In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Interesting article on climate change
dpmule
Member Posts: 6,748 ✭✭✭✭
Comments
Brad Steele
"Answers" suing taxation or cultural shifts are the notions of foolish politicians, not leaders.
Climate change due to human caused effects is real. For that, science, engineering and technology must find solutions.
"Answers" suing taxation or cultural shifts are the notions of foolish politicians, not leaders.
Saying humans are responsible for climate change is a scare tactic and without merit.
quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
Climate change due to human caused effects is real. For that, science, engineering and technology must find solutions.
"Answers" suing taxation or cultural shifts are the notions of foolish politicians, not leaders.
Saying humans are responsible for climate change is a scare tactic and without merit.
Claiming that science is a scare tactic is itself a scare tactic. One side denies science unless it favors their political/cultural outlook. The other side abuses science to chase after political/cultural goals. Both sides are wrong headed, neither is working to solve any problem.
quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
Climate change due to human caused effects is real. For that, science, engineering and technology must find solutions.
"Answers" suing taxation or cultural shifts are the notions of foolish politicians, not leaders.
Saying humans are responsible for climate change is a scare tactic and without merit.
It is possible. Pouring billions of tons of CO2 into the air every year could easily change something. However, to suggest that this is abnormal, one would have to discount what would have had to be devastating annual fires that ran rampant across the entire globe for millennia, destroying forests, grasslands, etc.
It is no accident that there are more trees in the U.S. today than when the Europeans reached our shores. Managed forests have not only increase the number of trees, but the rapid growth realized by controlled breeding has caused them to absorb more CO2 per year than a comparable tree 400 years ago. There are issues in the Amazon and Indonesia to be sure, but first world countries (unless one counts China as a first world country) have done an excellent job of managing greenhouse gas emissions over the past couple of decades.
Brad Steele
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Is it the latest 'estimate' of possible temperature increase that 'estimates' a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees? I was awake the day in statistics when we discussed what to do with an 'estimate' with a range of 1(x) to 3(x). I can't wait to meet the idiot who would leave his car with a mechanic who 'estimates' that the repairs to the car will be $1500 to $4500. But call it 'science' and Whoo Doggies....better pay attention.
Perhaps I should be worried about the climate computer models. You know, the ones where 137 runs of the leading models resulted in 'projections' that were ALL above the actual observed data? Finger on the scale comes to mind. So does gullible fools.
Or maybe I should be terribly concerned with the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, although it is only about 0.03% of the total gases, with Nitrogen about 78%, Oxygen about 20%, and Argon a bit less than 1%. Oh, and of the CO2 added to the atmosphere, 97% is from natural sources. Which means man is responsible for 3% of the 0.03% of the atmosphere CO2 makes up. The Horror.
Lost in the hysteria and social engineering being attempted by our good friends on the left, and abetted by the usual drones, is the fact that of the warming that occurred in the 20th century, most occurred in the first decades of that century, and BEFORE 82% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere got there.
Which either equals a sensitivity to CO2 in the atmosphere so high that the climate reacts before the CO2 is even there, which seems unlikely, or it means that the latest attempt by the left to 'Save the World' just happens to require the same solution as all the ones before: 'Fix' Capitalism and 'reform' Western Civilization.
For myself, I am too busy preparing for the famines due to overpopulation that Paul Ehrlich warned us about. We don't have much time left.
Ehrlich said the famines would start in 1980....
Isn't the Earth still coming out of the last Ice Age? Shouldn't temperatures be climbing as part of that cycle?
Climate change due to human caused effects is real. For that, science, engineering and technology must find solutions.
"Answers" suing taxation or cultural shifts are the notions of foolish politicians, not leaders.
I think you forgot the green font. Yes the climate changes every day and it has been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age. It will continue to get warmer until the beginning of the next ice age and so the cycle will continue as it has for 4 BILLION years. Just to put that into perspective, lets just say that man has had an impact on the climate for the last 500 years. That is 0.00125 of 1% of the age of the earth. We were not even around for the last 5 ice ages.
Is taking better care of the environment a good thing? yes absolutely. Anthropogenic Climate change is a scam to redistribute wealth. Pure and simple.
See Figure A... We are still emerging from the last ice age. It is going to get hotter whether you like it or not and whether you continue to drive a V8 and burn coal or not....
This political / cultural abuse does not alter the validity of the science, only the validity of the voices screaming for the First World nations to pay up. Or for that matter that any nation should necessarily have to pay for this.
The answer to net global warming should not be about "pay me". It should be to advance the sciences needed to mitigate the negative impacts and capitalize on the positive impacts (yes, there are some positives). Eventually to find a neutral point between the two.
As for some folks still waiting for the science to be proven, this is not what they are doing. These people chose to ignore it and pretend it is not out there, that it hasn't been proven many times over. There is absolutely nothing that will change their minds.
As for some folks still waiting for the science to be proven
Once again. Please refer to Figure A Published by the DNR.
Refer to where we are now on the graph and where the planet has been for the vast majority of its existence. It has been HOT here a whole lot more of the time than it has been not. And we as humans were not even present for 5 of the last 6 long term warming trends. Pretending that we as inhabitants of the planet are involved in this specific warming trend is delusional and generally indicative of several traits most of which you may or may not share with a certain elected official. Narcissism and Egotism for a start. The entire of humanity including our industrial load on the planet are a mere fraction of the energy reaching us from the sun each day then throw in the energy flux from within the planet itself.
QED
As for some folks still waiting for the science to be proven, this is not what they are doing. These people chose to ignore it and pretend it is not out there, that it hasn't been proven many times over. There is absolutely nothing that will change their minds.
I posted some science. So did CaptFun. You are spouting generalities. Proven many times over? By whom? What experiment did they use? What was the hypothesis? What was the experimental protocol employed?
How about for once you stop acting like the only person on Planet Earth who was issued a brain, and either engage in the discussion at something other than a flyby with a snotty comment level, or kindly STFU.
Here is one for you: What fact, finding, data, or experimental conclusion would in your superior mind DISPROVE the theory of AGW?
Thanks for the reminder.
It's best not to get liquored up and post late in the evening.
quote:Originally posted by ChrisInTempe
As for some folks still waiting for the science to be proven, this is not what they are doing. These people chose to ignore it and pretend it is not out there, that it hasn't been proven many times over. There is absolutely nothing that will change their minds.
I posted some science. So did CaptFun. You are spouting generalities. Proven many times over? By whom? What experiment did they use? What was the hypothesis? What was the experimental protocol employed?
How about for once you stop acting like the only person on Planet Earth who was issued a brain, and either engage in the discussion at something other than a flyby with a snotty comment level, or kindly STFU.
Here is one for you: What fact, finding, data, or experimental conclusion would in your superior mind DISPROVE the theory of AGW?
No, not interested in playing the game of pseudo science VS. science. That's an endless rat hole, there's no bottom to it because the denial of science never stops grabbing at more pseudo science. All anyone has to do is look it up and begin reading. Pick any search engine, look to the references at the bottom of each link you follow and find those. Read those. It's a mountain, you could not finish it all in a lifetime.
The part of this I do agree with all of you about is the politics, and I said so. There has been and will continue to be a very real effort to turn the science into a bludgeon against First World, industrialized nations. By pouring guilt upon those with money and making one population pay for another population to rise out of Third World status.
Separate the politics from the science and you find, in the one hand, a problem that should be worked on like any other problem. While in the other hand, the political residue, well you should have worn a rubber glove on that hand.
Can we all agree that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling? Evidence suggests that it does and that changes take place with or without mankind being involved. The fact is that mankind hasn't really been around long enough to factor heavily into these cycles.
Next I would propose that weather and climate are two distinctly different subjects. This is not to say that they aren't related, just to say that a reading of -20F outside my window is not likely an indication of climate change. It's merely weather which hereabouts is more akin to the weather I experienced as a youngster. In other words pretty normal.
Now to climate change, and it is changing. Then again it was changing yesterday and it will change tomorrow. Climate is not static. And for those obsessed with climate change I might point out that life on earth has apparently survived despite drastic changes having absolutely nothing to do with mankind.
Mankind and climate change? Mankind is a component of life on earth. There are a lot of us and we're pretty good at converting Carbon into CO2. To deny this is irrational as our contribution to CO2 levels is measurable. But just as irrational is the claim that we are the reason for climate change. In my opinion this is a bridge too far.
Overall it seems that our sun is in a cycle of high energy output which apparently is having a measurable warming effect throughout the solar system. Thus, the earth is warming as a consequence. Mankind has contributed considerable CO2 to our atmosphere which tends to allow the retention of a bit more solar heating. Science can measure the human component of our contribution. This I don't question. But we must bear in mind that contribution and cause are not the same thing. Our contribution does not make us the cause. And then what is somehow seldom addressed is the increase in photosynthesis due to a slight warming trend which is converting vast quantities of CO2 back into Carbon and free O2.
It's 7 degrees here at the moment and the stove is cooling, so I'm off to get a bucket of coal and I'm not feeling in the least bit guilty. Al Gore will still get to enjoy his new beachfront property and I doubt it will be inundated by the sea anytime soon. Actually if I thought my coal stove would flood that moron out I'd throw in another bucket just to speed things up.
At least they didn't blame cooking fires for the change in climate.
That is what caused it though. When it was all microwave in the cave all was good, but the whole BBQ-grill-it-on-the-patio and drink beer, started by Gubmintcheese, ruined it for everyone. Too much burned BBQ sauce in the air, and the next thing you get, the ice age is over.
What makes anyone believe that puny humans can actually CONTROL the Earth's climate?
We live on a hospitable rock in the middle of Sagans of other rocks, and we only have the contents of our particular rock to use for our benefit or demise.
Politicians have screwed everyone since we first stepped out of caves to beat back the dinosaurs, & will continue to do so until there are no politicians.
Climate change, with or without humans, is undeniable.
It is not unreasonable to assume that human activity has some effect on climate, at least on some scale such as urban warming.
However, there is no (repeat NO) conclusive measurements of what degree of influence humans have compared to other causes such as solar cycles, volcanism, magnetic field flux, or other earthly lifeforms.
There are also no reliable numbers that show how much if any effect all the various "corrective measures" might make on the climate. We have no idea how much of our deliberate efforts will have, if they have any at all. or if they'll be TOO effective and plunge us right back into another ice age immediately.
The only conclusion we can make is that we know nothing about all this. Nothing at all.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
What climate 'science' has behind it is a bunch of opinions, exactly none of which has been tested by the scientific method and 'Proven'. In fact, most True Believers cannot name a thing that would cause them to change their mind, and so lack the knowledge to understand that an experiment that is not falsifiable, is not science.
As CaptFun's graph shows, we have been coming out of an Ice Age for 2 million years. Somehow that Ice Age, and the ones before it ended and the temperature rose on Planet Earth without the help of Evil SUVs and Al Gore's Airplane.
That alone ought to give pause to those with no knowledge, but lots of opinions. Since it doesn't, I would simply echo what Mr. Perfect has mentioned, and remind people that while we are talking about a possible average temperature rise of a couple degrees over a century, there is a Giant Orange Orb in the Sky that can raise the temperature of the Earth 40 or 50 degrees or more in a day, and maybe, just maybe, that big bright Sun and its cycles ought to be reviewed pretty closely.
After all, the last five Ice Ages ended when Man was not here. The Sun was.
Does anyone know what pilots refer to as the "coffin corner"?
The question is whether or not humankind survives.
Much of our planet is currently uninhabitable without significant intervention by technology. Much of our planet is not arable. This is not the future. This is now. Dispute if you will. But these things are facts.
Our planet and its climate is sensitive. I chose that word carefully. I didn't choose fragile. I chose sensitive. If you disagree, fine. I can't do a thing to help you. Ignore El Ni?o and La Ni?a. They aren't future. They are now. And their impact should be obvious. Ignore the changes in the polar ice caps if you wish. Do they spell doom for mankind? I don't know. Are they within normal ranges? Not a clue.
Can climate be significantly changed by relatively minor events? Yep. Google "little ice age". I'm pretty confident that with a reasonable effort and relatively little skill, we could replicate those conditions and put a hurting on a huge chunk of the population.
But I do know that our planet's history contains multiple mass extinction events. So if mankind were wiped from the face of the planet it would be within "normal" ranges.
There is compelling evidence that mankind has an impact. We can debate how much. But to claim there is no impact is foolishness.
That's my take on the science.
Now before I get called a liberal again, let's talk about the politics.
I give not a rats * about carbon credits or marching in earth day parades or negotiating with China and Pakistan about their taxation of carbon emissions.
But to say that mankind has no impact on climate is scientifically disingenuous and foolishness.
We can debate whether it is more or less than the methane emissions of millions of American Bison that we murdered in our march to the pacific. (Who knows- someone argue we are net positive- and make up some data!) But don't try to tell me there is no impact.
The earth will surely survive.
Does anyone know what pilots refer to as the "coffin corner"?
The question is whether or not humankind survives.
Much of our planet is currently uninhabitable without significant intervention by technology. Much of our planet is not arable. This is not the future. This is now. Dispute if you will. But these things are facts.
Our planet and its climate is sensitive. I chose that word carefully. I didn't choose fragile. I chose sensitive. If you disagree, fine. I can't do a thing to help you. Ignore El Ni?o and La Ni?a. They aren't future. They are now. And their impact should be obvious. Ignore the changes in the polar ice caps if you wish. Do they spell doom for mankind? I don't know. Are they within normal ranges? Not a clue.
Can climate be significantly changed by relatively minor events? Yep. Google "little ice age". I'm pretty confident that with a reasonable effort and relatively little skill, we could replicate those conditions and put a hurting on a huge chunk of the population.
But I do know that our planet's history contains multiple mass extinction events. So if mankind were wiped from the face of the planet it would be within "normal" ranges.
There is compelling evidence that mankind has an impact. We can debate how much. But to claim there is no impact is foolishness.
That's my take on the science.
Now before I get called a liberal again, let's talk about the politics.
I give not a rats * about carbon credits or marching in earth day parades or negotiating with China and Pakistan about their taxation of carbon emissions.
But to say that mankind has no impact on climate is scientifically disingenuous and foolishness.
We can debate whether it is more or less than the methane emissions of millions of American Bison that we murdered in our march to the pacific. (Who knows- someone argue we are net positive- and make up some data!) But don't try to tell me there is no impact.
how about: there is no meaningful, measurable, or impactful impact.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Can climate be significantly changed by relatively minor events? Yep. Google "little ice age".
Uhm yeah.. Back to Figure A. We are barely off the bottom of the last Ice age. The climate is going to change and it is going to do it with or without us. I like Randy's analogy the moon does impact the sun (very very very slightly) however, the sun will eventually go into a red giant phase and destroy everything out to the orbit of mars and your driving a prius (which is a bad idea, but we can have another thread about that) isn't going to stop it. The whole climate change BS is about redistribution of wealth NOT about changing anything, because frankly thats not going to happen.....
The DNR is as reliable an authority on global climatic change as Georgia Tech is at basketball.
[:D]
I reject "figure a" in its entirety.
The DNR is as reliable an authority on global climatic change as Georgia Tech is at basketball.
[:D]
At one time we were quite respectable in the area. However, in order to maintain our exceedingly high standards of academic achievement, the school had to pick between a good hoops program and being a good school. I had several classes with Mark Price, Larry Sally and Yvon Joseph. They all went to the NBA, but Yvon only played one game. All he really wanted to do was go back to his native Haiti and put his Engineering degree to work. Last I heard, he had a successful business building water purification systems. Huge dude... Super nice.
Also, there is no gravity. The Earth just sucks.
Both slogans off a poster I got years ago. They seemed as apropos as most of the 'science' here.
I am off to open my refrigerator door and cool the planet. Crisis averted.
You are welcome.