|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: Should be pretty self-explanatory because the explanation actually matches the actual data. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
See Dan Pangburns article here: provide sound reasoning why it is wrong. Climate Change Drivers quote: Hmmm ... taken down because it is falsehoods? So I googled it You should change your pet link to Climate Change Drivers
quote: 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: 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: 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, : addedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... 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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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: 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?by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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 ... Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
try link instead
https://e3.365dm.com/...52/skynews-hawaii-island_4463733.jpg Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ?? Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
quote: Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Faith, this may be what you heard about:
quote: 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. Enjoyby 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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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: 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-riseMiami 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 NewsAustralia 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, : ..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)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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: 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. Enjoyby 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024