Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 17, 2019 15:55:19 GMT -8
I'd like to revisit climate change here sans the "deniers of science" labels that come with questioning the rationale. I know a few of you have spent a lot of time on this, and I'm wondering how, or if your prior positions have changed much with news of Antarctic ice melt and other "news". My very limited understanding of the rub between the 2 camps is the starting point of measuring the average temp of the earth's crust. The pro side seems to have started in the late 1800's, and the con side seems to go back much further so as to provide better scope. There also seems to be a divergence of the 2 camps depending on who is benefiting from the conclusions...my anecdotal sense of it anyway. What I think the main issues are in no particular order: - What temp change WOULD be significant
- How much of the temp is man made
- Cost to eliminate a large portion of greenhouse gases
- Is this truly an urgent situation
I understand the Green New Deal will end up being a failed attempt to transform us into some dystopian vision of ourselves with all the takeover / free stuff. But I was wondering if anyone was aware if there was any real meat in it that SHOULD be considered. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 18, 2019 8:01:18 GMT -8
Not being a science guy, myself, I can’t answer most of your questions, Bick. But I found this pretty interesting: from A Disgrace to the Profession, a 2015 book by Mark Steyn. For those who have trouble (like I do) following the math, that means the 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey. in a blog called Humans Are Free, I also read,
So intelligent, rational people are finally coming to realize Al Gore is making money hand over fist by perpetuating this man-made global warming hysteria... but there is zero basis for it.
that said, however, we are nevertheless still commissioned to be responsible stewards of Gods creation until His return. But nothing we do will offset or prevent these naturally occurring cycles of our climate.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 18, 2019 11:03:02 GMT -8
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 18, 2019 11:48:59 GMT -8
I don’t recognize it, either. but there are now surfacing a lot of research studies basically tearing down the man-made aspect of climate change. Surely they cannot all be right-wing zealots (or can they?). this could branch off of your question about the cost of mitigation: If its man’s fault, let’s spend what it takes to fix it. If it’s not man’s fault, it won’t matter how much we spend. FTR, I do not believe it is man’s fault. |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Feb 18, 2019 12:04:02 GMT -8
"So this is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world." This is my very worry in regards to Congress, the Senate and the office of the President of the United States! 
To me the "Green New Deal" is its own topic when talking climate change or "Climate change in general".
I have a bachelors in "Fine Art" not "Science" so I am not sure I can understand or elaborate the utmost scientific workings of the plant earth and the rest of our universe. I am however very conscience of our environment and maybe a bit less concerned than some. I think I probably do more in a week than some do in a year in following conservation minded means, recycle and re-use, leaving minimal footprint when possible or even go the extra inch. I fill a bucket in the shower till the water is hot, I have a compost pile out in my back yard and rain barrels. I recycle all my plastics and cans (cuz I want my 5 cents back from the government!) and I plant and propagate plants that add oxygen to the air. We own a Tesla, I replaced our hot water heater with a tankless. I make foil balls!
However I am not a nut! I do the best I can or afford. And I have always been somewhat of the belief that man is not as bright and powerful as he deems himself. It is kinda like this, when Mother Earth feels threatened enough she will flick us humans off her back like a flea on dog! We are all but short term renters on this beautiful planet and some day either we or it will fizzle out. So to speak in our mili-bleep-of-a-second here as if we are going to stop cows from farting to save ourselves is simply to much to lay claim to as a way tisane this Mother Earth from extinction.
Is their global warming? Yes. Is there global cooling? Yes. In the scope of 100 years or 1 Million? Can we answer that question really?
Why do I always come back to this thought? Use common sense and everything or most things in moderation.
Educate yourselves, listen to all things on any given subject such as this yet do not over react. We will find our way.
As for the GND. Its a massive pipe dream with excessive over reach that would kill all of us economically which would wreck more havoc on civilization than any minuscule degree increase in the earths mantel or atmosphere.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 18, 2019 13:05:33 GMT -8
FTR, I do not believe it is man’s fault. I don't understand why the question of our responsibility for global warming is always asked as binary: Are we responsible or not? Of course we are. Every man who has ever had tacos for lunch and farted an hour later contributes to greenhouse gasses and climate change, but the amount of his contribution is infinitesimal. And therein lies the rub. I don't pretend that I've read every climate study or every critique of them, but I don't recall anyone ever quantifying the scope of our contribution. Do we contribute 1% of the damage? 99%? Or something in between? Until we can answer that question with some degree of certainty, it makes no sense to panic and react irrationally, which is exactly what the Green New Deal does. Furthermore, there is no doubt the climate is changing. It always has and it always will, and I don't think even the "deniers" are denying that. But as sk80 said above, we are only temporary parasites on this earth, and nature doesn't owe us a livable environment. I have a gut feeling that nature's ability to alter the climate is infinitely greater than ours, and she does so at her own whims. Whether or not we survive on this rock is ultimately up to her, and I don't have the hubris to believe that by living in caves and eating dirt instead of steak, that we can offset whatever she decides to do. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Feb 18, 2019 14:18:03 GMT -8
I think I’m what they call a skeptic, if not a "denier". I feel terrible about it but feel obligated to confess.
Obviously none of us are experts, but I do have a reasonable amount of experience with scientific writing and science in general. There is hard and there is soft science. Hard science is built on a firm and provable foundation and advances have to be demonstrated either mathematically or experimentally such that all agree on the conclusions. Physics is an example. An example of soft science would be psychology.
Climate forecasting is somewhere in between. There is an impressive amount of math and data built into it, but the foundations seem a bit dubious. Do you know how they determine temperatures from thousands of years ago? Tree rings, core samples from the Arctic/Antarctic, magnesium/calcium ratios from amoeba, and so forth. I suppose that can give you a general idea of temperature fluctuations over time but I find it very hard to believe that you can draw any reliable graphs comparing past to modern climates, let alone predict the overall temperature change over the next 100 years.
You do not have to be a "science denier" to be skeptical. Some science just is not strong enough to predict what people want to know. I can know what somebody’s sex, age, blood pressure, cholesterol level, diet, smoking history, family history, activity level, physical exam and treadmill results are and still have no reliable idea if or when they will have a heart attack. It is not that I "deny" cardiology research, it’s just that the field is not sufficiently advanced to make those kind of predictions. The same is true for climate science
I can believe that generally the climate is warming, although I’m not 100% certain. But even granting that it is, some important questions have to be answered before we start taking all the steps that are being demanded:
Is there is warming is, the warming unusual or a normal fluctuation?
If there is warning, is at overall harmful or beneficial? (I never hear that question addressed)
If there is warming and it’s harmful, HOW harmful will it be?
If there is warming, how much it is attributable to human activity?
If there is warming and it is attributable to human activity, how effective would the measures proposed to reverse it be?
If insisting on reasonable answers to the above questions makes somebody a skeptic or “denier” I’ll just have to live with the appellation………………………………..Luca
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 18, 2019 14:33:34 GMT -8
I don’t go so far as to suggest man has “no” contribution. I am one who insists, regardless of fault or result, man should still be an honorable steward of God’s resources. I don’t object to recycling, or properly disposing of my trash (including pack it out with me if I generate it while in some wilderness area).
I don’t think we can control the change or reverse it by some effort on our own part.
In my opinion, those who clamor that climate change (which, by the way, was changed from “global warming”) is primarily man’s fault have to ignore the cyclical patterns we have seen since records were kept.
|
|
|
|
Post by coach on Feb 18, 2019 15:15:31 GMT -8
There is only one main reason they keep shoving their environmental religion down our throats...They want to bring our economy down to the average global level.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 18, 2019 15:16:14 GMT -8
There is an impressive amount of math and data built into it, but the foundations seem a bit dubious. Do you know how they determine temperatures from thousands of years ago? Tree rings, core samples from the Arctic/Antarctic, magnesium/calcium ratios from amoeba, and so forth. I suppose that can give you a general idea of temperature fluctuations over time but I find it very hard to believe that you can draw any reliable graphs comparing past to modern climates, let alone predict the overall temperature change over the next 100 years. That's one of my biggest areas of skepticism with this entire issue. All of the temperature conclusions into the distant past are based exclusively on models, algorithms, calculations and assumptions. And the same (dare I say unscientific) methods are then used to project into the future. I find it almost laughable that anyone who calls himself a scientist can seriously publish his "findings" that the planet's average global temperature a million years ago was 2.2 (or whatever) degrees cooler than today...and then conclude that it's our fault. If someone could find a cave painting somewhere of a dinosaur or an early hominid carrying a digital thermometer accurate to a tenth of a degree, I'd be a lot more convinced than I am today. Absent that unlikely discovery, I guess the gents over at TOB can just happily call me a denier. |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Feb 18, 2019 15:30:58 GMT -8
I agree MDDad..., and I do understand that science can go back and measure tree rings and ice rings and all sorts of chemical compounds and so on but i too find it hard to believe that those measures of science and knowledge can peg a degree to within 1 degree! Not sure I could cut a redwood in the forest, count out 50 rings and say what was the exact temperature that year? And could you tell me how hot that summer was or cold that winter, the highest high and lowest low? You may be able to see swings and change like it may have become colder for a few years then warmer. But maybe what you are seeing was due to rain or lack of? Maybe lack of nutrition caused by drought? What other unknown environmental influences besides temperature is in that equation? Come on people we are smart but we aint that smart!
And you know what, yes mother earth will boot us like we aint much more important to her. And when mother earths time has come God will rid the universe of her!
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 18, 2019 15:49:11 GMT -8
For a Christmas gift, I asked for and received Neil deGrasse Tyson's best-seller Astrophysics For People In A Hurry. I enjoy Tyson because he is entertaining and doesn't take himself too seriously. I think I mentioned on TOB that in his remake of the Cosmos series, his most-often-repeated phrase was, "Boy, were we wrong!" To me, that was an admission that scientists are often wrong a hundred times before they're finally right. And I think that's especially true in fields of science that are theoretical or that can't be empirically measured or determined.
Anyway, the first sentence on the first page of that book reads, "In the beginning, nearly fourteen billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one-trillionth the size of the period that ends this sentence." I stopped reading and thought to myself, wow, that's a mind-blowing theory. But it's only a theory. Nobody was there to measure the size of that period, or the volume of matter, energy and space it contained. We only believe it because theoretical math tells us so. That's kind of how I view climate science as well.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Feb 18, 2019 16:02:04 GMT -8
Great read no doubt, I might look into that one. Kinda reminds me of one that I use when things in this theoretical area get heated.... "Ok explain to me how we got something from nothing"!
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Feb 18, 2019 22:59:21 GMT -8
There is an impressive amount of math and data built into it, but the foundations seem a bit dubious. Do you know how they determine temperatures from thousands of years ago? Tree rings, core samples from the Arctic/Antarctic, magnesium/calcium ratios from amoeba, and so forth. I suppose that can give you a general idea of temperature fluctuations over time but I find it very hard to believe that you can draw any reliable graphs comparing past to modern climates, let alone predict the overall temperature change over the next 100 years. That's one of my biggest areas of skepticism with this entire issue. All of the temperature conclusions into the distant past are based exclusively on models, algorithms, calculations and assumptions. And the same (dare I say unscientific) methods are then used to project into the future. I find it almost laughable that anyone who calls himself a scientist can seriously publish his "findings" that the planet's average global temperature a million years ago was 2.2 (or whatever) degrees cooler than today...and then conclude that it's our fault. If someone could find a cave painting somewhere of a dinosaur or an early hominid carrying a digital thermometer accurate to a tenth of a degree, I'd be a lot more convinced than I am today. Absent that unlikely discovery, I guess the gents over at TOB can just happily call me a denier. Excellent points by all. Remember, the Climate Change Proponents can hardly predict what the weather will be next week, yet they are absolutely certain of what the temperatures will be in 50 years--and that capitalism is to blame. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 19, 2019 9:02:14 GMT -8
I don't understand why the question of our responsibility for global warming is always asked as binary: Are we responsible or not? Of course we are. Every man who has ever had tacos for lunch and farted an hour later contributes to greenhouse gasses and climate change, but the amount of his contribution is infinitesimal. And therein lies the rub. I don't pretend that I've read every climate study or every critique of them, but I don't recall anyone ever quantifying the scope of our contribution. Do we contribute 1% of the damage? 99%? Or something in between? Until we can answer that question with some degree of certainty, it makes no sense to panic and react irrationally, which is exactly what the Green New Deal does. Furthermore, there is no doubt the climate is changing. It always has and it always will, and I don't think even the "deniers" are denying that. But as sk80 said above, we are only temporary parasites on this earth, and nature doesn't owe us a livable environment. I have a gut feeling that nature's ability to alter the climate is infinitely greater than ours, and she does so at her own whims. Whether or not we survive on this rock is ultimately up to her, and I don't have the hubris to believe that by living in caves and eating dirt instead of steak, that we can offset whatever she decides to do. This take seems to capture 2 key elements. Yes, climate is changing. To this I'd add that most everything changes to some degree on or within this planet's atmosphere over time - even rocks. Yes, man has some level of impact. However, I'd argue that man has a significantly greater, and measurable impact on air & water quality that can and should be prioritized. The floating plastic garbage island between our coast and Hawaii would go near the top of my list. Luca's question touches on a subject that I recall that was briefly discussed. Put another way, is it possible the warming of the planet is actually BENEFICIAL? This link slants clearly to the negative, and is supported by various works...but still doesn't really address how much is man made, or what if any impacts reducing carbon output would make. Global warming positives and negatives |
|
