Climate Change Debate

[megman]

Totally off topic for the thread but I have to chime in here.

Yes, there is climate change. There will always be climate change. Is it our fault? Those with the power would like us to think so, BUT its false.

Sure the polar caps are melting. They are disappearing on Mars too. Are we pumping CO2 into Mars' atmosphere also? Is the rover not running a catalytic convertor??? Why is there now water gysers on, which moon is it: Europa?

What ever happened to the coming Ice Age in the 70's, due to the crap we were putting into the atmosphere and blocking the sun???

The "real" science is being obscure by politics and $$$. Gore has raked in his share by putting the fear into the public.

Real science doesn't generate profit like fear-mongering science.....

[bobbo]

Yes--totally off topic and we are all contributing to it.

A few days ago I looked for the Climate Change thread and found all the really excellent work done by Janus==but that thread is closed.

What to do?

I really didn't want to start a thread on climate change for reasons already expressed above (or did I?===none of us "knows" so the conversation rapidly becomes about other intertwining issues==and that is kind of fun but then once again: off topic:

What is science
What is proof
How do you know
What is shinola?

I suggest and request that a moderator step in and remove the off topic entries to a new thread in the Climate Sub forum. Put my name on the new thread if you like. I just saw a new report on the release of 8 Million Tons per year of methan from land that is exposed to greater heating because the ice cover was removed. One of those trigger points that could bring change in 1-2 years that we aren't supposed to see for 100's==but who knows?

And the best and only way to know is..........science. Too bad so many are so easily confused by science + something else.

On this thread I would leave an editors note: By request--an off topic discussion on Climate Change/Science/Epistemology/Scienter was moved here: link.

Seems to be enough interest?====The end of the world as we know it should be a topic reviewed every now and then?

[megman]

If your lawn is dying do you not look at your neighbours lawn to see if he has the same affliction?

There is lots going on around our solar system that is similar to what is going on here. Here's a link to a site with lots of examples of what is going on around us.

Wakeupworld

[bobbo]

Megman--I assume you moved the post? Thank you. I didn't realize it went for three pages already. Yes--thank you for your personal interest and care.

I will go to your link but arguing what is happening on other planets "is not science." Its just an argument. An analogy. A correlation on a subset of selected factors for the point being argued: it is not science.

Science is as Squid said: testing and getting reproducible results. Did I get his definition close enough?..............I think so, but some might differ: at Post #26: "Study & validation through observation and experiment". Different words I think hitting the same target: TESTING.

And thats one of the main "proof" issues with Climate Science: you can't test the models as there is no Control. In this case: a duplicate Earth that does not have what gets done to it as the experimental subject does. Mars just ain't close enough.

As an alternative, having climate models that can predict the climate with sufficient exactitude is often accepted as a pragmatic alternative to proof?---ie "it works?" Sadly here the very issue of "climate" is variable enough and the time frame long enough that agreement on what has been predicted and resulted causes much disagreement. Its like the agrument of evolution: show it to me. And by its very nature: evolution takes time. Humans are just on a different time scale.

Make the discussion/evaluation very difficult.

[bobbo]

sci·ence

noun /ˈsīəns/ 
sciences, plural

1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment


Note the definition does not include
1. arguing by analogy
2. what people do with the discoveries of the process
3. efforts to keep anything secret

These "relate" to science but are NOT science. They are science + something else. Different thing entirely.

[bobbo]

I've often thought the release of methane is the type of event that could change our climate "overnight"/within a month just like in a disaster movie. Now--I don't exactly have a good feel on what releasing 8 Milliion Tons of Methane per year will do==but no reason not to think who knows what could increase that 10 Fold or more at the snap of the fingers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 76134.html

That or what else-----in addition?

Ha, ha==like yeast in a wine bottle we are.

Seems to me that Global Warming is undeniably going on? Arguments pro and con but I take as conclusive the rising seal level which is a net/net/net outcome of ice shifting, melting, growing etc:

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise



Now==is it human caused or some solar cycle or other mechanism not yet identified? Well--possible but why deny the "obvious?" Surely that denial must have more behind it than simple denial?

[bobbo]

#33--Megman==went to the link. I stopped reading at this sentence:

"Is our sun the central brain of the solar system which is orchestrating and driving this change?" //// Puerile.

As stated: an argument is NOT science, its just an argument. Not even engaged in if dismissed as not science.

If your lawn is dying do you not look at your neighbours lawn to see if he has the same affliction?

Yes, if it is dying for what looks like the same reasons. My lawn ALWAYS dies because slugs lay their eggs in my drip system and clog it up causing lack of water to kill my main architectural planting, or atleast stress them. I tend to underwater my lawn all the time anyway. Hate seeing water drain into the gutter.

Like using Mars as an analogy--asking my neighbor why his lawn is dying is not proof of why my lawn is dying. Only a hopeful lead. Got to test MY OWN LAWN to find out why it is dying. Same with Climate.

Arguments can go wherever you want them to, depending on what you argue. Science isn't like that. Science goes off track but always narrows to the single truth. Over time.

[bobbo]

I need to spend much more time on Janus's thread regarding all these issues. I'm sure they have all been well hashed already and more expertly than my non-science based musings.

That said, I've always enjoyed guessing at what the first catastrophic event will be that makes everyone smack themselves on the forehead and all agree we knew it all along and the gubment didn't do anything to stop it.

Sea Level Rise actually satisfies that in my book. Several millions already made homeless in Bangladesh low lands from this activity--but maybe it was natural erosion or land sink?

But what might be a real show stopper? Everything is so slow and debateable. Huge Methane Gas releases? Clouds of flammable gas billowing from the seabed or permafrost?===Probably not unless it catches on fire. Ocean acidification seemingly will happen before the Sea Level Rise IN FEET OR YARDS becomes evident. Imagine the Ocean becoming sterile: only jellyfish and algae? The North Atlantic Conveyor Belt stopping and a month later Europe in a new snap Ice Age?

What else?

[Diogenes]

Yeah, but the science is sound on pharmaceutics, isn't it?

I mean, the drug companies would never promote something that is harmful to us ... would they?

There are days I need an entire bottle just for me.

[megman]

#33--Megman==went to the link. I stopped reading at this sentence:

"Is our sun the central brain of the solar system which is orchestrating and driving this change?" //// Puerile.

So, he asked a question you didn't like and summarily dismissed everything else.........

Herein lies part of your problem. Science for you is black or white. No gray area. The problem with exact science is that its not exact.

"“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” ~ Tesla

Science does not stop at the edge of our world as you seem to subscribe. All the probes and rovers sent out over the decades are not for the sake of an aurguement but to forward science. Other worlds in our system are changing at a pace equivelant to ours so it needs to be greatly considered that there is something greater going on than man.

To think that we alone are causing all these things that are happening on Earth is self-centred and egotistical to the nth degree.

Its time for some heads to be pulled out of the sand and look around at the heavens...........

This is just my humble onion and hopefully you didn't stop reading at the first line.

[bobbo]

#40--Megman:

Let's Parse:


So, he asked a question you didn't like and summarily dismissed everything else........./// Yep. My time is valuable. As stated: its just an argument--not science. I've read too many such arguments in the past. They don't hold up. IF you think a particular analogy or fact pattern from the link is note worthy, I invite you to post it rather than send me and any others on a wild goose chase looking for sanity in an link that starts with calling the Sun the BRAIN of the Solar System. I'll bet money the thinking on that website is no deeper than that. Prove me Wrong.

Herein lies part of your problem. Science for you is black or white. No gray area. The problem with exact science is that its not exact. /// Science is black and white. Does depend on the issue and where you are in the development of a theory and what not. Science that is "gray" simply hasn't resolved yet--just give it time. It definitional. Can you give an example of what you consider to be gray science? Science: testing to see what is reproducible. Colors not mentioned.

"“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” ~ Tesla /// Tesla talking about insanity? Hah, hah. Well, he had his personal challenges. But "Appeal to Authority" is not Science. Not even gray science.

Science does not stop at the edge of our world as you seem to subscribe. /// I did not say or imply that AT ALL.

All the probes and rovers sent out over the decades are not for the sake of an aurguement but to forward science. /// True.

Other worlds in our system are changing at a pace equivelant to ours so it needs to be greatly considered that there is something greater going on than man. /// OK--but what is changing and why is individual. WAY too ambiguous, vague, non-specific. Actually not much out there is "relevant" to a discussion of Climate Change. Nothing to test. Everything an argument and not an experiment. Science is just that black and white. We can assume that Mars has no/little atmosphere because the Solar Wind blew it away because Mars does not have a molten iron core providing a magnetic shield. Fine. What does that tell us about AGW? And so it goes........ Each "issue" very much stands on its own. It will fit into the fabric of established science because "it fits" not because the analogy is a good one.

To think that we alone are causing all these things that are happening on Earth is self-centred and egotistical to the nth degree. /// Thats demonstrable ERRONEOUS. What "all these things" are you referring to? We haven't been burning fossil fuels for the last 200 years? We haven't been stripping the forests? Depleting fish stocks in the Ocean? Turning nature into parking lots? We haven't caused the greatest species die-off since the Permian Extinction? We aren't overpopulating the earth? Depleting the supply of Helium available to man along with oil? Over populating the earth with our own species setting up a great collapse? We weren't creating an Ozone Hole and decided to stop using Freon and we closed it back up? So many more? How many examples do you need to rethink that notion. I suppose some mantras sound good in their repetition but you should have caught that when you saw it in print?

Its time for some heads to be pulled out of the sand and look around at the heavens...........

This is just my humble onion and hopefully you didn't stop reading at the first line. /// No. I can interact with you. Not that website though.

[megman]

Shame. Some good links on that site to NASA/JPL, National Geographic, MIT and Space.com.

It establishes a pattern. Earth is heating up. So is Mars, Neptune, Pluto, drastic weather patterns on Jupiter......

I've always subcribed to the thought that what we are doing is not helping matters but as for us being the catylist I doubt it.

But wait: There are between 1-2 Billion cows on the planet. And at this moment there are more sheep in New Zealand than there are people. This must be what is warming Pluto up. Imagine if everyone of these livestock farted at the same time?

The answer: BBQ. Supply everyone on the planet with a BBQ and we can solve the methane problem.

Oh wait. All that charcoal will produce a whack of CO2. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I still say BBQ..........

ETA: My time is valuable also. I took the time to give you some good links. The least you could do is use them.

[bobbo]

#42--Megman==the cows and the sheep are here because of man==just more AGW. I believe that termites, having nothing to do with man, are the largest source of methane gas in the atmosphere, or maybe just biogenic methane? Don't remember the exact "most of" what termites are.

Anyway, you seem to be saying that all the planets in the solar system are evidencing the fact that the sun is outputing more heat/solar energy? or are the orbits of all the planets decaying bringing us all closer to the Sun? therefore, as you say, man's carbon increase becomes irrelevant?

Do any of your sources say that?

but for grins: Let's see how long that FACT takes to google:

set your stopwatch: 3:12===stop3:14.

I googled (Chart Suns Output) and got this: "There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation, and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ. The intensity of solar radiation reaching Earth has been relatively constant through the last 2000 years, with variations of around 0.1-0.2%"

...........................................................
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

You see what I did? I copy and pasted the relevant on point material and linked to the source. You are given the relevant info and the confirming source: no wild goose chase.

If the solar input on earth has been constant for 2000 years, I don't really care whats happening to the other planets: how could it be relevant? I'd think the IPCC would note orbital decay? (Edit--I'm just assuming measurements of solar output are the most accurate right here on earth rather than claimed estimates for other planets? Not likely that there are measurements for all the other planets going up indicating the measurements here on earth are faulty?===Possible. I'd have to see the quote and the link.)

Got any conflicting info/links?

[megman]

The sun's output may be fairly constant but our movement around it isn't. I refer you to the Milankovich Cycles

[bobbo]

#44--Megman==I don't recall that exact cycle but a few years ago when I delved into the IPCC computer model abstracts I was as usual completely blown away by the complexity and breadth of expertise that was evident and referenced in the body and the footnotes of various charts, issues, and open items. I thought: "Holy Crap===I don't know nuttin' compared to deese guys." And I decided to put my High School Physics and popular readings on the shelf and just go with THE CONSENSUS OF QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS. I have to say, giving up thinking and coasting on faith is very comfortable........well, THAT and the fact that every anti-AGW argument I come across is nonsense. Disproved, or evidenced against, in a two minute google search. Never a comeback. And that makes me wonder how it is that people come to think what they think, and how they change their mind or don't. Interesting stuff.

Unless you have a quote and link that says the IPCC has not considered the Milankovich Cycles, aren't you just throwing monkey **** on the wall and seeing who thinks its chocolate ice cream? I don't know that cycle is included. I just assume it has been along with all other cycles as well. All I actually recall is some footnote talking about some 150,000 year cycle. I could easily be wrong.

Sorry--but you really should IDENTIFY and connect your DOTS a bit more closely than not doing so at all. Was I wrong in thinking you were implying the sun was heating up? I assume there are similar cycles for all the other planets? Are all the other planets in a part of their cycle that brings them closer to the sun? I ain't tasting that ice cream!!!

Watching the Fox Republican Debate last night, I was struck as always at how abysmally poor the format was. Ask a question, get a BS answer. Maybe get one follow up and get another BS answer and then move on. Its not how "the truth" is sweated out of a politician. They must be put on a meat hook and slow roasted for at least 20 questions to show the flimsy if any basis to their positions.

Mostly its piles and piles of monkey **** covering up greed, bribes, and piles of money.

((Edit: "Suns Output" was never actually measured===I ASSUME==but rather the amount of energy as measured on earth/satellites/whatever. Assuming its the measure of solar energy RECEIVED on earth==all cycles would have been taken into account. And when you say "fairly stable" is it really fair to quibble so when the measure is stable plus or minus .2%? I mean----c'mon!!!!))