Global Warming

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by bavlion

"...when you take an empty hog barn in August and pack it full of hogs, that already hot hog barn gets even hotter. That is just common sense."

Yeahhhh

But is it "common sense" to link this example to the question if CO2 has influence on ground temperatures?

"...If the farmlands you depend on for food go arid and unproductive in a short period due to rising temps and drought, for example."

Oh yes!
Or lower temperature and floods.
Or fire falling out of the sky.
Or all Syrian refuges (forces to leave because of "climate change", as Bernie Sanders said) trampling over the fields and destroying the crops.

What has this BS to do with concentration of CO2???

You know, I am pretty sure that you are angry at all the elite hucksters telling you to do this and that because of "global warming" and they want to raise your taxes and pay global warming tribute. Yeah, there is some huckstering going on, but there is also some real science that we need to take heed of.

It's very possible for humans to screw up the environment. Look at the desert wastelands around the ruins of ancient cities in the middle east. Once upon a time there were lush forests there, but careless humans deforested the region and look at it now.

Or take the American Dustbowl from the 30s. Bunch of dry farmers went and plowed up the land without proper techniques. Came a drought, and instead of just dryness we got nightmarish dust storms blowing all the topsoil away and ruining the land. Some of my family lived through that. Google "dustbowl" if you want to see pics.

Given the current abuse of land and water, I am more concerned about water and food shortages in the coming decades that will become problematic before any real global warming effect kicks in. You checked meat prices lately? Going up. And I can foresee the day when maybe a good steak will cost $40-50 in today's dollars instead of the $12-$15 you pay today at the grocery store. Feeding large animals for meat will become prohibitively expensive. Only the elite will be able to eat beef on a regular basis. The middle class will have to settle for small portions of chicken 3 nights a week, and maybe some trash fish or shrimp salad grown from human offal for lunch. The less fortunate will have to settle for "mystery burritos" enriched with insect protein powder.

Your masters know what's coming, and are already attempting to train you for the future. Google "plant based foods" and peruse some of the strange things currently on offer if you think I am joking.

The dystopian future is just over the horizon. If you're young enough, plan now, and get some nice land, so you can grow your own goodies.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by bavlion

"The technical term for the process is radiative forcing. Here is an EPA chart and a brief explanation from Wikipedia."

I know that. The point is:
It does not work according to the laws of physics!

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a multi-chapter presentation on the topic that has much more detail and a lot more calculus."

Ipcc says that there is no evidence for the influence of CO2 on temperature.
But they do not say this in their summaries for politicians...

To which laws of physics are you referring in your objection? What exactly is your objection that radiative forcing "does not work according to the laws of physics?"

Where exactly does the IPCC say that there is no evidence for the influence of CO2 on temperatures? Please provide the report title, page and paragraph number. I will then refer your objections to my physicist friends at Lawrence Livermore Lab. U.C. Berkeley, and Stanford Research Institute for comment and clarification.

This is a quote from NASA report

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

The organization Skeptical Science calls the statement "There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature" a Climate Myth,

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2...orrelation.htm


If you are going to contradict the published opinions of the American Institute of Physics. NASA, the EPA, the IPCC, and the big oil companies, you have to be prepared to offer evidence that we have any reason to read your posts.

As for the Ice Ages, Macdougall seemed to provide a good summary. It's been a 4 or 5 years since I read his book, which I still have, but I referred you to a later edition.

Sorry I've been grumpy. I've been battling insomnia, Mom died in July, and Dad fell and broke his pelvis 3 weeks ago,

[grazer]

Originally Posted by Dalton22

90% of all scientists

All climate scientists, please. Among scientists of other disciplines - physics, statistics - there seems to be a lot less certainty. What we're seeing here is a predictively weak theory - far less than the usual 95% accuracy that is commonly accepted a minimum in physics, e.g. - being hyped & selectively reported on by non-scientists. I.a. the ones providing research funds, I guess.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by grazer

All climate scientists, please. Among scientists of other disciplines - physics, statistics - there seems to be a lot less certainty. What we're seeing here is a predictively weak theory - far less than the usual 95% accuracy that is commonly accepted a minimum in physics, e.g. - being hyped & selectively reported on by non-scientists. I.a. the ones providing research funds, I guess.

A cursory amount of open minded research should easily convince you of the errors in your assertions. Many informative links can be found in my posts of the last week. It still astounds me that folks are continuing to deny the reality of climate change and that human activity is directly causing it now that the oil companies have stopped their campaign of lies. If Exxon/Mobil and Chevron say it is a fact, it takes an incredible amount of arrogance and obstinacy to continue clinging to denial.

I used to believe that there was room to assign the climate changes to other causes and it was reasonable to assume the phenomena were the result of natural causes. I didn't even set out to change my mind by researching the issue. I had to revise my opinion after continually being faced with the evidence of human causes while researching economic,financing, and social questions.

I have been absolutely right about one thing. I was convinced that no adequate measures would be taken until the changes were so far along that any chance of stopping or slowing catastrophe were minimal. Greed and stupidity are too deeply ingrained in our politics. The ruling class and the politicos who serve them are too focused on maintaining their power. Most are not intellectually equipped to understand the mathematical models and the science. So. it has been easier to deny and obstruct. We have been growing enough food on this planet to feed everyone for decades. Yet, over 9 million people still starve to death every year to maintain the privileges of the wealthy.

Every previous prediction of the rate of change has severely underestimated how quickly the temperature has risen and how quickly the polar ice and glaciers are melting. We are continually discovering new ways in which climate changes affect the world around us. We are dealing with one giant climate system on this planet, but individual teams of scientists are only equipped to focus on particular subsystems. The subsystems interact with each other in ways we are only beginning to appreciate. The subsystems combine to amplify and reinforce the warming trends.

Perhaps, you are better off to simply deny our looming extinction. It is not pleasant feeling helpless to stop the changes and knowing that today's school children will almost certainly be staring extinction squarely in the face by mid-century. Given our inability to cooperate globally now and our tendency to cast everything in "us against them" terms, humans are far more likely to war on each other and speed the end than cooperate.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I have been absolutely right about one thing. I was convinced that no adequate measures would be taken until the changes were so far along that any chance of stopping or slowing catastrophe were minimal. Greed and stupidity are too deeply ingrained in our politics. The ruling class and the politicos who serve them are too focused on maintaining their power. Most are not intellectually equipped to understand the mathematical models and the science. So. it has been easier to deny and obstruct. We have been growing enough food on this planet to feed everyone for decades. Yet, over 9 million people still starve to death every year to maintain the privileges of the wealthy.

Which means that in a practical sense, it is already too late. We can count on some sort of dramatic global change, what that will exactly be and how it will affect us we cannot predict.

Bigger storms, and some very unusual weather where it is not expected, to say the least.

In the matter of food production, how many here are aware that in the USA we pay 20 billion dollars a year in subsidies to farmers, i.e. we pay them NOT to grow food?

[grazer]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

the reality of climate change

Oh well, here we go again... You may be talking about current events. I am talking about truly Catastrophic Climate Change (C.C.C.) predicted about 11 years ago, by the Al Gore video & surrounding climate scientists. The start of the hype...

We're talking about world temperature rise & ill effects in 40+ years and later. At the time of the video it was said that earlier measurements/predictions would be too close to be able to say anything definite. This premise has since been whittled down to "climate change is happening now", (Note the dropping of the dramatic adjective.)

Climate change is happening now, of course. This has always been true, at all times on the planet!

But the likelihood of C.C.C. happening, and its being a permanent planetary species killer, i.e. of proportions much larger than the holocaust (probably why anyone skeptical is now regularly called a "denier"!), is just a weak predictive theory. It's not experimentally provable - which makes it orders of magnitude less strong than, say, the theory of gravitational attraction that keeps us all from drifting off into space, AND basically impossible to prove the "man-made" assertion. In addition, the IPCC models have "envelopes" going down to 50% probability of actually coming to pass, and the world temperature in the last 2 decades or so has been wandering near the lower envelopes (cf. earlier posts of mine in this thread for source links!)...

What I hate a lot about this set-up is that when you talk with weather & climate scientists, as I have done off and on, they are totally sold on a theory that is constantly being adapted according to measured data. Because it's happening Now! In other words, apart from the vague threatening long view, it's not an experimentally scientific theory at all. No longer falsifiable. More like a religion. whose rollercoaster dogma is currently being defined.

Apart from a lot of "positive" "proof" there have been major fails, that hardly get discussed at all, like the premise that that fantasy catastrophe movie by Emmerich was based on. In fact, movies & s.f. happen to have been profiting in a major way, since the advent of the Al Gore clip, from Global Fear-Mongering. Great for us older folk, perhaps, but particularly nasty for younger people (esp. school children!), who are constantly being told there's hardly any hope...

P.S.: No, I'm not being paid by any (oil or other) company to be against C.C.C.. In fact, I'm at heart an envronmentalist, use only public transport, save on electricity & heating where I can, engage for protecting esp. urban old trees. But a skeptical one, like Lomborg.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by grazer

Oh well, here we go again...
But the likelihood of C.C.C. happening, and its being a permanent planetary species killer, i.e. of proportions much larger than the holocaust (probably why anyone skeptical is now regularly called a "denier"!), is just a weak predictive theory. It's not experimentally provable - which makes it orders of magnitude less strong than, say, the theory of gravitational attraction that keeps us all from drifting off into space, AND basically impossible to prove the "man-made" assertion. In addition, the IPCC models have "envelopes" going down to 50% probability of actually coming to pass, and the world temperature in the last 2 decades or so has been wandering near the lower envelopes (cf. earlier posts of mine in this thread for source links!)...
Lomborg[/URL].

Please read "Frozen Earth" by Doug Macdougall, University of California Press, ASIN: B012HU7XX2 and "The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History" by Elizabeth Kolbert, ISBN : 1250062187. Neither book is difficult to read nor overly long. You might even be done in a week if they are available from a local library. Then, get back to me.

By the way, "But What If We're Wrong?: Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past" by Chuck Klosterman, ISBN 0399184139, kicks off with the surprising revelation that physicists regard our current theories on gravity as woefully inadequate and most in need of serious revision.

[grazer]

Re your "BTW" 2nd paragraph: This is the Trumpian defense - call well-established facts fake, to flatten the argumentative playing field. Bad style... Before I spend hours & hours reading your favorite books, how about you helping support the scientific nature of the C.C.C. hypothesis, by providing a short paragraph about how it can practically be falsified? As any true scientific theory should be able to be.

[ukcarter]

XKCD presents a cartoon of the Earth Temperature Timeline which allows you to scroll down through time to get a feel for the long term rise and fall in the planet's temperature over the last 22000 years. There is indeed a gentle undulation in the temperature as it rises. Two points worth noting, in my opinion, are:

a) It took about 5000 years to cool from the maximum at about 3200BC to the minimum at 1700AD where it stayed for around 200 years.

b) It took 100 years from 1900 to the present day to rise back to and then exceed that temperature.

It isn't just the temperature, it's the rate of increase that this sketch graph illustrates.

To understand the effect of CO2 on heating, there's a simple experiment that can be done at home: The Greenhouse Gas Demo. I'll point out that the use of the Celsius scale (with its zero at the freezing point of water) probably wasn't the best choice; the Kelvin scale (with its zero at absolute zero) would have been a better illustration of the relative heating.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by grazer

All climate scientists, please. Among scientists of other disciplines - physics, statistics - there seems to be a lot less certainty. What we're seeing here is a predictively weak theory - far less than the usual 95% accuracy that is commonly accepted a minimum in physics, e.g. - being hyped & selectively reported on by non-scientists. I.a. the ones providing research funds, I guess.

This is not what my friends who have Ph.Ds in fields like physics, genetics, oceanography, earth sciences, and geology are telling me. They are unanimous in believing in human caused climate change. So are the computer science professors, the mathematicians, and statisticians. I do not know a single person with a degree in the hard sciences who denies climate change.

The climate change deniers of my acquaintance are sales and marketing guys and construction workers with right wing political views.

Here we have yet another climate denier operating in extreme bad faith. Yet another person posting on this thread and claiming the theory is weak, most scientists are skeptics, or some other lie. When presented with links or books that counter their assertions, "proof "is demanded, or short answers, or the previous statements repeated over and over. I take it that there is some sort of climate change denier cult providing a script that is supposed to refute the consensus of the scientific community.

I repeat, only in the United States does nearly half the population believe that there is not overwhelming evidence of global warming and that some sort of debate as to cause is going on in the scientific community. Everywhere else the scientific consensus is accepted and global warming taken as a fact. Those of us who have read numerous books and articles over a period of fifty years, had hours of conversations with science professionals, and observed the effects of the changing climate in our local environment have very strong reasons for believing in the scientific consensus.

You are the one promoting a radical minority opinion. It is up to you to provide the links to the peer reviewed scientific articles and citations from the specific IPCC reports that support your argument. I am just being nice in suggesting laymen friendly works that provide the evidence you requested. For example, I did not know until reading "Frozen Earth" that those who had rigorously studied the phenomena believe that the Earth ought to cooling and in the early stages of the ice age. The abrupt warming seen in the last three centuries is a radical shift from the established climate cycles of this geological age.