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


Off-Topic Discussions

1,401 to 1,450 of 3,563 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | next > last >>

Aranna wrote:
I will post more after I have digested some of these articles. But Scythia? The whole world or nearly all of it discarded the false gods for the real one. If the real one claims to have created us then we should accept that. If evolution was God's tool to craft us as it seems to be the case, then it does nothing to lessen God's majesty.

If by "whole world" you mean "barely half"...

And that's only if you think that all Abrahamic religions worship the same god, which many do not believe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Remember, conspiracy theories almost never come in single doses. Conspiracy theory-oriented thought is systemic. If someone subscribes to one conspiracy theory, they almost certainly subscribe to many. (or will eventually subscribe to many, given time)

Scott Betts is confirmed as Illuminati stooge!

Liberty's Edge

FNORD!


meatrace wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I will post more after I have digested some of these articles. But Scythia? The whole world or nearly all of it discarded the false gods for the real one. If the real one claims to have created us then we should accept that. If evolution was God's tool to craft us as it seems to be the case, then it does nothing to lessen God's majesty.

If by "whole world" you mean "barely half"...

And that's only if you think that all Abrahamic religions worship the same god, which many do not believe.

Both Jews and Muslims think the idea of slicing God up into three parts to be rather off the wall. Islam however seems to draw very heavily from the pre-Paulist stage of Christianity.

What most modern Christians don't appreciate is that their religion is shaped more by Paul than Christ.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I will post more after I have digested some of these articles. But Scythia? The whole world or nearly all of it discarded the false gods for the real one. If the real one claims to have created us then we should accept that. If evolution was God's tool to craft us as it seems to be the case, then it does nothing to lessen God's majesty.

If by "whole world" you mean "barely half"...

And that's only if you think that all Abrahamic religions worship the same god, which many do not believe.

Both Jews and Muslims think the idea of slicing God up into three parts to be rather off the wall. Islam however seems to draw very heavily from the pre-Paulist stage of Christianity.

What most modern Christians don't appreciate is that their religion is shaped more by Paul than Christ.

Genuinely have no idea how that relates to what I said.


Sooo many off-topic comments! <fails save>

thejeff wrote:
Seriously, if you don't want to be taken seriously, you need a sillier handle. I've had serious discussions here with Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants. :)

You mean like Oops_I_Fumbled_In_My_Pants?

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
What most modern Christians don't appreciate is that their religion is shaped more by Paul than Christ.

O-ree-lee?... The Interwebs say,

St. Matt wrote:
3:13-17
St. Johnny wrote:
1:29-34
St. Luc wrote:
3:21-22
St. Marco wrote:
1:9-11

All four of these guys precede St. Paolo.

Back on-topic now.
For GreyWolfLord, Snow Pack Map

Orfamay Quest wrote:
But more importantly, "the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). In other words, climate varies -- which we already knew. The major causes of natural climate variation are also well-known, and those causes appear to be the source of the MWP. Those causes are not active today -- in fact, solar radiation is actually dropping slightly as global temperatures are rising dramatically. There is also no unusually low level of volcanic activity.

Which is just one good example of why climate modeling is worthless for long term planning.

Next:
"Chemtrails"? Do we mean "Contrails"? 9/11 helped us answer that question with no jet planes in the sky for 4 days running. Jet travel keeps the globe cooler by about 1/2 a degree (or ~ 1 degree if you still use the archaic Fahrenheit scale).

Next:
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, no one has touched my point regarding lowering our standard of living.

One of my new favorite authors has a good quote that explains why no one responds when I state that we in the "West" need to reduce our standard of living by about 80%; the Chinese, Indians, and Russians by about 50%; and the rest of the world needs to stay where they are at (more or less).

Quote:
Any abstract point about "what should be done" must be embodied in the form of a concrete message, which is entered into the arena of rhetorical and political reality. There is will be ignored, misunderstood, distorted, or appropriated for various conflicting purposes; it will bounce around like a pinball, causing actions and reactions, ushering in a cascade of consequences, the upshot of which need bear no straightforward relationship to the intentions of the original author.

Truer words have never been put to print.

As a species we are not about to embark on a global climate change experiment. We are already 100 years into a (minimum) 200 year ride.

Super computer climate models do tell us that much. But then so do back-of-the-envelope calcs from requisite chemists/physicists.

I have been advocating increasing efficiency in the entire energy supply chain from extraction, to refinement/transport, to use, to final disposition/waste remediation.

I have since educated myself and have come to believe that we need to do one more thing. Tax the #### out of the new efficient supply chain. Because, if we don't tax it people will expand their use of energy accordingly. For example, doubling a cars mpg/kpl typically means people will drive twice as much, thus offsetting any efficiency gains. Then we need to use the taxes for more R&D on efficiency/new energy sources <cough>FUSION!!</cough> and some climate change mitigation (for example - building sea-walls or helping people move, whichever is best).

Telling us we need to study climate change more means absolutely nothing if we aren't already underway in reducing our "carbon footprint" by 80%, 50%, holding steady.

And we aren't.

And we won't until we are choking on the consequences.


Quark_Blast wrote:
"Chemtrails"? Do we mean "Contrails"? 9/11 helped us answer that question with no jet planes in the sky for 4 days running. Jet travel keeps the globe cooler by about 1/2 a degree (or ~ 1 degree if you still use the archaic Fahrenheit scale).

What?


Off-topic:
Quark Blast wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
What most modern Christians don't appreciate is that their religion is shaped more by Paul than Christ.

O-ree-lee?... The Interwebs say,

St. Matt wrote:
3:13-17
St. Johnny wrote:
1:29-34
St. Luc wrote:
3:21-22
St. Marco wrote:
1:9-11
All four of these guys precede St. Paolo.

The earliest Gospel is usually understood to be Mark's and is believed to have been written soon after AD 65. 30+ years after Jesus's death. Likely near the time of Paul's death. Well after the Pauline epistles were written and long after Paul's influence on the early Church.

Even traditionally, Luke is ascribed to one of Paul's companions, so it makes no sense at all to say Luke precedes Paul.


Maneuvermoose wrote:
Quark_Blast wrote:
"Chemtrails"? Do we mean "Contrails"? 9/11 helped us answer that question with no jet planes in the sky for 4 days running. Jet travel keeps the globe cooler by about 1/2 a degree (or ~ 1 degree if you still use the archaic Fahrenheit scale).
What?

It's true. At least as a short term effect. Though it's a little trickier than that. Contrails from daylight flight reflect more sun and lower temperature. Nighttime travel blocks radiating warmth and thus actually raises the temperature.

It also has a much dimished effect, if any, when it's already cloudy.

All that ignores the longer term effects. The contrail effect is likely minimal and definitely transient compared to the effects of the carbon emitted by burning all the jet fuel needed to produce them.


thejeff wrote:
** spoiler omitted **

Off Topic:

If I take your argument at face value it means:

1 - Jesus is in the unenviable position of selecting his closest disciples (including Matto and Marco; and including some of the people Lucian interviewed for his book (Cf. Luke 1:2), who then, it turns out,...

2 - Totally flaked on him and drank the virtual Kool-aid (raspberry flavored, naturally) of some street preacher named Paulus, who it seems, totally borked his message.

If you're into conspiracy theories, fine. But I think it's damned clear that Jesus of Nazareth referred to himself in language that, to 1st century Jewish minds, was both unmistakably messianic and deific.

Paulus was late-out-the-gate and ran like hell to catch up but his ideas weren't canon over against what Pete and Co. were already saying.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
"Chemtrails"?Do we mean "Contrails"? 9/11 helped us answer that question with no jet planes in the sky for 4 days running. Jet travel keeps the globe cooler by about 1/2 a degree (or ~ 1 degree if you still use the archaic Fahrenheit scale).

It seems likely that contrails provide a net WARMing effect, and the 0.5 C figure is widely disputed. In addition to the issues thejeff noted, studies of the days after 9/11 had no way to separate the impact of contrail removal from natural variation and the continental US has more air traffic than virtually any other portion of the globe and thus we would expect the impact to be smaller for the other 98% of the planet's surface.

Quote:

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, no one has touched my point regarding lowering our standard of living.

One of my new favorite authors has a good quote that explains why no one responds when I state that we in the "West" need to reduce our standard of living by about 80%; the Chinese, Indians, and Russians by about 50%; and the rest of the world needs to stay where they are at (more or less).

Because there is no point in responding to nonsense presented without any evidence whatsoever? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have presented none.

That said, if you DID try to present evidence on this point it would presumably be the usual claim that GDP is tied to fossil fuel emissions (which is false) and therefore cutting fossil fuels MUST result in a GDP (and corresponding standard of living) decline.

This was an obvious example of correlation not proving causation... even before fossil fuel emissions and GDP growth decoupled in recent years with the growth of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.

Just another deception put out for parrots to repeat ad infinitum.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quote:

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, no one has touched my point regarding lowering our standard of living.

One of my new favorite authors has a good quote that explains why no one responds when I state that we in the "West" need to reduce our standard of living by about 80%; the Chinese, Indians, and Russians by about 50%; and the rest of the world needs to stay where they are at (more or less).

Because there is no point in responding to nonsense presented without any evidence whatsoever? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have presented none.

That said, if you DID try to present evidence on this point it would presumably be the usual claim that GDP is tied to fossil fuel emissions (which is false) and therefore cutting fossil fuels MUST result in a GDP (and corresponding standard of living) decline.

This was an obvious example of correlation not proving causation... even before fossil fuel emissions and GDP growth decoupled in recent years with the growth of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.

Just another deception put out for parrots to repeat ad infinitum.

I've said no such thing. Nor have I implied any such thing. Dismiss with a hand-wave what I've typed if you like but I'm not joking or trying to 'set someone up' with my statements.

To repeat, as a species we are not about to embark on a global climate change experiment, we are already 100 years into it.

Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is the driver. Most of that from human energy use. Most human energy use is, per capita, in the "West". A significant portion is from China, India and Russia (and similar economies). A relatively small proportion is from the rest of the planet.

It's attitudes like yours, plus that of the climate change deniers, that will keep this experiment going until we choke ourselves. Like the person I quoted who wrote regarding useful ideas being brought into the public arena; "There it will be ignored, misunderstood, distorted, or appropriated for various conflicting purposes; it will bounce around like a pinball, causing actions and reactions, ushering in a cascade of consequences, the upshot of which need bear no straightforward relationship to the intentions of the original author."

Make me out to say whatever you want to (I'm not really giving you permission to be a ####, just acknowledging the fact that you will be). Sadly you won't likely live long enough the bear the full brunt of what AGW is going to bring but I'll wager someone you love will. Get off your soap box and think about actually doing something besides talking 'knowledgeably' on tangential topics. Or not. As you wish.

Me? I think I'll sit back and watch the planet dry up and burn. Or flood. Or... whatever. Anything beats trying to have a conversation with those who favor insults disguised as intellectual pretense.

Liberty's Edge

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

So... absolutely no evidence to support your claims that we need to have a massive decrease in standard of living to stop global warming.

Like I said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Offtopic Early church:
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The earliest Gospel is usually understood to be Mark's and is believed to have been written soon after AD 65. 30+ years after Jesus's death. Likely near the time of Paul's death. Well after the Pauline epistles were written and long after Paul's influence on the early Church.

Even traditionally, Luke is ascribed to one of Paul's companions, so it makes no sense at all to say Luke precedes Paul.

If I take your argument at face value it means:

1 - Jesus is in the unenviable position of selecting his closest disciples (including Matto and Marco; and including some of the people Lucian interviewed for his book (Cf. Luke 1:2), who then, it turns out,...

2 - Totally flaked on him and drank the virtual Kool-aid (raspberry flavored, naturally) of some street preacher named Paulus, who it seems, totally borked his message.

If you're into conspiracy theories, fine. But I think it's damned clear that Jesus of Nazareth referred to himself in language that, to 1st century Jewish minds, was both unmistakably messianic and deific.

Paulus was late-out-the-gate and ran like hell to catch up but his ideas weren't canon over against what Pete and Co. were already saying.

1) The Gospels of Matthew and Mark (or Luke and John, for that matter) were not actually written by Jesus's closest disciples. Matthew and Mark were both anonymous and only later tradition links them to those names. Even the Mark who it was traditionally ascribed to was a companion of Peter, not one of the Apostles. Matthew was an Apostle, but again, not the writer of the Gospel that bears his name.

2) It's undeniable that Paul was a major driver of the expansion and growth of the early Church. He certainly wasn't just some street preacher. No more than Peter was or any of the other early disciples. The letters of Paul are basically the earliest writings we have for Christian thought. Pretty much everything else is at least influenced by Paul. Whether he totally borked the message or not is less clear. The current Bible is definitely filtered through Paul's ideas. Most likely, he considered himself to be interpreting and spreading Jesus's true message.

I don't think anything is damned clear about what Jesus actually said. We're dealing with decades of oral transmission of religious sayings by people steeped in prophecy and religious tradition and fanaticism in a culture with a very different attitude towards any kind of scholarship than we have today. Even today, with recordings and everyone literate and so much written down, it's still easy for sayings passed around to be changed or misattributed. How much easier then? In a context where "It was prophesied that he would do X, so he must have done it" is an argument that made sense.

There was no canon until hundreds of years later, by which time many writings were attached to famous early figures in order to give them more weight and importance. Or just because these texts were obviously right and important so someone important must have written them.


Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quote:

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, no one has touched my point regarding lowering our standard of living.

One of my new favorite authors has a good quote that explains why no one responds when I state that we in the "West" need to reduce our standard of living by about 80%; the Chinese, Indians, and Russians by about 50%; and the rest of the world needs to stay where they are at (more or less).

Because there is no point in responding to nonsense presented without any evidence whatsoever? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have presented none.

That said, if you DID try to present evidence on this point it would presumably be the usual claim that GDP is tied to fossil fuel emissions (which is false) and therefore cutting fossil fuels MUST result in a GDP (and corresponding standard of living) decline.

This was an obvious example of correlation not proving causation... even before fossil fuel emissions and GDP growth decoupled in recent years with the growth of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.

Just another deception put out for parrots to repeat ad infinitum.

I've said no such thing. Nor have I implied any such thing. Dismiss with a hand-wave what I've typed if you like but I'm not joking or trying to 'set someone up' with my statements.

To repeat, as a species we are not about to embark on a global climate change experiment, we are already 100 years into it.

Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is the driver. Most of that from human energy use. Most human energy use is, per capita, in the "West". A significant portion is from China, India and Russia (and similar economies). A relatively small proportion is from the rest of the planet.

It's attitudes like yours, plus that of the climate change deniers, that will keep this experiment going until we choke ourselves. Like the person I quoted who wrote regarding useful ideas being brought into the public arena; "There it will be ignored,...

Nothing you said even relates to what CBDunkerson said. You're correct about the experiment and about the driver and about where it comes from.

I'm not even sure what you mean you haven't said or implied. If your statement about reduce the standard of living isn't related to fossil fuel use, where does it come from? And why did you then repeat the sources of carbon emissions as if they were related, if you don't even want to imply that a reduction in emissions would bring about a huge reduction in standard of living?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ya know, there's a recently resurrected thread (pun intended) for the church stuff.


Chem trails do exist, military forces use them to block high resolution satellite images, would not want the other side to be able to see where all your ground forces are located.

Under spectral analysis they look very different from contrails, they are not composed of water vapor, or ice crystals.

For example Link

Spoiler:
Did I throw in another conspiracy theory? Oh yes I did!!


KenderKin wrote:

Chem trails do exist, military forces use them to block high resolution satellite images, would not want the other side to be able to see where all your ground forces are located.

Under spectral analysis they look very different from contrails, they are not composed of water vapor, or ice crystals.

For example Link

** spoiler omitted **

If only they could fluoridate the water in more countries, there would be no need for war. The Bilderburg/trilateral alliance would control enough minds to ensure opposition had no chance. GMOs just don't work quickly enough.


Chemtrails are so last year. Now the Illuminati have upgraded from chemical power to nuclear power. Nuketrails are way more effective at mind control than chemtrails.

Liberty's Edge

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

Investors abandoning coal - last nail in the coffin


On Topic Link

WP wrote:

The geologic evidence from the new core did not show a lag, the new study reports. That means, the authors estimate, that while a gigantic volume of carbon entered the atmosphere during the PETM — between 2,000 and 4,500 billion tons — it played out over some 4,000 years. So only about 1 billion tons of carbon were emitted per year. In contrast, humans are now emitting about 10 billion tons annually — changing the planet much more rapidly.

"The anthropogenic release outpaces carbon release during the most extreme global warming event of the past 66 million years, by at least an order of magnitude,” writes Peter Stassen, an Earth and environmental scientist at KU Leuven, in Belgium, in an accompanying commentary on the new study.

And not only have we only begun to see the changes that will result from current warming, but there may be other changes that lack any ancient parallel, because of the current rate of change.

"Given that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented throughout the Cenozoic, we have effectively entered an era of a no-analogue state, which represents a fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections,” the study concludes.

I find the whole article relevant but note what I bolded. See? Continuing to "better" model climate change is also a waste of time for this reason. Not only is our input data fundamentally incomplete, our ability to calculate too course, but we have nothing in the geologic record to check our model results against. We have no way to truth our models even if we had reason to believe they might be able to give us an accurate prediction of the future.

The truth is the haves (and by "haves" I mean us in the "West" not just the 1% (or 1/10-of-1%), and to a lessor extent China and India) don't want to cut their standard of living to any significant degree. And we won't. Because we have the money and power to ride the AGW train off the rails at full speed. So we will.

At this point, if all we want to do is make more climate models to "study the problem" then, we might as well break out the fiddles and start playing a happy tune for all the good a more refined model will do us.

crazyreligousconspiracystuffrelatingtowhatthejeffsaid:

thejeff wrote:
The letters of Paul are basically the earliest writings we have for Christian thought.

Maybe in some relative pedantic way but you're overlooking that the stuff Lucas quotes/paraphrases (Cf. Luke 1:2); and the stuff Paolo quotes (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3); and the stuff marcus wrote down (his eponymous gospel) after hearing the itinerant Petros say the same thing for a couple decades or more; are all things the Christians already knew before Paolo ever fell blind off his horse on his way to Damacus(Cf. Romans 1:8).

If Paolo was so important why doesn't the RCC claim him as the "first pope"? Why does Lucas spend so much effort recording what women said/did in his gospel when Paolo tells them to "stuff-it!"? The idea that we can't know anything about what happened centuries ago because - reasons - is just another conspiracy story.

The reason I'm a hard agnostic (not arrogant enough to call myself an atheist (and, yes, I know it seems oxy-moronic to most for me to claim I'm not "arrogant enough" in any context)) is because we in fact DO know essentially what all major religious teachers were saying in their day. That is, well more than enough context survives for me to dismiss the capital-T Truth claims and just gain a modest, and very mundane, enlightenment from the remaining truths.

So, for example (since we're talking about Paolo and Co.); What's the point of "God" dying for me when it won't be too many more decades (and maybe much sooner!!) and I'll be taking a permanent dirt nap anyway?

But the part about, "Do to others as you would have them do to you"? I get that, even if I don't practice it particularly well/often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
"Chemtrails"?Do we mean "Contrails"? 9/11 helped us answer that question with no jet planes in the sky for 4 days running. Jet travel keeps the globe cooler by about 1/2 a degree (or ~ 1 degree if you still use the archaic Fahrenheit scale).

It seems likely that contrails provide a net WARMing effect, and the 0.5 C figure is widely disputed. In addition to the issues thejeff noted, studies of the days after 9/11 had no way to separate the impact of contrail removal from natural variation and the continental US has more air traffic than virtually any other portion of the globe and thus we would expect the impact to be smaller for the other 98% of the planet's surface.

Quote:

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, no one has touched my point regarding lowering our standard of living.

One of my new favorite authors has a good quote that explains why no one responds when I state that we in the "West" need to reduce our standard of living by about 80%; the Chinese, Indians, and Russians by about 50%; and the rest of the world needs to stay where they are at (more or less).

Because there is no point in responding to nonsense presented without any evidence whatsoever? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have presented none.

That said, if you DID try to present evidence on this point it would presumably be the usual claim that GDP is tied to fossil fuel emissions (which is false) and therefore cutting fossil fuels MUST result in a GDP (and corresponding standard of living) decline.

This was an obvious example of correlation not proving causation... even before fossil fuel emissions and GDP growth decoupled in recent years with the growth of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.

Just another deception put out for parrots to repeat ad infinitum.

And if addressing climate change does result in a GDP decline (I suspect that, to a degree, it would), it begs the question of whether first world standards of living are environmentally sustainable in the long term (I suspect they aren't). Just because we want consumerism doesn't mean we can have it without severe side effects or that we have the resources to keep having it at all.


Rosita the Riveter wrote:
previous quotes snipped...And if addressing climate change does result in a GDP decline (I suspect that, to a degree, it would), it begs the question of whether first world standards of living are environmentally sustainable in the long term (I suspect they aren't). Just because we want consumerism doesn't mean we can have it without severe side effects or that we have the resources to keep having it at all.

I concur with your suspicions.

Not a popular position to take. If the AGW science means anything at all, it means we're already too late to change (until it hits the fan and we start over picking up the pieces after the fallout).


Well, even though the year was off to a cold start, it seems that it's warming up quickly. It could be a hot year if my recent foray is any indication.

Snowpack could be up in our area. We Got pounded around a week and a half ago with around 2 feet more of snow, and that was in the warm area where I'm at (before we go out into the mountain tops).

Resevoirs are supposedly doing better in California as well...though that probably will only solve around 25% of the drought problem even if they fill massively...from some predictions I've seen recently.

They'll need a few more good years.


Actually, it was off to a hot start, at least globally.

Hottest January
Warmest February
Record warm March

High (or more accurately, what we used to call normal) snowfall did help with the California drought, but that's probably temporary.


I think I might be seeing more rain in Southeast Nevada than California has been outside of this spring.


Noam Chomsky on how the wealthy/elite - Liberal or Conservative - are leading ineffective efforts against climate change with their policies; see especially 2:45 to 3:18.
LINK
He uses Canada as an example and calls it a paradox.

Noam Chomsky on the cost-benefit analysis of remediation for global warming causes; see 2:20 to 2:55.
LINK
While I agree that the benefits of doing something will mostly pay off now or soon. I disagree that we are at a point where we can do something effective about it.

Noam Chomsky on the on the idea that some credible sources have said humans have gone beyond the tipping point; see 22:20 to 23:45.
LINK

Yes, we are already underway. The grand experiment has commenced. Turning back now won't make the consequences go away for at least 100 years, maybe more. Going full steam ahead will make it marginally worse.

Other than more CO2 = more energy trapped in the global climate system we have no idea, nor any hope of a useful detailed idea, as to what will transpire. Modeling our climate for the purpose of predicting outcomes (as opposed to merely showing possible outcomes) is a total waste. Therefore we should focus on three areas.

1 - move towards renewable energy where it pays off inside 20 years regardless of the state of climate change. This can include government subsidies to get things going but should not include subsidies once economies of scale have been achieved.
2 - have solid actionable plans for moving people out of areas that will flood; for building structures to limit the local effects of sea level rise; and be ready to pivot in/out agricultural practices based on actual available water.
3 - focus at least 1/3 of our research into nuclear fusion and/or building Thorium reactors that use a recyclable uranium/plutonium seed.

Al Gore, great speaker, had a recent TED Talk on climate change
LINK
I don't disagree, in general, with most of what he says but I'm not so optimistic. I think subsidies of renewables are what keep them going, mostly. His direct comparison of cell phones and green energy is not tenable; it is a bad analogy.

The big question Al Gore ignores:
Is most of the planet (~6.5 Billion humans) willing to stay poor relative to the Western lifestyle? Are we in the West willing to give up 30 to 80% of our relative wealth?

The answer to those questions is a solid "No!", without a genuine source of very cheap energy (see item 3 above).

To take one of Al Gore's points. The USA is getting off of coal for power generation and fast. Great, but the increase in greenhouse gases from India over the next 10 years alone will exceed all of our current input from coal. Brazil, same. Russia, same. Africa, same (and yes I realize Africa is a continent of 54 countries; but fairly comparing them directly to Russia, Brazil and India gives you an idea of how poor they are per capita).

Alice Bows-larkin talked last year about the choices we get to make. LINK
And here's just one comment under her video that aptly summarizes what' wrong with her thesis.

YouTubeComment wrote:
We're not going to change, and we're probably not going to adapt -- because it's not financially advantageous in the short term. No politician can afford to follow the path of change and adapt because they're only elected for a few short years, and their supporters are the wealthy.. it's not to their advantage in the short term. Austerity? Not until it's too late.

Just look at Greece. Humans are bad at planning ahead. Rich humans, who are often the policy makers, even more so.

I have a good friend who's parents are rather wealthy. Maybe not 1%-ers but at least 2%-ers. They travel quite a bit for vacations. I asked his dad once if he thought he would travel less when gas prices exceeded $5/gallon. He paused and then said, "Maybe when it gets to $20/gallon. Fuel isn't currently even a line item in my household budget."

He's a nice guy, and I suspect a registered Democrat, but as he candidly admitted, he isn't even going to blink at fuel prices until they approach $20/gallon!

Another point. Just look at the chart in this TED Talk here by Kevin Surace LINK at 3:00 minutes in. Kevin is calling an increase of about 4.4 Degrees C a "Best Case". Then compare what Alice Bows-Larkin said in her talk. Mainly I refer to the fact that she believes any rise above 4 Degrees C is going to be catastrophic on a global scale.

I think they are both right and you see why I'm pessimistic. And why I find it annoying when climate scientists want to make more models and bigger/better super computers to find out what climate change will do. We have passed the point of needing to give the problem more study. Further, the system is chaotic and is immune to further study by computer models at least. Maybe someday when we get a functional quantum computer climate modeling will become a live option again. But by then we should be well underway or (hopefully) finished with the actions we need to take.

One of Al Gore's talking points was on how the insurance companies know climate is changing. While that's true but just look at this LINK, and imagine how they are going to use their influence in places of power through their lobbyists.

Heck, just look at the estimates of Al Gore's carbon footprint. His from last year alone exceeds mine lifetime total (so far)!

Yeah, if there's anything to climate change remotely approaching the "scientific consensus", I'd say we're screwed.


Another take on why climate modeling is a failed enterprise.
LINK

Or for the more quantitatively minded, LINK

Or this one, LINK, and note especially the fifth reason of concern over trying to model natural processes, and the authors' summary concern as follows

Crutchfield and Feldman wrote:
Of course, most natural phenomena involve, to one degree or another, almost all of these separate sources of "noise". Moreover, the different mechanisms interact with each other. It is no surprise, therefore, that describing and quantifying the degree of a process's apparent randomness is a difficult yet essential endeavor that cuts across many disciplines.

On the other hand, like a I said in my last post, the Global Climate Change experiment is actually underway.

Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.

The "worst case scenario" would be if we burned ALL of the coal... and oil... and natural gas... and other fossil hydro-carbons.

So no, we aren't already at the worst case scenario. Not even close.

Rather, we are nearing the end of still being able to keep things to the best case scenario.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.

The "worst case scenario" would be if we burned ALL of the coal... and oil... and natural gas... and other fossil hydro-carbons.

So no, we aren't already at the worst case scenario. Not even close.

Rather, we are nearing the end of still being able to keep things to the best case scenario.

No, that would be the absurd case scenario. There is no reasonable argument that we could be putting significantly more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are at present.

Go back and watch the various climate talk videos I linked. We are in fact, according to the various "climate experts", living under the worst case scenario.

We passed by best case about 6 to 10 years ago; depending on which expert you listen to.

Like I said, the fact that we are turning back now won't make the consequences go away for at least 100 years, maybe more. Going full steam ahead will make it marginally worse.


Quark Blast wrote:

Another take on why climate modeling is a failed enterprise.

LINK

Or for the more quantitatively minded, LINK

Or this one, LINK, and note especially the fifth reason of concern over trying to model natural processes, and the authors' summary concern as follows

Crutchfield and Feldman wrote:
Of course, most natural phenomena involve, to one degree or another, almost all of these separate sources of "noise". Moreover, the different mechanisms interact with each other. It is no surprise, therefore, that describing and quantifying the degree of a process's apparent randomness is a difficult yet essential endeavor that cuts across many disciplines.

On the other hand, like a I said in my last post, the Global Climate Change experiment is actually underway.

Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.

So, if the modeling is pointless, how do we even know Global Climate Change is happening?

Your opposition to modeling strikes me as allowing the perfect to be the enemy of good. Since it's not perfect, you want to completely ditch it, except then we'll be proceeding forward blindly. We might be blind right now, but at least we're reaching our hands out instead of using our faces.

You're pipedream of retraining all these people as energy engineers is beyond silly. It's never going to happen and wouldn't even be that useful even if we did do it. We're better off just training new students in the fields we need as they'll have longer careers.

I agree we can't live like we do, but until we agree as a society a way of enforcing it or attaching the true cost of these things, people will take the cheap energy and use it. It's a tragedy of the commons. Because I can get cheap gasoline for my lawn mower, I use it, even though it does damage to the environment. If that cost were better reflected in the price of gasoline, I might have to change my habits.

I suspect that once the price of climate change is actually factored into things like fuels, air travel is largely going to go away (until we figure out electric planes, but that's a ways off I suspect).


thejeff wrote:

Actually, it was off to a hot start, at least globally.

Hottest January
Warmest February
Record warm March

High (or more accurately, what we used to call normal) snowfall did help with the California drought, but that's probably temporary.

You have to remember, I do localized temperature analysis...

So my temps and weather recording is for the stations which I hike out to and collect.

Currently, it warmed up, but over the past two months it's been rather chilly (colder than usual) for our records.

For our area, it's turning into a rather cold summer. It's been more like a prolonged spring at this point. It is kind of odd in that manner, in all honesty.

Now, whether that holds true for other places like Iran, or China...I don't take or record the records there.

My stuff is sent in for analysis by the people who look at those things.

I don't do that.


Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Another take on why climate modeling is a failed enterprise.

LINK

Or for the more quantitatively minded, LINK

Or this one, LINK, and note especially the fifth reason of concern over trying to model natural processes, and the authors' summary concern as follows

Crutchfield and Feldman wrote:
Of course, most natural phenomena involve, to one degree or another, almost all of these separate sources of "noise". Moreover, the different mechanisms interact with each other. It is no surprise, therefore, that describing and quantifying the degree of a process's apparent randomness is a difficult yet essential endeavor that cuts across many disciplines.

On the other hand, like a I said in my last post, the Global Climate Change experiment is actually underway.

Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.
So, if the modeling is pointless, how do we even know Global Climate Change is happening?

Here let me help.

Obviously I'm saying that if you believe the climate experts and their models, we are living under the worst case scenario already.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Actually, it was off to a hot start, at least globally.

Hottest January
Warmest February
Record warm March

High (or more accurately, what we used to call normal) snowfall did help with the California drought, but that's probably temporary.

You have to remember, I do localized temperature analysis...

So my temps and weather recording is for the stations which I hike out to and collect.

Currently, it warmed up, but over the past two months it's been rather chilly (colder than usual) for our records.

For our area, it's turning into a rather cold summer. It's been more like a prolonged spring at this point. It is kind of odd in that manner, in all honesty.

Now, whether that holds true for other places like Iran, or China...I don't take or record the records there.

My stuff is sent in for analysis by the people who look at those things.

I don't do that.

Local data, by itself, is nearly irrelevant when talking about global warming. There's enough local and regional variation that one area can be colder than normal while the world's average temperature is still setting record highs.

Just to continue:
April
May
June

These are all breaking last year's records. 14 months in a row of record heat.


Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Another take on why climate modeling is a failed enterprise.

LINK

Or for the more quantitatively minded, LINK

Or this one, LINK, and note especially the fifth reason of concern over trying to model natural processes, and the authors' summary concern as follows

Crutchfield and Feldman wrote:
Of course, most natural phenomena involve, to one degree or another, almost all of these separate sources of "noise". Moreover, the different mechanisms interact with each other. It is no surprise, therefore, that describing and quantifying the degree of a process's apparent randomness is a difficult yet essential endeavor that cuts across many disciplines.

On the other hand, like a I said in my last post, the Global Climate Change experiment is actually underway.

Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.
So, if the modeling is pointless, how do we even know Global Climate Change is happening?

Here let me help.

Obviously I'm saying that if you believe the climate experts and their models, we are living under the worst case scenario already.

I'm just asking you to pick a side. Do you believe the modeling and that climate change is actually a problem, or do you think it's all bunk and modeling proves nothing?

I'm tired of this "modeling is 100% useless, but we should act on it anyways."

You don't have to say that the modeling is perfect. But if you're going to talk about the consequences reflected in the modeling, you should at least admit that they might be useful.


thejeff wrote:

snip

These are all breaking last year's records. 14 months in a row of record heat.

And there's nothing to be done about it but watch. The CO2 load on the atmosphere won't start decreasing measurably for at least another 20 years and the consequences of the current load will be working out over the next 100.

Cheres!


Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Another take on why climate modeling is a failed enterprise.

LINK

Or for the more quantitatively minded, LINK

Or this one, LINK, and note especially the fifth reason of concern over trying to model natural processes, and the authors' summary concern as follows

Crutchfield and Feldman wrote:
Of course, most natural phenomena involve, to one degree or another, almost all of these separate sources of "noise". Moreover, the different mechanisms interact with each other. It is no surprise, therefore, that describing and quantifying the degree of a process's apparent randomness is a difficult yet essential endeavor that cuts across many disciplines.

On the other hand, like a I said in my last post, the Global Climate Change experiment is actually underway.

Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.
So, if the modeling is pointless, how do we even know Global Climate Change is happening?

Here let me help.

Obviously I'm saying that if you believe the climate experts and their models, we are living under the worst case scenario already.

I'm just asking you to pick a side. Do you believe the modeling and that climate change is actually a problem, or do you think it's all bunk and modeling proves nothing?

I'm tired of this "modeling is 100% useless, but we should act on it anyways."

You don't have to say that the modeling is perfect. But if you're going to talk about the consequences reflected in the modeling, you should at least admit that they might be useful.

Well, it's been a while but way up thread I said something to the effect of...

The models are incapable of accurately modeling the actual climate next year, let alone next decade or century. This is fundamental to the type of phenomenon that global climate is. Namely, chaotic (in the sense of chaoplexity, not the 3.PF alignment axis).

And yes, we should act now, but not because of the "data" from the climate models but because it makes economic sense to do so. Sustainable energy sources pay for themselves quickly. On the order of years to at most a decade.

In particular I am in favor of alternate nuclear sources and R&D into battery storage.

Of course, one can build a wind farm or solar farm in areas totally unsuited to them and hence be a net waste but I'm assuming appropriate engineering studies being used to build out any given project.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:

snip

These are all breaking last year's records. 14 months in a row of record heat.

And there's nothing to be done about it but watch. The CO2 load on the atmosphere won't start decreasing measurably for at least another 20 years and the consequences of the current load will be working out over the next 100.

Cheres!

Which still doesn't mean "Don't bother trying to slow down the CO2 we add."

The fact the consequences are so delayed and lasting is the best argument for cutting anywhere we can.


Quark Blast wrote:

Well, it's been a while but way up thread I said something to the effect of...

The models are incapable of accurately modeling the actual climate next year, let alone next decade or century. This is fundamental to the type of phenomenon that global climate is. Namely, chaotic (in the sense of chaoplexity, not the 3.PF alignment axis).

And yes, we should act now, but not because of the "data" from the climate models but because it makes economic sense to do so. Sustainable energy sources pay for themselves quickly. On the order of years to at most a decade.

In particular I am in favor of alternate nuclear sources and R&D into battery storage.

Of course, one can build a wind farm or solar farm in areas totally unsuited to them and hence be a net waste but I'm assuming appropriate engineering studies being used to build out any given project.

Your understanding of climate science and its chaotic nature is severely lacking.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:

snip

These are all breaking last year's records. 14 months in a row of record heat.

And there's nothing to be done about it but watch. The CO2 load on the atmosphere won't start decreasing measurably for at least another 20 years and the consequences of the current load will be working out over the next 100.

Cheres!

Which still doesn't mean "Don't bother trying to slow down the CO2 we add."

The fact the consequences are so delayed and lasting is the best argument for cutting anywhere we can.

But only if we know that another 5% reduction will avoid a "tipping point". And we don't know that. We in fact have no idea what the next 100 years will look like other than a number for the gross amount of additional energy trapped in the global atmosphere/ocean system.

And I have a hard time getting on board the "Let's do something/anything!!" alarmist train when the loudest proponents have individually larger carbon footprints than I do. Al Gore's CO2 contribution from 2015 is larger than my lifetime contribution to date. Just the footprint of his house is more than my entire lifestyle year-to-year.

Not to mention that anything we in the West could do to help will be overshadowed by what (e.g.) India will do.

As I've said before, if you want us to do something significant, something measurable on a global scale, something that will make a difference no matter what climate model you use; then the West needs to cut our lifestyle energy budget by about 80% of the current level. And that is so not going to happen.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Well, it's been a while but way up thread I said something to the effect of...

The models are incapable of accurately modeling the actual climate next year, let alone next decade or century. This is fundamental to the type of phenomenon that global climate is. Namely, chaotic (in the sense of chaoplexity, not the 3.PF alignment axis).

And yes, we should act now, but not because of the "data" from the climate models but because it makes economic sense to do so. Sustainable energy sources pay for themselves quickly. On the order of years to at most a decade.

In particular I am in favor of alternate nuclear sources and R&D into battery storage.

Of course, one can build a wind farm or solar farm in areas totally unsuited to them and hence be a net waste but I'm assuming appropriate engineering studies being used to build out any given project.

Your understanding of climate science and its chaotic nature is severely lacking.

Says the person who didn't read/watch a single link I posted! :D


Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Another take on why climate modeling is a failed enterprise.

LINK

Or for the more quantitatively minded, LINK

Or this one, LINK, and note especially the fifth reason of concern over trying to model natural processes, and the authors' summary concern as follows

Crutchfield and Feldman wrote:
Of course, most natural phenomena involve, to one degree or another, almost all of these separate sources of "noise". Moreover, the different mechanisms interact with each other. It is no surprise, therefore, that describing and quantifying the degree of a process's apparent randomness is a difficult yet essential endeavor that cuts across many disciplines.

On the other hand, like a I said in my last post, the Global Climate Change experiment is actually underway.

Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.
So, if the modeling is pointless, how do we even know Global Climate Change is happening?

Here let me help.

Obviously I'm saying that if you believe the climate experts and their models, we are living under the worst case scenario already.

No... there is no scenario that we can't make worse by putting our heads under the sand and pretending that the problem doesn't exist. X + 100 megatons of coal in the atmosphere is still worse than X, no matter how big the number X is, as long as X is below the human extinction level.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.

The "worst case scenario" would be if we burned ALL of the coal... and oil... and natural gas... and other fossil hydro-carbons.

So no, we aren't already at the worst case scenario. Not even close.

Rather, we are nearing the end of still being able to keep things to the best case scenario.

No, that would be the absurd case scenario. There is no reasonable argument that we could be putting significantly more CO2 into the atmosphere than we are at present.

Go back and watch the various climate talk videos I linked. We are in fact, according to the various "climate experts", living under the worst case scenario.

We passed by best case about 6 to 10 years ago; depending on which expert you listen to.

Like I said, the fact that we are turning back now won't make the consequences go away for at least 100 years, maybe more. Going full steam ahead will make it marginally worse.

I see. You are looking at RATE of emissions rather than TOTAL emissions. Two different types of 'worst case' which you are mixing up.

Our current RATE of emissions is very near the worst case. We theoretically could be releasing more carbon into the atmosphere, but there would be no logical reason to do so... and we could be emitting a lot LESS without serious consequence.

However, that's just a point in time snapshot. If we indeed DID stop emitting CO2 tomorrow then the consequences of global warming would be relatively restrained... little worse than what we have already seen. We are nowhere near the worst case scenario for total global warming impact. For that we'd need to burn all of the fossil fuels.


Quark Blast wrote:

Well, it's been a while but way up thread I said something to the effect of...

The models are incapable of accurately modeling the actual climate next year, let alone next decade or century. This is fundamental to the type of phenomenon that global climate is. Namely, chaotic (in the sense of chaoplexity, not the 3.PF alignment axis).

And yes, we should act now, but not because of the "data" from the climate models but because it makes economic sense to do so. Sustainable energy sources pay for themselves quickly. On the order of years to at most a decade.

In particular I am in favor of alternate nuclear sources and R&D into battery storage.

Of course, one can build a wind farm or solar farm in areas totally unsuited to them and hence be a net waste but I'm assuming appropriate engineering studies being used to build out any given project.

I'm curious and want to pin down what exactly your position on climate change is... do you consider it to be "not real" and therefore something that shouldn't concern anyone?

To be clear, I am NOT asking you about:
1) do you think someone else's efforts on climate change are effective
2) what you think the best course of action could be
3) whether you like waffles or pancakes more?
4) anything else

I am asking you:
1) Do you think the world is undergoing human caused climate change?


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


The models are incapable of accurately modeling the actual climate next year, let alone next decade or century. This is fundamental to the type of phenomenon that global climate is. Namely, chaotic (in the sense of chaoplexity, not the 3.PF alignment axis).

Your understanding of climate science and its chaotic nature is severely lacking.

Yeah, that's not what "chaos theory" means. Chaos theory means that errors increase over time, but it says nothing about how long they take to increase. The solar system, for example, is an example of an n-body problem, and therefore formally chaotic, but the Lyapunov number for the orbit of Pluto is "only" about 20 million years, meaning that it we know Pluto's orbit to about a kilometer or so right now (which we do), we can predict it to within 3 km 20 million years from now, and to about 10 km (3*3) 40 million years from now, and to about 30 km 60 million years from now.

Climate science has enough free parameters that trying to calculate a single Lyapunov number is an exercise in futility,.... but the idea that we don't have any idea of what the climate is going to be next year is, er, interestingly counterfactual.


Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Another take on why climate modeling is a failed enterprise.

LINK

Or for the more quantitatively minded, LINK

Or this one, LINK, and note especially the fifth reason of concern over trying to model natural processes, and the authors' summary concern as follows

Crutchfield and Feldman wrote:
Of course, most natural phenomena involve, to one degree or another, almost all of these separate sources of "noise". Moreover, the different mechanisms interact with each other. It is no surprise, therefore, that describing and quantifying the degree of a process's apparent randomness is a difficult yet essential endeavor that cuts across many disciplines.

On the other hand, like a I said in my last post, the Global Climate Change experiment is actually underway.

Even if we, as a species, stopped using coal this instant, the "worst-case scenario" CO2 load is already in the atmosphere and we have another 100 wait to see what unfolds.
So, if the modeling is pointless, how do we even know Global Climate Change is happening?

Here let me help.

Obviously I'm saying that if you believe the climate experts and their models, we are living under the worst case scenario already.

I'm just asking you to pick a side. Do you believe the modeling and that climate change is actually a problem, or do you think it's all bunk and modeling proves nothing?

I'm tired of this "modeling is 100% useless, but we should act on it anyways."

You don't have to say that the modeling is perfect. But if you're going to talk about the consequences reflected in the modeling, you should at least admit that they might be useful.

Do not allow perfect to become the enemy of good.


Do people not know how scientific theory even works? It is not just people sitting in a room and going "Hey, know what? I think X" and getting people to agree. It is constant testing and review and always looking for the smallest thing that is incorrect, then correcting and testing again. You keep testing it until everything is correct and has been reviewed by for quite a long while by many other people who also test rigorously. What we have on climate change is the result of years of research and actually trying to find the things that prove it false. When I say prove, I mean actually prove with evidence rather then just "Harumph, no I don't like it because I said so."

Remember, opinion means nothing when faced with facts. Science does not need anyone's belief for it to be true. If I don't believe a boulder is tumbling down to my house, that doesn't mean it isn't.

If you want to say climate change, or rather climate change that is sped up by humans, is not true then please provide the solid evidence of this. No assumptions. No hypothesis. No opinions. Show us evidence that stands up to the scientific method that counters the current theory (Theory does NOT mean guess) and people will actually check it out. If you can prove this stuff is not true, and I do mean prove not state your opinion, then you'll be famous and advance the field of science.


Jaçinto wrote:

Do people not know how scientific theory even works? It is not just people sitting in a room and going "Hey, know what? I think X" and getting people to agree. It is constant testing and review and always looking for the smallest thing that is incorrect, then correcting and testing again. You keep testing it until everything is correct and has been reviewed by for quite a long while by many other people who also test rigorously. What we have on climate change is the result of years of research and actually trying to find the things that prove it false. When I say prove, I mean actually prove with evidence rather then just "Harumph, no I don't like it because I said so."

Remember, opinion means nothing when faced with facts. Science does not need anyone's belief for it to be true. If I don't believe a boulder is tumbling down to my house, that doesn't mean it isn't.

If you want to say climate change, or rather climate change that is sped up by humans, is not true then please provide the solid evidence of this. No assumptions. No hypothesis. No opinions. Show us evidence that stands up to the scientific method that counters the current theory (Theory does NOT mean guess) and people will actually check it out. If you can prove this stuff is not true, and I do mean prove not state your opinion, then you'll be famous and advance the field of science.

Or just spin convincing BS that it's not true, and you may be able to draw a salary from the Koch Brothers.


CBDunkerson wrote:
I see. You are looking at RATE of emissions rather than TOTAL emissions. Two different types of 'worst case' which you are mixing up.

Yes, I've only ever been speaking to rate emissions.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Our current RATE of emissions is very near the worst case. We theoretically could be releasing more carbon into the atmosphere, but there would be no logical reason to do so... and we could be emitting a lot LESS without serious consequence.

Agreed. Question though. Do you mean "could be" in an abstract sense or concrete?

Because the concrete sense would require a billion or two people to significantly lower their standard of living. And we all know how the Tragedy of the Commons turns out.

CBDunkerson wrote:
However, that's just a point in time snapshot. If we indeed DID stop emitting CO2 tomorrow then the consequences of global warming would be relatively restrained... little worse than what we have already seen. We are nowhere near the worst case scenario for total global warming impact. For that we'd need to burn all of the fossil fuels.

True as far as it goes but the current trend isn't done getting worse yet. With the current CO2 load in the atmosphere it will be another 50 to 100 years before all the damage is done. This assumes no as yet undiscovered feedback mechanisms that will push sea level rise from being measured in cm to meters or large scale regional drying turning massive expanses of now forested land into grassland, etc.

Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Well, it's been a while but way up thread I said something to the effect of...

The models are incapable of accurately modeling the actual climate next year, let alone next decade or century. This is fundamental to the type of phenomenon that global climate is. Namely, chaotic (in the sense of chaoplexity, not the 3.PF alignment axis).

And yes, we should act now, but not because of the "data" from the climate models but because it makes economic sense to do so. Sustainable energy sources pay for themselves quickly. On the order of years to at most a decade.

In particular I am in favor of alternate nuclear sources and R&D into battery storage.

Of course, one can build a wind farm or solar farm in areas totally unsuited to them and hence be a net waste but I'm assuming appropriate engineering studies being used to build out any given project.

I'm curious and want to pin down what exactly your position on climate change is... do you consider it to be "not real" and therefore something that shouldn't concern anyone?

To be clear, I am NOT asking you about:
1) do you think someone else's efforts on climate change are effective
2) what you think the best course of action could be
3) whether you like waffles or pancakes more?
4) anything else

I am asking you:
1) Do you think the world is undergoing human caused climate change?

Yes, since shortly after we discovered the use of fire.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Climate science has enough free parameters that trying to calculate a single Lyapunov number is an exercise in futility,.... but the idea that we don't have any idea of what the climate is going to be next year is, er, interestingly counterfactual.

At last! Someone gets it.

:)

And as for your last point. Mostly true unless we hit a tipping point and the global cycle(s) flip over to another strange attractor basin. We cannot know that will not happen and 1,001 climate models won't help us determine the correct answer.

You know people here call me "hipster cynical". A name whose use I have not done anything to dissuade. But this back and forth on the AGW thing reminds me of an apt quote.

Says the Internet, George Bernard Shaw wrote:

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

1,401 to 1,450 of 3,563 << first < prev | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 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.