon molecules in fossil fuels we get energy, carbon dioxide, and water out of that reaction. If we want to run it in reverse, then we have to add energy. If we use fossil fuels to sequester carbon dioxide, then we aren't gaining anything. In fact, it would probably increase the carbon dioxide in the air because it wouldn't be 100% efficient.

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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 584 of 944 (871096)
01-28-2020 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Phat
01-26-2020 11:27 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
Thugpreacha writes:
Why is nobody doing anything? Seems to me that human nature is self-destructive.
Humans are short sighted and selfish, not necessarily self destructive. Fossil fuels are cheap and easy to use, so we use them. It takes a lot of spending and infrastructure to switch, so we don't. We don't see any change in the climate or threat to our way of life in the very short term, so we don't worry about it.
The 2008 housing crisis is a perfect example of how this flawed human attitude leads to disaster. There are several documentaries on the whole fiasco, but I can't think of the titles offhand. However, a google search should find them, and I think they are available on a few streaming services. If you want, watch those documentaries and try to understand the human psychology that was in play, and then apply that to climate change. The parallels are quite amazing, IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Phat, posted 01-26-2020 11:27 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:16 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(4)
Message 585 of 944 (871098)
01-28-2020 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by marc9000
01-26-2020 6:13 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News
marc9000 writes:
A feed back system? Cars are more efficient with fuel than ever before, thanks to expensive government mandates, we have more wind turbines than ever before. Are only things like people's hobbies, and overindulgence causing this feed back system?
There are 3rd world nations making the transition to industrialized nations, and their fossil fuel consumption has shot through the roof. As more and more Indians and Chinese get cars when they didn't have them before, guess what happens? Also, there are feedback systems that continue to release CO2 from ocean stores.
"Get out of the way", and let government gobble up freedoms and money to do something that can't be measured? You're funny.
It is measurable.
Nothing is perfect, but free markets are BY FAR the best way to hold companies, big and small, accountable.
Ummm, no. There is a reason we have labor laws, the FDA, the EPA, anti-trust laws, and banking regulations. It's because free markets can't police themselves, nor have they in the past. We already tried it your way, and it didn't work.
Overwhelmed by facts, or scientific community projections?
By actual CO2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by marc9000, posted 01-26-2020 6:13 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:37 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 596 of 944 (871525)
02-04-2020 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by marc9000
02-02-2020 9:16 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
marc9000 writes:
Largely because many people see larger, more pressing worries. Such as, how to pay for things.
In many ways, that is true. Humans will harm their future in return for immediate rewards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 3:42 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 597 of 944 (871526)
02-04-2020 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by marc9000
02-02-2020 9:37 PM


Re: Moving Climate Change debate from The Right Side of the News
marc9000 writes:
It's things like this, it's the enthusiasm that many show for this climate change PROBLEM, it's all the finger pointing that goes on, the claims that bigger government can quickly fix it all - there are just too many things that raise suspicions about the honesty of it all.
The good ol' what-about-isms. Distract, distract, distract . . . do anything but look at the science.
They co-exist with free markets. Yet they keep increasing, and free markets keep decreasing, even though free markets sustain ALL of it. How long before the scales are tipped, and free markets crash?
Regulated markets are what fuels the US economy, not free markets. Every single business in the US is regulated. No US company is allowed to dump billions of gallons of toxic waste into the local river, as one example. Guess what? The economy keeps on truckin'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by marc9000, posted 02-02-2020 9:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by jar, posted 02-04-2020 7:13 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 607 of 944 (871848)
02-13-2020 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 603 by marc9000
02-09-2020 4:13 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
marc9000 writes:
I know you won't watch it, so I'll just describe how only one of them went; About 10 years ago, a pair of researchers at the University of Illinois sent out an on-line survey to 10,000 earth scientists, with two questions; 1) Do you agree that earths overall temps have increased since the pre 1800's, and 2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor? They got 3146 responses, and of those, 90% said yes to first question, and 82% said yes to the second. Yet among those who were meteorologists, only 64% said yes to the second question. And among only 77 of those respondents who claimed to be climate experts, 75 said yes to the second question, so 75 out of 77, YES!! that's the 97% that we hear trumpeted today. Only 77 people, out of those who bothered to respond, are claimed to represent science the world over! This is how misleading, and phony climate alarmists are in trying to state their political case. There are more details of scientific surveys in this video.
Here are the results from a survey of 1,800+ actual climate researchers, those who publish climate papers in peer reviewed scientific journals:
quote:
Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail. Consistent with other research, we found that, as the level of expertise in climate science grew, so too did the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming.
Just a moment...
You can click on the link above to see how they got those numbers.
Added in edit:
In case you were wondering about the methods for finding that 97% of climate papers support AGW, it can be found in this paper:
quote:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991—2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 603 by marc9000, posted 02-09-2020 4:13 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(4)
Message 608 of 944 (871849)
02-13-2020 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 606 by mike the wiz
02-13-2020 9:11 AM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
mike the wiz writes:
They argue this one with evolution as well, it's popular to use the, "majority of scientists believe" card, as an INDIRECT ARGUMENT.
Do you go to a car mechanic for your health problems?
For most of us, expert opinions matter.
The main reason why the "most scientists" statistic is a poor argument, is because basically it's pretty much a tautology that if someone is a scientist, that joins science with a philosophy of methodological naturalism, and accepts science, and has the philosophy that all science is put through the method is accepted, is then going to accept what science says.
Scientists accept what the evidence says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by mike the wiz, posted 02-13-2020 9:11 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 619 of 944 (872032)
02-18-2020 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by marc9000
02-16-2020 7:32 PM


Re: another big oil pawn
marc9000 writes:
They do have a few other interests, but climate change is BY FAR the biggest. It's where the money is.
Scientists are paid to study climate no matter if it is warming or cooling.
I can only think of one agenda they could have, to sell in free markets and be left alone by government. What other agenda could they have? Other than to be protected from those special interests that seek to destroy them?
Companies are special interests. They are interested in profit. If they are polluting and policies meant to stop polluting are getting in the way of profit, then they attack the people pushing those policies.
I suspect they already have plenty of ideas. But they're a secret, they'd be a little too much of a shock for the general public to see, before climate change activists get enough political power.
Why do you make this into a politically charged question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by marc9000, posted 02-16-2020 7:32 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 631 by marc9000, posted 02-23-2020 4:08 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 620 of 944 (872033)
02-18-2020 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 617 by marc9000
02-16-2020 8:29 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth
marc9000 writes:
But those in today's scientific community don't stop, they keep right on going beyond that point, assuming that the re-arrangement processes of science can explain all of reality, which it can't.
Do you think the greenhouse effect is beyond the limits of science? What about the absorbance spectra of carbon dioxide?
Figure 1 here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...ticle/pii/S2405844018324605
To me, it looks like carbon dioxide has an absorbance peak within the Earth's emission spectra. Do you agree? Do you have any problem with this science?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by marc9000, posted 02-16-2020 8:29 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 632 by marc9000, posted 02-23-2020 4:13 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 621 of 944 (872036)
02-18-2020 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by marc9000
02-16-2020 8:49 PM


Re: An Inconvenient Truth -- still true
marc9000 writes:
People who believe in the U.S. founding principle of liberty.
That principle never incorporated the right to hurt other people through pollution.
Why don't we ask the scientists if the temp is rising because of unpoliced fossil fuel use, or if it's rising by 8 billion people regularly exhaling?
The CO2 in our breath comes from the carbohydrates we ingest. Those carbohydrates were produced in plants by capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. It's a closed loop. No matter how many people were exhaling, it couldn't increase CO2 levels in our atmosphere.
What does increase CO2 is burning material from photosynthesis that has been locked away over many millions of years, and releasing that carbon very quickly. In fact, we know the sudden 30% increase in CO2 over the last 200 years comes from fossil fuels because fossils fuels have more 12C compred to 13C than abiotic sources.
quote:
The relative proportion of 13C in our atmosphere is steadily decreasing over time. Before the industrial revolution, 13C of our atmosphere was approximately -6.5; now the value is around -8. Recall that plants have less 13C relative to the atmosphere (and therefore have a more negative 13C value of around -25). Most fossil fuels, like oil and coal, which are ancient plant and animal material, have the same 13C isotopic fingerprint as other plants. The annual trend—the overall decrease in atmospheric 13C—is explained by the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that must come from the terrestrial biosphere and/or fossil fuels. In fact, we know from 14C measurements, inventories, and other sources, that this decrease is from fossil fuel emissions, and is an example of the Suess Effect.
Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
That drop in relative 13C is the fingerprint left from burning fossil fuels low in 13C. This is what the science tells us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by marc9000, posted 02-16-2020 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 633 by marc9000, posted 02-23-2020 4:23 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024