Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: David Sutton on March 22, 2017, 12:59:24 am

Title: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on March 22, 2017, 12:59:24 am
Hello folks.
I don't want to invest time discussing climate change with deniers, but if you do, here's a stab in the heart for them:
http://www.blastr.com/2017-3-8/if-we-assume-global-warming-hoax-what-should-we-expect-see
Interesting read though, regardless.
David
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on March 22, 2017, 01:31:46 am
Hello folks.
I don't want to invest time discussing climate change with deniers, but if you do, here's a stab in the heart for them:
http://www.blastr.com/2017-3-8/if-we-assume-global-warming-hoax-what-should-we-expect-see
Interesting read though, regardless.
David

There are no climate change deniers, who know anything about climate change. At least I've never met one. Everyone with even an iota of common sense and understanding of climate issues, understands that climate has always been changing throughout history and will presumably continue to change.

2,000 years ago there was a warm period during the height of the Roman empire. A thousand years later there was a warm period that allowed the Vikings to inhabit Greenland, grow crops and breed cattle.

In the present time, another thousand years later, we are into the modern warming period. The increase in Co2 is probably a correlation, not a cause of the current warm period.

Increased CO2 levels have a benefit for agriculture and the general greening of the planet. We should capitalise on that fact.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: stamper on March 22, 2017, 05:08:26 am
Hello folks.
I don't want to invest time discussing climate change with deniers, but if you do, here's a stab in the heart for them:
http://www.blastr.com/2017-3-8/if-we-assume-global-warming-hoax-what-should-we-expect-see
Interesting read though, regardless.
David

If you don't want to waste time discussing climate change with deniers why start the thread? I can think of one or two members who will do just that. :(
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Rand47 on April 08, 2017, 12:04:02 am
Hello folks.
I don't want to invest time discussing climate change with deniers, but if you do, here's a stab in the heart for them:
http://www.blastr.com/2017-3-8/if-we-assume-global-warming-hoax-what-should-we-expect-see
Interesting read though, regardless.
David

Yup... we should all strive vigorously for climate stasis.  Humans exhale about three billion tons of CO2 per year.  The solution to the problem of "saving the planet" seems pretty straightforward.   

Rand
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: LesPalenik on April 08, 2017, 12:13:55 am
From the link in OP.
Over time, we’re getting hotter. 2014 was a record hot year, beaten by 2015, itself beaten by 2016. In fact, 15 of the 16 hottest years ever recorded have been from 2001 – 2016.

If the trend continues, we should get ready for a really hot 2017.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on April 08, 2017, 05:24:08 am
As I've mentioned before, I'm certainly not a climate change denier. I accept that climate is always changing and I'm very glad we are currently in a warming phase. I don't like cold weather.

From the following environmental history site: https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/

"The Little Ice Age was a period of regionally cold conditions between roughly AD 1300 and 1850. The term “Little Ice Age” is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold. There were two phases of the Little Ice Age, the first beginning around 1290 and continuing until the late 1400s. There was a slightly warmer period in the 1500s, after which the climate deteriorated substantially, with the coldest period  between 1645 and 1715 .

During this coldest phase of the Little Ice Age there are indications that average winter temperatures in Europe and North America were as much as 2°C lower than at present.

There is substantial historical evidence for the Little Ice Age. The Baltic Sea froze over, as did many of the rivers and lakes in Europe. Pack ice expanded far south into the Atlantic making shipping to Iceland and Greenland impossible for months on end. Winters were bitterly cold and summers were often cool and wet. These conditions led to widespread crop failure, famine, and population decline. The tree line and snowline dropped and glaciers advanced, overrunning towns and farms in the process. There were increased levels of social unrest as large portions of the population were reduced to starvation and poverty."


If mankind's activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution are largely responsible for our current warming phase, which I doubt, then we should be eternally grateful.

It's reasonable, and even likely, that all the activities of mankind lumped together, including deforestation, urbanization, industrialization, a population explosion, and even CO2 emissions, might have contributed to some extent to the current warming phase.

However, it would have been a very unusual climate event if the current warming phase had not taken place. The geological record shows that during the past 3,000 years or so there have been successive cycles of cooling and warming of around 400 to 600 year periods.

The last cooling period began around 1300 AD, 700 years later one might reasonably expect a change to warmer conditions, regardless of mankind's activities.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 08, 2017, 05:25:11 am
From the link in OP.
Over time, we’re getting hotter. 2014 was a record hot year, beaten by 2015, itself beaten by 2016. In fact, 15 of the 16 hottest years ever recorded have been from 2001 – 2016.

If the trend continues, we should get ready for a really hot 2017.

You may be right about 2017, but there's only one way we'll find out.
I just read the replies to the post I made above.
Like I said, I'm not putting energy in to discussing the approaching train with those uninterested in getting off the track.
I think it's all about assessing risk and developing appropriate resilience. What most of us have been doing all our lives in one way or another.
In places that enjoy the Western standard of living there are several likely catastrophes approaching in the next decade or so. Whether they are inevitable or not I have no idea, but I'd be foolish not to look at strategies for coping while I can.
Resilience for me means being integrated in a smaller community where we have access to mental, emotional, spiritual, cultural, experiential and physical resources. Nice place, this.
Living in the South Island of New Zealand we have a special event of our own approaching. The Alpine Fault ruptures on average every 300 years and is due now. Who knows whether it will be in my lifetime, but my risk assessment says I'd be silly not to be prepared.
I lived a few kilometres from the epicentre of the Christchurch earthquake. It threw my home over a metre upwards and sideways at 2g and split it in two. Wooden houses are good. I lived in it well enough for the next 3 years while the insurance got sorted.
When the Alpine Fault goes it will be about 700 times stronger (if I have my Richter scale correct) and the epicentre will be 400 km long. You may see why I'm a little paranoid.  :D
Nothing to be done about the quake itself, but all of the above resilience strategies apply. I'm working now on an inexpensive back up water supply and a hybrid solar system. Maybe a cheap generator to help the neighbours. Then I'll stop thinking about it, keep enjoying my life and maybe even start reading the thread on Trump.
No, I lie. That's going too far.
David
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Rob C on April 08, 2017, 10:45:35 am
David, why not just go the extra metaphorical mile and just move elsewhere?

Rob
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 08, 2017, 05:51:51 pm
Rob, every place has its problems and benefits, as you know living where you do. You can move somewhere and find that that due to climate change the local one-in-100-years floods are now every 5 years. You can step out your door and get hit by a truck.
I like it here, I've put down roots. It may not happen in my lifetime. If it does, there are people from Christchurch spread all over the South Island and we know what to do to help communities survive.
Today the sun is shining, the potatoes need lifting, the apples need storing and Mary, who lives nearby and moved here from Ireland some 70 years ago, has offered me her left over peaches to bottle.
They'll be very nice over the coming winter on my porridge.
David
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 16, 2017, 04:21:51 am
I'd like to enlarge on a comment I made above. While some may not agree on the cause of change, we may agree that change is coming. The problems we face with climate change are just part of the larger ones coming soon. Here is my list in no particular order.

The end of economic growth.
I realised in the 1970s that only economists and lunatics believed in endless economic growth, but I hadn't thought through the consequences. Now that economic growth has effectively ceased in most countries, and all we have left are ponzi schemes, bubbles and dodgy accounting, that time is upon us. Not just pensions, the banking system, stock markets, and local government, but a lot of our social structures have been predicated on growth. Let's just consider the banking system. As the things I list below take effect, the debt to asset ratio for banks becomes unsustainable as assets (mortgages, loans etc) decline in value. This process is being accelerated by the unprecedented wave of shady lending that has taken place since the 2008 crash. The banking system has moved from "too big to fail" to "too big to bail out".
When you wake one morning to find the atms, banks, and credit cards have closed down for a few months, it will be interesting to see which side the police and armed forces take in the ensuing riots. Likely time frame left: 1 to 3 years.

The end of oil.
 We were given to understand that as oil slowly petered out over 30 or 40 years, the price of a barrel of oil should increase until it was unaffordable. A more likely scenario is thermodynamic. How much energy is used up in extracting, refining and transporting? Barring some technological breakthrough, at some point the energy available from a barrel will be entirely used up in extraction, refining and transporting. At which point oil production ceases immediately and any form of transportation, agriculture, industry, and employment dependent on it will vanish. Under this scenario we'd expect the price per barrel should on average drop as less energy and thus less profit is available from each barrel. In about 2012  50% of the energy per barrel was used up getting the final product out to the world. We are now running at about 75%. Likely time frame left: 10 years.

Climate change.
An unknown time frame but probably not a linear process. So if you live near sea level, now is the time to move. Where to go needs local knowledge as weather events become more extreme making rare drought and floods the new norm.

Economic warfare.
1) Within a country. As economic difficulties increase, the wealthy classes plunder the assets of everyone else. Example: In the USA the salaried class mouth platitudes about "black lives matter" while throwing those same people under the economic bus in order to save a few dollars on the cost of an iPhone. Similarly they will happily see a huge rise in homelessness rather than let the value of their property drop.  The jobless and the soon-to-be-jobless (those on wages) know this and are taking action, beginning with the ballot box. If you think Trump is bad wait until you see what comes next.
2) Between countries.  As economic difficulties increase, the wealthy countries plunder the assets of everyone else. Example: What Germany is doing to Greece, followed soon by Italy, Portugal and Spain until the Euro and/or the ECC collapses.

If you wonder what all this will look like, just visit almost any city in the USA not part of the financial or tourist centres. You'll see cracked footpaths, potholed roads and other infrastructure coming apart, empty shops and houses, an education system that doesn't educate, unaffordable medical care and racketeering disguised as a political system.

The structure of our world is complicated and nobody really knows how or when this will play out. Here are my suggestions for what to do, for what that's worth. Mostly they are the things any human being should be trying anyway.

Humans have always done better in communities. Those who take to the hills will find that there's no place left on Earth without some locals. Locals know if an individual turns up sitting on a pile of food, fuel and cash. What could possibly go wrong? Work on being useful in your community and on making your community resilient.
Avoid making your identity and sense of self worth dependent on your job and possessions.
Without going overboard, have enough cash to cover your needs for a month.
Have enough food in the house to manage one or two weeks without going out. If you live in an earthquake zone add water and fuel to that.
Live within cycling distance of farmers.
Grow produce of your own.
Learn a useful skill.
In the past, economic growth and inflation made borrowing a sensible plan. But now is the time to get rid of debt.
Strengthen yourself emotionally and spiritually.
Assess where you stand and take what action you can, then avoid obsessing about something that hasn't happened yet.
If you have assets, diversify.
David

Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on April 16, 2017, 09:26:41 pm
I'm not one that calls this a hoax. That's just crazy conspiracy talk IMO.

It's just that I can't wrap my head around the way the scientific method is being used to prove 100% that we can control the crazy weather we're having by reducing carbon emissions.

Where was the blind side by side repeatable test that confirmed this as proof.

The whole point is that we don't like our crazy weather and we're the cause of it, but there's been no evidence that we can keep alternating El Ninia and El Ninio weather patterns from creating low and high pressure variations from heated Pacific waters from pushing tons of water eastward across Mexico and into Texas where I have to say we've been having some crazy weather patterns.

How do we prove if we reduce carbon emissions we'll see an end to crazy weather in Texas and not just see it show up somewhere else on the other side of the globe?
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: LesPalenik on April 16, 2017, 11:28:03 pm
I'm not one that calls this a hoax. That's just crazy conspiracy talk IMO.

It's just that I can't wrap my head around the way the scientific method is being used to prove 100% that we can control the crazy weather we're having by reducing carbon emissions.

Where was the blind side by side repeatable test that confirmed this as proof.

The whole point is that we don't like our crazy weather and we're the cause of it, but there's been no evidence that we can keep alternating El Ninia and El Ninio weather patterns from creating low and high pressure variations from heated Pacific waters from pushing tons of water eastward across Mexico and into Texas where I have to say we've been having some crazy weather patterns.

How do we prove if we reduce carbon emissions we'll see an end to crazy weather in Texas and not just see it show up somewhere else on the other side of the globe?

That cannot be guaranteed, and maybe the current trends can't be reversed anymore. But if the pollution continues, there is a good chance that the weather wil become even more extreme and unpredictable (not counting additional natural disasters).
   
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 16, 2017, 11:29:26 pm
How do we prove if we reduce carbon emissions we'll see an end to crazy weather in Texas and not just see it show up somewhere else on the other side of the globe?

We don't, we can't. The sort of thinking that caused the problem is now being used to try to solve it. How is that going to turn out well?
David
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on April 16, 2017, 11:53:16 pm
We don't, we can't. The sort of thinking that caused the problem is now being used to try to solve it. How is that going to turn out well?
David

Then I don't see the point in having scientists spend this much money in research to indicate there is a problem that now can't be solved because it's too late and/or can't or won't be able to test if it's solved many years later.

Geez, all this high end, expensive research and measuring to collect data that merely boils down to saying the sky is falling. OK, now we know how are children are going to die, so let's live now.

Doesn't this fall under the philosophical quote..."God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."?

Except it will take a lifetime to plow through all the data collected in hopes we can reverse engineer the weather patterns and tie it to too much carbon emissions.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 17, 2017, 01:05:51 am
Then I don't see the point in having scientists spend this much money in research to indicate there is a problem that now can't be solved because it's too late and/or can't or won't be able to test if it's solved many years later.

Geez, all this high end, expensive research and measuring to collect data that merely boils down to saying the sky is falling. OK, now we know how are children are going to die, so let's live now.
Well, there are two issues. The first is finding the evidence that shows there is a problem. That seems money well spent.
The second is "what is to be done?" I wouldn't look to science for that. Not saying that's a waste of money, just that it's as much a political and social issue as anything else.
Interestingly, I read an article today "Doctors have decades of experience fighting “fake news.” Here’s how they win." at
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/14/15262034/fight-fake-news-doctors-medical-community
which addresses the question of tackling deniers in some practical ways.

Doesn't this fall under the philosophical quote..."God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."?
Yes, a profound approach. I don't think climate change, economic collapse and the termination of oil are the end of the world. Just the end of this world. Humans will find new dreams. It's just that we have likely made the transition nasty.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on April 17, 2017, 04:23:56 am
Following are some of the issues as I see them, which I believe are based upon reality, but I'm always willing to adjust my opinions when sound, contrary evidence is provided. The true deniers are those who are in denial about the nature of the scientific methodology which is based upon repeated experimentation in real time and the very essential process of attempts at falsification of any particular theory.

An interesting example of the essential role of falsification attempts in the scientific methodology occurred to me a few years ago when I was reading about the ancient Greek concept of how we visually see things.

I was surprised to discover that the ancient Greeks, or at least many of the notable ancient Greek scholars such as Plato, believed that we are able to see because our eyes project a light onto whatever we are looking at. This is known as the Emission Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory_(vision)

After first encountering this bit of history, which was probably particularly attention-grabbing because of my interest in light and photography, I puzzled as to why those ancient Greeks were not able to debunk that theory. The theory persisted for many centuries.

The reason would appear to be, that those ancient Greeks, who were among the first to engage in some sort of scientific process, had not really formulated a scientific methodology, which came much later.

A very easy way to falsify the Emission Theory of vision, in those ancient times, would have been to create a completely dark room cut off from all external light. If one person in the room cannot see anything, that might not be conclusive. One could argue that the emission from just one person is not sufficient to light up the room. So one could then progress to admitting more and more people into the room until they were all packed in like sardines. If still no-one could see anything, then the Emission Theory would be successfully falsified, and that would have been progress.

With regard to the effects of slight increases in CO2 levels on climate, falsification is difficult because of the large times scales involved, the great complexity of the issue, and because of the lack of sufficiently detailed and accurate measurements from the past.

However, there are peer reviewed studies that show there has been a time lag between warming events in the past and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, implying that increased levels of CO2 could be a consequence of warming rather than a cause.

There are also studies which reveal that previous climate changes have been much more rapid than our current warming phase, with temperatures in Greenland rising by 8 to 15 degrees C in just a few decades. When an alarmist climate scientist tells you that our current warming is the most rapid in the past 20 million years, don't believe him.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097

"One of the most surprising findings was that the shifts from cold stadials to the warm interstadial intervals occurred in a matter of decades, with air temperatures over Greenland rapidly warming 8 to 15°C. Furthermore, the cooling occurred much more gradually, giving these events a saw-tooth shape in climate records from most of the Northern Hemisphere."

I could go on, and on, and on, but I'll leave it for now.  ;D
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on April 17, 2017, 09:11:25 am
With regard to the effects of slight increases in CO2 levels on climate, falsification is difficult because of the large times scales involved, the great complexity of the issue, and because of the lack of sufficiently detailed and accurate measurements from the past.

Not true, there is lots of relatively accurate data available.
Quote
However, there are peer reviewed studies that show there has been a time lag between warming events in the past and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, implying that increased levels of CO2 could be a consequence of warming rather than a cause.

Not true, have a look at this TED talk by James Hansen at 9:10 to 10:22 it is explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWInyaMWBY8
A weak initial forcing was amplified to much larger levels by the release of CO2 and Methane and Ice sheet reduction.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Otto Phocus on April 17, 2017, 09:26:28 am
What I don't agree with is when someone has a disagreement, no matter how slight with the current hypothesis, they are labeled a denier.

I have met very very few climate change deniers.  I have met many people, a lot of them scientists, that have specific concerns about the data and how it is being analyzed.  They are hardly deniers, but more challengers.

To scientifically challenge something is not the same as denying it.

I feel that in some cases, the label denier is used to stifle conversation by dismissing any challenge.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 17, 2017, 06:21:38 pm
What I don't agree with is when someone has a disagreement, no matter how slight with the current hypothesis, they are labeled a denier.

I haven't come across that but no doubt it happens.
You are right to say there is a difference between challenging the deductions of a particular study and stifling conversation in general.
When I use the term climate change denier I'm thinking of those who originally denied it was happening, and now have moved on to deny humans are the cause.
As to their motivation, who can say? Perhaps it is an emotional weakness, that they can't face a future without their current way of life. Or maybe an intellectual one in that they are too lazy to examine the huge body of research. Perhaps they are selfish and unwilling to help coming generations, or have vested interests in the status quo or are plain potty. Whatever.
David
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 17, 2017, 06:38:21 pm
Geez, all this high end, expensive research and measuring to collect data that merely boils down to saying the sky is falling. OK, now we know how are children are going to die, so let's live now.

Tim, I was thinking about this overnight. For myself climate is not an issue on which I feel I can make any difference.
The risk we run is being immobilised by helplessness. There are other issues we can work on so future generations won't say we sat on our hands.
Two things I feel I could generate some movement on are the use of palm oil and RoundUp, so I've started with the latter, looking for ways we can engage with each other here and build our networks and strength. You may get some ideas of your own if I may try your patience and outline the strategy.
I began with my local church. They are a national organisation so have ready made connections. I wrote an article on the thinking behind herbicides to radicalise the parish, and the upshot was that a group was formed.
Others from the wider community got involved and we began by drawing lessons from the failure of the climate change movement. We published the relevant studies on glyphosate on the parish website. Aware that nobody would wade through that stuff, and that personal stories work better, we made a poster with the headline "How safe is RoundUp?" with the sub-heading "Monsanto claim RoundUp is safe. Here's what they said about DDT" Underneath is an advert from the 1950s for DDT wallpaper for a child's bedroom. Guaranteed non hazardous.
We are working with the local council and I see no reason change won't happen.

FYI, here is an analysis of why the climate change movement failed, from the point of view of what should have been done:

1_ Consider whose wallets will be most affected if your campaigns are successful. If it is only those on low wages then rethink. Aim to offer something for everyone with no single social class carrying all the costs.
2_ Avoid making entire sectors of the economy feel threatened. Make room for exceptions. Not every farmer uses poisons. Offer positive steps for change.
3_ Avoid a campaign based on "don't". People get fed up and leave. To engage people you need to offer them something to look forward to. This can be better times or blood, sweat and tears and a long struggle, but make sure you carry a vision of a better world.
4_ A campaign only led by scientists will be limited. Scientific thinking is one reason we are where we are.
5_  Avoid developing a culture of intolerance which refuses to acknowledge differences of opinion over questions of long term planning, tactics, and who has the "truth".
6_ Aim for goals that are attainable not evangelical.
7_ Be wary of engaging with party politicians. Supporting one party over another has doomed many a campaign.
8_ Stick to your purpose to conserve your resources and energy; let others help your campaign, avoid helping other people's campaigns.
9_ You cannot do everything. You may be attacked you for using a car or buying imported chocolate. There is no such thing as being compromise free.
10_ "A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones."  Proverbs 17:22
      "Gift us with that light-heartedness of those who know that every cause of ours that is good is
        Yours before it is ours.”  Fr. Richard John Neuhaus talking to God.
      “Angels fly because they can take themselves lightly.” G. K. Chesterton
David
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on April 18, 2017, 08:34:50 am
I haven't come across that but no doubt it happens.
You are right to say there is a difference between challenging the deductions of a particular study and stifling conversation in general.
When I use the term climate change denier I'm thinking of those who originally denied it was happening, and now have moved on to deny humans are the cause.
As to their motivation, who can say? Perhaps it is an emotional weakness, that they can't face a future without their current way of life. Or maybe an intellectual one in that they are too lazy to examine the huge body of research. Perhaps they are selfish and unwilling to help coming generations, or have vested interests in the status quo or are plain potty. Whatever.
David

David,
I agree with Otto Phocus. The term 'climate change denier' is a pejorative term of the nature of an Ad Hominem attack.
I first began thinking about the climate change issue about 20 years ago when the media began giving it more attention and documentary programs on radio began interviewing certain outspoken scientists on the issue, such as James Hansen, and James Lovelock who was the author of the Gaia Hypothesis.

From Wikipedia:
"The Gaia principle, proposes that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet. Topics of interest include how the biosphere and the evolution of life forms affect the stability of global temperature, ocean salinity, oxygen in the atmosphere, the maintenance of a hydrosphere of liquid water and other environmental variables that affect the habitability of Earth."

Since I was quite ignorant in those days on matters of climate, I would have had no reason to doubt the word of notable scientists, and I accepted the premise that increased, human-induced CO2 levels were a potential problem that should be addressed.

My main concern in those days, was in connection with the pathetic attempts by governments to address the issue. That was my topic of conversation amongst friends. Why aren't governments setting a moratorium on the production of petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles, for example, in order to encourage the development of electric cars?

I live in the countryside about an hour's drive from the city. I have no problem with atmospheric pollution, but I do notice it when I photograph the city from a hill top, even on a clear day. The pollution and haze is from vehicles. There are no coal-fired power stations in the city.

My change in attitude began when I started investigating the issue for myself, as a result of a natural curiosity. I recall listening to an interview of James Hansen in which he was asked to describe the origins of the concerns about rising CO2 levels. Hansen described the results of the NASA explorations and observations of the climate on Venus, which is similar in size and composition to the earth, but closer to the sun.

He said Venus is extremely hot, and too hot to support life, and  has a very high concentration of CO2.
The interviewer then suggested, if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions our planet will eventually become like Venus. As I recall, Hansen did not answer yes or no, and did not respond with any further information about Venus.

The obvious question that occurred to me, after listening to the interview, is what are the actual levels of CO2 on Venus.? Why did Hansen not mention this during the interview?

So I did a search on the internet and discovered that the atmosphere of Venus consists of 96% CO2. It's no wonder that James Hansen did not mention that trivial fact. At that time CO2 levels on earth were about 0.038%. How valid is a comparison between 96% and 0.038%?

As I continued investigating issues about climate and searching for what I thought were very relevant facts which were glossed over or never mentioned during the interviews of  the climate scientists, and reports in the media, it became very obvious to me that there was a tremendous bias in play.

Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: LesPalenik on April 20, 2017, 05:52:47 am
North Atlantic shipping lanes have already witnessed 616 icebergs this year. Last year, 687 icebergs were spotted from the start of the year to September, according to CTV. Experts said the surge is due to unusually strong counter-clockwise winds, and perhaps the effects of global warming.

(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/iceberg-newfoundland.jpg?w=720&quality=85)

http://time.com/4746814/ferryland-newfoundland-canada-iceberg/
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 20, 2017, 06:24:39 am
North Atlantic shipping lanes have already witnessed 616 icebergs this year. Last year, 687 icebergs were spotted from the start of the year to September, according to CTV. Experts said the surge is due to unusually strong counter-clockwise winds, and perhaps the effects of global warming.

A startling photo.
What have I learned? There are climate change sceptics who for example may argue about the methodology in a particular study, and the are climate change deniers who pose as sceptics but you can spot them this way. Offer a well researched study and they will blather on about what their aunt May said back in '69 or that some scientist somewhere couldn't answer some question.
They have absorbed in depth the arguments against, but never immersed themselves the real scientific spadework.
I recall about five years ago a scientist who was a climate change denier, I think it was Richard Muller, was funded to disprove the whole theory on global warming and the human connection. Alas he was really a sceptic disguised as a denier, and after exhaustive research changed his views completely.
Did he get a big thank you from his supporters? An "Oh, so we were wrong about this all along"? 
No, he got death threats.
David
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on April 20, 2017, 10:49:20 am
A startling photo.
What have I learned? There are climate change sceptics who for example may argue about the methodology in a particular study, and the are climate change deniers who pose as sceptics but you can spot them this way. Offer a well researched study and they will blather on about what their aunt May said back in '69 or that some scientist somewhere couldn't answer some question.
They have absorbed in depth the arguments against, but never immersed themselves the real scientific spadework.
I recall about five years ago a scientist who was a climate change denier, I think it was Richard Muller, was funded to disprove the whole theory on global warming and the human connection. Alas he was really a sceptic disguised as a denier, and after exhaustive research changed his views completely.
Did he get a big thank you from his supporters? An "Oh, so we were wrong about this all along"? 
No, he got death threats.
David

I see you are still confused on this issue, David. All climate change deniers are total ignoramuses. The first thing that anyone who is interested in climate change learns is that climate is always changing. It has always changed in the past and it is reasonable to presume it will always change in the future.

Such changes occur in cycles of great variability. The biggest changes are known as Ice Ages. There have been perhaps 8 of them during the Earth's history. In between each of these Ice Ages there are frequent smaller cycles of warming and cooling.

The last Ice Age peaked about 21,000 years ago and is described as having ended about 11,500 years ago. We are currently in an interglacial period of slight warming with lots of 'ups and downs'.

Our ancestors, of the Homo Sapiens variety, were able to migrate to Europe about 60,000 years ago because sea levels were so low. The Aboriginals of Australia didn't need boats to arrive in Australia. They could walk across what are now oceans.

After the peak of the last Ice Age, sea levels sometimes rose by as much as 3 or 4 metres in a century, but on average about 1 metre per century.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/

The issues are, to what extent is the current warming period due to human-induced CO2 emissions, and is the current warming likely to be harmful to mankind, or perhaps of benefit to mankind, irrespective of the cause.

It's quite possible that an enhanced warming due to our CO2 emissions might delay the onset of another Ice Age, or at least another Little Ice Age, and in the meantime we can benefit from increased plant growth.

Nevertheless, the photo in the link from LesPalenik is spectacular. Without a bit of global warming, such a photo would not have been possible in that location.  ;)
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on April 20, 2017, 02:40:52 pm
I'm a climate change agnostic in that I haven't seen the scientific method applied to prove we can control the weather by just controlling one element of the periodic table while excluding all other variables that prevent us from accurately predicting the weather except on a weekly basis at best.

If it's the effects of the weather we're worried about, first prove how we can change it to our advantage. That hasn't been clearly shown to be possible.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: pearlstreet on April 20, 2017, 02:54:02 pm
I'm a climate change agnostic in that I haven't seen the scientific method applied to prove we can control the weather by just controlling one element of the periodic table while excluding all other variables that prevent us from accurately predicting the weather except on a weekly basis at best.

If it's the effects of the weather we're worried about, first prove how we can change it to our advantage. That hasn't been clearly shown to be possible.

We have documented a lot of coastal erosion here and were interviewed for a TV show on coastal erosion. The meteorologist who interviewed us agreed with what you said, Tim.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Robert Roaldi on April 20, 2017, 03:13:00 pm
I'm a climate change agnostic in that I haven't seen the scientific method applied to prove we can control the weather by just controlling one element of the periodic table while excluding all other variables that prevent us from accurately predicting the weather except on a weekly basis at best.

If it's the effects of the weather we're worried about, first prove how we can change it to our advantage. That hasn't been clearly shown to be possible.

We probably don't need to control the weather to cause problems. It is probably enough to perturb it out of balance faster than the eco-system can respond.

Also, from what I read, many of you are criticizing the modelling work in the field based on the assumption that the models/theories/discussions only look at one variable. Unless you're actively working in the field, I can only assume that you are basing this belief on media reportage. This is risky as it is probably too much to ask that they get the details right. If we (you) can think of things that are wrong with those models, then I'm fairly confident that all the researchers in the field have done so as well.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Adam L on April 20, 2017, 03:37:15 pm

My change in attitude began when I started investigating the issue for myself, as a result of a natural curiosity. I recall listening to an interview of James Hansen in which he was asked to describe the origins of the concerns about rising CO2 levels. Hansen described the results of the NASA explorations and observations of the climate on Venus, which is similar in size and composition to the earth, but closer to the sun.

He said Venus is extremely hot, and too hot to support life, and  has a very high concentration of CO2.
The interviewer then suggested, if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions our planet will eventually become like Venus. As I recall, Hansen did not answer yes or no, and did not respond with any further information about Venus.

The obvious question that occurred to me, after listening to the interview, is what are the actual levels of CO2 on Venus.? Why did Hansen not mention this during the interview?

Did you consider that Venus being closer to the Sun is what causes Venus to be so hot?   http://spaceweather.com/
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 20, 2017, 05:31:31 pm
Huh, here's a coincidence. I just read this article:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11122015/climate-change-global-warming-denial-ugly-side-scientists-hate-mail-hayhoe-mann

Apparently, harassment and threats are now routine for scientists and journalists working on global warming.
David
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on April 20, 2017, 08:41:12 pm
Did you consider that Venus being closer to the Sun is what causes Venus to be so hot?   http://spaceweather.com/

I think there would be many factors contributing to the hot temperatures on Venus. Not only is Venus closer to the sun than planet Earth and receives about twice the intensity of sunlight as Earth, it has a very weak magnetic field and a very slow rotation which results in very long days. The time from one sunrise to the next is the equivalent of 117 Earth days.

James Hansen did not mention these facts when he made the analogy, nor the fact that the Venus atmosphere is almost entirely CO2 (about 96-97%).
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on April 20, 2017, 08:46:48 pm
Huh, here's a coincidence. I just read this article:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11122015/climate-change-global-warming-denial-ugly-side-scientists-hate-mail-hayhoe-mann

Apparently, harassment and threats are now routine for scientists and journalists working on global warming.
David

Harassment, threats and bullying are now a common occurrence on social media on so many issues, and I certainly do not condone that. People who engage in such threats and ad hominem attacks are ignorant in my opinion.

I imagine this problem has been fuelled by the way the media has reported on the issue of climate change, and the way they have organized the interviews with climatologists.
Generally, they have failed to distinguish between the natural and ongoing changes of climate and the possible influences of the very slight increases in CO2 levels (0.028% to 0.04% during the past couple of hundred years).

I'm sure there are many people in the general public who have no understanding of the geological record of past changes in climate and just assume that the climate has been steady and unchanging for the past millennia, or at least since the beginning of civilization.

The media, and the climatologists who have used the media seem to have deliberately created a message of alarm rather than try to educate the public on climate matters in a balanced way.

They have also created a false sense of certainty about the role of miniscule percentages of atmospheric CO2.
I recall viewing a long interview featuring the late Stephen Schneider who was a leading researcher on climate, at Stanford University. Members of the audience were allowed to ask questions and one such question was directed at the increasing level of certainty expressed by the IPCC that the current warming phase was due to human-induced CO2. How was such certainty calculated?

Schneider's answer was revealing. He admitted that the 95% certainty was not a scientific calculation but was a figure chosen in order to grab attention so that people would take the issue seriously.

That's in accord with my general impression of the messages of climatologists as expressed through the media. Exaggerate the negatives and ignore the positives.
The very term 'Climate Change Denier' and it's association with Holocaust Denial, is a misleading and provocative term. It's perhaps no wonder there has been a backlash.

Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on April 20, 2017, 09:19:00 pm
Also, there is only so much alarm that people can tolerate. Most people are concerned about their jobs, financial security, owning their own home, living in a clean environment, reducing costs through the increased efficiency that technology can bring, and feeling safe that their property or farms are not exposed to extreme weather events.

Instead of trying to change the over all global climate by reducing CO2 levels, governments should be addressing the real issues of poverty and corruption, and the vulnerability of many people, even in developed countries, to natural and expected extreme weather events.

In the interests of economic development China has polluted its cities and caused significant health problems. The pollution and health problems are not due to CO2.
In Australia we've had alternating droughts and floods for thousands of years, yet governments do not take appropriate measures to build more dams and ensure that houses in cyclone areas are built to withstand the strength of previous, known cyclones that have occurred in the area.

Creating alarm about CO2 merely distracts attention (and money) from these more certain risks that affect peoples' well-being.


Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on April 20, 2017, 11:01:31 pm
We have documented a lot of coastal erosion here and were interviewed for a TV show on coastal erosion. The meteorologist who interviewed us agreed with what you said, Tim.

Yeah, erosion occurs all around the world. Floods that raise the water line over ten feet throughout my local spring fed river move tons of bottom gravel and dirt to one side of the banks to another where some of it gets dropped off a mile downstream. I've seen this with my own eyes snorkeling this approx. 4 mile river for ten years now through about 5 separate floods of varying depths and severity.

River's still there and folks water front property still intact. There are so many variables that change the flow and amount of water that has nothing to do with weather. The lay of the land, the number of newly built parking lots up the tops of hills near the river, a newly built dam that slows the momentum of water. The list is too numerous to recall here.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on April 20, 2017, 11:11:11 pm
We probably don't need to control the weather to cause problems. It is probably enough to perturb it out of balance faster than the eco-system can respond.

Then what's the point of controlling CO2 amounts? It's called global climate change for a reason. We want to prevent the climate from changing (usually away from the bad) by reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere.

We don't like the severity of the weather depending on where one lives on the globe. So when it's good, no one raises an issue. When it's bad, it gets lots of coverage on the news (news reported by a very small group of people who make them self appear like they speak for the entire world). I see that more as an imbalance of weather reporting over maintaining balanced weather.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Otto Phocus on April 21, 2017, 06:49:13 am
I enjoyed reading

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (2001)by Bjørn Lomborg

As a scientist, although not an environmental scientist, I appreciate his concern about how the data is collected, processed, and analyzed.
If you don't have control over the data sources, you don't have control over the study.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 21, 2017, 07:02:27 pm
I enjoyed reading

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (2001)by Bjørn Lomborg

As a scientist, although not an environmental scientist, I appreciate his concern about how the data is collected, processed, and analyzed.
If you don't have control over the data sources, you don't have control over the study.

I haven't read Lomborg's book but understand he's a statistician, not an environmental scientist. The difficulty with a statistical approach lies in the detail.
We may have more land in forest now than 100 years ago, but that forest may be a monoculture and we have lost biodiversity in cleared rain forest. Example: I recall flying over South East Asia in the late 1960s and there was tropical rain forest as far as the eye could see. Last year on a similar route all I could see was palm oil plantations.
Many places have less pollution now than 50 years ago, but the pollution we have is longer lasting and more environmentally dangerous.

I'm not referring to Lomberg here, but climate change deniers follow the standard route used by many politicians and others. Cherry pick data, set up a straw man, use irrelevant statistics, quote the extremists, and the "some scientist said something some time and was wrong" approach.
So one ends up having to write a full page reply to adequately deal with a one sentence claim. That's one reason I generally don't engage with them while I can be more productive elsewhere. I doubt there is anything to done about man-made global warming, and certainly not by me.
David
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on April 22, 2017, 03:52:32 am
I haven't read Lomborg's book but understand he's a statistician, not an environmental scientist. The difficulty with a statistical approach lies in the detail.
We may have more land in forest now than 100 years ago, but that forest may be a monoculture and we have lost biodiversity in cleared rain forest. Example: I recall flying over South East Asia in the late 1960s and there was tropical rain forest as far as the eye could see. Last year on a similar route all I could see was palm oil plantations.
Many places have less pollution now than 50 years ago, but the pollution we have is longer lasting and more environmentally dangerous.

These effects of human activity you've mentioned above are not related to CO2 emissions. Reducing CO2 emissions is not going to increase forest growth.

Quote
I'm not referring to Lomberg here, but climate change deniers follow the standard route used by many politicians and others. Cherry pick data, set up a straw man, use irrelevant statistics, quote the extremists, and the "some scientist said something some time and was wrong" approach.

Can you give us some examples of this so-called cherry picking by so-called deniers? I would suggest that the cherry picking by these so-called deniers is done in order to create a balance because of the cherry-picking by the alarmists.

Quote
So one ends up having to write a full page reply to adequately deal with a one sentence claim. That's one reason I generally don't engage with them while I can be more productive elsewhere. I doubt there is anything to done about man-made global warming, and certainly not by me.

That sounds to me as though you are not seriously concerned about the issue if you cannot be bothered to write a full page reply in order to clarify a point.
As I've mentioned before, my concern about the alarm generated about human-induced CO2 emissions, is that such alarm is not scientific, and is not balanced in a way that presents all known relevant factors.

When climatologists talk about their research in the media, it seems to me they are wearing a 'different hat', a bit like a claimed Christian who is enrolled in the army to fight a war. His religion tells him to love his enemies, but his government tells him to kill his enemies.

I'll give you a one-page example of a bias in the reporting of the effects of increasing CO2 levels, with regard to ocean acidification.
I mentioned in the other thread that I started, called the Climate Change Hoax, that I was rather puzzled why a climatologist, or even a marine expert, would give a talk on the dangers of ocean acidification without even mentioning what the pH of the oceans actually is.

Those who are not particularly curious about such issues would tend to presume that the oceans were already acidic and getting worse. Everyone understands that acid can be harmful. It has a negative association.

Now why would a climatologist or marine expert, during an interview, not even bother to mention what the current pH of the oceans is estimated to be, and how much it has reduced during the past couple of hundred years?

Well, to answer that question, all you have to do is search the internet, where you will discover that a pH of 7 is neutral, below 7 is acidic, and that the current average pH on the surface of the oceans has fallen from 8.2 to 8.1 during the past couple of hundred years, approximately, and perhaps very approximately.

Such a small reduction in pH levels does not sound alarming. That's why the alarmists would not mention it. That's an example of cherry picking the data.
It's also revealing that BartvanderWolf responded to my post, in the other thread, that a 0.1 reduction in pH levels represented a 30% reduction in alkalinity, which is another example of a misleading statement designed to create alarm. 30% sounds very significant. It implies we're almost a third of the way to complete neutrality, beyond which, acidity rules.

However, the pH scale is logarithmic for good reason. "Acidity Percentage" is not common chemistry terminology and doesn't have much meaning. In order to go from a pH of 8.2 to 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, the reduction in percentages terms is 900%. The image at the bottom of the page shows the connection between percentages and pH levels.

In case you want to question my sources, this image is from NOAA who seem to believe that CO2 rises will be a problem.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/A+primer+on+pH

This site also mentions the following:
"Calling this phenomenon “ocean acidification” when surface seawater will remain “basic” under future emissions scenarios is alarmist."

"Many scientists have observed that natural variability in seawater acidity (and thus pH) is strong and can be much larger on short time scales than the observed and projected changes in acidity due to ocean acidification over the scale of decades to centuries. While this is true, the reason that scientists are concerned about this slow, long-term change is that it constitutes a changing baseline."

However, what this article does not mention is the obvious fact that sea creatures will tend to swim towards parts of the ocean that have a more suitable alkalinity for their survival. Humans tend to be stuck in the same place, because they've bought a house and have a job in the locality. Fish, dolphins, whales, and so on, are free to move to the most conducive sea environments. If they don't like a part of the sea which is too acidic, they'll move. They are often not as stupid as humans.  ;)



Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 22, 2017, 11:39:21 am
There's a thoughtful article by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) here (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159792630956/big-red-flag-for-cognitive-dissonance).

Jeremy
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Ray on April 22, 2017, 08:01:39 pm
There's a thoughtful article by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) here (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159792630956/big-red-flag-for-cognitive-dissonance).

Jeremy

Thanks for the link, Jeremy. I tend to agree with Scott Adams' assessment of the situation. The following point he made in his blog seems spot on.

"Climate scientists probably believe they have convinced about half of the public to their side using their graphs and logic and facts. That’s not the case. They convinced half the public by using fear persuasion disguised as facts and logic. And it probably worked best with the people who have the least knowledge of how often complicated prediction models have failed in the past."
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 22, 2017, 09:56:01 pm
There's a thoughtful article by Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) here (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159792630956/big-red-flag-for-cognitive-dissonance).

Jeremy

Hi Jeremy.
Scott Adams writes well, as you'd expect, but I think his hypothesis misses the bigger picture. Namely the total failure of the climate change movement. There are lessons here for anyone involved in advocating a cause.
As I posted earlier, here are some thoughts on this.
Any campaign led only by scientists is doomed. Not just getting one's head around the modelling techniques and data, but scientific thinking itself is one reason we are where we are. People know this.
The climate change movement never considered whose wallets would be affected, and made entire sectors on the economy feel threatened.
Their campaign was largely based on "don'ts".
They developed a culture of intolerance (they made enemies).
Their aims were evangelical and not attainable.
They supported one political party over another.
They spread their resources by getting involved in other issues.
As this thread is about deniers, I'm not getting into the science, but I think at any rate that the psychology of the advocates and the deniers is more interesting at present.
David

Edit: Bother, I forgot to add to the list Sun Tzu's first strategy lesson: "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
My feeling is that the climate change movement's efforts were that noise.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: LesPalenik on April 22, 2017, 10:33:55 pm
Hopefully, something will come out of all the science marshes and awakenings of scientists and wide masses.
Here is an interesting CBC interview (9 min. video) with Lucky Tran, a Washington based scientist and an organizer of science protest activities.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/lucky-tran-and-the-march-for-science-1.4081167
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 23, 2017, 03:58:55 am
Scott Adams writes well, as you'd expect, but I think his hypothesis misses the bigger picture.

David, I didn't want, and I read Adams as not wanting, to get involved in the actual issue. I did find the concepts he discussed to be interesting, and of wider application. Received wisdom is sometimes not very wise.

I don't pretend to understand the details of the climate change arguments, or how natural change over time can be distinguished from anthropogenic change. I do have a scientific background, though, which I like to think allows me to appreciate the limits of my understanding. I'm not sure that all others in the argument have such humility.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 23, 2017, 05:29:02 am
David, I didn't want, and I read Adams as not wanting, to get involved in the actual issue. I did find the concepts he discussed to be interesting, and of wider application. Received wisdom is sometimes not very wise.

I don't pretend to understand the details of the climate change arguments, or how natural change over time can be distinguished from anthropogenic change. I do have a scientific background, though, which I like to think allows me to appreciate the limits of my understanding. I'm not sure that all others in the argument have such humility.

Jeremy

Yes, I understand and don't disagree.
I studied computer meteorology at university, but that was almost fifty years ago. I think that rules me out discussing the science in detail.
I do enjoy reading about whether a link between two factors is causative or associative. But I've noticed it's often poorly understood and years before an issue like that is thrashed out.
David

Completely and totally off topic: We students were allowed access to the faculty's desktop computer. It was the size of a small car and used punch tape. Tape was a blessing as the alternative was using a bent paper clip to punch holes in cards. You never got it right and the printout came back the next morning with a list of errors. When I got my first windows machine in 2006 I was horrified at how little progress had been made in writing an operating system.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: LesPalenik on April 23, 2017, 06:30:37 am
Yes, I understand and don't disagree.
I studied computer meteorology at university, but that was almost fifty years ago. I think that rules me out discussing the science in detail.
I do enjoy reading about whether a link between two factors is causative or associative. But I've noticed it's often poorly understood and years before an issue like that is thrashed out.
David

Completely and totally off topic: We students were allowed access to the faculty's desktop computer. It was the size of a small car and used punch tape. Tape was a blessing as the alternative was using a bent paper clip to punch holes in cards. You never got it right and the printout came back the next morning with a list of errors. When I got my first windows machine in 2006 I was horrified at how little progress had been made in writing an operating system.

When it comes to essentials, hardly any more progress was made 10 years later in Windows 10. If anything, the OS got more bloated and slower. The only things which hide how little progress was made, have been the advances in the CPU and graphics chips.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Alan Klein on April 23, 2017, 09:20:48 am
When it comes to essentials, hardly any more progress was made 10 years later in Windows 10. If anything, the OS got more bloated and slower. The only things which hide how little progress was made, have been the advances in the CPU and graphics chips.
I think the people who write programs are also the same people who you speak to when you have a problem with a piece of equipment or an app and need technical guidance to explain how to get it to work properly.  These people think they speak to technical users and just lose you.  And I say this as a technically savvy person who worked in the computer and electronic industry all my life.  They don't write simple and clear instructions regarding use of the equipment or app either and just assume you know what they mean.  So one has to assume that if the same type people don't think clearly enough to express themselves clearly to you then their program writing skills will be just as inept. 
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on April 23, 2017, 10:43:48 am
When it comes to essentials, hardly any more progress was made 10 years later in Windows 10. If anything, the OS got more bloated and slower. The only things which hide how little progress was made, have been the advances in the CPU and graphics chips.
The WinOS (never used a Mac so can't comment) is far more stable today.  I've not had a BSOD since Win7 was introduced.  Desktops can access far more RAM than before.  Also don't ignore the advances that have been made in programming languages.  I learned CS back in 1969 doing Fortran on an IBM mainframe with punch cards.  Don't ever want to revisit that time again!!
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on April 23, 2017, 02:39:11 pm
Completely and totally off topic: We students were allowed access to the faculty's desktop computer. It was the size of a small car and used punch tape.

Ah, I remember using punched tape when I was at Cambridge. We had a PDP-7, which was ancient even then but had exciting peripherals such as a graphics screen, a light pen and a trackball, none of which was available on the University's IBM/370. The PDP sat in two 7-foot filing cabinets and had 8k of core memory. I entered my first program by toggling the switches to write the 18-bit words one by one. Later, someone wrote a BCPL compiler which ran on the /370 and made life an awful lot easier.

Nostalgia. Not what it used to be.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 23, 2017, 05:48:31 pm
Ha! A PDP-7. That's positively modern. I programmed on a PDP-1.

P.S. Maybe we need a new thread about "Computer Change Deniers." 

(For a long time after Windows was on the scene I asserted that MS-DOS 3.1 was Microsoft's last stable operating system. Now I don't bother any more.)
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: Peter McLennan on April 23, 2017, 05:59:53 pm
Ha! A PDP-7. That's positively modern. I programmed on a PDP-1.

Ultramodern!  For me, IBM 360.  Magnetic core memory, FORTRAN and punch cards.
Title: Re: Climate change deniers
Post by: David Sutton on April 23, 2017, 10:39:08 pm
Thank you folks for your contributions. It has been educational.
I feel the purpose of this thread has been fulfilled and now is a good time to close it. As you may have guessed, it was not about the arguments of climate change deniers.  ;)
Closing it also allows me to go completely off topic again and express my own views as a layman on the climate change discussion. Here goes.

There are two types of religious fundamentalists: those who believe nothing in the bible is true and those who believe everything in it is true. Both do err.
We've seen the same thing in the climate change debate. That's not surprising that it borders on a religious debate. People naturally look for final and definitive answers where the reality may be quite different. I tend to avoid discussions with both groups of true believers.

There is no doubt that there is a link between human activity since the industrial revolution and a rise in greenhouse gasses. There is no doubt of a link between a rise in greenhouse gasses and global warming. There is no doubt of a link between global warming and climate change. This is very basic research.
The question is whether the links are causal and whether climate change will be catastrophic.
In the case of the link between human activity and greenhouse gas the answer is yes, it's causal. CO2 levels over centuries are relatively easy to measure both directly and indirectly, and to attribute a source. Other gasses such as CH4 are a little more difficult I believe. How do you measure the amount of cow farts from industrial-scale farms?
To keep this short, I'm lumping global warming and catastrophic change together when looking at their link to the rise in greenhouse gasses.
There may be several ways to establish a causal link. One is to look for answers in the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere. Another may be to establish a model with a proven predictive ability.
The problem with the latter is that it may be too conservative. You will know as photographers that side effects from editing an image in Photoshop are both cumulative and multiplicative. The same for the climate. Example: we don't know the effect of the release of CH4 from melting permafrost. We believe there is a huge amount locked up but we don't know. We aren't sure about the effect on the planet's albedo from human activity such as aircraft exhausts. In the USA scientists were able to measure that when air traffic was shut down after the Twin Towers attacks. From memory I think it was in the order of one to two degrees C cooling.
Another option is observation. We are doing that now and I find that approach convincing. I'm not looking for ironclad proof. That's a waste of time IMO.

So I'm in the camp of a likely catastrophic change. But nasty as that experience may be, I hold some hope for the outcome. Hope however is more religious than scientific, so if you are uncomfortable with that stop reading now (I'm influenced by the work of Thomas Berry).

Violence is part of the natural order from the beginning of the universe, but not its main purpose. As far as I can tell the main aim of the universe is beauty, perhaps along with an evolving awareness of justice, mercy etc. Example: the emergence of carbon and its spread throughout the universe over billions of years would not have been possible without the cataclysmic implosion of countless stars.
Chaos and cataclysm seem built into the DNA of the universe in order for new forms to emerge, and its creative energy to continue.

Apart from the climate, we are seeing the breaking down of our cultural institutions: the economy, religions, education etc.
Many of our institutions are incompatible with life on Earth. Example: free market capitalism and the beliefs of our religions about our place in the universe. What is our place in the universe? I'll take a stab at that. Every species has something unique. Humans seem to have the unique ability of reflective consciousness. The ability of creation to look at itself. That humans are now capable of destroying all life on Earth is evidence of their importance here.
So my hope is that this destructive period is a process of emergence that will end in something better for our world. However it's just that, a hope.
It would be usual to end with some fancy quote on the nature of hope. Google is your friend here.  :)

David