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

Global Warming Reality Options
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, December 30, 2018 4:12:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I get an email newsletter entitled "Bill Gates' Notes" and it came today wrapping up 2018.

There is a whole section on Energy. I'll post the rest in another thread but this is his take on what we can do if politicians will just get into the game. By obstacles he had been discussing politics.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2018?WT.mc_id=12_29_2018_21_YIR2018_BG-EM_&WT.tsrc=BGEM#disqus


There are several promising ideas in advanced nuclear that should be explored if we get over these obstacles. TerraPower, the company I started 10 years ago, uses an approach called a traveling wave reactor that is safe, prevents proliferation, and produces very little waste. We had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the U.S. have made that unlikely. We may be able to build it in the United States if the funding and regulatory changes that I mentioned earlier happen.
The world needs to be working on lots of solutions to stop climate change. Advanced nuclear is one, and I hope to persuade U.S. leaders to get into the game.


Investments link he provides:

http://www.b-t.energy/ventures/our-investment-portfolio/

:::::

And for interest sake, his other topics besides Energy were Alzheimer's, Polio, Next Epidemic will probably be flu, Gene Editing, and Looking Ahead.

This is the other thread I started for anyone interested in the latest info about what is happening in business that is incorporating the future into their plans instead of discussing ad infinitum about who/what is to blame.

http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postsm1074478_Latest-Climate-Change-News--Updates-Welcome-.aspx#1074478


"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
will
Posted: Monday, December 31, 2018 11:46:54 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
FounDit wrote:
You all sometimes provide me with an exquisite bit of humor in a day.

I’m glad ‘we all’ are able to bring some joy to your day.

FounDit wrote:
Really? You STILL don't understand my message? It's quite simple. I'll write slowly so you can understand it:

Over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of the Climate Change group has come true. We did not die in the predicted Freeze. We did not die in the predicted Burn Up. We did not see the predicted global starvation as a result of the predicted global droughts. We did not see the predicted global sea rise and predicted inundation of global coastlines, resulting in the predicted deaths of millions.

Given this evidence, I can only wonder at those who continue to believe anything said by folks who are so continually wrong.

This is not evidence, this is your opinion. For example, the ‘predictions of the Climate Change group’ (whomever this deliberately vague ‘group’ is supposed to represent) predicting we would ‘die in the predicted Freeze’ is in no way empirically supported. This myth has been exposed to you enough times now that your repeated use of it should justly be considered a deliberate lie.

In the mid 70’s, when several articles on global cooling appeared in the media, there was, in fact, no scientific consensus to support those opinions. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even at that time, correctly predicting the rise in global temperature observed today – a fact that even the most vocal, and best paid, climate change contrarians now fully accept.

To dismiss the current scientific position and the overwhelming consensus that supports it, because 40+ year old media reports that misrepresented the science of the time were wrong, is exactly analogous to someone dismissing the science and consensus on vaccines because the media and Andrew Wakefield were wrong about vaccines causing autism.

Opinions are not facts. In the same way that there was never any scientifically supported consensus that supported a link between MMR and autism, there was never any scientifically supported consensus that predicted we would die in a global freeze. To claim that the scientific community – consensus, or climate change group, or whatever you choose to call it -- has ever predicted a global freeze is deliberately dishonest, or a strawman at best.

Your other examples are likewise hyperbolic generalisations of your own making.

As RuthP previously pointed out ‘climate change/global warming deniers are in the same boat as all the anti-vaxers out there’. It appears she understands you perfectly well, as I suspect we all do; I gave you the benefit of the doubt due to your persistent whining about being misunderstood and misrepresented. So now you've clarified your position it seems clear that RuthP’s whole assessment was spot on.

FounDit wrote:
Oh my! I used the word "logic" rather than "reasoning"? How horrible! 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me!...here I am rotflmao...again!

That’s a very churlish and dismissive response for someone who has spent the entire thread (and many before) complaining about the semantics of specific terms * and whining about others misrepresenting what you claim to have actually said. Just as in this thread, when you described as ‘irrelevant’ the fact that you attributed Donald Trumps ignorant and misinformed words to an expert from MIT who actually holds a completely contradictory position, you can’t have it both ways.

* such as the term ‘conspiracy’ to describe your belief that an entire scientific community believes something on the basis of ‘absolutely no evidence’, as part of ploy by the political Left to seize power, involving the agreement of every government on the planet regardless of political leaning. Shhh


That wasn’t the point I was making anyway. The point was that you attributed a completely different message, from a completely different poster, to me.

progpen wrote:
Circular arguments are a wonderful way to win by attrition. Just keep talking in circles until everyone else gets tired and goes away, then declare victory.

Everyone understood what he meant, except you it seems; you somehow deduced that I had said something about circular logic.

I used the opportunity to point out that your argument doesn’t even meet the minimum requirements of logical discourse… I have no idea how you further deduced that the problem was the word ‘reasoning’ instead of ‘logic’. Your sarcasm is certainly unwarranted. Eh?

And indeed, here we are, going around in circles exactly as progpen described. Your inability to keep track of even your own argument is on a par with your lamentable grasp of statistics and science in general.

I don’t think it’s your ignorance that ‘we all’ find difficult to understand, it’s the hubris that goes with it.




.

FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, January 1, 2019 11:42:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
It is plainly obvious that I do not accept anthropogenic climate change. Having seen it grow since its inception in the late 60's - early 70's, I've listened to believers predictions of doom, destruction and death, seen laws passed to curtail industries to accomplish some goal of "saving the planet", witnessed passage of the years when numerous predictions of that doom never came to pass, and have seen the idea metastasize throughout society like a cancer, infecting people with a blind, bovine-type belief the end of the world is near. But it never happens as predicted.

As I have said many times, NONE of the global catastrophes predicted by climate change believers have happened. So, will, in spite of your personal insults and attacks, your petty quibbles over words, I remain clothed in the absolute truth of my position, while you and your fellow believers have nothing but false predictions. And on we go.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, January 1, 2019 2:24:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
This history of climate change on the following link debunks unverified assertions in above post about science and previous doomsday scenarios.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/


"But while it’s fair to say there were real questions about aerosol pollution in the 1970s, it’s simply not true that climate scientists are a bunch of know-nothings (or worse) who prophesied death by ice when the temperatures were dropping, then switched to death by fire when temperatures started rising. Regardless of what someone may remember hearing about at the time, global warming had been a topic of scientific concern for decades already.
That concern crystallized in the 1970s as the foundation was laid for modern climate science. In any case, being mistaken about 1970s science is no basis for ignoring all the science done in the decades since."


Most scientists in the seventies were predicting the warming not the cooling that might have happened without humankind's activities. Warming predictions started in the 1800s.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Such groups as "I F**king Love Science" helped to spread only one side of the story that people often remember.

Repeat: In any case, being mistaken about 1970s science is no basis for ignoring all the science done in the decades since."

::

FD, (I find it ironical that you don't recognize your own propensity to do exactly what you accuse Will of doing with "petty quibbles over words" that is very frustrating when trying to discuss anything with you.)


"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 2:22:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,893
Neurons: 322,744
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
Will, Hope and RuthP, you all have made great points and followed them up. In any normal discussion, conversation or debate that would be enough. However, in this type of discussion, you are talking science to someone whose science is dictated by their politics. No matter what you say, how you say it or how often you prove your point it cannot change the mind of someone who believes what their political leaders tell them to believe.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
will
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 9:06:50 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
progpen wrote:
No matter what you say, how you say it or how often you prove your point it cannot change the mind of...

I don’t think anyone is hoping to create a chess grand master here, but there is no harm in ruffling a few feathers to make it perfectly clear to everyone what we are dealing with. Shhh

Hope123 wrote:
In any case, being mistaken about 1970s science is no basis for ignoring all the science done in the decades since.

I was going to point out this non sequitur in my last post, but feared it’s subtle significance would be misunderstood and misused, leading to a further strand of circular arguments.

The irony of this ‘scientists were wrong about global cooling in the 70’s, so must be wrong now’ myth is that it stems from a handful of media articles describing (not particularly accurately) a paper by Reid Bryson on the effects of natural and man made aerosols on climate. Bryson, a highly respected atmospheric scientist, was one of a few scientist who, for a number of reasons, incorrectly predicted global cooling in the 70’s. Yet Bryson is also frequently cited by current deniers as a climate scientist who disputes anthropocentric climate change.

If FounDit’s ‘logic’ follows – which it doesn’t – deniers should flatly reject Bryson’s latter views on the effects of CO2 on climate, on the grounds that his minority view about cooling was wrong 40 years ago. Of course, FounDit’s ‘logic’ is silly and only indicates an ignorance of how science works.

It’s also ironic that FounDit criticises “laws passed to curtail industries to accomplish some goal of "saving the planet"”. Bryson’s cooling predictions were ‘wrong’, in part, because his predictions were warnings based on an assumption that man made aerosols – what Bryson called ‘the human volcano’ – would go unchecked and continue to rise. Thankfully, global legislation put a stop to that rise; a great success for science, politics and the planet on a number of levels. FounDit’s reasoning is like criticising legislation to reduce smoking because rates of lung cancer are in decline. d'oh!

FounDit wrote:
I remain clothed in the absolute truth of my position.

To be clear, no one is questioning the fact that you are sincerely wedded to your position. The point is that your position is based on, among other things, myths about the consensus position. The global cooling myth has been explained to you enough times now that repeating it is either an act of wilful ignorance or a deliberate lie.

You criticised others for being gullible enough to make a connection between a picture of a starving polar bear with loss of habitat due to the empirically supported fact of anthropocentric climate change, yet you seem to have been gullible enough to have believed a handful of 40 year old media articles – despite them having very little scientific basis. Indeed, these articles were apparently so embedded in your psyche that their inaccuracy, proven in the intervening half century, has led to your current position that any number of scientists being wrong in the past justifies rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus that exists today.

Repeating this ‘climate scientists were predicting global cooling’ myth also suggests that you haven’t read, or understood, anything else that has been published on the subject for almost half a century.

Or, more likely, you have been gullible enough to fall for the propaganda put out in more recent times by climate change deniers. Shame on you


.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 10:21:36 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
progpen wrote:
Will, Hope and RuthP, you all have made great points and followed them up. In any normal discussion, conversation or debate that would be enough. However, in this type of discussion, you are talking science to someone whose science is dictated by their politics. No matter what you say, how you say it or how often you prove your point it cannot change the mind of someone who believes what their political leaders tell them to believe.


We know Proggy. It is a political argument where logic breaks down in this quote by FD, ""We are contributing to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it cannot be shown that we are destroying the planet." He cannot/will not/chooses to not make the connection.

:::

Nota bona to FounDit: Ruth is quite capable of expressing her own opinions about what you are saying without my help. Both of us, actually all of us, see right through your propensity to quibble about words instead of ideas expressed in a thread and in previous ones and not provide any proof about your opinions which are just assertions.

::::

As well, the results of the political argument and its policies are not effective in practice. It is all for naught.

With all the 78 Trump environment deregulations designed to roll back Obama's climate change initiatives and support Trump's personal vested interest in fossil fuels, not much growth has trickled down to the average American. And the environment HAS suffered already.

BTW - I recall in another thread that when Romany said something about the repeal of every environmental bill ever brought in over the last 8 years, FD tried to put her down with "Such hyperbole doesn't give you credit for reasoned argument." Well, here's Romany's proof she was correct.


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html

In fact signs are that things are about to get worse economically in America with all Trump's policies now maturing. Jobs and companies are leaving, companies did not help employees but predictably instead bought stocks with their tax windfall, the stocks have tanked for now (but 84% is owned by top10%), farmers are ploughing their crops under and committing suicide in large numbers, no promised $4000 pay raise, coal didn't make a comeback, inflation is up, healthcare, education, and housing costs are skyrocketing, the poorest had their supports pulled out from under them, and let's not talk about the costs and insurance for all the droughts, floods, and fires that are increasing.



"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 11:16:37 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Will, in fact that aerosol legislation did affect and is still affecting positively the ozone hole as shown in these photos. A win when science and govt work together. With a caveat. We now have to address that the replacements and a healed layer can affect global warming.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/earth-s-ozone-layer-is-healing-from-aerosol-damage-un-1.4163438


"So a healed ozone layer will worsen man-made climate change there a bit, Newman said.
Scientists don't know how much a healed ozone hole will further warm Antarctica, but they do know the immediate effects of ozone depletion on the world and human health, so "it would be incredibly irresponsible not to do this," Salawitch said.

And the replacements now being used to cool cars and refrigerators need to be replaced themselves with chemicals that don't worsen global warming, Newman said. An amendment to the Montreal Protocol that goes into effect next year would cut use of some of those gases."


:::

Although it is only an online poll, this gives an idea as to how Canadians feel about fossil fuels, climate change, and Trump. (I would have had to steel myself not to put Trump's exit before climate change. Whistle )




"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 3:05:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
will wrote:
progpen wrote:
No matter what you say, how you say it or how often you prove your point it cannot change the mind of...

I don’t think anyone is hoping to create a chess grand master here, but there is no harm in ruffling a few feathers to make it perfectly clear to everyone what we are dealing with. Shhh
Very true, and I have no qualms about ruffling feathers.

Hope123 wrote:
In any case, being mistaken about 1970s science is no basis for ignoring all the science done in the decades since.
What a foolish thing to say. Nowhere have I said we should ignore science. That is a completely illogical connection to make. But I'm not surprised, given the source.

I was going to point out this non sequitur in my last post, but feared it’s subtle significance would be misunderstood and misused, leading to a further strand of circular arguments.
There is nothing subtle about it. It is complete hogwash.

The irony of this ‘scientists were wrong about global cooling in the 70’s, so must be wrong now’ myth is that it stems from a handful of media articles describing (not particularly accurately) a paper by Reid Bryson on the effects of natural and man made aerosols on climate. Bryson, a highly respected atmospheric scientist, was one of a few scientist who, for a number of reasons, incorrectly predicted global cooling in the 70’s. Yet Bryson is also frequently cited by current deniers as a climate scientist who disputes anthropocentric climate change.

If FounDit’s ‘logic’ follows – which it doesn’t – deniers should flatly reject Bryson’s latter views on the effects of CO2 on climate, on the grounds that his minority view about cooling was wrong 40 years ago. Of course, FounDit’s ‘logic’ is silly and only indicates an ignorance of how science works.
You aren't even arguing logically, will. The fact that Bryson was wrong back then has only been reinforced by the facts of today which prove that he is still wrong 40 years later. And his being wrong is completely unrelated to how science works.

It’s also ironic that FounDit criticises “laws passed to curtail industries to accomplish some goal of "saving the planet"”. Bryson’s cooling predictions were ‘wrong’, in part, because his predictions were warnings based on an assumption that man made aerosols – what Bryson called ‘the human volcano’ – would go unchecked and continue to rise. Thankfully, global legislation put a stop to that rise; a great success for science, politics and the planet on a number of levels. FounDit’s reasoning is like criticising legislation to reduce smoking because rates of lung cancer are in decline. d'oh!
The same "reasoning" that Bryson used is also used to predict all of the doomsday scenarios I listed earlier; none of which have come to pass. It is faulty reasoning, illogical, and just plain stupid to think that what exists, or is happening today, will continue on into the future in a straight line.

As for your lung cancer analogy, that too is bollocks. We have evidence of lung cancer, but absolutely NO EVIDENCE that humans are causing the planet to warm. Furthermore, NONE of the predicted disasters have come to pass as a result of human activity.

FounDit wrote:
I remain clothed in the absolute truth of my position.

To be clear, no one is questioning the fact that you are sincerely wedded to your position. The point is that your position is based on, among other things, myths about the consensus position. Completely false. My position is based on the empirical evidence of history.
The global cooling myth has been explained to you enough times now that repeating it is either an act of wilful ignorance or a deliberate lie.
Ah, YOU have explained the global cooling myth to me so I should just accept it, right? Hardly. And it is not a myth. Once again, you and Hope put words into my mouth I didn't say, only to criticize your own projections.

I never said scientists agreed to global cooling, I said that was being put forth in the 70's.

Quoting myself:

"I recall arguing with some hippie types in the late 1960’s and 70’s over the predictions that we would all be in an ice age by now. These predictions were carried by such publications as Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic, and others. In 1970 a professor, Kenneth Watt at the University of California, said by the year 2000, the Earth would have cooled by 11 degrees. We had a vigorous debate over this, but I could no more convince them they were wrong, than I can today."

Flashback 1970: Earth Day Prof. Predicted A Super Ice Age Would Engulf The World

Nowadays, eco-activists are sounding the alarm on global warming, but would you believe one of Earth Day’s scientific lecturers was warning about global cooling during the first celebration in 1970.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” ecologist Kenneth Watt told an audience at Swarthmore College on April 19, 1970 around the time of the first Earth Day demonstrations.

“If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000,” Watt declared. “This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

NASA climate scientist James Hansen famously warned Congress in 1988 that the world would warm at a catastrophic rate — which also has not happened. In fact, satellite temperature records show no warming trend since the late 1990s, and surface temperature data has also showed much less warming than was originally predicted.

As for Watt, that was not the only apocalyptic prediction he made during the first Earth Day. Watt also predicted the world would run out of oil by the year 2000 and that humans would emit so much nitrogen light would actually be filtered out of the atmosphere.

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate … that there won’t be any more crude oil,” Watt declared. “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

Watt also told Time magazine, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

His concerns were echoed in a National Research Council report from around that same time which found that “that by 1980 the oxygen demand due to municipal wastes will equal the oxygen content of the total flow of all the U.S. river systems in the summer months.”

Similarly in January 1970, Life magazine touted that “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution … by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half …”

Have any of these dire predictions come true? Nope.


You criticised others for being gullible enough to make a connection between a picture of a starving polar bear with loss of habitat due to the empirically supported fact of anthropocentric climate change, yet you seem to have been gullible enough to have believed a handful of 40 year old media articles – despite them having very little scientific basis. Indeed, these articles were apparently so embedded in your psyche that their inaccuracy, proven in the intervening half century, has led to your current position that any number of scientists being wrong in the past justifies rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus that exists today.
And once again you make illogical leaps to illogical conclusions. There is nothing "gullible" about my position. It is based on facts. It is your position, and those who agree with you, that are based on gullibility. You believe simply because you were told to do so, without any proof. It it no different than a religious belief. You have faith, and faith, for it to be faith, is based on no evidence.

Repeating this ‘climate scientists were predicting global cooling’ myth also suggests that you haven’t read, or understood, anything else that has been published on the subject for almost half a century.
Umm, no, it looks like you are the one who hasn't kept up, or as is more often the case, a case of "selective memory".

Or, more likely, you have been gullible enough to fall for the propaganda put out in more recent times by climate change deniers. Shame on you
Haven't seen it, and it would make no difference to me. I tend to think for myself, and I haven't yet seen any evidence presented that establishes the fact of anthropogenic climate change. But as I said, I'm willing to look at any you can produce. Simply present it, if you have it.

.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 4:46:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote: "And once again you make illogical leaps to illogical conclusions. Boo hoo! There is nothing "gullible" about my position. It is based on facts"


Despite asking many times, I have never seen even one verified fact from you, FD, only assertions and opinions. Well once you did post a link to a weatherman, not a climate researcher. I think he was on Fox, which disqualified him immediately.

So if you have facts besides that you have watched since the seventies, have seen predictions be wrong (which ones never listed) don't believe in models, that there are scientists who disagree (true - it is 3%) and whatever other assertions you make every time, let's hear them. Prove that 97% of climate research scientists don't know what they are talking about. Prove there is no connection to excess and increasing, proven by atom, human made C02 and greenhouse warming taking off.

5-10 logical in order point form would be best so even we "idiots" Whistle(my word used sarcastically) can understand and not make "illogical conclusions". Charts would be helpful.

:::::

BTW - as far as I know the writer of the article that I quoted -and put both into italics and quotation marks so it could not be missed - doesn't know you so how could he decide whether or not you said we should ignore science. But it is "a foolish thing to say"and you "are not surprised given the source".

You attributed the quote to me. Is that a knife I feel in my back when I didn't even do anything? Shame on you Stick it your ear again, FD.

Obviously you don't read - or read carefully. For once proof positive you put words into my mouth that definitely were a quote from an article. lol

In fact I have suspected for some time that there is no way you could read my posts with all the proof and are just having a pissing contest with Will, who has a much better grasp of the totality of the problem.

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 7:45:34 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote: "And once again you make illogical leaps to illogical conclusions. Boo hoo! There is nothing "gullible" about my position. It is based on facts"

Despite asking many times, I have never seen even one verified fact from you, FD, only assertions and opinions. Well once you did post a link to a weatherman, not a climate researcher. I think he was on Fox, which disqualified him immediately.
Fact: NONE of the predictions made about climate change have come to pass. NONE of the dire consequences can be shown to have a human cause since NONE of them have come to pass as predicted they would. We were told to expect a global ice age; we were told to expect global desertification; we were told to exptect global deaths from starvation; we were told the seas would rise globally, and coastlines would be inundated globally; ALL SAID. ALL PREDICTED. NONE TRUE. FACTS!

So if you have facts besides that you have watched since the seventies, have seen predictions be wrong (which ones never listed) don't believe in models, that there are scientists who disagree (true - it is 3%) and whatever other assertions you make every time, let's hear them. Prove that 97% of climate research scientists don't know what they are talking about. Prove there is no connection to excess and increasing, proven by atom, human made C02 and greenhouse warming taking off.
*Sigh* And one more time, I never said there was no Co2 being emitted. I never said the Earth had not warmed. What I do say is that there is no evidence that we are responsible for that warming, or that any of the predictions based on that level of Co2 have occurred, nor have the calamities predicted occurred.

5-10 logical in order point form would be best so even we "idiots" Whistle(my word used sarcastically) can understand and not make "illogical conclusions". Charts would be helpful.

:::::

BTW - as far as I know the writer of the article that I quoted -and put both into italics and quotation marks so it could not be missed - doesn't know you so how could he decide whether or not you said we should ignore science. But it is "a foolish thing to say"and you "are not surprised given the source".

You attributed the quote to me. Is that a knife I feel in my back when I didn't even do anything? Shame on you Stick it your ear again, FD.
You quoted the article, but then later, REPEATED it in your own words since, obviously, you agreed with it. Will then posted what you said as "Hope wrote:", which YOU did say.

Obviously you don't read - or read carefully. For once proof positive you put words into my mouth that definitely were a quote from an article. lol
Nope. I did not put words into your mouth. I responded to exactly what YOU said.

In fact I have suspected for some time that there is no way you could read my posts with all the proof and are just having a pissing contest with Will, who has a much better grasp of the totality of the problem.
Here I am, rotflmao...again.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
progpen
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 1:40:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,893
Neurons: 322,744
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
I think the only thing missing from that post is:

BECAUSE I SAID SO, NYAAA!

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
will
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 11:01:46 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
progpen wrote:
I think the only thing missing from that post is:

BECAUSE I SAID SO, NYAAA!

That particular post was also missing the usual vague tin foil hat nonsense about the political Left ,Hippy types and the Salam witch trials… so it wasn’t quite as bad as it could have been. I'll see if I can get him back on track Shhh

Hope123 wrote:
BTW - as far as I know the writer of the article that I quoted -and put both into italics and quotation marks so it could not be missed - doesn't know you so how could he decide whether or not you said we should ignore science. But it is "a foolish thing to say"and you "are not surprised given the source".

Apologies, Hope123. I should have put my replies to your and progpen’s comments in a different post, separating it from the inevitable shit storm that results from attempting to converse with FounDit.

It’s clear he’s not bothering to read any of the links provided – it’s easier to to claim there is ‘absolutely no evidence’ if one makes a concerted effort not to look – but I took it for granted that I was actually replying to someone who is able to follow the flow of a conversation, without realising FounDit would swoop in like the proverbial pigeon.

As say, I was going to point out the flawed logic in a prior post, but feared it’s subtle significance would be misunderstood and misused, leading to a further round of circular arguments. Turns out I was right. Brick wall

Hope123 wrote:
Will, in fact that aerosol legislation did affect and is still affecting positively the ozone hole as shown in these photos. A win when science and govt work together. With a caveat. We now have to address that the replacements and a healed layer can affect global warming.

You’re right, the science and responsible politics that led to the Montreal Protocol is a shining example of what is possible, but that’s a different ‘aerosol’ issue to what Bryson was studying in the mid 70’s.

It was Bryson’s paper on stratospheric sulfur aerosols that led him to predict global cooling. Bryson’s wasn’t the only paper predicting cooling, but a review of the scientific literature published during that time found global cooling to be a minority concern – with around 85% correctly predicting the warming observed today.

As I say, the irony of Bryson being wrong in the 70’s, and being the main source of the ‘scientists were predicting global cooling’ fallacy, is that he is so often quoted by deniers, in an appeal to authority, as the ‘father of scientific climatology’ who rejects the consensus. d'oh!


.






will
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 11:15:35 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
FounDit wrote:
Over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of the Climate Change group has come true. We did not die in the predicted Freeze.

And FounDit wrote:
I never said scientists agreed to global cooling, I said that was being put forth in the 70's.

Ah, my bad. I assumed your vaguely defined “Climate Change group” would naturally include the most qualified voices on climate science: actual climate scientists.

In which case, can I suggest that when you previously spelt out your position (slowly so we could all understand it), it would have been more accurate if you had said ‘over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of hippy types has come true...’

Could I further suggest that basing your views on what ‘hippy types’ say, rather than what the experts say, is a pretty good definition of gullible. I’ve had many arguments with hippy types about aromatherapy; the fact that Bach flower remedies fail to live up to their claims is no reason to reject the scientific consensus on medicine.

FounDit wrote:
Ah, YOU have explained the global cooling myth to me so I should just accept it, right?

Not at all. What you should do, if you wish to confirm or deny the veracity of a claim, is assess the facts for yourself. As you said yourself “Being a citizen is hard work. You have to think, analyze, reason.”
Hope123 and I have already offered several starting points, here, here, here and here. If you don’t like those sources – too Leftist, perhaps. Or not the opinions of hippy types, or whatever your current believability criteria is – this one is an explanation of the myth by the author of the original Newsweek article that you keep citing.

FounDit wrote:
These predictions were carried by such publications as Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic, and others.

That is what the media does; they publish public interest pieces, with varying degrees of factual accuracy. Unless you are gullible enough to believe all you read in the media, it should come as no surprise to discover that some media article are inaccurate. This is where the scientific method and peer review triumphs over the media and the word of hippy types; science is constantly under review – for example, by the early 1980’s the minority scientific view that the climate would continue to cool had been completely replaced by the early stages of the overwhelming consensus we have today. Again, it seems you clearly don’t understand how science works.

Besides that, all those publications also published articles during the 70’s (and before, and since) that were / are in line with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, for example, here. Why are you not citing these? Your global cooling fallacy not only misrepresents the scientific position, it also misrepresents the balance of media coverage.

FounDit wrote:
I tend to think for myself…

Peter-whats-his-face used to say this when rejecting evolutionary science. With the best will in the world, you are clearly not an expert. You have demonstrated on this site that you don’t even understand prevalence ratios in statistics, you are hardly qualified to understand the complexities of climate science. If you are drawing your conclusion from thinking about old arguments with hippy types and 40 year old media reports, rather than the most accurate and up to date expert opinion, it’s no wonder you are so confused.

FounDit wrote:
… and I haven't yet seen any evidence presented that establishes the fact of anthropogenic climate change. But as I said, I'm willing to look at any you can produce. Simply present it, if you have it.

Haven’t seen or have chosen to ignore, because of some conspiracy theory about manipulated science as a ploy by the political Left? Think

Here is the most comprehensive source that represents the current overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change – a consensus that approaches 100% in correlation to relevant fields of expertise, and includes every scientific body of national and international standing, and includes every Government on the planet (with the possible exception of the Trump administration), and includes virtually every multinational corporation (from the largest banks and technology companies to ExxonMobil and Maersk), and even includes the the most vocal contrarians, such as Patrick Michaels and Nic Lewis.



.
FounDit
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 5:43:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
will wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of the Climate Change group has come true. We did not die in the predicted Freeze.

And FounDit wrote:
I never said scientists agreed to global cooling, I said that was being put forth in the 70's.

Ah, my bad. I assumed your vaguely defined “Climate Change group” would naturally include the most qualified voices on climate science: actual climate scientists.
And they did include actual scientists - some from the IPCC itself. I just didn't mention any by name, but rather the inchoate source. Did you miss the part about the NASA scientist and the ecologist? I have to assume you did. They were only two of the many folks I have listened to over the last 60 years on the topic.

In which case, can I suggest that when you previously spelt out your position (slowly so we could all understand it), it would have been more accurate if you had said ‘over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of hippy types has come true...’
Well, actually, NONE of the predictions of the hippy types OR THE SCIENTISTS have come true, as I wrote. Neither have any of the predictions of politicians or Hollywood types come true either.

Could I further suggest that basing your views on what ‘hippy types’ say, rather than what the experts say, is a pretty good definition of gullible. I’ve had many arguments with hippy types about aromatherapy; the fact that Bach flower remedies fail to live up to their claims is no reason to reject the scientific consensus on medicine.
My opinion is not based on hippy types, but on everything I have read and heard on the topic over the last 60 years.

FounDit wrote:
Ah, YOU have explained the global cooling myth to me so I should just accept it, right?

Not at all. What you should do, if you wish to confirm or deny the veracity of a claim, is assess the facts for yourself. As you said yourself “Being a citizen is hard work. You have to think, analyze, reason.”
Hope123 and I have already offered several starting points, here, here, here and here. If you don’t like those sources – too Leftist, perhaps. Or not the opinions of hippy types, or whatever your current believability criteria is – this one is an explanation of the myth by the author of the original Newsweek article that you keep citing.
Well, firstly, it is NOT a myth. He did say it, and he admits to saying it:
Quote:

"(Inside Science) -- "The central fact is that, after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." – Newsweek: April 28, 1975

He then goes on to say:

"Time, Science News, and the New York Times, among other media outlets, wrote about it, because some climate scientists had genuine reasons to believe that the global climate might be cooling and had published scholarly papers on the matter."

So it is hardly a myth.

"The recent National Climate Assessment takes an equally emphatic view.

"What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now," it states. "While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

But no evidence is presented to prove the validity of that statement. It is simply asserted. The only "evidence" he presents is this:

"The certainty that our atmosphere is indeed warming stems from a series of rigorous observations and theoretical concepts that fit into computer models and an overall framework outlining the nature of Earth's climate."

Theoretical concepts and computer models are not proof. They are just that: concepts and models that assume things will continue in a straight line into the future, when we know absolutely that such is never the case. Technology will improve, new sources may be found, new ways of dealing with things will be invented.

FounDit wrote:
These predictions were carried by such publications as Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic, and others.

That is what the media does; they publish public interest pieces, with varying degrees of factual accuracy. Unless you are gullible enough to believe all you read in the media, it should come as no surprise to discover that some media article are inaccurate. This is where the scientific method and peer review triumphs over the media and the word of hippy types; science is constantly under review – for example, by the early 1980’s the minority scientific view that the climate would continue to cool had been completely replaced by the early stages of the overwhelming consensus we have today. Again, it seems you clearly don’t understand how science works.
So are you saying that when we read articles on science, published in leading Newspapers and magazines, we should not believe what we read; that they can be wrong; that we should be skeptical? Is that what you are saying? If so, I submit you have verified my position as the correct position to take on the subject.

Besides that, all those publications also published articles during the 70’s (and before, and since) that were / are in line with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, for example, here. Why are you not citing these? Your global cooling fallacy not only misrepresents the scientific position, it also misrepresents the balance of media coverage.
It is not a fallacy that global cooling was reported, as is evidenced by your own source. Furthermore, I did say all this began with global cooling, but was supplanted by global warming, which has now been supplanted with climate change.

FounDit wrote:
I tend to think for myself…

Peter-whats-his-face used to say this when rejecting evolutionary science. With the best will in the world, you are clearly not an expert. You have demonstrated on this site that you don’t even understand prevalence ratios in statistics, you are hardly qualified to understand the complexities of climate science. If you are drawing your conclusion from thinking about old arguments with hippy types and 40 year old media reports, rather than the most accurate and up to date expert opinion, it’s no wonder you are so confused.
I am not at all confused because I am not drawing my conclusions from hippy types, and your arguments are irrelevant and nonsensical to assume so. My conclusions are based on the empirical facts I have stated several times.

FounDit wrote:
… and I haven't yet seen any evidence presented that establishes the fact of anthropogenic climate change. But as I said, I'm willing to look at any you can produce. Simply present it, if you have it.

Haven’t seen or have chosen to ignore, because of some conspiracy theory about manipulated science as a ploy by the political Left? Think
Haven't seen it to date, and haven't seen it presented here, in spite of having asked for someone to do so many times.

Here is the most comprehensive source that represents the current overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change – a consensus that approaches 100% in correlation to relevant fields of expertise, and includes every scientific body of national and international standing, and includes every Government on the planet (with the possible exception of the Trump administration), and includes virtually every multinational corporation (from the largest banks and technology companies to ExxonMobil and Maersk), and even includes the the most vocal contrarians, such as Patrick Michaels and Nic Lewis.
Fair enough. I'll look at it, but you can be assured I will do so with an analytical, logical, evaluative, eye for convincing evidence.



.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 7:22:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Two points in response to your last post to me, FD.

1. When the universe works on a scenario of billions of years, 40-50 years from the 1970s is really just "overnight" or less. The only thing the media did wrong was to give exact deadlines because those predictions are still there and are coming true right now, except for the aerosols and "ice age" confusion. But still 85% of scientists predicted warming then too, not the cooling phase we were supposed to be entering in to naturally.

We know those predictions are coming true because starvation and migration ARE (caps are just to emphasize as in speech) being worsened by climate, there IS a big drought and shortage of water, there ARE unprecedented wildfires in California and other places, and the coastlines ARE being inundated. These UNPRECEDENTED incidents ARE increasing in number and intensity and frequency.

Actually, I hope the scientists' IPCC present paper timing is off too but in the direction of giving us a bit more time to get our act together, and not vice versa.

2. I did repeat only the quote to show the importance of the man's words, and it was never my own words. That would be plagiarism. I missed the fact that the beginning quote and italics were lost as I changed the "repeat" to red. However, the words themselves of the quote remain the same and the end quote is still there. The fact that TFD does not distinguish and uses "Hope wrote" still does still not mean I said it in my own words.

By emphasizing his words in repetition I did imply that I, myself and I, agree that changing perspective as further information becomes available is intelligent.

I did not implicate you as saying "we should ignore science". I don't know why you would include yourself as disagreeing with the quote.

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 7:34:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, I am still wondering so I am asking again for you to clarify for me why you think there is there is no connection berween human-made C02 contributing to greenhouse warming,(which you say you agree with) and the effects of excess C02 on the earth as a habitat for humankind.

In other words prove that there is no connection between the two clauses in your statement that I am re-quoting.

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

BTW - I'm pretty sure no true scientist would EVER say destroy the planet. It is viability for life, including human life, that they are trying to preserve.


"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 7:45:59 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
No worries, Will. I saw exactly what happened. Actually, FounDit's post makes it look as if your whole post is mine. That's why I prefer to do my own paragraphs where possible. I put them into separate posts now.

Besides, I just came in from a massage, all relaxed and feeling great! 😀 My husband and son are having father and son time at the club with their pistol target shooting, so I have lots of time here in my "Human Touch, Perfect Chair" with my trusty iPad on my lap. (Both are gifts from my husband. Just a bit of shameless bragging that I'm so lucky.)

In my scientific naïveté it never dawned on me that such a straightforward truism could be subject to controversy.

Thanks for the thread summary, explaining the difference in Bryson's work and the aerosols I was discussing, and the IPCC link.

I went to the IPCC paper on "Mitigation" which is what I am interested in (that keeps getting pushed aside here). I skimmed it a bit but there are so many variables they have considered world wide that I would need to seriously study it and still most of it would go over my head.

But I noted that they always keep sustainable development at the forefront and are not tossing that to the wind as some climate denialists seem to think.

Title - "Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development"

It is encouraging to see that several countries in 2016, including Canada, had announced plans to phase out all coal plants, and more countries have been and are announcing now.

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
RuthP
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 8:39:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,313
Neurons: 70,451
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
A few other sources of information:
US Fourth Climate Impact Study This is the US federal government's planning assessment. It is in two volumes; links to both are on the page. The second volume is at the top, because it was just released in November. The first volume links are below the second. You can either choose links that let you examine a volume online, or you can download it.

Update of The Trajectory of the Great Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration This is the 2015 update of a study first published in 2004. It updates information through 2010. Unfortunately, the complete original study is still under lock and key by the publisher, so unless you have access to an academic library that can request a copy for you, or you wish to pay Sage (Sage: Anthropocene Review) through the nose (usually runs $35-$45 per article) for one-time access, you'll have to make do with the more limited look here. The salient part is the graphs at the end.

Here is the NASA: Climate change evidence page.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) NOAA also has a climate change page and it also produced a 1918 report. Neither are currently available online due to Mr. Trump's government shutdown, which has left NOAA using its funding only for immediately critical weather forecasting.

This is also true of the NOAA climate data site. This site allows access to raw climate data. It does little for us average citizens, as few of us have the training to generate our own climate model into which we would plug the raw data to see how well the model predicts first the past and then (to be determined over time) the future. Nor would we have, or have access to, the computing power to run such a model.

The existence of the NOAA climate data site puts paid to the notion climate researchers want to fool the public. Any skeptical climate scientist has the ability to utilize these data to prove the current models wrong.

What do I hear? Silence? Hmm. How about explicating your hypothesis for observed changes? . . . Crickets . . . I hear silence. Oh, "natural causes". What does that mean? What are the natural causes you are hypothesizing? What is your hypothesis to counter the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming?

Anthropogenic warming is supported by a large and rapidly increasing concordance between predictions of climate models based upon anthropogenic factors and observed data. It is a well-supported hypothesis. To counter a well-supported hypothesis, one must have an alternative explanatory hypothesis, which is at least equally effective and well-supported. "Natural changes" is not a hypothesis, not without specifying the processes and effectively modeling the changes thereby induced.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 11:14:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
Hope123 wrote:
FD, I am still wondering so I am asking again for you to clarify for me why you think there is there is no connection berween human-made C02 contributing to greenhouse warming,(which you say you agree with) and the effects of excess C02 on the earth as a habitat for humankind.

In other words prove that there is no connection between the two clauses in your statement that I am re-quoting.

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

BTW - I'm pretty sure no true scientist would EVER say destroy the planet. It is viability for life, including human life, that they are trying to preserve.


Tomato/tomahto. If the planet is unfit for human life, then from our human perspective, the planet is destroyed.

To show why there is no connection between the two clauses is simple enough:

Premise 1: Humans create CO2.
Premise 2: CO2 is a green house gas.
Premise 3: green house gases cause global warming
Conclusion: Humans cause global warming.

A totally illogical and false conclusion.



The fact we create CO2 cannot be shown to be the cause of global warming unless:

1. all sources of green house gases are identified and quantified
2. all sources of CO2 are isolated from all other green house gasses
3. the CO2 of humans is isolated from all other sources of CO2
4. quantification of human CO2 in CO2 sinks must also be accounted for.
5. only the remaining CO2 of human sources (if there is any) can then be shown to be directly linked to global warming
6. A direct link of cause and effect should now be available for all to see so that:
7. a rise in the level of human-produced CO2 shows a direct correlation to a rise in global temperature and
8. any drop in CO2 levels equals a drop in global temperature.


Only then can it be said that humans are the source of global warming, but since this can't be done, it can't be said we are the source of global warming.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 11:24:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
Hope123 wrote:
Two points in response to your last post to me, FD.

1. When the universe works on a scenario of billions of years, 40-50 years from the 1970s is really just "overnight" or less. The only thing the media did wrong was to give exact deadlines because those predictions are still there and are coming true right now, except for the aerosols and "ice age" confusion. But still 85% of scientists predicted warming then too, not the cooling phase we were supposed to be entering in to naturally.

We know those predictions are coming true because starvation and migration ARE (caps are just to emphasize as in speech) being worsened by climate, there IS a big drought and shortage of water, there ARE unprecedented wildfires in California and other places, and the coastlines ARE being inundated. These UNPRECEDENTED incidents ARE increasing in number and intensity and frequency.
Proof. Where is the proof of those statements? This is mere weather, as you all are so fond of pointing out. There are always droughts, fires, floods, ice melts, and re-freezing of ice. It goes on all the time. They're called cycles, and they are not unprecedented.

Actually, I hope the scientists' IPCC present paper timing is off too but in the direction of giving us a bit more time to get our act together, and not vice versa.

2. I did repeat only the quote to show the importance of the man's words, and it was never my own words. That would be plagiarism. I missed the fact that the beginning quote and italics were lost as I changed the "repeat" to red. However, the words themselves of the quote remain the same and the end quote is still there. The fact that TFD does not distinguish and uses "Hope wrote" still does still not mean I said it in my own words.

By emphasizing his words in repetition I did imply that I, myself and I, agree that changing perspective as further information becomes available is intelligent.
So now you admit you did say it because you agree with it.

I did not implicate you as saying "we should ignore science". I don't know why you would include yourself as disagreeing with the quote.

Really? Perhaps it because you consistently accuse me of ignoring science. After all, your position has always been: if some climate scientists say it, it must be true and we all have to believe it.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 11:39:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
RuthP wrote:
A few other sources of information:
US Fourth Climate Impact Study This is the US federal government's planning assessment. It is in two volumes; links to both are on the page. The second volume is at the top, because it was just released in November. The first volume links are below the second. You can either choose links that let you examine a volume online, or you can download it.

Update of The Trajectory of the Great Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration This is the 2015 update of a study first published in 2004. It updates information through 2010. Unfortunately, the complete original study is still under lock and key by the publisher, so unless you have access to an academic library that can request a copy for you, or you wish to pay Sage (Sage: Anthropocene Review) through the nose (usually runs $35-$45 per article) for one-time access, you'll have to make do with the more limited look here. The salient part is the graphs at the end.

Here is the NASA: Climate change evidence page.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) NOAA also has a climate change page and it also produced a 1918 report. Neither are currently available online due to Mr. Trump's government shutdown, which has left NOAA using its funding only for immediately critical weather forecasting.

This is also true of the NOAA climate data site. This site allows access to raw climate data. It does little for us average citizens, as few of us have the training to generate our own climate model into which we would plug the raw data to see how well the model predicts first the past and then (to be determined over time) the future. Nor would we have, or have access to, the computing power to run such a model.

The existence of the NOAA climate data site puts paid to the notion climate researchers want to fool the public. Any skeptical climate scientist has the ability to utilize these data to prove the current models wrong.
And they do, but they are promptly dismissed since they don't agree with the political position of anthropogenic climate change. It happened to me here on the forum.

What do I hear? Silence? Hmm. How about explicating your hypothesis for observed changes? . . . Crickets . . . I hear silence. Oh, "natural causes". What does that mean? What are the natural causes you are hypothesizing? What is your hypothesis to counter the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming?
Silence? There is no silence. Those of us who evaluate critically have been saying from the beginning that this could just as easily be a natural cycle.

Anthropogenic warming is supported by a large and rapidly increasing concordance between predictions of climate models based upon anthropogenic factors and observed data. Rapidly increasing? You mean the "science" isn't settled yet? Why then do believers insist that it is?

It is a well-supported hypothesis. To counter a well-supported hypothesis, one must have an alternative explanatory hypothesis, which is at least equally effective and well-supported. "Natural changes" is not a hypothesis, not without specifying the processes and effectively modeling the changes thereby induced.

A hypothesis, yes. That is exactly what it is. It is not a fact. It is a suggestion - a hypothesis. And yes, a natural cycle is not a hypothesis, that is a fact we can, and have, proven.

In fact, even climate scientists believe in cycles. They say we are in one now called the "Holocene", which they describe as being between glacial periods.

Quote:
"The Holocene ( /ˈhɒləˌsiːn, ˈhoʊ-/)[4][5] is the current geological epoch. It began approximately 11,650 cal years before present, after the last glacial period, which concluded with the Holocene glacial retreat.[6] The Holocene and the preceding Pleistocene[7] together form the Quaternary period. The Holocene has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1. It is considered by some to be an interglacial period within the Pleistocene Epoch.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene





We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 12:02:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
An evaluation of the link provided by will, which he says is the "most comprehensive source". https://www.ipcc.ch/

The first thing I notice, of course, is that no evidence is put forth to prove human activity is the cause of any increase in temperature, nor is there a link to any such evidence. It is merely assumed from the very outset. But that is to be expected from the IPCC.


Quote:
Framing and Context
Chapter 1
Executive Summary

This chapter frames the context, knowledge-base and assessment approaches used to understand the impacts of 1.5°C global warming above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, building on the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty (What? Eradicate poverty? What the hell does that have to do with climate change? Anyway —

Poverty can never be eradicated unless you consider making everyone poor as the “eradication” of poverty. As long as there is a difference in ambition, resources, governments, cultures, or work ethic, there will be differences in levels of wealth (unless, of course, you use the force of government to make everyone poor, Orwellian Newspeak for equally “rich” a.k.a., "equality").

Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade (high confidence). Global warming is defined in this report as an increase in combined surface air and sea surface temperatures averaged over the globe and over a 30-year period. (A 30-year period is about as long as a gnat’s eyelash in terms of the history of the planet. It is meaningless.)

Past emissions alone are unlikely to raise global-mean temperature to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (medium confidence), but past emissions do commit to other changes, such as further sea level rise (high confidence).

If all anthropogenic emissions (including aerosol-related) were reduced to zero immediately, any further warming beyond the 1°C already experienced would
likely be less than 0.5°C over the next two to three decades (high confidence), and
likely less than 0.5°C on a century time scale (medium confidence), due to the opposing effects of different climate processes and drivers. A warming greater than
1.5°C is therefore not geophysically unavoidable: whether it will occur depends on future rates of emission reductions.
They haven’t first proven that it is human activity that has caused the warming. There is no evidence that we have the power to alter the temperature of the Earth, either way. A one and a half degree rise in temperature could just as easily be the coincidence of a natural cycle.


1.1.3
Sustainable Development and a 1.5°C
Warmer World

In this section we read:

“Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require substantial societal and
technological transformations, dependent in turn on global and regional sustainable development pathways.”
We see here that what is really desired is a transformation of our societies, and I’ve no doubt that means Western societies because, as we’ve been told, we are the ones responsible for any change in climate. The irony (and insult) is that even though the Western societies have done all the real work in reducing Co2, China and India, the greatest polluters (as can be seen by the global image on the site of CO2 pollution by country. The U.S. is virtually clear.), are given a pass, allowing them to pollute at will, and according to the Paris Accord, at some time in the future, money collected from developed nations should be used to pay developing nations to help with the pollution they were allowed to produce for years.

Quote:
Finance, technology and capacity-building support (Art. 9, 10 and 11) – The Paris Agreement reaffirms the obligations of developed countries to support the efforts of developing country Parties to build clean, climate-resilient futures, while for the first time encouraging voluntary contributions by other Parties. Provision of resources should also aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation. In addition to reporting on finance already provided, developed country Parties commit to submit indicative information on future support every two years, including projected levels of public finance.
The agreement also provides that the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including the Green Climate Fund (GCF), shall serve the Agreement. International cooperation on climate-safe technology development and transfer and building capacity in the developing world are also strengthened: a technology framework is established under the Agreement and capacity-building activities will be strengthened through, inter alia, enhanced support for capacity building actions in developing country Parties and appropriate institutional arrangements.
End Quote.
https://unfccc.int/resource/bigpicture/index.html#content-the-paris-agreemen


Efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions without incorporating the intrinsic interconnectivity and disparities associated with the Anthropocene world may themselves negatively affect the development ambitions of some regions more than others and negate sustainable development efforts.
Note here that “efforts to curtail greenhouse gas emissions” may negatively affect the development of some regions more than others. Not only that, but these “efforts” may actually be counter-productive as they will “negate sustainable development efforts”. So the very efforts themselves may have exactly the opposite effect.

The feasibility of any global commitment to a 1.5°C pathway depends,
in part, on the cumulative influence of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs), committing nation states to specific GHG (Green House Gas)
emission reductions. The current NDCs, extending only to 2030, do not limit warming to 1.5°C.
And here we see the uselessness of the Paris Accord. The NDC’s extend only to 2030 and result in NO reduction at all.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has reduced its carbon emissions more than any other country since withdrawing from the accord. And we did it of our own accord, not as a result of being dictated to by some global entity. This is primarily due to an increase in the use of natural gas, the cleanest of the fuels used for energy.


The analysis of pathways in this report reveals opportunities for greater decoupling of economic growth from GHG emissions. Progress towards limiting warming to 1.5°C requires a significant acceleration of this trend. AR5 (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report) concluded that climate change constrains possible development paths, that synergies and trade-offs exist between climate responses and socio-economic contexts, and that opportunities for effective climate responses overlap with opportunities for sustainable development, noting that many existing societal patterns of consumption are intrinsically unsustainable (Fleurbaey et al., 2014).
Notice that first sentence. There are “opportunities” for greater decoupling of economic growth from GHG emissions; Orwellian Newspeak for limiting economic growth to achieve a GHG goal that has already been said to be unobtainable insofar as limiting warming to 1.5°C.

Now which countries would be required to limit economic growth – rich or poor?



CH 2
2.6.3
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)

Most 1.5°C and 2°C pathways are heavily reliant on CDR [color-blue][Carbon Dioxide Reduction][/color] at a speculatively large scale before mid-century. There are a number of knowledge gaps associated which such technologies. Chapter 4 performs a detailed assessment of CDR technologies.

There is uncertainty in the future deployment of CCS given the limited pace of current deployment, the evolution of CCS Carbon Capture and Storage] technology that would be associated with deployment, and the current lack of incentives for large-scale implementation of CCS (Chapter 4, Section 4.2.7). Technologies other than BECCS Bioenergy and carbon capture with storage and afforestation have yet to be comprehensively assessed in integrated assessment approaches. In other words, they have no idea whether or not Carbon Capture and Storage technologies including the planting of trees would work.

No proposed technology is close to deployment at scale, and regulatory frameworks are not established. This limits how they can be realistically implemented within IAMs. [Intergrated Assessment Models] (Section 2.3)Evaluating the potential from BECCS is problematic due to large uncertainties in future land projections due to differences in modelling approaches in current land-use models, and these differences are at least as great as the differences attributed to climate scenario variations. (Section 2.3) Here it is admitted that bioenergy and carbon capture with storage is “problematic”.

There is substantial uncertainty about the adverse effects of large-scale CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal deployment on the environment and societal sustainable development goals. It is not fully understood how land-use and land-management choices for large-scale BECCS will affect various ecosystem services and sustainable development, and how they further translate into indirect impacts on climate, including GHG emissions other than CO2.
In other words, they have no idea how reducing carbon dioxide will affect development goals, how various ecosystems will be affected, or how it will impact the climate.

Summary:
There is no definitive way to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. This Special Report identifies two main conceptual pathways to illustrate different interpretations. One stabilizes global temperature at, or just below, 1.5°C. Another sees global temperature temporarily exceed 1.5°C before coming back down. Countries’ pledges to reduce their emissions are currently not in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Scientists use computer models to simulate the emissions of greenhouse gases that would be consistent with different levels of warming. The different possibilities are often referred to as ‘greenhouse gas emission pathways’. There is no single, definitive pathway to limiting warming to 1.5°C
Ah, yes. The old computer models, which show “no definitive way to limit global” warming. Most probably because there is nothing we can do about Nature’s natural cycles.

Countries that formally accept or ‘ratify’ the Paris Agreement submit pledges for how they intend to address climate change. Unique to each country, these pledges are known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Different groups of researchers around the world have analysed the combined effect of adding up all the NDCs. Such analyses show that current pledges are not on track to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. If current pledges for 2030 are achieved but no more, researchers find very few (if any) ways to reduce emissions after 2030 sufficiently quickly to limit warming to 1.5°C.
All of this means the Paris Accord was a worthless pact of verbal “feel goodism”, or virtue-signaling. So there was no harm done in withdrawing from it.

This, in turn, suggests that with the national pledges as they stand, warming would exceed 1.5°C, at least for a period of time, and practices and technologies that remove CO2 from the atmosphere at a global scale would be required to return warming to 1.5°C at a later date.[/quote]
Which they admit to having no clue how to do.

Having read the first two chapters, I am even more convinced this global fantasy needs to be thrown overboard by all concerned. It is filled with contradictions and inconsistencies; global decision-making without the consent of those affected as if they are authorized to do so; advocating policies for entire nations as if each have no say in their future (a hubris that is incredible); and an admission that they have no idea how to implement correct policies, or even if they can work. On top of that, I would never support placing the sovereignty of the United States under the rule and authority of the U.N.


*[All emphasis is mine]*





We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
will
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 3:33:08 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
FounDit wrote:
Over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of the Climate Change group has come true. We did not die in the predicted Freeze.

This is typical of the vague generalisations on which your opinions are based.

FounDit wrote:
I never said scientists agreed to global cooling, I said that was being put forth in the 70's.

This is typical of the ‘I never said...’ quibbling you revert to when specific facts are presented that clearly dispute your vague generalisations.

FounDit wrote:
Well, actually, NONE of the predictions of the hippy types OR THE SCIENTISTS have come true, as I wrote. Neither have any of the predictions of politicians or Hollywood types come true either.

Rinse and repeat.

All typical of the circular argument that progpen (a ‘hippy type’, no doubt) correctly predicted on page one.

FounDit wrote:
An evaluation of the link provided by will, which...

tl;dr


.
RuthP
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 4:11:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,313
Neurons: 70,451
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
FounDit wrote:
RuthP wrote:
A few other sources of information:
US Fourth Climate Impact Study This is the US federal government's planning assessment. It is in two volumes; links to both are on the page. The second volume is at the top, because it was just released in November. The first volume links are below the second. You can either choose links that let you examine a volume online, or you can download it.

Update of The Trajectory of the Great Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration This is the 2015 update of a study first published in 2004. It updates information through 2010. Unfortunately, the complete original study is still under lock and key by the publisher, so unless you have access to an academic library that can request a copy for you, or you wish to pay Sage (Sage: Anthropocene Review) through the nose (usually runs $35-$45 per article) for one-time access, you'll have to make do with the more limited look here. The salient part is the graphs at the end.

Here is the NASA: Climate change evidence page.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) NOAA also has a climate change page and it also produced a 1918 report. Neither are currently available online due to Mr. Trump's government shutdown, which has left NOAA using its funding only for immediately critical weather forecasting.

This is also true of the NOAA climate data site. This site allows access to raw climate data. It does little for us average citizens, as few of us have the training to generate our own climate model into which we would plug the raw data to see how well the model predicts first the past and then (to be determined over time) the future. Nor would we have, or have access to, the computing power to run such a model.

The existence of the NOAA climate data site puts paid to the notion climate researchers want to fool the public. Any skeptical climate scientist has the ability to utilize these data to prove the current models wrong.
And they do, but they are promptly dismissed since they don't agree with the political position of anthropogenic climate change. It happened to me here on the forum.

What do I hear? Silence? Hmm. How about explicating your hypothesis for observed changes? . . . Crickets . . . I hear silence. Oh, "natural causes". What does that mean? What are the natural causes you are hypothesizing? What is your hypothesis to counter the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming?
Silence? There is no silence. Those of us who evaluate critically have been saying from the beginning that this could just as easily be a natural cycle. This statement means nothing: you have provided no explanation or model of the "natural cycle". Anthropogenic warming is a natural cycle, given our large and rapidly increasing population, the level of consumption of resources, the levels of pollutants emitted, the environmental degradation occurring. Anthropos is a part of the world. We have always been a part of the natural cycle. We have now reached the point where our effects are overwhelming other effects. We have any number of climate models, all of which predict well within the bounds of reasonable certainty. You have nothing. "Natural causes" is not a model. "Natural causes" is a combination of two words which provide no mechanism and explain nothing: What natural causes? What is your system-model of natural causes that explains the observed rise in atmospheric global average temperature, surface global average temperature, sea-surface global average temperature, loss of glacial ice . . ., well you get the idea? Your use of "natural causes" provides no more explanation than the use of "magic wand".
Anthropogenic warming is supported by a large and rapidly increasing concordance between predictions of climate models based upon anthropogenic factors and observed data. Rapidly increasing? You mean the "science" isn't settled yet? Why then do believers insist that it is?
This is a meaningless statement unless you propose what the "natural cycle" is and explicate its mechanism. Science requires a hypothesis which can be disproven. Knowledge progresses by failing to disprove the hypothesis: the search for knowledge is never complete. The Anthropogenic model has provided very good and increasingly accurate prediction of real-world observation. Unless you can provide an alternate model, you have failed utterly to falsify anthropogenic warming. Yes, the science is settled . . . until we find something to falsify it. This is true of all science you can name. Including gravity.

Your "natural cycles" can be replaced with "natural phenomena". Gravity is a natural phenomenon. We have developed a mathematical model of gravity which has provided good and increasingly accurate predictions of the movements of planets, asteroids, comets, stars, and galaxies. It does not provide perfect predictions, yet I rather suspect you accept that gravity is real. `Nuff said.

Climate models have greater variance than the gravity model. They are newer and are modeling a complex system. Yet the output of these models falls within the acceptable bounds of uncertainty. That, FounDit, means that yes, they are good enough to be accepted as true until falsified.


It is a well-supported hypothesis. To counter a well-supported hypothesis, one must have an alternative explanatory hypothesis, which is at least equally effective and well-supported. "Natural changes" is not a hypothesis, not without specifying the processes and effectively modeling the changes thereby induced.

A hypothesis, yes. That is exactly what it is. It is not a fact. It is a suggestion - a hypothesis. And yes, a natural cycle is not a hypothesis, that is a fact we can, and have, proven.
You are using "hypothesis" incorrectly. You are pretending "hypothesis" means "somebody's wild hair". That is incorrect, as I think you already know. A hypothesis is a proposed, falsifiable mechanism to explain factual observations. Accurate observations are facts. Facts either support or falsify a hypothesis. You cannot say "it's a hypothesis not a fact": that is senseless, meaningless. It confounds two very different things: facts (observations), and a mechanism to explain the facts (hypothesis).

Gravity is a theory, because it has been around for a long time and is generally accepted. Gravity was a hypothesis when Copernicus and Kepler and Newton were working. Climate change is a hypothesis because it has not been around as long and because scientists are very conservative about calling things theories. It is generally accepted. Overwhelmingly.


In fact, even climate scientists believe in cycles. They say we are in one now called the "Holocene", which they describe as being between glacial periods. See below.

Quote:
"The Holocene ( /ˈhɒləˌsiːn, ˈhoʊ-/)[4][5] is the current geological epoch. It began approximately 11,650 cal years before present, after the last glacial period, which concluded with the Holocene glacial retreat.[6] The Holocene and the preceding Pleistocene[7] together form the Quaternary period. The Holocene has been identified with the current warm period, known as MIS 1. It is considered by some to be an interglacial period within the Pleistocene Epoch.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
Yes, I am aware of this. Are you also aware that the Holocene is also referred to as the "Edenic" era, after the Garden of Eden or the "Goldilocks" era, after not-too-hot and not-too-cold? Are you aware that the Holocene also coincides with the rise of civilization? That the earliest shards of evidence of technological advance (e.g. pottery) are found near the start of the Holocene? Are you aware there was no change in the kind of Homo species at the start of the Holocene? Are you aware that Homo sapiens had been around for about 50,000 years before the Holocene and Homo neanderthalis for about 200,000-400,000 years before the Holocene--yet no civilization before the Holocene? (Supporting the idea that the Goldilocks conditions of the Holocene allowed the development and subsequent maintenance of civilization.)

Are you aware that as an assumed interglacial period we should now be cooling, not warming? (That's by our understanding of natural cycles as modeled by climate scientists.) Your "interglacial period" and the extant understanding of the cycles thereof is one set of observations supporting anthropogenic global warming.

The climate scientists provided a mechanism/mathematical model explaining cycles within the Holocene. These predict the cycles of the Holocene within acceptable bounds until sometime between the mid-nineteenth century and the mid-twentieth century. Then they start to fail, unless one adds in the anthropogenic effects.

So, give me the skeptics mechanism. Give me their hypothesis. Show me how they fit to the data (observations, facts). Your "natural cycles" is not valid: it is not explicative, it is not a mechanism, it is not a hypothesis, it is a "magic wand" and it adds nothing to the conversation.

Romany
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 5:09:18 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,011
Neurons: 47,034
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

I am just going to add one little thing in case anyone is puzzled by Foundit's "Firstly" comment about there being no links to "proof".

As is usual in Acadaemia:- bibliographies, glossaries, appendices are not included necessarily in the body of the paper - whether it's by IPCC or The Vatican.

At the end of the article is a link to each Appendix, in which are pages and pages of contributers and their institutions. As in all academic articles, those who "don't believe" in what's presented can thus go and look up each contributer and read their work. Having done so, it's up to them to challenge anything they like - as long as they have a similar body of work to put up against it giving ample proof of their own findings.

However, the average person without scientific training in this field knows that all this work is done through peer reviews both before and after publication.

Those who aren't conspiracists are content that the hard slog of refuting something one knows nothing about has already been done - by people who do know what they are talking about.

I didn't read any further than that - if someone knows so little about how academic material is collated, tested, reviewed and presented, they're unlikey to know very much about the actual subject.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 5:36:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
Two points in response to your last post to me, FD.

1. When the universe works on a scenario of billions of years, 40-50 years from the 1970s is really just "overnight" or less. The only thing the media did wrong was to give exact deadlines because those predictions are still there and are coming true right now, except for the aerosols and "ice age" confusion. But still 85% of scientists predicted warming then too, not the cooling phase we were supposed to be entering in to naturally.

We know those predictions are coming true because starvation and migration ARE (caps are just to emphasize as in speech) being worsened by climate, there IS a big drought and shortage of water, there ARE unprecedented wildfires in California and other places, and the coastlines ARE being inundated. These UNPRECEDENTED incidents ARE increasing in number and intensity and frequency.
Proof. Where is the proof of those statements? This is mere weather, as you all are so fond of pointing out. There are always droughts, fires, floods, ice melts, and re-freezing of ice. It goes on all the time. They're called cycles, and they are not unprecedented.

Actually, I hope the scientists' IPCC present paper timing is off too but in the direction of giving us a bit more time to get our act together, and not vice versa.

2. I did repeat only the quote to show the importance of the man's words, and it was never my own words. That would be plagiarism. I missed the fact that the beginning quote and italics were lost as I changed the "repeat" to red. However, the words themselves of the quote remain the same and the end quote is still there. The fact that TFD does not distinguish and uses "Hope wrote" still does still not mean I said it in my own words.

By emphasizing his words in repetition I did imply that I, myself and I, agree that changing perspective as further information becomes available is intelligent.
So now you admit you did say it because you agree with it.

I did not implicate you as saying "we should ignore science". I don't know why you would include yourself as disagreeing with the quote.

Really? Perhaps it because you consistently accuse me of ignoring science. After all, your position has always been: if some climate scientists say it, it must be true and we all have to believe it.


Really FD?
1 Where have you been? It is the "extremeness" that is unprecedented, not the disasters themselves.

https://news.yahoo.com/natural-disasters-show-climate-change-104505287.html

2. I have come to the conclusion that you can't or won't see nuances. I quoted and agreed with his statement. I did not say it myself. Any claims that is so would be plagiarism.

Did you know professors have apps now where they plug in your essay and see any place where you plagiarized someone else's - or get this - even your own work. That means you can't hand in a paper that you did for another course at another time and have to be careful with every turn of phrase.

3. Seems to me if it is not there in black and white in a thread you get all upset if I assume anything about your posts judging from previous posts or known attitudes and say "I didn't say that". Well I didn't say that here either - you brought it up. Just a little payback to help your understanding.




"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 10:06:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
RuthP,

I'm disappointed in you, Ruth. I know you don't care, but I thought that, at the least, you would make a logical, reasoned argument. But anger at anyone who holds an opinion you don't agree with apparently truncates that ability, and your writing hints strongly at that being the case.

So you don't know what a natural cycle is? Have you heard of ice ages? Warming periods? How about the four seasons we experience every year? Circadian rhythms? How about the 17 year cycle of the cicada insect? 24 hr. days? Lunar cycles? planetary orbits? Any of this ringing any bells? Natural cycles, all.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 10:13:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
Hope123 wrote:
FounDit wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
Two points in response to your last post to me, FD.

1. When the universe works on a scenario of billions of years, 40-50 years from the 1970s is really just "overnight" or less. The only thing the media did wrong was to give exact deadlines because those predictions are still there and are coming true right now, except for the aerosols and "ice age" confusion. But still 85% of scientists predicted warming then too, not the cooling phase we were supposed to be entering in to naturally.

We know those predictions are coming true because starvation and migration ARE (caps are just to emphasize as in speech) being worsened by climate, there IS a big drought and shortage of water, there ARE unprecedented wildfires in California and other places, and the coastlines ARE being inundated. These UNPRECEDENTED incidents ARE increasing in number and intensity and frequency.
Proof. Where is the proof of those statements? This is mere weather, as you all are so fond of pointing out. There are always droughts, fires, floods, ice melts, and re-freezing of ice. It goes on all the time. They're called cycles, and they are not unprecedented.

Actually, I hope the scientists' IPCC present paper timing is off too but in the direction of giving us a bit more time to get our act together, and not vice versa.

2. I did repeat only the quote to show the importance of the man's words, and it was never my own words. That would be plagiarism. I missed the fact that the beginning quote and italics were lost as I changed the "repeat" to red. However, the words themselves of the quote remain the same and the end quote is still there. The fact that TFD does not distinguish and uses "Hope wrote" still does still not mean I said it in my own words.

By emphasizing his words in repetition I did imply that I, myself and I, agree that changing perspective as further information becomes available is intelligent.
So now you admit you did say it because you agree with it.

I did not implicate you as saying "we should ignore science". I don't know why you would include yourself as disagreeing with the quote.

Really? Perhaps it because you consistently accuse me of ignoring science. After all, your position has always been: if some climate scientists say it, it must be true and we all have to believe it.


Really FD?
1 Where have you been? It is the "extremeness" that is unprecedented, not the disasters themselves.
"Extremes" are not unprecedented, that why they are called extremes. But if they happened regularly, they wouldn't be extremes, would they?

https://news.yahoo.com/natural-disasters-show-climate-change-104505287.html
Oh, please. Yahoo is you arbiter?

2. I have come to the conclusion that you can't or won't see nuances. I quoted and agreed with his statement. I did not say it myself. Any claims that is so would be plagiarism.
But you agreed with it, so you repeated it. There is no nuance there. But if it helps you get through the night, OK.

Did you know professors have apps now where they plug in your essay and see any place where you plagiarized someone else's - or get this - even your own work. That means you can't hand in a paper that you did for another course at another time and have to be careful with every turn of phrase.

3. Seems to me if it is not there in black and white in a thread you get all upset if I assume anything about your posts judging from previous posts or known attitudes and say "I didn't say that". Well I didn't say that here either - you brought it up. Just a little payback to help your understanding.
I don't get upset. I simply point out your errors. You said you didn't say it, then said you did when I called you on it. Now you're trying to deflect again. I don't really care enough to be concerned. It was just something I pointed out. I tend to do that when you make a mistake - just as you, will and the others try to do also if I make one.




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 10:34:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Scientists have got this. There is proof for each step that FounDit said was essential. These steps are in italics.

(I had deleted all my earlier research so this post is just quick researching to try to match proof with your points, FD. They may not be the best information out there. I have asked Will if he has time to take a quick peek for any inaccuracies.)

The fact we create CO2 cannot be shown to be the cause of global warming unless:

1. all sources of green house gases are identified and quantified



2. all sources of CO2 are isolated from all other green house gasses ✅

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases

If you click on figures 2,3,4, and 5 for the other gases it brings the chart to the top.

3. the CO2 of humans is isolated from all other sources of CO2

Burning fossil fuel which obviously comes from old buried sources has a distinct atom difference in C02 from other C02 and the preponderance of C02 in the atmosphere has that fossil fuel footprint. So C02 of humans can be identified. Other human activities are not even accounted for in this explanation so the amounts caused by human activities are even higher than this one source.

4. quantification of human CO2 in CO2 sinks must also be accounted for.✅

Quote: "IPCC summary in 2013 estimated that cumulative fossil fuel and cement production CO2 emissions from 1750 to 2011 was about 365 GtC, with another 180 GtC from deforestation and land use change. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in the terrestrial ecosystems. Ocean acidification – a decrease of about 0.03 in pH since 1990 – is an issue, possibly affecting organisms which rely on calcium carbonate." End quote

http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/climate-change-the-science.aspx

5. only the remaining CO2 of human sources (if there is any) can then be shown to be directly linked to global warming

Quote: IPCC summary in 2013 estimated that cumulative fossil fuel...Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification,...End quote.

6. A direct link of cause and effect should now be available for all to see so that:✅

7. a rise in the level of human-produced CO2 shows a direct correlation to a rise in global temperature and✅

Throughout Earth's history, here are long-term patterns that whenever the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up, the temperature of Earth has also gone up. I've posted overlapping LONG-TERM graphs before. The temperature of the oceans must also be included as well as the surface temperature.

Quote: "The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2 emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of the industrial revolution. Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation." End quote.


(Exactly what you always want excluded FD - no short term variation.)

8. any drop in CO2 levels equals a drop in global temperature.

It is not a thermometer! See number 7. All factors must be considered for either up OR down and residence time in the atmosphere has to be addressed.

Only then can it be said that humans are the source of global warming, but since this can't be done, (unproved assertion)
it can't be said we are the source of global warming.

[/color][/quote]

There definitely is a long-term correlation between C02 and temperature rise but correlation is not causation. Many factors have to be taken into consideration to show excess C02 actually causes a greenhouse effect.

N. B. - basic physics on this chart mentions that Venus which is full of C02 is hotter than Mercury which is closer to the sun.

Also note number seven mentions they must rule out natural factors.





"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 10:53:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD,

I don't make mistakes. Whistle I was consistent with what I said from the beginning. You are just twisting everything I said to suit your agenda.

I see you are giving Ruth the "I'm disappointed in you" "naughty girl treatment". I remember a couple of years ago getting a similar "I'm surprised at you" jab. Nobody made you judge and jury. You are probably right though. She'd have to respect your opinion to care.

You don't like Yahoo? How about CBS?

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/stunning-photos-of-climate-change/6/

Both have actual photos of climate change reality so if photos aren't good enough for you nothing will ever be.

Time to go get a big dish of butterscotch ice cream. Or a banana sundae. (I wish. )

That's all for me folks. Because this appeal is fruitless. (Bad, I know. Brick wall )




"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
progpen
Posted: Saturday, January 5, 2019 1:48:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,893
Neurons: 322,744
Location: Haddington, Scotland, United Kingdom
It has never been more important for people in the US to stand up against the anti-science political movement that has infected the country. There can be no patience, no respect, no quarter given to this political group. The stability of the country is in the balance because a first world country cannot exist without an educated populace.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/28/americas-flat-earth-movement-appears-to-be-growing
The Economist article is more than a year old, but reports that the flat earth political movement is growing in the US.



Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
RuthP
Posted: Saturday, January 5, 2019 12:52:16 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,313
Neurons: 70,451
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
FounDit wrote:
RuthP,

I'm disappointed in you, Ruth. I know you don't care, but I thought that, at the least, you would make a logical, reasoned argument. But anger at anyone who holds an opinion you don't agree with apparently truncates that ability, and your writing hints strongly at that being the case.

So you don't know what a natural cycle is? Have you heard of ice ages? Warming periods? How about the four seasons we experience every year? Circadian rhythms? How about the 17 year cycle of the cicada insect? 24 hr. days? Lunar cycles? planetary orbits? Any of this ringing any bells? Natural cycles, all.

Nope. You're doing the same thing all over again. You are confounding facts, observations, with a scientific explanation (model) of the mechanism causing the observations: "So you don't know what a black box is? Have you heard of ice ages? Warming periods? How about the four seasons we experience every year? Circadian rhythms? How about the 17 year cycle of the cicada insect? 24 hr. days? Lunar cycles? planetary (sic) orbits? Any of this ringing any bells? Natural black boxes, all.

The point is to provide a mechanism which explains the observed cycles (facts). What is your (the skeptics') mechanism?
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2019 8:29:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 10,130
Neurons: 52,763
Hope,

So after all of what you wrote, one of the last things you said was:

"There definitely is a long-term correlation between C02 and temperature rise but correlation is not causation. Many factors have to be taken into consideration to show excess C02 actually causes a greenhouse effect."

This contradicts everything you just said, and verifies what I said, viz. that simply because humans produce CO2, that does not make us responsible for any temperature increase. Many other factors have to be taken into account, as you admit. So saying that anthropogenic global warming is true cannot be a true statement.

progpen wrote:

"It has never been more important for people in the US to stand up against the anti-science political movement that has infected the country. There can be no patience, no respect, no quarter given to this political group. The stability of the country is in the balance because a first world country cannot exist without an educated populace."

Very true. It is also true that a first world country cannot exist with a propagandized populace. Neither can a free country exist where differences of opinion are met with "...There can be no patience, no respect, no quarter given to this political group."

RuthP wrote:

"You are confounding facts, observations, with a scientific explanation (model) of the mechanism causing the observations".

So facts and observations have no part in a scientific explanation? That's so illogical I don't know what to think of it. And the "mechanism" causing the observations is the human brain. Besides all that, you yourself said it was only a hypothesis, not a fact. And a hypothesis is merely a guess, it's not even a theory until most agree with it. And even then that doesn't make it a fact until more evidence proves it to be true, which you don't have. You only have models, which are created by humans, with input by humans, and which cannot allow for all the variations/factors mentioned earlier.

But after all that, even if what you say is true, why not focus on the worst polluters on the planet? Why are only the first world countries targeted; countries which contribute the most minimal amount of pollution?

Well, I have to go out of town for a day or so, so I won't be able to engage in this hilarity for a few hours. I'll check back in later to read the latest comedy in this act.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2019 10:14:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,484
Neurons: 48,555
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Ah so. Eureka. I finally get it. Climate science is not simple. There are just too many factors listed logically for you to follow along to a conclusion, FD Dancing as you were only able to cherry pick the third last statement, ignoring the last two emboldened proofs answering the third last statement of causation.

The factors are all right there in the chart including causation as to whether or not C02 causes heating which was the only point left. And an example was given that Venus is hotter than Mercury even though it is farther from the sun. I wonder how that could ever possibly be.

I could have also added this proof of C02 causation, that scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.


Can hardly wait for your return. Whistle When you're ready to talk mitigation.

"Do the people you care about love you back?" Warren Buffett's measure of success
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 © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.