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

Communicate with fellow Zoners

Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba

Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26274
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

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

Post by Bubba »

Climate change study cancelled due to climate change

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150651.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"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
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

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

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Woodsrider wrote: NOX is produced by high heat combustion. N2 comes from the atmosphere. It's 79% of our atmosphere. SO2 is from sulfur content in the fuel. Both are damaging. Acid r*in was a big problem before it was regulated. Now it is less so. So regulations worked. When I said NOX is the problem I was referring to the economics of power production. CO2 is not yet regulated. But you know my thoughts on CO2. As far as links, I have nothing to prove. So look them up yourself.

With regards to peak oil, the timing was way off. But theoretically it may happen. What peak oil missed was technology advancements. Which are exponential. I expect demand will fall long before supply. It's already happening. Look at the Telsa story.
I suppose we actually agree on quite a lot here. Thanks for point about NOX being from oxidation of N2( I had forgotten that) ...it is also formed from oxidation of nitrogen containing compounds in fuel supply. Shale gas actually has very little nitrogenous impurities.

The "I have nothing to prove" comment sets an unfortunate tone. I could say exactly the same thing...and then where would we be? Science is basically adversarial dialogue. Without willingness to produce data to support your claims I am left to assume you have no data to support your claims.

Peak oil (IMO) is a long running scam. Governments love it because it invites regulation. Oil producers love it because it justifies higher prices in speculative markets, "alternative energy speculators" (ala Solyndra) love it because it justifies insane subsidies for speculative technologies and the average Joe seems to buy into any apocalyptic fantasies which blame human (the most common religious ideation?).

In any case the evidence we will finally hit "peak oil" soon(ish) is quite weak...as you said (and what sane person didn't predict this) technological expansion is why all the Malthusian fantasies refuse to come true. That will only become a more compelling factor as we ride the wave into the future.
Ski the edges!
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

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

Post by Woodsrider »

:cool
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote: NOX is produced by high heat combustion. N2 comes from the atmosphere. It's 79% of our atmosphere. SO2 is from sulfur content in the fuel. Both are damaging. Acid r*in was a big problem before it was regulated. Now it is less so. So regulations worked. When I said NOX is the problem I was referring to the economics of power production. CO2 is not yet regulated. But you know my thoughts on CO2. As far as links, I have nothing to prove. So look them up yourself.

With regards to peak oil, the timing was way off. But theoretically it may happen. What peak oil missed was technology advancements. Which are exponential. I expect demand will fall long before supply. It's already happening. Look at the Telsa story.
I suppose we actually agree on quite a lot here. Thanks for point about NOX being from oxidation of N2( I had forgotten that) ...it is also formed from oxidation of nitrogen containing compounds in fuel supply. Shale gas actually has very little nitrogenous impurities.

The "I have nothing to prove" comment sets an unfortunate tone. I could say exactly the same thing...and then where would we be? Science is basically adversarial dialogue. Without willingness to produce data to support your claims I am left to assume you have no data to support your claims.
Sorry, I am not a scientist. I am an engineer. I turn science into reality. Reality speaks for itself.
killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

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

Post by killyfan »

Bubba wrote:Climate change study cancelled due to climate change

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150651.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This link is really interesting - so the thinning of the polar ice pack is what has caused it to move so far south this year... hmmm... sounds suspiciously like "Global Warming" to me. Sgt Eddy Brewers - your thoughts please? Also, whenever you do get up here, I'll definitely meet you for a beer - Woodsrider says he's "in" too.

"Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.

He noted that, "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

The Sea Ice Research Team collected a comprehensive dataset on the physics of the ice, ocean and atmosphere in the area and these data will contribute to the understanding of these events and assist Canada in preparing for climate change driven increases in marine ice hazards.
.
.
.
The research of our scientists clearly indicate that climate change is not something that is going to happen in the future -- it is already here. "
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
freeski
Post Office
Posts: 4699
Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 19:55
Location: Concord, N.H.
Contact:

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

Post by freeski »

No global warming in Concord or Manchester, NH today.
I Belong A Long Way From Here.
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

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

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

killyfan wrote:
Bubba wrote:Climate change study cancelled due to climate change

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150651.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This link is really interesting - so the thinning of the polar ice pack is what has caused it to move so far south this year... hmmm... sounds suspiciously like "Global Warming" to me. Sgt Eddy Brewers - your thoughts please? Also, whenever you do get up here, I'll definitely meet you for a beer - Woodsrider says he's "in" too.

"Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.

He noted that, "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

The Sea Ice Research Team collected a comprehensive dataset on the physics of the ice, ocean and atmosphere in the area and these data will contribute to the understanding of these events and assist Canada in preparing for climate change driven increases in marine ice hazards.
.
.
.
The research of our scientists clearly indicate that climate change is not something that is going to happen in the future -- it is already here. "
Thanks for your patience, kindness and tenacity re the long-postponed beer social...the future is still uncertain.

As for your point re the arctic ice phenomenon...

You can't see the irony here??

I posted last week, sarcastically, about how the unusual extent of arctic sea ice hindering ship traffic argued against the "climate consensus" and was howled at. Those missing the sarcasm my point all along has been that all these weather events have a VERY complex layered route of causation that is, at present, inadequately understood, and CANNOT be used as proof of any particular theory of climate. The howlers claimed I was cherry-picking weather events to DEBUNK climate theories

I spend the WHOLE YEAR reading "supporters of the consensus" cherry-picking weather events to SUPPORT climate theories!!

So now you pick a post that does EXACTLY that! Your post claims that the fact there is SO MUCH arctic sea ice PROVES the consensus theory that CO2 drives climate!!!!! Wow.

So I repeat my request, posted endlessly on this thread...can you give me ONE weather/climate event which would disprove the consensus narrative??

Just one?
You can't because the IPCC theory of climate is carefully constructed (mostly by being incredibly vague and inclusive) to avoid "predictions" ...instead it offers "projections" which include virtually all outcomes as possible. If a theory cannot be disproved...it ain't science.

Alternately...

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??

Many (most) of the IPCC "projections out to 2100 suggest "mild" warming (under 3 degrees). If you accept them at their word (being a scientist I don't), that the global mean temperature will only increase by a degree or two....yet they CANNOT find their way to mentioning any ACTUAL SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS from that mild warming..what does that tell you about these "scientists?"

You can't clearly see that as prima facia evidence of BIAS??

No consensus scientists will take the time to point out that there would be LOTS OF BENEFITS if CO2 continues to become elevated and somehow drove an increase of about 2 degrees by 2100. There would be, as we are told endlessly, some costs... but also lots of benefits.

CO2 enrichment would, likely, increase photosynthetic rates (in many instances) and cause global greening...leading to increased vegetation/ biomass, even in deserts (enriched CO2 seems to decrease stomatal conductance of H20 thus decreasing water stress). And this is demonstrably occurring globally.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

Less people would, likely, freeze to death in northern latitudes.(far more people die from extreme cold than extreme heat, cold winters kill humans)
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

The arctic seas might, likely, be easier to travel through. (although...maybe not...eh?)
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

Less energy would, likely, be required to heat homes.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

The earth might, likely, see less droughts as the increased humidity in the atmosphere might lead to increased precipitation. Surely SOME of this projected increase in precipitation might alleviate droughts, not just increase floods???? Like maybe the USA could find itself in a period of the LOWEST drought index "in recorded history?" Like it actually has.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

As the temperature differential between the poles and tropics, likely, diminishes (as per IPCC theory) that means there would be less of a global thermal gradient.. which could lead to LESS instability...less storminess. That could lead to a situation where the USA could BREAK RECORDS for the longest period "in recorded history' where a major hurricane fails to make landfall. Like it actually has.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

Why are no consensus scientists bringing up the potential of these clear benefits that can be projected (or in some cases have already manifested)??

Because....they are not really scientists (in an accurate use of that word). Scientists value a dispassionate analysis of the data and narratives to explain the data. These folks are activists and propagandists and their dialogue betrays their motives.
Ski the edges!
rogman
Postinator
Posts: 7010
Joined: Mar 27th, '06, 13:33
Location: In a maze of twisty little passages, all alike

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

Post by rogman »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
killyfan wrote:
Bubba wrote:Climate change study cancelled due to climate change

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150651.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This link is really interesting - so the thinning of the polar ice pack is what has caused it to move so far south this year... hmmm... sounds suspiciously like "Global Warming" to me. Sgt Eddy Brewers - your thoughts please? Also, whenever you do get up here, I'll definitely meet you for a beer - Woodsrider says he's "in" too.

"Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.

He noted that, "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

The Sea Ice Research Team collected a comprehensive dataset on the physics of the ice, ocean and atmosphere in the area and these data will contribute to the understanding of these events and assist Canada in preparing for climate change driven increases in marine ice hazards.
.
.
.
The research of our scientists clearly indicate that climate change is not something that is going to happen in the future -- it is already here. "
Thanks for your patience, kindness and tenacity re the long-postponed beer social...the future is still uncertain.

As for your point re the arctic ice phenomenon...

You can't see the irony here??

I posted last week, sarcastically, about how the unusual extent of arctic sea ice hindering ship traffic argued against the "climate consensus" and was howled at. Those missing the sarcasm my point all along has been that all these weather events have a VERY complex layered route of causation that is, at present, inadequately understood, and CANNOT be used as proof of any particular theory of climate. The howlers claimed I was cherry-picking weather events to DEBUNK climate theories

I spend the WHOLE YEAR reading "supporters of the consensus" cherry-picking weather events to SUPPORT climate theories!!

So now you pick a post that does EXACTLY that! Your post claims that the fact there is SO MUCH arctic sea ice PROVES the consensus theory that CO2 drives climate!!!!! Wow.

So I repeat my request, posted endlessly on this thread...can you give me ONE weather/climate event which would disprove the consensus narrative??

Just one?
You can't because the IPCC theory of climate is carefully constructed (mostly by being incredibly vague and inclusive) to avoid "predictions" ...instead it offers "projections" which include virtually all outcomes as possible. If a theory cannot be disproved...it ain't science.

Alternately...

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??

Many (most) of the IPCC "projections out to 2100 suggest "mild" warming (under 3 degrees). If you accept them at their word (being a scientist I don't), that the global mean temperature will only increase by a degree or two....yet they CANNOT find their way to mentioning any ACTUAL SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS from that mild warming..what does that tell you about these "scientists?"

You can't clearly see that as prima facia evidence of BIAS??

No consensus scientists will take the time to point out that there would be LOTS OF BENEFITS if CO2 continues to become elevated and somehow drove an increase of about 2 degrees by 2100. There would be, as we are told endlessly, some costs... but also lots of benefits.

CO2 enrichment would, likely, increase photosynthetic rates (in many instances) and cause global greening...leading to increased vegetation/ biomass, even in deserts (enriched CO2 seems to decrease stomatal conductance of H20 thus decreasing water stress). And this is demonstrably occurring globally.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

Less people would, likely, freeze to death in northern latitudes.(far more people die from extreme cold than extreme heat, cold winters kill humans)
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

The arctic seas might, likely, be easier to travel through. (although...maybe not...eh?)
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

Less energy would, likely, be required to heat homes.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

The earth might, likely, see less droughts as the increased humidity in the atmosphere might lead to increased precipitation. Surely SOME of this projected increase in precipitation might alleviate droughts, not just increase floods???? Like maybe the USA could find itself in a period of the LOWEST drought index "in recorded history?" Like it actually has.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

As the temperature differential between the poles and tropics, likely, diminishes (as per IPCC theory) that means there would be less of a global thermal gradient.. which could lead to LESS instability...less storminess. That could lead to a situation where the USA could BREAK RECORDS for the longest period "in recorded history' where a major hurricane fails to make landfall. Like it actually has.
SURELY THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT!

Why are no consensus scientists bringing up the potential of these clear benefits that can be projected (or in some cases have already manifested)??

Because....they are not really scientists (in an accurate use of that word). Scientists value a dispassionate analysis of the data and narratives to explain the data. These folks are activists and propagandists and their dialogue betrays their motives.
Still getting your talking points from the Heartland Institute, I see.

It is readily acknowledged that higher C02 concentrations (and in some cases) warmer temperatures benefit plant life. Lots of studies have shown this, which you'd know if you had any real scientific curiosity. Quit acting like this is some great revelation that the great science conspiracy is keeping under wraps lest it disrupt their left wing narrative. Don't be so gullible, Sparky. You can't consider that factor in isolation (but it is handy for cherry picking purposes). Other effects due to climate change (changes in rainfall patterns, for example), are more significant. There will be winners, and losers.
Image
rogman
Postinator
Posts: 7010
Joined: Mar 27th, '06, 13:33
Location: In a maze of twisty little passages, all alike

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

Post by rogman »

I visit my daughter in Seward, Alaska nearly every year. Exit Glacier is right up the street from her, and I've seen dramatic changes in just a 7 year span. Below is the picture from August, 2010:
Image
And here is the same location from June, 2017:
Image
Obviously, this glacier (and many others I've had the privilege of viewing) have receded dramatically, and it has been pretty steady retreat. Proof of anything? Not by itself, obviously. However, when Superstar is only glacier you're likely to see, your ability to think objectively about the effects is limited.
Image
freeski
Post Office
Posts: 4699
Joined: Feb 13th, '13, 19:55
Location: Concord, N.H.
Contact:

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

Post by freeski »

Who the hell would have to do a study to know that more CO2 and warmer temps are good for plants. Didn't the cavemen have a handle on this.

Also, 97% of scientists working on government funded projects toed the government line.

Earlier in this thread I said I liked Al Gore. After watching a recent interview, I now think he's a hack.

Further, leave the sharks alone. :like
I Belong A Long Way From Here.
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

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

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

rogman wrote: Still getting your talking points from the Heartland Institute, I see.

It is readily acknowledged that higher C02 concentrations (and in some cases) warmer temperatures benefit plant life. Lots of studies have shown this, which you'd know if you had any real scientific curiosity. Quit acting like this is some great revelation that the great science conspiracy is keeping under wraps lest it disrupt their left wing narrative. Don't be so gullible, Sparky. You can't consider that factor in isolation (but it is handy for cherry picking purposes). Other effects due to climate change (changes in rainfall patterns, for example), are more significant. There will be winners, and losers.
Actually my daily ritual for gathering information if pretty expansive but rarely includes anything produced or funded by Heartland. Lots of sites have direct links to peer-reviewed literature (often pay-walled so I only see abstracts) but I am of course aware that the SCIENTIFIC literature includes inevitable "mentions" of benefits of carbon enrichment and warming but these are virtually always immediately contrasted to the horrifying damage these factors will produce.

Proof of this is simply presented in how the MSM and common folk (such as yourself) really think that the effects of CO2 are so thoroughly negative. I remember not long ago being mocked on this thread for suggesting there could be ANY BENEFIT for increased CO2. I'll search back through the thread and find that conversation if your memory is so deficient as to forget that moment. Wet your bed if you want to...I sleep rather well.

As for the glacier photos....are you actually trolling??? If so...well played my friend!!

If you are so dull as to have seriously produced these anecdotes as evidence for CAGW....oh my.

Hopefully you will explain here the causes that melted the mile thick glaciers which covered Vermont and the reasons you ARE CERTAIN that these same factors are NOT causing the current melting.

Or look at this map of glacial retreat in Glacier Bay Alaska and explain why the MASSIVE melting prior to the effects of CO2 enrichment (prior to approx 1945) which DWARFS the "modern warming"... is somehow irrelevant while the minor modern melting (which COULD POSSIBLY be blamed on CO2) is somehow disastrous!!
glacierbaymap.gif
glacierbaymap.gif (29.22 KiB) Viewed 500 times
Ski the edges!
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

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

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

killyfan wrote:
Bubba wrote:Climate change study cancelled due to climate change

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150651.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This link is really interesting - so the thinning of the polar ice pack is what has caused it to move so far south this year... hmmm... sounds suspiciously like "Global Warming" to me. Sgt Eddy Brewers - your thoughts please? Also, whenever you do get up here, I'll definitely meet you for a beer - Woodsrider says he's "in" too.

"Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.

He noted that, "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

The Sea Ice Research Team collected a comprehensive dataset on the physics of the ice, ocean and atmosphere in the area and these data will contribute to the understanding of these events and assist Canada in preparing for climate change driven increases in marine ice hazards.
.
.
.
The research of our scientists clearly indicate that climate change is not something that is going to happen in the future -- it is already here. "
So I took some time to further investigate the fiasco of the consensus scientists getting stuck in the arctic sea ice and….the story is hilarious.

http://news.umanitoba.ca/large-canadian ... te-change/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some money quotes:
The Science Team of the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen has cancelled the first leg of the 2017 Expedition due to complications associated with the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice, caused by climate change.

Yeah…caused by “climate change”!! Actually I half expected “Russian Meddling” to be the culprit
(they both have such an admirably nebulous virulence)

“Timing was key for this $17 million, four-year, University of Manitoba-led project. The need to deal with extreme ice conditions in the south meant the ship would arrive too late on site to meet research objectives.”

So…get this….

A group of “climate scientists” who rely on a “virtually flawless theory” (“incontrovertible” according to the APS) (“settled science” according to posters here) made plans for a study to demonstrate the arctic climate disaster.only to have the study fail because they couldn’t get through the ICE to their destination…..and that itself somehow proves climate change.

HA HA HA!

And then you post some lame activist claiming that this was all part of the predictions of the consensus scientists…..what????????

If they predicted this…. WHY DID THEY PLAN THEIR EXPEDITION KNOWING IT WOULD FAIL????

“The decision to terminate the 2017 program has significant impacts on partners and the large number of graduate students involved.”

They didn’t predict this….they certainly predicted this WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

Why put millions of dollars and the future of “a large number of graduate students” in jeopardy if you thought this was a likely outcome???

Answer is they can’t predict anything worth discussing. That has been my point all along. None of these horror story “projections” are worth any consideration at all.

They BET MILLIONS on their climate predictions and THEY LOST THE BET!!
Ski the edges!
killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

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

Post by killyfan »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
killyfan wrote:
Bubba wrote:Climate change study cancelled due to climate change

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 150651.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This link is really interesting - so the thinning of the polar ice pack is what has caused it to move so far south this year... hmmm... sounds suspiciously like "Global Warming" to me. Sgt Eddy Brewers - your thoughts please? Also, whenever you do get up here, I'll definitely meet you for a beer - Woodsrider says he's "in" too.

"Dr. Barber and his team of experts were able to use the state-of-the-art equipment onboard the Amundsen to confirm that a significant proportion of the sea ice present originated from the high Arctic.

He noted that, "Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often."

The Sea Ice Research Team collected a comprehensive dataset on the physics of the ice, ocean and atmosphere in the area and these data will contribute to the understanding of these events and assist Canada in preparing for climate change driven increases in marine ice hazards.
.
.
.
The research of our scientists clearly indicate that climate change is not something that is going to happen in the future -- it is already here. "
So I took some time to further investigate the fiasco of the consensus scientists getting stuck in the arctic sea ice and….the story is hilarious.

http://news.umanitoba.ca/large-canadian ... te-change/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some money quotes:
The Science Team of the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen has cancelled the first leg of the 2017 Expedition due to complications associated with the southward motion of hazardous Arctic sea ice, caused by climate change.

Yeah…caused by “climate change”!! Actually I half expected “Russian Meddling” to be the culprit
(they both have such an admirably nebulous virulence)

“Timing was key for this $17 million, four-year, University of Manitoba-led project. The need to deal with extreme ice conditions in the south meant the ship would arrive too late on site to meet research objectives.”

So…get this….

A group of “climate scientists” who rely on a “virtually flawless theory” (“incontrovertible” according to the APS) (“settled science” according to posters here) made plans for a study to demonstrate the arctic climate disaster.only to have the study fail because they couldn’t get through the ICE to their destination…..and that itself somehow proves climate change.

HA HA HA!

And then you post some lame activist claiming that this was all part of the predictions of the consensus scientists…..what????????

If they predicted this…. WHY DID THEY PLAN THEIR EXPEDITION KNOWING IT WOULD FAIL????

“The decision to terminate the 2017 program has significant impacts on partners and the large number of graduate students involved.”

They didn’t predict this….they certainly predicted this WOULD NOT HAPPEN.

Why put millions of dollars and the future of “a large number of graduate students” in jeopardy if you thought this was a likely outcome???

Answer is they can’t predict anything worth discussing. That has been my point all along. None of these horror story “projections” are worth any consideration at all.

They BET MILLIONS on their climate predictions and THEY LOST THE BET!!
Clearly your sarcasm does not understand my sarcasm....

I doubt you will consider Sagan a consensus scientist - but in my grad school days he was my next door neighbor, and has ALWAYS been someone that I have admired in his CREATIVE scientific thinking abilities. (And NO, I do not believe in extraterrestrials!)

I couldn't believe it when I found out that the weird house a couple hundred yards from mine was his. Having been an avid Sagan reader since my middle-school days, I thought I had hit the jackpot and envisioned Sagan and I sipping a martini while waxing rhapsodic on the cosmos after classes were done for the day. (Never happened! Hahaha! In fact, his house was such a fortress I never saw him once in the two years that I lived next door.) Anyway, it was his thinking on climate change that convinced me many moons ago that humans are capable of damaging our planet. You, I believe, are much more of a Harold Urey type - and there is nothing wrong with that either.

That's the explanation for my thought process. Maybe you should smoke some cannabis and loosen up your scientifically over-tightened sphincter a bit. It would do you a lot of good and help get rid of your overwhelming NEED to argue with people who have every right to their own beliefs. You remind me of my "sort-of-father-in-law" who f*** drives me crazy in his inability to think creatively. (He's a pathologist... - enough said!)

Here is a VERY OLD quote from Sagan -

"The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are fields that are poorly and grudgingly funded. In our ignorance, we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown. A few million years ago, when human beings first evolved on Earth, it was already a middle-aged world, 4.6 billion years along from the catastrophes and impetuosities of its youth. But we humans now represent a new and perhaps decisive factor. Our intelligence and our technology have given us the power to affect the climate. How will we use this power? Are we willing to tolerate ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family? Do we value short-term advantages above the welfare of the Earth? Or will we think on longer time scales, with concern for our children and our grandchildren, to understand and protect the complex life-support systems of our planet? The Earth is a tiny and fragile world. It needs to be cherished."

In my thinking, the underlined part above boils down to a simpler statement:

"DON'T BE A DICK TO OUR PLANET JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NOT YET ANY DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS BAD."

I don't have children - but if I did, I would want this place to be as lovely for them as it was for me. One of the reasons that I chose to NOT have children is because I strongly felt that the overpopulation of our planet is driving its' destruction. Couldn't participate in that.

Maybe I connect with Sagan, (and deGrasse Tyson) more than other scientists because I am an artist. Maybe you should consider spending some more time listening to some REALLY GOOD musicians while sitting in your yard with your eyes and ears open, (not in front of your computer screen gathering information) all while you're toking the aforementioned cannabis. I'm almost positive it would make you a happier person in the long run. Without CREATIVE thinking - and ethics - science would be an extremely boring, mundane field.

BTY - I'm curious as to what your actual scientific training and current career are. I, as I've previously mentioned, just don't have the time to read 140+ pages of posts on this topic, so I apologize if I missed that. But I'd like to know just who I'm arguing with. As I've stated, I'm a trained artist and business management type - NOT a scientist. Do you have a Doctorate in something nerdy that I should be impressed by? (Not much impresses me....)
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
madhatter
Signature Poster
Posts: 18340
Joined: Apr 2nd, '08, 17:26

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

Post by madhatter »

rogman wrote:I visit my daughter in Seward, Alaska nearly every year. Exit Glacier is right up the street from her, and I've seen dramatic changes in just a 7 year span. Below is the picture from August, 2010:
Image
And here is the same location from June, 2017:
Image
Obviously, this glacier (and many others I've had the privilege of viewing) have receded dramatically, and it has been pretty steady retreat. Proof of anything? Not by itself, obviously. However, when Superstar is only glacier you're likely to see, your ability to think objectively is limited.
maybe you should stop traveling half way across the world if yer so concerned...
mach es sehr schnell

'exponential reciprocation'- The practice of always giving back more than you take....
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

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

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

killyfan wrote:
Clearly your sarcasm does not understand my sarcasm....

I doubt you will consider Sagan a consensus scientist - but in my grad school days he was my next door neighbor, and has ALWAYS been someone that I have admired in his CREATIVE scientific thinking abilities. (And NO, I do not believe in extraterrestrials!)

I couldn't believe it when I found out that the weird house a couple hundred yards from mine was his. Having been an avid Sagan reader since my middle-school days, I thought I had hit the jackpot and envisioned Sagan and I sipping a martini while waxing rhapsodic on the cosmos after classes were done for the day. (Never happened! Hahaha! In fact, his house was such a fortress I never saw him once in the two years that I lived next door.) Anyway, it was his thinking on climate change that convinced me many moons ago that humans are capable of damaging our planet. You, I believe, are much more of a Harold Urey type - and there is nothing wrong with that either.

That's the explanation for my thought process. Maybe you should smoke some cannabis and loosen up your scientifically over-tightened sphincter a bit. It would do you a lot of good and help get rid of your overwhelming NEED to argue with people who have every right to their own beliefs. You remind me of my "sort-of-father-in-law" who f*** drives me crazy in his inability to think creatively. (He's a pathologist... - enough said!)

Here is a VERY OLD quote from Sagan -

"The study of the global climate, the comparison of the Earth with other worlds, are subjects in their earliest stages of development. They are fields that are poorly and grudgingly funded. In our ignorance, we continue to push and pull, to pollute the atmosphere and brighten the land, oblivious of the fact that the long-term consequences are largely unknown. A few million years ago, when human beings first evolved on Earth, it was already a middle-aged world, 4.6 billion years along from the catastrophes and impetuosities of its youth. But we humans now represent a new and perhaps decisive factor. Our intelligence and our technology have given us the power to affect the climate. How will we use this power? Are we willing to tolerate ignorance and complacency in matters that affect the entire human family? Do we value short-term advantages above the welfare of the Earth? Or will we think on longer time scales, with concern for our children and our grandchildren, to understand and protect the complex life-support systems of our planet? The Earth is a tiny and fragile world. It needs to be cherished."

In my thinking, the underlined part above boils down to a simpler statement:

"DON'T BE A DICK TO OUR PLANET JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NOT YET ANY DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS BAD."

I don't have children - but if I did, I would want this place to be as lovely for them as it was for me. One of the reasons that I chose to NOT have children is because I strongly felt that the overpopulation of our planet is driving its' destruction. Couldn't participate in that.

Maybe I connect with Sagan, (and deGrasse Tyson) more than other scientists because I am an artist. Maybe you should consider spending some more time listening to some REALLY GOOD musicians while sitting in your yard with your eyes and ears open, (not in front of your computer screen gathering information) all while you're toking the aforementioned cannabis. I'm almost positive it would make you a happier person in the long run. Without CREATIVE thinking - and ethics - science would be an extremely boring, mundane field.

BTY - I'm curious as to what your actual scientific training and current career are. I, as I've previously mentioned, just don't have the time to read 140+ pages of posts on this topic, so I apologize if I missed that. But I'd like to know just who I'm arguing with. As I've stated, I'm a trained artist and business management type - NOT a scientist. Do you have a Doctorate in something nerdy that I should be impressed by? (Not much impresses me....)

Funny you should bring up Sagan and Tyson, because YES, we have very different opinions on these men and their impact on science.

I was once a young hipster who thought that all my chemically influenced insights were brilliant and that science was all about having vaguely defined deep thoughts. Sagan intrigued me. Then you here the silly crap he starts peddling…no reasonable science to support it.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2014/03 ... ience.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/ ... -crichton/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I fell out of love with Sagan for the reasons explained very well in these two articles. He , more than any other person, probably, is responsible for the degradation of science. Tyson is taking over this role. Making science popular by taking the rigor out of it. Making ridiculous unfounded statements that make it all so cool!!

Broke my heart to part ways with that scruffy hipster but…he was BSing way too often.

As for loving the planet… I truly do. I especially love wilderness.

If I told you that you needed to wear a tinfoil hat on your head to avoid polluting the atmosphere and destroying the planet…would you do it? No… you wouldn’t because that is a clearly insane idea. I could scream at you for polluting the atmosphere and not being willing to sacrifice to SAVE the planet (must be your politics which prevent you from being willing to sacrifice for others). I could be furious at you because if for whatever reason I was convinced that wearing a tinfoil hat would save the planet, your refusal to wear the hat would anger me.

That is where I am at with your CO2 arguments. I think they make about as much sense as the tinfoil hat.

I am well willing to sacrifice for the sake of others. Spent two years in Peace Corps. Volunteer in local government (Zoning Board of Appeals). I care about others.

Not stupid enough to believe CO2 is a significant climate driver. Was stupid enough about 16 years ago then I looked into it and was stunned by the terrible quality of the science in “climate science” (a bit like field biology actually.)

Science is the process we use to improve our maps of the world. I make a claim and present the evidence and arguments which support my claim. You challenge my claim. If there are flaws in my claim I either amend my claim or withdraw it. TA DA!! That is science.

On this board I am attacked for being so arrogant and need to
“get rid of your overwhelming NEED to argue with people who have every right to their own beliefs.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are attacking me for being a scientist. (surprised you didn’t use the term “gaslighting”…that’s the PC phrase for what you accuse someone of doing when they keep winning arguments with you)

Science is just adversarial dialogue, with the caveat that claims must reference REALITY (evidence not “their own beliefs.”)

Anyway my CV in brief would include BS at UCONN in Biology (concentration in Molecular Biophysics) and minor in Chemistry. Then I worked for two years as a physical oceanographer (including a year maintaining a Stevenson screen weather station in Jordan) (AMAZING scuba). Then back to school for a MS in Molecular Biology (thesis research on characterizing enzyme chemistry) Taught and tutored Chemistry and Molecular Biology at university level. Then I worked teaching High School Chemistry for two years in Peace Corps. Loved it. Then worked as a Physical Chemist for a European Chemistry company. Helped design and install instruments involved in Surface Chemistry. This was not my precise area of university training but I learn really fast almost anything. My specialty was conferring with scientists who were attempting research in surface chemistry and trouble-shoot their issues and help design creative and productive research strategies for them to follow. I got paid for doing measurement of surface tension, surface free energy and critical micelle concentration. I traveled way too much. Always on a plane. 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.
Ski the edges!
User avatar
Mister Moose
Level 10K poster
Posts: 11595
Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
Location: Waiting for the next one

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

Post by Mister Moose »

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
Image
Post Reply