Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Climate Change: Science and Issues  (Read 121764 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #80 on: October 29, 2017, 06:27:28 am »

Rob,

Shit can be a very useful fertilizer. If you consider CO2 to be shit, you might be interested to learn that all humans breathe out lots of shit. Carbon dioxide is a waste product, so the body exhales it in order to get rid of it. Compared to the low levels of about 0.04 percent in inspired air, exhaled air contains a hundred times more CO2, at 4 percent content.

Did you know that? The air we breathe out, with every breath, contains a hundred times more CO2 than the air we breathe in.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that causing the extinction of the human race, or all mammals, would solve any problems. That would be ridiculous.  ;D

This process of exhaling CO2 as a waste product is a natural part of a natural cycle. Plants take in CO2 as an essential ingredient. We consume the plants, then exhale CO2 as a waste product in order to return it to the plants. Aren't we magnanimous!  ;)

Human-constructed coal-fired power plants also consume the remains of dead trees (turned into coal over millions of years), and release CO2 into the atmosphere so that more trees in the present time can flourish, due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
Aren't we wonderful! It's all a natural process.

However, toxic emissions due to inadequate emission controls, that affect human health; plastic bags, and other toxic waste products from our industrialization, are separate issues which should be addressed.

"Of course, I'm no scientist - just a photographer of sorts, but I don't think I really need any degree after my name to understand the basic fact that the more shit you and I pump into the atmosphere, the more difference it's going to make. We are not magically pumping and disappearing exactly the same volume of it every year, and that already pumped isn't going anywhere else. Even a photographer gets that. Doesn't he? Consequently, everything else seems to be whitewash and denial for whatever reason such people might have. It's usually for the purposes of making big bucks, but that hardly accounts for the point of view of the individuals..."

Ray, I thought it best to quote and include the whole of that paragraph so that it might make better sense than did your selected edit of it.

Your subsequent explanation/counter argument did nothing to disprove the logic of the above.

But then, as with the Trumpista threads, nothing changes minds that are in a cloosed loop! Even my own follows that divine path to revelation...

;-)

Rob

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #81 on: October 29, 2017, 10:13:12 am »

"Of course, I'm no scientist - just a photographer of sorts, but I don't think I really need any degree after my name to understand the basic fact that the more shit you and I pump into the atmosphere, the more difference it's going to make. We are not magically pumping and disappearing exactly the same volume of it every year, and that already pumped isn't going anywhere else. Even a photographer gets that. Doesn't he? Consequently, everything else seems to be whitewash and denial for whatever reason such people might have. It's usually for the purposes of making big bucks, but that hardly accounts for the point of view of the individuals..."

Ray, I thought it best to quote and include the whole of that paragraph so that it might make better sense than did your selected edit of it.

Your subsequent explanation/counter argument did nothing to disprove the logic of the above.

But then, as with the Trumpista threads, nothing changes minds that are in a cloosed loop! Even my own follows that divine path to revelation...

;-)

Rob

Rob,
Sorry! I haven't always got the time to address every point someone makes in a post.

It's probably true that we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the plants are able to take up, and that's partly because of the significant deforestation that's been taking place for agricultural purposes and our failure to return the real 'shit' (human and animal excrement) back to the soil.

As you probably realised, I jokingly referred to CO2 as 'shit' because, from the perspective of the human body, it's a waste product. However, that waste product of CO2 is a clean and odourless gas. If you suffer from bad breath, it's not due to the increased CO2 you are exhaling.  ;)

Whilst we don't need any CO2 in the atmosphere for healthy breathing, the food we eat does need it, and from the perspective of plants, the more CO2 the better, up to a point. Therefore, from a perspective of concern about food supplies, the current elevated levels of CO2 are a boon for us humans. With no CO2 at all in the atmosphere we'd all soon die, together with all wildlife, and the planet would become a desert.

Imagine if we could cleverly devise the technology to transport massive amounts of CO2 into outer space within a short period of time, say a year, so that the current CO2 levels of 404 ppm were brought down to the claimed pre-industrial levels of around 285 ppm. Do you think that would be good?

There would probably be a massive food shortage because we wouldn't have the additional reserves of artificial fertilizers and water supplies in order to compensate for the reduced growth due to reduced CO2 levels.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #82 on: October 29, 2017, 11:16:20 am »

Rob,
Sorry! I haven't always got the time to address every point someone makes in a post.

It's probably true that we are emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere than the plants are able to take up, and that's partly because of the significant deforestation that's been taking place for agricultural purposes and our failure to return the real 'shit' (human and animal excrement) back to the soil.

As you probably realised, I jokingly referred to CO2 as 'shit' because, from the perspective of the human body, it's a waste product. However, that waste product of CO2 is a clean and odourless gas. If you suffer from bad breath, it's not due to the increased CO2 you are exhaling.  ;)

Whilst we don't need any CO2 in the atmosphere for healthy breathing, the food we eat does need it, and from the perspective of plants, the more CO2 the better, up to a point. Therefore, from a perspective of concern about food supplies, the current elevated levels of CO2 are a boon for us humans. With no CO2 at all in the atmosphere we'd all soon die, together with all wildlife, and the planet would become a desert.

Imagine if we could cleverly devise the technology to transport massive amounts of CO2 into outer space within a short period of time, say a year, so that the current CO2 levels of 404 ppm were brought down to the claimed pre-industrial levels of around 285 ppm. Do you think that would be good?

There would probably be a massive food shortage because we wouldn't have the additional reserves of artificial fertilizers and water supplies in order to compensate for the reduced growth due to reduced CO2 levels.



I agree with parts of your proposition, but not all. The problem is this: population control, and that obviously more kindly achieved via birth control rather than via wars of attrition, is certainly in the better interests of this planet, but as few feel able to contribute to this idea - China leads the way here - we have to cut down on the gasses that we know we do overproduce and with harmful effects. The unfortunate result will be more famine and an ever more polluted Mediterranean. But if it means the ultimate survival of the species, war and not death from imagined "friendly" chemical weapons, which come to the same thing, I do believe I'd rather fight than fade away by poisoning myself and my family. Or as bad, wish upon them all the same Sun damage as I am experiencing.

Yes, we do have choices and the sand isn't a productive one.

Rob

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #83 on: October 29, 2017, 11:38:29 am »

Calling someone stupid is an ad hominin attack. Calling them a skeptic, denier or alarmist are not. 

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #84 on: October 29, 2017, 01:51:41 pm »

Calling someone stupid is an ad hominin attack. Calling them a skeptic, denier or alarmist are not.

That's just opinion; you can make anything offensive just in the way you choose to express it.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #85 on: October 29, 2017, 02:54:21 pm »

That's just opinion; you can make anything offensive just in the way you choose to express it.
....or how you receive it. People are too sensitive today.  My concern is when one side tells the other to refrain from hyperbole and other linguistic methods to refute an argument as an excuse to silence the opposition by claiming other people's words "hurt" and are not within bounds.  I've been known to use that complaint myself to shut up my critics.  Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find those posts and the threads have gone "poof".  :)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #86 on: October 29, 2017, 03:15:16 pm »

....or how you receive it.  People are too sensitive today.  My concern is when one side tells the other to refrain from hyperbole and other linguistic methods to refute an argument as an excuse to silence the opposition by claiming other people's words "hurt" and are not within bounds.  I've been known to use that complaint myself to shut up my critics.  Of course, you'd be hard pressed to find those posts and the threads have gone "poof".  :)


Yes, I wouldn't refuse you that: reception can often be poor...

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #87 on: October 29, 2017, 03:25:45 pm »

This thread is moving towards a semantic discussion of the word 'alarm' or 'alarmist' and people are posting things way off topic.  I did not take much issue with Ray's post that has elicited such outpouring because 1) he's a fellow moderator (weak excuse maybe ;)) but more importantly 2) it is being used in a perceptual sense from his view point.  there is nothing wrong with that as it is an interpretation.  Contrast this to a 'physical alarm' that was posted in some subsequent posts (I think reacting to a lion or tiger; the same could be said about a fire alarm).

The reality is that there are uncertainties regarding aspects of climate change just as there are data that offer suggestions about what is happening.  Let's confine future discussion on this thread to those issues.  It should not be our job as moderators to have to continually drag folks back onto topic; if it evolves in that direction this experiment may have to end.  Let's now go out and take some pictures of climate change.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #88 on: October 29, 2017, 05:17:04 pm »

Requirements for a competent moderator:
  • Has the user contributed regularly over a period of time? Are they knowledgeable?
  • Do they have good grammar, spelling and syntax skills?
  • Does the user have the right personality? Are they even tempered, likable, and fair minded?
  • Do they have the time to commit to being a moderator?
In my view, both Alan and Ray pass this test with flying colours.

Applying the site and forum guidelines without fear or favour.
Logged
Phil Brown

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #89 on: October 29, 2017, 05:20:16 pm »

Calling someone stupid is an ad hominin attack. Calling them a skeptic, denier or alarmist are not.

Nope.  If you say they're wrong because they're stupid, then that's an ad hominem.  Just calling someone stupid is an insult.

Using any label and then on the strength of that label saying they are wrong, is an ad hominem.  Just labelling them depends on the label - it may be accurate and reasonable, it may be inaccurate and unreasonable.  It may be inflammatory it may be amusing.  There are many other options.  Any label which seeks to diminish the opinion of the person or group is inflammatory.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #90 on: October 29, 2017, 06:03:16 pm »

Well,  I think all the arguments for man - caused global warming are silly even though the people saying them are rational and nice folks.   Slightly misinformed but otherwise  good people.   ( how's that for splitting the baby?)

Anyway,  trying to define alarmist is like trying to define artist.   We photographers seem to have even more arguments about the latter.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #91 on: October 29, 2017, 06:30:58 pm »

This thread is moving towards a semantic discussion of the word 'alarm' or 'alarmist' and people are posting things way off topic... It should not be our job as moderators to have to continually drag folks back onto topic; if it evolves in that direction this experiment may have to end...

Some people (wink, wink, Phil) are close to getting a yellow card  ;)

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #92 on: October 29, 2017, 07:09:21 pm »

Some people (wink, wink, Phil) are close to getting a yellow card  ;)

Meh.  Apparently if you're a moderator you get a pass, and opinions without understanding are acceptable and worthwhile.  I've got no further interest.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #93 on: October 29, 2017, 07:20:14 pm »

Facts without discernment have no value.

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #94 on: October 29, 2017, 07:31:17 pm »

Facts without discernment have no value.

And that's the problem.  Facts withstand scrutiny and testing and falsification.  Judgement of them doesn't change them.  Judgement of facts just leads to "alternative facts".
Logged
Phil Brown

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #95 on: October 29, 2017, 08:39:27 pm »

The extreme Herwart storm in northern Europe caused on Sunday among other damages a large freighter, Glory Amsterdam to run aground in North Sea in 25 ft waves.
The bulk carrier is 225m long with a crew of 22. No cargo on board, but 1,800 tons of heavy oil and 140 tons of Diesel in the fuel tanks.

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2017-10/sturmtief-herwart-camper-ertrunken-deutsche-bahn-zugausfaelle

Quote
This is one more big drop in the bucket toward climate change attribution," said lead author James Stagge, a post-doc at Utah State University's Utah Water Research Lab. "There have been a lot of projections, but now that we're starting to see the projections and observations line up, it's not a question of 'is it happening?' It's a question of 'how much?' And 'what do we do?'" The spatial patterns observed by Stagge and his team match climate change projections for Europe that suggest decreases in drought frequency in the north and increases in drought frequency in the south. "Once you add in the temperature increases for all of Europe, you have all the hallmarks of climate change," Stagge said.

http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/strong-winds-slam-central-europe-kill-5/news-story/6e70093df3ad5ac08188b96391465a5a
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #96 on: October 30, 2017, 01:14:45 am »

And that's the problem.  Facts withstand scrutiny and testing and falsification.  Judgement of them doesn't change them.  Judgement of facts just leads to "alternative facts".

Good. I'm glad you've raised the issue of 'scrutiny, testing and falsification', Phil, because this is the basis of my skepticism regarding the 'hypothesis' that rising levels of that clear, clean and odourless trace gas called CO2, at the current rate, could have catastrophic consequences on the planet's climate.

How is it possible to devise an experiment that could either confirm or falsify such a hypothesis?
This is the issue that I would claim to be right about, that the fundamental requirements for certainty in science is that capacity for testing and falsification. Until that can occur, any theory remains a hypothesis, open to doubt.

To introduce an association with photography into the discussion, I'm reminded of that ancient Greek theory that we are able to see the objects that surround us because our eyes project a beam of light onto the objects. Even Plato accepted this theory, although Aristotle thought is was bunk.

However, the ancient Greeks hadn't really formulated a methodology of scientific inquiry, so this 'emission' theory of vision persisted for many centuries until an Islamic genius with the name Ibn al-Haytham (or Alhazen), who lived during the 11th century AD, devised a simple experiment using a dark chamber, known in latin as a 'camera obscura'.

"Legend says, one day he saw light shining through a tiny pinhole into his darkened room – projecting an image of the world outside onto the opposite wall. Ibn al-Haytham realized that he was seeing images of objects outside that were lit by the Sun. From repeated experiments he concluded that light rays travel in straight lines, and that vision is accomplished when these rays pass into our eyes.
Ibn al-Haytham confirmed his discovery by experimenting with his 'dark room' (calling it Albait Almuzlim)- translated into Latin as camera obscura, which simply means “dark room”.
After many additional experiments using special apparatus of lenses and mirrors which he built, he laid down his new ideas about light and vision in his seven volumes Book of Optics.
Ibn al-Haytham was born in the year 965 in Basra, and died in about 1040 in Cairo. He was one of the earliest scientists to study the characteristics of light and the mechanism/process of vision. He sought experimental proof of his theories and ideas."
http://www.ibnalhaytham.com/discover/who-was-ibn-al-haytham/

So how is this related to climate change?
For many centuries most people accepted the emission, or extramission theory of vision because brilliant minds such as Empedocles and Plato thought it was true. How could such people be wrong? They obviously must know more than I do.

A similar argument is made by those who accept the theory (or more correctly the hypothesis) that human emissions of CO2 will be catastrophic. How can a qualified scientist in the field of climatology, who knows more about climate than I do, be wrong on the issue?

The answer is, in the absence of experimental proof through controlled experiments, using the most rigorous of scientific methods, no-one can rationally claim that either group is right or wrong. I certainly don't claim that all climatologists supporting the CAGW hypothesis are wrong.

The issue for me is the unscientific degree of certainty expressed about the adverse effects of rising CO2 levels on climate and our future security.

By the way, whilst I was searching for background information on Ibn al-Haytham, I came across some rather shocking reports of research which showed that sometimes even college students still believe in the extramission theory of vision. Isn't that amazing.  :D I wonder what the average scientifically illiterate adult thinks.
http://people.auc.ca/brodbeck/4007/article7.pdf
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/extramission.htm

"The authors reviewed research about a profound misconception that is present among college students, namely, the belief that the process of vision includes emanations from the eyes, an idea that is consistent with the extramission theory of perception, which was originally professed by early Greek philosophers and which persisted in scholarly circles for centuries. The authors document the strength and breadth of this phenomenon and the abject failure of traditional educational techniques to overcome this belief, and they reveal that students are leaving psychology courses with a flawed understanding of one of the most studied processes in the history of psychology—visual perception. Some suggestions are offered for overcoming this misconception in traditional college classroom settings."

The attached image is of a sketch depicting Alhazen's experiment which falsifies the ancient Greek 'emission' and 'extramission' theories of vision. The beginnings of photography, by a Muslim as well.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #97 on: October 30, 2017, 07:11:34 am »

... How can a qualified scientist in the field of climatology, who knows more about climate than I do, be wrong on the issue?...

English language - many people speak it, few well

Scientist - many people claim to be, few are

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #98 on: October 30, 2017, 07:13:03 am »

Good. I'm glad you've raised the issue of 'scrutiny, testing and falsification', Phil, because this is the basis of my skepticism regarding the 'hypothesis' that rising levels of that clear, clean and odourless trace gas called CO2, at the current rate, could have catastrophic consequences on the planet's climate.

Okay, let's dissect that statement. Why do you put hypothesis between quotes? Why even call it a hypothesis, when the causes and the effects are demonstrable (and the heat-trapping properties of CO2 were known more than a century ago)? In science that's called an emerging truth, a probable outcome, when new evidence confirms cause and effect of earlier observations and repeated experiments give the same results.

Why do you call CO2 a "clear, clean and odourless trace gas"? It's not 'clear' at all wavelengths, in particular not for near InfraRed radiation. Don't know what you mean by clear, it's not a scientific term unless you qualify what you mean. Why call it Odorless? Are you trying to suggest that it's harmless? Yes, it's a trace gas, and a very important one despite its low concentration in the troposphere.

One might quibble about when to call effects of rising CO2 concentrations catastrophic, but science doesn't use those terms. Science uses a model that fits the observed effects (and the different models keep getting better), and uses that to anticipate what the future may look like (with a certain probablity). And many of their expectations are becoming reality, some exceeding the expectations, some staying within the range of probable expectations. Thus the models are tested and fine-tuned. Judgement calls are for politicians, and those impacted by the effects.

Quote
How is it possible to devise an experiment that could either confirm or falsify such a hypothesis?

You'd have to start with a hypothesis. Any proper hypothesis should be falsifiable if the experiment is set up correctly. When the experiment turns out to support the hypothesis, we have an emerging truth. When all (independently repeated) experiments fail to prove the hypothesis wrong, the emerging truth can be called a fact (with a high probability).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: October 30, 2017, 07:16:23 am by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #99 on: October 30, 2017, 07:29:12 am »

... (and the different models keep getting better)...

Which simply means that the previous models, on which the panic and alarm are still based, were not so good. We are already witnessing scaling down of the magnitude of "catastrophic consequences," extending the time frame in which it might happen, and lowering the probability of it happening.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 32   Go Up