Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

551 to 600 of 3,884 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

Wrath wrote:

Science costs money.

To get money, scientists have to lobby for cash.

Those who pay the cash have a vested interest in the results.

All of those are enough to justify any doubt in any scientific study on its own.

It is a good reason to be skeptical. But skepticism should really be your default anyway.

But it is certainly not enough to justify "any doubt in any scientific study".

It would not be enough to justify for instance, doubt the scientific position that the moon is made of rock and not cheese.

Why is that?

1. Because the position have been reached based on the work of lots of different peoples work all showing, if different ways, results that agree with the position.

2. While it is possible one scientist might fake his findings, as the size of a conspiracy grows, the chance that the conspiracy will leak information increases.

3. The work of these scientists have had their work check through the process of peer review, and both the people checking the work, and the journals to which it is being submitted stake their reputation on the strength of the study.

4. There are a great many other scientists out their who stand to personally gain by proving you wrong. A good way of getting that tasty tasty grant money is to show that someone else idea doesn't explain a thing, or that their their methodology is faulty.

And so on...

Wrath wrote:


That's why studies need to be done by many folks from many sources. The trouble with this issue is that there are many studies, but the sources for the funding are surprisingly limited.

Which fortunately is rather how things work. Funding for Science as a whole, is funded by a wide range of sources.

What is true of science as a whole, is also true of climate science.

Funding comes from all sorts of sources, from charities and NGOs, to direct government funding of research, central funding of universities by government grant, funding by Quangos. There is also funding by industry and inter-governmental agencies.

Interestingly, the fossil fuel industry are responsible for a very great deal of funding of research. Some direct, and some through think tanks. This funding contributes to about 3% of climate science papers being contrarian.

However, recent work has begun to cast doubt on the quality of contrarian papers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wrath wrote:
Solar, wind etc. The seemingly perfect solution. Infinite source of energy. But how do we make money from it?

Same way you do from any other form of energy, by delivering it. The method of generating energy does not change that.

We actually have some fairly innovative projects in New Jersey, south of me, Bayonne has one of those giant windmills in operation. I know at least one person who has implemented what's becoming the new thing in solar energy, you don't put up panels to power your house, you put up panels to feed the energy grid and you get credits from the power company. Those credits pay the bulk of his energy bill.


Quark Blast wrote:

Hypothetically humans are increasing average global temperature through our activities.

At some point this increase may trigger significant global climate change and the Earth starts to get tropical from Luleå to Port Lincoln, etc. But then a triggering event occurs, say 85% of Greenland's glaciers go galloping into the North Atlantic over the course of a month or two. This event monkeys with the Atlantic Gyre, and the Gulf Stream, and... the next thing we know, a strange attractor that had remained hidden from even our best climate models shows it's influence and we head into a 400 year "mini ice-age".

It is theoretically possible that some currently unknown factor will save us or even reverse the effect. It's far more likely that one of the known tipping factors will push us every farther along - methyl hydrates being the most likely candidate.

Neither has anything to do with chaos theory. Nor with global warming not happening or not being human caused.


Hitdice wrote:
ZOMG, Quark, have you read seveNeves by Neal Stephenson? It's pretty good book, and eerily similar to what you're describing, except with other stuff, not climate. Atmospheric temperature certainly plays part, though!

No I have not. A couple of his books are on my 'to do' list. Someday. Maybe. Added to list. Thx for the recommend. :)

CBDunkerson wrote:
stuff and... It also has nothing to do with your point about the complexity of climate models because the climate models do not show such behaviour. It would require some massive, currently unknown, factor.

Your objection to my hypothetical by positing "unkowns" is precisely my point. Thx for your support towards my thesis. :p

thejeff wrote:

[1]It is theoretically possible that some currently unknown factor will save us or even reverse the effect. It's far more likely that one of the known tipping factors will push us every farther along - methyl hydrates being the most likely candidate.

[2]Neither has anything to do with chaos theory. Nor with global warming not happening or not being human caused.

1 - No, it is not "far more likely". The likelihood is = unknown. That's the nature of a system ruled by strange attractors. Fractal dynamics in the global atmosphere-ocean system is about the only thing in climate science that we know with certainty.

2 - Those types of things (see [1] above) are precisely items to consider when modeling global climate for periods greater than a few weeks.

Quark out.
-
\
O


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:

[1]It is theoretically possible that some currently unknown factor will save us or even reverse the effect. It's far more likely that one of the known tipping factors will push us every farther along - methyl hydrates being the most likely candidate.

[2]Neither has anything to do with chaos theory. Nor with global warming not happening or not being human caused.

1 - No, it is not "far more likely". The likelihood is = unknown. That's the nature of a system ruled by strange attractors. Fractal dynamics in the global atmosphere-ocean system is about the only thing in climate science that we know with certainty.

2 - Those types of things (see [1] above) are precisely items to consider when modeling global climate for periods greater than a few weeks.

Well, forget it then. It's not only unknown, but unknowable. No way to make any estimates or anything. Might as well stop making any models or predictions and forget all about global warming. (Until we all fry of course.)

Climate is chaotic, so there's no way to make any predictions more than a few weeks out. We can't even speculate about the likelihood it'll be cold in the winter, since that's more than a couple weeks away. And for all we know, it'll be snowing next August. No way to tell. The likelihood is unknown.

This is of course nonsense. So is your argument.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something I've never understood about this debate; everyone agrees that smog and air-pollution is bad, right? And everyone agrees that these are a major health problem in urban centers around the world, right? So why not look at alternate fuel options simply for the sake of our health? You don't have to believe in global climate change to agree with clean air.

Or how about switching to alternate fuel sources simply because we will, eventually, run out of oil? Or so countries don't have to rely on foreign imports for fuel? Or all of the above...

Unfortunately I suspect the answer to both of these is probably mired in corporate politics with oil and automobile companies.


Hitdice wrote:
What you have to remember is that Sissyl resides in Sweden, where Global warming is a net positive. Look, that's not a dig, I live in New England and would enjoy 40 degree Fahrenheit winters, so there.

It might not be a net positive for Sweden. I don't know how the water situation is there.

For example, India could be totally screwed, not because it'll get hotter in the lowlands, but because the mountains might not be cold enough to cause the monsoon season. If more moisture makes it past the Himalayas, that could be good for western China (in terms of rainfall), but bad for India.

Warmer mountain regions means fewer/smaller rivers. The colder the mountains are, the more moisture they cause clouds to dump as snow.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To the Levy at New Orleans, there was a planned levy system that was to be put in place by the team of engineers approved by the federal government that would have held by diverting water around the city. That was halted because of environmental concerns of displacing a particular species from their habitat if the water would have been diverted. The then current levy that failed could not hold the pressure that the diversion would have eased.

Why is it being looked at from three to five year intervoles. As another has pointed out three pages back, the 30's was hotter than anything we are experiencing now, it was the hottest decade in record.

Nuclear energy has come a long way, and waste from these plants are better handled now as well as being less of it.

Yes, the Email controversy has been explained away, us laymen told that we don't understand the nuances of scientific fudging, sorta like a bookie says his numbers are on the up and up. This fractional number and that decimal point along with a misprinted misunderstanding, all water under the bridge, right?

Right?

It is still a sore, black eye for the "cause" of Global Warming...


ThaX, lets try this again. Do you accept that co2 is opaque to infrared radiation?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:


It is still a sore, black eye for the "cause" of Global Warming...

And the deniers inability to cite information that supports their arguments, explain the specifics of their complaints, or articulate any sane motivation for this world wide hoax puts their cause through the woodchipper.

There is no rational reason to believe you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

To the Levy at New Orleans, there was a planned levy system that was to be put in place by the team of engineers approved by the federal government that would have held by diverting water around the city. That was halted because of environmental concerns of displacing a particular species from their habitat if the water would have been diverted. The then current levy that failed could not hold the pressure that the diversion would have eased.

Why is it being looked at from three to five year intervoles. As another has pointed out three pages back, the 30's was hotter than anything we are experiencing now, it was the hottest decade in record.

Well, the poster then didn't offer any support for the 30s being the hottest on record either. Poking around a little bit, the source for that seems to be record highs in the US in the 30s, still surpassed by the last decade or so, but more importantly not global.

As for the levees, without more information, I can't even find anything to debunk. I can point at the wiki entry claiming funding, rather than environmental problems:

Quote:

From 2001 through 2005, the Bush administration battled with Congress to cut a total of approximately 67% from the budgetary requests from the Corps of Engineers for levee augmentation projects in the New Orleans area, but ultimately settled with Congress on a 50% cut in these budgetary requests. In February 2004, Naomi stated that, "I've got at least six levee construction contracts (in the New Orleans area where funding has been cut) that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about US$5 Million. And we're going to have to pay them interest."

Even as the Bush administration was cutting the Corps of Engineers' budget, many were criticizing the administration for not cutting the budget more. The New York Times, in particular, published several editorials criticizing the large size of the $17 Billion Corps budget, and called for the Senate to cut, "pork," in S. 728, which would have provided $512 Million in funding for hurricane protection projects in southern Louisiana.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arguing with a conspiracy nut is provably LESS effective than arguing with a wall. The wall might at least form a coherent response, if you're lucky.

Why are you still doing this to yourselves?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Your objection to my hypothetical by positing "unkowns" is precisely my point. Thx for your support towards my thesis. :p

Any argument founded on the possibility of unknown factors changing the results of the known factors is basically nonsensical sophistry.

Yes. Something unknown could reverse global warming. Just as something unknown could reverse gravity. Tomorrow we could all find ourselves being thrown into the sky by the force of the Earth's rotation and the sudden absence of gravity. However, to argue that this possibility should be kept in mind and considered in our planning is simply absurd.

thaX wrote:
To the Levy at New Orleans, there was a planned levy system that was to be put in place by the team of engineers approved by the federal government that would have held by diverting water around the city. That was halted because of environmental concerns of displacing a particular species from their habitat if the water would have been diverted. The then current levy that failed could not hold the pressure that the diversion would have eased.

What species? Given that it was a particular one you can, no doubt, name it. Yet you haven't... any of the times you brought up this claim. Is it a bird? A fish? Flying moonbat? Also strange that it is not mentioned anywhere in the Wikipedia article on the levee failures. They've got some silly argument about the Bush administration having pushed through a 50% cut in funds for levee repair. How could THAT make more sense than a mystical unnamed critter that can't tolerate the presence of man-made rocks?

thaX wrote:
Why is it being looked at from three to five year intervoles. As another has pointed out three pages back, the 30's was hotter than anything we are experiencing now, it was the hottest decade in record.

You are mixing up your misinformation. A few years in the 1930s were very warm in the >United States< (less than 2% of the planet's surface)... but many years from the past two decades have been warmer. Globally, the 1930s weren't even close to current temperatures.

thaX wrote:

Yes, the Email controversy has been explained away, us laymen told that we don't understand the nuances of scientific fudging, sorta like a bookie says his numbers are on the up and up. This fractional number and that decimal point along with a misprinted misunderstanding, all water under the bridge, right?

Right?

It is still a sore, black eye for the "cause" of Global Warming...

It is only a 'black eye' in the minds of those who prefer lies over reality. The claims about the e-mails showing misconduct were lies. No explanation of 'fudging' was required... just the simple act of pointing out that none of the claims were true. If they were you could say, 'THIS here e-mail... see it makes my case'. Yet you don't. Instead you shout "E-MAILS" like it is some kind of magical invocation which banishes all evidence and proves your position... even though you yourself can't say precisely how.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Arguing with a conspiracy nut is provably LESS effective than arguing with a wall. The wall might at least form a coherent response, if you're lucky.

Why are you still doing this to yourselves?

Because I gain some mild amusement from it?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Arguing with a conspiracy nut is provably LESS effective than arguing with a wall. The wall might at least form a coherent response, if you're lucky.

Why are you still doing this to yourselves?

So that bystanders who haven't really looked in to the issue don't think that the claims might be true? If no one disputed the 'conspiracy nuts' then theirs would be the only information available... it'd be like watching Fox News.


One thing that I came across when doing climate googling is that CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas... the extreme greenhouse gas is water vapor. So WHY on this green earth are environmentalists pushing Fuel Cell engines which produce STEAM?! Isn't that like saying "We can save the world from this heat spell by Burning Everything to Ash?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
One thing that I came across when doing climate googling is that CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas... the extreme greenhouse gas is water vapor. So WHY on this green earth are environmentalists pushing Fuel Cell engines which produce STEAM?! Isn't that like saying "We can save the world from this heat spell by Burning Everything to Ash?"

Yes and no. There are more factors involved.

Simply put, air can only hold so much water vapor. Add more and it just condenses out. Carbon has no such limitation (or at least we're nowhere near it, I'm not sure).

Methane is also a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon, but it also doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long. The problem with carbon is a long-term one. The carbon we're adding to the atmosphere now will be warming the planet for centuries.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Arguing with a conspiracy nut is provably LESS effective than arguing with a wall. The wall might at least form a coherent response, if you're lucky.

Why are you still doing this to yourselves?

It's more of making sure that those who aren't hard-wired to global conspiracy paranoia hear a voice other than those of the conspiracy nuts.

ThaX is pretty much a lost cause as far as trying to get him to employ critical thinking but there are others looking for information on this topic. I just want to be sure that determined ignorance like his isn't the only viewpoint they get on the subject in this venue.

Not that I don't understand the appeal of ThaX's viewpoint. In his world, we continue to muddle along with no need to change our spendthrift toxic disposable lifestyle. Interests vested in that lifestyle continue to make their fortunes, secure in the belief that they will be isolated from any aftereffects in their lifetime. And folks like the Koch brothers block any major solar initiative they can, such as getting states to write laws to forbid cities from enacting any initiatives on their own, such as the Bayonne windmill, or offshore wind farms.

Because once you accept climate change as a reality, and humankind's part in it, you become forced to assess your own role in the greater picture. And you'll realise that it's a painful mirror to look at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really do just enjoy going full Don Quixote on people like ThaX. It is why I am working form the ground up. i want to identify where his line of reasoning breaks.


thejeff wrote:
As for the levees, without more information, I can't even find anything to debunk. I can point at the wiki entry claiming funding, rather than environmental problems:
Quote:

From 2001 through 2005, the Bush administration battled with Congress to cut a total of approximately 67% from the budgetary requests from the Corps of Engineers for levee augmentation projects in the New Orleans area, but ultimately settled with Congress on a 50% cut in these budgetary requests. In February 2004, Naomi stated that, "I've got at least six levee construction contracts (in the New Orleans area where funding has been cut) that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about US$5 Million. And we're going to have to pay them interest."

Even as the Bush administration was cutting the Corps of Engineers' budget, many were criticizing the administration for not cutting the budget more. The New York Times, in particular, published

...

Obligatory far-left post:

Why the Levee Broke

Hint: The war in Iraq was expensive.


Zombieneighbours wrote:
I really do just enjoy going full Don Quixote on people like ThaX. It is why I am working form the ground up. i want to identify where his line of reasoning breaks.

I'm not sure there's any "line of reasoning" involved. That old saw about not being able to reason people out of opinions they didn't reason themselves into.

More relevantly, you won't succeed, because he's not engaging. He's just dropping in to spout another set of talking points. He hasn't been replying to counterarguments or responding to evidence against posts.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


Simply put, air can only hold so much water vapor. Add more and it just condenses out. Carbon has no such limitation (or at least we're nowhere near it, I'm not sure).

It does have a limit, but you, I, and the rest of the planet, would give up the luxury of breathing long before it was reached.

The Exchange

LazarX wrote:
Wrath wrote:
Solar, wind etc. The seemingly perfect solution. Infinite source of energy. But how do we make money from it?

Same way you do from any other form of energy, by delivering it. The method of generating energy does not change that.

We actually have some fairly innovative projects in New Jersey, south of me, Bayonne has one of those giant windmills in operation. I know at least one person who has implemented what's becoming the new thing in solar energy, you don't put up panels to power your house, you put up panels to feed the energy grid and you get credits from the power company. Those credits pay the bulk of his energy bill.

The guys making money from coal aren't the ones making the electricity. Electricity companies will still make cash, for sure. Coal and oil companies won't though. And they have far more cash than energy companies.

In a country like America, where candidates for election need to fund their own campaigns, there's a fairly strong likely hood that companies with lots of cash available will get some significant political power.

In Australia, our politicians are funded by the party. However, the part gets their cash from out sourcing. Interestingly, the richest companies operating in Aus appear to be mining industry. The current liberal government has a number of members with mining connections in their funding. Our Government just cut funding to alternate enegergy sources and freed up legislation controlling the mining of coal. Pretty interesting co incidence.

I'm not here about conspiracy. The climate is changing, that is obvious. Humans are directly impacting on global systems that have helped stabilise the environment for thousands of years, and we're doing it at an exponential rate. No one in significant power will stop that unless we break the money cycle, or find a way to charge people for sunlight, which keeps the money cycle happy.

Interestingly, of the different extinction events, two have been relegated to gradual change leading to a final cataclysmic tipping point. One was believed to be methane inversion of the oceans due to temp changes at both surface and depth. The other was a period of extreme volcanic activity causing temperature changes in oceans to eventually tip.

The world will survive another gradual climate change. It's done so many times before apparently. What we have to worry about us are we acting as the tipping factor this time?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thaX wrote:

To the Levy at New Orleans, there was a planned levy system that was to be put in place by the team of engineers approved by the federal government that would have held by diverting water around the city. That was halted because of environmental concerns of displacing a particular species from their habitat if the water would have been diverted. The then current levy that failed could not hold the pressure that the diversion would have eased.

Why is it being looked at from three to five year intervoles. As another has pointed out three pages back, the 30's was hotter than anything we are experiencing now, it was the hottest decade in record.

Nuclear energy has come a long way, and waste from these plants are better handled now as well as being less of it.

Yes, the Email controversy has been explained away, us laymen told that we don't understand the nuances of scientific fudging, sorta like a bookie says his numbers are on the up and up. This fractional number and that decimal point along with a misprinted misunderstanding, all water under the bridge, right?

Right?

It is still a sore, black eye for the "cause" of Global Warming...

What many don't seem to understand is that climate analysis requires a LOT of data points, which means a LOT of individual readings. What folks like Thax don't seem to understand that it is a given that an number of those readings will be faulty, caused by things such as equipment malfunction, occasional vandalism, or squirrels deciding to next in the equipment. So when the raw data is parsed, you have to look for anamolous outriders in the readings and remove them from the data set. Typical example lets say you've got 20 sensors in Boise Idaho, 18 of them record a day whose average tempreature is 72 degrees, one of them however records a temp of 30. That's an anomaly within a rather small land area of reading so that gets flagged out because going to to see if it's because of squirrel, or some frat boy decided it would be hilarious to give the equipment the ice bucket challenge isn't practical.

The emails that Thax is crowing about were interpreted out of context, were describing procedures of this nature.


thejeff wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
I really do just enjoy going full Don Quixote on people like ThaX. It is why I am working form the ground up. i want to identify where his line of reasoning breaks.

I'm not sure there's any "line of reasoning" involved. That old saw about not being able to reason people out of opinions they didn't reason themselves into.

More relevantly, you won't succeed, because he's not engaging. He's just dropping in to spout another set of talking points. He hasn't been replying to counterarguments or responding to evidence against posts.

A. Did you not see the bit where I compared myself to Don Quixote ;)

B, I didn't say I wasn't being frustrated in my attempts ;)


Rynjin wrote:

Arguing with a conspiracy nut is provably LESS effective than arguing with a wall. The wall might at least form a coherent response, if you're lucky.

Why are you still doing this to yourselves?

Much like a wedding or a funeral its not really for the people on the dias.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Arguing with a conspiracy nut is provably LESS effective than arguing with a wall. The wall might at least form a coherent response, if you're lucky.

Why are you still doing this to yourselves?

Much like a wedding or a funeral its not really for the people on the dias.

I plan on postponing my expiration until my funeral, so I'm expecting some good performances.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


Hypothetically humans are increasing average global temperature through our activities. At some point this increase may trigger significant global climate change and the Earth starts to get tropical from Luleå to Port Lincoln, etc. But then a triggering event occurs, say 85% of Greenland's glaciers go galloping into the North Atlantic over the course of a month or two. This event monkeys with the Atlantic Gyre, and the Gulf Stream, and... the next thing we know, a strange attractor that had remained hidden from even our best climate models shows it's influence and we head into a 400 year "mini ice-age".

That's not actually what a "strange attractor" is, or (for that matter), anything particularly relevant to chaos theory. That's a simply classical fallacy called Argument from Ignorance.

Chaos theory arises in situations where we do know all the factors involved, but prediction is difficult because the dynamics of the situation multiply the amount of error, including the inevitable error bars in our knowledge of the initial conditions. I know that the temperature today in Corpus Christi, TX is 82 degrees F, but what I really know is that the temperature is somewhere between 81.5 and 82.5 degrees, and the energy in the half degree variance means my prediction of tomorrow's temperature is less than perfect -- and predicting a week from now is even worse.

The solution -- and we're pretty good at dealing with this one -- is that we run lots of different simulations and look at probabilities, which is why organizations like the IPCC usually present their predictions in terms of likelihoods. There is a 75% chance of such-and-such before the year 2100, which really means that of the simulations they ran (based on our current understanding), 75% of them showed such-and-such.

In the specific case of a loss of ice from Greenland -- we're actually pretty confident of what will happen, because we've run thousands or millions of simulations, and in NONE of them do we get a mini-ice-age.

Now, you're right, there might be an event we hadn't predicted or (less likely) a factor we hadn't considered. But that's not chaos theory, and it's not even science. It's good, old-fashioned, b---s--t sophistry, of the sort that Plato was familiar with and contemptuous of.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aranna wrote:
One thing that I came across when doing climate googling is that CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas... the extreme greenhouse gas is water vapor. So WHY on this green earth are environmentalists pushing Fuel Cell engines which produce STEAM?!

There are these things called 'rain', 'snow', and 'dew' which automatically prevent the water vapor content of the atmosphere from getting too high no matter how much we add. Sadly, there is no such thing as carbon dioxide rain.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Aranna wrote:
One thing that I came across when doing climate googling is that CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas... the extreme greenhouse gas is water vapor. So WHY on this green earth are environmentalists pushing Fuel Cell engines which produce STEAM?!
There are these things called 'rain', 'snow', and 'dew' which automatically prevent the water vapor content of the atmosphere from getting too high no matter how much we add. Sadly, there is no such thing as carbon dioxide rain.

Oooo.. diamonds!

AHHHHHH DIAMONDS! OW OW OW OW OW OW


thaX wrote:
As another has pointed out three pages back, the 30's was hotter than anything we are experiencing now, it was the hottest decade in record.

I'd just like to address this claim specifically.

Here's the global temperature graph. Notice the numbers for the 1930s? Notice the numbers for the early 21st century?

If "another" did point that out, "another" is either misunderstanding, misinformed, or outright lying.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Simply put, air can only hold so much water vapor. Add more and it just condenses out. Carbon has no such limitation (or at least we're nowhere near it, I'm not sure).

It does have a limit, but you, I, and the rest of the planet, would give up the luxury of breathing long before it was reached.

I'm not sure I'm understanding. I've lived in Washington, D.C., and I've experienced lots of times when the relative humidity was 100%. While I found it unpleasant, I didn't find it difficult to breathe.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

I'd just like to address this claim specifically.

Here's the global temperature graph. Notice the numbers for the 1930s? Notice the numbers for the early 21st century?
If "another" did point that out, "another" is either misunderstanding, misinformed, or outright lying.

But... emails! Therefore, your graph is false propaganda, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kullen wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I'd just like to address this claim specifically.

Here's the global temperature graph. Notice the numbers for the 1930s? Notice the numbers for the early 21st century?
If "another" did point that out, "another" is either misunderstanding, misinformed, or outright lying.
But... emails! Therefore, your graph is false propaganda, right?

Well, at least one statement made in this thread is false propaganda, yes. I'll leave it to the reader's judgment to identify which.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Simply put, air can only hold so much water vapor. Add more and it just condenses out. Carbon has no such limitation (or at least we're nowhere near it, I'm not sure).

It does have a limit, but you, I, and the rest of the planet, would give up the luxury of breathing long before it was reached.

I'm not sure I'm understanding. I've lived in Washington, D.C., and I've experienced lots of times when the relative humidity was 100%. While I found it unpleasant, I didn't find it difficult to breathe.

He was talking of CO2 saturation point, not H2O :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wrath wrote:
The world will survive another gradual climate change. It's done so many times before apparently. What we have to worry about us are we acting as the tipping factor this time?

The world has survived climate changes before. Keep in mind that we're sure that one of them led to a 98 percent species fatality rate. And others have been pretty bad.

The world will probably survive, but if we don't prepare and take steps, our precious civilisation will flush itself down the toilet. And with all the easy coal and oil removed from the planet already, it won't be a simple matter of bootstrapping ourselves back up.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
The world has survived climate changes before. Keep in mind that we're sure that one of them led to a 98 percent species fatality rate. And others have been pretty bad.

Citation? ;-)


The Permian-Triassic extinction event was 96% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life, about 250 million years ago.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
The Permian-Triassic extinction event was 96% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life, about 250 million years ago.

Whoops.

I didn't mean to drop that thing there.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Kullen wrote:
But... emails!

Iä! Iä! E-mails fhtagn!

We need a counter-invocation to cancel this 'skeptic' Banish Reality spell. Maybe;

Nanuq! Iñupiat kivalina giss hayhoe!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Sweden has had a ban on developing new nuclear technology for ages, only recently removed, instated by the environmental lobby. We have shut down our decently modern plants, instead... OPTING TO BUY NUCLEAR POWER ELECTRICITY FROM HORROR STORY PLANTS IN THE FORMER EASTERN BLOC! AND OF COURSE, COAL ELECTICITY FROM GERMANY!!! YAAAAAY!!!

This seems like more than a fair bit misleading though. Our ban on new nuclear technology was instated after a non-binding public vote that supported it, while it was removed without any such referendum.

I mean, claiming it was "instated by the environmental lobby" is basically saying that the Swedish population is the environmental lobby, but fortunately has now been put in their place by the government.

Sissyl wrote:

Sooo, unless I can find a group of people who both want to take risks for the environment and are willing to pay large amounts of money, AND don't want nuclear power, there is no double standard?

If the "environmental lobby" wants this, it should be easy to get, say, a quote from IPCC. Or heck, even a quote from Greenpeace as an organization would give some merit to your claims.

When your link is to a random guy who wants to ban cars, it's like claiming the Pathfinder lobby wants to ban D&D for height discrimination.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Kullen wrote:
But... emails!

Iä! Iä! E-mails fhtagn!

We need a counter-invocation to cancel this 'skeptic' Banish Reality spell. Maybe;

Nanuq! Iñupiat kivalina giss hayhoe!

~poof~ Why am I here?!

Oh yeah, to share a little wisdom from the dumb girl in the room.
We ALL want a better planet, you both just disagree on what path gets you there. If you want to actually convince him CBDunkerson then you need to take him seriously. Take his points and without being abrasive show him where he is wrong. Kinda like my steam issues... still I do wonder if dumping thousands of tons of extra steam into the atmosphere wouldn't create more storms as that water seeks condensation? Just a thought from the dumb girl.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Oh yeah, to share a little wisdom from the dumb girl in the room.

We ALL want a better planet, you both just disagree on what path gets you there. If you want to actually convince him CBDunkerson then you need to take him seriously. Take his points and without being abrasive show him where he is wrong. Kinda like my steam issues... still I do wonder if dumping thousands of tons of extra steam into the atmosphere wouldn't create more storms as that water seeks condensation? Just a thought from the dumb girl.

In theory it might, locally. It won't affect global warming, since it'll precipitate out. Whatever it does will be a short-term localized effect.

You also need to compare however much steam we're generating with the amount of water that evaporates from the world's oceans. I suspect it's much less and since it can't accumulate in the atmosphere, there's no long term additive affect, like there is with carbon.

As for ThaX, it's been a long time since he's shown any willingness to talk or be persuaded. He drops in, throws out a few talking points and vanishes. His next post rarely addresses anything said in response to the previous one. It's just another set of talking points.


Gaberlunzie: There was a referendum in 1980, yes. None of the alternatives was "let's keep and further develop it". Just that is enough to disqualify the vote. Further, none of the alternatives suggested a ban on research. Generally, it was the worst kind of farce. And it was certainly instated formally by the parliament, as you say. Do you claim the "Kärnkraft nej tack!" campaign wasn't environmentally motivated?


Aranna wrote:


Oh yeah, to share a little wisdom from the dumb girl in the room.
We ALL want a better planet, you both just disagree on what path gets you there. If you want to actually convince him CBDunkerson then you need to take him seriously. Take his points and without being abrasive show him where he is wrong.

You're completely missing the entire polemic of the deniers.

You can't take them seriously or show why his points are wrong because they're not actually making any. There is no argument. There is only the vague, illusory appearance of one. like trying to bullrush an illusion somewhere: accepting the premise that its there and expecting it to act like a real argument is simply unrealistic. Its not a real argument, so it doesn't act like one.

Look at the repeated insistence an reliance on "climate-gate!!!!" emails for example. Nothing from the emails is ever actually produced to BE refuted. Its just a vague handwave that "over there"

A real argument would produce specific passages that prove that global warming is being faked.. but thats not what you see. What you see is the image of that argument, followed by no resistance to the counter argument, followed by the argument still being their untouched and unchanged by the reality passing through it.


Aranna wrote:
still I do wonder if dumping thousands of tons of extra steam into the atmosphere wouldn't create more storms as that water seeks condensation?

Assuming this is a serious question and not just rhetoric,.... no, it really wouldn't. Not as a primary factor, anyway.

The first thing to note is that water vapor is already as high as it will go locally. If there were too much water vapor in the air right now in New York City, it would start raining.... but if there were too little, we'd just see more evaporation from the Hudson and East Rivers. So dumping a thousand tons of water vapor into Manhattan just means less evaporation today.

Similarly, look at the scale of things. A ton of water is (about) 1000 liters or (if you like) about a cubic meter. The Earth's atmosphere already holds about 13,000 cubic kilometers of water, so that's roughly 13,000,000,000,000 cubic meters or 13,000,000,000,000,000 liters of water. Adding another ten thousand tons, or 10,000,000 liters, wouldn't even shift the needle. We'd get approximately 0.000000001% more precipitation world-wide, even discounting the self-limiting factor described above.

Now, there are some possible second-order effects. Increasing the amount of water vapor in the air by 0.000000001% would -- because water vapor is a greenhouse gas -- increase water's contribution to the greenhouse effect by about 0.000000001%. (Yes, at this level, everything can be approximated linearly). This means that the global temperature would rise by less than 0.0000003K. I think this might be comparable to the effect of you choosing to wear a black dress instead of a white one, so I'd not worry about this.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aranna wrote:

Oh yeah, to share a little wisdom from the dumb girl in the room.

We ALL want a better planet, you both just disagree on what path gets you there. If you want to actually convince him CBDunkerson then you need to take him seriously.

Heh... apparently we needed a 'sarcasm' indicator on those posts. That is... I don't believe Kullen was actually saying that the e-mails disprove global warming. My read was that he was being sarcastic... and thus I didn't "disagree" with him at all. Rather, I extended his joke.

Quote:
Take his points and without being abrasive show him where he is wrong. Kinda like my steam issues... still I do wonder if dumping thousands of tons of extra steam into the atmosphere wouldn't create more storms as that water seeks condensation? Just a thought from the dumb girl.

You are correct. Dumping water into the atmosphere intensifies the water cycle. Indeed, according to the EPA, "Over the past 50 years, the amount of rain falling during the most intense 1 percent of storms increased by almost 20 percent."

As to "without being abrasive". Hmmm... have you met me? ;]


CBDunkerson wrote:


Quote:
Take his points and without being abrasive show him where he is wrong. Kinda like my steam issues... still I do wonder if dumping thousands of tons of extra steam into the atmosphere wouldn't create more storms as that water seeks condensation? Just a thought from the dumb girl.
You are correct. Dumping water into the atmosphere intensifies the water cycle. Indeed, according to the EPA, "Over the past 50 years, the amount of rain falling during the most intense 1 percent of storms increased by almost 20 percent."

I think you may have causes mixed up there. Higher temperatures cause more water in the air, but more water in the air doesn't really cause higher temperatures -- the amount of water vapor humans can dump into the air is nothing compared to the amount of additional evaporation a tenth of a degree increase in global temperature would "naturally" produce.

The actual causal path that I can see is :
1) Increased atmospheric CO2 causes increased global temperature
2) Increased global temperature increases absolute humidity through natural evaporation
3) Increased absolute humidity and increased temperature intensify the water cycle.


"Kullen" is the avatar I use to signal *massive sarcasm alert* without me needing to spell that out. Basically, if I'm going to say something obnoxious that shouldn't be taken too seriously, that's what I click on for "post as."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

FAR too subtle...

551 to 600 of 3,884 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.