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

Massive Hole Appears In Antarctic Ice and Scientists Aren't Sure Why Options
Daemon
Posted: Saturday, October 14, 2017 5:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 22,952
Neurons: 68,859
Location: Inside Farlex computers
Massive Hole Appears In Antarctic Ice and Scientists Aren't Sure Why

A vast hole has re-opened in Antarctica, and it could have something to teach us about climate change. Some 40 years after satellites observed a wintertime gap in the ice of the Weddell Sea near the Antarctic Peninsula, the phenomenon has returned; and ... More...
ghorbanpour
Posted: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:57:01 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 1/22/2018
Posts: 1
Neurons: 10

Deamon, the climate change and its impact on the surface of the water and ice on Earth are really worrying!
FounDit
Posted: Monday, January 22, 2018 4:47:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,562
Neurons: 46,009
Nothing to worry about ghorbanpour. Note that the hole appeared 40 years ago and closed up again. Like they said in the article, it's called a "Polynya" and: "...GEOMAR has posited a model that explains the polynya as part of natural climate processes."

Some models say it will never reappear, but some models say that is wrong. So all they have to go on are models that they create themselves. Add to that fact Mr. Erebus, which is a volcano in Antarctica that has erupted for over 1 million years, (200 times between 1986 and 1990 alone), and you can see the area is not static.

"The Southern Ocean is strongly stratified. A very cold but relatively fresh water layer covers a much warmer and saltier water mass, thus acting as an insulating layer," Prof. Dr. Mojib Latif, head of the Research Division at GEOMAR, told the site.

Sometimes, the layer of warm water can then melt the ice. "This is like opening a pressure relief valve—the ocean then releases a surplus of heat to the atmosphere for several consecutive winters until the heat reservoir is exhausted," Latif said.

Dr. Mojib Latif, head of the Research Division at GEOMAR, who as a scientist should know better than to assume facts not in evidence, but does so anyway, closes with this statement:
"The better we understand these natural processes, the better we can identify the anthropogenic impact on the climate system," Latif said.

Nothing in this article indicates humans had any influence whatsoever on anything occurring there.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 3:01:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, I don't understand what facts you think he assumed out of evidence. He definitely says this is a natural occurrence but that we need to understand natural occurrences so we can see relationships between them and climate change. He was not referring to anything that happened there as being anthropogenic, but the knowledge may be useful in other circumstances. He also did not even say there are anthropogenic causes anywhere - he said it helps to identify the impact. The operative word is identify, meaning to establish or recognize identity.

And, Latif said, understanding the relationship between climate change and this kind of natural phenomenon can help scientists understand the climate system more broadly. Global warming is not a linear process and happens on top of internal variability inherent to the climate system. The better we understand these natural processes, the better we can identify the anthropogenic impact on the climate system," Latif said.

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 4:17:04 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,562
Neurons: 46,009
Hope123 wrote:
FD, I don't understand what facts you think he assumed out of evidence. (The idea of Anthropogenic impact. He tied it to the subject with no evidence.)He definitely says this is a natural occurrence but (but then links it to anthropogenic impact)that we need to understand natural occurrences so we can see relationships between them and climate change. He was not referring to anything that happened there as being anthropogenic, but the knowledge may be useful in other circumstances (yet he linked it to anthropogenic impact anyway). He also did not even say there are anthropogenic causes anywhere - he said it helps to identify the impact (of what? See the quote you have of him below). The operative word is identify, meaning to establish or recognize identity.
No, the operative word was anthropogenic. There was no need to mention it at all. What he was describing as occurring had no relationship to that.
And, Latif said, understanding the relationship between climate change and this kind of natural phenomenon can help scientists understand the climate system more broadly. Global warming is not a linear process and happens on top of internal variability inherent to the climate system. The better we understand these natural processes, the better we can identify the anthropogenic impact on the climate system," Latif said.
(Emphasis mine - Fd. He describes an admitted natural phenomenon and then tries to link it to human-caused climate change. He assumes facts not in evidence, and conflates two different things.)

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:08:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
You can read it however you want FD. That's the beauty of reading and writing. You and he do have a different mindset.

My take - Learning how the hole reacts during this climate change period is the only link between the two.

"A vast hole has re-opened in Antarctica, and it could have something to teach us about climate change...What is not fully known, however, is how climate change might affect this process"...

He sums up with the fact that the better we understand natural processes, the better we will identify what is natural and what is anthropogenic in the climate system as a whole, as the causes are additive. (happens on top of etc.)

Edited - in my opinion, Josh Lowe's title does not match the opening sentence of his opinion piece where the topic of the whole story is "the hole could teach us about climate change", not that scientists do not know why the hole is there. They do know why as of now. They don't know what may change with the hole now we have the world climate changing. And since it is about learning about climate change causes, the scientist expanded the reasoning as to why it is important to study natural phenomenon, even though we know they are natural and are not anthropgenic in nature so we can separate the two categories.





It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 2:16:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,562
Neurons: 46,009
Hope123 wrote:
You can read it however you want FD. That's the beauty of reading and writing. You and he do have a different mindset.
I read it exactly the way he wrote it: "anthropogenic impact".
But you are correct in that we have two different mindsets, as do you and I on this topic.

I have listened to, and observed the discussion on "Climate Change" for about 45 years now. I've heard both the pro's and con's. And since absolutely none of the predictions by climate change advocates have come true over that time period, I have remained in the skeptical camp.

I was also convinced to remain skeptical by the fact that we now know the data has been falsified and manipulated by climate scientists and this has proven to me that I must continue to doubt it.

So whenever I see someone advocating "anthropogenic" climate change, I feel the need to refute it, as there is absolutely no evidence to date that humans are responsible for any of it.

So trying to convince me of it is like trying to convince me to become a believer in gods and religions. I've been told it's true, but I see no evidence of it; just the opposite. So I remain unconvinced.




A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 9:30:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I know it never works to try to convince you or anybody of anything, FD. It's foolish to try because human nature is always to resist. I just enjoy writing, voicing my opinions, explaining, and discussing, even arguing about, various topics on the Forum. I've actually discovered a lot about myself and my opinions by so doing. And as Thar said recently, he has learned a lot about other cultures and people from other countries and their habits and ideas. Me too. I also finally learned not to take anything anybody says personally on the forum and it makes for a more pleasant atmosphere for myself.

Yes, this scientist wrote "anthropogenic" impact and the minute I saw the word I knew exactly why you had posted a response. :)

But he also wrote along with anthropogenic to study natural phenomenon and "identify" causes - mixed in with a lot of other ideas and concepts that should not be thrown out with the bath water. Even though you are a skeptic, I'm sure you are still looking for such research.


I only started the actual studying of the science of the environment a few years ago when I started taking the online uni courses. I took three on climate change from three major cities scattered around the world. They all said the same things, just with different data gleaned from their specific locations. But I also look around and see the patterns of what is happening to the climate over the past 100 years. As you well know, Climate is patterns. And we are starting to see some disturbing patterns emerging.

And I saw/see what spews into the air from smokestacks and the smog we used to have here before we stopped burning coal. Twenty plus years ago we knew I had to move to northern Ontario away from the industrial northern states and southern Ontario so I could breathe. I was not able to come back until the air pollution was mostly gone. When I lost my health because of the environment is when I became interested in what we are doing to the environment and also how we treat animals that are part of that environment. I see plastic and garbage on the beaches and the photos of huge plastic swirls in the oceans. I see and hear about all the animals becoming extinct. I see videos of an emaciated polar bear desperately trying to find food in a shrinking habitat. I read about the bleaching of the coral and about the lessening of the numbers of bees. I see and hear about too many things that make me sad. And I see the evidence of the arrogance of humankind that thinks it can do what ever it wants to the environment with no consequences instead of treating the earth as the Indigenous peoples and the Hawaiian people believe and do.

I know only a miniscule of the scientific theories and I've heard there may be a minority of crooked scientists just as there are in every walk of life, but what convinces me is the correlation between what has happened to the environment and what humankind has changed by our activities. Correlation is NEVER causation but the changes are occurring at rates never heard of in all the natural epochs and ages before the Industrial Revolution. Paleoclimate evidence from rocks and tree rings etc. reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of natural ice-age-recovery warming of milleniums ago. What we have added to the environment never occurred in history before either.

We've already been down the path of evidence so all I'll say is that I disagree with your absolute statements that there is no evidence at all to support anthropogenic changes and that nothing has occurred that was predicted.

With all we have done to the environment, it just makes common sense to me that what we spew into the air has to have consequences of some kind.


Scientists fussed about the ozone hole, we made minor changes that didn't cause that much inconvenience - and guess what? It helped. If there is even a 1% chance that even just one change we make can make a difference, I'm willing to give it a try. That's really the only difference between us.



It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 11:39:49 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, you did make me curious enough to research recent claims of fabrication of data. It seems there is controversy about at least one study I saw and it was actually politically motivated with the summary being that the data was not manipulated nor fabricated and they still believe in climate change. It seems to be squabbling over minor points from the little I read.

I understand that the current administration is actively trying to deny climate change.

"Climate scientists have worked hard for decades to prove climate change. Why is the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology working so hard not to believe them?"

...No credible evidence supports that NOAA fabricated data; evidence still points to climate change.

I'm tired and off to bed. May or may not do more research about fabrication of evidence and politics.


It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:28:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,562
Neurons: 46,009
Hope123 wrote:
I know it never works to try to convince you or anybody of anything, FD. It's foolish to try because human nature is always to resist. We-l-l-l-l, not necessarily. After all, there is no society on Earth that does not have some kind of religious belief. So it would appear that believing in something simply because some authority (parents, tribal leaders, etc.,) says it is true is a very easy thing for most people to do. It is the questioning of beliefs that is resisted.

I just enjoy writing, voicing my opinions, explaining, and discussing, even arguing about, various topics on the Forum. I've actually discovered a lot about myself and my opinions by so doing. And as Thar said recently, he has learned a lot about other cultures and people from other countries and their habits and ideas. Me too. I also finally learned not to take anything anybody says personally on the forum and it makes for a more pleasant atmosphere for myself.

Yes, this scientist wrote "anthropogenic" impact and the minute I saw the word I knew exactly why you had posted a response. :)

But he also wrote along with anthropogenic to study natural phenomenon and "identify" causes - mixed in with a lot of other ideas and concepts that should not be thrown out with the bath water. Even though you are a skeptic, I'm sure you are still looking for such research.
And I had no problem with his investigating some natural phenom and trying to understand it. I simply objected to his linking it to something he assumes to be true and related.

I only started the actual studying of the science of the environment a few years ago when I started taking the online uni courses. I took three on climate change from three major cities scattered around the world. They all said the same things, just with different data gleaned from their specific locations. But I also look around and see the patterns of what is happening to the climate over the past 100 years. As you well know, Climate is patterns. And we are starting to see some disturbing patterns emerging.

And I saw/see what spews into the air from smokestacks and the smog we used to have here before we stopped burning coal.
Um, FYI, we haven't stopped burning coal. In fact, about 80% of all our electricity is produced from burning coal. We just invented better ways of cleaning the residue. It's the technological inventions I often mention as the way to correct the problems, not shuttering whole industries as Obama said he wanted to do.

Twenty plus years ago we knew I had to move to northern Ontario away from the industrial northern states and southern Ontario so I could breathe. I was not able to come back until the air pollution was mostly gone. When I lost my health because of the environment is when I became interested in what we are doing to the environment and also how we treat animals that are part of that environment.
You lost your health because of the environment? What about all the other people who lived around you? Did they all lose their health at the same time? Or, perhaps, was it something within you that responded to the environment. I'm sorry you lost your health, but this is like blaming the environment for hay fever, or asthma attacks.
I can understand why you would feel that way, but folks like you can't project onto the whole of society a reason for altering the whole thing because some members have problems. You may certainly complain and ask that something be done, but it behooves you all to work with society, not make demands upon it.

I see plastic and garbage on the beaches and the photos of huge plastic swirls in the oceans. I see and hear about all the animals becoming extinct. I see videos of an emaciated polar bear desperately trying to find food in a shrinking habitat.
Okay, but are the beaches and the oceans always going to remain that way? Can we do nothing to clean them up? Are actions being taken to do that? Of course they are. So this is not going to be a forever and ever, amen kind of thing.
As for the polar bears, what habitat is shrinking -- the ice? You do know, don't you, that polar bears need to be able to dive into the water to hunt for fish for food? So open water, or less ice, is a good thing for them. They would starve if there was nothing but ice and no way to get into the water.

I read about the bleaching of the coral and about the lessening of the numbers of bees. I see and hear about too many things that make me sad. And I see the evidence of the arrogance of humankind that thinks it can do what ever it wants to the environment with no consequences instead of treating the earth as the Indigenous peoples and the Hawaiian people believe and do.
Well, you are certainly able to live as the Indigenous peoples and the Hawaiian people do. Many people do just that. Tune in to some of those TV shows like Survivorman or Dual Survivor. They show you how to do it if you choose to. I don't think you would enjoy it very long, especially with your health problems. But a grass and bamboo hut with no running water or readily available food might make you change your mind. I suspect so. Give it some thought.

I know only a miniscule of the scientific theories and I've heard there may be a minority of crooked scientists just as there are in every walk of life, but what convinces me is the correlation between what has happened to the environment and what humankind has changed by our activities. Correlation is NEVER causation but the changes are occurring at rates never heard of in all the natural epochs and ages before the Industrial Revolution. Paleoclimate evidence from rocks and tree rings etc. reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of natural ice-age-recovery warming of milleniums ago. What we have added to the environment never occurred in history before either.
Well, again, if you want to live like a Native Canadian, you can. I choose to live in the modern age even with its problems, because I think we can solve them without disrupting industries. It won't be easy, of course. Change never is, but it can be done. We've already see that it can.

We've already been down the path of evidence so all I'll say is that I disagree with your absolute statements that there is no evidence at all to support anthropogenic changes and that nothing has occurred that was predicted.
Just as I disagree with those statements. Have we frozen to death, as environmentalists first proposed we would back in the 1970's? Have we died from excessive heat as they said we would after the freeze scenario didn't pan out? Have we experienced world-wide starvation and death as they said we would by the year 2000?

With all we have done to the environment, it just makes common sense to me that what we spew into the air has to have consequences of some kind.
I agree, and we have invented methods of dealing with some of those such as clean burning coal, catalytic converters on cars, and many others. So no need to worry. I believe in our ability to effect repairs.


Scientists fussed about the ozone hole, we made minor changes that didn't cause that much inconvenience - and guess what? It helped. If there is even a 1% chance that even just one change we make can make a difference, I'm willing to give it a try. That's really the only difference between us.
And again I agree with the idea we should try. But our trying should be just that, not stopping industries and the progress that comes from them. With all progress over the millennia there have been concurrent problems that arose, and we have dealt with them. I see no reason we won't continue to be able to do so in the future.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
FounDit
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:35:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,562
Neurons: 46,009
Hope123 wrote:
FD, you did make me curious enough to research recent claims of fabrication of data. It seems there is controversy about at least one study I saw and it was actually politically motivated with the summary being that the data was not manipulated nor fabricated and they still believe in climate change. It seems to be squabbling over minor points from the little I read.

I understand that the current administration is actively trying to deny climate change.
No one denies that the climate changes. What is denied is that we are causing it to happen.

"Climate scientists have worked hard for decades to prove climate change. Why is the US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology working so hard not to believe them?"

...No credible evidence supports that NOAA fabricated data; evidence still points to climate change.

I'm tired and off to bed. May or may not do more research about fabrication of evidence and politics.

I think what you really need to do is be able to listen to people who have a different opinion, especially scientists who disagree with the "climate change" mentality. You have to be able to accept the idea that what you have been told might be wrong. If not, no advancement can be made.

One such scientist is Dr. Roy Spencer. There are many others. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

BTW, have you seen these? I laughed 'til I cried with these:

http://Eating some sandwiches causes global warming, UK scientists say

http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/25/california-bill-would-criminalize-straws
This idea is from an indoctrinated 9-year-old who is now 16.



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 10:33:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
FD, Now that the forum atmosphere is not toxic, I'm glad that you and I are back to being able to actually discuss differing views calmly as we first did.

There was no ulterior motive in mentioning my Environmental Illness beginning in 1976 other than reciprocating the timing of when I became interested in reply to your 40 some years you mentioned. In fact I go out of my way not to inconvenience anyone because of my problem. Nor do I have any expectations or demands because of it. I do not belong to any group that does activism for change. Also, I thought it might give you some understanding of my passion for wishing they would stop the talking and get something done.

I understand your objection. I hope I have been clear enough that because of the opening sentence making the topic climate change that I thought it was quite appropriate for a scientist to mention all the causes he believes in.

We can laugh at ourselves because you said you feel the need to say something whenever you see the word "anthropogenic". I feel the need to say there is anthropogenic evidence from scientists when ever you say there isn't. 😀

Coal - You say they can burn it cleanly, but the markets are the deciding factor in how the coal industry will have to adapt. It is always "supply and demand" that determines what happens to any commodity.

By "we" I meant Southern Ontario no longer burning coal so that I was able to return from the island we had lived on in Northern Ontario for ten years. Ontario celebrated in 2014 the shuttering of its last coal plant. And the US coal proponents have to watch out for those pesky Canadians buying into the US electricity generating business. :)

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/reevely-hydro-ones-new-coal-plant-gives-ontario-a-chance-to-spread-its-green-values-wynne-says

You question why I said my health problem was caused by my environment. I had severe toxic metal poisoning, (second highest level of anyone tested at the clinic at that date) some from personal exposures such as dental amalgam (dental materials used back then were not my fault ) but also from eating mercury laden fish, the thimerosal (mercury) in vaccinations, breathing auto exhaust and pollution from the smokestacks of manufacturing such commodities as steel, the pollutants that came on the air from the northern States, and drinking water laced with nitrates, sulphates, and chlorides. Several others on our short street of a few houses ended up with cancer and severe allergy. A cluster if you will. My husband has had three types of cancer - two major but caught early.

My doctor called me a canary in the mine. I lost track at treatment 75 - it must be over a hundred chelation treatments with IV harsh drugs that have given me back a semblance of a life. I actually quit the Forum a couple of times when things got pretty close. I'm glad I searched for many years until I finally got the right diagnosis and treatment but some damage to my immune system cannot be undone. Nickel is what causes severe allergy. Metals have an affinity for one another in the body.

And we are not just a few. Millions of people around the world are inconvenienced, injured, even die from pollution. They did a study in Ontario on the levels of pesticides, toxic metals, and chemicals IN people. People were astonished. I was not. Every single person had levels far higher than good for optimal health. Fish and animals are being born with mutations, levels of male sperm of humans is lower, fewer males are being born - in one species, turtles, I think, 80% of the births are of females. Asthma, allergies, cancer and many other chronic disease levels have been rising, some tied to our food, water, air, and habits.



It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 10:39:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Cont'd -

BTW, it was a nice side step from my evidence presented of anthropogenic causes and I know you were being facetious, but the Indigenous and Hawaiians do not live in bamboo huts, nor do Eskimos live in igloos any more. 😳 I know I would do quite well in the clean ocean air in Hawaii as long as it was not on an island with a volcano. Of course that is provided North Korea doesn't nuke it. 😀 But I would never advocate going back to living as in the past and that is exactly what promoting the coal industry is doing.

I am advocating, with the backing of the most of the world, for improving the way we treat the earth with respect as simpler cultures did and still do. For education of how we can all do our part to conserve where possible. I am not advocating no cars or airplanes or electricity. I have lived without all of those.

But - I am with governments that say that we do have to share the air and water.

That if companies want to spew toxins everywhere in order to make profits, they should pay for the clean up somehow or clean it up before it goes into the atmosphere. Just as people should not be allowed to smoke in a public space that others use, so companies should not be able for personal gain to foul the air and water we all use. They tried letting them do it voluntarily but the compliance rate was not sufficient.

Why should the CDN government now be on the hook to clean up the mess of defunct companies with taxpayer dollars? Grassy Narrows River in northern Ontario had been polluted years ago with mercury by companies and the First Nations people there are being poisoned. 90% have symptoms - some have died. Companies should be responsible for their actions the same as individuals should.

We both agree that we need a clean up. But the world has to do better as our oceans are getting more and more acidic and the plastic swirls bigger and bigger. Canada and the northern states made sure that President Trump did not get his wishes to cut the funding of the clean up of the Great Lakes from where their drinking water comes. Clean air and water should have priority.

I have no idea how to respond to the rationalization that more water and less ice is good for polar bears when they have always lived a certain habitat. See the last post I'm doing with the photo posted by Ghorbanpour for the reasons polar bears are endangered.

Your two arguments about freezing and dying of heat are too simplistic. As for starvation, just look around the world outside of the US right now.

Worry never gets anyone anywhere. Action does. (That's one of the reasons why some people supported Trump - he told them not to worry that (only) he could save them.)

The CDN PM by offering enticements for our young to become educated, creative, and innovative, is helping the young to take over and make the changes we need. They want their own future, not our ideas from the past. That's what I'm for.



It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 10:57:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Also, give me a little credit for having looked at both sides of the picture. Every time we have this discussion I check out your sources actually looking to see if there is any doubt. That is what I started to do in my second post last night - but the first one that came up is what I posted and I was too tired to continue looking. Your Dr. Spencer link addresses the weather back to 1979. We have climate data going back a lot farther than that. I found nothing on that link to change my belief in the opinions of many other scientists supported with elaborate data of the earth's systems, not just the weather, but I'll read it more carefully tomorrow.

And we've been talking about the "January thaw" ever since I can remember. It is not some new thing that people are now claiming is climate warming as he claims as one of his talking points as if that discredits the beliefs of scientists. We're in a January thaw right now - but darn, it always gets colder again. Climate change is a matter of small degree changes over the whole surface of the earth and has not much to do with weather.

The other two links give me a 404 message.

Since you have told me your opinion of what I should do, I'll reciprocate. Perhaps you should stop thinking as a Republican, a Texan in oil country, and what the news sources you believe tell you as they have clouded what you think about the regulations Obama put into place. We will see how the US manages in the long term now since Trump has pretty much destroyed all the regulations Obama did, not just in the environment but in the financial sectors that caused the world a lot of anguish in 2008. Industries rarely voluntarily make beneficial changes for the public good if they might affect their bottom line. When I see how politicized the climate topic is in the US, it makes me wonder just how much confirmation bias affects your unchanging views as the climate information evolves.

Talk later. Hope123.


It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 11:19:05 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
ghorbanpour wrote:

Deamon, the climate change and its impact on the surface of the water and ice on Earth are really worrying!


They cannot be certain that climate change caused the bear's emaciated condition and probable death in the video on the link provided. But it is happening more frequently as when the bears have to stay on the land longer and longer as summer is lengthened and not get to the ice where the seals are, their hibernation period takes them almost to starvation.

Polar bear dependence on sea ice makes them highly vulnerable to a changing climate. Polar bears rely heavily on the sea ice environment for traveling, hunting, mating, resting, and in some areas, maternal dens. In particular, they depend heavily on sea ice-dependent prey, such as ringed and bearded seals. Additionally, their long generation time and low reproductive rate may limit their ability to adapt to changes in the environment.

Because of ongoing and potential loss of their sea ice habitat resulting from climate change, polar bears were listed as a threatened species in the US under the Endangered Species Act in May 2008.
(Until Trump reverses it the same he just did for the Canadian Bobcat. He also took 25 imperiled species off that list last year. Not sure if the polar bear was on that list or not. They should only come off the list if they are thriving in their environment as the act reads, not their numbers n the whole world.)


https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/polar-bear-starving-arctic-sea-ice-melt-climate-change-spd/

Edited - I checked the list and the polar bear is not on it yet. But since Trump puts profit over everything and he wants to drill for oil, I AM holding my breath on this one.

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/25-species-10-04-2017.php

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 1:50:23 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,562
Neurons: 46,009
Wow. Lots of real estate in our last couple of posts. I have a busy day scheduled for tomorrow, so I thought I’d try to respond to some of your points tonight. It’s getting late, so I’m not sure if I’ll get them all covered.

Hope123 wrote:

Coal - You say they can burn it cleanly, but the markets are the deciding factor in how the coal industry will have to adapt. It is always "supply and demand" that determines what happens to any commodity.

Not always, and that is the problem.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/28/the-stunning-effects-of-obamas-war-on-coal-in-one-chart/">http:// http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/28/the-stunning-effects-of-obamas-war-on-coal-in-one-chart/

Hope123 wrote:

Millions of people around the world are inconvenienced, injured, even die from pollution.


You make that statement, but offer no evidence of the truth of it. No numbers, no list of causes, no sources. I know that would be a monumental task and far beyond the purpose here, but claims without evidence is just that – claims. And it is that that I question.

Environmentalists make extraordinary claims but offer no evidence to back them up beyond computer models and prognostications that never appear. This link is admittedly from an anti-climate change website, but lists all their sources at the bottom so they can be checked out. Like I said, I have listened to both sides for over 45 years.

http://www.truthwiki.org/climate-change-global-warming/



Hope123 wrote:

BTW, it was a nice side step from my evidence presented of anthropogenic causes


You offered evidence? Odd, I didn’t see it. I’ll go back and look again. Ah, you see coral bleaching and lesser numbers of bees. Yes, the barrier reef is being bleached – somewhat. They say on this site that it is warmer than usual waters that are the cause. So I suppose you will say that it our fault with no evidence to back that up.
https://www.barrierreef.org/latest/news/coral-bleaching-update

But then I see they say cooler temps will alleviate the problem. Oops, there’s that nasty natural cycle again. And speaking of natural things, I see it is the crown-of-thorns starfish that is literally eating the reef alive. I guess that is our fault, too?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/world/australia/starfish-coral-great-barrier-reef.html ">http:// https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/05/world/australia/starfish-coral-great-barrier-reef.html


Hope123 wrote:

Your two arguments about freezing and dying of heat are too simplistic. As for starvation, just look around the world outside of the US right now.


Those aren’t my arguments. They were made by environmentalists back at the beginning of the movement in the early 1970’s. As for the starvation problem, there are vast amounts of food available for people. That isn’t the problem. The problem, as has been laid out by various governments and the U.N. is the political systems established in the nations with the starving population, such as N. Korea, some African countries, etc.

Hope123 wrote:

Every time we have this discussion I check out your sources actually looking to see if there is any doubt. That is what I started to do in my second post last night - but the first one that came up is what I posted and I was too tired to continue looking. Your Dr. Spencer link addresses the weather back to 1979. We have climate data going back a lot farther than that. I found nothing on that link to change my belief in the opinions of many other scientists supported with elaborate data of the earth's systems, not just the weather.


Yes, we do have data going back farther than 1979, and most of it suspect because it is based on tree rings. And tree rings aren’t always valid indicators of the climate. In fact, the so-called “hockey stick” data was based on a single tree, and completely omitted the “middle warm period” in history when the temperature was greater than it is now.

I don’t have the data for that in front of me now as I’m out of town, but can get it if you want, though I doubt it will influence you.


Hope123 wrote:

And we've been talking about the "January thaw" ever since I can remember. It is not some new thing that people are now claiming is climate warming as he claims as one of his talking points as if that discredits the beliefs of scientists. We're in a January thaw right now - but darn, it always gets colder again. Climate change is a matter of small degree changes over the whole surface of the earth and has not much to do with weather.


Yeah, there’s than darn cycle again screwing up the best schemes.

Hope123 wrote:

Perhaps you should stop thinking as a Republican, a Texan in oil country, and what the news sources you believe tell you as they have clouded what you think about the regulations Obama put into place.


It wasn’t news sources that told me what to think about Obama. It was Obama himself. All I did was listen to what he said.

Hope123 wrote:

When I see how politicized the climate topic is in the US, it makes me wonder just how much confirmation bias affects your unchanging views as the climate information evolves.


You think I’m biased because of politicization? You haven’t been paying attention to what I wrote. I have been a skeptic since it all began in the ‘70’s. Throughout the intervening years I have waited for evidence but the claims grew more exaggerated, the dire predictions more doomsday, yet no evidence has been presented to verify any of it; mere predictions and dire warnings if the government isn’t given enough power to make things happen according to environmentalists’ desires.

So, yes, I have a bias, I’m a skeptic; but all it would take to disabuse me of it is proof.

Okay, this took longer than I thought and it’s late now; off to bed. Not sure when I’ll have a chance to visit here again. This was fun, but tiring. I need sleep to maintain my boyish good looks. Bye for now.




[/quote]


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 2:14:20 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I just skimmed over your post as I put my iPad to bed - will look more closely tomorrow.

But I did see that you needed proof for something I thought was obvious.

Will this do from a quick search? It is outdated so numbers may be worse now.

Air Quality. Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health and is estimated to cause approximately two million premature deaths worldwide per year [24]. A reduction of air pollution is expected to reduce the global burden of disease from respiratory infections, heart disease, and lung cancer.Jul 31, 2009
Environmental Effects on Public Health: An Economic Perspective - ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles


I don't remember where I read recently about sperm counts (maybe the Lancet medical magazine) and about 80% of a species of turtles being female babies. Pix and all. I swear I saw them! Whistle They must have had fun counting them. d'oh!

"Environmentalists make extraordinary claims but offer no evidence to back them up beyond computer models and prognostications that never appear"."

Not sure who you mean by Environmentalists but that statement is just plain not true for scientists and for me. Our first discussion on this I spent hours posting proven facts, information, and charts from many qualified scientists and you dismissed every bit of it. That's why I didn't bother to get into science with you but I did say this: "Correlation is NEVER causation but the changes are occurring at rates never heard of in all the natural epochs and ages before the Industrial Revolution. Paleoclimate evidence from rocks and tree rings etc. reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of natural ice-age-recovery warming of milleniums ago. What we have added to the environment never occurred in history before either."

You responded with: Well, again, if you want to live like a Native Canadian, you can. I had no idea how that fit.


Anyhow, have fun tomorrow!

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 8:35:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Hope it is a fun reason why you are away, FD. Thanks for taking time to answer. But I think after I post these last posts I am too saturated with research to do any more and you are away anyhow.

Response re Supply and Demand comments and coal industry in the US:

"The rules themselves are not Obama's doing. Most of them stem from the Clean Air Act, which was signed by Richard Nixon and strengthened during the first Bush presidency." The EPA already regulates other toxins so why not regulate the toxic (to humans and the earth) 40% of CO2 coming from power plants?

This could be one the few times Obama's choice of words was not thought out as well as it might have been. But the real reason the coal industry was already losing ground was the cheap price of gas since 2005. Supply and demand. Also, the upside you ignore is that more jobs were created in the green industry than lost in the coal industry. All the dire consequences to the economy predicted by the coal industry did not happen and money was offered to help those displaced coal miners. Coal miners who had not already accepted the inevitable have become disappointed with what has occurred in spite of Trump's assurances and help.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/obama-coal-jobs/index.html

I don't know where you got your 80% coal figure for electricity in 2018 in the US. Sources I saw all say 30% going up maybe to 40% because gas prices have risen but that both will probably go back down. Supply and demand.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-natgas-eia-steo/coal-to-surpass-natgas-as-main-u-s-power-generation-fuel-in-2017-eia-idUSKBN19W23K

Are you also going to hold Trump accountable for the 4.6 billion dollars and many jobs lost in the tourism industry in 2017 - and none of it was in the least bit helpful or necessary?



It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 8:41:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
More proof that pollution is harmful to humans as requested:

In Beijing alone in 2013 there were 366,000 premature deaths from coal burning. ny times

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/china-air-pollution-solutions-environment-tangshan/

China's citizens demanded their government do something to curb air pollution, they did, and it is down a lot. Canada was glad to see the US finally stepping up to the plate with the rest of the world that was working on lowering pollution. Now we feel it has taken several steps backwards because the almighty dollar has been placed above human health. And what's in the US does not stay in the US. 😀

:::

Study commissioned because of health concerns in 2017 re Chemical Valley in Sarnia in Ontario on the US border not far from Detroit. 60% of particulates come from the US.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3805442/ontario-government-commits-to-fund-health-study-after-chemical-valley-investigation/

:::

"The Top !0 most dangerous pollution problems was compiled by the Blacksmith Institute in collaboration with Green Cross Switzerland. The report names pollution as one of the leading contributing factors to death and disability in the world..."

:::

This is a study about fertility in women - the sperm count one is out there somewhere...

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/health/pesticides-in-food-fertility-study/index.html

:::

I can't copy the link but wileylibrary dot com has amongst its many abstracts one on an epidemiological study linking pesticides and cancer as well as studying many many other aspects of human health. There was another abstract (I think CDN) about hard tumours and pesticides that says they found many in the peer-reviewed studies between 1990 and 2003 that show positive associations between solid tumours and pesticides in the major cancers. They looked at non cancers and reproduction, fertility, and congenital issues as well. I lost that link.

None of this has anything to do with "natural cycles" but with pollution of all kinds and human health. Mitigate pollution and you also help do what you can to mitigate the climate disruption.


It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 8:55:44 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
We don't have two worlds to experiment with what happens without and with human influence and scientists cannot predict the future, so computer models can help. But there is also a detailed preponderance of proven observations and facts that when taken together make a pretty good case for the consensus with which most experts in climate change agree - that anthropogenic causes are added to the natural ones. The whole purpose of science is to adjust as new information becomes available. And new info becomes available almost daily.

There is never 100% certainty in anything in this life, especially something as complex as the earth's climate. We cannot expect scientists to be gods. The fact that you and I have been aware and forming opinions for 40+ years is proof of nothing.

You have your objections; mine is weathermen such as Spencer and the one you cited before on Fox News who purport to know more than those who study climate, not weather, and possibly getting paid to do so. I had to quit listening to a video as Spencer was making unnecessary derogatory comments about fellow scientists. Valid points do not need such comments. Very unprofessional.

I don't know the facts of this case so I'm not accusing anybody of anything except the special interests, but it sounds fishy to me that Spencer's name is associated with this story. This is exactly what tobacco companies did re cigarettes years ago and exactly what I meant about being politicized by special interests. That is also why the first place I look in a scientific abstract is to see who funded it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

All the answers re climate disruption that skeptics never wanted to know: Whistle

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


If scientists can figure out ways to record gravitational waves from billions of light years away they are not dummies. There are already abnormal occurrences happening now with the climate when compared to data from occurrences before humans as far back as we have collected.

Climate disruption IS happening. The world has already moved on to embrace what to do to mitigate negative effects as much as possible in human power.

And since nature was actually in a cooling phase and heading that way till we disrupted it, we ARE responsible.

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2018 12:05:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,562
Neurons: 46,009
Hope123 wrote:
I just skimmed over your post as I put my iPad to bed - will look more closely tomorrow.

But I did see that you needed proof for something I thought was obvious.
Exactly. You think or believe it to be obvious. To you it is a fact.

Will this do from a quick search? It is outdated so numbers may be worse now.

Air Quality. Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health and is estimated to cause approximately two million premature deaths worldwide per year [24]. A reduction of air pollution is expected to reduce the global burden of disease from respiratory infections, heart disease, and lung cancer.Jul 31, 2009
Environmental Effects on Public Health: An Economic Perspective - ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › articles


I don't remember where I read recently about sperm counts (maybe the Lancet medical magazine) and about 80% of a species of turtles being female babies. Pix and all. I swear I saw them! Whistle They must have had fun counting them. d'oh!

"Environmentalists make extraordinary claims but offer no evidence to back them up beyond computer models and prognostications that never appear"."

Not sure who you mean by Environmentalists but that statement is just plain not true for scientists and for me.
And in our first discussion, I posted the very words of environmentalists and scientists who did make the extraordinary claims I mentioned again here.

Our first discussion on this I spent hours posting proven facts, information, and charts from many qualified scientists and you dismissed every bit of it.
I don't dismiss every bit of it. What I dismiss is the idea that it is all our fault.

That's why I didn't bother to get into science with you but I did say this: "Correlation is NEVER causation but the changes are occurring at rates never heard of in all the natural epochs and ages before the Industrial Revolution. Paleoclimate evidence from rocks and tree rings etc. reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of natural ice-age-recovery warming of milleniums ago. What we have added to the environment never occurred in history before either."
Well, here is an example of what I dismiss. Claims like this that are not backed up by evidence. All you have to do is prove that this has never happened before, that it is not a natural cycle, that we humans are responsible for all of it. When you can do that, I'll be open to changing my mind. Until then, it is simply an assertion, and I can just as easily assert that it is false.

You responded with: Well, again, if you want to live like a Native Canadian, you can. I had no idea how that fit.
I don't know either how that fit. I can only say I was tired, it was late at night, and I was cutting and pasting like crazy so I could go to bed.

Anyhow, have fun tomorrow!


It was a good day, and I got a lot accomplished.

But as to your follow-up posts, I'll just say this:

One of the problems I have with this discussion is your example of flooding in Canada, or pollution in China. You, and by you, I mean you who believe in anthropogenic climate change, take an example of something in the environment and extrapolate it out to planet-wide levels.

Do we pollute? Yes. Does that mean we are destroying the planet? No. We can and do make changes that alleviate problems. But too many environmentalists seem to believe that the very technology that creates our modern societies can't find ways to correct problems that always manifest in any environment.

Throughout history, we humans have manipulated our environment to make our lives better. Along the way, we have created problems but have always be able to then find ways to solve those problems. Today's environmentalists seem too interested in stopping technological/social advances simply because problems are created.

To do that they take any example they can find and project it into the future and predict planet-wide disaster. I can't accept that line or thinking as it is illogical and foolish to me.


A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
Hope123
Posted: Monday, January 29, 2018 1:58:30 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
You needed proof that pollution harms the health of many people around the world? That IS an obvious fact. Proof was not necessary.

Disruption IS a planet wide problem when all areas of the world have more disruptive incidences occurring more often and not seen in weather before. But it is the long term patterns in comparison to where we should be heading in ice age cycles that climatologists are studying.

You seem to think that I dismiss the fact that there are natural causes and cycles in weather and climate. From "Meanwhile in Finland" thread", Hope123 Wrote: "Of course the world always has had extreme weather and always will, and individual occurrences depend on a lot of things..."

And Climatologists add into their calculations all the natural effects and causes and cycles known first - BEFORE they start even thinking about anthropogenic causes.

What I actually do is trust the latest consensus of 90% of Climatologists - the experts in Climate. Scientific experts such as geologists and meteorologists are not climate experts and are often those who purport to know better than those who are actually out in the environment doing the work. I also don't trust sources funded by vested interests, no matter their points of view.

FounDit wrote: Today's environmentalists seem too interested in stopping technological/social advances simply because problems are created.

Huh? You have not and will not find proof of such a general claim.

Educators and businesses and governments are out there providing money and encouragement for innovation and creative ways to solve the problems we have created. We studied the many different brainstorming of such ideas in all three Climate uni courses. Check out a course for proof of that statement.

So far either the ideas cost too much or are not viable - but smart (probably younger) minds will figure it out as I've said many times before.

The "Clean" coal you talked about can prevent up to 50% of emissions and so is encouraged in the meanwhile. They are trying to make sure that CCS - sequestration of CO2 underground is safe. They are looking for other methods of what to do with it and how to prevent it. They hope to find other less harmful methods to stop the production of it completely - just by not burning coal.

What seems foolish to me is to be not only unwilling to embrace the future but to try to actively prevent the NEW developments such as by putting tariffs on solar panels, causing the loss of jobs in that field. It seems wiser to use what already works combined with what we know now for mitigation efforts instead of waiting for some magical revelation of 100% proof and also clinging to and trying to revert to the past in energy sources that have been proven to be detrimental to the wellbeing of animals, humans, and the environment.



Once again agree to disagree is fine with me.

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
FounDit
Posted: Monday, January 29, 2018 10:20:07 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 8,562
Neurons: 46,009
Hope123 wrote:


Once again agree to disagree is fine with me.


Well, after reading your response, I find this to be the only thing in it I can agree with. So it seems it shall ever be thus. But then, we both knew this going in didn't we, as we've been down this road several times? It seems both of us haven't learned any lessons yet...

Brick wall



A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~
will
Posted: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:58:21 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,075
Neurons: 4,345
Time for me to chip in then?

FounDit wrote:
I have listened to, and observed the discussion on "Climate Change" for about 45 years now. I've heard both the pro's and con's. And since absolutely none of the predictions by climate change advocates have come true over that time period, I have remained in the skeptical camp.

Nonsense.

Svante Arrhenius first postulated that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase the Earth's surface temperature, through the greenhouse effect, more than 100 years ago. Since then this basic theory has been extensively tested and every prediction, experiment and data set that has survived the scientific method and peer review fully supports that principle.

In the last 50 years, decade upon decade, year on year, the scientific method – formulate a hypothesis, make predictions, conduct experiments, gather data, then reject or improve the theory – has tested many predictions. Some failed and have been discarded. Many others pass, because they accurately reflect the observable experimental data, and are used to strengthen the reliability of the theory. That’s how science works. Through this method the veracity of anthropic climate change has become so compelling that it has gone from Svante Arrhenius’ personal opinion, to a fringe theory in the 1960’s, to the overwhelming scientific consensus we have today – over 90% across associated sciences, rising to a fraction off 100% in the field of climate science.

To claim “ none of the predictions by climate change advocates have come true” is pure bullshit, and only serves to highlight your ignorance of how science works.

FounDit wrote:
I was also convinced to remain skeptical by the fact that we now know the data has been falsified and manipulated by climate scientists and this has proven to me that I must continue to doubt it.

Nonsense.

I don’t know if you have a specific incident in mind (Piltdown Man perhaps? Think ) but for the current consensus to be based on falsified and manipulated data would require an unimaginably complex conspiracy. This conspiracy would not only need to involve every climate scientist, but it would also require, at the very least, tacit collusion from fields as diverse as zoology, chemistry, geography, physics and oceanography. A conspiracy to falsify and manipulate data on the scale required would also require a collective political or ideological motivation that the world has never before seen. The boards of every scientific body, and every major business (including all the major fossil fuel companies), and every government on the planet (with the possible exception of Trump’s autocratic inner circle) would need to share this collective political or ideological motivation for such a conspiracy to work.

You may be able to imagine the existence of such a collective ideology… but this really is tin foil hat territory.

FounDit wrote:
So whenever I see someone advocating "anthropogenic" climate change, I feel the need to refute it, as there is absolutely no evidence to date that humans are responsible for any of it.

So trying to convince me of it is like trying to convince me to become a believer in gods and religions. I've been told it's true, but I see no evidence of it; just the opposite. So I remain unconvinced.

And very much like the creationist “need to refute” evolution, your “need” has nothing to to with the science.

FounDit wrote:
As for the polar bears, what habitat is shrinking -- the ice? You do know, don't you, that polar bears need to be able to dive into the water to hunt for fish for food? So open water, or less ice, is a good thing for them. They would starve if there was nothing but ice and no way to get into the water.

Are you serious? This is a frankly idiotic line of reasoning.Eh?

FounDit wrote:
Well, again, if you want to live like a Native Canadian, you can. I choose to live in the modern age even with its problems, because I think we can solve them without disrupting industries. It won't be easy, of course. Change never is, but it can be done. We've already see that it can.

This is like someone in the 19th century arguing that we should seek to just solve the problems caused by the whaling and logging industries, and that a move to alternative energy sources is unnecessary because whale extinction and deforestation is not man-made, and should not be disrupted.

First you claim the ‘problem’ has nothing to do with mankind burning fossil fuel and then you say we can solve the problems of burning fossil fuel. You’ve contradicted yourself in this way several times

The overwhelming scientific and political consensus says we need to change to low carbon economies; that change is not easy (as you say) but not because the consensus is based on a lie, but because the facts are contrary to the economic and ideological interests of a powerful minority… a minority that perpetuate the kind of muddled misdirection and pseudo-science that you are repeating here -- such as the “hockey stick” data was based on a single tree... complete bullshit.

FounDit wrote:
Have we frozen to death, as environmentalists first proposed we would back in the 1970's?

I’ve called you out on this before. You chose to ignore it before. It’s dishonest to pretend otherwise. Shame on you

There was no serious scientific support for global cooling in the 1970’s (or any recent time). Although not as strong as it is today, the consensus in the 1970’s was actually predicting what we actually observe today: global warming. In the 1970’s support for a theory of global cooling was about as well supported as the current support for theories that reject anthropic climate change today... i.e practically bugger all.

FounDit wrote:
With all progress over the millennia there have been concurrent problems that arose, and we have dealt with them. I see no reason we won't continue to be able to do so in the future.

The overwhelming scientific consensus says that we haven’t dealt with the problems predicted by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago, problems have arisen, as predicted decade upon decade, year upon year, and supported by empirical observations. However, finally, the political consensus has also now reached the point where there is overwhelming agreement that the problems predicted by the science need to be dealt with.

This issue is no longer up for debate. Apart from a minority aiming to wring the last dime out of the fossil fuel cash cow, and a few tin foil hat wearing ideologists, this issue is settled.

FounDit wrote:
No one denies that the climate changes. What is denied is that we are causing it to happen.

Until recently today’s skeptics were absolutely denying that the climate was changing. Only now that the evidence is so overwhelming has the argument switched to ‘yeah, it’s changing. But it’s not man-made’.

In fact the evidence that it is man-made is now also so overwhelming that there are now very few who even deny that – even Mike Pence could no longer ignore the science… and he believes the Earth is 6 thousand years old. Current skeptics mainly argue about what action we should take.

Again, it’s very much like how creationists moved from denying evolution completely, to accepting ‘adaptation’ through Intelligent Design, and finally to wilful ignorance and self delusion.

FounDit wrote:
One such scientist is Dr. Roy Spencer. There are many others. http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Dr Spencer mainly voices opinions in line with his employers, The Heartland Institute, but they are just opinions. To obtain the credibility of ‘scientists who disagree with the consensus’ he really needs to turn those opinions into scientifically credible hypotheses. Like anyone else, he is total free to do so by submitting his data for peer review and scientific scrutiny. He's yet to do so.

Dr Spencer also rejects evolution in favour of Intelligent Design, and perhaps he’s right. But his opinion that all of biology (and every associated field), most of chemistry and large parts of physics are wrong, in favour of an alternative theory that cannot be tested and for which there is no evidence, has absolutely nothing to do with science.


.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, February 04, 2018 12:26:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
For interested parties...

Lancet is a respected medical journal. This article I received yesterday as a member not only has extensive scientific evidence for the extent of pollution caused illness and links it to the combustion of fossil fuels and land change fueling climate disruption, but also includes the Stern article, an independent commissioned report, that explains the economics of climate change for anyone interested in the real Economics. I only copied a bit and wish readers could see the whole of the articles from Lancet. Email and password is all it takes. The two linked are free articles. But the Stern Report on Economics of Climate Change is all there.

"The Commission estimates welfare losses due to pollution to be more than US$4·6 trillion per year, which is equivalent to 6·2% of global economic output.1"



"Pollution, health, and the planet: time for decisive action"

Lancet Article

References and Works Cited for the above article.

1 Landrigan, PJ, Fuller, R, Acosta, NJR et al. The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. (published online Oct 19.)Lancet. 2017;
Pollution and Health


2 Whitmee, S, Haines, A, Beyrer, C et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet

Commission on planetary health. Lancet. 2015; 386: 1973–2028

3 Stern, N. Stern review report on the economics of climate change. ((accessed Sept 29, 2017).)

Stern: Economics of Climate Change

4 GBD 2016 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017; 390: 1345–1422


...Pollution is the largest environmental cause of disease and death in the world today, responsible for an estimated 9 million premature deaths in 2015.1...

The Lancet Commission on pollution and health is the product of a collaboration between The Lancet, the Global Alliance on Health and Pollution (GAHP), including independent researchers and policy makers, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA. The report was led by Philip Landrigan, an environmental scientist and physician, and Richard Fuller, Founder and President of the non-governmental organisation Pure Earth and the secretariat of GAHP. The Commission's report focuses much-needed attention on the problem of pollution, especially industrial, vehicular, and chemical pollution, and provides actionable and cost-effective solutions to policy makers, while dispelling the myth that pollution is an inevitable consequence of economic development. The Commission identifies knowledge gaps and sets out a research agenda for future work...

...Pollution is a major theme within planetary health because the drivers of climate change, such as the combustion of fossil fuels or land use change, are also important contributors to pollution.


It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, February 04, 2018 12:44:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,542
Neurons: 43,441
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I finally took the advice from other Freedelfians (thanks again) about free photo systems that can be used to link to the Forum. And found one that is easier to navigate. I hope my spam email does not increase again.

Anyhow, it worked. 1. Best protest sign ever.

2. Cree ideology is summed up even if it is a recent poster.







It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
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. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.