The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Climate change; global warming Options
Romany
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 5:12:29 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,385
Neurons: 44,801
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Lotje and Hope (I think Ruth, sick of abraiding her forehead on the same brick wall, has quietly withdrawn from the fray);

My seeming non-sequiter about watching the Atheist Experience earlier was actually pertinant, and this time I have a specific clip (you may have to cut and paste rather than direct click) which describes more what I was trying to say.

I know part of the reason you keep taking on FD is because you consider it worthwile to put the truth out there for as many people to read as possible. Obviously, I understand and take no issue with that at all. But what I was trying to explain was why I felt actually responding to FD was totally time-wasting and futile. Kinda like 'If you keep doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same response...'?

Check out how long FD has been on the forum.That's how long he has been putting forward the same propositions, getting irrefutable reality presented to him; and coming up with exactly the same propositions later... without one single reference to, or acknowledgement of,the factual truth which has been given to him
and which has been seen to disprove what he says.

So that's what I meant about watching some bits and pieces of this show, to see how the remaining Trumpeters base-demographic actually reasons. (Hope, you may have come across these before from more American influence). Because to many of us looking on, the "strategies" of the Trumpeters way of reasoning and discourse are unfathomable. At the very least they're puzzling and hard to get one's head around.

Regardless of the subject, watch the first clip on here. It's not the content she's trying to articulate I'm indicating; it's the way she reacts to calls upon her to engage in deductive reasoning; or understand analogy, to analyse new data, or even when she's being mocked? I identify completely with what the two guys say and do; and the woman's way of reacting I identify with FD's.

So I now accept that there is a group of people - though rather less than a third of America now - who have been propagandised to such an extent that the mind becomes intractable. That's how they are able to actually support the man who is the biggest threat the world has known; and who has consistently demonstrated his lack of morality to the world. (While those at higher levels support him solely for his lack of morality which translates to cash for them.) This sector has been let down by an education system in which they have not been taught to reason; but to regard any questioning of their views as treason, hatred, disloyalty, and to be dismissed. The same way China did after 1949.

Yes, sure it's great to provide the URLs of some of the plethora of proofs about this question - which isn't even a question any more - or citing the laws from any government in the world. But trying to engage with that undisputed minority who is incapable of absorbing or giving any thought to, anything that strays from the narrative with which they were inculcated? These two say it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odKW1KRtz6I
will
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:48:59 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,131
Neurons: 4,645
FounDit wrote:
will,

So you don't think a public forum should allow discussions, or opinions, on matters of science by non-scientists — even on a public topic specifically titled as Science and Technology?

How very tolerant and inclusive of you... Applause

So you’re back to asking rhetorical questions to reframe and misrepresent what other people have said, preferring to attack strawmen instead of participating in grown up debate?

How very dishonest and predictable of you... Applause

I’m confident my post was clear; actually pretty much the exact opposite of your strawman.

I strongly believe that the public should be more involved in science. I think science is the most valuable and powerful tool that humanity possesses. Open discussions on matters of science, by scientists and non-scientists alike, are vital if we are to have informed and scientifically astute societies.

Romany’s last post echos the point I was making in that other thread: in a country where a quarter of the voting population thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, and a greater percentage believe evolutionary theory is an atheist lie, or believe the Earth is 6 thousand years old (including the Vice President), and where presidential candidates are prepared to spout pseudo-science about vaccination programmes, it is possible to exploit ignorance, fear and partisanship for political gain… and we end up with a buffoon like Trump in charge of a nuclear arsenal.

And that’s the point here. You are entitled to your opinion, but this is the science sub-forum and you have offered nothing with any scientific merit in defence of your position. You’ve simply denied the consensus, asserted the science is not settled, claimed ‘many’ scientists disagree and insisted the science has been manipulated and is motivated by politics – without anything at all to back up these claims.

Your contribution is practically indistinguishable from the nonsense we used to get from Peterwhatshisface when anyone tried to discuss anything that touched on his particular ideology. It’s this type of thing that makes open discussion impossible on public forums; it’s pointless to to use scientific reasoning to disprove non-scientific ideology.

FounDit wrote:
And BTW, you should at the least get the topic correct: I don't deny the climate changes, I deny that it's been proven that we humans are capable of making that happen.

Well, the science says you are wrong… but you are of course welcome to your opinion.

FounDit wrote:
So now folks have both sides presented and can make up their own minds, perhaps even do a bit of investigation themselves if there is a question in their minds. That is, after all, what public discussion is all about, in spite of the efforts by some to prevent it.

When all else failed, Peterwhatshisface always used to whine about having his opinions suppressed. Think

Others have provided plenty of information for discussion, you’ve been repeatedly encouraged to contribute… what you do with that is entirely up to you, no one is going to force you to stop.


.
will
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 6:52:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,131
Neurons: 4,645
Hope123 wrote:
So complacency is fine with you, Kirill...

I assume he was joking... surely?

I mean "much warmer and nicer than what it is now" for whom? Think


.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 7:51:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,279
Neurons: 47,564
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
will wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
So complacency is fine with you, Kirill...

I assume he was joking... surely?

I mean "much warmer and nicer than what it is now" for whom? Think


.


Never crossed my mind he was joking. He took the trouble to post a graph that was supposed to prove his point, (I'm not up on time frames when humans were even around so it didn't mean much to me as I glanced at it.) And I vaguely recall other posts supporting what he said here - although with my memory, I concede I may have been thinking about a different poster. (Especially since I have morphine brain right now. 😀 Happy days!)

Edited - nothing wrong with my memory - at least two posts on the "Jesus" thread where Climate Change was a digression support my interpretation of this post by Kirill.

Some people do argue that CC is good - even I admit easier CDN winters are nice, but that doesn't mean CC is advantageous for the planet.

It seems to me that doing what we can to preserve the planet takes priority over what ever other problems of which Kirill was thinking.

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
palapaguy
Posted: Friday, September 14, 2018 8:53:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 1,169
Neurons: 10,845
Location: Calabasas, California, United States
RuthP wrote:
[color=darkblue]... I believe the evidence for global warming and for significant anthropogenic (human-sourced) causes is now overwhelming...


There's tons of data proving that climate change has existed for many, MANY centuries. But there's NO evidence for the anthropogenic twist prior to about year 1800.
Epiphileon
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 7:28:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 4,056
Neurons: 83,949
FounDit wrote:
Ultimately, Epiphileon presents what may be the best description of the thinking of those of you who are believers when he says, twice, "...if there is even the remotest chance that our contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere is causing warming, considering the consequences, we should be highly motivated to curb it."

Is this how we should make law — on the fear of "What If"? If we made all our laws and regulations this way, on the fear that something bad might happen, even the remotest chance it might, I doubt we would all be able to leave our caves, because we certainly wouldn't be allowed to build houses with all the things in it that can kill us.

You all may be willing to live you lives in the "Fear of What If", but I choose not to.


First of all FounDit you should know I am not "a believer" in anything. In any argument, I strive to evaluate the evidence and rational, then adopt the position that is best supported.

Second I would go back to my comparison to any other scientific conclusion like cigarette smoking raises the risk of lung cancer. Do we have absolute proof that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No, we do not. Are there cases of people smoking nearly their entire lifetimes and not contracting cancer? Yes, there are. Have we wisely enacted laws on the basis of the lung cancer/smoking correlation? Yes we have.

Third you quoted me out of context, the first phrase of that sentence is critical to my point, "We most certainly should be seeking to lessen the amount of pollution we dump into the atmosphere..."

Forth there is the question, what are the benefits of seeking alternative energy sources? There are a number of them; however, the most attractive to me is that it forces development of new technologies. There is also the fact that if we ever get over our current stupidity and get serious about the space program to the point of colonizing space, we will need highly efficient, non-fossil fueled energy.

Then we get back to my first point. I've been pretty busy lately and it has taken me a while to read some of the supporting information that has been provided. Like I said earlier, "I have yet to check out the links you (Ruth) provided and will certainly do so. I am not current on this debate..."
So I have now checked out the article at "The Union of Concerned Scientists" site, and it appears to me to have a considerable amount of well-supported evidence. It doesn't really matter what they call themselves it is a matter of evidence. I checked out many of the links in that article, links within those links, and conducted searches for relevant claims to obtain independent sources. The following quotes from the article seem to be well supported.

UCS Article wrote:
Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have been taken continuously since the late 1950s. The data show that CO2 levels have steadily increased every year. In 2017, they were 28 percent higher than in 1959, the year CO2 measurements began at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

What's more, scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at least any point in the last 800,000 years ago.


Quote:
Scientists can conclusively identify that human activity is responsible for the observed increase in CO2. How? The carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, natural gas, and oil has a unique chemical “fingerprint" — and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere bears that signature


Can you provide any evidence that directly contradicts this point? Yes natural sources of CO2 are far greater than human-caused sources; however, according to the evidence in support of anthropogenic effect our contribution is sufficiently significant to disrupt the normal balance and cause warming. What is the direct evidential contradiction of this point?

So show me the evidence that I may be convinced to change my mind if that is what the evidence indicates needs to happen. Because that is how I operate, not on the basis of how I may feel about an issue, or on the basis of who may claim it is true but, what is the evidence and the rationale that leads to the interpretation of that evidence.

I haven't done an exhaustive amount of research on this issue, nothing like some of the other notions I've brought here for validity testing, so the score I give this on my personal conviction scale is still only about a 7 out of 10. This contrasts with other positions I've maintained here like freewill, and the notion of personal interactive deities, on those the score is far closer to 10, on the 10 point scale.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 11:52:40 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 9,549
Neurons: 50,694
Epiphileon wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Ultimately, Epiphileon presents what may be the best description of the thinking of those of you who are believers when he says, twice, "...if there is even the remotest chance that our contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere is causing warming, considering the consequences, we should be highly motivated to curb it."

Is this how we should make law — on the fear of "What If"? If we made all our laws and regulations this way, on the fear that something bad might happen, even the remotest chance it might, I doubt we would all be able to leave our caves, because we certainly wouldn't be allowed to build houses with all the things in it that can kill us.

You all may be willing to live you lives in the "Fear of What If", but I choose not to.


First of all FounDit you should know I am not "a believer" in anything. In any argument, I strive to evaluate the evidence and rational, then adopt the position that is best supported.
I appreciate your response. I've stopped reading this topic because I felt there was no logic and reason to be contended with. I read your post because we have in the past been able to discuss the topic without getting personal about it. I believe you do respond to logic and reason, rather than emotion.

To your post: I try to evaluate evidence and be rational also, and for me, the evidence so far does not indicate that we are destroying the planet and ourselves, and we should not be making laws based on such a fear until it can be convincingly proven to be true.

Second I would go back to my comparison to any other scientific conclusion like cigarette smoking raises the risk of lung cancer. Do we have absolute proof that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? No, we do not. Are there cases of people smoking nearly their entire lifetimes and not contracting cancer? Yes, there are. Have we wisely enacted laws on the basis of the lung cancer/smoking correlation? Yes we have.

Third you quoted me out of context, the first phrase of that sentence is critical to my point, "We most certainly should be seeking to lessen the amount of pollution we dump into the atmosphere..."
I have no disagreement with that, provided the damage claimed can be proven to be true, and so far, no such proof exists. We are contributing to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it cannot be shown that we are destroying the planet. Ergo, I believe that we shouldn't be making laws based on the fear that that there is even the "remotest chance". That is the position I disagree with, and was accusing believers of having adopted. Such actions are fear-based and do not form the basis of good laws IMO.

Forth there is the question, what are the benefits of seeking alternative energy sources? There are a number of them; however, the most attractive to me is that it forces development of new technologies. There is also the fact that if we ever get over our current stupidity and get serious about the space program to the point of colonizing space, we will need highly efficient, non-fossil fueled energy.
I have no argument against that, and agree that new energy sources need to be found. I've no doubt we will one day do so.

Then we get back to my first point. I've been pretty busy lately and it has taken me a while to read some of the supporting information that has been provided. Like I said earlier, "I have yet to check out the links you (Ruth) provided and will certainly do so. I am not current on this debate..."
So I have now checked out the article at "The Union of Concerned Scientists" site, and it appears to me to have a considerable amount of well-supported evidence. It doesn't really matter what they call themselves it is a matter of evidence. I checked out many of the links in that article, links within those links, and conducted searches for relevant claims to obtain independent sources. The following quotes from the article seem to be well supported.

UCS Article wrote:
Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have been taken continuously since the late 1950s. The data show that CO2 levels have steadily increased every year. In 2017, they were 28 percent higher than in 1959, the year CO2 measurements began at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

What's more, scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at least any point in the last 800,000 years ago.


Quote:
Scientists can conclusively identify that human activity is responsible for the observed increase in CO2. How? The carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, natural gas, and oil has a unique chemical “fingerprint" — and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere bears that signature


Can you provide any evidence that directly contradicts this point? Yes natural sources of CO2 are far greater than human-caused sources; however, according to the evidence in support of anthropogenic effect our contribution is sufficiently significant to disrupt the normal balance and cause warming. What is the direct evidential contradiction of this point?
Yes, scientists can conclusively identify that humans are contributing the an increase in CO2, but that in itself does not directly lead to the destruction of our planet and ourselves. How do I know this? Because as you said yourself, natural sources are far greater than human-caused sources. So while we may be contributing some part to the increase in CO2, it is not, and should not be, cause for the fear-mongering we have been subjected to for over 50 years, all the predictions of which have not come true.

So show me the evidence that I may be convinced to change my mind if that is what the evidence indicates needs to happen. Because that is how I operate, not on the basis of how I may feel about an issue, or on the basis of who may claim it is true but, what is the evidence and the rationale that leads to the interpretation of that evidence.
And I have done the same. I have asked for the proof, the evidence if you like, of humans causing the increase in global temperatures that will lead to our extinction. No evidence has been, nor can be presented. The science is on-going, and more research is needed, but I believe it is too soon to be jumping to such doomsday conclusions as the Climate Change believers would have us do.

I haven't done an exhaustive amount of research on this issue, nothing like some of the other notions I've brought here for validity testing, so the score I give this on my personal conviction scale is still only about a 7 out of 10. This contrasts with other positions I've maintained here like freewill, and the notion of personal interactive deities, on those the score is far closer to 10, on the 10 point scale.

Following some links while reading the article on kidney stones in today's In The News, I came across this story on stalagmites and their relation to climate change.

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/cave-information-stalagmite-stalactite-07062013/

The last paragraph states:
“You have to be impressed with the scope of what you are studying, and recognize that the state our climate is in today is incredibly different from Earth’s climate during the last Ice Age,” she said. “As we consider how humans may be affecting climate, dissecting what was going on tens of thousands of years ago in all regions of the globe can help scientists better predict how the Earth will respond to modern climate forcings.”

So as I read this, I see that humans MAY be affecting climate (it isn't definite nor settled), and that more information from all regions of the globe CAN HELP (data still being gathered) scientists BETTER PREDICT (predictions today are not locked in) how the Earth will respond to modern climate FORCINGS (to which natural causes are much greater than that of humans who contribute only a small part).

As time goes on, if the evidence becomes more clear and more precise that we are indeed responsible, then I will agree with taking steps to limit our use of fossil fuels. But I'm not convinced we are at that point yet.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:55:16 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,131
Neurons: 4,645
FounDit wrote:
I've stopped reading this topic because I felt there was no logic and reason to be contended with.

Is this another one of those jokes I’m not getting because I’m on the political left and have no sense of humour? Think


.
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 6:21:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 499
Neurons: 2,600
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
So complacency is fine with you, Kirill, when 3000 American people died in Puerto Rico storms because of unpreparedness and inefficiency,


I 100% agree this is a disaster. The responsible government institutions must be prepared and efficient. Apart from general knowledge, I am aware of specific cases that show how exactly public institutions have been made so starkly less efficient and misled, - and I tell you planet's climate is the last thing that comes to mind when I think of what/who is responsible for the degradation.

But again, I fully agree we must reverse this trend. This has nothing to do with climate change though.

Add increasingly and unprecedented large storms and rainfalls with their flooding, larger, more frequent, and more out-of-control wildfires, drought,

I think I already mentioned this earlier: many if not most of the recent "out-of-control wildfires" seem to have resulted from arson, so this really requires a thorough investigation - who did it and why.

Now, natural disasters have always been, and will always be. The devastating effects from them depend not so much on their number and even intensity while it stays within reasonable limits, but from our preparedness (what you yourself mentioned), availability of infrastructure, efficient agencies that must ensure effective response, adequate construction norms that are duly enforced, etc. If we do not imporove these, then human suffering from natural disasters is sure to rise anyway regardless of any changes in climate conditions.

In fact, we are extremely lucky that the temperature seems to be rising now. Imagine what a catastrophe it would be if the temperature on our planet were falling these days that we are so much torn and not prepared for climatic shocks.

We should take the ongoing climate change as nothing less but a God(s)' gift. This gives us a chance to put ourselves in order.



pollution driven deaths, plastic killing sea life,

Again, this has nothing to do with the planet's climate. This is about efficient and rightly targeted environmental protection, plastic waste disposal included.


wildlife becoming extinct in unprecedented droves as their habitats and food decrease etc.

Well, we have biologists here who can clarify this point and/or correct me. Not being an expert my "working hypothesis" is that higher temperature would rather favor more of biodiversity than less.

It is another matter that certain species may go / have gone extinct due to human activities. I fully agree we must make preserving of biodiversity our priority. If we've assumed the role of "masters" of this planet and have reached the level of development that allows us to change the planet rather than just use it as it is, we must be responsible masters.

This is regardless of any climate change.


As promised these few following links give a minimal idea as to what governments are facing and the actions they are trying to take to mitigate their own individual perturbations in their own countries. Each country has different problems that need to be addressed and it was interesting to me to read about what exactly Canada's problems are/will be. But it is encouraging that all governments except the US federal one have realized they need to act now.



Thanks for the links, I will study them.


will
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 7:32:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,131
Neurons: 4,645
Kirill Vorobyov, your reasoning is like saying we didn’t need to bother with programmes to eradicate smallpox, rather we should have just stopped people sneezing on each other. d'oh!

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
We should take the ongoing climate change as nothing less but a God(s)' gift. This gives us a chance to put ourselves in order.
This kinda scares the crap out of me.

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Well, we have biologists here who can clarify this point and/or correct me. Not being an expert my "working hypothesis" is that higher temperature would rather favor more of biodiversity than less.
Well, I am a biologist, and I can clarify and correct you; your "working hypothesis" is completely unfounded.


.
Romany
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 7:44:09 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 14,385
Neurons: 44,801
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Kirill -

The fact that you keep repeating that higher temperatures would be a good thing shows how very little you have considered this on a global basis. You live in a freezing cold country so sure, a couple of degree more would make life more comnfortable for you.

But the whole globe is not living under the same conditions as you personally.

In hot countries the rise in temperatures have already started to cause crop failures, cattle/animal deaths, and effects on infant mortality. In some places temperatures were up around 50 this summer. Young people and old people died; schools were closed;water ran out; production was down; food was scarce; in some places whole village communities left.

Mothers who have seen their babies and children die in their arms from thirst/heat exhaustion would be infuriated by your attitude that rising temperatures would suit you, personally, - when they are facing the loss of their families, their habitats, their community because of those higher temperatures. Yeah "just a couple of degrees"!!
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 8:25:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 499
Neurons: 2,600
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
Romany,

Surely a much greater number of mothers have seen their children die because of revolutions, wars, deliberate economic "mismanagement" and other human deeds that have nothing to do whatsoever with any alleged flaws in the planet's climate.

I am thinking of the history of my own country, for example, - how many people died in the WW1, 1917 revolution and subsequent Civil War, then in the WW2, then because of economic devastation of 1990s... - millions and millions, dozens of millions, and many more suffered from famine and other economic challenges.

A more recent example - estimated 300 thousand people have died in Syria since 2011, and another 5 million have fled the country. And it was not hot weather that they died and fled from. It was destabilization and civil war that were imposed on them by a bunch of guys who may be smart enough to deceive and play simple tricks but apparently are not intelligent enough to see where this whole policy finally leads.

So although climate change may require certain compensatory measures, the hyperinflated "international concern" about it does increasingly look as a way to divert public attention from real problems and their real causes.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 11:38:16 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,279
Neurons: 47,564
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Kirill,

I asked before what exactly are these "real" problems that you feel take precedence over having an environment conducive to life when we are not so slowly now making it less inhabitable for life of all kinds. Your answer seems to be "war", which definitely is a problem.

So you are saying forget about one problem because we have two? Why not ignore war, then?

After all, humans are warring creatures so there will always be war. Besides, the refugee problem is intractable - nobody wants them, even some Canadians. Whistle Whistle Whistle Tongue-in-cheek symbol because this is a faux argument similar to yours.

BTW - pollution and climate change are two problems that are definitely linked. You have ignored the fact the storms and other natural disasters are becoming stronger and more frequent.

http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm


I only read up to the section of the article on the above link of what HAS already happened in the dust bowl thirties in North America and what it will be like with only one degree of warming with zero chance of avoiding that now. Basically, beyond the physical changes, what will happen is vast disruptions of populations, climate refugees, and battles over land and water. You may not have heard about the awful but survival behaviour of humans right in the United States after the hurricane Katrina. That has already happened. Expect more of that behaviour as crises occur.

Scientists don't talk in terms of "destroying the earth and ourselves". They just try to determine and communicate the best knowledge available to help us with mitigation of a problem that they take seriously.

The rest of the article is a "what if" scenario but is not pertinent - yet - and may not be if we act now.

Your arguments are ones of ideology versus evidence.

Last I heard evidence is the best policy:

It has already been established and mentioned several times in this thread that the preponderance of CO2 in the atmosphere has the signature type of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and thus comes from human activities. And scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at least any point in the last 800,000 years. Humans have injected the atmosphere with as much C02 and Ch4 in 100 years, as was done 56 million years ago in 20,000 years.

I found two graphs showing correlation - but that is not causality - between CO2 and temperature in the last 800,000 years.

Yet with experiments that removed from the atmosphere the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as CO2, scientists have been able to demonstrate the direct relationship that exists between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising global temperature. The greenhouse effect collapsed without those non-condensing gases.

Furthermore, immense quantities of methane clathrate have been identified in the Arctic. Were a fraction of these to melt, the result would be massive release of carbon, initially as CH4 causing deeper clathrate to melt and oxidize, adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  Were this to occur, it would greatly worsen global warming.

While natural global warming during the ice ages was initiated by increased solar radiation caused by cyclic changes to Earth’s orbital parameters, there is no evident NATURAL mechanism for correcting Anthropogenic Global Warming over the next several centuries. The latter has already begun producing methane and CO2 in the Arctic, starting a feedback process which may lead to that which occurred in earlier cycles with increases up to 8 degrees.

https://skepticalscience.com/Wakening_the_Kraken.html

::::

This link about oceans is a wee bit premature but is something to watch.

https://www.sciencealert.com/one-of-the-most-frightening-climate-change-scenarios-may-have-begun



The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Hope123
Posted: Monday, September 17, 2018 1:04:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,279
Neurons: 47,564
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Kirill,

Since you gave no proof either time I don't know where you get your statistics that wildfires are mostly caused by arson.

I only know about the fires in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario in Canada, and the California wildfires in the US.

In 2017 there were 200 fires burning in BC. Causes were listed as dry lightning, and human - accidental and intentional. Intentional may not mean arson. Fire bans and restrictions have been put in place to limit further human-caused fires. It was a record breaking season. The 2017 fire season is notable for three reasons; first, for the largest total area burnt in a fire season in recorded history (1.3% of BC total area); second, for the largest number of total evacuees in a fire season; and third, for the largest single fire ever in British Columbia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_British_Columbia_wildfires

In Ontario there were 55 fires burning this past summer. Causes weren't listed but I certainly don't believe there were 55 arsonists around. The weather has caused extreme fire hazard conditions and violators in restricted fire zones could see fines of up to $25,000 and three months in jail, as well as footing the bill for the cost of fighting a forest fire.

The ministry says firefighters and equipment “have poured in” from across Canada, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Mexico to help Ontario-based crews.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/07/24/21-of-55-ontario-forest-fires-remain-out-of-control-officials-say.html

A 2016 Fort MacMurray Alberta devastating fire was suspected of being human caused, but became so much worse because of abnormal weather conditions.

It destroyed approximately 2,400 homes and buildings. Another 2,000 residents in three communities were displaced after their homes were declared unsafe for reoccupation due to contamination. The fire continued to spread across northern Alberta and into Saskatchewan, consuming forested areas and impacting Athabasca oil sands operations. With an estimated damage cost of C$9.9 billion, it was the costliest disaster in Canadian history.

Firefighters are grinding down on a new set of wildfires in California even as battles against earlier fires wind down.
In 2018, California wildfires have ravaged more than 1.2 million acres, destroyed more than 1,200 homes and killed at least a dozen people, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Lightning and cause under investigation are the only causes listed. Other links might give you more about causes if you are interested enough to check.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/fires/article217936605.html#storylink=cpy

The past is to be respected/acknowledged, not worshipped. It is in our future we will find our greatness. Pierre Trudeau
Lotje1000
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:09:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 982
Neurons: 478,627
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
Romany,

Surely a much greater number of mothers have seen their children die because of revolutions, wars, deliberate economic "mismanagement" and other human deeds that have nothing to do whatsoever with any alleged flaws in the planet's climate.


You could say that about a lot of things, including rare diseases or cancers. That doesn't mean we should do nothing because something else happens to kill more. Would you rather it suddenly caused unforeseen amounts of deaths before you decide it is worth investing in prevention?

Kirill Vorobyov wrote:
So although climate change may require certain compensatory measures, the hyperinflated "international concern" about it does increasingly look as a way to divert public attention from real problems and their real causes.


It's an international concern because it's a global event. Also, it's extremely misguided to assume that because governments focus on this issue that they will suddenly forget about everything else. People are perfectly capable of caring about more than one problem.
will
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 6:05:10 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,131
Neurons: 4,645
As it's been a while, I’m going to assume Epiphileon isn’t intending to respond to FounDit’s last post, that was addressed to him, but clearly directed at everyone else. I strongly suspect there is little difference between his logic and reasoning and that of any other ‘believer’ on this subject, it’s probably just a case of how far one is willing to push the issue... carrot or stick, an ass is still an ass Shhh

As people will know by now, I have a tediously high threshold. Whistle

FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
First of all FounDit you should know I am not "a believer" in anything. In any argument, I strive to evaluate the evidence and rational, then adopt the position that is best supported.
I appreciate your response. I've stopped reading this topic because I felt there was no logic and reason to be contended with. I read your post because we have in the past been able to discuss the topic without getting personal about it. I believe you do respond to logic and reason, rather than emotion.

This is both a sweeping generalisation and a sweeping ad hominem; reams of information and links to further resources have been provided. A clear, consistent and coherent argument has been (politely) presented by several members – most notably in the first instance by RuthP, which was dismissed with a platitude about appreciating the time it must have taken, before resorting to an unsupported assertion that the consensus is politically motivated and not based on evidence. Simply characterising others as illogical, unreasonable and emotional is dishonest.

FounDit wrote:
To your post: I try to evaluate evidence and be rational also, and for me, the evidence so far does not indicate that we are destroying the planet and ourselves,

That’s fine, but the overwhelming scientific consensus says you are wrong and you keep ignoring or misrepresenting this fact.

FounDit wrote:
and we should not be making laws based on such a fear until it can be convincingly proven to be true.

‘Based on fear’ is a strawman of your own design.

The overwhelming political consensus agrees that it is necessary and pragmatic to act on the scientific advice for the overall benefit of public welfare, as well as for sound economic reasons, not out of ‘fear’ (or because of a leftist conspiracy).

FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
Third you quoted me out of context, the first phrase of that sentence is critical to my point, "We most certainly should be seeking to lessen the amount of pollution we dump into the atmosphere..."

I have no disagreement with that, provided the damage claimed can be proven to be true, and so far, no such proof exists.

If you are going to continually assert that the scientific consensus is not based on evidence, then you need to present a compelling alternative argument to explain why such a consensus exists; arbitrarily dismissing expertise and adducing vague theories about (leftist) political agendas is neither logical nor reasonable.

FounDit wrote:
We are contributing to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it cannot be shown that we are destroying the planet.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the scientific and political consensus disagrees with you.

FounDit wrote:
Ergo, I believe that we shouldn't be making laws based on the fear that that there is even the "remotest chance". That is the position I disagree with, and was accusing believers of having adopted. Such actions are fear-based and do not form the basis of good laws IMO.

Again, your hyperbolic phrase ‘based on fear’ is a strawman of your own making. And “remotest chance” does not reflect the consensus position. The consensus is that it is “extremely likely (95-100% probability) that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951-2010”.

You already quoted Epiphileon out of context on this point, which he corrected you on, and now you’ve done it again; my logical and reasonable reading of the point he was making was that he believes it makes sense to apply a precautionary principle approach even if the scientific consensus were not so overwhelming, not that he thinks there’s only a remote chance that the scientific consensus is correct. Please correct me, Epiphileon, if I’m wrong.

FounDit wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
Forth there is the question, what are the benefits of seeking alternative energy sources? There are a number of them; however, the most attractive to me is that it forces development of new technologies. There is also the fact that if we ever get over our current stupidity and get serious about the space program to the point of colonizing space, we will need highly efficient, non-fossil fueled energy.

I have no argument against that, and agree that new energy sources need to be found. I've no doubt we will one day do so.

Such technologies already exist. The necessary move away from fossil fuels, supported by national and international agreements and laws, will promote the development of further technological advances… such technological progress is part of the the political consensus every Government on the planet has signed up to. If you agree this is a good thing, then what’s the purpose of your repeated fear-mongering about such (leftist) policies that aim to promote such goals. For example: "If we are going to implement government policies that affect all of our lives and those of our descendants, we'd better damn sure be right about what we doing."
Irrespective of the science, is this not an objection to policies designed to promote low carbon economies?

FounDit wrote:
Yes, scientists can conclusively identify that humans are contributing the an increase in CO2, but that in itself does not directly lead to the destruction of our planet and ourselves.

The overwhelming scientific (and political) consensus disagrees with you. The evidence indicates that is exactly what an increase in CO2 leads to.
If you are going to continually assert that the scientific consensus is not based on evidence, then you need to present a compelling alternative argument to explain why such a consensus exists.

FounDit wrote:
How do I know this? Because as you said yourself, natural sources are far greater than human-caused sources.

Again you’ve quoted poor old Epiphileon out of context; you’ve omitted the critical section of the point he was actually making: “… however, according to the evidence in support of anthropogenic effect our contribution is sufficiently significant to disrupt the normal balance and cause warming”

Are you even aware that you so frequently misrepresent people in this and similar ways? If you could find a way to respond to what other people actually write, rather than responding to your own emotionally distorted prejudice, then you would see other people are perfectly capable of being both logical and reasonable.

FounDit wrote:
So while we may be contributing some part to the increase in CO2, it is not, and should not be, cause for the fear-mongering we have been subjected to for over 50 years, all the predictions of which have not come true.

It should go without saying by now… the overwhelming scientific (and political) consensus disagrees with you.

Release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels is only part of the problem. Apart from other detrimental human activities (such as deforestation) and the production of other greenhouse gases (such as methane from industrialised meat production) the evidentially supported increase in temperature from human activities is enough to trigger processes that might be considered ‘natural’, that in turn compound global warming potential. Hope123 has covered this, in a logical and reasonable manner, a couple of time in this thread.

FounDit wrote:
I have asked for the proof, the evidence if you like, of humans causing the increase in global temperatures that will lead to our extinction.

Hyperbolic strawman. If you can’t be grown up enough to argue honestly, you certainly shouldn’t be throwing around accusations about other people being illogical, unreasonable and driven by emotion.

FounDit wrote:
No evidence has been, nor can be presented. The science is on-going, and more research is needed, but I believe it is too soon to be jumping to such doomsday conclusions as the Climate Change believers would have us do.

Patently untrue. And again with the doomsday strawman and ‘believers’ ad hominem.
If you are going to continually assert that this is an issue at the bleeding edge of science – which is demonstrably not the case -- then you need to present a compelling alternative argument to explain why or how such an overwhelming consensus exists; a consensus approaching 100% correlating to expertise in the field, that includes every single scientific body of national and international standing, and every government on the planet (with the possible exception of USA).

I’m not calling you out here just because I disagree with your opinions, nor particularly trying to convince you of mine. I’m calling you out on your dishonesty and the disrespect you’ve shown others.


.
will
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 6:08:28 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,131
Neurons: 4,645
All the above said, lets have a look at two examples of your (FounDit's) own logic and reasoning:

FounDit wrote:
You mention rising sea levels, and your first link to the Union of Concerned Scientists has something about that on their page. It is a sidebar graphic titled:
"SEA LEVEL RISE AND GLOBAL WARMING". If you click on it, you are taken to a page with some graphics that imply that humans are responsible for global warming. The graphic is too large to post here, but anyone can follow the link.

The point of this is to show the not-so-subtle propaganda of it. If you look at the graph on sea rise, then read what it says at the bottom, you find:


"Global average sea level has increased 8 inches since 1880. The local rate varies depending on both global and local factors including currents (which humans can't control), ocean floor topography (which humans can't control), variation in ocean density (which humans can't control), and land uplift or subsidence due to geological processes (which humans can't control), or human activities (which they very carefully fail to describe in any detail what those might be, or to what extent they influence sea levels.)

You will notice, however, in the bottom graphic a small icon of a factory putting out smoke - subtle. The implication of the whole thing is that it is our fault, but conveniently omitting all other factors. I find this both intellectually lazy and lame, and offensive to logical thinking.

Firstly, you have simply misunderstood the section you’ve quoted. The ‘global and local factors’ are explanations of why local rates vary from the average increase; it’s not saying that ‘global and local factors’ (which humans can’t control) are natural reasons for the 8 inch average increase. For example: variation in ocean density in one location may read an increase of 18 inches, while human activities, such a flood prevention, might result in a reduction of 2 inches elsewhere. The point is that the average is 8 inches – and the scientific consensus is that this is due to human influence on global temperature.

However, the main issue here is not that you were unable to follow the gist of a basic explanation. The point is that you, blinded by your own emotional response to this issue, saw fit to dismiss the the whole scientific consensus as “not-so-subtle propaganda” that is “intellectually lazy and lame, and offensive to logical thinking”. You’re so desperate to find evidence that fits your prejudice that you even take issue with a web designers decision to use an icon of a factory.

Yet, conversely, in this example you dismiss the whole scientific consensus because one individual (quoted out of context) uses (what you consider damningly) moderate language.

FounDit wrote:
Following some links while reading the article on kidney stones in today's In The News, I came across this story on stalagmites and their relation to climate change.

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/cave-information-stalagmite-stalactite-07062013/

The last paragraph states:
“You have to be impressed with the scope of what you are studying, and recognize that the state our climate is in today is incredibly different from Earth’s climate during the last Ice Age,” she said. “As we consider how humans may be affecting climate, dissecting what was going on tens of thousands of years ago in all regions of the globe can help scientists better predict how the Earth will respond to modern climate forcings.”

So as I read this, I see that humans MAY be affecting climate (it isn't definite nor settled), and that more information from all regions of the globe CAN HELP (data still being gathered) scientists BETTER PREDICT (predictions today are not locked in) how the Earth will respond to modern climate FORCINGS (to which natural causes are much greater than that of humans who contribute only a small part).
As time goes on, if the evidence becomes more clear and more precise that we are indeed responsible, then I will agree with taking steps to limit our use of fossil fuels. But I'm not convinced we are at that point yet.


You’ve completely failed to make a compelling challenge to the science, but you are of course entitled to your personal opinions and ideologies. You are not entitled, however, to besmirch other people because you are unable to support your opinions logically and with reasonable debate.


.

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.