Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Climate Change: Science and Issues  (Read 35231 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1817
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #20 on: October 27, 2017, 10:49:52 AM »

Indeed.

What could possibly go wrong when the OP starts with a quite moderate, balanced, and non-controversial statement?

So, it is ok to call others "deniers," "skeptics," but not "alarmist"!? Or to ask those you disagree with to shut up?

Let's see.  You can call me a "skeptic" but I would consider you calling me a "denier" as personally inflammatory.  Please moderate your name calling.  :)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1817
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #21 on: October 27, 2017, 11:00:24 AM »

Since the original thread went "poof", there have been some interesting new science that we hadn't discussed before that could have a major impact on CO2 and "supposed" global warming.  The point that I see is that it's another important factor that may have been missed in computations as to the effect of CO2 and carbon based fuel.  Missing data is one of the things skeptics are concerned about.  That not all the data is incorporated in the algorithms that calculate climate change, so we arrive at faulty conclusions.

So the recent issue is: Decomposing organic matter in soil stores more carbon than both plants and the atmosphere combined.

It's worth a discussion.  We "skeptics" are concerned. :)

https://www.earth.com/news/soil-co2-climate-change/

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 863
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #22 on: October 27, 2017, 11:03:26 AM »

Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #23 on: October 27, 2017, 11:21:50 AM »

Since the original thread went "poof", there have been some interesting new science that we hadn't discussed before that could have a major impact on CO2 and "supposed" global warming.  The point that I see is that it's another important factor that may have been missed in computations as to the effect of CO2 and carbon based fuel.  Missing data is one of the things skeptics are concerned about.  That not all the data is incorporated in the algorithms that calculate climate change, so we arrive at faulty conclusions.

So the recent issue is: Decomposing organic matter in soil stores more carbon than both plants and the atmosphere combined.

It's worth a discussion.  We "skeptics" are concerned. :)

https://www.earth.com/news/soil-co2-climate-change/
Organic matter decomposition can also be used to create biogass.  A number of dairy farmers use anaerobic microorganisms to metabolize manure to create methane which can be used for heating.  This is an old reference:  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034002   There were also some US EPA technical papers on this that came out in the mid-2000s but I don't know if they are accessible any longer.

There are a number of CO2 sinks and Alan has highlighted one of them.  This is why the CO2 story is so complicated.  Oceans and other bodies of water are a CO2 sink as well but the problem there is that CO2 leads to acidification.  One of the results of this is the possible destruction of coral reefs but I don't think the science is quite as firm on that point.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9770
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #24 on: October 27, 2017, 11:40:22 AM »

There is no need to use "alarmist" or "denier", and when you remove those terms and using them to diminish someone's position or argument (which is an actual ad hominem - it is literally saying someone is wrong because they are "insert name" instead of addressing their point

 
There is a need if the descriptions accurately fit the circumstances. Denial is a recognized psychological condition which is an appropriate description in specific situations.

Alarm is a very common experience in the life of many people, but mostly relating to events in the present or near future.
Alarm about the devastating effects of future climate conditions, if we don't reduce CO2 levels, is alarm. How else would you describe it?

If a person meets a tiger whilst trekking in the jungle, he would probably become alarmed. Are you suggesting that such a description of alarm would be an ad hominem attack? If so, you're not making any sense.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1817
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2017, 11:46:50 AM »

Organic matter decomposition can also be used to create biogass.  A number of dairy farmers use anaerobic microorganisms to metabolize manure to create methane which can be used for heating.  This is an old reference:  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034002   There were also some US EPA technical papers on this that came out in the mid-2000s but I don't know if they are accessible any longer.

There are a number of CO2 sinks and Alan has highlighted one of them.  This is why the CO2 story is so complicated.  Oceans and other bodies of water are a CO2 sink as well but the problem there is that CO2 leads to acidification.  One of the results of this is the possible destruction of coral reefs but I don't think the science is quite as firm on that point.
There are a lot of factors that are just unknown or if known, their impact is not well understood.  The media tends to highlight al the negatives without discussing a lot of the issues that are unknown or have positive impacts on the earth, man and other animals and plant species.  It's too one-sided.  That raises questions and skepticism about the claims. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1817
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2017, 11:49:56 AM »


...

If a person meets a tiger whilst trekking in the jungle, he would probably become alarmed. Are you suggesting that such a description of alarm would be an ad hominem attack? If so, you're not making any sense.
Apparently, the tiger trekking in the jungle can be alarmed by the person but not the other way around.  Ad hominin attacks on animals are acceptable. 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9770
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2017, 12:00:29 PM »

So the recent issue is: Decomposing organic matter in soil stores more carbon than both plants and the atmosphere combined.

It's worth a discussion.  We "skeptics" are concerned. :)

https://www.earth.com/news/soil-co2-climate-change/

This is a very interesting idea, Alan, which I've been aware of for some time. Modern farming practices significantly reduce the carbon content of the soil.

One method of farming which addresses this issue is called Permaculture, a method which was apparently introduced by an Australian called Bill Mollison.

Mollison has said: "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labour; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a 'single product system'.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #28 on: October 27, 2017, 12:34:47 PM »

This is a very interesting idea, Alan, which I've been aware of for some time. Modern farming practices significantly reduce the carbon content of the soil.

One method of farming which addresses this issue is called Permaculture, a method which was apparently introduced by an Australian called Bill Mollison.

Mollison has said: "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labour; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a 'single product system'.

Unfortunately in the US a lot of the manure from 'factory' farms is just stored in lagoons and the carbon value of the manure is not captured.  'Permaculture' is defined as 'organic' farming in the US.  the intention is the same.  There is no question that better stewardship of agricultural inputs can be better managed.
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6859
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #29 on: October 27, 2017, 02:03:50 PM »

Can someone specify a point in geologic history when the world wasn't experiencing "climate change?"

Hi Russ,

The question should not be if the climate changed in the past, nobody denies it did, but what is causing the change.

As far as scientists are concerned, the current changes have in a large part an anthropogenic cause, and CO2 emissions are a large part of that.

The mounting concern is the rate of CO2 change, which is unprecedented as far as geological records allow to reconstruct. The rapid change is too fast for the earth to accommodate and adapt to without societal disruption. Another concern is that we may trigger events that are irreversible.

That's also the subject of the article that started the thread, above a certain increase of global temperature, a sudden (!) loss of Antarctic ice becomes more likely, which may be such an irreversible consequence.

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

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10065
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2017, 02:16:32 PM »

Yes, Bart, I know that's the theory. But nobody's actually been able to correlate CO2 emissions with temperature change, and there's some pretty good evidence that the idea doesn't hold water. I could give you references but you'd be able to come back with counter-references. The point is: nobody actually knows, though you'd never realize that from the stuff that gets written about it. At this point it's all theory. To actually make changes in our economies at this point would be insane, but that doesn't seem to bother politicians who are trying to make hay with this stuff.

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6859
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #31 on: October 27, 2017, 02:39:29 PM »

Yes, Bart, I know that's the theory. But nobody's actually been able to correlate CO2 emissions with temperature change, and there's some pretty good evidence that the idea doesn't hold water. I could give you references but you'd be able to come back with counter-references. The point is: nobody actually knows, though you'd never realize that from the stuff that gets written about it.

I for one, do not discard the overwhelming scientific consensus that Global warming is mostly anthropogenic in nature, because that would be irresponsible (also given the potential consequences).

Quote
At this point it's all theory.

What is ALL a theory? The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? The fact that the CO2 levels are rising, and at an unprecedentedly rapid rate? The fact that there are no known other present causes that explain such a large part of the observed global warming trend?

Quote
To actually make changes in our economies at this point would be insane, but that doesn't seem to bother politicians who are trying to make hay with this stuff.

That's a whole different topic.

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

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10065
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2017, 03:28:51 PM »

The fact that there are no known other present causes that explain such a large part of the observed global warming trend?

What global warming trend is that, Bart? The globe hasn't warmed for at least the past decade. And if CO2 is the only possible explanation for warming, how do you explain Leif Erikson's travels to the North American Continent around 1000 AD?

The point I'm trying to make is that nobody actually has a clue.

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6859
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2017, 03:54:21 PM »

What global warming trend is that, Bart?



Quote
The globe hasn't warmed for at least the past decade. And if CO2 is the only possible explanation for warming, how do you explain Leif Erikson's travels to the North American Continent around 1000 AD?

CO2 is one of the major current causes of the current Global temperature rise, and it's anthropogenic.
The reason that the Southern hemisphere temperatures rise at a slower pace is due to the fact that there is more water mass there and it heats up slower than landmass does.

Quote
The point I'm trying to make is that nobody actually has a clue.

I see your point, but do not agree.

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

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1817
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2017, 04:37:54 PM »

Deja vu all over again.  Why do these posts seem so familiar?

So I'll say that the US pulled out of Paris because the Chinese don't have to do anything until 2030.
And you'll say that's because China is a growing economy.
And I'll say, but they're number 2 in the world in their economy and #1 in CO2 production.
And you'll say that that America's is bigger on a per capita basis.
And I'll say the earth doesn't care about per capita, that the country's full amount is what counts and you're letting the Chinese of the hook by not doing anything until 2030.
And you'll say that America is selfish.
And I'll say you're getting hoodwinked by China.
And then the Administrator will say it's getting personal and "poof" goes the thread.

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10065
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2017, 04:42:12 PM »

Afraid I'm not convinced, Bart. There are two things wrong with this if you're saying it indicts CO2 as a culprit.

First, I don't know what the source of the data is. All it says is "Hemispheric Temperate Change." Who says so, and on what basis? We don't even know what the thing purports to measure. There's no magnitude scale. It could be measuring degrees centigrade, degrees Fahrenheit, or tiny fractions of either, or neither. Maybe the whole thing shows an increase of 1/1000 degree over 120 years. I easily can cook up a graph that shows just the opposite and call it Hemispheric Cooling.

Secondly, if the chart tells me what you claim it does, and I'm not convinced it does, who's to say this isn't one of those long-term trends we saw in the 900's? The thing covers 120 years. To jump to a correlation with CO2 levels is quite a jump. But even if there were such a correlation, remember this basic fact about statistics: "Correlation is not causation." Everybody pushing the global warming "trend" seems to have forgotten that.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2017, 04:44:45 PM »

Deja vu all over again.  Why do these posts seem so familiar?
Read the title and the first post I made.  The reason that some of these posts look familiar is that the old thread was vaporized because the discussion took a tangent.  I want this to focus of Science and Issues; I don't want to see the same stuff that was cluttering up the previous thread.  If that cannot be accomplished, I'll gladly shut this one down.  Going forward here's what I would like to see:

1) research findings and discussion of those and don't just say I don't believe it; we already know that this stuff is controversial on one level and just reposting stuff that you have said 100 times on the previous thread is not terribly productive
2) questions that pertain to the science so that someone who might know an answer will post it
3) issues related to climate change and it does not have to be just CO2; there are a lot of other things going on in terms of storms, drought, increased pestilence associated with warming, etc.
4) be civil

As I noted, this whole area affects photographers and offers opportunities; there was a great image of one of the large ice shelfs in the Antarctic in the Washington Post today; a photographer took that picture
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #37 on: October 27, 2017, 04:51:31 PM »

First, I don't know what the source of the data is. All it says is "Hemispheric Temperate Change." Who says so, and on what basis? We don't even know what the thing purports to measure. There's no magnitude scale. It could be measuring degrees centigrade, degrees Fahrenheit, or tiny fractions of either, or neither. Maybe the whole thing shows an increase of 1/1000 degree over 120 years. I easily can cook up a graph that shows just the opposite and call it Hemispheric Cooling.
look at the y-axis, it is deviation in temperature in Celsius with 1880 as the start date.  I don't know where this particular data set is from but we have seen data from temperatures recorded here in Washington DC that shows a similar trend.

Quote
Secondly, if the chart tells me what you claim it does, and I'm not convinced it does, who's to say this isn't one of those long-term trends we saw in the 900's? The thing covers 120 years. To jump to a correlation with CO2 levels is quite a jump. But even if there were such a correlation, remember this basic fact about statistics: "Correlation is not causation." Everybody pushing the global warming "trend" seems to have forgotten that.
We have no way of knowing what the trend was in the 900s and North America was only occupied by indigenous peoples; the European migration did not begin until the 1600s.  I don't think it is fair to say that it is a jump to say that there is a correlation with CO2 levels as there clearly is linkage.  The question is whether and how meaningful this linkage is.  Clearly there are difficult decisions to be made regarding this information and one option is to wait and see if sea level changes continue to progress.
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 863
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #38 on: October 27, 2017, 04:55:19 PM »

History of CO2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg&feature=youtu.be. Longish lecture, sounds is not terrific.
Logged
--
Robert robertroaldi.zenfolio.com

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2544
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2017, 05:03:48 PM »

Everyone telling him to "shut-up" now because they think his words aren't politically correct

No one has told him to shut up.  I have, very simply and plainly, asked him to exercise the agreed moderation standard and cease using inflammatory language and ad hominem arguments.  He continues to refuse to do so.
Logged
Phil Brown
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 32   Go Up