Remember me
▼ Content

Consensus of Scientists and Proof



Page 1 of 8123>>>
Consensus of Scientists and Proof02-04-2017 03:38
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .
02-04-2017 08:32
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"frenzied mex" muffed:.. before we.... permanently park our cars....

I agree. Put U.S. made wider tires on da car & ah gots ta find ifn they be any good. Da mpg might be low. But dat wide tire will be what's makes those turns secure.... ifn.....
02-04-2017 14:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .


There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-04-2017 17:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4613)
Frescomexico wrote:..., we just know the global climate has been warming.

Nobody "knows" this. Climate is an unfalsifiable deity of the Global Warming religion.

spot wrote: There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it.

Not if there is no spectrum in the first place. There is no Climate goddess changing anything.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-04-2017 18:02
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

You still have not told us how we can cool the planet without economic doom. What is your plan?
I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Is that what all this is to you? An insurance policy "just in case you happen to be right?"
03-04-2017 00:12
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote: Put U.S. made wider tires on da car & ah gots ta find ifn they be any good. Da mpg might be low. But dat wide tire will be what's makes those turns secure.... ifn.....

Wow! Two of the new tires (from Les Schwab) were way under-inflated (below 20psi). If such had happened on a hot day, taken on the freeway at 80+ mph & failed, people could've died.
Anyhow.... when you purchase tires, get them to double-check air pressures. I can tell that slightly wider tire is a better driving tire, tho.
03-04-2017 07:46
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .


There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.


I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.
03-04-2017 13:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Frescomexico wrote:I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.


Nothing to add, just thought it was worth saying again.
03-04-2017 13:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .


There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.


I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.
Edited on 03-04-2017 13:59
03-04-2017 16:55
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Where's all this "money" going to come from?
Who should pay for it?
And exactly how should it be spent?
How much money will it take?
What is the end result target goal for CO2?
Can it actually be achieved?
How long will it take?
03-04-2017 17:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Where's all this "money" going to come from?
Who should pay for it?
And exactly how should it be spent?
How much money will it take?
What is the end result target goal for CO2?
Can it actually be achieved?
How long will it take?

All good questions, and questions that humanity needs to find answers for if we are to take Option 2. That's the purpose of the IPCC and international agreements such as the Paris accord. Otherwise, Option 1 happens by default.
03-04-2017 19:41
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .


There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.


I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.


I have a problem with your two options scenario. Assuming you are referring to continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as "wrecking the environment", so far it has only helped the environment. The concern with wrecking the environment involves high positive feedback, a concept with little historical evidence and no empirical evidence to my knowledge. Without the wrecking your options fall apart.

Your right that we will someday need to develop alternative sources of energy, so R&D on this is not wasted, but there is still plenty of time for this without shifting into panic mode.
03-04-2017 20:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Frescomexico wrote:

I have a problem with your two options scenario. Assuming you are referring to continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as "wrecking the environment", so far it has only helped the environment. The concern with wrecking the environment involves high positive feedback, a concept with little historical evidence and no empirical evidence to my knowledge. Without the wrecking your options fall apart.

Your right that we will someday need to develop alternative sources of energy, so R&D on this is not wasted, but there is still plenty of time for this without shifting into panic mode.


How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-04-2017 21:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.


How exactly has it damaged the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.
03-04-2017 21:07
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
GasGuzzler wrote:
How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.


How exactly has it damaged the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.


Of course there is evidence;

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.
Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures. For example, researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.
The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.
Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.
Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.


For a start.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-04-2017 21:29
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Good grief Sput,
is there nothing you won't believe? Don't have time to go researching penguins for you like I did the Caribou, but here's the blame for the death of 44,000 penguins from the article you posted.

Oh, in an area where it is not warming and sea ice is increasing. Funny stuff!
Attached image:

03-04-2017 21:40
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Did you also need sea ice extent for Antarctic?
Attached image:


Edited on 03-04-2017 21:41
03-04-2017 21:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Good grief Sput,
is there nothing you won't believe? Don't have time to go researching penguins for you like I did the Caribou, but here's the blame for the death of 44,000 penguins from the article you posted.

Oh, in an area where it is not warming and sea ice is increasing. Funny stuff!


You aren't an expert on Caribou, You proved nothing, If you want to go over it I will simply repeat what the researchers who are their and actually study caribou said, your failure to understand what they wrote on the subject does not make it untrue.

That graph you posted; assuming its right the south pole is just one extraordinary place, and not the Antarctic coast, which is where the sea ice is, as everyone who is not an idiot knows. What it has to do with what I posted I have no idea.

Yes I know that the national geographic magazine is not infallible but I think their track record is a lot better then yours.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-04-2017 22:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
I have no idea what Antarctic Sea ice has to do with the subject of the thread but GasGuzzler seems to think that he has me stumped. of course this is not true there has been much written on the subject that GasGuzzler seems blissfully ignorant of;

https://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

Antarctic sea ice has been growing over the last few decades but it certainly is not due to cooling - the Southern Ocean has shown warming over same period. Increasing southern sea ice is due to a combination of complex phenomena including cyclonic winds around Antarctica and changes in ocean circulation.
03-04-2017 22:03
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
From National Geographic Ice is melting worldwide,especially at the Earth's poles

They said it, it's a lie, and you stand behind it?

If an uneducated bum such as myself can find the lies, why should anyone believe anything they say?


...and there's all that crap in there about storms getting more frequent and stronger, we've already proven that to be false.

You know damn well it's just like any other failing media publication. Reporting on disaster or pending disaster will put $ in their pocket. Everything else is too boring to make a living off of. They never fail to let the truth get in the way of a good story.
Edited on 03-04-2017 22:04
03-04-2017 22:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
I have no idea what Antarctic Sea ice has to do with the subject


Just bringing in to question the credibility of anyone making false claims. I want the truth, whether it falls on my opinion's side or not. This crap is nowhere near truth.
03-04-2017 22:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .


There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.


I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.


That argument was just as strong in the later bronze age when the supply of copper waas almost used up.

Should they have desperately turned from the best they had availible in the hope of not causing their children to have to find new supplies or new materials? Or just carried on as best they could?

Did the not happeneing of peak oil not tell you anything at all??
03-04-2017 22:46
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

I have a problem with your two options scenario. Assuming you are referring to continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as "wrecking the environment", so far it has only helped the environment. The concern with wrecking the environment involves high positive feedback, a concept with little historical evidence and no empirical evidence to my knowledge. Without the wrecking your options fall apart.

Your right that we will someday need to develop alternative sources of energy, so R&D on this is not wasted, but there is still plenty of time for this without shifting into panic mode.


How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346

The earth is about a third greener now due to the increase in CO2.

I think that is good.
03-04-2017 22:59
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Tim the plumber wrote:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346

The earth is about a third greener now due to the increase in CO2.

I think that is good.


from your link;

But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.
They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-04-2017 23:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I have no idea what Antarctic Sea ice has to do with the subject


Just bringing in to question the credibility of anyone making false claims. I want the truth, whether it falls on my opinion's side or not. This crap is nowhere near truth.


I think you will find most people regard The National Geographic magazine as credible.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-04-2017 23:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Did you also need sea ice extent for Antarctic?

Well, that's disappointing. For some reason, I was thinking that, although deeply cynical, you were arguing with some degree of intellectual honesty. Apparently not, though, given your posting of that graph:
1) The Antarctic sea ice extent has little relevance to what we were talking about - the economic feasibility of influencing climate change.
2) The Antarctic sea ice extent isn't particularly indicative in any case since it depends not just on temperature, but also on such factors as the run-off of fresh (easily frozen) water from the Antarctic continent.
3) The graph stops for no reason in 2014/2015, thus deliberately omitting the record low sea ice extents seen recently in the Antarctic.
4) The graph for the Arctic sea ice shows a much steeper fall in sea ice extent, but you omit to mention this.
It's now clear that you are attempting to deliberately mislead rather than arguing in good faith.

Edited on 03-04-2017 23:18
03-04-2017 23:27
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .


There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.


I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.


That argument was just as strong in the later bronze age when the supply of copper waas almost used up.

Should they have desperately turned from the best they had availible in the hope of not causing their children to have to find new supplies or new materials? Or just carried on as best they could?

Did the not happeneing of peak oil not tell you anything at all??

If you really don't appreciate the fundamental difference between an infinitely recyclable metal and a fuel which can only be burned once, then we have a long way to go here.
04-04-2017 00:27
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Surface Detail wrote:
Well, that's disappointing. For some reason, I was thinking that, although deeply cynical, you were arguing with some degree of intellectual honesty. Apparently not, though, given your posting of that graph:

I do apologize....2016 graph below.

The Antarctic sea ice extent has little relevance to what we were talking about - the economic feasibility of influencing climate change.

I know, but Sput went and posted a bunch of propaganda hooey.

The graph stops for no reason in 2014/2015, thus deliberately omitting the record low sea ice extents seen recently in the Antarctic.

I do apologize....2016 graph below.

4) The graph for the Arctic sea ice shows a much steeper fall in sea ice extent, but you omit to mention this.

The article claimed 44,000 dead penguins in the Antarctic.

It's now clear that you are attempting to deliberately mislead rather than arguing in good faith.

Please read the article. There is crap in there even you know to be untrue. Does it not bring into question the validity of the entire content?
Attached image:

04-04-2017 00:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Well, that's disappointing. For some reason, I was thinking that, although deeply cynical, you were arguing with some degree of intellectual honesty. Apparently not, though, given your posting of that graph:

I do apologize....2016 graph below.

The Antarctic sea ice extent has little relevance to what we were talking about - the economic feasibility of influencing climate change.

I know, but Sput went and posted a bunch of propaganda hooey.

The graph stops for no reason in 2014/2015, thus deliberately omitting the record low sea ice extents seen recently in the Antarctic.

I do apologize....2016 graph below.

4) The graph for the Arctic sea ice shows a much steeper fall in sea ice extent, but you omit to mention this.

The article claimed 44,000 dead penguins in the Antarctic.

It's now clear that you are attempting to deliberately mislead rather than arguing in good faith.

Please read the article. There is crap in there even you know to be untrue. Does it not bring into question the validity of the entire content?

My apologies, GG, I did skip over a few posts by accident (trying to work at the same time!) and didn't catch the topic shift.

You do have a fair point there, in that conditions in the Antarctic are, I'd have thought, unlikely to have changed sufficiently to have had much effect on penguin populations. The National Geographic article doesn't really seem to match up well with other sources of information either. The most we can say about Antarctic sea ice is that it appears to have become more variable in recent years. It's currently at a record low, but it was at a record high just a couple of years ago, and there is as yet no obvious trend either way.
04-04-2017 01:21
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

I have a problem with your two options scenario. Assuming you are referring to continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as "wrecking the environment", so far it has only helped the environment. The concern with wrecking the environment involves high positive feedback, a concept with little historical evidence and no empirical evidence to my knowledge. Without the wrecking your options fall apart.

Your right that we will someday need to develop alternative sources of energy, so R&D on this is not wasted, but there is still plenty of time for this without shifting into panic mode.


How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.


Perhaps because you are not riding on a spacecraft and looking down on the earth. The long term satellite leaf area index(LAI) shows a "persistent and widespread increase in growing season intigrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning)".

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004.epdf?referrer_access_token=8BKfQEmBUPFP9YzpTx4dUdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OYJHZxvEebXSMq9zMi6Q2vWe61M7QFieokWQcY1PQbxc_WpVEWer9mT-AOy08WXZKGmXye4OmiShlfUKMRQyWQuIWW-KPauQsr3stFqzWZjawMgYQkJgyJLt6rliQTUcn-4VQSU5TtXcE3_14GNCeGiKN2lkIjE8ULVperJZR4MUC50m9vsa74b4rumedjf4d9lRG4tK3SDCyk8zIpPgeufQObWJfLtgtKsb4bQMKBIMjfa_E20yHU0EnMXeeFZ9Os2A80qWIgFWOA3FiCQppUkXHaGrAJnKcCSt7E074Hkfw86CANQV7kXMmPDJGIrwI%3D&tracking_referrer=www.dailymail.co.uk

Stay tuned for more indicators.
RE: How has elevated atmospheric CO2 benefited the environment04-04-2017 04:29
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Spot,
Rather than point out the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 I'll refer you to a scientist who has researched it:

The independent American scientist Indur Goklany wrote a comprehensive report on "Carbon Dioxide — the Good News" for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The report was thoroughly peer-reviewed, as was almost all of the voluminous literature it cited. Goklany points out that whereas the benefits of carbon dioxide are huge and here now, the harms are still speculative and almost all in the distant future.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf
04-04-2017 04:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
Spot,
Rather than point out the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 I'll refer you to a scientist who has researched it:

The independent American scientist Indur Goklany wrote a comprehensive report on "Carbon Dioxide — the Good News" for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The report was thoroughly peer-reviewed, as was almost all of the voluminous literature it cited. Goklany points out that whereas the benefits of carbon dioxide are huge and here now, the harms are still speculative and almost all in the distant future.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

What makes you think the report was peer-reviewed? In which scientific journal was it published?
04-04-2017 06:18
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Spot,
Rather than point out the many benefits of atmospheric CO2 I'll refer you to a scientist who has researched it:

The independent American scientist Indur Goklany wrote a comprehensive report on "Carbon Dioxide — the Good News" for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The report was thoroughly peer-reviewed, as was almost all of the voluminous literature it cited. Goklany points out that whereas the benefits of carbon dioxide are huge and here now, the harms are still speculative and almost all in the distant future.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

What makes you think the report was peer-reviewed? In which scientific journal was it published?


The report is not a scientific paper published in a scientific journal. It is a compilation of voluminous papers, most of which were peer reviewed. It was published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation.
04-04-2017 15:08
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: Did you also need sea ice extent for Antarctic?


Good that "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" proved what AGW scientists predicted in 2002, & confirmed in 2005, that Antarctic sea ice would increase. Here's what I've posted hundreds of times:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050630064726.htm
04-04-2017 16:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
litesong wrote:
....Here's what I've posted hundreds of times.....


If you want people to read what you post,

Tip 1. Don't post the same thing a 100 times.

Tip 2. Use as few words/sentences as possible to make your point.

Tip 3. Everyone has a busy life and we don't come here curled up with a cup of coffee. I and others will read most anything, but we won't waste time with your repeated ramblings.

Tip 4. You are not Uncle Remus
Edited on 04-04-2017 16:02
04-04-2017 16:10
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
Surface Detail wrote:
My apologies, GG, I did skip over a few posts by accident (trying to work at the same time!) and didn't catch the topic shift.

You do have a fair point there, in that conditions in the Antarctic are, I'd have thought, unlikely to have changed sufficiently to have had much effect on penguin populations. The National Geographic article doesn't really seem to match up well with other sources of information either. .


That's a fair assessment. I'll take it. I thought you might jump National Geo for the extreme weather claims. Seen you do that before.
04-04-2017 22:50
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
How exactly has it helped the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.


How exactly has it damaged the environment and is there evidence to support such an assertion.

Because I fail to see how it has.


Of course there is evidence;

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/

Ice is melting worldwide, especially at the Earth's poles. This includes mountain glaciers, ice sheets covering West Antarctica and Greenland, and Arctic sea ice.
Many species have been impacted by rising temperatures. For example, researcher Bill Fraser has tracked the decline of the Adélie penguins on Antarctica, where their numbers have fallen from 32,000 breeding pairs to 11,000 in 30 years.
The sea level has been rising more quickly over the last century.
Some butterflies, foxes, and alpine plants have moved farther north or to higher, cooler areas.
Precipitation (rain and snowfall) has increased across the globe, on average.
Some invasive species are thriving. For example, spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.


For a start.


Some people seem to think that the earth just before the industrial revolution was at its optimum condition, and any changes thereafter constitute a degradation. The ice was melting before then and the sea was rising. Animals were increasing, decreasing and becoming extinct. Man and other species have always had to move because of climate change. They say the Sahara desert was once a jungle. Where did everyone go?

I have no quarrel with keeping down man-caused pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant) or protecting wildlife. But to think we should try to manipulate our climate to keep it at a certain state seems to be not only folly but prohibitively expensive.
06-04-2017 17:41
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote: Put U.S. made wider tires on da car & ah gots ta find ifn they be any good. Da mpg might be low. But dat wide tire will be what's makes those turns secure.... ifn.....

Wow! Two of the new tires (from Les Schwab) were way under-inflated (below 20psi). If such had happened on a hot day, taken on the freeway at 80+ mph & failed, people could've died.
Anyhow.... when you purchase tires, get them to double-check air pressures. I can tell that slightly wider tire is a better driving tire, tho.

A series of connections:
Les Schwab salespeople told me Les Schwab bought American made Dean Tires to continue making American made tires (as I stated that I bought). Now I find out that Dean Tires was owned by Cooper Tires, who in part, made tires in America. OK, whether called Les Schwab, or Dean Tires, or Cooper Tires, you can get a tire still made in America. A couple years ago, Cooper Tires was going to be bought by a company from India. But that deal fell through. Presently, you CAN buy a tire, made in America, made by an American company.
Supposedly, Goodyear still makes tires in America, but you will have to look hard to find them, buried in their inventory..... possibly some of the Goodyear owned Kelly or Dunlop Tires.
Back to my Les Schwab, Dean or Cooper tire. It tracks straight down the road. Initial turn-in is NOT as positive as some tires. But once turning right or left, it is linear in its response. Haven't tried any hard turning yet. In medium rain on the road, it has good braking traction, with no pulling right or left. Les Schwab has a 70,000 mile tire warranty, but the tire rating on the tire indicates that mileage will be difficult to obtain.
So much for my "buy American" sidelight.
06-04-2017 18:36
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .


There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.


I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.


That argument was just as strong in the later bronze age when the supply of copper waas almost used up.

Should they have desperately turned from the best they had availible in the hope of not causing their children to have to find new supplies or new materials? Or just carried on as best they could?

Did the not happeneing of peak oil not tell you anything at all??

If you really don't appreciate the fundamental difference between an infinitely recyclable metal and a fuel which can only be burned once, then we have a long way to go here.


Given that flint as used during the stone age was a limited resource your argument is only applicable if you think we will still be using fossil fuels for ever.

It will come to pass that new technologies will be invented. These will replace the burning of fossil fuels. They might well involve solar power or the direct cracking of CO2 out of the air and into fuel.

This will come to pass within the next few decades.

Oil will last for several centuries at least.
06-04-2017 20:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
It is often stated that a huge majority of climate scientists subscribe to the concept that global warming from the greenhouse gas CO2 is and/or will cause catastrophic heating of our planet. If one assumes that each of these scientists contributed an experiment confirming the concept (an exaggeration), we will still not have "proof" of the concept. In fact we will never have proof of the concept.

Albert Einstein once said:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

A preponderance of evidence is proof in a courtroom, in science it's just more evidence. Truth is, we have very little evidence of dangerous AGW, we just know the global climate has been warming. There are few global warming deniers (although one or two might pop up in this thread), and I can't believe that there are any climate deniers (literally those who deny that there is climate).

So, before we run out shouting we should shutdown our fossil fueled power plants and permanently park our cars, we really need more evidence that there is a problem .


There is a spectrum of possibilities between no effect whatsoever and the end of human life as we know it. I don't know where on that scale your definition of catastrophic is or if its the same as someone else.

Changing the atmosphere changes things that is certain. It's interesting that the same people that believe that the science is so uncertain and the scientists who study this are so bad at their jobs also believe the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy is certain to bring about economic doom.

I wonder if they have the same attitude to insurance.

Should we stop funding defense? it's highly unlikely that most of those tanks and planes we buy will ever be used.


I have no precise definition of catastrophic. It seems more to relate to the reaction it engenders in the population. Webster defines it as : "a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin". But whatever it is, with respect to warming, it seems to be thought to be worth the spending of billions (trillions?) of dollars to avert.

I don't believe that climate scientists are bad at their jobs, but I do think that there is greater uncertainty in the results than the IPCC claims. What is the economic impact of transitioning to a sustainable economy? What is so unsustainable about the economy we have?

With respect to defense, the very fact that we have tanks and planes tends to result in our not having to use them. However, spending huge sums on trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not likely to cause a huge reduction in CO2, and is even less likely to change our climate.

Since there is only a finite quantity of fossil fuels available for exploitation, it is inevitable that humanity will have to bear the cost of converting to alternative sources of energy at some point. The only question is when.

Fundamentally, we have two options:
1) Wreck our environment, and then spend the money.
2) Spend the money, and not wreck our environment.

You are arguing for the first option; IMO, the second option makes more sense.


That argument was just as strong in the later bronze age when the supply of copper waas almost used up.

Should they have desperately turned from the best they had availible in the hope of not causing their children to have to find new supplies or new materials? Or just carried on as best they could?

Did the not happeneing of peak oil not tell you anything at all??

If you really don't appreciate the fundamental difference between an infinitely recyclable metal and a fuel which can only be burned once, then we have a long way to go here.


Given that flint as used during the stone age was a limited resource your argument is only applicable if you think we will still be using fossil fuels for ever.

It will come to pass that new technologies will be invented. These will replace the burning of fossil fuels. They might well involve solar power or the direct cracking of CO2 out of the air and into fuel.

This will come to pass within the next few decades.

Oil will last for several centuries at least.


Is that why we have so much oil today that prices are down?

Why do you still believe that fossils burn?


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 8123>>>





Join the debate Consensus of Scientists and Proof:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The most honest climate scientist among the most dishonest climate scientists203-09-2019 04:38
Consensus607-08-2019 05:33
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
If it's so important why don't some climate scientists kill themselves?028-03-2019 02:21
Climate change is creating toxic crops and poisoning some of world's poorest people, scientists warn022-03-2019 17:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact