Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

Communicate with fellow Zoners

Moderators: shortski, Bubba, spanky, SkiDork

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Sgt Eddy Brewers » Sun Jun 18, 2017 5:02 pm

Mister Moose wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote: ...<snip> So when I had children I quit to have more time with them. I was offered a job in pharmaceutical industry but considered that too unstable (that proved to be true) and instead took a job teaching high school science. (chemistry / AP Biology). NONE of this matters. I can read science and analyze arguments.


Sgt, some of your verbiage sounds less than technical (I don't know what "reading science" is) but that's probably a speaking/writing style. Given your resume, your independent nature and your outspoken style, you just might be one of the best high school teachers out there. Very few High School teachers have had a significant career in their field with a wide variety of experience* prior to teaching. That gives you a perspective few teachers bring to the classroom. That together with empathy and ability to communicate well produces exceptional teaching.

I was fortunate enough to have studied briefly with Julius Sumner Miller, better known as "Professor Wonderful" on the Mickey Mouse Show. He was a rare combination of entertainment in teaching, strict taskmaster and gifted scientist. (He won a Carnegie grant to study with Einstein, he was no slouch)

You would appreciate an outburst of his one day as he asked a professor sitting in on his class, who had just volunteered an answer lacking in basic Physics. "Tell me sir, what is your field?" "Political Science" was the answer. "YOU CALL POLITICS A SCIENCE?", he bellowed.

He understood he had to keep your attention, he had to get you to ask questions, and he had to get you to learn to be able to answer your own questions.

This thread can be distilled down to establishing the difference between opinion and provable fact. Many opinions aren't presenting themselves as opinions.




* A completely anecdotal and un-researched unscientific assertion


as per usual... WELL STATED. Your ideas about science and education seem to me to be exactly correct. And thanks so much for your vote of confidence. I know I often sound like an arrogant jackass here but...it is the internet. In class I treat the students with a lot of dignity and always tell them I am not telling them facts... only informing them of the "best" current opinions of which I am aware.

I ask them to ALWAYS challenge the opinions they are given...theories need jerks (like them and me) to challenge them. I always use the phrases "not sure if that is bulletproof" and "make sure you write that in pencil." As a result...(I think?) I turn out a lot of high quality scientists (researchers, MDs, etc). Have had lots of alumni tell me I had a big impact in the way they think about the world. I guess I'm trying to be like Mr. Miller.

Someone clearly taught you how to think critically and the world is a better place because of that.
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Double Diamond Skidder
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:57 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Coydog » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:16 am

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Can you link to a post where a prominent consensus scientist makes a climate prediction which represents a SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT to mankind???

SURELY there must be at least one. Out of all the changes CO2 is claimed to be able to drive SURELY at least ONE of them will be good for humans.

When you really research this and find that virtually all predictions about 'climate change' suggest NEGATIVE outcomes....

don't your BS detectors activate??



Yep, they sure do. This twisted logic reminds me of the following, something the good Doctor Lindzen would no doubt appeciate:

Skeptic arguments about cigarette smoke - sound familiar?

"I know someone who lived into his nineties and he was a heavy tobacco smoker. How can anyone honestly claim smoking is dangerous?"

"Smoke occurs naturally in the environment, in fact some plants require smoke to grow properly. How can something that occurs naturally and is good for plants be dangerous?"

"Old age appears to be far more correlated to death than smoking. We need to keep a proper perspective here when dealing with the causes of human mortality."

"Some people who have never smoked tobacco still get lung diseases. Obviously causation from smoking is not proven."

And what about all the health benefits of smoking tobacco?

1) Smoking lowers the risk of obesity.

2) Smokers have a lower risk of Parkinson’s disease.

3) Because smokers tend to experience heart attacks at a younger age, they have lower mortality rates and recover better from heart attacks.

4) And great news for skiers and riders: because smokers are less morbidly obese and rarely jog, they have a lower risk of knee replacement surgery.

So Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Coydog
Guru Poster
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:23 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby madhatter » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:20 am

lots of global humidity here right now...localized global storms later...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
User avatar
madhatter
Level 10K poster
 
Posts: 10275
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 7:26 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Coydog » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:30 am

madhatter wrote:lots of global humidity here right now...localized global storms later...


Think of the benefits.
Coydog
Guru Poster
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:23 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Mister Moose » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:34 am

Coydog wrote: And what about all the health benefits of smoking tobacco?


1) Smoking is still not illegal.
2) Get back to me when climate change data has the same degree of predictability accuracy as cancer rates in smokers.
Image

State Prosecutor Rosemary Kennedy wrote:we need to do a better job on giving guidance on when to pursue charges.

Will K1 cow power survive Rutland's cowsecution?
User avatar
Mister Moose
Whipping Post
 
Posts: 8585
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Bubba » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:01 pm

The Energy Industry Is Turning School Kids Into Climate Change Skeptics
By Eric Pianin June 16, 2017

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/06/16/
Image

"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Bubba
Site Admin
 
Posts: 22318
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:42 am
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Coydog » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:45 pm

Mister Moose wrote:
Coydog wrote: And what about all the health benefits of smoking tobacco?


1) Smoking is still not illegal.
2) Get back to me when climate change data has the same degree of predictability accuracy as cancer rates in smokers.


1) Smoking is prohibited in many locales and heavily taxed to discourage its use.

2) No one can predict with any degree of accuracy how smoking regularly will affect you in particular, yet it would seem darn right silly to ignore the huge body of data and overwhelming scientific consensus.
Coydog
Guru Poster
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:23 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Mister Moose » Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:22 pm

Coydog wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:
Coydog wrote: And what about all the health benefits of smoking tobacco?


1) Smoking is still not illegal.
2) Get back to me when climate change data has the same degree of predictability accuracy as cancer rates in smokers.


1) Smoking is prohibited in many locales and heavily taxed to discourage its use.
2) No one can predict with any degree of accuracy how smoking regularly will affect you in particular, yet it would seem darn right silly to ignore the huge body of data and overwhelming scientific consensus.


1) Not sure what a 'locale' is in your useage, but my point that it is still legal. I'm not sure a good argument exists to replace funding the government on a non discriminatory basis (such as income tax) with taxation of personal habits, or use of a certain legal product, or engaging in a certain legal activity.
2) Again, get back to me when the certainty of climate prediction equals that with cancer occurrence in smokers. And then take note that even with that degree of certainty, the manufacture of cigarettes is legal. I can still choose to smoke or not. You are supporting inequitably taxing my economy based on carbon useage due to an unproven yet worth studying hypothesis.
Image

State Prosecutor Rosemary Kennedy wrote:we need to do a better job on giving guidance on when to pursue charges.

Will K1 cow power survive Rutland's cowsecution?
User avatar
Mister Moose
Whipping Post
 
Posts: 8585
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Location: Waiting for the next one

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby liv4ski » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:13 pm

Mister Moose wrote:2) Again, get back to me when the certainty of climate prediction equals that with cancer occurrence in smokers.


Millions of smokers died prematurely from cancer by the time that certainty was established. How many worlds are you willing to risk before your desired level of certainty is established?
liv4ski
Black Carver
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Sgt Eddy Brewers » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:53 pm

liv4ski wrote:
Mister Moose wrote:2) Again, get back to me when the certainty of climate prediction equals that with cancer occurrence in smokers.


Millions of smokers died prematurely from cancer by the time that certainty was established. How many worlds are you willing to risk before your desired level of certainty is established?


Yeah OK. You and Coydog somehow think the cigarettes = CO2 is a powerful analogy.

Except...people had been smoking for decades and dying of emphysema and the correlation was quite obvious before if became a debate with tobacco companies. Lots of rotted lungs from smoker autopsies.

Can you name ONE / ANY / A SINGLE outcome caused by CO2 which has damaged this planet.

What actually got worse since 1945 when the atmosphere seemed to register an elevated CO2 concentration? ONE THING????

So that is foundationaly different.

As for the "benefits" of smoking....Coydog was VERY creative there. Admirable really. And damn silly.

The benefits of CO2 and mild warming?....oh my... the list just keeps growing.

Even the ACTIVIST government organization NASA admits that there has been a MASSIVE greening of the planet. Surely that is not a trivial benefit.

Tell me ANYTHING you could think of that tree-huggers should be happier about than massive greening of the planet?? And even NASA admits it is happening . And even NASA admits elevated CO2 probably contributed to the greening.

So why are you Grubers and the MSM howling non-stop about the dangers of CO2 when the only data we currently have (not predictions or projections) show NO DAMAGES and only MAJOR BENEFITS??
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Double Diamond Skidder
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:57 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby liv4ski » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:43 pm

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
people had been smoking for decades and dying of emphysema and the correlation was quite obvious before if became a debate with tobacco companies.

Can you name ONE / ANY / A SINGLE outcome caused by CO2 which has damaged this planet.



Here is a peer reviewed study published in nature demonstrating evidence that increasing CO2 emissions is harming coral reefs.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17155.epdf?referrer_access_token=2EVfceepQhEk5yWFtRFI8NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MDcm5yYjVQUhX-gZluiy-K5bL4OMfUyeN_HwAmNTWA_74t4VHBBYhX092u4IhE0w0ck4_0OuM--Q809P6KnXP03EWJxwh8lts9yYgBtp1nkmK8RQ4qs-ngwJPLhEyOsVusaLJY2Q-WdMc2A6Jmve-RvOJXL-CKdN3fWrqmh8FFl6lbPbHbscGTzlXtKUP_1wzYjxWcsR2XyejRqH9VxggCm5z0gC3ygSamZZluGdh04-tBTxvkWHLIqveI4xdMN44%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

In your mind, what would be a "quite obvious" correlation between CO2 emissions and harm to the planet?
liv4ski
Black Carver
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:10 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Coydog » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:00 pm

Mister Moose wrote:1) Not sure what a 'locale' is in your useage, see Clean Indoor Air Act in Connecticut but my point that it is still legal in some situations. I'm not sure a good argument exists to replace funding the government on a non discriminatory basis (such as income tax) with taxation of personal habits, or use of a certain legal product, or engaging in a certain legal activity. Excise taxes - been around forever whether a good idea or not
2) Again, get back to me when the certainty of climate prediction equals that with cancer occurrence in smokers. And then take note that even with that degree of certainty, the manufacture of cigarettes is legal. I can still choose to smoke or not. Nope, at least not without legal consequences in Connecticut in enclosed workspaces including bars an restaurants - many states have similar laws You are supporting inequitably taxing my economy based on carbon useage due to an unproven yet worth studying hypothesis.


Yet despite all the studies and data, no one can predict with any degree of certainty how smoking tobacco will affect you, but I bet you accept the scientific consensus.
Coydog
Guru Poster
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:23 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Coydog » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:06 pm

At least SEB seems to be moving away from the head in sand idea that CO2 does not cause climate change. It's just that now it's a change for the better. And it appears Mr. Moose would prefer to wait another 100 years or so to "prove" man-made climate change because some of the proposed remedies "unfairly" target intensive carbon-emitting entities.

Baby steps.
Coydog
Guru Poster
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:23 pm

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Guy in Shorts » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:05 am

Love the fact that I that can ski more days in shorts. Another huge plus is the number of days we can tailgate in Bay 1. Tailgating in single digits is still an activity best left to truly hardy. Allows ski and bike seasons to coexist on a few select days early and late season. Gives Killington the chance to open as much as a month before anyone else in the Northeast. Wife left me very comfortable idling in the car with the top up and the A/C blasting while she grabbed a couple of items at the store Sunday. Didn’t break a sweat nor did I feel guilty.
If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine.
Guy in Shorts
Postaholic
 
Posts: 2588
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:27 pm
Location: KMP Island

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Postby Sgt Eddy Brewers » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:51 am

liv4ski wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
people had been smoking for decades and dying of emphysema and the correlation was quite obvious before if became a debate with tobacco companies.

Can you name ONE / ANY / A SINGLE outcome caused by CO2 which has damaged this planet.



Here is a peer reviewed study published in nature demonstrating evidence that increasing CO2 emissions is harming coral reefs.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17155.epdf?referrer_access_token=2EVfceepQhEk5yWFtRFI8NRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MDcm5yYjVQUhX-gZluiy-K5bL4OMfUyeN_HwAmNTWA_74t4VHBBYhX092u4IhE0w0ck4_0OuM--Q809P6KnXP03EWJxwh8lts9yYgBtp1nkmK8RQ4qs-ngwJPLhEyOsVusaLJY2Q-WdMc2A6Jmve-RvOJXL-CKdN3fWrqmh8FFl6lbPbHbscGTzlXtKUP_1wzYjxWcsR2XyejRqH9VxggCm5z0gC3ygSamZZluGdh04-tBTxvkWHLIqveI4xdMN44%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

In your mind, what would be a "quite obvious" correlation between CO2 emissions and harm to the planet?


Thanks for the link to the article…even a full pdf!! So we can do some science (evaluate a scientific claim. ) And the article nicely illustrates how poorly field biology is done and how activist propaganda is now published as science.

The paper is full of flaws and does not support the idea that actual damage (not predicted damage) that CO2 might cause has actually happened.

The research actually looks at what happens when you bathe a reef in an alkaline infusion. They claim their evidence suggests a benefit for the increase in alkalinity for an actual reef in situ. They suggest that this shows CO2 is damaging reefs. OH MY GOD!!

Where should one start in critiquing this paper? One of the most egregious flaws is immediately obvious to anyone familiar with measurement of pH and experience in oceanography. The second sentence in the abstract CLAIMS that there has been a “measurable declined in surface ocean pH.” That is utter nonsense.

I have taken hundreds of measurements of ocean pH (and used rhodamine to track flow patterns) and when you investigate the ocean pH… well let me reference a “consensus” scientist site for the awful truth even they must admit.
Here’s a quote from an activist source (you can notice the bias in the phrasing)

“Oceanwide changes in pH levels have been, in the words of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment, “profound.” (SOUNDS SCARY!! However...read on for the details.)

"Measuring the changes underway, however, is not straightforward. Most pH sensors produce questionable data, and ocean acidification monitoring stations are growing in number but remain sparse.

Acidity levels in different parts of a sea can be as variable as weather on land, with ocean currents, water pollution and the presence of carbon dioxide-guzzling plants all having an influence. That’s why it’s not possible to extrapolate data from monitoring stations and vessels to assess acidification rates in all of the tidal nooks and deepwater crannies of an ocean.

“Everyone talks about pH, but it’s not usually directly measured — one can do it very crudely,” said Phil Williamson, who coordinates the U.K.’s acidification research program and co-chairs the Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network. “Sensors that directly give you pH are not easy to construct and not easy to handle.” “


This is an admission from a "consensus" (activist) website.

(OK…so when you talk about the ACTUAL pH data…. It is actually …unreliable...tehcnical term for this is “crap”.)

So how do agencies (government activists) like NOAA and IPCC handle this unreliable pH data? A simple mixture of propaganda and fraud:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/31/ ... ntal-data/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/21/ ... reases-ph/

So the “measurable decline” in ocean pH is just propaganda.


A lot like all the other frightening climate metrics. Consensus claims that ocean pH has changes how much? The best you can nail down the claims is a historical change from about 8.15 back in the 1800s to 8.05 current. So the activist claim is that we have changed 0.1 pH units in 100+ years. (and still alkaline NOT acidic) And look at the ACTUAL data. Not impressed. I don’t need someone to interpret graphs for me.
zmwacompilationofglobalocean_phjan82014.jpg
zmwacompilationofglobalocean_phjan82014.jpg (31.68 KiB) Viewed 18 times

Graph of changes in ocean pH. Look at the ACTUAL DATA. The FEEL (red) graph (not kidding) is the activist interpretation of the actual data notice the blue line (actual moving average) shows increase in pH!!
000zpH data.jpg
000zpH data.jpg (9.13 KiB) Viewed 18 times

What activist CLAIM WILL HAPPEN (notice almost nothing has happened YET)
00ga.png
00ga.png (33.14 KiB) Viewed 18 times

Field data for MEASURED pH from Monterey Bay...notice how variable ACTUAL pH data is.... NOTHING IS DYING FROM THIS!

So you linked a paper that does some field biology looking at the effects of increasing pH on coral reefs which somehow proves that CO2 HAS ALREADY damaged coral reefs. And the paper is start to finish activist propaganda (misleading statements in service of an agenda.) Good try though.
Last edited by Sgt Eddy Brewers on Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Double Diamond Skidder
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:57 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Chatter

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests