Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 72   Go Down

Author Topic: Skepticism about Climate Change  (Read 213528 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #720 on: July 21, 2017, 08:07:18 am »

You see, Phil, it's arguments like you just made that reefs would die out that turns off deniers and gives them ammunition.  They sense they're getting BS'd by the Climate change community.  Instead of trying to imply that reefs are going the way of the Dodo bird, they should say something like this: "It appears that many reefs will die due to increasing sea temperature and rising sea levels. However, we will find that new reefs will grow because of these changes as more favorable conditions develop in new areas.  Our concern though is the more immediate effect of the reefs we've come to rely on like the GBR.  It's death is going to become a hard financial situation for Australians who depend on fishing and tourist trades.  Therefore we should consider doing things to lessen the impact from lowering CO2 in the air to decrease warming and providing job training to the Australian effected."

If your community would present information like that, I think you'd get more support, even from me.  People won't feel they're being sold a phony bill of goods especially when they're told the "sky is falling", all reefs are dying.  The hyperbole from your side just turns people off.  Do you see my point?

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #721 on: July 21, 2017, 08:09:47 am »

It's easy to kill the corals, but difficult and slow to grow new ones. It's ben estimated that more than 90 percent of world's coral reefs will die by 2050.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-90-percent-coral-reefs-die-2050-climate-change-bleaching-pollution-a7626911.html

Quote
Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands is a living reef resting on an extinct volcano cone which comes up about three kilometres (two miles) from the ocean floor. Drilling revealed about 1,400 metres (4,600 feet) of reef material. Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes. At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.

https://answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/how-long-does-a-coral-reef-take-to-grow/
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #722 on: July 21, 2017, 09:01:54 am »

You completely missed the point. The point is that it's very complex, not as simple as "they'll grow elsewhere".  As I pointed out, the GBR is bigger than all but 4 US states.  Your argument that you know that they'll be fine is utter nonsense.  You have no idea.  "They've survived before" over the course of tens of thousands of years is exactly the point - the time scale involved is immense.
Logged
Phil Brown

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #723 on: July 21, 2017, 09:16:17 am »

Roaldi posted an interesting podcast link in the post after yours that I listened to for the first part.  Their point is that people discount "facts" and feed into emotion, which I agree with.  However, it's not that simple.  The listener to "facts" has to conclude that the so-called facts are really facts and not wrong or opinions or deliberate distortions or plain lies to get you to buy into something.  We are all faced with decisions like that.

Fully agree, and the facts need to come from reputable sources. But still, despite the scientific consensus (which is not one person's opinion but a process of gradually improved understanding of issues) also known as 'facts' (generally agreed upon given our current level of knowledge), there are those who reject it and favor unsubstantiated claims because they 'feel' better to them. Lack of education (which many say is an issue in the USA, but not exclusively there) can result in people that are untrained to develop a feeling for logical reasoning skills.

Quote
I had a medical issue a few years back that three different doctors proscribed different procedures.  Each of them assured me their procedure was the best.  Well, obviously two of them were wrong, maybe all three.  There may have been another way that I wasn't even aware of.  I was reading the other day that artificial sweeteners in soda may be worse for you them sugar.  So facts and science change as well.

Yes, but they usually follow a path of progressive insight. My doctors have luckily been rather down-to-earth. Not too extreme in their beliefs, but rather that moderation rarely hurts, and excessive use usually does hurt (as may only show after a long time when it's too late to remedy). Also, fighting symptoms with medication is, more often than not, much worse than finding the root cause and eliminating that, if possible.

Quote
Drug companies, accountants, salesmen, yes, even climate scientists have axes to grind.

As individuals, maybe, but not as a collective that has a process in place that eliminates outliers and offers checks and balances in open peer review. When perverse incentives are introduced, like funding by industries, credibility often suffers. There are mechanisms to avoid that, but they are not always used. Critical peer review will reveal who's a paid charlatan, and who is an authority. So lumping all climate scientists in one camp that have axes to grind is both unfair and not reasonable. Sure, there are a few crackpots or misleading opinion makers, but they should not be allowed to dominate over the large majority of free and critical thinkers by discrediting all of them due to one or two bad apples.

Quote
The facts they provide may even be true but then they conveniently leave out other facts that offsets the first facts.  My example is the one that warming oceans kills coral reefs but then they don't tell you that those reefs would just move on to other areas that now have reached the proper warmer temperature.  So the net effect might be that warming could actually be better for reefs in general, just not your hometown reef.

The question is, do they leave it out? My answer is, read the actual report before claiming something that may be untrue. Sure, it may not be easy (finding the report, reading and understanding the terminology, etc.), but then why to take the easy/lazy way out and discredit what they may or may not have said, without checking what was actually said.

In the particular case of Coral reefs, it is not a simple case of temperature alone, Global warming also involves the ongoing process of ocean acidification which is bad for calcium deposits, and fluid/gas dynamics that make certain locations more habitable or impossible depending on the particular ocean currents and local climate differences. So by simply stating that coral reefs will relocate, is doing injustice to the opinion of the world's most respected sources of information with a proven track record who estimate large scale disappearing of one of the world's most diverse ecosystems, just because the changes are happening too fast to allow adaptation. Time/timing is of the essence.

Quote
Who goes through life believing what everyone tells them?  We all develop different levels of discernment.

Sure, especially contradicting data is confusing, until it is converted into broadly (scientifically) accepted information/facts. But then why discount/discredit sound logic to begin with and not use it as a basis for further investigation and understanding, but instead embrace wild speculation without any solid foundation? Cognitive dissonance is rampant, also thanks to some social media related mechanisms.

One of the issues in these matters is that many people start with a biased concept of 'their reality', which makes it hard for them to open up to other/better quality information. Education (starting at a young age and never ending) plays a large role in that.

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

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #724 on: July 21, 2017, 11:42:34 am »

You completely missed the point. The point is that it's very complex, not as simple as "they'll grow elsewhere".  As I pointed out, the GBR is bigger than all but 4 US states.  Your argument that you know that they'll be fine is utter nonsense.  You have no idea.  "They've survived before" over the course of tens of thousands of years is exactly the point - the time scale involved is immense.
I never said GBR would be fine.  I said they've followed the Ice Ages.  Please re-read my post.  It's one thing being called wrong about what I said.  It's another to be called wrong about something I never said. 

What I did say that even though certain existing reefs may be damaged or die due to warming, there would be new ones growing in areas that were too cold to support corals.  Now they would start growing because it's warmer, and yes Bart, they also have the other elements that allow corals to grow. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #725 on: July 21, 2017, 11:52:33 am »

Bart, It's not the climatologists that are the main problem.  They may be reporting accurate information about warming.  It's everyone else though that insists about the bad ecological and natural effects that will happen to man and species.  Climatologists are not biologists, economists, paleontologists, and the other sciences that are effected by warming.  Also, there is popular culture in Tv programs, NatGeo type magazines, other media, as well as clean energy manufacturer's who use "protecting the environment" as a tool to advance their own agenda and sales.

My main complaint is that people who should know better, only speak to the negatives of global warming.  That biased presentation is seen by people who than check their wallets when they hear from these people how much we should spend.  We've all heard sales pitches from people, government, and companies who want money from us.  BY only giving half the truth, it creates doubt and frankly deniers.  No one wants to get rolled.  If you're failing in getting more people aboard the global warming bandwagon, maybe it's because you have done a lousy job selling it. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #726 on: July 21, 2017, 10:18:48 pm »

Oh, and constantly insulting people who have different viewpoints by calling them deplorables, nincompoops and ignorant, low education, knuckle-draggers, are not going to win you support.  You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. 

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #727 on: July 21, 2017, 11:39:13 pm »

If you clean up the shit, you get less flies in the first place.
Logged
Phil Brown

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #728 on: July 22, 2017, 05:58:04 am »

What I did say that even though certain existing reefs may be damaged or die due to warming, there would be new ones growing in areas that were too cold to support corals.  Now they would start growing because it's warmer, and yes Bart, they also have the other elements that allow corals to grow.

I don't see how the Ocean acidification does not apply to the 'new locations', and neither do I see any evidence that 'other elements' will be present at other locations. It also takes a long time for new coral to grow, and it can be rapidly destroyed again. Revovery is an extremely slow process. So it sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me.  I'll side with the experts till better counter proof is presented.

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

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #729 on: July 22, 2017, 11:28:45 pm »

Ford is putting the all electric Bolt on death watch.  There have only been about 8000 sold since Dec 2016.  Americans don't seem too concerned with global warming favoring gasoline gulping SUV's and pickup trucks.  I guess fracking and the cheap cost of gasoline is pushing purchases of larger gas guzzlers like the good old days. 

Of course the death of the Bolt might favor Tesla.  But if electric cars aren't attractive in general, it doesn't bode well for Tesla either.  I think it's strange that Volvo is switching to all electric in a couple of years.  Of course, gas is very expensive in Europe and ranges are less than the US.  Well, they may change their mind. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/07/22/report-gm-may-kill-chevy-volt-sonic-and-four-other-cars/501798001/

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #730 on: July 23, 2017, 12:56:15 am »

Tesla global sales rose 69% in the first quarter of the year, and they're a premium priced vehicle.

Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #731 on: July 23, 2017, 07:44:11 am »

Tesla global sales rose 69% in the first quarter of the year, and they're a premium priced vehicle.


I hope they do well.  It's an American car made here so it's good for our economy, trade and jobs.  It shows America as a leader in clean energy despite Paris.  The Tesla 3 that's being released is the key as the original Tesla's were $100K models.  The Tesla 3 is about a third of that cost.  So the apparent market will be much greater.  I could see getting a 3 as a second car using it for local travel where I can re-charge at home overnight.  Then use the larger gas car for everything else.  The accommodations and features they provide are going to be key, for me anyway.  The battery eats up a lot of that so you can buy a comparable gasoline car for thousands less with the same comfort features. 


My comment about the Bolt though is that it's sparse sales could be a bad omen.  Why aren't people buying it?  Unlike Tesla, Chevy dealers are everywhere.  So you know you'll be able to get important service for repairs easily.  Not so with Tesla.  Also, everyone is in favor of clean energy as long as the government subsidizes it with rebates or tax refunds.  Even with that, the Bolt hasn't done too well.  It's not a good sign.  What's going to happen when subsides end?  Does Australia give rebates and subsides?  What about Europe?  Would you buy an electric car?

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #732 on: July 23, 2017, 09:55:22 am »

I'll repeat that population growth has more to do with better hygiene and antibiotics and the introduction of public sewage systems.

Absolutely. And one of those (antibiotics) is now under threat:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/health/who-bacteria-pathogens-antibiotic-resistant-superbugs.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance

but research is ongoing:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170516090825.htm

Without that research, even simple surgery procedures could become much more serious/life threatening (the body is exposed to bacterial infection whilst cut open.)

There were four ice ages before man was on the planet. So, I guess that climate changes will happen whether or not we are here.

Yes, you are right. When a supervolcano explodes (like Yellowstone), enough crap goes into the atmosphere that a long winter is all but assured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

There are environmental factors like this that we absolutely cannot control but that does not give us a free pass to foul up the environment.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #733 on: July 23, 2017, 02:17:15 pm »

...I'll repeat that population growth has more to do with better hygiene and antibiotics and the introduction of public sewage systems.

Another factor is poverty. As studies have shown, the number of children that people 'produce' is highly correlated with income (and to a lesser extent with religious pressure to produce a larger flock of religious offspring). Lower incomes have more children, as an insurance for food and assistance at old age. Higher incomes can purchase such security and have less of a 'need' to secure that with offspring (and purchasing better quality healthcare helps to reduce child mortality).

So, improving the standards of living in the poorest developing countries is part of a multifaceted solution. This also means allowing those countries to develop their economies (Trump may not like that). That also shows why renewable energy sources are so important. Otherwise, those countries would only start to pollute more by burning fossil fuel.

Improved techniques and pesticides also improved crop yield, more than the rising CO2 levels would explain. Scientific studies suggest that the loss of crops due to warming induced droughts/etc. is larger than the gains.

Cheers,
Bart
One could argue that better hygiene, antibiotics, and other measures that allow children to live and be healthier decrease the population.  One of the reasons people have more children is because of child mortality.  As people are more secure knowing their children will live to adulthood, they have less of a reason to have more children.  So healthier conditions, along with cheap carbon fuel to raise their standard of living so they can afford better medical care, reduce populations.  You see this in Italy, Japan, and lots of other western countries where there is a very low mortality rate for children.

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #734 on: July 24, 2017, 12:57:57 pm »

Quote
Quote from Bart.
That's another concern. When experts in their various Scientific fields of Climate/Geology/Oceanography/etc. and relevant branches have reached a consensus that the positive feedback is knocking the system out of control, why do (by comparison) relatively poorly informed people deny that consensus?

That's a good question, Bart, and shows that you have a certain degree of skeptical capability yourself.  ;)

I suspect that no-one, whether a professional scientist or an interested layperson, has the time and expertise to read, fully understand,and critique every research paper that's been written in the many disciplines relating to climate change.

We all tend to rely upon abstracts, summaries, other people's interpretations of the data, conclusions presented in the research papers, and often very flawed and biased reports in the news media.

The 'thinking' layperson who is interested in the subject, will always assess the quality and rationality of the arguments presented, either for or against the alarmist projections of human-induced climate change.

I've already mentioned some of the alarmist arguments which seem quite irrational to me.
Shall I repeat them? It seems I might have to. Here's a couple.

(1) The percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere is very tiny, about 400 parts per million. It's risen from around 280 parts per million during the past 150 years, due to human emissions from fossil fuels.
Percentage-wise that's quite significant, about a 142% increase, Now, if CO2 were a toxic substance like Arsenic or Strychnine, a 142% increase could result in death.

But CO2 is not a toxic substance. It's an extremely beneficial substance which is actually essential for all life. If the alarmists use the argument that a doubling of CO2 levels could be disastrous because a doubling of strychnine levels could cause death, then a rational, thinking person would understand the nonsense of such an argument from the alarmists. No specialisation in a scientific discipline is required to understand the illogicality of such an argument.

(2) Ocean acidification is another example of irrational alarmism. Most people understand that acid can be very harmful,and is sometimes used as a weapon to disfigure people, by throwing acid into their face.

The term 'ocean acidification' is used for maximum alarm. If the term is used during lectures to scientists, who understand that the sea is alkaline, and that acidification simply means a shift from an alkaline state to a less alkaline state, then that's fine. No problem.

However, when scientists, through the media, or even non-scientist reporters, talk about the dangers of ocean acidification, without even mentioning what the current, average pH of the oceans is, and how much it has moved towards the acidic end of the spectrum since the industrial revolution, then the thinking person wonders why the omission.

Fortunately, the internet can provide the answers, especially Google Scholar which provides links to countless research papers on any subject you request.

My own research into ocean acidification reveals that the average ocean surface pH is estimated to have reduced from 8.2 to 8.1 during the past 100 years or so. A pH of 7 is neutral. Below 7 is acidic.

Does a reduction from 8.2 to 8.1 sound alarming? It's a logarithmic scale. In percentage terms, a shift from 8.2 to 8.1 can be described, by the alarmists, as a 30% increase in acidity. That definitely sounds alarming if we assume that the 30% refers to a 1/3rd progression towards neutral, which is a pH of 7.

However, if the thinking person does his own research, he will find that a shift from a pH of 8.2 to a pH of 7.2, which is still slightly alkaline, represents a 900% increase in acidity. How does 30% compare with 900%. Sufficient for alarm?

In general, the subject of climate change is enormously complex with elements of chaos. If it is really true that 97% of all scientists believe that human emissions of CO2 are the main driver of the current warming phase, then we are really stuffed. The scientific methodology of discovering the truth is broken.
Logged

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #735 on: July 25, 2017, 03:52:38 am »

Regarding oceans, something that we depend a lot on is plankton:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html

If the oceans become such that these little creatures can no longer survive then we may run out of air to breath rather quickly.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #736 on: July 25, 2017, 08:24:09 am »

Regarding oceans, something that we depend a lot on is plankton:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html

If the oceans become such that these little creatures can no longer survive then we may run out of air to breath rather quickly.

Since phytoplankton depend on carbon dioxide CO2, wouldn't more CO2 help multiply more phytoplankton?  Could that help reduce or balance out the CO2 in the air?  When phytoplankton die, they settle on the bottom of the ocean eventually to become the very oil that we burn that adds C02 to the air.  A natural process showing how smart the earth is keeping itself in balance while we over-worry about CO2.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #737 on: July 25, 2017, 09:09:28 am »

Since phytoplankton depend on carbon dioxide CO2, wouldn't more CO2 help multiply more phytoplankton?  Could that help reduce or balance out the CO2 in the air?  When phytoplankton die, they settle on the bottom of the ocean eventually to become the very oil that we burn that adds C02 to the air.  A natural process showing how smart the earth is keeping itself in balance while we over-worry about CO2.

Alan, that's a way too simple assumption, as the article mentions in comparison to how a forest absorbs CO2, and releases it again when the tree biomass dies:

Quote
"On average, then, this mature forest has no net flux of carbon dioxide or oxygen to or from the atmosphere, unless we cut it all down for logging," Sarmiento said. "The ocean works the same way. Most of the photosynthesis is counterbalanced by an equal and opposite amount of respiration."
.

Nature knows many cycles and CO2 is one part of them in a balanced system. Human disruption is causing the issues and throws things out of balance, only to find a new balance after decades (after we totally, which is unlikely, stop the accelerated addition of CO2 by burning fossil fuel).

The article sums it up nicely:
Quote
Carbon Sink

The forests and oceans are not taking in more carbon dioxide or letting off more oxygen. But human activities such as burning oil and coal to drive our cars and heat our homes are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

Most of the world's scientists agree that these increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing the Earth to warm. Many researchers believe that this phenomenon could lead to potentially catastrophic consequences.

Some researchers argue that enriching the oceans with iron would stimulate phytoplankton growth, which in turn would capture excess carbon from the Earth's atmosphere. But many ocean and atmospheric scientists debate whether this would indeed provide a quick fix to the problem of global warming.

Research by Frouin and his Scripps Institution of Oceanography colleague Sam Iacobellis suggests an increase in phytoplankton may actually cause the Earth to grow warmer, due to increased solar absorption.

"Our simulations show that by increasing the phytoplankton abundance in the upper oceanic layer, sea surface temperature is increased, as well as air temperature," Frouin said.

As Sarmiento notes, phytoplankton obtains most of its carbon dioxide from the oceans, not the atmosphere.

"Pretty much all of the carbon dioxide taken up by phytoplankton comes from deep down in the ocean, just like nutrients, where bacteria and other organisms have produced it by respiring the organic matter that sank from the surface," Sarmiento said.

So all that humans are doing, is adding more CO2 and warmth to the ocean, which in turrn is expected to further increase the ocean's temperature and carbon content, since the oceans absorb some 40% of the atmosphere's CO2. The rising temperature will by the way release more CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere (or absorb less), because warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 as colder water.

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

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #738 on: July 25, 2017, 09:35:06 am »

Bart: It seems my theory seems true.  That more CO2 increases the population of plankton which then uses more CO2 in the air.  The CO2 is captured and settles to the bottom of the ocean with the plankton when they die becoming oil.  Just like more CO2 has increased green biomass on land by 14%.  It makes logical sense which we often don't do in these discussions relying instead on agenda driven science. 


"...Abnormal levels of carbon dioxide in the North Atlantic are being linked to the rapid growth of plankton population in the ocean over the past 45 years, according to a study featured in the journal Science...

A team of marine researchers, led by associate professor Anand Gnanadesikan of Johns Hopkins University, discovered that the population of microscopic marine alga known as Coccolithophores in the North Atlantic experienced a tenfold increase from 1965 to 2010.

This recent finding contradicts earlier assumptions made by scientists that the phytoplankton would find it difficult to produce plates from calcium carbonate as ocean waters become increasingly more acidic...."


http://www.techtimes.com/articles/111718/20151130/increased-carbon-dioxide-levels-lead-to-rapid-plankton-growth-how-this-harms-the-environment.htm

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #739 on: July 25, 2017, 09:37:39 am »

Also note that increased acidic seas haven't effected the population explosion. 
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 72   Go Up