The latest on Global warming.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grumblenuts

Member
Neither of us know what the hell we're talking about. So what does this prove?
I know what I'm talking about. Can't speak for you so I try very hard not to.
Sometimes the weather for a particular day is markedly different than it was for decades. Must have left my car running I guess...
Must be off in left field again talking about the weather instead if climate change.
You are very certain that the scientists of the world are correct.
I am very certain that climate scientists the world over agree on climate change to a surprising, likely unprecedented, extent; yet all it takes is a relative few oil soaked billionaires like the Kochs, tossing a million here, ten million there, to get people like you to protect their bottom line, come hell or high water.
I believe their certainty does not qualify as proof. That there are always certainties pushed by all sorts of accredited individuals and organizations that turn out to be false in the future. You double-take and look back and realize you didn't really understand or seek actual proof, you just believed in correlations, suggestions, in the direness and/or enthusiasm of the message, and the constant push of a particular idea over others while seeking to avoid the ridicule and insults that people- like yourself- would use to bludgeon people into complicity should they disagree with the "obvious truth".
Neither do actual scientists. What have you been imagining scientific method is about? One should never waste their time seeking absolute proof or certainty when it comes to nature. What we should seek is reproducible results from repeated testing done by as many as possible, given clear, simple instructions. Finding out what works and reliably so. Holes discovered in theories invite further investigation, refinements, new theories. That's all we've got. All we've ever had.
Oh, and ice cores do not tell you why climate has changed, only that climate has changed., as it has been doing for millions of years. Correlation is not causation.
Very good. But history also tends to repeat itself. Paying attention to it works. Not always. Reliably. Within reason. The Earth will spin toward the Sun again tomorrow, Bet your bottom dollar. Now, once again, why do feel the ice core data's clear indication is suddenly so wrong now? What's your counter theory explaining our recent record growth in global temperature? Who would you go to first for related expertise if not a climate scientist?
There's a lot of things threatening the stability of the environment. However, the state, the media, and scientists seem to be awfully choosey about what to cry about. Drilling oil in the oceans? Fracking? Deforestation? The destabilizing effects of homogenization of our food supply through genetic structuring? The effects of the poisonous air hovering above a number of the most densely populated cities on earth? Completely fine.
Wtf?
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
I know what I'm talking about. Can't speak for you so I try very hard not to.

Must be off in left field again talking about the weather instead if climate change.

I am very certain that climate scientists the world over agree on climate change to a surprising, likely unprecedented, extent; yet all it takes is a relative few oil soaked billionaires like the Kochs, tossing a million here, ten million there, to get people like you to protect their bottom line, come hell or high water.

Neither do actual scientists. What have you been imagining scientific method is about? One should never waste their time seeking absolute proof or certainty when it comes to nature. What we should seek is reproducible results from repeated testing done by as many as possible, given clear, simple instructions. Finding out what works and reliably so. Holes discovered in theories invite further investigation, refinements, new theories. That's all we've got. All we've ever had.

Very good. But history also tends to repeat itself. Paying attention to it works. Not always. Reliably. Within reason. The Earth will spin toward the Sun again tomorrow, Bet your bottom dollar. Now, once again, why do feel the ice core data's clear indication is suddenly so wrong now? What's your counter theory explaining our recent record growth in global temperature? Who would you go to first for related expertise if not a climate scientist?

Wtf?
I figured this was about politics for you...

I'm not sure if you read what I wrote, but I said that the ice core tells you that there was climate change, but it doesn't tell you why. I'm not sure what's clear about an ice core. Scientists were once clear about the age of the Sphinx using radiometric dating until they had to revise their theory.

There's a saying. "Science get's it wrong until they get it right, but to a scientist, they were right all along." I know about the scientific method, and I know about human fallibility. Unless science is beyond this, I choose to wait for more convincing evidence.

Those billionaires are usually the ones funding the scientists...and a good many other things as well. Not that it's necessarily out of the goodness of their hearts. But...in a sense...we've all got a little oil in our hair.

I think we can agree this isn't going anywhere. Agree to disagree?
 

Grumblenuts

Member
How can we be sure volcano's are not the significant source of climate change rather than mankind and his various doings?
Already covered. We measure the radioactivity of air samples with great precision. This tells us how much atmospheric carbon is from fossil sources (like volcanic activity, coal, oil, natural gas) vs surface carbon, again with great precision - over time! We monitor volcanic activity like crazy. It's well accounted for. Are you really arrogant enough to imagine scientists have been ignoring the greenhouse gases produced by volcanoes all this time?
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Already covered. We measure the radioactivity of air samples with great precision. This tells us how much atmospheric carbon is from fossil sources (like volcanic activity, coal, oil, natural gas) vs surface carbon, again with great precision - over time! We monitor volcanic activity like crazy. It's well accounted for. Are you really arrogant enough to imagine scientists have been ignoring the greenhouse gases produced by volcanoes all this time?
We?
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Already covered. We measure the radioactivity of air samples with great precision. This tells us how much atmospheric carbon is from fossil sources (like volcanic activity, coal, oil, natural gas) vs surface carbon, again with great precision - over time! We monitor volcanic activity like crazy. It's well accounted for. Are you really arrogant enough to imagine scientists have been ignoring the greenhouse gases produced by volcanoes all this time?
Yes, my arrogance knows no bounds...

I'm guessing by this you're saying that carbon is responsible to climate change. That's not a new thing because it's a greenhouse gas- one of the things responsible for making our atmosphere livable. You seem to know so how much of the carbon in the atmosphere is natural and how much is man-made?
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
Yes, primarily so. Are you saying it's not?
No. It's kind of like the debate with video game violence. It's there. It does have an effect on people. But is the effect significant enough to drive the violence we see in the greater community and/or world to a significant degree? I don't have an answer on that either.

Carbon is in the air. A lot of it comes from nature, some from us. But the argument seems to be that even though we make up a small fraction of the carbon in the air, it is this carbon- rather than the broad majority of it coming from nature- that's causing climate change?

So now you agree that governments, not "billionaires", primarily fund scientific research?
What I mean is that the government doesn't make money, it receives it. Taxes come in due course, but the money that comes from the billionaires is applied specifically to leverage policy. We've all got oil in our hair...
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
No. It's kind of like the debate with video game violence. It's there. It does have an effect on people. But is the effect significant enough to drive the violence we see in the greater community and/or world to a significant degree? I don't have an answer on that either.

Carbon is in the air. A lot of it comes from nature, some from us. But the argument seems to be that even though we make up a small fraction of the carbon in the air, it is this carbon- rather than the broad majority of it coming from nature- that's causing climate change?



What I mean is that the government doesn't make money, it receives it. Taxes come in due course, but the money that comes from the billionaires is applied specifically to leverage policy. We've all got oil in our hair...
PS. I know about the absorption cycle. I just don't know the validity of the explanation which is my point in the whole thread. I'd need context. For instance, I was a technician. You can bullshit people who aren't techs by feeding them a line of technical jargon that sounds like it makes sense unless you were a tech yourself. I'm not a climatologist. So I'll just back out of this debate here. Takes a lot of time.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
You seem to know so how much of the carbon in the atmosphere is natural and how much is man-made?
That's more statement than question and thank you. If, however, you're asking how we (humans) know...
No. It's kind of like the debate with video game violence.
No, again, answered several times now. Read all about it here. Not dumb to wonder, but also no longer debatable. Educate instead of continuing to just fool yourself.
What I mean is that the government doesn't make money, it receives it. Taxes come in due course, but the money that comes from the billionaires is applied specifically to leverage policy. We've all got oil in our hair...
Sorry, still incoherent.
PS. I know about the absorption cycle. I just don't know the validity of the explanation which is my point in the whole thread. I'd need context. For instance, I was a technician. You can bullshit people who aren't techs by feeding them a line of technical jargon that sounds like it makes sense unless you were a tech yourself. I'm not a climatologist. So I'll just back out of this debate here. Takes a lot of time.
I'm a retired truck driver with a science degree. No excuse.
 
Last edited:

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
That's more statement than question and thank you. If, however, you're asking how we (humans) know...

No, again, answered several times now. Read all about it here. Not dumb to wonder, but also no longer debatable. Educate instead of continuing to just fool yourself.

Sorry, still incoherent.

I'm a retired truck driver with a science degree. No excuse.
Well...a science degree doesn't make a scientist, though I suppose it can make a science fan. But a scientist doesn't necessarily make factual statements, only his idea on facts. We both do.

I don't mind going a little deeper, normally, but honestly, it was a bit trying just to keep posting. Just for your sake, you come off as the arrogant one. Condescending, and I think you believe you know more than you do. Plus you're increasingly insulting. At least Dr. House was right more often than not and you can hang around for a season or two...
 

Grumblenuts

Member
it was a bit trying just to keep posting. Just for your sake, you come off as the arrogant one. Condescending, and I think you believe you know more than you do. Plus you're increasingly insulting. At least Dr. House was right more often than not
Lol. Dr. House, eh? A staunch icon of the scientific community if there ever was one. I'm so hurt now. Sniff! My only remaining hope is that you learned something in spite of yourself. Here, a bit of cheese to go with that whine:
 

Konrad the mediocre

Well-Known Member
No. It's kind of like the debate with video game violence. It's there. It does have an effect on people. But is the effect significant enough to drive the violence we see in the greater community and/or world to a significant degree? I don't have an answer on that either.

Carbon is in the air. A lot of it comes from nature, some from us. But the argument seems to be that even though we make up a small fraction of the carbon in the air, it is this carbon- rather than the broad majority of it coming from nature- that's causing climate change?



What I mean is that the government doesn't make money, it receives it. Taxes come in due course, but the money that comes from the billionaires is applied specifically to leverage policy. We've all got oil in our hair...
Global CO2 emissions (just from burning fossil fuels and cement making) are about 35-40 billion tons annually. There is about 3 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. About a third of the emissions will dissolve into oceans etc but their ability to sequester CO2 is finite and also acidifies them. Over a few decades this will significantly increase the CO2 levels of the atmosphere and has been doing so for a while now.

Edit: Just to comment on your last point, you must mean value, not money as the government (and the central bank) is the source of the money supply. However, the government does create value but it also destroys value. The real question is whether it creates value on a net basis or not. Unfortunately, most discussion on this are almost always idealogical and political and I personally don't know the answer in general. It's hard to measure the value of services like police and sanitation or infrsstructure repair, for example, though it's easy to see the monetary cost.
 
Last edited:

gutmeister

Well-Known Member
Murder is specific. Evil is abstract.
Deforestation is specific. Climate change is abstract.

What I was saying is that things like deforestation will definitely have an impact on the world in the future if it continues without change, but serious environmental impact and climate change are not necessarily the same thing. It would take something considerable to change this in such a small period.

You know volcanoes, right? They can push ash into the environment so quickly and to such an extent that they can seriously threaten to change the climate of the world. We've been having volcano's go off all the time in our time here on earth. Each volcano puts out incredible amounts of force. How can we be sure volcano's are not the significant source of climate change rather than mankind and his various doings?
Yes you make a good point, though it's more deflecting the issue at hand. You're saying that volcanoes are quite possibly more impactful than humans, so why should we care what we do? If you think, which you do, that humans have an adverse impact, the debate needs to be at what level humans are doing "too much." Unfortunately it's impossible to answer, and I for one am not going to stop driving/flying/throwing away lots of trash.

It's sad the question is always framed in a binary way of are is climate change manmade or not. I think "resonable" people will acknowledge 100% of the earth's changing dynamics are of course not due to humans, and equally likely the impact is more than 0. Where it falls in between that, and to what extent it's worth changing our behavior is the tough part.
 

Grumblenuts

Member
Yes you make a good point, though it's more deflecting the issue at hand.
Good point? Denial? Deflection? Whattaboutism? Pretend expertise?
Each volcano puts out incredible amounts of force. How can we be sure volcano's are not the significant source of climate change rather than mankind and his various doings?
Hey, look over there! Volcanoes! Spewing crap all over! Bet ya never even considered that before! So how can we ever be sure!?
As though scientists were suddenly all struck dumb and climate science itself never existed until yesterday. Um, question for Mr. Genius there: What does putting "out incredible amounts of force" have to do with the price of tea in China? Also, by saying "the significant source" do you mean there's only one? The only one we need concern ourselves with? Sure sounds like that's exactly what you meant to convey. Then again, you'll undoubtedly just deny it when pressed. Hey, quit looking at "mankind and his various doings" will ya? Get a load of that over there! Wowza! Would ya just look at that!!!

As diplomats descended on San Francisco for a global climate conference,Brown signed an executive order calling for the state to slash its overall emissions to zero by 2045 and then go negative. Starting in 2046, California would pull more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, year-by-year, than it put in.
Tough titty, fellas. California leads. The rest of us follow. 'Bout time y'all got used to that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.