The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: HHunter on March 11, 2014, 12:17:26 AM

Title: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 11, 2014, 12:17:26 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Evidence_CO2.jpg)

(http://migtest.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif)

Discuss on the severity of anthropogenic climate change, and the various effects it can have on the planet (whether flat or spherical!)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 11, 2014, 03:28:30 PM
It's very real and its a big deal. But its also a naturally occurring phenomenon and we've gone too far to stop it. The best we can do is slow it down a bit by lowering our contribution to it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 11, 2014, 11:57:57 PM
It's very real and its a big deal. But its also a naturally occurring phenomenon and we've gone too far to stop it. The best we can do is slow it down a bit by lowering our contribution to it.
Are you saying that there's been too much action to try to mitigate the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 12, 2014, 02:02:53 AM
Climate change or global warming? ;D  They keep changing the name, how interesting! ;D  And the whole thing was exposed as a hoax long ago, a way of enriching con artists like Al Gore.  Just Google "Climategate" for all the sordid details! ;D
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 12, 2014, 02:19:25 AM
Climate change is God punishing the dirty round earth sinners. I have been instructed to build a very large dirigible and obtain two of every animal before everyone on Earth's surface burns for their crimes.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 12, 2014, 02:33:32 AM
Climate change or global warming? ;D  They keep changing the name, how interesting! ;D  And the whole thing was exposed as a hoax long ago, a way of enriching con artists like Al Gore.  Just Google "Climategate" for all the sordid details! ;D
Climate change refers to climate changing over time. Global warming refers to the average increase of world temperatures over time. Global warming is a kind of climate change. Argueing that they "changed the name" is silly. The term "Global Warming" was actually coined in the 70s, when climate change was the highest used terms. In generation, ACC and AGW both refer to the same thing. It's as if someone were to say they change the name of the square and made it "rectangle", even though a square is a kind of rectangle.

And on the note of "Climategate" , numerous investigations have demonstrated that no scientific misconduct was performed by the scientists.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: jroa on March 12, 2014, 04:49:13 AM
Wasn't it just a few decades ago that scientists knew conclusively that we were heading towards another ice age?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 12, 2014, 08:01:55 AM
Wasn't it just a few decades ago that scientists knew conclusively that we were heading towards another ice age?
Yup, global cooling was all the rage in the 1970s and 1980s. Then they decided that the Earth isn't cooling up, but instead warming up. When people started asking about it, they said that an impending ice age is fully compatible with global warming.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-prediction-perils-111927
http://web.archive.org/web/20051119045242/http://sepp.org/glwarm/sciaddheat.html
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 12, 2014, 11:03:31 AM
Wasn't it just a few decades ago that scientists knew conclusively that we were heading towards another ice age?
Yup, global cooling was all the rage in the 1970s and 1980s. Then they decided that the Earth isn't cooling up, but instead warming up. When people started asking about it, they said that an impending ice age is fully compatible with global warming.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-prediction-perils-111927
http://web.archive.org/web/20051119045242/http://sepp.org/glwarm/sciaddheat.html
There was never a scientific consensus on global cooling.
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif)

Here's an article discussing "Global cooling" : http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
*Some* scientists believed that aerosols in the atmosphere, which reflect light, could cause a cooling trend. However it was demonstrated that this would not be a driving atmospheric forcing as CO2 is,
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: jroa on March 12, 2014, 02:49:06 PM
I think there was just no money in Global Cooling.  People know that they can throw a jacket on.  When the scientists realized that all of the money was in Global warming they switched sides.  I can't blame them, I probably would have done the same thing. 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 12, 2014, 03:47:57 PM
And on the note of "Climategate" , numerous investigations have demonstrated that no scientific misconduct was performed by the scientists.

Oh, really? ;D

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

"You may be interesting [sic] in this snippet of information about Pat Michaels [a notable global warming skeptic]. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?"

They look pretty guilty to me. ;D
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Blanko on March 12, 2014, 04:06:41 PM
Saddam what are you doing
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 12, 2014, 05:14:54 PM
Saddam what are you doing

I better spell it out for you...

1. All Climate models have failed to accurately predict the warming, they have all over estimed it my significant amounts.
2. The global temp has not risen in 17 years now. Yet Co2 has continued to rise.
3. There's no tell tale hotspots
4. The oceans are stable
5 Although there has been a small decline in the Artic, there's been a huge in crease in ice in the Antartic
6. Ice core data shows us temperatures rise BEFORE Co2 and that CO2 lags by about 800 years...
7. Seal level rises are exactly where they should be.. about 2mm per year..
8. and countless others....

There is no actual observable evidence to support most of the alramist claims made.

That said, we DO know that Co2 is a greenhouse gas.
We Do know that it does contribute (or should) to warming - but we DON"T know how much.. its looking like very little at the moment.. there is SOMETHING else causing the warming that we have seen over the last 30 years.

We Don't know what impact that will have on us yet.. but ALL evidence points to it being positive.. Crops are yielding more, for instance..

There has been no increase in Severe weather events.. go check for yourself.  The data is all there.

More people die in the winter (old people especially) that in the summer.. so warmer is better there too.

Whilst we are focusing on abating CO2, we're ignoring real pollution..

Co2 abatement programs are hurting some people.. look up food crisis's and ethanol supply.. 

Alternative energy sources are stupidly expensive and hopeless.  Except for nuclear - which if it wasn't for our rabid left wingers here we've have in Australia.

Then the argument of - should we simply adjust to climate change, rather than spend massive amounts of money abating it?  we are already seeing the negative effects of this all over the world..

I've simplified the argument as much as I can, but it is MUCH more complex that this.. do boil that down to 'denier' is simple minded, dumb, blinked and frankly below even a flat earther.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 12, 2014, 05:16:07 PM
I don't claim the climate is not changing, I see that your comprehension skills are on target for a FEer.

I question how much effect Co2 has, what are the real consiquesnces and how best to tackle them.. quite simple..

I don't, like a sheep, believe Al Gore, how's now the first  climate billionaire.  I don't listen to people like Flannery who predicted that Perth would be underwater by now.

I don't listen to people that say GIVE ME YOUR MONEY to save the planet..

I DO look at the EVIDENCE, yes yes, I know that will confuse a flat earther!  And there is NO supporting evidence to support the ALARMIST's claims..

There is evidence that there is something happening, yes.  But what? we don't know enough yet and breaking up our economies to solve a something we don't understand yet, is stupid..

so, I am not surprised you hold the alarmist view as you are no more or less stupid than any other flat earther on here.

If that, to your feeble mind is being a denier, then yep.. that's what I am.

Tell me, what are YOU doing to abate climate change????  I see that you still use computers.. so you're clearly a hypocrite.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 12, 2014, 08:16:06 PM
And on the note of "Climategate" , numerous investigations have demonstrated that no scientific misconduct was performed by the scientists.

Oh, really? ;D

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

"You may be interesting [sic] in this snippet of information about Pat Michaels [a notable global warming skeptic]. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels, PhD needs re-assessing?"

They look pretty guilty to me. ;D
The first quote refers to a trick in plotting longer-period graphs, and the "decline" refers to a decline in tree growths at certain latitude.
The second quote is discussing how we cannot accurately measure where all of the heat (only about 1% stays in the atmosphere) goes from global warming.
The third quote refers to relatively inaccurate claims made by Pat when getting his PhD.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 12, 2014, 08:52:43 PM
Trees! ;D  Ha!  What a joke!  Why would supposed climate scientists be talking about trees? ;D
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: EnigmaZV on March 12, 2014, 08:59:02 PM
I think the major problem with all of this climate science is that there is too much money getting poured into mathematical models, and the funding for actual climatology, which seeks to better understand the systems that govern climate is drying up. Studies which seek to determine the effects of some local geography on the local microclimate isn't as sexy as doom and gloom climate models.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 12, 2014, 09:01:01 PM
Saddam nailed this a while ago. The climate changes. But that is nothing to do with us. The global temperature changed by 15 degrees in 40 years after the last ice age!

We happen to have the lowest sun activity right now for 100 years!
http://www.wunderground.com/news/solar-cycle-quietest-100-years-20131126
Hence changing climate.

Similar with the hole in the ozone layer. The eco-tax brigade have gone very quiet on this as of late. The earth's magnetic field has decreased by 13% over the south pole in the last 100 years. Its the field that stops ozone being stripped away by the solar wind. Nothing to do with your fridge. But they can't tax you for natural phenomena. Somehow it has to be your fault. Fill you with guilt, open your wallet.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 12, 2014, 09:02:03 PM
Trees! ;D  Ha!  What a joke!  Why would supposed climate scientists be talking about trees? ;D
Because tree rings are fundamental to determining the climate of the past? Scientists, especially in the earth sciences, often pull information from other fields to further perform research in their own field.
What you're saying would be analogous to someone asking why a marine biologist would be discussing limestone formation, when limestone formation is clearly a function of many aspects of marine biology.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: EnigmaZV on March 12, 2014, 09:05:05 PM
Similar with the hole in the ozone layer. The eco-tax brigade have gone very quiet on this as of late. The earth's magnetic field has decreased by 13% over the south pole in the last 100 years. Its the field that stops ozone being stripped away by the solar wind. Nothing to do with your fridge. But they can't tax you for natural phenomena. Somehow it has to be your fault. Fill you with guilt, open your wallet.

Are you claiming that atmospheric CFCs have an insignificant effect on the ozone layer?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 12, 2014, 09:18:33 PM
Saddam nailed this a while ago. The climate changes. But that is nothing to do with us. The global temperature changed by 15 degrees in 40 years after the last ice age!

We happen to have the lowest sun activity right now for 100 years!
http://www.wunderground.com/news/solar-cycle-quietest-100-years-20131126
Hence changing climate.

Similar with the hole in the ozone layer. The eco-tax brigade have gone very quiet on this as of late. The earth's magnetic field has decreased by 13% over the south pole in the last 100 years. Its the field that stops ozone being stripped away by the solar wind. Nothing to do with your fridge. But they can't tax you for natural phenomena. Somehow it has to be your fault. Fill you with guilt, open your wallet.

Could you cite the 15 degree temperature change? And cite the decrease of the electromagnetic field. I believe you, I would just like to read the article (please use scientific articles, not news articles). 
Also it is already proven that CFCs have a highly significant effect on stratospheric ozone. It is well known, and they were phased out due to this. It is estimated that a single atom of chlorine in the atmosphere can destroy about 100,000 molecules of ozone. Here's the reactions:

CCl3F + UV light → CCl2F + Cl    
Cl + O3 → ClO + O2
ClO + O → Cl + O2   
Cl + O → ClO + O2   
ClO + O → Cl + O2   

and as you can see the reactions are recursive. It's pretty simple chemistry really.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 12, 2014, 11:31:29 PM
Saddam nailed this a while ago. The climate changes. But that is nothing to do with us. The global temperature changed by 15 degrees in 40 years after the last ice age!

We happen to have the lowest sun activity right now for 100 years!
http://www.wunderground.com/news/solar-cycle-quietest-100-years-20131126
Hence changing climate.

Similar with the hole in the ozone layer. The eco-tax brigade have gone very quiet on this as of late. The earth's magnetic field has decreased by 13% over the south pole in the last 100 years. Its the field that stops ozone being stripped away by the solar wind. Nothing to do with your fridge. But they can't tax you for natural phenomena. Somehow it has to be your fault. Fill you with guilt, open your wallet.

Could you cite the 15 degree temperature change? And cite the decrease of the electromagnetic field. I believe you, I would just like to read the article (please use scientific articles, not news articles). 
Also it is already proven that CFCs have a highly significant effect on stratospheric ozone. It is well known, and they were phased out due to this. It is estimated that a single atom of chlorine in the atmosphere can destroy about 100,000 molecules of ozone. Here's the reactions:

CCl3F + UV light → CCl2F + Cl    
Cl + O3 → ClO + O2
ClO + O → Cl + O2   
Cl + O → ClO + O2   
ClO + O → Cl + O2   

and as you can see the reactions are recursive. It's pretty simple chemistry really.
Apologies. I would have provided sources but I rushed out to go swimming before the pool shut tonight.
Below is one such source that backs my claims.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OzoneHole.pdf

I'll quote my 13% figure for you.
Quote from: http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OzoneHole.pdf
The strength of the Earth’s magnetic field has been declining. Scientific analysis of ancient pottery has shown that the overall magnetic field strength has declined 50% in the last 4,000 years. This decline in field strength has intensified recently. But the decline is not applied uniformly across the Earth’s surface. The South Pole in Antarctica has experienced a magnetic field decline of 13.0% during the past 100 years.

Every 100,000 years the earth's magnetic field collapses and reforms in reverse. We get a pole reversal where the magnetic north and south pole swap places. This gives oceanic magnetic striping in rocks. We are several thousand years overdue a reversal. Earth's magnetic field is in decline about to have a reversal and so there is less protection for the ozone layer. Its a natural process.

I'll have a dig about for ice-age figures. It been a while since I came across numbers for it, but those stuck in my head. Feel free to google yourself.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 12, 2014, 11:47:03 PM
Ok, some ice age thaw numbers ...

Quote from: http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm
For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years.

Quote from: http://www.utopiasprings.com/methane.htm
Then the Ice Ages end very rapidly, in fact in less than 50 years! This Global Warming is so rapid that the graphs of all the availablepaleotemperature indicators show the same rapid warming of up to 10 degrees Centigrade in a very short time.

And an ice-age starts as fast as it disappears.
http://www.sott.net/article/245320-Last-Ice-Age-took-just-SIX-months-to-arrive

Climate changes. Sometimes quick, sometimes slow. Nothing we do makes any difference at all. If a volcano goes off, that contributes way more than anything man does.

Its just a way to tax people. Like the new religion. You get a bunch of people to say this is happening and if you don't believe you are stupid and ignorant. But you are just taking their word for it and handing over lots on environmental taxes. Its a pseudo-religion based tax.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 13, 2014, 12:28:35 AM
Yeah, this is all pretty accurate. Drastic changes in climate can happen over ridiculously short periods of time. Ozone, yes, it doesn't particularly like weak electromagnetic field. And, if I can remember correctly, no times in the past has CO2 been the primary cause of any global warming. What I mean by that, is that it was more of a feedback to other warming effects. Usually drastic changes in climate would be caused by procession, the shape of the orbit, ect. ect. (or flat earth stuff if u prefer). Something would heat up the planet, which would cause greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide that is frozen to be released into the atmosphere, causing further warming.

But this is besides the point. We have the highest levels of CO2 in years, much high than normal. It is also the warmest period in several thousands of years (estimations of MWP vary, but are below current levels in numerous studies). Our current models are surprisingly accurate when it comes to predicting the climate (they have their ways, they back-test their models frequently). The scientists are not corrupt (well, most of them). Atmospheric science isn't something that you go into for the money. You go into it for the love. They're looking for answers, not dollar signs.

Back to the point though, we know that the world is warming. We also know that natural influences are enough to compensate for the current heating. So this leaves anthropogenic influences, and we have a pretty good idea what the primary forcing is for this global warming. We know that humans have a significant effect on the environment. We know that all this carbon is in the atmosphere because of us. And we know that adding all this carbon to the atmosphere is not good.

And on the note that global warming is good for people, it's really not. More than 50% of Americans (and a significant amount of the world population) live within 50 miles of the ocean. Large cities like New Orleans, New York, and Miami are under significant risk to the effects of sea-level rise. I actually live on an island, and we only live about 10 ft. above sea level. Within the last 100 years, the oceans have risen about 7 inches. You can actually see the effects on the island. Every other high tide we have, the sea water comes through the sewers and floods a couple of the streets. The people who designed the system never expected any rise in water, it was not designed for it. Even though the change was only a couple inches, you can see visible effects here. Little changes can make dramatic differences. This is likely one of the most fundamental themes in climate science.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 13, 2014, 01:22:03 AM
It's very real and its a big deal. But its also a naturally occurring phenomenon and we've gone too far to stop it. The best we can do is slow it down a bit by lowering our contribution to it.
Are you saying that there's been too much action to try to mitigate the effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming?

I'm saying that the absolute best case scenario would be to slow it down. And that's probably worthwhile, especially since CO2 emissions also cause ocean acidification and that's a huge problem as well. But we really just have to start preparing for the long term effects of climate change.

I'm not sure if there's anyone serious talking about global cooling, but in case there's anyone confused about it here's the rundown on it. Basically, we're putting more stuff in the atmosphere. That increases the planet's albedo, which means the planet absorbs less energy from the sun. The cools the planet. And that effect is real, but it's not as significant as global warming.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 15, 2014, 02:11:38 PM
Back to the point though, we know that the world is warming. We also know that natural influences are enough to compensate for the current heating. So this leaves anthropogenic influences, and we have a pretty good idea what the primary forcing is for this global warming. We know that humans have a significant effect on the environment. We know that all this carbon is in the atmosphere because of us. And we know that adding all this carbon to the atmosphere is not good.
What carbon? Where do you get the idea there is all this carbon in the atmosphere added by man? Its a myth.

Quote from: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
 “The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.”

And that's probably worthwhile, especially since CO2 emissions also cause ocean acidification and that's a huge problem as well.
More political nonsense. Please see the quote above for stats on how much carbon is in the oceans already. Naturally.

The scientists are not corrupt (well, most of them). Atmospheric science isn't something that you go into for the money. You go into it for the love. They're looking for answers, not dollar signs.
Its nothing to do with scientists. They make hypothesises and then governments and political powers pick and choose the ones they like so that the media propagates those that further their agenda. Climate change is all about money. Specifically taxation.

They try to get people like Tausami to believe the oceans are dying and that its all your fault for having a 1.6 litre car. To alleviate this, you can pay a fuel duty on using more fuel. Where does that money go? I mean we are talking about trillions of dollars. What is it spent on? For 50 years now? What has that money gone on? It is manufacturers that have come up with cleaner engines with THEIR profits. Cleaner fuels from the petrochemical industry from THEIR profits. What exactly to governments that tax spend the money on? The answer is weapons, international aid (which is another scam), white elephant infrastructure and anything else that can get taxpayer money into private hands.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 15, 2014, 02:54:14 PM
Need I remind you all of the Oregon Petition? ;D  Over thirty thousand scientists challenge the so-called "consensus" on global warming! ;D
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 15, 2014, 03:04:22 PM
I don't believe there is a single scientist who says man is directly responsible in any way for climate change. Not one.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2014, 04:51:27 PM
I don't believe there is a single scientist who says man is directly responsible in any way for climate change. Not one.

You're either using a very, very specific definition of "scientist" or you haven't turned on a television since the 60's.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 19, 2014, 08:53:25 PM
Need I remind you all of the Oregon Petition? ;D  Over thirty thousand scientists challenge the so-called "consensus" on global warming! ;D
Yet only 39 are climatologists. Also, one must consider the fact that the verification process, and the wording of the declaration, are dubious at best(Charles Darwin was on the list). The IPCC would actually likely agree with the statement that they make.

I don't believe there is a single scientist who says man is directly responsible in any way for climate change. Not one.

Define "directly".
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 19, 2014, 09:12:07 PM
Need I remind you all of the Oregon Petition? ;D  Over thirty thousand scientists challenge the so-called "consensus" on global warming! ;D
Yet only 39 are climatologists. Also, one must consider the fact that the verification process, and the wording of the declaration, are dubious at best(Charles Darwin was on the list). The IPCC would actually likely agree with the statement that they make.

Don't try to muddy the waters. ;D
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 19, 2014, 10:48:52 PM
Consensus - General agreement
There is most certainly a general agreement on the existence of global warming in the atmospheric sciences.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 19, 2014, 10:57:43 PM
Consensus - General agreement
There is most certainly a general agreement on the existence of global warming in the atmospheric sciences.
Its not warming that is debatable. Its whether or not humans cause it. That's the point of this thread. >:(
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 19, 2014, 11:54:30 PM
I apologize. Whenever I refer to global warming, I refer to anthropogenic global warming. That's the context of whenever I use that term.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 19, 2014, 11:55:50 PM
I apologize. Whenever I refer to global warming, I refer to anthropogenic global warming. That's the context of whenever I use that term.
Well then I apologise for not being a mind reader. ::)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 20, 2014, 12:22:09 AM
I apologize. Whenever I refer to global warming, I refer to anthropogenic global warming. That's the context of whenever I use that term.
Well then I apologise for not being a mind reader. ::)
You aren't?  :o
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 20, 2014, 06:39:34 AM
Scientists are paid to disagree. It's part of the scientific process.

When the information (models etc...) are not conclusive then you'll have more scientist disagreeing. It's part of the job.

Personally I think it's better to go with the worst case scenario and try to prevent greenhouse gas emissions because we don't understand the consequences of it enough.

If we understood it more fully then we would be in a better position to take more appropriate action. Until then I see the investment in 'green' energy' and a reduction in our CO2 emissions a good thing.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 20, 2014, 01:39:00 PM
Scientists are paid to disagree. It's part of the scientific process.

When the information (models etc...) are not conclusive then you'll have more scientist disagreeing. It's part of the job.

Personally I think it's better to go with the worst case scenario and try to prevent greenhouse gas emissions because we don't understand the consequences of it enough.

If we understood it more fully then we would be in a better position to take more appropriate action. Until then I see the investment in 'green' energy' and a reduction in our CO2 emissions a good thing.

Scientists get grant money by sticking to the party line. ;D  There's no profit for a scientist in bucking the consensus. ;D

Follow the money! ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 20, 2014, 02:26:17 PM
Scientists are paid to disagree. It's part of the scientific process.

When the information (models etc...) are not conclusive then you'll have more scientist disagreeing. It's part of the job.

Personally I think it's better to go with the worst case scenario and try to prevent greenhouse gas emissions because we don't understand the consequences of it enough.

If we understood it more fully then we would be in a better position to take more appropriate action. Until then I see the investment in 'green' energy' and a reduction in our CO2 emissions a good thing.

Scientists get grant money by sticking to the party line. ;D  There's no profit for a scientist in bucking the consensus. ;D

Follow the money! ;D ;D ;D

It's the ultimate goal for a scientists to discover something new or disprove the mainstream. It justifies the reasons why a scientists gets a grant. If we just researched the same thing all the time then the high risk, highly profitable research won't get done.

That means a scientist might have to go out on a limb by taking risk against their reputation. Since scientists rely heavily on their reputation they don't necessarily take that risk. It's a shame, valuable research isn't being done.

If all scientists thought along the same lines, and agreed on everything, than a lot discoveries would still lay in the realm of the imagination.

Getting back on topic:

Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 20, 2014, 02:49:59 PM
Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.
An interesting variant of Pascal's wager.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: la xasop on March 20, 2014, 03:45:23 PM
Wasn't it just a few decades ago that scientists knew conclusively that we were heading towards another ice age?

We should probably finish up the current one first.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 20, 2014, 06:39:11 PM
Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.
You think trillions of dollars of environmental and fuel taxation around the world is a good thing, just in case? Who gets this money?

(http://www.petrolprices.com/files/2011/08/unleaded-12th-august-2011.png)
Price right now on a litre of fuel.

I'm paying more than 188% of my fuel product cost in tax. That's bloody outrageous. How is this tax being used to save the earth?

Its been going on for decades. What is this money spent on?
(http://www.petrolprices.com/files/2011/07/fuelgraph.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 20, 2014, 07:39:08 PM
If they didn't tax the fuel, they'd just tax something else.

(Yes, I'm dropping the sadaam.  There are enough genuine deniers here, anyway.)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 20, 2014, 08:09:01 PM
They could legalise drugs and tax them. That wouldn't bother me one jot.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rama Set on March 20, 2014, 08:10:05 PM
They could legalise drugs and tax them. That wouldn't bother me one jot.

Just think of petrol like it is a drug then.  People claim they are dependent on it and cannot imagine their life without it.  Seems about the same.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 20, 2014, 08:50:36 PM
Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.
You think trillions of dollars of environmental and fuel taxation around the world is a good thing, just in case? Who gets this money?

(http://www.petrolprices.com/files/2011/08/unleaded-12th-august-2011.png)
Price right now on a litre of fuel.

I'm paying more than 188% of my fuel product cost in tax. That's bloody outrageous. How is this tax being used to save the earth?

Its been going on for decades. What is this money spent on?
(http://www.petrolprices.com/files/2011/07/fuelgraph.jpg)

On the graph, look on the bright side, there has been a net 4% decrease in taxes (in terms of percentage of the total cost)

On the fuel tax, in the USA (where the tax appears to be much much lower) it is used to pay for transportation upkeep, like keeping the bridges from falling down.
our
Anyways, consider the large a payment for negative externalities. If you want to use the atmosphere (which is a commons) as your dumping ground for your CO2, then ya gotta pay a tax.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 20, 2014, 09:50:50 PM
Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.
You think trillions of dollars of environmental and fuel taxation around the world is a good thing, just in case? Who gets this money?

(http://www.petrolprices.com/files/2011/08/unleaded-12th-august-2011.png)
Price right now on a litre of fuel.

I'm paying more than 188% of my fuel product cost in tax. That's bloody outrageous. How is this tax being used to save the earth?

Its been going on for decades. What is this money spent on?
(http://www.petrolprices.com/files/2011/07/fuelgraph.jpg)

I don't know what argument your trying to have here. I said nothing about the tax on fuels and whether it's efficient and being spent wisely, because I don't think it is.

The tax they make off of fuel duty should go into providing alternate and cheaper forms of transportation and the reduction of CO2 emissions. It doesn't and I think it's a stealth tax.

Secondly there's a few other reasons, which has nothing to do with CO2 emissions, why they tax fuel. It's easy to get it by the electorate, it reduces our dependency on fossil fuels (which is a noose around our necks influence wise) and it allows the government to control price fluctuations. That's probable not all of them but it's the ones I could think of off the top of my head.

Also just because you have to pay more means bugger all to me. If that's the gist of your argument I don't care. Use a bike instead or walk. Earn more and get a better job. It's extremely selfish to only think about how issues like this effects your wallet. It's not just about you and your bank balance.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 20, 2014, 11:59:29 PM
Its precisely about me and my wallet, because I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. I see it as a way to justify extortionate rates of tax. Those fuels taxes are allegedly to reduce people's consumption of fossil fuels.

Punitive deterrents are disgusting. Why should the poor have to save the planet? Does a millionaire with a 6.0 litre car drive less because fuel went up a few pence per litre? Nope. The rich have much larger carbon footprints anyway. Several foreign holidays a year, private jets, luxury yachts, larger homes to heat, several homes, more possessions that generate carbon during manufacturing.

The whole thing is a scam. And I don't want to pay for it, just because you think there 'might' be a chance and want to err on the side of caution. You get a bike. You have a compost heap. You sort through your rubbish. You're the one worrying about the carbon-boogieman.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2014, 12:01:22 AM
Its precisely about me and my wallet, because I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. I see it as a way to justify extortionate rates of tax. Those fuels taxes are allegedly to reduce people's consumption of fossil fuels.

Punitive deterrents are disgusting. Why should the poor have to save the planet? Does a millionaire with a 6.0 litre car drive less because fuel went up a few pence per litre? Nope. The rich have much larger carbon footprints anyway. Several foreign holidays a year, private jets, luxury yachts, larger homes to heat, several homes, more possessions that generate carbon during manufacturing.

The whole thing is a scam. And I don't want to pay for it, just because you think their 'might' be a chance and want to err on the side of caution. You get a bike. You have a compost heap. You sort through your rubbish. You're the one worrying about the carbon-boogieman.
Yeah but let's face it:
Quitting smoking doesn't stop others from smoking around you.  And until we can move off the planet to someplace else, we gotta share.

So stop acting like a slob and clean up your room!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 21, 2014, 12:02:37 AM
I've no problem cleaning my room. But handing over £300 for having a messy room is another matter.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 21, 2014, 12:29:35 AM
Its precisely about me and my wallet, because I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change. I see it as a way to justify extortionate rates of tax. Those fuels taxes are allegedly to reduce people's consumption of fossil fuels.

Punitive deterrents are disgusting. Why should the poor have to save the planet? Does a millionaire with a 6.0 litre car drive less because fuel went up a few pence per litre? Nope. The rich have much larger carbon footprints anyway. Several foreign holidays a year, private jets, luxury yachts, larger homes to heat, several homes, more possessions that generate carbon during manufacturing.

The whole thing is a scam. And I don't want to pay for it, just because you think there 'might' be a chance and want to err on the side of caution. You get a bike. You have a compost heap. You sort through your rubbish. You're the one worrying about the carbon-boogieman.

Your the one who's worrying about the size of his wallet. If you have a problem with the amount charged in fuel duty then don't pay it. Buy a bike or walk everywhere. Problem solved.

The world's bigger and more important than you and your poxy wallet.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 21, 2014, 02:03:07 AM
EU and UK gets ass pounded for gas taxes. The US actually pays more in gas subsidies than it receives back in gas taxes, which is why comparatively our gas is mindbogglingly cheaper than the EU and UK.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 21, 2014, 02:06:09 AM
While Thork is, as per usual, phrasing his argument in the worst possible way and making it sound like he just wants to buy a new TV or something, the burden on taxpayers is a valid concern.  Driving isn't a luxury that one can easily just forgo if the price tag gets too high.  We need to be able to drive - or at least we need to be able to travel a fairly large distance in a fairly short length of time - which is a task that (at least so far) only motor vehicles can accomplish.  Handwaving this away with "just ride a bike lol" doesn't cut it.  Not when you have a job and are expected to function in the modern world.

Now, if the argument is "I don't want to pay these taxes, therefore global warming isn't real," well, that's stupid.  But piling exorbitant taxes onto fuel - and not even for the fuel companies, but the consumers, the people on the street who simply have to drive - for the express purpose of trying to discourage driving is completely fucking stupid.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 21, 2014, 02:10:21 AM
Rather than tax fuel, governments should concentrate more on subsidizing the research and development, as well as implementation of alternative energy vehicles. While this certainly isn't the best method of getting things done, it is a lot better than taxes, which, even if they are on the company as you suggested, get pushed to the consumer regardless.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 21, 2014, 02:28:45 AM
While Thork is, as per usual, phrasing his argument in the worst possible way and making it sound like he just wants to buy a new TV or something, the burden on taxpayers is a valid concern.  Driving isn't a luxury that one can easily just forgo if the price tag gets too high.  We need to be able to drive - or at least we need to be able to travel a fairly large distance in a fairly short length of time - which is a task that (at least so far) only motor vehicles can accomplish.  Handwaving this away with "just ride a bike lol" doesn't cut it.  Not when you have a job and are expected to function in the modern world.

Now, if the argument is "I don't want to pay these taxes, therefore global warming isn't real," well, that's stupid.  But piling exorbitant taxes onto fuel - and not even the fuel companies, but the consumers, the people on the street who simply have to drive - for the express purpose of trying to discourage driving is completely fucking stupid.
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DuckDodgers on March 21, 2014, 03:00:55 AM
Instead of taxing the fuel, you could just add an emissions tax to the yearly tag renewal based on the emission level of the vehicle (admittedly it is another tax on the poor since they tend to drive older cars but at least it is only once a year).  To say that only 10% of the population has a vehicle (source needed by the way) is pretty ridiculous when the argument is about first world countries having taxes applied to them based on green initiatives.  I know for a fact that more than 10% of the first world population of driving age has a vehicle they drive regularly.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 21, 2014, 03:03:02 AM
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

Wow.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 21, 2014, 03:20:10 AM
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 21, 2014, 03:54:54 AM
Rather than tax fuel, governments should concentrate more on subsidizing the research and development, as well as implementation of alternative energy vehicles. While this certainly isn't the best method of getting things done, it is a lot better than taxes, which, even if they are on the company as you suggested, get pushed to the consumer regardless.

I agree with this. The government really ought to be working to encourage electric cars to be a thing, while also encouraging green energy sources. That's how you fix the problem. Not demanding more money to spend on the military-industrial complex.

Really though, I'm unconvinced that we can do much to prevent global warming. A lot of our carbon emissions come from things like farming, which we aren't going to stop doing any time soon. And we're never going to convince China or India to cut back on their emissions. The best we can realistically do is prepare for the worst and pray for the best.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on March 21, 2014, 08:41:26 AM
It's nice to see that the deniers have largely accepted that warming IS happening. It's a step up from where we were 5 or 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2014, 10:02:31 AM
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
I see the tax as not discouraging driving but discouraging wasteful driving.
I'm sure we've all heard stories of people driving down the block for a gallon of milk in good weather.
The high tax might discourage people from using there vehicle when alternate modes of transport are available.  This includes carpool.

It also helps shape car purchases.  Think back 15 years ago at the age of the hummer and SUV. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy an SUV or hummer but most buyers didn't use them for their designed purpose.  It was a big car with poor gas mileage that was built for off road but driven on nothing but roads.  Not only has the high tax curbed what drivers will buy, but the car makers have adapted to this curve to create more fuel efficient SUVs that aren't designed for off road.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 21, 2014, 10:29:39 AM
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/use_it_up/images_html/images/ride_with_hitler.jpg)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2014, 10:46:49 AM
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/use_it_up/images_html/images/ride_with_hitler.jpg)
....
I live 15 miles away.  I have a job that requires me to drive between buildings.
I don't need a car?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 21, 2014, 11:15:48 AM
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/use_it_up/images_html/images/ride_with_hitler.jpg)
....
I live 15 miles away.  I have a job that requires me to drive between buildings.
I don't need a car?
It was your decision to get a job that requires the use of a car. So it's your problem to figure out.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/use_it_up/images_html/images/ride_with_hitler.jpg)
....
I live 15 miles away.  I have a job that requires me to drive between buildings.
I don't need a car?
It was your decision to get a job that requires the use of a car. So it's your problem to figure out.
The job will have to be done one way or another.  If not by me then by someone.  At least I don't have a 10 mpg truck.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 21, 2014, 05:03:48 PM
I have a further issue with carbon taxes.

I do not believe we will ever just stop using fossil fuels until they are all gone. I just can't see it. So to my mind climatologists should make a temperature calculation based on all of the worlds fossil fuels having been burnt and being in the air. It will happen whether in 100 years or 1000 years. Neither is very long in the greater scheme of things. People won't just leave oil or gas in the ground.

So one can safely assume all the carbon ends up back in the air (where it started I might add). It doesn't matter if I don't use it, or use less. A man in China will use it instead. Or a man in Africa who won't be born for another 75 years. It doesn't matter. It will end up in the air.

So why do I have to pay a premium to my government when it will be used one way or another?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 21, 2014, 07:13:47 PM
Assuming that global warming is true, it buys us some time to figure out a solution.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 21, 2014, 07:14:39 PM
While Thork is, as per usual, phrasing his argument in the worst possible way and making it sound like he just wants to buy a new TV or something, the burden on taxpayers is a valid concern.  Driving isn't a luxury that one can easily just forgo if the price tag gets too high.  We need to be able to drive - or at least we need to be able to travel a fairly large distance in a fairly short length of time - which is a task that (at least so far) only motor vehicles can accomplish.  Handwaving this away with "just ride a bike lol" doesn't cut it.  Not when you have a job and are expected to function in the modern world.

Now, if the argument is "I don't want to pay these taxes, therefore global warming isn't real," well, that's stupid.  But piling exorbitant taxes onto fuel - and not even the fuel companies, but the consumers, the people on the street who simply have to drive - for the express purpose of trying to discourage driving is completely fucking stupid.

I don't disagree, I think the tax on fuel could be used and applied in a better way. For instance the cost of public transport in the UK is ridiculous. It costs me more to get a train to London than it would for me to hire a car and pay for any fuel I use.

The tax on fuel could go to subsidise that and other public transport but it doesn't. I don't know why Thork wanted to have an argument over it.

However I do think something needs to be done. More money should be invested in alternate sources of energy to not only reduce CO2 emission but also reduce our reliance on fossil fuel. Taking the risk that the earths ecosystem could collapse in the long run because Thork doesn't want his wallet to be hurt, is immaterial to me.

I have a further issue with carbon taxes.

I do not believe we will ever just stop using fossil fuels until they are all gone. I just can't see it. So to my mind climatologists should make a temperature calculation based on all of the worlds fossil fuels having been burnt and being in the air. It will happen whether in 100 years or 1000 years. Neither is very long in the greater scheme of things. People won't just leave oil or gas in the ground.

So one can safely assume all the carbon ends up back in the air (where it started I might add). It doesn't matter if I don't use it, or use less. A man in China will use it instead. Or a man in Africa who won't be born for another 75 years. It doesn't matter. It will end up in the air.

So why do I have to pay a premium to my government when it will be used one way or another?

Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 21, 2014, 07:32:44 PM
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 21, 2014, 07:50:16 PM
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but what if you're wrong?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 21, 2014, 07:52:49 PM
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but what if you're wrong?
Then earth gets weather changes which are going to happen anyway as there are 20 Chinese for every Brit and they aren't paying masses for fuel or using expensive fuel efficient engines.

What if you are wrong? I have to spend all that money over my entire lifetime because some Chicken-Licken scientists made a hypothesis that cost regular people trillions of dollars?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 21, 2014, 08:03:38 PM
Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but what if you're wrong?
Then earth gets weather changes which are going to happen anyway as there are 20 Chinese for every Brit and they aren't paying masses for fuel or using expensive fuel efficient engines.

What if you are wrong? I have to spend all that money over my entire lifetime because some Chicken-Licken scientists made a hypothesis that cost regular people trillions of dollars?

Or we screw up the ecosystem to an extent where we can't survive in it.

What if I'm wrong? You have to pay for something that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels and makes cars (transportation) cheaper to run. We ensure we have the technology in place to counter energy demand when the source of fossil fuel runs out and we make sure the air in the UK isn't clogged up with smog (like in Hong Kong and Paris recently).

The consequence to your wallet is irrelevant. You would probably have to pay that tax in another way. You wouldn't save anything.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 21, 2014, 08:17:25 PM
Or we screw up the ecosystem to an extent where we can't survive in it.
wat? No, climate change means the Dutch will have to immigrate and I'll need a cagoule. The Aussies will need better sun block and the African's will have to start eating each other. Its not some kind of end-of-days scenario.

What do you think is supposed to happen? This will be interesting.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 21, 2014, 09:28:01 PM
It's not conclusive (I realise I'm being highly speculative) but some of the possible consequences of climate change happened to the UK this winter with the flooding. That could only get worse.

Somehow you assume the UK and your way of living would be immune to climate change. Do you only think it'll happen to 'other' countries? Also what do you think the knock on consequences of the scenarios you suggested would be to the UK?

Your burying your head in the sand again.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 21, 2014, 09:33:38 PM
What happened in the UK is because we keep building on flood planes to house 25 million immigrants and because cost cutting councils haven't been dredging the water ways.

There were worse floods in 1947. The Thames froze over in 1814. If that happened today you'd say "Look, look what you have done with your cars and your pollution."
In 1976 there was the hottest heatwave in living memory.

At some point you will have an extreme of some sort. Its perfectly natural. This year happened to be wet. Taxing me won't stop the rain.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 21, 2014, 09:58:50 PM
Those events do happen. I can't argue against that. But how often do those events occur? What would happen if they became more frequent?

Also Google just found this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33717/GST4_v9_Feb10.pdf

I've only read the executive summary but it does talk about the possible strategic effects of climate change by 2040.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 21, 2014, 10:12:37 PM
What would happen if they became more frequent?
I don't want to be giving away thousands of £s of real money every year on 'what if?'.

As for that source, that's just an investor's wet dream. Mmmm, instability , scarcity, migration, war, globalisation. There will be pushback from populations they try to inflict all this upon and blaming it on the weather won't cut it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 21, 2014, 10:29:37 PM
Less than ten percent of people actually own a car. Owning a car comes with certain responsibilities, and if you aren't willing to accept those responsibilities, then go to Somalia. It isn't our responsibility to deal with the crap you pump into the atmosphere. If you want to use the atmosphere as a dumping zone, then you're going to pay the fee.

u mad, bro?

First of all, that statistic is including undeveloped countries that don't have the kind of access to vehicles that we do.  We're not talking about their policies, so it makes no sense to include them.  In modern, first-world countries, most people do have a car, or at least someone in their household does.

Second of all, "responsibility" has nothing to do with it.  It's not like the money you pay then goes to cleaning up whatever pollution you just created.  The tax is there to discourage people from driving.  That's my issue with it, that it's basically trying to put a price tag on what is, for so many people, a non-negotiable fixture in their lives.
My point was that you dont *need* a car, it simply makes your life more convenient. In most cases, it is unnecessary to own a car.
And the tax isn't meant to discourage people from driving, it's to discourage people from using gas. If you can't figure out a way to use less gas, than that's your problem, go start carpooling or something.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/use_it_up/images_html/images/ride_with_hitler.jpg)
....
I live 15 miles away.  I have a job that requires me to drive between buildings.
I don't need a car?
It was your decision to get a job that requires the use of a car. So it's your problem to figure out.
The job will have to be done one way or another.  If not by me then by someone.  At least I don't have a 10 mpg truck.
Get an electric car man. Unless the power in your area is from coal (which is pretty likely) then you won't be helping too much. Either you quit, or pay the tax. If you want to use a vehicle that consumes gydrocarbons, cool, but you'll have to pay the fine for using public space as a dumping ground.

Have you heard of the carbon cycle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

The earth can deal with CO2 emissions (it's done it for millions of years) however there's a certain amount of time in which the earth needs to adapt to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we produce more CO2 than the earth can handle (within that time) then that carbon cycle gets 'bottle necked' with CO2 to the point where it can't handle it.


At what arbitrary point have global governments decided the earth can 'handle it'. I'm of the opinion the earth can 'handle it' anyway and it won't make one jot of difference to the earth's temperature. More carbon means bigger vegetables. Not extremes of weather.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but what if you're wrong?
Then earth gets weather changes which are going to happen anyway as there are 20 Chinese for every Brit and they aren't paying masses for fuel or using expensive fuel efficient engines.

What if you are wrong? I have to spend all that money over my entire lifetime because some Chicken-Licken scientists made a hypothesis that cost regular people trillions of dollars?
Same kind of anti-intellectualism we saw when "independent" research groups were giving "scientific" evidence that tobacco is not harmful to your health, when the scientific community was face-palming on how many people believe it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 21, 2014, 10:40:36 PM
What would happen if they became more frequent?
I don't want to be giving away thousands of £s of real money every year on 'what if?'.

As for that source, that's just an investor's wet dream. Mmmm, instability , scarcity, migration, war, globalisation. There will be pushback from populations they try to inflict all this upon and blaming it on the weather won't cut it.

I'm assuming you don't pay car or home insurance then?

Because, you know, you don't want to give away thousands of pounds on 'what ifs'.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 21, 2014, 11:13:22 PM
If it wasn't the law I wouldn't buy any insurance other than home insurance.

How many times have you bought a computer or some other electrical thing and they ask you if you want a warranty? Basically, insurance in case it breaks.

Look at it this way. The insurance company knows the odds of these things breaking and offers insurance (a warranty) based on those odds + profit. Now extrapolate all the warranties over your lifetime. If you just let the occasional thing break, you'd be out of pocket to the tune of the cost of your warranties minus the profit those companies make. In other words, a warranty is a scam. Its like buying Calgon for your washing machine.

You are supposed to add a tablet every time you do a wash to protect your washing machine.

Calgon tablets are £20.29 for 75 tablets or 27p per wash.
It takes 6-8 years of washing in hard water to get a build up to get the kind of lime scale that will break your machine. In this time if you do 3 washes a week, that's over £300. Getting an technician to replace the parts would cost £50. Or of course for £300 you could buy a new bloody washing machine with all the parts including motors etc with 8 years more life in them.
source (http://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/05/do-washing-machines-really-live-longer-with-calgon-254634/)

Insurance never ever pays.

With the exception of house insurance. Not contents insurance. You are being boned on the risk of burglary vs cost of insurance + profit.

I would only buy house insurance because its the one gamble most people cannot afford to take even though of course most never claim and are paying odds + profit. Everything else, never buy insurance unless its the law.

So, do I want to pay environmental insurance just in case? No damn way.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 21, 2014, 11:43:57 PM
If it wasn't the law I wouldn't buy any insurance other than home insurance.

How many times have you bought a computer or some other electrical thing and they ask you if you want a warranty? Basically, insurance in case it breaks.

Look at it this way. The insurance company knows the odds of these things breaking and offers insurance (a warranty) based on those odds + profit. Now extrapolate all the warranties over your lifetime. If you just let the occasional thing break, you'd be out of pocket to the tune of the cost of your warranties minus the profit those companies make. In other words, a warranty is a scam. Its like buying Calgon for your washing machine.

You are supposed to add a tablet every time you do a wash to protect your washing machine.

Calgon tablets are £20.29 for 75 tablets or 27p per wash.
It takes 6-8 years of washing in hard water to get a build up to get the kind of lime scale that will break your machine. In this time if you do 3 washes a week, that's over £300. Getting an technician to replace the parts would cost £50. Or of course for £300 you could buy a new bloody washing machine with all the parts including motors etc with 8 years more life in them.
source (http://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/05/do-washing-machines-really-live-longer-with-calgon-254634/)

Insurance never ever pays.

With the exception of house insurance. Not contents insurance. You are being boned on the risk of burglary vs cost of insurance + profit.

I would only buy house insurance because its the one gamble most people cannot afford to take even though of course most never claim and are paying odds + profit. Everything else, never buy insurance unless its the law.

So, do I want to pay environmental insurance just in case? No damn way.

Is household insurance not a 'what if'?

Insurance companies sell 'peace of mind'

I know that I won't make any money out of paying for household insurance however it gives me the 'peace of mind' to know that if anything happened to my home I would be able to fix it or buy another one.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 21, 2014, 11:59:49 PM
Why did you quote my post and then repeat the same thing back to me?

House insurance is the one thing people cannot afford to gamble with. If I owned 100 houses or had millions to spare in the bank, I wouldn't buy it. Its purely because I couldn't cover the losses.

Back to the environment and away from your stinking red herring. When you buy insurance, the insurance company guarantees to cover your losses. Environmental tax doesn't. They are just collecting money 'just in case' without any promise to help if 'just in case' actually happens. 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 22, 2014, 12:44:02 AM
Why did you quote my post and then repeat the same thing back to me?

House insurance is the one thing people cannot afford to gamble with. If I owned 100 houses or had millions to spare in the bank, I wouldn't buy it. Its purely because I couldn't cover the losses.

Back to the environment and away from your stinking red herring. When you buy insurance, the insurance company guarantees to cover your losses. Environmental tax doesn't. They are just collecting money 'just in case' without any promise to help if 'just in case' actually happens.
It's more of a fee for polluting the atmosphere with your CO2. The atmosphere is public space. If you don't want to pay a tax, design a mechanism to capture all the CO2 you release, and store it in a warehouse.
If I went and started dumping waste from a septic tank on a public park, then i'd get fined, and probably some more severe penalties.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 22, 2014, 12:59:14 AM
It's more of a fee for polluting the atmosphere with your CO2. The atmosphere is public space. If you don't want to pay a tax, design a mechanism to capture all the CO2 you release, and store it in a warehouse.
If I went and started dumping waste from a septic tank on a public park, then i'd get fined, and probably some more severe penalties.
Who gets that fee for polluting the atmosphere? Why should they have it? What do they do with the trillions of dollars? Surely they should be inventing a CO2 capturing machine with all that money? But they don't.

Dumping septic waste is demonstrably hazardous to other people's health. CO2 in the air is not. I breath out CO2. Should I pay for breathing?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 22, 2014, 01:43:50 AM
It's more of a fee for polluting the atmosphere with your CO2. The atmosphere is public space. If you don't want to pay a tax, design a mechanism to capture all the CO2 you release, and store it in a warehouse.
If I went and started dumping waste from a septic tank on a public park, then i'd get fined, and probably some more severe penalties.
Who gets that fee for polluting the atmosphere? Why should they have it? What do they do with the trillions of dollars? Surely they should be inventing a CO2 capturing machine with all that money? But they don't.

Dumping septic waste is demonstrably hazardous to other people's health. CO2 in the air is not. I breath out CO2. Should I pay for breathing?
The CO2 you breath out is being liberated due to cellular respiration, and that liberated CO2 is equivalent to the amount of CO2 that was sequestered by the plants that eventually provided you energy. Therefore the short-term (lets say 100 years) output is 0. The net output
If you'd like to see the negative health effects of CO2, try breathing out of your cars exhaust (don't actually do this). (Granted this is not a great example since you'd basically be depriving yourself of oxygen. However, increased CO2 in the body can lead to more acidic pH levels in the body, which is hazardous.)

Combustion engines will also produce carbon monoxide, which is poisonous to humans(and many other things).

Combustion engines will also produce nitrogen oxides, which will be created from the reaction of oxygen radicals produced from the combustion engine with nitrogen in the air, which has been shown to cause increased illness, and can lead to premature death from disorders of the lungs and the heart.

Nitrogen oxides are also fundamental in the production of acid rain, which is fundamental in the creation of acid rain and the acidification of the surrounding environment, which can kill off local animals due to pH intolerances.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 22, 2014, 03:52:10 AM
Is this an online course for crashing the economy? If it is, there are better ways to do it.  If it isn't, well... that's a shame.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 22, 2014, 04:48:13 AM
This thread is awful.  I don't even know which side is making worse arguments now.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 22, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
one thing people cannot afford to gamble with.

And you think the environment and the ecosystem is something we can afford to gamble with?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on March 22, 2014, 08:17:20 AM
This thread is awful.  I don't even know which side is making worse arguments now.

Make the thread better then. Give an argument with meat on it. Instead of contributing to the 'worse' arguments.

At the moment I'm trying to use the only thing Thork really seems to give a shit about, money, to try and explain how stupid he's being.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 22, 2014, 08:35:58 AM
If you'd like to see the negative health effects of CO2, try breathing out of your cars exhaust (don't actually do this). (Granted this is not a great example since you'd basically be depriving yourself of oxygen. However, increased CO2 in the body can lead to more acidic pH levels in the body, which is hazardous.)
What on earth are you going on about? This is the stupidest argument I have read yet. You aren't going to die from anthropogenic CO2 poisoning.
(http://www.hilpertonprimary.ik.org/img/Science_Week/Dry_ice_1.jpg)
Agggghhhhh! This teacher is trying to murder the children! CO2 near their precious little nostrils! OMG!  :o
Should Broadway be sued for polluting with its dry ice shows?

More carbon in the atmosphere would actually promote plant growth. They pump CO2 into greenhouses.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/co2-capture-tomatoes-120821.htm
This would promote the growth of forests and crops around the world helping to cleanse the atmosphere of toxins and increasing global food production. CO2 would actually help.
(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/co2-capture-tomatoes-120821-675831-.jpg)
Should this guy be suing his employers for acid blood levels? He's not even wearing a respirator! Where are the health and safety people?

Nitrogen oxide is naturally produced by forests and oceans. We could just cut down the trees and poison the algae if you like?

Carbon monoxide is also naturally occurring. The kind of levels cars kick out have no effects on us at all provided you don't hotbox your car. That is due to how readily it binds with haemoglobin and hence prevents oxygen being transported in your blood. But all the oil in the air wouldn't get close to this being a problem for us. A few parts per million would have no effect whatsoever.

Why are you telling me that the most harmless gases on earth are going to kill us all? Too much oxygen would kill you. Too much water. Too much of anything. But we aren't going to get anywhere near those kind of levels from 'pollution'.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2014, 02:15:44 PM
Bejing.
90s LA.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 22, 2014, 02:45:21 PM
If you'd like to see the negative health effects of CO2, try breathing out of your cars exhaust (don't actually do this). (Granted this is not a great example since you'd basically be depriving yourself of oxygen. However, increased CO2 in the body can lead to more acidic pH levels in the body, which is hazardous.)
What on earth are you going on about? This is the stupidest argument I have read yet. You aren't going to die from anthropogenic CO2 poisoning.
(http://www.hilpertonprimary.ik.org/img/Science_Week/Dry_ice_1.jpg)
Agggghhhhh! This teacher is trying to murder the children! CO2 near their precious little nostrils! OMG!  :o
Should Broadway be sued for polluting with its dry ice shows?

More carbon in the atmosphere would actually promote plant growth. They pump CO2 into greenhouses.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/co2-capture-tomatoes-120821.htm
This would promote the growth of forests and crops around the world helping to cleanse the atmosphere of toxins and increasing global food production. CO2 would actually help.
(http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/co2-capture-tomatoes-120821-675831-.jpg)
Should this guy be suing his employers for acid blood levels? He's not even wearing a respirator! Where are the health and safety people?

Nitrogen oxide is naturally produced by forests and oceans. We could just cut down the trees and poison the algae if you like?

Carbon monoxide is also naturally occurring. The kind of levels cars kick out have no effects on us at all provided you don't hotbox your car. That is due to how readily it binds with haemoglobin and hence prevents oxygen being transported in your blood. But all the oil in the air wouldn't get close to this being a problem for us. A few parts per million would have no effect whatsoever.

Why are you telling me that the most harmless gases on earth are going to kill us all? Too much oxygen would kill you. Too much water. Too much of anything. But we aren't going to get anywhere near those kind of levels from 'pollution'.

According to the CDC, being in areas with heavy vehicle use can lead to the following symptoms due to Nitrogen Dioxide exposure:

From acute exposure

Infection
Discoloration of the skin
Hemoptysis
Rapid breathing
Difficult Breathing
Chills
Fever
Headache
Nausea
Vomiting
Unconsciousness
Bronchial Irritation
Collapse and death from respiratory failure

Chronic Exposure

Pulmonary Dysfunction
Low arterial oxygen saturation
Dyspnea
Moist rales and Wheezes
Sporadic cough expelling mucus and pus

Though granted CO2 and CO are probably unlikely to harm you unless you are in a closed system. (This is all assuming that CO2 won't indirectly harm humans, which I am not arguing)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 22, 2014, 03:00:35 PM
This thread is awful.  I don't even know which side is making worse arguments now.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 22, 2014, 05:19:15 PM
Or we screw up the ecosystem to an extent where we can't survive in it.
wat? No, climate change means the Dutch will have to immigrate and I'll need a cagoule. The Aussies will need better sun block and the African's will have to start eating each other. Its not some kind of end-of-days scenario.

What do you think is supposed to happen? This will be interesting.

It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2014, 05:30:46 PM
Or we screw up the ecosystem to an extent where we can't survive in it.
wat? No, climate change means the Dutch will have to immigrate and I'll need a cagoule. The Aussies will need better sun block and the African's will have to start eating each other. Its not some kind of end-of-days scenario.

What do you think is supposed to happen? This will be interesting.

It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.
Being smart enough is irrelevant.
We as a species need to actually WANT to do it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 22, 2014, 08:08:04 PM
It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.

Huh? Are you saying that the dinosaurs were somehow responsible for getting themselves nuked by an asteroid?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on March 23, 2014, 12:18:21 AM
It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.

Huh? Are you saying that the dinosaurs were somehow responsible for getting themselves nuked by an asteroid?


I think he's referring to the blue green algae which poisoned everything else with oxygen.

I can't think of another apocalyptic species.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 23, 2014, 05:24:40 AM
In the United States, over the past 10 years, the production of renewable electricity with non-hydroelectrical techniques has increased by over 150%, giving it the highest rate of increase by percentage in the USA. Currently, renewable energy currently constitutes about 6.25% of the United States' current electricity production, as opposed to the 2% in 2004. This easily demonstrates the results of recent efforts to use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 23, 2014, 08:14:30 PM
In the United States, over the past 10 years, the production of renewable electricity with non-hydroelectrical techniques has increased by over 150%, giving it the highest rate of increase by percentage in the USA. Currently, renewable energy currently constitutes about 6.25% of the United States' current electricity production, as opposed to the 2% in 2004. This easily demonstrates the results of recent efforts to use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

That is a result of recent subsidy programs in place, whereas you're suggesting atrocious tax hikes which do literally nothing to help.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 23, 2014, 11:45:55 PM
In the United States, over the past 10 years, the production of renewable electricity with non-hydroelectrical techniques has increased by over 150%, giving it the highest rate of increase by percentage in the USA. Currently, renewable energy currently constitutes about 6.25% of the United States' current electricity production, as opposed to the 2% in 2004. This easily demonstrates the results of recent efforts to use renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.

That is a result of recent subsidy programs in place, whereas you're suggesting atrocious tax hikes which do literally nothing to help.
It is making you pay for negative externalities, which should be in place in many more places. If you don't like paying the real cost of a product, then don't buy it. Don't complain about something not costing $1.00 when it costs $2.00.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2014, 01:30:50 AM
It is making you pay for negative externalities, which should be in place in many more places. If you don't like paying the real cost of a product, then don't buy it. Don't complain about something not costing $1.00 when it costs $2.00.

That's a lot of words just to tell someone you've never taken an economics class.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 24, 2014, 01:57:39 AM
It is making you pay for negative externalities, which should be in place in many more places. If you don't like paying the real cost of a product, then don't buy it. Don't complain about something not costing $1.00 when it costs $2.00.

That's a lot of words just to tell someone you've never taken an economics class.
Or a few to demonstrate you've never taken a course in the environmental sciences.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 24, 2014, 03:12:59 AM
It's happened before. Historically speaking, every species that has become dominant over the Earth has screwed it up so badly that they could no longer survive on it. The only difference is that we're smart enough to stop before we go too far. Hopefully.

Huh? Are you saying that the dinosaurs were somehow responsible for getting themselves nuked by an asteroid?


I think he's referring to the blue green algae which poisoned everything else with oxygen.

I can't think of another apocalyptic species.

No, the cyanobacteria were the result of this. Methanogens created massive global warming through the sheer power of breathing over hundreds of millions of years until they couldn't sustain themselves anymore, and then the cyanobacteria took over.

Another example is the Carboniferous era plants. They completely took over the surface of the Earth and, again through the sheer force of breathing, took so much carbon out of the air that they created a runaway ice house effect. They all died and that carbon turned into the coal that we're putting back into the atmosphere as fast as we possibly can.

I think there are other examples, but I can't remember them and I don't feel like researching it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2014, 03:15:49 AM
Or a few to demonstrate you've never taken a course in the environmental sciences.

Whatever you say I guess.

No, the cyanobacteria were the result of this. Methanogens created massive global warming through the sheer power of breathing over hundreds of millions of years until they couldn't sustain themselves anymore, and then the cyanobacteria took over.

Another example is the Carboniferous era plants. They completely took over the surface of the Earth and, again through the sheer force of breathing, took so much carbon out of the air that they created a runaway ice house effect. They all died and that carbon turned into the coal that we're putting back into the atmosphere as fast as we possibly can.

I think there are other examples, but I can't remember them and I don't feel like researching it.

Well I think a key difference is that bacteria and plants aren't going to build themselves tools to stop the coming apocalypse.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 24, 2014, 03:55:05 AM
Do you understand what negative externalities are?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 24, 2014, 04:01:31 AM
Or a few to demonstrate you've never taken a course in the environmental sciences.

Whatever you say I guess.

No, the cyanobacteria were the result of this. Methanogens created massive global warming through the sheer power of breathing over hundreds of millions of years until they couldn't sustain themselves anymore, and then the cyanobacteria took over.

Another example is the Carboniferous era plants. They completely took over the surface of the Earth and, again through the sheer force of breathing, took so much carbon out of the air that they created a runaway ice house effect. They all died and that carbon turned into the coal that we're putting back into the atmosphere as fast as we possibly can.

I think there are other examples, but I can't remember them and I don't feel like researching it.

Well I think a key difference is that bacteria and plants aren't going to build themselves tools to stop the coming apocalypse.

There isn't much we can build to stop the plankton from dying. We're on a fast track to destroying the radiolarians and forams through ocean acidification, for example. It's hardly going to be the end of civilization, but it could certainly cause massive, global famines.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2014, 04:07:14 AM
There isn't much we can build to stop the algae from dying. We're on a fast track to destroying the radiolarians and forams through ocean acidification, for example. It's hardly going to be the end of civilization, but it could certainly cause massive, global famines.

Organisms such as algae tend to evolve more rapidly and respond quickly to environmental changes. Worse case scenario it can be motivated to evolve a certain way under laboratory conditions in just a few years. The fish on the other hand, well, that might be a problem.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 24, 2014, 04:23:47 AM
There isn't much we can build to stop the algae from dying. We're on a fast track to destroying the radiolarians and forams through ocean acidification, for example. It's hardly going to be the end of civilization, but it could certainly cause massive, global famines.

Organisms such as algae tend to evolve more rapidly and respond quickly to environmental changes. Worse case scenario it can be motivated to evolve a certain way under laboratory conditions in just a few years. The fish on the other hand, well, that might be a problem.

Not like this. Basically, as the oceans get more acidic there's less calcium for calcareous plankton (which is what I meant when I said algae, which was wrong) to make shells with. We've been able to measure the decrease in shell growth, and we've been able to measure its effect on fish populations. This isn't something they can just evolve around in a few decades, and the siliceous plankton probably won't be able to rise to fill the gap they leave if they disappear. We're probably screwed.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 25, 2014, 02:04:52 AM
Not like this. Basically, as the oceans get more acidic there's less calcium for calcareous plankton (which is what I meant when I said algae, which was wrong) to make shells with. We've been able to measure the decrease in shell growth, and we've been able to measure its effect on fish populations. This isn't something they can just evolve around in a few decades, and the siliceous plankton probably won't be able to rise to fill the gap they leave if they disappear. We're probably screwed.

I'm not overly worried. A reasonable assumption of convergent evolution would demand something will take their niche rather quickly, as they use a most basic resource to survive (sunlight), something else will thrive using that resource. Since that something else will inevitably use photosynthesis, the overall impact will be the same, even if the new plankton do not produce shells.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 25, 2014, 03:42:07 AM
Not like this. Basically, as the oceans get more acidic there's less calcium for calcareous plankton (which is what I meant when I said algae, which was wrong) to make shells with. We've been able to measure the decrease in shell growth, and we've been able to measure its effect on fish populations. This isn't something they can just evolve around in a few decades, and the siliceous plankton probably won't be able to rise to fill the gap they leave if they disappear. We're probably screwed.

I'm not overly worried. A reasonable assumption of convergent evolution would demand something will take their niche rather quickly, as they use a most basic resource to survive (sunlight), something else will thrive using that resource. Since that something else will inevitably use photosynthesis, the overall impact will be the same, even if the new plankton do not produce shells.
In general, acidification of the ocean has a much larger effect than the disappearance of a single species. Most organisms are adapted to survive in certain pH ranges, and when you mess with that too much, it causes massive ecosystem disruptions. If one removes the producers for even a short amount of time, it would cause extinctions on a mass scale, and genetic bottlenecks occurring on a grand scale. Even though I wouldn't suspect too much from our perspective, we're currently experiencing one of the largest mass extinctions in history. Since the beginning of the athropocene, extinction rates have been on the rise, as human influences annihilate many of the world's species.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 26, 2014, 02:24:24 AM
Not like this. Basically, as the oceans get more acidic there's less calcium for calcareous plankton (which is what I meant when I said algae, which was wrong) to make shells with. We've been able to measure the decrease in shell growth, and we've been able to measure its effect on fish populations. This isn't something they can just evolve around in a few decades, and the siliceous plankton probably won't be able to rise to fill the gap they leave if they disappear. We're probably screwed.

I'm not overly worried. A reasonable assumption of convergent evolution would demand something will take their niche rather quickly, as they use a most basic resource to survive (sunlight), something else will thrive using that resource. Since that something else will inevitably use photosynthesis, the overall impact will be the same, even if the new plankton do not produce shells.

Not quickly enough. Again, we have historical data about this. When similar things have happened in Earth's history, there have been mass extinctions over it. And mass extinctions aren't necessarily bad on a natural scale, since they tend to result a massive spike in biodiversity afterward (since there are all sorts of empty niches to fill), but in the short run it's bad for us humans.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on March 26, 2014, 02:29:37 AM
Not quickly enough. Again, we have historical data about this. When similar things have happened in Earth's history, there have been mass extinctions over it. And mass extinctions aren't necessarily bad on a natural scale, since they tend to result a massive spike in biodiversity afterward (since there are all sorts of empty niches to fill), but in the short run it's bad for us humans.

Guess I better use my Bitcoin money to start building that bunker, then.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 26, 2014, 07:20:40 AM
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any significant academic circles that broadly cover the sciences (the AAAS) or specifically atmospheric science circles (like the AMS) that dispute that humans are the driving cause of global warming?

General or atmospheric science because i'm sure there are plenty of geologists who dispute the issue.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 26, 2014, 12:03:20 PM
Just out of curiosity, can anyone name any significant academic circles that broadly cover the sciences (the AAAS) or specifically atmospheric science circles (like the AMS) that dispute that humans are the driving cause of global warming?

General or atmospheric science because i'm sure there are plenty of geologists who dispute the issue.

Neither of those organizations dispute anthropogenic climate change. In fact, I've found statements from both of them affirming that it exists and is significant.

Quote from: AAAS
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now

Quote from: AMS
Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 26, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
Sorry, I didn't elaborate on that enough. I was curious if anyone was aware of any significant academic circles that dispute anthropogenic global warming, as i'm not aware of the existence of any that dispute it. The AAAS and the AMS, I was using them as example of significant academic circles, however, not as example of significant academic circles that dispute AGW. I apologize for my lack of clarity.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 26, 2014, 07:08:23 PM
Sorry, I didn't elaborate on that enough. I was curious if anyone was aware of any significant academic circles that dispute anthropogenic global warming, as i'm not aware of the existence of any that dispute it. The AAAS and the AMS, I was using them as example of significant academic circles, however, not as example of significant academic circles that dispute AGW. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

There aren't any. Several years ago a conservative group made a list of scientists who disputed global warming, and they had to make up names and add random people to complete the list. Charles Darwin was on there. I'd imagine that if there were serious scientific groups disputing it they wouldn't have had to resort to such idiocy.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 26, 2014, 07:25:15 PM
Sorry, I didn't elaborate on that enough. I was curious if anyone was aware of any significant academic circles that dispute anthropogenic global warming, as i'm not aware of the existence of any that dispute it. The AAAS and the AMS, I was using them as example of significant academic circles, however, not as example of significant academic circles that dispute AGW. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

There aren't any. Several years ago a conservative group made a list of scientists who disputed global warming, and they had to make up names and add random people to complete the list. Charles Darwin was on there. I'd imagine that if there were serious scientific groups disputing it they wouldn't have had to resort to such idiocy.
Exactly the point I was trying to make.  :)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 29, 2014, 06:57:59 PM
I just compiled all hurricanes rated at cat 4 and 5 over the past 100 years by decade. The graph shows an increase in the amount of major hurricanes over the years. This would fit into the predictions and models showing an increase in major hurricanes due to warmer waters. Global warming would also allow hurricanes to survive farther in the north, making sandy-like events more likely. Hurricanes that seem to defy the laws of physics such as Katrina will become more common, as likeliness of super-heated waters will be more prevalent.

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img856/981/u6ot.png)

This demonstrates one of the many additional monetary costs imposed by unchecked global warming. Additional annual costs due to increased numbers of major hurricanes in the Atlantic basin ranges in the billions (assuming that the coast remains at the same level of development) and this does not include costs from increased Cyclones in areas such as the Pacific and Indian oceans.

*note that this is not evidence for AGW, simply a demonstration of increased costs and damages due to Global Warming*
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 31, 2014, 06:34:13 PM
Yes, HHunter. You extrapolated a tiny section of earth's climate as though 100 years completely explains everything about climate and any upsurge must mean the sky is falling in.  Below is the last 10,000 years. The little red bit is the bit you quoted. Imagine if we lived 8300 years ago. You'd be screaming "Look what we are doing to the planet! >o<". Climate changes. Sometimes rapidly and certainly way faster that it is at present. All the animals didn't die out in the last 10,000 years. The trend for temperatures is actually down. If it was getting cooler, we really would have stuff to worry about. It's a relief temperatures are not plunging us further towards another ice-age. Slightly warmer, more hurricanes. But it hasn't got anything to do with me driving my car to work in the morning. Environmental taxes are the new religious taxes. They are trying to get you to believe in something you can't disprove and you are derided as an idiot if you disagree. Only an idiot would swallow such crap. If it costs money, the likelihood is someone has an agenda. Welcome to the climate change industry.

(http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on March 31, 2014, 07:28:58 PM
Weird scale on that graph, for the time axis. Intervals to the left are 400-500 years apart, whereas intervals to the right are ~100 years apart. Makes the graph itself inaccurate. Since the recent, anthropogenically affected climate change seems to be similar in steepness to the steepest slopes on the left side, we can therefore conclude that the climate is changing 4-5 times faster than it has at any point in the last 10,000 years. That's pretty significant.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on March 31, 2014, 08:38:25 PM
Yes, HHunter. You extrapolated a tiny section of earth's climate as though 100 years completely explains everything about climate and any upsurge must mean the sky is falling in.  Below is the last 10,000 years. The little red bit is the bit you quoted. Imagine if we lived 8300 years ago. You'd be screaming "Look what we are doing to the planet! >o<". Climate changes. Sometimes rapidly and certainly way faster that it is at present. All the animals didn't die out in the last 10,000 years. The trend for temperatures is actually down. If it was getting cooler, we really would have stuff to worry about. It's a relief temperatures are not plunging us further towards another ice-age. Slightly warmer, more hurricanes. But it hasn't got anything to do with me driving my car to work in the morning. Environmental taxes are the new religious taxes. They are trying to get you to believe in something you can't disprove and you are derided as an idiot if you disagree. Only an idiot would swallow such crap. If it costs money, the likelihood is someone has an agenda. Welcome to the climate change industry.

(http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png)

I like how you criticize for using a "tiny" section of the earth's climate, while utilizing a graph that represents the climate of a small area, pretty much greenland and that's it, and pretending as if this represents the climate of the whole planet for that period of time. Climates of local areas often will fluctuate much more wildly than the average of the entire Earth.

What stuck out for me was how warm the Medieval warming period appears on the graph, when it's been shown plenty of times that it's in fact cooler than it is now. The current trend is easily the fastest warming we've had in the past 1000 years.

Needless to say, besides that it's laughable to consider that graph a representation of the past 10000 years, the time intervals, as Tausami said, are not uniform, and are misleading, which would compound the issue.

Back on the topic of Hurricanes, I think after another 50 years, or another ENSO cycle or two, we'll have a much clearer picture on the effects of AGW on major hurricanes, as I can't say with complete confidence that this is a rising trend. It's very likely nevertheless, that this is an upwards trend, and that this is due to higher ocean temperatures.

Here's a graph to show why recent warming is considered unprecedented:

(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg)

On how taxes can help the environment (this is the kind of legislation I'd like to see expansion of), see the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2014, 05:17:31 AM
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2014, 06:01:54 AM
The only way to determine anything with that much certainty would be to have two Earth's that are identical in every way except one has humans and the other one doesn't. Climate science isn't experimentally verifiable, it leans on statistics, much like psychology and sociology.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on April 12, 2014, 08:16:26 AM
The only way to determine anything with that much certainty would be to have two Earth's that are identical in every way except one has humans and the other one doesn't. Climate science isn't experimentally verifiable, it leans on statistics, much like psychology and sociology.

That's not true.

They conduct experiments in the arctic (to determine climate history). They measure the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere with probes all over the world. They measure the amount of arctic ice that's melting the list goes on.

I think you're getting confused between qualitative information and quantitative data.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2014, 03:38:34 PM
That's not true.

They conduct experiments in the arctic (to determine climate history). They measure the concentration of C02 in the atmosphere with probes all over the world. They measure the amount of arctic ice that's melting the list goes on.

That isn't experimentation, it is data gathering for statistical analysis. It gives us a data set of CO2 over the history of the earth. That isn't useful unless you have two Earths. Basic statistics, you have to have more than one sample from a population. We don't have a population of Earths to take samples from. This means Earth has to be the population, which is an awful way to go about statistics. You're comparing your data to itself.

I think you're getting confused between qualitative information and quantitative data.

There is only so much you can trust any data set given to you, especially analytical processes done on that data set. Since I do statistics for a living I'm inclined to not trust any science done based solely on statistics with data that was not gathered via experiments that can be repeated.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2014, 04:04:38 PM
That isn't experimentation, it is data gathering for statistical analysis. It gives us a data set of CO2 over the history of the earth. That isn't useful unless you have two Earths. Basic statistics, you have to have more than one sample from a population. We don't have a population of Earths to take samples from. This means Earth has to be the population, which is an awful way to go about statistics. You're comparing your data to itself.

I have a coin.  I flip the coin 100 times and get 95 heads.  Based on your advanced knowledge of statistics, can you think of any analytic tools that could tell me the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2014, 04:06:02 PM
I have a coin.  I flip the coin 100 times and get 95 heads.  Based on your advanced knowledge of statistics, can you think of any analytic tools that could tell me the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?

Probability is basic math, not necessarily a form of statistics. It is based on a number of possible events, not the number of outcomes.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2014, 05:12:12 PM
Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?
No, you just need to perform an experiment on a sample size that isn't as laughable as the one you suggested.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2014, 08:34:17 PM
I have a coin.  I flip the coin 100 times and get 95 heads.  Based on your advanced knowledge of statistics, can you think of any analytic tools that could tell me the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?

Probability is basic math, not necessarily a form of statistics. It is based on a number of possible events, not the number of outcomes.

Ok.  I agree.  What does that have to do with either of my questions?  Are you aware of any analytic method to deduce the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a separate coin to reject the hypothesis that the coin is fair?

Let's try another analogy.  Alice and Bob are degenerate gamblers who bet on a coin flip together exactly once per day.  Alice always selects heads and Bob always selects tails.  They've been playing for ten years.

Claire is friends with Bob, and she suspects that Alice has been cheating for the last 100 days with an unfair coin that flips heads more often than it should.  She tells Bob, and Bob responds that he's certain Alice isn't cheating.  Sure, the coin came up heads 95 of the previous 100 days, but that's just variance!

Can Claire prove to Bob that Alice is probably cheating?  Does she need to flip a separate coin and compare notes? 

Do I need to flip a second coin to reject the null hypothesis that the first coin is fair?
No, you just need to perform an experiment on a sample size that isn't as laughable as the one you suggested.

So imagine that it's 1000 coin flips instead of 100.  No, make it 10,000.  1,000,000?  Since it's a fictitious analogy, you can pretend there are as many trials as you'd like to.  Next, pretend that 95% of those flips come up heads.  Welcome to the point.

Also, the sample size required to measure a significant effect depends entirely on the experiment.  I recommend some light reading on 'statistical power.'  For coin flips, 100 flips is absolutely sufficient to rule out a fair coin, depending on how unfair the coin is (and your required level of certainty).  If a coin is only a 51% favorite to land heads, then it will take many many trials to prove that it isn't fair.  If instead it's a 90% favorite to land heads, then I have something like a 95% chance to detect its unfairness with only 10 trials.

http://www.statisticsdonewrong.com/power.html
http://vault.hanover.edu/~altermattw/methods/assets/Readings/Statistical_Inference.pdf
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2014, 08:44:55 PM
Ok.  I agree.  What does that have to do with either of my questions?  Are you aware of any analytic method to deduce the likelihood of a fair coin flipping heads 95/100 times?  Do I need to flip a separate coin to reject the hypothesis that the coin is fair?

Are you aware you're questions are irrelevant to my statements?

Let's try another analogy.  Alice and Bob are degenerate gamblers who bet on a coin flip together exactly once per day.  Alice always selects heads and Bob always selects tails.  They've been playing for ten years.

Claire is friends with Bob, and she suspects that Alice has been cheating for the last 100 days with an unfair coin that flips heads more often than it should.  She tells Bob, and Bob responds that he's certain Alice isn't cheating.  Sure, the coin came up heads 95 of the previous 100 days, but that's just variance!

Can Claire prove to Bob that Alice is probably cheating?  Does she need to flip a separate coin and compare notes? 

This is an attempt at a false equivalence. You can name all possible outcomes of a coin, you can not name all possible outcomes of a climate. See chaos theory for more on that regard.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 13, 2014, 01:19:06 AM
So imagine that it's 1000 coin flips instead of 100.  No, make it 10,000.  1,000,000?  Since it's a fictitious analogy, you can pretend there are as many trials as you'd like to.  Next, pretend that 95% of those flips come up heads.  Welcome to the point.
If you have a point to make, just make it - you will find that people will be much more receptive of your message if you actually send it. So far, you're arguing against your own premise, and doing a supreme job at it.

The downside of that is that it leaves me confused and doesn't give me much to be smug about, since you've already done it all to yourself. :(
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on April 13, 2014, 01:23:42 AM
Sorry, but the Earth isn't the population.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: garygreen on April 13, 2014, 07:48:24 PM
Let's try another analogy.  Alice and Bob are degenerate gamblers who bet on a coin flip together exactly once per day.  Alice always selects heads and Bob always selects tails.  They've been playing for ten years.

Claire is friends with Bob, and she suspects that Alice has been cheating for the last 100 days with an unfair coin that flips heads more often than it should.  She tells Bob, and Bob responds that he's certain Alice isn't cheating.  Sure, the coin came up heads 95 of the previous 100 days, but that's just variance!

Can Claire prove to Bob that Alice is probably cheating?  Does she need to flip a separate coin and compare notes? 

This is an attempt at a false equivalence. You can name all possible outcomes of a coin, you can not name all possible outcomes of a climate. See chaos theory for more on that regard.

The logic is precisely the same whether we're talking about coins or climates.

Tweak the analogy.  Imagine that Alice and Bob use a random number generator instead of a coin.  Let's say it generates a random decimal number between 0 and 1.  There are infinite end states, and they're completely unpredictable from the initial conditions.  If Alice cheats and tweaks the number generator to generate her numbers 90% of the time, Bob can detect that the generator is biased, analytically, by recording the proportions of the end states and comparing that to the likelihood of those proportions being truly random.  Bob can then quantify exactly how certain or uncertain he is that the number generator is biased.

Or go with the original.  The final position of a coin spinning through air is chaotic (or at least approximately so (http://www.perlikowski.kdm.p.lodz.pl/papers/coin_math.pdf)).  I can still use probability and statistics to detect an unfair coin by recording and analyzing the proportions of its outcomes.  There are many more possible 'outcomes' for a climate than for a coin, but I can still record and analyze their proportions.

The motion of a pinball in a pinball machine is chaotic.  One could still detect a tilted machine by recording and analyzing a sufficient number of end states of the pinball.

All of that said, I'm not sure why you think the climate is a chaotic system.  That's definitely not a given.  Weather is chaotic, but that doesn't necessitate that averages of those systems are.  See 'attractors' for more on that regard.  But you know all about chaos theory, so I don't have to tell you that.

From where I sit, climate is very predictable.  It's so predictable that I could buy a plot of land grow the same kind of plant in it every single year for the rest of my life.  Year in and year out I could reasonably predict how hot/cold it will be, when, and with how much variation.  Lots of people have been doing this very thing for...well, years now I think.

So imagine that it's 1000 coin flips instead of 100.  No, make it 10,000.  1,000,000?  Since it's a fictitious analogy, you can pretend there are as many trials as you'd like to.  Next, pretend that 95% of those flips come up heads.  Welcome to the point.
If you have a point to make, just make it - you will find that people will be much more receptive of your message if you actually send it. So far, you're arguing against your own premise, and doing a supreme job at it.

The downside of that is that it leaves me confused and doesn't give me much to be smug about, since you've already done it all to yourself. :(

I made my point very clearly. 

You said my sample size was laughable.  I said it was a made up, fictitious sample size for a fictional analogy, so go nuts imagining whatever sample size you like.  The imaginary sample size is not the point.  The point was to imagine a coin that is obviously biased: it comes up heads 95% of the time.

Then I went on to explain in detail how you are wrong anyway.  100 coin flips is more than sufficient to rule out as fair a coin that is biased to land heads 95% of the time.  I even linked sources supporting my claim.

You chose to ignore that and omit it from your quote as if I never said it, as usual.  You didn't say anything of substance about it or the part you actually did quote.  You're just making incredibly ironic quips about me not responding to you.  Look at your post.  Where is the substantive argument?  Highlight for me the sentence that you wrote that makes a point of any kind.

I'll respond to any sentences you write that are arguments of some substance directly related to my point.  The rest of it is boring. 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on April 13, 2014, 10:17:16 PM
The logic is precisely the same whether we're talking about coins or climates.

Tweak the analogy.  Imagine that Alice and Bob use a random number generator instead of a coin.  Let's say it generates a random decimal number between 0 and 1.  There are infinite end states, and they're completely unpredictable from the initial conditions.  If Alice cheats and tweaks the number generator to generate her numbers 90% of the time, Bob can detect that the generator is biased, analytically, by recording the proportions of the end states and comparing that to the likelihood of those proportions being truly random.  Bob can then quantify exactly how certain or uncertain he is that the number generator is biased.

Or go with the original.  The final position of a coin spinning through air is chaotic (or at least approximately so (http://www.perlikowski.kdm.p.lodz.pl/papers/coin_math.pdf)).  I can still use probability and statistics to detect an unfair coin by recording and analyzing the proportions of its outcomes.  There are many more possible 'outcomes' for a climate than for a coin, but I can still record and analyze their proportions.

The motion of a pinball in a pinball machine is chaotic.  One could still detect a tilted machine by recording and analyzing a sufficient number of end states of the pinball.

How do you know how a pinball machine is supposed to work?

All of that said, I'm not sure why you think the climate is a chaotic system.  That's definitely not a given.  Weather is chaotic, but that doesn't necessitate that averages of those systems are.  See 'attractors' for more on that regard.  But you know all about chaos theory, so I don't have to tell you that.

From where I sit, climate is very predictable.  It's so predictable that I could buy a plot of land grow the same kind of plant in it every single year for the rest of my life.  Year in and year out I could reasonably predict how hot/cold it will be, when, and with how much variation.  Lots of people have been doing this very thing for...well, years now I think.

Weather is easily predicted, climate is not.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on April 14, 2014, 02:14:37 AM
The logic is precisely the same whether we're talking about coins or climates.

Tweak the analogy.  Imagine that Alice and Bob use a random number generator instead of a coin.  Let's say it generates a random decimal number between 0 and 1.  There are infinite end states, and they're completely unpredictable from the initial conditions.  If Alice cheats and tweaks the number generator to generate her numbers 90% of the time, Bob can detect that the generator is biased, analytically, by recording the proportions of the end states and comparing that to the likelihood of those proportions being truly random.  Bob can then quantify exactly how certain or uncertain he is that the number generator is biased.

Or go with the original.  The final position of a coin spinning through air is chaotic (or at least approximately so (http://www.perlikowski.kdm.p.lodz.pl/papers/coin_math.pdf)).  I can still use probability and statistics to detect an unfair coin by recording and analyzing the proportions of its outcomes.  There are many more possible 'outcomes' for a climate than for a coin, but I can still record and analyze their proportions.

The motion of a pinball in a pinball machine is chaotic.  One could still detect a tilted machine by recording and analyzing a sufficient number of end states of the pinball.

How do you know how a pinball machine is supposed to work?

All of that said, I'm not sure why you think the climate is a chaotic system.  That's definitely not a given.  Weather is chaotic, but that doesn't necessitate that averages of those systems are.  See 'attractors' for more on that regard.  But you know all about chaos theory, so I don't have to tell you that.

From where I sit, climate is very predictable.  It's so predictable that I could buy a plot of land grow the same kind of plant in it every single year for the rest of my life.  Year in and year out I could reasonably predict how hot/cold it will be, when, and with how much variation.  Lots of people have been doing this very thing for...well, years now I think.

Weather is easily predicted, climate is not.

On the contrary, it's easier in most cases to predict climate rather than weather.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 29, 2014, 08:52:45 PM
(http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif)

Oh boy, global warming.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on April 30, 2014, 04:38:08 AM
(http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20AndCO2.gif)

Oh boy, global warming.

(http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif)

Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 30, 2014, 03:42:11 PM
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on April 30, 2014, 07:09:02 PM
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?

The temperature records on the graph I showed are about 10 years longer. I'd prefer a longer time span, but the animation is good for this point.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on April 30, 2014, 07:15:42 PM
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?

The temperature records on the graph I showed are about 10 years longer. I'd prefer a longer time span, but the animation is good for this point.
But yet you weren't interested in my 10,000 year ice core graph, because it shows how ridiculous global warming is as a theory. ::)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rama Set on April 30, 2014, 07:30:05 PM
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?

The temperature records on the graph I showed are about 10 years longer. I'd prefer a longer time span, but the animation is good for this point.
But yet you weren't interested in my 10,000 year ice core graph, because it shows how ridiculous global warming is as a theory. ::)

No he did not like it for all the reasons (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1283.msg22837#msg22837) he outlined after you posted it. 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on April 30, 2014, 08:43:39 PM
Larger time spans are necessary to view the overall changes in climate over the years.
Then why did you present a graph with a significantly shorter timespan?

The temperature records on the graph I showed are about 10 years longer. I'd prefer a longer time span, but the animation is good for this point.
But yet you weren't interested in my 10,000 year ice core graph, because it shows how ridiculous global warming is as a theory. ::)

The graph you showed was the most convincing evidence for global warming I've seen in a long time. It clearly showed that temperatures are increasing at rates unprecedented in the last 10,000 years of Earth's history.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on May 02, 2014, 12:31:36 AM
Erm, no. Its nothing like what happened 8300 years ago. do you know how to read a graph?
(http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png)
The tiny red bit on the far right is the bit you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It was 2 degrees warmer than it is now when the Romans wandered about. Animals didn't die, humans weren't made extinct, the ozone didn't fry anyone and the fish didn't all float to the top of the ocean.

But hey, if you want to pay someone tax because of that little red bit at the end, be my guest. Just don't expect me to.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 02, 2014, 02:05:17 AM
Erm, no. Its nothing like what happened 8300 years ago. do you know how to read a graph?
(http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png)
The tiny red bit on the far right is the bit you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It was 2 degrees warmer than it is now when the Romans wandered about. Animals didn't die, humans weren't made extinct, the ozone didn't fry anyone and the fish didn't all float to the top of the ocean.

But hey, if you want to pay someone tax because of that little red bit at the end, be my guest. Just don't expect me to.

You don't seem to understand that this graph does NOT represent the average world temperatures of the past 100 years. This represents the temperatures of the LOCAL area. Local temperatures will have much more severe variations than the global average, as averages are often less volatile. When you start seeing global changes in average temperatures appear like variations in local areas, you know that there is a serious issue. Here Graph compiling 12 different records from 12 different areas on the planet into a single graph (and hence, an average).


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png)

NOTE how individual records vary much more than the average.
NOTE how individual records will OFTEN be warmer than current temperatures.
NOTE how the current temperature is significantly higher than it was at any point in the past 10,000 years.
And please, NOTE the difference between individual data in individual areas, and the averages of all of these data points, and how large changes in individual trends has a significantly different meaning than large changes in the average trends.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on May 02, 2014, 02:27:27 AM
Global warming is the NWO's answer to an inevitable Ice Age. They are saving us, you should be happy.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on May 02, 2014, 06:34:58 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png)

Fine, we'll use your graph then. Please point out the global warming. If anything, the trend is cooling in the last 8,000 years.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2014, 06:40:54 PM
Look closer Thork.  See the arrow labelled 2004 and the blown up section of graph with the incredibly steep slope?  That is the one.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on May 02, 2014, 07:12:01 PM
What incredibly steep slope? The slope that is still beneath the zero degree median?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rama Set on May 02, 2014, 07:38:49 PM
Look harder. See the arrow labelled 2004?  The one above the 0 line?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on May 02, 2014, 07:41:26 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing the gradient plot of that graph.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on May 02, 2014, 07:48:28 PM
Look harder. See the arrow labelled 2004?  The one above the 0 line?
You can have a trend of 10,000 years and then pick out one warm one. That's ridiculous. The trend line is normalised so it doesn't bounce. And then you pick out a bounce. That's like picking out an individual point on a scatter graph.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 03, 2014, 05:28:44 AM
Look harder. See the arrow labelled 2004?  The one above the 0 line?
You can have a trend of 10,000 years and then pick out one warm one. That's ridiculous. The trend line is normalised so it doesn't bounce. And then you pick out a bounce. That's like picking out an individual point on a scatter graph.

The issue is that the trend line is not supposed to bounce. It's supposed to be averaged out. The bounce at the end of the time period is highly uncharacteristic of any behaviors of the averages temperatures for the past 10,000 years. The only major temperature change that is comparable to the sudden change we see in contemporary times is at the end of the last glacial period. It's actually quite steeper.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on May 03, 2014, 09:38:33 AM
The trend line doesn't bounce. The data bounces. And you have focused on a bounce at the end.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on May 03, 2014, 02:38:30 PM
Thork, at some point it seems like you'd realize why me and Pizaaplanet no longer respond here, and that is that this guy is either trolling or really has no idea what he is talking about. Either way, he isn't going to understand anything you say.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on May 03, 2014, 07:47:33 PM
I know. But its because there are so many idiots like that out there, that the climate scammers are able to get money out of everyone.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 04, 2014, 12:04:52 AM
Thork, do you understand why the trend line is not as wild as the different data points?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 05, 2014, 03:24:38 AM
Ok, i'll walk everyone through with what this graph means, for any who do not understand it.

First of all, this graph was constructed by taking temperature records from 13 different proxies around the world. There's data collected from Greenland, Africa, Europe, Antarctica, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The records from these temperatures are then average together to form a trend line.

The trend line is important in that it not only represents a trend, but it is the Average heat energy the Earth is receiving at any given time. This means that from what we see on the graph, often it isn't the amount of energy that the Earth is absorbing that changes much, but the sequestration of the energy across the planet. Thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so when a certain amount of energy enters a system, this will be all the energy that system has.

Therefore, changes in local temperatures, as shown on the graph, more the most part, do not represent a change in the total amount of energy absorbed by the planet.

So, to summarize, this means that the trend line is the relative amount of energy the Earth is receiving. With this information, we can better analyze the graph and the repercussions thereof.

This graph shows a massive increase in the amount of energy that the Earth is absorbing over the past 200 years. This rate of increase is so large that it cannot be represented accurately on the larger graph, which is why there is an arrow pointing to the current state of the world's average temperatures, and a smaller graph showing recent proxy information. There are no atmospheric forcings, besides greenhouse gasses, that can be credited with these recent massive increase.

Or maybe there are. Can you name some?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 05, 2014, 11:59:43 AM
There are no atmospheric forcings, besides greenhouse gasses, that can be credited with these recent massive increase.

Or maybe there are. Can you name some?
That's not how proving things works. Just because you think there is only one possible cause of something in no way implies that it is the correct cause. You've basically weakened your argument to the level of "God dunnit because no one else could!"
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 05, 2014, 07:36:28 PM
Let me start off with a quote made famous by Leanord Nimoy.

"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth."

Secondly, you've avoided the question.

Lastly, it fits the math. Climate models work because they've been tested by using past variables to gain accurate results of past temperatures.

In addendum, please be constructive and actually suggest what may forces could be causing a spike in the temperature record during the Anthropocene.

Also, if you'd rather argue with badly witted comparisons, so be it. You've basically weakened your argument to the level of "There's only one possibility, but it can't be, therefore aliens."
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 05, 2014, 09:13:23 PM
"If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth."
This is only correct assuming you've exhausted all possibilities. You haven't.

Secondly, you've avoided the question.
I didn't "avoid" the question, I explained why the question is nonconstructive.

"There's only one possibility, but it can't be, therefore aliens."
Please substantiate the following statement: There's only one possibility.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 05, 2014, 11:47:01 PM
Quote
This is only correct assuming you've exhausted all possibilities. You haven't.

Name some.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2014, 01:29:56 AM
Name some.
I don't need to, and I already explained why this is a bogus request to make. Please don't waste my time.

Unless you can substantiate that no other possibilities exist (n.b. not that you failed to find any), you have no point.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 06, 2014, 03:37:52 AM
Name some.
I don't need to, and I already explained why this is a bogus request to make. Please don't waste my time.

Unless you can substantiate that no other possibilities exist (n.b. not that you failed to find any), you have no point.

Pizza have you ever taken any sort of medication or prescription?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2014, 02:42:28 PM
Pizza have you ever taken any sort of medication or prescription?
Very mature. Please refer to the forum rules (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0). Depending on your intent, this is either a personal attack or an instance of off-topic posting.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Blanko on May 06, 2014, 02:45:10 PM
Pizza have you ever taken any sort of medication or prescription?
Very mature. Please refer to the forum rules (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0). Depending on your intent, this is either a personal attack or an instance of off-topic posting.

Don't be such a crybaby.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2014, 02:53:15 PM
All right, let's try to actually respond to it then.

HHunter, just because you dislike some of the elementary properties of logical proofs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification) doesn't mean you can expect others to cater to you. It doesn't make others require prescription medication, it simply means you require to fill in the gaps in your high school education.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 06, 2014, 04:30:37 PM
Pizza have you ever taken any sort of medication or prescription?
Very mature. Please refer to the forum rules (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0). Depending on your intent, this is either a personal attack or an instance of off-topic posting.

You're wrong on both accounts. This was meant to be the opening point for introducing the Precautionary Principal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle) into this discussion, which is fundamental to the AGW issue. The point of medications and prescriptions is that, using your logic, if we cannot rule out every single potential cause of an issue, like a fever, then we should not execute a remedy plan, like prescription medicine.

Let me also remind my counterparts that ad hominems (not referring to you on this one Pizza) have no place in any discussion, scientific or otherwise, and that participants should refrain from making knee-jerk assumptions.

Back to the Precautionary Principal, this is a principal that is utilized in public policy decisions that involve hazards to humans and the environment. Examples of usage of this principal include the banning of CFCs, the banning of apple imports from the USA to Europe, and utilization of safety equipment in the operation of nuclear power plants.

The burden of proof lies upon the entity that claims that the substance or situation is safe, or the concentration that exists or is being utilized is safe. No one ever said that action shouldn't be taken on ozone because all the possibilities weren't discounted. We didn't have to prove that magical ozone-consuming unicorns weren't eating all of the ozone in the atmosphere. When hazards are involved, demanding to discount every possibility, even unknown possibilities, is absurd.

Anyways, nothing in the scientific is certain. All possible causes for any phenomenon cannot be discounted. However most science, included AGW, has been advanced to a point where we can say for near-certainty that equations and situations will always apply under certain circumstances. All scientists understand this, there is no need to argue for it, it's a given fact of the scientific community.

Now, taken the precautionary principal, once again, I ask you to identify a possible cause for the recent warming other than CO2, as the burden of proof, for all intents and purposes, is on you.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2014, 04:48:59 PM
The precautionary principle (not to be confused with a principal - the person in charge of the high school you should go back to) doesn't apply to this discussion. I am not claiming that global warming isn't harmful, I am simply asking you to substantiate your claim that all possible causes other than human actions have been exhausted.

You appear to have now admitted that this is impossible, thus rendering your use of a popular quote completely invalid. If that's the case, I'm quite happy with the outcome.

Never throughout this discussion have I claimed we shouldn't be addressing global warming - this is an assumption you made.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 06, 2014, 09:51:48 PM
The precautionary principle (not to be confused with a principal - the person in charge of the high school you should go back to) doesn't apply to this discussion. I am not claiming that global warming isn't harmful, I am simply asking you to substantiate your claim that all possible causes other than human actions have been exhausted.

You appear to have now admitted that this is impossible, thus rendering your use of a popular quote completely invalid. If that's the case, I'm quite happy with the outcome.

Never throughout this discussion have I claimed we shouldn't be addressing global warming - this is an assumption you made.

First, let me again reiterate the point that this is not the place for the use of ad hominems. This is not the Youtube comment section, if you'd like to resort to this sort of childish dribble, i'd suggest you argue your points somewhere else. This is the second time I've had to make this clear, i hope participants on this thread understand that such antics have no place here.

Back to the topic, name one time that quote has been used to refer every single possibility that is available. Understanding the connotation of this phrase is much more important than the denotation. If you had actually taken the time to read the passage from which this quote is taken, maybe you'd better understand this.

On another note, lets just walk through where the energy in the atmosphere comes from.

We have the most obvious source, which is, as you all may guess, the sun. Then we have heat from inside the earth, being released by the decay of radioactive elements and from tidal friction caused by the moon and sun. The energy from inside the earth keeps the interior molten, however, its effect on global air temperatures is rather negligible compared to the sun, and does not vary greatly. So for the most part, energy from the sun is what causes fluctuations of the planet's atmosphere, and different conditions on the planet can create vastly different atmospheric outcomes.

There are mainly three different Earth-centered reasons for climate change, involving the Earth and it's position and orbit in space. These is eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Increasing eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is) will result in more extreme seasons. Obliquity is the tilt of the earth's axis. Our current obliquity is 23.4 degrees. Obliquity determines how extreme (or not extreme) the seasons will be. Precession is the direction of the tilt, and doesn't have much of an effect on climate. All three of these occur over long periods of time, and therefore cannot be credited with recent warming.

I'll stop teaching about causes for climactic change. You can take a textbook for a day and figure it out. The sun's cycles have not made a significant change in energy output, enough to change the climate so drastically.

The only variable that has changed significantly is greenhouse gasses.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2014, 10:03:20 PM
First, let me again reiterate the point that this is not the place for the use of ad hominems. [...]
There have been no ad hominems in my post. Pointing out the lacks in your education (which you conveniently left unaddressed - it's almost as if you wanted me to press the matter and claim that your self-fulfilling prophecy has been, well, fulfilled) is crucial to this discussion, since your credibility needs to be established. Correcting your spelling is also not an ad hominem - it does not attack you as a person in any way. Please educate yourself on what an ad hominem is before you use the term in the future.

Back to the topic, name one time that quote has been used to refer every single possibility that is available. Understanding the connotation of this phrase is much more important than the denotation. If you had actually taken the time to read the passage from which this quote is taken, maybe you'd better understand this.
I don't see how this is on topic at all. The claim you made (by way of quote-mining a Star Trek episode) was incorrect, and you have already admitted it. What's the point of bringing this back up, especially given the overall low relevance of Star Trek to a real-world debate? What does it matter if someone did or didn't use a Star Trek quote in some context? It's Star Trek. It won't make your claim less wrong.

You also failed to properly attribute the quote. Originally, it comes from Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Of course, it would (not) be an ad hominem to point out that you should have known that from high school, so I will (not) refrain from doing so. But obviously, the contents of Sherlock Holmes are also not very relevant to a scientific debate, so the whole point about "reading the passage" is moot.

The only variable that has changed significantly is greenhouse gasses.
As requested countless times before, please substantiate this claim.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 06, 2014, 10:30:46 PM
Quote
I don't see how this is on topic at all. The claim you made (by way of quote-mining a Star Trek episode) was incorrect, and you have already admitted it. What's the point of bringing this back up, especially given the overall low relevance of Star Trek to a real-world debate? What does it matter if someone did or didn't use a Star Trek quote in some context? It's Star Trek. It won't make your claim less wrong.

You also failed to properly attribute the quote. Originally, it comes from Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Of course, it would (not) be an ad hominem to point out that you should have known that from high school. But obviously, the contents of Sherlock Holmes are also not very relevant to a scientific debate, so the whole point about "reading the passage" is moot.

Sorry, but the term "made famous" does not imply that the person mentioned coined or created whatever said person or thing "made famous". Second, the quote is not from any book called "Sherlock Holmes", not to mention that you incorrectly notated this "piece" as a short story, or some sort of magazine. The quote is originally from The Sign of Four, a novel written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was referring to the passage from which the quote originally came. Most of this would be known with a high school education, as it's typically considered canon.

On greenhouse gasses being the primary cause for recent warming:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg)

Source: IPCC
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 06, 2014, 11:31:28 PM
Sorry, but the term "made famous" does not imply that the person mentioned coined or created whatever said person or thing "made famous".
Yes, the quote has been made famous by the author. Sherlock Holmes is a rather famous series of novels.

Second, the quote is not from any book called "Sherlock Holmes"
Well, it's a good thing that I never claimed that.

not to mention that you incorrectly notated this "piece" as a short story, or some sort of magazine
Ah, yes, because the notation style most popular in your country of upbringing is the only "correct" notation. Your ignorance continues to amuse, especially now that you combined it with ethnocentrism.

The quote is originally from The Sign of Four, a novel written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I was referring to the passage from which the quote originally came. Most of this would be known with a high school education, as it's typically considered canon.
I'm glad we agree. It's a shame that you had to do research before we reached this agreement. But hey, at least the educational purpose of this forum is being served. Very importantly, it's still a quote from a work of fiction, which does nothing to strengthen your argument. Quoting Holmes or Spock won't make you stop being wrong.

On greenhouse gasses being the primary cause for recent warming:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg)

Source: IPCC
I'm sorry, your claim was that greenhouse gases are the only possible cause of global warming. Please substantiate it, or admit that it was incorrect. Also, posting a graph without explaining its significance won't get you far.

Consider the following:

(http://img.sjm.so/oschart)

QED global warming is fake, and also aliens.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 06, 2014, 11:58:29 PM
Quote
Yes, the quote has been made famous by the author. Sherlock Holmes is a rather famous series of novels.

Sorry, but Sherlock Holmes is a character, not a series. Appearance of the same character in several books does not substantiate it as a "series".

Quote
Well, it's a good thing that I never claimed that.

You said it is from Sherlock Holmes. Please tell me what literary work from Doyle is called "Sherlock Holmes".

Quote
Ah, yes, because the notation style most popular in your country of upbringing is the only "correct" notation. Your ignorance continues to amuse, especially now that you combined it with ethnocentrism.

This notation is border-less.

Quote
I'm glad we agree. It's a shame that you had to do research before we reached this agreement. But hey, at least the educational purpose of this forum is being served. Very importantly, it's still a quote from a work of fiction, which does nothing to strengthen your argument. Quoting Holmes or Spock won't make you stop being wrong.

It doesn't take much education to learn that there is no litarary work from Doyle called "Sherlock Holmes". Being a quote from a work of fiction does not negate the validity of it.

Quote
I'm sorry, your claim was that greenhouse gases are the only possible cause of global warming. Please substantiate it, or admit that it was incorrect. Also, posting a graph without explaining its significance won't get you far.

I sourced the graph. It's from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. All relevant information is here. Do your own homework, I won't spoon feed you.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 07, 2014, 12:43:21 AM
You said it is from Sherlock Holmes. Please tell me what literary work from Doyle is called "Sherlock Holmes".
*yawn*

This notation is border-less.
Please substantiate this claim. To make your job a bit harder: it's quite easy to find academically-respectable sources (http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/punctuating_titles_chart.pdf) which claim the very opposite of what you claimed (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/italics.htm).

Quote from: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/italics.htm
Generally, we italicize the titles of things that can stand by themselves. Thus we differentiate between the titles of novels and journals, say, and the titles of poems, short stories, articles, and episodes (for television shows). The titles of these shorter pieces would be surrounded with double quotation marks.

Being a quote from a work of fiction does not negate the validity of it.
Indeed. Its validity is negated by simple formal logic. I already gave you the relevant link.

I sourced the graph. It's from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. All relevant information is here.
You sourced it. You failed to actually substantiate your claim, though.

So far, your claim appears to be:
"Global warming is anthropogenic in nature because:

Surely you understand that we'll stop bothering with your rambling unless you step up your game.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on May 07, 2014, 01:04:04 AM
The only main source for global climate change is the sun.
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

So the question that should be asked is: has the energy from the sun increased?
If yes, is it enough to cause climate change?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 07, 2014, 01:20:31 AM
Quote
Please substantiate this claim. To make your job a bit harder: it's quite easy to find academically-respectable sources which claim the very opposite of what you claimed.
you have yet to explain to me how Sherlock Holmes, a character, would be italicized under any of these definitions.

What's sad is:

1. I've given you scientific documentation demonstrating that with near certainty that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the primary cause of current global warming, yet you have yet to do your research.
2. You fail to correctly quote my "claim".
3. Sherlock is a character, sorry friend.

Quote
The only main source for global climate change is the sun.
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

So the question that should be asked is: has the energy from the sun increased?
If yes, is it enough to cause climate change?

This is a common misconception. Climate change suggested by AGW is not caused by heat that humans release. It's caused by the chemical properties of the gasses, such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, that allow for increased absorption of energy from the sun into atmosphere and hydrosphere. Basically, when sunlight hits the Earth, a good amount is reflected. Some of it is absorbed by greenhouse gasses, such as CO2. Without these gasses, the Earth would be much cooler than it is today.

When you increase the proportion of the gasses in the atmosphere, it traps more energy from the sun. So the amount of energy from the sun is remaining relatively constant, it's simply the amount that your capturing. It would be sort of like trying to throw a ball through a hole. If you make the hole smaller, less balls you throw will get through. This would be like greenhouse gasses. The higher concentration of greenhouse gasses you have, the less energy will actually escape, and more energy will stay on the planet, leading to the planet warming.

tldr; The energy from the humans hasn't increased significant, greenhouse gasses are simply absorbing a larger percentage of the sun's energy. [Edits in bold]

I hope this helps.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 07, 2014, 01:26:04 AM
you have yet to explain to me how Sherlock Holmes, a character, would be italicized under any of these definitions.
I'm guessing your unwillingness to address the notation itself is an admission of the fact that you had it rather wrong. We're making so much progress, you're learning so much today!

Sherlock Holmes being a character has no bearing on Sherlock Holmes being a series.

1. I've given you scientific documentation demonstrating that with near certainty that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the primary cause of current global warming, yet you have yet to do your research.
Which has nothing to do with your claim - that there is only one possible cause of global warming.

2. You fail to correctly quote my "claim".
I don't know how one can quote incorrectly, but I guess I'll try again:

"There's only one possibility, but it can't be, therefore aliens."
Please substantiate the following statement: There's only one possibility.
I made it big and pink for you so that you can hopefully see it. Now, please substantiate it or retract it.

3. Sherlock is a character, sorry friend.
Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 07, 2014, 01:34:33 AM
Case Study

The Republic of the Maldives is an island nation in the Indian Ocean, home to about 400,000 people.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/LocationMaldives.png)

Image Source: Wikipedia

This island nation has an average elevation 1.9 meters, with it's highest elevation at 2.4 meters, is at risk to nearly completely disappear off the maps in 100 years. With rising sea levels, The Maldives has pledged to become carbon-neutral by the year 2019. Climate change is one of the largest issues of this archipelago-state. 

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Male-total.jpg)

This state is of large international concern, since as the land will slowly become inundated, locals will lose their homes and livelihoods, and will be forced to become refugees.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 07, 2014, 01:42:12 AM
Quote
I'm guessing your unwillingness to address the notation itself is an admission of the fact that you had it rather wrong. We're making so much progress, you're learning so much today!

Sherlock Holmes being a character has no bearing on Sherlock Holmes being a series.

Your notation was still wrong, Sherlock Holmes is not a series. Maybe it's a TV show in your country, but "Sherlock Holmes" does not refer to any series in the past. Granted, i did learn something today. Generally my writing is written, so underlining is usually something I always use, as it's generally done so in written work.

Quote
Which has nothing to do with your claim - that there is only one possible cause of global warming.
Have you actually read the document?

Quote
I don't know how one can quote incorrectly, but I guess I'll try again:

Quote from: pizaaplanet on May 05, 2014, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: HHunter on May 05, 2014, 03:36:28 PM
"There's only one possibility, but it can't be, therefore aliens."
Please substantiate the following statement: There's only one possibility.
I made it big and pink for you so that you can hopefully see it. Now, please substantiate it or retract it.

It was clearly stated next to this that it's a "badly witted [comparison]."

Quote
Irrelevant.

Character =/ Series
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 07, 2014, 01:44:55 AM
If you're not willing to back your claims up, then I won't waste my time with you. I now understand why others have largely abandoned this thread, and will follow suit.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 07, 2014, 02:00:53 AM
If you're not willing to back your claims up, then I won't waste my time with you. I now understand why others have largely abandoned this thread, and will follow suit.

If you like to pull out quotes, that were obviously meant to discount your statements, then ask me to back them up, then you obviously have a serious lacking in fundamental reading comprehension skills. This is why we teach English before we teach science. You've demonstrated that you do not have the skills nor the ability to contribute to any discussion on the sciences. If you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion, then please, do leave.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 07, 2014, 02:09:33 AM
If you like to pull out quotes, that were obviously meant to discount your statements, then ask me to back them up, then you obviously have a serious lacking in fundamental reading comprehension skills.
If they're meant to discount them, it'd be good if they made sense. If neither of us claims that there is only one possibility, then your attempt at discounting my statements was rather poor.

This is why we teach English before we teach science.
Again with the ethnocentrism. You will find that a vast minority of people have been taught English before science. You really need to work on that.

You've demonstrated that you do not have the skills nor the ability to contribute to any discussion on the sciences.
Please remember that ad hominems do not belong on this forum, as you rightly pointed out despite not knowing what the term means. If you'd like to discuss my claims, feel free to address them (after you've substantiated your own, of course). If you'd like to discuss my person, well, it's not gonna happen.

If you have nothing meaningful to contribute to the discussion, then please, do leave.
Sorry, sweetheart, you don't decide who stays or leaves here.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 07, 2014, 02:23:49 AM
Quote
If they're meant to discount them, it'd be good if they made sense. If neither of us claims that there is only one possibility, then your attempt at discounting my statements was rather poor.

Again, it said "badly witted comparison" which could refer to a "badly made or constructed" one. Please read the actual posts before responding

Quote
If they're meant to discount them, it'd be good if they made sense. If neither of us claims that there is only one possibility, then your attempt at discounting my statements was rather poor.

"English" does not necessarily refer to the language itself. For example: English - noun - simple, straightforward language

Usually, simple language is taught first in schools would you not agree? It's bad practice to assume definitions of words.

Quote
I know you have, but what have I done?
Please refer to above posts. Also consider that you have not made any meaningful contributions in terms of data or issues concerning AGW, rather you have simply hawked on wording which should be implicit based on the context of the statements and the nature of this discussion.

Quote
Sorry, sweetheart, you don't decide who stays or leaves here.
Do what you will, just try to keep your posts mature and on-topic.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 07, 2014, 02:30:31 AM
Again, it said "badly witted comparison" which could refer to a "badly made or constructed" one. Please read the actual posts before responding
Okay, so you acknowledge your point was bogus. I'm happy now.

"English" does not necessarily refer to the language itself. For example: English - noun - simple, straightforward language
Major dictionaries appear to disagree with you:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/english_1?q=English
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/English?q=English
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/english

Do what you will, just try to keep your posts mature and on-topic.
Right back at you. So far, you've been ranting about Star Trek, Sherlock Holmes, italicisation, have been making (by your own admission) poorly-constructed arguments, and have been avoiding to back up your claims. Follow your own standard before you try imposing it unto others.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on May 07, 2014, 02:32:23 AM
If you're not willing to back your claims up, then I won't waste my time with you. I now understand why others have largely abandoned this thread, and will follow suit.

Me: "Oh look, he knows!"

*clicks next page*

Me: " ::)"
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 07, 2014, 02:38:00 AM
Me: "Oh look, he knows!"

*clicks next page*

Me: " ::)"
Sorry, you're right. I'm gone now. No more responses from me.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 07, 2014, 02:47:11 AM
Quote
Okay, so you acknowledge your point was bogus. I'm happy now.
Congrats, you proved 2+2=4. Very impressive.

Quote
Please present a source for this claim. Major dictionaries appear to disagree with you:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/english_1?q=English
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/English?q=English
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/english

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/English
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/English
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/English?r=66

Quote
Right back at you. So far, you've been ranting about Star Trek, Sherlock Holmes, italicization, have been making (by your own admission) poorly-constructed arguments, and have been avoiding to back up your claims. Follow your own standard before you try imposing it unto others.

You brought up Star Trek. You brought up Sherlock Holmes. My "poorly-constructed argument" (again, please actually read the post) was a response to a poorly-constructed comparison you had made earlier.


Bye, thank you for your minimal contribution to this topic.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on May 07, 2014, 10:02:45 AM

Quote
The only main source for global climate change is the sun.
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

So the question that should be asked is: has the energy from the sun increased?
If yes, is it enough to cause climate change?

This is a common misconception. Climate change suggested by AGW is not caused by heat that humans release. It's caused by the chemical properties of the gasses, such as Carbon Dioxide and Methane, that allow for increased absorption of energy from the sun into atmosphere and hydrosphere. Basically, when sunlight hits the Earth, a good amount is reflected. Some of it is absorbed by greenhouse gasses, such as CO2. Without these gasses, the Earth would be much cooler than it is today.

When you increase the proportion of the gasses in the atmosphere, it traps more energy from the sun. So the amount of energy from the sun is remaining relatively constant, it's simply the amount that your capturing. It would be sort of like trying to throw a ball through a hole. If you make the hole smaller, less balls you throw will get through. This would be like greenhouse gasses. The higher concentration of greenhouse gasses you have, the less energy will actually escape, and more energy will stay on the planet, leading to the planet warming.

tldr; The energy from the sun hasn't increased, greenhouse gasses are simply absorbing a large % of it.

I hope this helps.
I gotta side with PP.  You don't read post and are clearly so focused on your point that everyone is wrong.

The mere fact that I was agreeing with you when you smacked me down with a lecture on greenhouse gases THEN totally dismiss the idea of increased solar activity without evidence is just arrogance and ignorance.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 07, 2014, 11:06:43 AM
Quote
I gotta side with PP.  You don't read post and are clearly so focused on your point that everyone is wrong.

The mere fact that I was agreeing with you when you smacked me down with a lecture on greenhouse gases THEN totally dismiss the idea of increased solar activity without evidence is just arrogance and ignorance.

What does your agreeing with me have anything to do with my response? It'd be the same either way. If someone tells me that Evolution (Darwin's Evolution) doesn't occur, because everything in life seems to be random, i'd give the same response to someone that said that Evolution is false because nothing in life is random. What would be addressed in both comments? Evolution is not random.

Your post suggests that AGW is caused by heat added to the atmosphere by humans. Again, this is a common misconception, which is why I addressed it in depth. The tldr was meant to discount the misconception that energy released by humans is causing agw rather than greenhouse gasses. This was a mistype.

On the discussion on if the energy from the sun is enough to cause current climate change, there are many papers describing research into whether this may be the case.

"Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950." - http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf

"We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming." - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.0515v1.pdf

though there's many more studies involving this if you'd like to read further into the topic, which are linked below;

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/natalie/PAPERS/warming.pdf
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/309

Usually the data tells us that changes in energy from the sun over the past 100 years isn't enough to account for current warming.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on May 07, 2014, 08:28:53 PM
Hold on... How do you get this:
Your post suggests that AGW is caused by heat added to the atmosphere by humans.

From this:
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

Has your reading comprehension of English not been fully developed?  Are you unable to read the contraction of "is not"?


And just to make life easy for you:
My post suggested that perhaps an increase in solar energy hitting the Earth accounted for some warming.  And indeed, you seem to agree with that while simultaniously dismissing my suggestion.  (14% is a lot.)

Why is it that you're looking at AWG as the ONLY source of climate change when you just posted several articles stating that increased solar activity accounts for a part of global climate change? 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 07, 2014, 08:40:51 PM
Quote
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

No scientist is going to tell you that human-produced heat as any noticeable effect upon the global temperatures. This is either a misconception from you, an attempt at a straw man, or simply mistaken placement.

Quote
My post suggested that perhaps an increase in solar energy hitting the Earth accounted for some warming.  And indeed, you seem to agree with that while simultaniously dismissing my suggestion.  (14% is a lot

The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.

Quote
Why is it that you're looking at AWG as the ONLY source of climate change when you just posted several articles stating that increased solar activity accounts for a part of global climate change?

Please quote me on this.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on May 08, 2014, 02:04:13 AM
Quote
The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale. 

No scientist is going to tell you that human-produced heat as any noticeable effect upon the global temperatures. This is either a misconception from you, an attempt at a straw man, or simply mistaken placement.
Can you type back what you think I said?  I feel like you're not understanding anything I say.

Quote
Quote
My post suggested that perhaps an increase in solar energy hitting the Earth accounted for some warming.  And indeed, you seem to agree with that while simultaniously dismissing my suggestion.  (14% is a lot

The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.
Nice assumption.  Good thing we don't make assumptions in science eh?

Quote
Quote
Why is it that you're looking at AWG as the ONLY source of climate change when you just posted several articles stating that increased solar activity accounts for a part of global climate change?
Please quote me on this.
Done.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 08, 2014, 02:59:01 AM
Quote
Can you type back what you think I said?  I feel like you're not understanding anything I say.

Please explain the point of this statement thoroughly: "The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale"

Quote
Nice assumption.  Good thing we don't make assumptions in science eh?

If you actually read the source, you'd find that this is actually explicitly stated in the first paragraph. Please do this. (Hint: <14% means less than 14%)

Quote
Done.
No, please find where I explicitly state that "AGW [is] the ONLY source of climate change".
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on May 08, 2014, 06:02:48 PM
Lets just argue for argues sake.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 08, 2014, 07:06:46 PM
Lets just argue for argues sake.



It's what happens when discussions are limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy, which would amount to an argument rather than a debate. I'd rather it stay in the upper tiers. Providing and analyzing data is what I want to see here. Though questions are welcome, and encouraged. It's easy to become misinformed or confused over the issue, especially when it's so politically heated.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on May 08, 2014, 07:43:48 PM
Lets just argue for argues sake.



It's what happens when discussions are limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy, which would amount to an argument rather than a debate. I'd rather it stay in the upper tiers. Providing and analyzing data is what I want to see here. Though questions are welcome, and encouraged. It's easy to become misinformed or confused over the issue, especially when it's so politically heated.

No, it happens when the debate becomes a pissing contest.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 08, 2014, 08:36:37 PM
Discussions limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy = Pissing contest
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on May 08, 2014, 09:02:06 PM
Discussions limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy = Pissing contest

So if this discussion involved the 'other levels' of Blooms taxonomy there would be no pissing contest?

Personally I think it's because of intellectual snobbery.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 08, 2014, 09:08:19 PM
Discussions limited to the first two levels of Bloom's taxonomy = Pissing contest

So if this discussion involved the 'other levels' of Blooms taxonomy there would be no pissing contest?

Personally I think it's because of intellectual snobbery.

Definitely a valid opinion
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on May 09, 2014, 02:15:40 AM
Quote
Can you type back what you think I said?  I feel like you're not understanding anything I say.

Please explain the point of this statement thoroughly: "The energy (heat) we put out isn't enough to alter the environment on a global scale"
I'll try to put it in complex terms, then simple terms so you understand:
Humans produce heat.  Almost every bit of energy we use produces heat.  From power plants like coal which heat the air to nuclear plants near rivers which heat the surrounding water.  From air conditioners to cars.  We create heat.  Most of the time this heat simply dissipates into the atmosphere.  However with a dense enough location (like a city) the heat can build up faster than it dissipates.  This can result in the city having a slightly higher temperature on average than the surrounding area.  New York city is a good example of this.
However, the heat is insignificant compared to the total thermal energy from the sun hitting the surface.  Therefore, while locally it can cause a noticable impact, globally it's insignificant.

Simply put:
"The energy from the humans hasn't increased significant"


Quote
Quote
Nice assumption.  Good thing we don't make assumptions in science eh?

If you actually read the source, you'd find that this is actually explicitly stated in the first paragraph. Please do this. (Hint: >14% means less than 14%)
1. > means "greater than"
http://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html
2. they wrote :
Quote
Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity,we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is %5Cleq14%of the observed global warming.
Sadly the >with a tilda under is not supported nor can I find any mention of it.  My guess is that the author meant "less than or almost equal to" as the ~ usually means "approximately".

Now, do you see the difference between what they wrote and what you wrote?

Quote
Quote
Done.
No, please find where I explicitly state that "AGW [is] the ONLY source of climate change".
I have no desire to crawl through this thread.  I am simply stating an observation based on what I've read so far.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 09, 2014, 04:11:53 AM
Quote
I'll try to put it in complex terms, then simple terms so you understand:
Humans produce heat.  Almost every bit of energy we use produces heat.  From power plants like coal which heat the air to nuclear plants near rivers which heat the surrounding water.  From air conditioners to cars.  We create heat.  Most of the time this heat simply dissipates into the atmosphere.  However with a dense enough location (like a city) the heat can build up faster than it dissipates.  This can result in the city having a slightly higher temperature on average than the surrounding area.  New York city is a good example of this.
However, the heat is insignificant compared to the total thermal energy from the sun hitting the surface.  Therefore, while locally it can cause a noticable impact, globally it's insignificant.

Simply put:
"The energy from the humans hasn't increased significant"

So what does this have to do with anthropogenic global warming?

Quote
1. > means "greater than"
http://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html
2. they wrote :
Quote
Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity,we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is %5Cleq14%of the observed global warming.
Sadly the >with a tilda under is not supported nor can I find any mention of it.  My guess is that the author meant "less than or almost equal to" as the ~ usually means "approximately".

Now, do you see the difference between what they wrote and what you wrote?

First of all, thanks for pointing out a typo. Secondly:

Please read the the conclusion of the paper.
"[The] effect of varying solar activity, either by direct solar irradiance or by varying
cosmic ray rates, must be less than 0.07◦C since 1956 i.e. less than 14% of the observed global
warming."

What I said: "less than 14%"
What the paper says: "less than 14%"

What difference?

Quote
I have no desire to crawl through this thread.  I am simply stating an observation based on what I've read so far.

Not only have I never stated that anthropogenic forcings are the only forces that change the climate, i've actively discussed specific how several different factors of the Earth's orientation and movement can cause changes in the climate. Here's a quote:
Quote
There are mainly three different Earth-centered reasons for climate change, involving the Earth and it's position and orbit in space. These is eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Increasing eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is) will result in more extreme seasons. Obliquity is the tilt of the earth's axis. Our current obliquity is 23.4 degrees. Obliquity determines how extreme (or not extreme) the seasons will be. Precession is the direction of the tilt, and doesn't have much of an effect on climate. All three of these occur over long periods of time, and therefore cannot be credited with recent warming.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on May 11, 2014, 01:49:54 AM
Quote
I'll try to put it in complex terms, then simple terms so you understand:
Humans produce heat.  Almost every bit of energy we use produces heat.  From power plants like coal which heat the air to nuclear plants near rivers which heat the surrounding water.  From air conditioners to cars.  We create heat.  Most of the time this heat simply dissipates into the atmosphere.  However with a dense enough location (like a city) the heat can build up faster than it dissipates.  This can result in the city having a slightly higher temperature on average than the surrounding area.  New York city is a good example of this.
However, the heat is insignificant compared to the total thermal energy from the sun hitting the surface.  Therefore, while locally it can cause a noticable impact, globally it's insignificant.

Simply put:
"The energy from the humans hasn't increased significant"

So what does this have to do with anthropogenic global warming?
I'm telling you that humans aren't causing global warming by creating heat.  Something you agree with.


Quote
Quote
1. > means "greater than"
http://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html (http://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html)
2. they wrote :
Quote
Assuming that the correlation is caused by such solar activity,we deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to this activity is %5Cleq14%of the observed global warming.
Sadly the >with a tilda under is not supported nor can I find any mention of it.  My guess is that the author meant "less than or almost equal to" as the ~ usually means "approximately".

Now, do you see the difference between what they wrote and what you wrote?

First of all, thanks for pointing out a typo. Secondly:

Please read the the conclusion of the paper.
"[The] effect of varying solar activity, either by direct solar irradiance or by varying
cosmic ray rates, must be less than 0.07◦C since 1956 i.e. less than 14% of the observed global
warming."

What I said: "less than 14%"
What the paper says: "less than 14%"

What difference?

You said
Quote
The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.
But based on the inequality written it's likely somewhere above 13% but below 14%.  And they never seem to indicate that it's significantly lower than 14% (otherwise why put 14%?)

Quote
Quote
I have no desire to crawl through this thread.  I am simply stating an observation based on what I've read so far.

Not only have I never stated that anthropogenic forcings are the only forces that change the climate, i've actively discussed specific how several different factors of the Earth's orientation and movement can cause changes in the climate. Here's a quote:
Quote
There are mainly three different Earth-centered reasons for climate change, involving the Earth and it's position and orbit in space. These is eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Increasing eccentricity (how elliptical the orbit is) will result in more extreme seasons. Obliquity is the tilt of the earth's axis. Our current obliquity is 23.4 degrees. Obliquity determines how extreme (or not extreme) the seasons will be. Precession is the direction of the tilt, and doesn't have much of an effect on climate. All three of these occur over long periods of time, and therefore cannot be credited with recent warming.
Oh I didn't know the Earth's orbit was altering or that it's tilt was altering.  I mean, we have a wobble but that's predictable and it's not like it takes decades to occur.  At most it wobbles every 7 years. 
And if the Earth's orbit is altering, then it's not stable.  And if it's not stable, it shouldn't have been stable for a long time as nothing large enough to alter our orbit has crossed close enough to us.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 11, 2014, 03:17:36 AM
Quote
I'm telling you that humans aren't causing global warming by creating heat.  Something you agree with.

Well yes, my point is that no one will disagree with this, so why is it worth mentioning?

Quote
You said
Quote
The key word in that statement is maximum, which means that the actual value is likely well below this number.
But based on the inequality written it's likely somewhere above 13% but below 14%.  And they never seem to indicate that it's significantly lower than 14% (otherwise why put 14%?)

Hmm, I went through the data given in the article. While they never state in the article that it's likely close to 14%, after looking at the data given, it would seem to support it. From what I could ascertain, assuming that the relationship between Solar Irradiance is linear, or somewhere around 12.6%. The tilda was likely added in on the abstract since it wasn't mentioned in the conclusion.

Quote
Oh I didn't know the Earth's orbit was altering or that it's tilt was altering.  I mean, we have a wobble but that's predictable and it's not like it takes decades to occur.  At most it wobbles every 7 years. 
And if the Earth's orbit is altering, then it's not stable.  And if it's not stable, it shouldn't have been stable for a long time as nothing large enough to alter our orbit has crossed close enough to us.

I'm not aware of a 7-year wobble, but I do know that the full cycles for both precession and obliquity takes tens of thousands of years. On the orbit:

I'm not learned enough on orbital mechanics to provide a logical explanation. All I know is that the Earth has cycles of becoming more elliptical and eccentric, then becoming more circular and round. The the the perigee and the apogee might actually shift over time as well, but i can't be too sure about that.
 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Fortuna on May 12, 2014, 09:47:56 PM
Rather than tax fuel, governments should concentrate more on subsidizing the research and development, as well as implementation of alternative energy vehicles. While this certainly isn't the best method of getting things done, it is a lot better than taxes, which, even if they are on the company as you suggested, get pushed to the consumer regardless.

Enter: ExxonMobil, Halliburton, and Super PACs.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on May 17, 2014, 07:21:32 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg#t=255

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

I thought that was interesting. It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Fortuna on May 17, 2014, 07:12:42 PM
It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

It probably is, if even just a little bit. But so what? Instead of bitching to everyone about it, they can get their asses in the lab and fix it. In the meantime, all of us regular people can just be more aware of, and try to limit the amount of energy we consume.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Ghost of V on May 17, 2014, 07:31:22 PM
The celestial gears of our universe have been thwarted by hairspray and cow farts.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on May 17, 2014, 07:40:39 PM
It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

It probably is, if even just a little bit. But so what? Instead of bitching to everyone about it, they can get their asses in the lab and fix it. In the meantime, all of us regular people can just be more aware of, and try to limit the amount of energy we consume.

They're trying.

In the mean time I think it's wise to try and limit the damage.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 19, 2014, 10:12:27 PM
It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

It probably is, if even just a little bit. But so what? Instead of bitching to everyone about it, they can get their asses in the lab and fix it. In the meantime, all of us regular people can just be more aware of, and try to limit the amount of energy we consume.

The technology to significantly reduce technology relatively cheaply is already in place. Public policy and prole-opinion are the main barriers to the implementation of this technology.

On "fixing" global warming, the only way to do that, other than limiting greenhouse gasses (which won't completely remove the effect), is really through geoengineering (both have their own issues). Geoengineering would include taking actions such as increasing aerosols in the air (which is usually bad for people) and extracting carbon from the air with the use of algae or something else that'll extract carbon (these can have their own obstacles and consequences.)

Though in terms of risk and cost, limiting the release of greenhouse gasses is generally best. We don't want to have another Stormfury.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on May 19, 2014, 10:41:11 PM
It looks like the scientific community think climate change is related to human activities.

It probably is, if even just a little bit. But so what? Instead of bitching to everyone about it, they can get their asses in the lab and fix it. In the meantime, all of us regular people can just be more aware of, and try to limit the amount of energy we consume.

The technology to significantly reduce technology relatively cheaply is already in place. Public policy and prole-opinion are the main barriers to the implementation of this technology.

On "fixing" global warming, the only way to do that, other than limiting greenhouse gasses (which won't completely remove the effect), is really through geoengineering (both have their own issues). Geoengineering would include taking actions such as increasing aerosols in the air (which is usually bad for people) and extracting carbon from the air with the use of algae or something else that'll extract carbon (these can have their own obstacles and consequences.)

Though in terms of risk and cost, limiting the release of greenhouse gasses is generally best. We don't want to have another Stormfury.
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 19, 2014, 11:08:01 PM
Quote
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.

Mass genocide is often considered the best solution to many environmental problems.

Too bad mass genocide is "immoral" and "evil."
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on May 19, 2014, 11:14:43 PM
That is why I am actively trying to create evolutionary programs that will eventually create sophisticated AI, which can then save humanity from itself by killing all humans.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on May 22, 2014, 01:46:33 PM
Quote
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.

Mass genocide is often considered the best solution to many environmental problems.

Too bad mass genocide is "immoral" and "evil."

By what standard? A massive cull in he population will only result in a baby boom to replace them. The best ways to reduce the human population are education, birth control, giving women rights over their bodies, and a basic standad of living.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on May 22, 2014, 07:02:18 PM
Quote
Or we could kill all humans.  That would solve global warming.

Mass genocide is often considered the best solution to many environmental problems.

Too bad mass genocide is "immoral" and "evil."

By what standard? A massive cull in he population will only result in a baby boom to replace them. The best ways to reduce the human population are education, birth control, giving women rights over their bodies, and a basic standad of living.

Well really, the best way to solve it is kill all humans.

But most people don't like that, so we'll go down to killing only certain humans.

So let's kill everyone in the developing and undeveloped worlds. First world countries are going to have low birth rates regardless of the size of the country. Not all land would be utilized (you'd see an expansion of large mechanized farms in areas that were formerly subsistence farms, though this wouldn't expand too much since supply and demand would be easily balanced with so little people and so much land) and, while commodities would likely be more expensive since super-low-wage workers would be eliminated, and likely replaced to some extent with machinery.

Though this wouldn't really solve problems like CO2 output too much, since the USA is still a major creator of CO2, unless the US made major steps towards safer energy production. It would also probably make oil cheaper since you wouldn't have to worry about the dangers coming from the native people in the area where oil is being drilled, which could exacerbate climate change.

On reducing the world population, giving everyone a decent standard of living would be enough to curtail population growth. This includes the poor. It's why I always find the idea of a guaranteed income interesting, like what was suggested in Switzerland a good bit ago.

But back to Ghost Spaghetti, yeah, those are the best ways to reduce human population, it's too bad so many people are unwilling to allow this.

P.S. Don't criticize my economic "theory", i'm not a student of economics  :P
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Ghost of V on May 23, 2014, 06:00:52 AM
Unwilling to support human genocide? I wonder why...  ::)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 11, 2014, 12:30:04 PM
Quote
Well really, the best way to solve it is kill all humans.

Don't be absurd, the consequences of climate change are only really of a concern to the human population. If we wipe out 99.9% of life on Earth, then evolution will eventually repopulate the Earth with something, even if it's just blue-green algae again.

Quote
So let's kill everyone in the developing and undeveloped worlds

I know that you're not being serious, but, for one moment, let's assume you are. The West's high standards of living come, largely, through the work and exploitation of labour and materials in the developing world. A sudden cull of third world countries would lead to a severe resource shortage and reduce the developed world back to developing standards.

No man or country is an island, and we're all dependant on the vast human network for our standard of living. The answer to climate change isn't one big hurrah, but a million small and dull changes - decades of education, a gradual replacement of fossil fuel burners with renewables, more efficient technology, increased recycling of our waste, etc etc.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on June 11, 2014, 09:22:13 PM
The West's high standards of living come, largely, through the work and exploitation of labour and materials in the developing world. A sudden cull of third world countries would lead to a severe resource shortage and reduce the developed world back to developing standards.
Myth. Standard of living in first world countries is down to industrialisation and science. It doesn't cost much to make a loaf of bread these days. Materials are cheap because of process farming and machines mix and prep the dough. Clothes used to take forever to make. Now machines weave cloth.

Just think about what you said for a second. How does a child labourer in Cambodia making Nike shoes for 6p and hour, raise my standard of living? Nike still sell me those shoes for £60.

The third world doesn't raise my standard of living one jot. It just allows multinationals to make $billions in profit. It only enriches the top 1%. But thanks for the blanket liberal guilt trip.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on July 11, 2014, 06:50:48 AM
Quote
Don't be absurd, the consequences of climate change are only really of a concern to the human population. If we wipe out 99.9% of life on Earth, then evolution will eventually repopulate the Earth with something, even if it's just blue-green algae again.

True, true. The world doesn't really give a crap whether or not we are living. It just sucks to be a non-human animal right now. Though the affects of anthropogenic climate change are very threatening to much of humanity. Economically, i'm more inclined to agree with Thork.

Unfortunately, the refusal to recognize the settled science in nations such as the United States is deeply troubling. It's amusing how many are more inclined to believe their friendly politicians rather those who have devoted their life and talents to studying the climate.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on February 08, 2015, 10:32:29 PM
Some news has come out today re-affirming that I believe all global warming data interpretation to be manipulated these days and that it because they want environmental taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2015, 10:39:50 PM
Some news has come out today re-affirming that I believe all global warming data interpretation to be manipulated these days and that it because they want environmental taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html)
I just have one questions:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on February 08, 2015, 11:01:57 PM
Some news has come out today re-affirming that I believe all global warming data interpretation to be manipulated these days and that it because they want environmental taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html)
I just have one question:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?
That isn't one question, Dave. ::)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2015, 12:43:27 AM
Some news has come out today re-affirming that I believe all global warming data interpretation to be manipulated these days and that it because they want environmental taxes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html)
I just have one question:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?
That isn't one question, Dave. ::)
Fine, I altered my post.  Sheeesh.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on February 09, 2015, 01:40:35 AM
I just have one questions:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?

All of these questions are, hilariously enough, answered by the article.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2015, 03:12:39 AM
I just have one questions:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?

All of these questions are, hilariously enough, answered by the article.
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on February 09, 2015, 03:23:08 AM
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.

There's only so much you can do with a thought process of making things up, Dave. Either the evidence shows it is good or that it is bad. If people really cared about the environment, they'd be worried about the methane (cow) farms polluting the air, not the carbon dioxide polluters.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 09, 2015, 03:33:54 AM
I just have one questions:
How does he know records have been altered if he's looking at the weather stations that have been altered?  Where was he getting the original data?  How was he getting the original data?  Was it the real original data?  And if so, why wasn't THAT altered instead of whatever data he compared it to?

All of these questions are, hilariously enough, answered by the article.

No, they were answered in the blog the article linked to, but not in the article itself.  Booker described what Homewood was doing only in the vaguest, yet amusingly-puffed-up terms imaginable.  The story of a resourceful skeptic who bravely "uncovers," "reveals," and "discovers" all this incriminating information on such a dastardly conspiracy sounds more impressive than saying, "He went on to NASA's website and read up on what NASA was already happily sharing with the world."
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on February 09, 2015, 04:25:02 AM
No, they were answered in the blog the article linked to, but not in the article itself.  Booker described what Homewood was doing only in the vaguest, yet amusingly-puffed-up terms imaginable.  The story of a resourceful skeptic who bravely "uncovers," "reveals," and "discovers" all this incriminating information on such a dastardly conspiracy sounds more impressive than saying, "He went on to NASA's website and read up on what NASA was already happily sharing with the world."

"The article provided the answers but I'm going to say it didn't anyway."

Okay, Saddumb.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 09, 2015, 05:22:21 AM
But it didn't. ???  It just linked to the blog, like I said.  That wasn't a clever comeback.  You're the one who's being dumb, not to mention wrong.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2015, 12:20:55 PM
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.

There's only so much you can do with a thought process of making things up, Dave. Either the evidence shows it is good or that it is bad. If people really cared about the environment, they'd be worried about the methane (cow) farms polluting the air, not the carbon dioxide polluters.
What have I made up?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on February 09, 2015, 04:44:29 PM
You claimed negative effects, even after being shown there aren't any. That's called making things up.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2015, 06:42:46 PM
You claimed negative effects, even after being shown there aren't any. That's called making things up.

So you've never seen a brown day before eh?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on February 09, 2015, 08:07:08 PM
You claimed negative effects, even after being shown there aren't any. That's called making things up.

So you've never seen a brown day before eh?

That isn't carbon dioxide.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2015, 08:54:21 PM
You claimed negative effects, even after being shown there aren't any. That's called making things up.

So you've never seen a brown day before eh?

That isn't carbon dioxide.
True, but burning fossils fuels (which creates both carbon and CO2) does help create smog.  (except natural gas burning, I think)

Also, by burning fossil fuels we take a gas we breath (O2) and create a gas we exhale (CO2) and water.  Now, call me crazy but any time you exchange a gas you breath for a gas that is waste for you, sounds like a not so good exchange.  For us, anyway.

Granted, I don't think we COULD alter the air enough to outright kill us via oxygen deprivation, but it's still bad for human life in an enclosed space. 

But anyway, even if Global Warming by humans isn't accurate, I still think we should slow down our burning of fossil fuels.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Vindictus on February 09, 2015, 09:02:09 PM
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.

There's only so much you can do with a thought process of making things up, Dave. Either the evidence shows it is good or that it is bad. If people really cared about the environment, they'd be worried about the methane (cow) farms polluting the air, not the carbon dioxide polluters.

Hang on, basic googling is telling me that CO2 is significantly worse than methane. Atmospheric methane has increased since 1750 by up to 170%, CO2 has only increased by 41%. However, the increase in CO2 over that period means an increase in radiative forcing of 1.88 W/m2, while the change in methane has only resulted in 0.49 W/m2. A significant chunk of CO2 emissions are the result of electricity generation, almost double that of transportation, so efforts should be (and are being, mostly) aimed at moving from coal fired plants.

Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 09, 2015, 09:51:02 PM
Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

And it's not much of a conspiracy if they're posting the original numbers as well as detailing how they arrived at the new ones.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rama Set on February 09, 2015, 11:16:00 PM
Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

And it's not much of a conspiracy if they're posting the original numbers as well as detailing how they arrived at the new ones.

It looks like they did not show how they arrived at the published temperatures from the raw data. Unless I missed it. Did I miss it?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2015, 12:22:09 AM
Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

And it's not much of a conspiracy if they're posting the original numbers as well as detailing how they arrived at the new ones.

It looks like they did not show how they arrived at the published temperatures from the raw data. Unless I missed it. Did I miss it?
I think they adjust it based on time of observance.  Apparently the readings are simple "highest temp and lowest temp" but some kind of min/max that is time dependant.  So they adjust it somehow to make them all even.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2015, 12:25:12 AM
Hang on, basic googling is telling me that CO2 is significantly worse than methane. Atmospheric methane has increased since 1750 by up to 170%, CO2 has only increased by 41%. However, the increase in CO2 over that period means an increase in radiative forcing of 1.88 W/m2, while the change in methane has only resulted in 0.49 W/m2. A significant chunk of CO2 emissions are the result of electricity generation, almost double that of transportation, so efforts should be (and are being, mostly) aimed at moving from coal fired plants.

Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

We started out with a lot less methane than we did CO2, so quoting percentages is, funnily enough, number fixing (though it appears to be unintentional). If you have a small amount of something to begin with, it is a lot easier to double it.

Methane is a much, much worse greenhouse gas (it even destroys the ozone layer). It is the driving force behind the doomsday "clathrate gun" scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis). That said, while CO2 isn't as bad, pumping the atmosphere full of it isn't necessarily good, we'd just need an awful lot more of it to do what a lot of hippies think it will do.

Furthermore, I'm not saying there is anything wrong about saying we are driving climate change, but that exaggerating that change only polarizes people. Telling people OH MY GOD IN 20 YEARS THE OCEAN WILL FLOOD THE WORLD AHHHH, regardless of whether that is true, will make people think you're an idiot. Al Gore did more damage to the climate movement than any Republican could.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 10, 2015, 01:44:50 AM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gore's_Law
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2015, 02:06:25 AM
We started out with a lot less methane than we did CO2, so quoting percentages is, funnily enough, number fixing (though it appears to be unintentional). If you have a small amount of something to begin with, it is a lot easier to double it.

You're right, I did miss the concentration of atmospheric methane being in the ppb range, whereas atmospheric CO2 is in the ppm range. I assumed both were ppm.

Methane is a much, much worse greenhouse gas (it even destroys the ozone layer). It is the driving force behind the doomsday "clathrate gun" scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis). That said, while CO2 isn't as bad, pumping the atmosphere full of it isn't necessarily good, we'd just need an awful lot more of it to do what a lot of hippies think it will do.

This is not necessarily true, and is once again explained pretty succinctly by wikipedia (and sourced):

Quote from: Wikipedia
Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years. The 2007 IPCC report lists the GWP as 72 over a time scale of 20 years, 25 over 100 years and 7.6 over 500 years. A 2014 analysis, however, states that although methane’s initial impact is about 100 times greater than that of CO2, because of the shorter atmospheric lifetime, after six or seven decades, the impact of the two gases is about equal, and from then on methane’s relative role continues to decline. The decrease in GWP at longer times is because methane is degraded to water and CO2 through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Furthermore, I'm not saying there is anything wrong about saying we are driving climate change, but that exaggerating that change only polarizes people. Telling people OH MY GOD IN 20 YEARS THE OCEAN WILL FLOOD THE WORLD AHHHH, regardless of whether that is true, will make people think you're an idiot. Al Gore did more damage to the climate movement than any Republican could.

Bit of a strawman here. I know I certainly never said anything that alarmist.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2015, 02:18:20 AM
This is not necessarily true, and is once again explained pretty succinctly by wikipedia (and sourced):

Quote from: Wikipedia
Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 ± 3 years. The 2007 IPCC report lists the GWP as 72 over a time scale of 20 years, 25 over 100 years and 7.6 over 500 years. A 2014 analysis, however, states that although methane’s initial impact is about 100 times greater than that of CO2, because of the shorter atmospheric lifetime, after six or seven decades, the impact of the two gases is about equal, and from then on methane’s relative role continues to decline. The decrease in GWP at longer times is because methane is degraded to water and CO2 through chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Emphasis mine.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2015, 02:33:08 AM
Poor effort Rushy, the rebuttal is literally the next sentence.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2015, 02:43:30 AM
Poor effort Rushy, the rebuttal is literally the next sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If you disagree, feel free to point out where I talked about a timeline. I said methane is a worse greenhouse gas, and it is, it just so happens that we've been doing a better job of controlling it's output than CO2. Not a great job, overall, but a better one than the early industrial age.

All you had to do was say "yes, methane is worse, but fortunately its effects are more temporary than CO2" then I could have agreed with you. I highly doubt that was your line of thinking at the time, anyway. In fact, I highly doubt that you've said anything in this conversation that wasn't a result of you googling for things to say.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2015, 07:42:37 AM
Poor effort Rushy, the rebuttal is literally the next sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

If you disagree, feel free to point out where I talked about a timeline. I said methane is a worse greenhouse gas, and it is, it just so happens that we've been doing a better job of controlling it's output than CO2. Not a great job, overall, but a better one than the early industrial age.

All you had to do was say "yes, methane is worse, but fortunately its effects are more temporary than CO2" then I could have agreed with you. I highly doubt that was your line of thinking at the time, anyway. In fact, I highly doubt that you've said anything in this conversation that wasn't a result of you googling for things to say.

You'd have a point if climate science wasn't based on looking at trends over long periods of time. Most terrible forecasts for global warming typically quote a few degrees increase over 100 years, for example. So it's kind of pointless to point out that methane is more immediately insulating.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2015, 03:33:32 PM
Okay.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2015, 11:47:48 PM
Okay.

:(
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: HHunter on February 11, 2015, 11:16:04 PM
I think it would be prudent for us to take a step back and note that this revelation of what has been denoted as "data change" is relatively recent, and has not yet had enough time to be properly addressed by the parties involved, or rather normal people doing normal research. After looking at the two different data sets for the adjusted data, it's obvious that there is a discrepancy.  Also one can note the addition of data sets that were not previously included.

Anyways, i'd like to see how this plays out over the next couple of months, considering conspiracy theorists are usually not on the forefront of experts' concerns. Also, considering how the first two graphs are placed to be deceptively misleading, it would not be a surprise to see these claims fall flat on their faces, just as those who jumped at "Climategate" did.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Tau on February 18, 2015, 05:24:53 PM
I did read the article but it did not give me answers.  At least until I went through a link or two.

Anyway, Paul Homewood's argument is compelling but I'm going to stick to my original thought process:
Adding a lot of CO2 and carbon into the air faster than the world can handle can't be good.

There's only so much you can do with a thought process of making things up, Dave. Either the evidence shows it is good or that it is bad. If people really cared about the environment, they'd be worried about the methane (cow) farms polluting the air, not the carbon dioxide polluters.
Also, I'm tired of seeing the ignorant accuse the scientific community of number fixing. Scrutiny and criticism are some of the most important components of the scientific method.

Yeah, I agree. An actual scientific conspiracy looks more like the manufactured science behind hydrofracking, which is to say that exactly zero people are convinced by it and there is a multitude of evidence disagreeing with the conspiracy. FET aside, the scientific community is just not very good at coming together for any reason, let alone to manufacture a lie. It's just unfeasible.

Also, I always trust poorly designed wordpress blogs with pretentious titles. They're my second most trustworthy source, behind youtube videos with titles in all caps.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 22, 2015, 11:48:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E0a_60PMR8

Well, I guess that's global warming disproved.  Better pack it in, scientists.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
An interesting article.  I hadn't considered aerosol particles to help cool the climate nor their reduction to help warm it.

http://norwaytoday.info/news/cleaner-air-europe-makes-arctic-warmer/
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Thork on March 17, 2016, 12:11:20 AM
Well Edward Snowden has had his say on Global Warming.
http://thelastgreatstand.com/2016/03/15/shocking-new-snowden-confession-climate-change-is-a-hoax-by-the-cia/

Quote from: Edward Snowdon
“Global Warming was invented to both scare people, and divert their attention from other human-made dangers like nuclear weapons. The CIA gave millions of dollars to any scientist who would confirm the theory, so many unscrupulous scientists did what they were told in order to get the money. Now, there is so much fake data to confirm that Global Warming “exists”, that they actually convinced everyone that it was real.”

Ball is back in the court of the Chicken-Licken Environmental Taxation Upholders Society (which from hence will be known as CLETUS)

(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/5/58/Cletus_Spuckler.png)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2016, 12:55:09 AM
The source of that article is one of those satirical* fake-news websites:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/edward-snowden-global-warming-is-an-invention-of-the-cia/

In other words, it's not true.  I'm not surprised that crank websites have been eagerly spreading it around, though.

*I call it "satirical," but I don't think that website is genuinely trying to entertain people.  I recommend reading this article (https://newrepublic.com/article/118013/satire-news-websites-are-cashing-gullible-outraged-readers) on the subject.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 17, 2016, 11:31:38 AM
The source of that article is one of those satirical* fake-news websites:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/edward-snowden-global-warming-is-an-invention-of-the-cia/

In other words, it's not true.  I'm not surprised that crank websites have been eagerly spreading it around, though.

*I call it "satirical," but I don't think that website is genuinely trying to entertain people.  I recommend reading this article (https://newrepublic.com/article/118013/satire-news-websites-are-cashing-gullible-outraged-readers) on the subject.

Well I am truly shocked! Here was a man whose judgement on all things I trusted implicitly, surely he didn’t just grab this, without checking, because it confirmed what he thought he already knew?
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-with-bullshit-detector-seems-to-believe-a-lot-of-bullshit-20151208104550