Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24   Go Down

Author Topic: Skepticism about Climate Change  (Read 10926 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10331
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2017, 08:35:30 PM »

That really got to you didn't it Bernard? Sort of like somebody questioning the Pope if you're Catholic.

Not the most impressive answer you have come up with Russ. ;)

It isn't even a good example, a majority of the catholics I know do question the pope a lot.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 04:35:03 AM by BernardLanguillier »
Logged
A few images online here!

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9143
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #41 on: April 27, 2017, 07:32:23 AM »

When a small investor asked J.P. Morgan, "Mr. Morgan, what will the market do?," Morgan replied, "The market will fluctuate."

Climate is just like the market, Bernard. It will fluctuate, and has fluctuated since the beginning. We're in a warming period at the moment. We were in a cooling period during the "little ice age." Humans hate change, so there's always a panic on the more excitable fringes of humanity when change takes place.

It's best to remember another famous saying, often attributed to P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute." Suckers always fall for the head-rattling that accompanies change. It's best to avoid the temptation to be a sucker.

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10331
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #42 on: April 27, 2017, 08:58:25 AM »

When a small investor asked J.P. Morgan, "Mr. Morgan, what will the market do?," Morgan replied, "The market will fluctuate."

Climate is just like the market, Bernard. It will fluctuate, and has fluctuated since the beginning. We're in a warming period at the moment. We were in a cooling period during the "little ice age." Humans hate change, so there's always a panic on the more excitable fringes of humanity when change takes place.

It's best to remember another famous saying, often attributed to P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute." Suckers always fall for the head-rattling that accompanies change. It's best to avoid the temptation to be a sucker.

Sure, climate has been fluctuating. The point is the speed at which it does fluctuate. But you knew this already.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9143
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #43 on: April 27, 2017, 12:17:36 PM »

Yeah. We'd better run for it!

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6958
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2017, 12:27:10 PM »

When a small investor asked J.P. Morgan, "Mr. Morgan, what will the market do?," Morgan replied, "The market will fluctuate."

Climate is just like the market, Bernard. It will fluctuate, and has fluctuated since the beginning. We're in a warming period at the moment. We were in a cooling period during the "little ice age."

The debate is about understanding the driving forces for these climate fluctuations, and if they are man-made how do we cope with the effects if they are undesirable? Understanding the driving forces will also allow to make predictions, assuming we can come up with a model that works well with explaining/simulating the historical and current data based on those driving forces. With a model we can change one or more variables, and see what the result is.

The current models tell us that the current warming up is mostly man-made, AKA Anthropogenic, and CO2 is the main feedback source for the rapid/accelerating change of recent times. If we make predictions based on the man-made increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we find a whole range of bad effects. And since it is caused by human behavior, we can also stop or reduce doing that if that is possible, which it is.

Quote
Humans hate change, so there's always a panic on the more excitable fringes of humanity when change takes place.

Humans will even like the alternative, i.e. the effects of continuing pollution, much less. So it would seem logical to reduce changing the man-made warming up before the damage becomes irreversible.

Quote
It's best to remember another famous saying, often attributed to P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute." Suckers always fall for the head-rattling that accompanies change. It's best to avoid the temptation to be a sucker.

The best way to avoid becoming a sucker is getting educated.

If one is willing to do that I can recommend this series of 36 videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
It is easy enough to follow even for non-scientists and accurate / unbiased enough to learn from. Unfortunately, a lot of them are needed to debunk popular unscientific information. The benefit on the other hand is that these fake reports will become easier to spot, and lots of them are parroted in various forms here in these threads.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9143
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #45 on: April 27, 2017, 02:09:10 PM »

The debate is about understanding the driving forces for these climate fluctuations, and if they are man-made how do we cope with the effects if they are undesirable? Understanding the driving forces will also allow to make predictions, assuming we can come up with a model that works well with explaining/simulating the historical and current data based on those driving forces. With a model we can change one or more variables, and see what the result is.

Bart, I'm all in favor of understanding the driving forces, but as soon as you use the word "model," I tend to ROTFL.

I did software engineering for thirty years after I retired from the Air Force, and as I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread "The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it." So far, none of our "models" has come even close to predicting actual climate behavior." I don't have a problem with testing and modeling, but so far our testing and modeling have reached no valid conclusions, though we're being told by the testers and modelers that the end of the world as we know it is in sight. It's very obvious that the validity of the premises is suspect, and, from what I've read, there's considerable question about the validity of the data being fed into our questionably premised "models." Thus far the whole climate change, global warming thing is politics. That's the bottom line.

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6958
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #46 on: April 27, 2017, 02:50:31 PM »

Bart, I'm all in favor of understanding the driving forces, but as soon as you use the word "model," I tend to ROTFL.

I did software engineering for thirty years after I retired from the Air Force, and as I pointed out in an earlier post in this thread "The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it." So far, none of our "models" has come even close to predicting actual climate behavior."

Sorry, that's just not true. The combined effect of Solar irradiance and CO2/Methane/aerosols/water-vapor already give a pretty solid model. For local conditions, one obviously needs to further refine the model (e.g. ocean currents and vegetation/surface albedo). Increasing the number and accuracy of observations will only improve the confidence level of the fit, and of the predictions.

Quote
I don't have a problem with testing and modeling, but so far our testing and modeling have reached no valid conclusions, though we're being told by the testers and modelers that the end of the world as we know it is in sight.

You should then do some source-checking, because that's not what is being predicted. What is established is that solar irradiation alone leads to a gradual cooling of the global temperature. It's due to the CO2 feedback effects that the net global temperature is increasing. That means that CO2 causes more than a reversal (because we're still adding excessive amounts of CO2) of the temperature trend from solar irradiation alone.

Quote
It's very obvious that the validity of the premises is suspect, and, from what I've read, there's considerable question about the validity of the data being fed into our questionably premised "models." Thus far the whole climate change, global warming thing is politics. That's the bottom line.

What is obvious is that you have not been informed well.

This should automatically update monthly (at the moment of posting, data includes March 2017, we're at 407.05 ppm):


No model needed, just observation.

For temperature, see attachment.
No model needed, just observation.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9143
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #47 on: April 27, 2017, 03:26:14 PM »

Bart, I can find a world of reference material just as convincing as what you've posted that gives the lie to what you've posted, but I'm not going to do that. Yes, CO2 is up, but there's no indication it's actually affecting global temperatures. That's an assumption. This whole thread is leading nowhere, and I'm out of here.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 03:29:49 PM by RSL »
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6958
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #48 on: April 27, 2017, 04:19:07 PM »

Bart, I can find a world of reference material just as convincing as what you've posted that gives the lie to what you've posted, but I'm not going to do that. Yes, CO2 is up, but there's no indication it's actually affecting global temperatures.

The effects of Carbon gasses like CO2 and Methane are known for more than 150 years, and its effect on the climate has been known since the 1950's or so. It has the effect of a greenhouse, it transmits solar radiation in the visible spectrum and absorbs near InfraRed radiation that's emitted from the earth, which heats up the atmosphere and increases the amount of water vapor which in turn absorbs longer wavelength Infrared radiation that CO2 would otherwise let escape. Together they are an effective container of heat radiation, without which the earth would be as cold as the moon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI&index=2&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

Quote
That's an assumption.


No, it's basic physics, theory supported by actual measurements.

Quote
This whole thread is leading nowhere, and I'm out of here.

As you wish, but closing one's eyes doesn't make it go away ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6553
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #49 on: April 27, 2017, 06:20:33 PM »

As you wish, but closing one's eyes doesn't make it go away ...



If you stick your head in the sand, it leaves your butt up in the air where it'll get burned by the heat  ;)
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10331
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2017, 07:58:39 PM »

Bart, I can find a world of reference material just as convincing as what you've posted that gives the lie to what you've posted, but I'm not going to do that. Yes, CO2 is up, but there's no indication it's actually affecting global temperatures. That's an assumption. This whole thread is leading nowhere, and I'm out of here.

Nothing is ever 100% sure, we agree. Our models may not be 100% correct, we agree.

Now the fact that CO2 contributes to warming is probably 99.999% certain.

What is only 99.99% certain is that man contributes significantly to the increase of the level of CO2 on earth.

What is only 99.9% certain is that this is the dominant factor causing global warming.

What is only 90% certain is what effects the warming is going to have on the lives of millions of people, mostly in developing countries already hit very badly by poverty. Their shit, right?

What makes me sick is that all this denial results from the fact that admitting to these things would prevent some cowboys from continuing to drive their Ford 250 pick up truck... in the name of "freedom". Talk about selfishness turned into a religion. ;)

The reality is that this collective effort towards non action is pretty much the same thing as putting a gun on these people's heads and pulling the trigger. The only differences is that you don't see them die and that their death will occur in 20-30 years.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 10:28:09 PM by BernardLanguillier »
Logged
A few images online here!

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9682
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #51 on: April 27, 2017, 10:25:50 PM »

Just to get things into perspective, the current levels of atmospheric CO2 are estimated to comprise just 0.04% of the atmosphere, having risen from 0.028% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The average global temperature since the beginning of the industrial revolution is estimated to have risen by around 0.8 degrees centigrade. This figure can only be a very rough approximation because of the lack of accurate, modern thermometers a hundred or two hundred years ago. In order to get some idea of past temperatures scientists have to make reconstructions using proxies such as tree rings, lake sediments, ice cores, corals, and so on.

During the past century, sea levels are estimated to have risen by about 160mm, a bit over 6 inches. How fortunate we are. In the past, after the last ICE Age, sea levels rose by an average of one full metre per century, and occasionally as much as 3 or 4 metres in just one century.

There are many ongoing problems that humanity faces, such as poverty, health problems, food shortages, eternal conflicts, wars, terrorism, the destruction and loss of life due to natural events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, floods and hurricanes, and the real pollution of our planet due to the release of toxic chemicals from farming, various industrial processes, and of course out-dated fossil fuel power plants, and motor vehicle emissions.

All of these problems will continue with certainty if we don't tackle them. Directing our efforts and resources to tackling far less certain issues and problems, such as the possible adverse effects of rising CO2 levels, doesn't make sense to me.

If Bernard really believes it is 99.9% certain that man's emissions of CO2 is the dominant factor causing the current period of global warming, I think he's living in 'cloud cuckoo land'.  ;D

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10331
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #52 on: April 27, 2017, 10:31:10 PM »

If Bernard really believes it is 99.9% certain that man's emissions of CO2 is the dominant factor causing the current period of global warming, I think he's living in 'cloud cuckoo land'.  ;D

This "belief" is substantiated by the best available data and mathematical models and, as a result, by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1146
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #53 on: April 27, 2017, 10:47:20 PM »

Earlier Deniers

Dr. Ignác Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician of ethnic-German ancestry, known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures, discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards.

Despite various publications of positive results, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9682
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #54 on: April 27, 2017, 10:49:08 PM »

This "belief" is substantiated by the best available data and mathematical models and, as a result, by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Cheers,
Bernard


How do you know, Bernard? Are you 99.9% certain that only the best available data is used and that the mathematical models are at least 99.9% accurate?

Who is in a position to assess the quality of all the data, the accuracy of all the models, and interview all the scientists involved, whilst subjecting them to a lie-detector test?

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10331
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #55 on: April 27, 2017, 11:43:14 PM »

Earlier Deniers

Dr. Ignác Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician of ethnic-German ancestry, known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures, discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards.

Despite various publications of positive results, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.

Sure, there have been major breakthrough and changes of paradigm throughout the history of science. The discovery of the mechasims by which desease spread is one of them.

Do climo-sceptics propose such fundamental shifts in our undersranding of climate mechanisms to explain with a higher level of credibility the changes we measure in our weather?

That's not what I see.

I see very large economical lobbies spreading misguiding stories to undermine the credibility of science on the grounds of un-perfect certainty. But science has never claimed to propose certainty, only a good correlations btwn reasonable hypothesis and facts at hand.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9682
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #56 on: April 28, 2017, 12:08:37 AM »

Do climo-sceptics propose such fundamental shifts in our undersranding of climate mechanisms to explain with a higher level of credibility the changes we measure in our weather?
Cheers,
Bernard

No they don't. It's the alarmists who are proposing fundamental shifts in our understanding of climate, by claiming that the current, slight warming period is driven by miniscule rises in atmospheric CO2 whilst initially denying the fact that previous warm periods in recent history have occurred, which were not related to human-induced CO2, and which were generally of benefit to those past civilizations.

Quote
But science has never claimed to propose certainty, only a good correlations btwn reasonable hypothesis and facts at hand.


The figures of 99% and 99.9% you mentioned in your previous post sound like a very high degree of certainty to me, much higher than the probability one will get lung cancer if one continues smoking.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2017, 12:38:48 AM by Ray »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9682
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #57 on: April 28, 2017, 12:15:58 AM »

Earlier Deniers

Dr. Ignác Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician of ethnic-German ancestry, known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures, discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards.

Despite various publications of positive results, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.

I fail to see the relevance, Les. There has never been a period in the history of science when a new theory is not challenged, at least eventually. That's the nature of the scientific methodology. Often, some of those challenges prove to be correct.

Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo were not the first people to challenge the theory that the earth is the centre of the universe.
The heliocentric view that the Earth revolves around the Sun had been proposed as early as the 3rd century BC by Aristarchus of Samos. It took many centuries before this heliocentric theory was confirmed.

When the human genome was first cracked a few decades ago, it only included a small percentage of the genes which were considered to be relevant, the protein-encoding genes. The rest of the genome, about 98%, was thought to be junk DNA, ie. non-coding DNA which served no purpose and was just a hangover from our early evolution.
Geneticists are now gradually understanding that this so-called junk DNA does serve a useful and necessary purpose, but the issue is very complex, as is the situation with climate.

As regards washing hands, the Hebrew Bible has many references to the religious requirement to wash hands, before eating a meal, after eating a meal (because fingers were used), after touching a dead corpse, and so on.
The people who formulated such rules had no concept of bacteria and viruses, but it's reasonable to presume that the origin of such rules would have related to observations of the harmful effects resulting from not washing one's hands after touching dead or diseased people or animals, just like the eating of pork was forbidden because pigs in those days were so often diseased, and were observed to wallow in filthy conditions.
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1146
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #58 on: April 28, 2017, 01:41:13 AM »

Quote
I fail to see the relevance, Les. There has never been a period in the history of science when a new theory is not challenged, at least eventually. That's the nature of the scientific methodology.

The relevance I see, is that the major and established industries industries - tobacco, oil, pharma, meat and dairy, even medical professionals) never liked disturbers or new scientific theories and they will fight tooth and nail to keep their ways. The example I quoted, with doctors refusing washing their hands, seems incredible and preposterous today, but in those days the doctors looked at the very act of washing hands as a far-fetched and purposeless requirement.
Nowadays, the aforementioned industries will employ lobbyists, conduct flawed studies, and spread fake news to confuse the public. Often, their aim is not necessarily to convince the consumers; in most cases, it's sufficient to confuse them.

That applies equally to industrial polluters denying the negative effects of CO2 and methane as to the dairy industry promoting milk and cheese as a healthy food.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2017, 03:18:14 AM by LesPalenik »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10445
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #59 on: April 28, 2017, 07:23:27 AM »

...Despite various publications of positive results, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.

Oh, the irony!

You don't see how the example cuts both ways? Were those "established opinions" established with 97%, 99%, or 99.9% certainty?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24   Go Up