Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    With all due respect- wrong.
    Science finds REASONS for correlation. It's why we no longer have formaldehyde in children's milk. for example. the Correlation between deaths and formaldehyde became too obvious.
    People get confused between applied science and science proper. Epidemiologists use science to detect dangerous pathogens or chemicals but the statistical correlations they establish are strictly speaking "soft" science. The replication crisis in the social sciences point to why these distinctions are important.

    Usually I'm not such a stickler for these distinctions and have argued against my scientist friends who insist, sociology, psychology, etc. are pseudoscience. I would agree with them that Platonic traditions of "pure reason" have done damage to Western Civilization and that a more naturalistic epistemology is desirable. Science is fundamentally possible to boil down to observation and reason. Still true science has the additional properties of being replicable and falsifiable.

    To deal with complex chaotic systems a new scientific standard is emerging. Commonly referred to as nomological networks of cumulative evidence. Evolution is perhaps the most striking example of this natural philosophical approach. Darwin used the scientific process of observation and reason to develop his theory and accumulated a mass of networked evidence. The proof however had to wait for developments in molecular biology and genetics. The theory of evolution is now replicable and falsifiable. Evolution however is a general theory and when applied in fields such as evolutionary psychology results are often less replicable and falsifiable.

    Here in lies the problem with anthropogenic global warming. There are nomological networks of cumulative evidence. The problem is that there is no underlying general theory of climate. Without such a theory the role of co2 is not falsifiable. The research process has essentially been turned on it's head. There is no standard for establishing what the background temperature would be in the absence of additional co2. There are established principles of physics that require additional co2 to have some warming effect but no way to isolate it from the major climatic drivers. The effect of co2 is so weak that small theoretical errors will be grossly magnified.

    We have to know what the climate would be in the absence of additional co2 to come to any rational decision. The mass of research money should have been spent on the science of climate instead of blindly modeling the effects of co2. In the example offered of the effects of formaldehyde in milk on children the effects were so large that establishing normal were not necessary. We have a well established general their of health. Much as is the case with extending the general theory of evolution into psychology small errors in the nomological networks can go largely unnoticed in a complex chaotic system. There is too much noise in the system.

    The vast majority of people have a natural aversion to cost benefit analysis. I saw this when working as a highway engineer. Once you take the position that no deaths are acceptable your ability to make rational decision is hamstrung. The same is true of AGW. Were the effects of co2 relative to other climate drivers not so small then estimations of those co2 effects could be less accurate and a rational cost benefit could be established. The margins of error are so significant and the noise so profound that rational allocation of resources cannot be made. People may die because of additional co2 but it is entirely possible considering are ignorance of climate that more would die in it's absence.

    The greatest threat climate change presents in is not in the theory of co2 effects but in the historical record. We will have another "year without a summer" it isn't a question of if but when. The failure to provide for food security is a much greater crime against humanity than ignoring any scientifically valid estimate of the negative consequences from warming.



    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

      With all due respect- wrong.
      Science finds REASONS for correlation. It's why we no longer have formaldehyde in children's milk. for example. the Correlation between deaths and formaldehyde became too obvious.
      One of the surest ways to tell that Gorebal Warming

      (as opposed to climate change which happens for various reasons whereas Gorebal Warming is the irrational belief among radical environmentalists, Progressives, and others that the world will end in a decade, that CO2 is the death of us all, it's all human caused, etc.)

      is most likely more fraud than science is the fact that its proponents have moved the argument from the public square and science, into the courtroom.

      For example, leading Gorebal Warming proponent Michael Mann filed deformation lawsuits against a number of people for questioning his work. When it got to court, Mann refused to give the defense copies of his research so they could review this and see if those questioning it had in fact defamed him. He's been held in contempt in at least one case for not doing so, and has interminably delayed other cases as they fell apart.

      https://reason.com/2018/02/11/whatev...el-manns-defam

      https://www.cfact.org/2017/07/24/dec...stick-lawsuit/

      https://www.iceagenow.info/looks-lik...wsuit-dr-ball/

      Or this suit by children for possible future damage they might suffer (note you can't sue for future damages only real and measurable ones)

      https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...limate-change/

      Here are four to watch.

      https://www.dw.com/en/four-climate-c...018/a-42066735

      Now, note, that this is a recurring pattern on the Left in particular. When the Left can't convince people of their virtue on some issue using persuasive argument or whatever, they typically resort to the courts and shopping judges that will rule in their favor. As a recent example of this, 36 states in popular votes and other ballot measures shot down gay marriage (doesn't matter which side of that argument you are on, that's a fact). California--California!-- was one of those.
      The Left and the LGBTPDQRSTUV community had said prior to this point that they'd accept the public's judgement on this subject right up until the public went against their position. That's when they resorted to the courts. Gay marriage is entirely a construct of the court system. It wasn't legislated, it wasn't approved by heads of state and country. It was put in place by like-minded judges who ruled against the public at large.

      Now, we're seeing it with the Gorebal Warming crowd. They are hell bent on forcing their version of things down everyone's throat. For them, the debate is really over. They can't win in the public square so it's off to the courts they go. We have yet to see if this will be another case of the courts being the arbiters of law usurping legislatures and the popular vote so often cheered by the Left-- right up until those bodies won't do what the Left wants--

      Comment


      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        This is not necessarily true. You are making a cum hoc fallacy. In this you, and most climate scientists are claiming because CO2 is going up and temperatures are going up, that the two are related. It is entirely possible that in a system as complex as a planetary atmosphere, that this isn't the case. I don't think the scientists studying this have a good grasp on how the planetary atmosphere really works.

        We were told that if we got rid of CFC's back in the 80's that by today the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole would be gone. It's still there, and depending on who you ask, it possibly always will be to some degree.

        The IPCC has made so many wrong predictions it hurts.

        The point I'm making is that there are other potential causes of climate change beyond CO2. The fixation on one potential cause and one potential solution is myopic at best and ignorant at worst.
        Actually, the concern is over all greenhouse gases, not just CO2.
        the concern is the rapid high latitude warming, which is releasing ever increasing amounts of locked permaferost methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than Co2.


        https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...re-change.html

        \I would suggest a trip to glacier national park , TAG. |On the way, you can take in the 'all you can catch lake trout bonanza' on \Yellowstone lake - currently available to American citizens.

        A prime example of tampering without doing the science first.

        https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/lake-trout.htm

        Native Trout Conservation Area
        • No possession limit for nonnative fish, including brown, brook, rainbow, and lake trout. You may harvest as many nonnative fish from this area as you want.
        • All rainbow trout, brook trout, and identifiable cutthroat/rainbow hybrids caught in the Lamar River drainage, including portions of Slough and Soda Butte creeks, must be killed—it is illegal to release them alive.
        • All lake trout caught from Yellowstone Lake must be killed— it is illegal to release them alive.

        Go get em, lads....
        Last edited by marktwain; 07 Jul 19, 13:16.
        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • Nothing you put in that post changes what I stated. The argument with Gorebal Warming, as opposed to climate change, is that the problem is entirely due to anthropogenic causes. That is, it is a man-made problem and can only be solved by expensive and intrusive use of government and man-made solutions.

          In essence, the Gorebal Warming crowd says this:

          The problem is acute and fatal within roughly a decade. It's caused by man-made CO2. We need to implement a pre-chosen set of solutions primarily using the force of government and we really don't care what it costs or if it will work for sure. We know we're right.
          They might as well add "And God is on our side!" to that except most of them are secularists and Atheists.

          My position is this. Climate change happens. It has and will happen continuously. Currently some climate change may be due to human causes. But, what we don't have a good grasp on is what those mechanisms are and by how much they're changing things. In any case, it's hardly fatal to civilization or the planet if the average temperature goes up a couple of degrees or so, or that sea levels rise or fall.
          After all, remember, for most of geologic history the middle of the US (what are now the Great Plains and Texas) were a vast inland shallow sea. Dinosaurs roamed what today is northern Alaska for millions of years. I think it's the height of hypocrisy to think that man is somehow so capable that as a race we can destroy this planet.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
            Without a corresponding graph of "average" global climate temperatures, this graph shows little useful information.

            Typical!

            Also, the greater perspective would have to go back nearly 4.5 billion years to when the planet and atmosphere was first formed to show proper context of global changes over that time span.

            Care to guess(show/document) how much of the initial atmosphere was composed of Carbon Dioxide/CO2 ???

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              Duh!
              Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis
              Research shows a trillion trees could be planted to capture huge amount of carbon dioxide
              ...
              https://www.theguardian.com/environm...=pocket-newtab
              Point of this post is that current hypothesis that "global warming" is due to human caused emissions of CO2 causing a rise from 280ppm to @400ppm in less than two centuries time, overlooks the counter effect of human caused reduction in flora biomass via forests/trees having been cut and cleared.

              Returning to pre-1800 levels of flora biomass ~forests/trees/etc. could be as much or more effective than focusing upon reduction of human caused CO2 emissions.

              This assumes the unproven case that it is is the minuscule levels of CO2 that are primary driver of global warming/climate change ...
              Assumes that human activities are the primary cause, drivers of such ....
              Assumes we know and understand enough about climate to bio-engeener and enviro-engineer solutions that won't make matters worse for ALL life on this planet.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                there's something that we can agree on.
                The 'scientists integrity ' posts in this forum, and their accompanying blogs are almost always a red herring. climate change science measures 'correlation'. IF the temperatures world wide are rising, and IF the glaciers/icecaps are visibly and measuring melting while Co2 levels in the atmosphere increase, then all the red herrings in the world don't change the correlation.

                Of course, we can return to medieval times, and blame the witches.....
                make your choice...
                Would seem your choice, and that of many in the pro-ACC/AGW charlatans is to embrace that witchcraft of pseudosciences.

                This isn't a matter of " ... 'scientists integrity ' ..." or "scientists' integrity" but rather of the integrity of the data and the science to which such data is applied. So far, the data I've seen, when applying the scope and scale possible spanning back nearly 4.5 billion years to when the planet and its atmosphere were first formed doesn't PROVE that human activity of recent 200 years in being partial cause of Carbon Dioxide/CO2 percent of atmosphere increase is a direct or major cause of climate change, expressing as slight global warming, that is anything outside of the ranges seen over the past 4.5 billion years.

                Part of the problem is that you and many others seem to confuse 'coincidence' with 'correlation' and fail to grasp that neither mean 'confirmation'.

                Evidence from the past shows too many times and cases where temperatures have risen while CO2 levels were lower, and cases where CO2 levels were higher but temperatures were not. Direct linkage of CO2 level to temperatures remains to be proven on the full historical scale and some of the data presented suggests otherwise; that rising temperatures might produce the rising CO2 levels that than seem to trail/lag behind such.

                Too many examples of "a glacier is melting" fail to factor that the glacier on the other side of the mountain is growing.

                We can agree that increasing the flora biomass of the planet, especially back towards levels of one-two centuries ago likely will absorb some of current CO2 percentages, but the 'confirmation' that CO2 percentages = 0.04% of DRY atmosphere mass = are THE CAUSE of current normal flux in climate change/global warming, and it's mostly if not all humankind's fault are far from proven.

                Heck, in the last two centuries the global population of all types of whales/cetaceas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale have greatly declined providing a 'correlation' to global temp. increase. Maybe we should blame it on the whales ???

                Comment


                • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                  As I have pointed out upteen times, g David, If you don't accept correlation as at least a strong symptom of causality, there is little that can be said to convince you.
                  And as I have pointed out upteen times Reg S. Correlation can too easily be confused with Coincidence and neither of those are Confirmation, or PROOF, not just supposed symptom of Causality.

                  You've been here, and likely on other forums, long enough to know that "convince" enough to get an opponent to change position doesn't happen often or easily. However, there is a way which I have yet to see or hear of and that would be via the basic scientific method of replication, do it in the lab so to speak.

                  The method isn't that difficult, but likely expensive and time consuming, and the process I'm about to lay out might need some refinements, but the basics go like this;

                  Start with a fairly large airtight/vacuum chamber/cylinder, that is insulated and has a clear glass top, and could hold say 100 cubic meters or more of air at normal atmospheric pressure. The bottom needs to be able to change from white to black and in-between surface colors to provide various ranges of absorption and reflectivity. Will need to have numerous temperature sensors the full length and some ports for introduction and remove of gas content. For even more accurate effect, place this airtight chamber in a larger room that is a freezer where the temps outside that chamber come closer to those of outer space where our planet resides; say at least down to about 50-100 degrees below zero degrees Celsius.

                  The first phase of the experiment is to establish a base line for the "normal" atmosphere WITHOUT any CO2 or water vapor H2O. That means we start with a mix of about 78% (@780,000 ppm) Nitrogen, 21%(@210,000 ppm) Oxygen, 0.93% Argon (@ 9,300 ppm) and others ...


                  To these start conditions we start "injecting" heat/energy in form of long-wave EM, Infra-Red/IR, simulating the bandwave lengths that "Evil" CO2 would absorb. This is via the clear glass top and best done for 12 hours with amount varying to represent the variation through a day of Sunlight(Solar heat), done repeatedly to reflect the range of a typical year/season input and also done enough times to represent the eleven year Solar Cycles of varied energy output. It is also done repeatedly with varied bottoms in the chamber varying from full black to full white and ratios in-between. After twelve hours of varied energy "injection", there are then twelve hours of darkness to simulate energy return from Earth surface back to space.

                  Once the full range and cycle of the above tests have been done to get a baseline of energy adsorptions and releases, we could then repeat the cycle/sequences with Carbon Dioxide/CO2 added to the test atmosphere, and go through repeated ranges of CO2 amounts to show effects say from 100ppm through 1200ppm, in 100 increments.

                  Next one, sets of tests, does the above variations and ranges of CO2 % with increasing water(H2O) vapor added, incrementally going from say 0.2% to 2.0%("extra" amount) reflecting what happens in our real and normal atmosphere.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

                  This could be done using several such chambers in cold rooms, providing lots of work for "scientists" and grad students working on the PhDs, and when it's all done we might have some realistic data to work with rather then "models" loaded with selective data, personal biases, and a hefty dose of GIGO; which is the current state of what looks like mostly non-science in search of and chasing after grant money.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                    I read them all, G David, and all I saw is a series of bloggers trying to make a fast buck preaching to the converted.
                    About the same as the "... series of bloggers trying to make a fast buck preaching to the ACC/AGW converted." Their "fast buck" being having/keeping jobs that involve chasing the grant dollar$ available to "prove" ACC/AGW.

                    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                    A repeat of the 'laudable puss' doctors of the eighteenth century.. earnestly proclaiming a science that was based on 'speculation'.
                    That's the history of science over the centuries, the "flat Earth's" come and go, and some still linger.
                    Are you presenting this to underscore our current crop of "climatologists" might be engaging a similar flim-flam???

                    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                    Your "growing glaciers argument is disproved by the USGS study.
                    You mean those same "USGS study" sites/links that mention the glaciers of GNP only started to form(re-form) about 7,000 years ago ???

                    Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                    Please READ IT.
                    Did. Not sure what selective "bias confirming" parts you are referring to. Please consider providing some excerpts/quotes/links, etc. - Not just for me, but any others reading here ...

                    BTW, with wife and I having a daughter with husband and two grand-daughters living in Kalispell, MT.; just a few miles south of GNP, been there and done that a few times over the years of our annual trip that way ever since they moved there about 12+ years ago.

                    In your visits to GNP, did you ever happen to take the side jog to here;

                    ...
                    The Montana Vortex is a genuine quantum or gravitational anomaly that may re-define the laws of physics and nature.

                    "Celebrating 49 years of family fun"

                    Native Americans were the first to recognize this naturally occurring phenomenon and still honor it today with offerings of tobacco and sweet grass.

                    "Feel The Power of Nature"

                    When visitors pass through the "Portal" they can see and feel the power of the vortex and they enter a reality where some physical rules like gravity and perspective are decidedly skewed. Adults and children alike will enjoy this unique experience and many people come back year after year to "Feel The Power Of Nature".
                    ...
                    http://www.montanavortex.com/

                    A literally "weird" experience.

                    Start your Glacier Park Vacation at the Montana Vortex









                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                      About the same as the "... series of bloggers trying to make a fast buck preaching to the ACC/AGW converted." Their "fast buck" being having/keeping jobs that involve chasing the grant dollar$ available to "prove" ACC/AGW.



                      That's the history of science over the centuries, the "flat Earth's" come and go, and some still linger.
                      Are you presenting this to underscore our current crop of "climatologists" might be engaging a similar flim-flam???



                      You mean those same "USGS study" sites/links that mention the glaciers of GNP only started to form(re-form) about 7,000 years ago ???



                      Did. Not sure what selective "bias confirming" parts you are referring to. Please consider providing some excerpts/quotes/links, etc. - Not just for me, but any others reading here ...

                      BTW, with wife and I having a daughter with husband and two grand-daughters living in Kalispell, MT.; just a few miles south of GNP, been there and done that a few times over the years of our annual trip that way ever since they moved there about 12+ years ago.

                      In your visits to GNP, did you ever happen to take the side jog to here;

                      ...
                      The Montana Vortex is a genuine quantum or gravitational anomaly that may re-define the laws of physics and nature.

                      "Celebrating 49 years of family fun"

                      Native Americans were the first to recognize this naturally occurring phenomenon and still honor it today with offerings of tobacco and sweet grass.

                      "Feel The Power of Nature"

                      When visitors pass through the "Portal" they can see and feel the power of the vortex and they enter a reality where some physical rules like gravity and perspective are decidedly skewed. Adults and children alike will enjoy this unique experience and many people come back year after year to "Feel The Power Of Nature".
                      ...
                      http://www.montanavortex.com/

                      A literally "weird" experience.
                      Start your Glacier Park Vacation at the Montana Vortex









                      uhh huhh. G David.
                      You may want to review our 201`5 debate where you claimed that the NOAA was lying about global warming- and your quoted tucker Carlson's Rage page, THE 'DAILY CALLER', AS EVIDENCE.
                      GLOBAL TEMPERATURES HAVE RIEN AN AVERAGE OF .7 DEGREES, THATS SEVEN TENTHS, IN 100 YEARS, WITH THE BULK OF THAT RISE SINCE 1961. TAHT IS A WIDELY PROVEN FACT.

                      the prev. average was seven degrees over 5000 YEARS, average, of the warming recoveries over two million years of ice ages.

                      Tucker Carlson vrs the NOAA?
                      No contest.
                      The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Crash View Post

                        It's no surprise.


                        Why do I think Doc will own 99% of the posts here?
                        Where are you now when we need your sanity the most, Crash?
                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • You mean those same "USGS study" sites/links that mention the glaciers of GNP only started to form(re-form) about 7,000 years ago ???




                          Did. Not sure what selective "bias confirming" parts you are referring to. Please consider providing some excerpts/quotes/links, etc. - Not just for me, but any others reading here …


                          \SIGH. Man oh man, \I've been doing THAT for YEARS. \while you have been busily posting post after post of Tucker Carlson 's Urban voodoo.....
                          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                            uhh huhh. G David.
                            You may want to review our 201`5 debate where you claimed that the NOAA was lying about global warming- and your quoted tucker Carlson's Rage page, THE 'DAILY CALLER', AS EVIDENCE.
                            GLOBAL TEMPERATURES HAVE RIEN AN AVERAGE OF .7 DEGREES, THATS SEVEN TENTHS, IN 100 YEARS, WITH THE BULK OF THAT RISE SINCE 1961. TAHT IS A WIDELY PROVEN FACT.

                            the prev. average was seven degrees over 5000 YEARS, average, of the warming recoveries over two million years of ice ages.

                            Tucker Carlson vrs the NOAA?
                            No contest.
                            Well, I applaud your necromania and ability to invest time going through the "way back" machine to find some outdated stance from about four years back*, or more likely tease a source to see which knickers it might knot and/or reaction stir,back then.

                            If the purpose of such dialogues is to inform and/or persuade, might note more recent culls, say within the last six months~year be more productive?
                            * Aside from the provocateur usage of an older "quote/link", maybe I've shifted my positions and views since ???


                            Reg ... Reggie ...
                            You are grasping at straws,
                            or worse yet straw-man arguments here to try vainly to make an obscure point ...
                            .... or make obscure points for vanity ...

                            ... Either way, you are rapidly slipping behind in the league that is here in play ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                              Where are you now when we need your sanity the most, Crash?
                              If "Crash" is 'sanity', the Cosmos is overwhelmed by Chaos ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                                Well, I applaud your necromania and ability to invest time going through the "way back" machine to find some outdated stance from about four years back*, or more likely tease a source to see which knickers it might knot and/or reaction stir,back then.

                                If the purpose of such dialogues is to inform and/or persuade, might note more recent culls, say within the last six months~year be more productive?
                                * Aside from the provocateur usage of an older "quote/link", maybe I've shifted my positions and views since ???


                                Reg ... Reggie ...
                                You are grasping at straws,
                                or worse yet straw-man arguments here to try vainly to make an obscure point ...
                                .... or make obscure points for vanity ...

                                ... Either way, you are rapidly slipping behind in the league that is here in play ...
                                Outdated stance,g David? You are still posting that global warning is a hoax....need recent examples I?
                                Perhaps you should trade for arecording thermometer.anyhow,
                                l'm done. You can now waste bandwidth all you want
                                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X