This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Living life for WHAT IFS is NO WAY to live. They say the climate MIGHT change drastically but they cant say how hard it might be. If we are doomed to die from climate change that was our fate there is no stopping your destined way you are going to die.
thinking you can influence it is arrogance.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Living life for WHAT IFS is NO WAY to live.

What are you talking about? Not a single scientific concept is 100% proven. Literally EVERY part of society built using science is living based on "what ifs". It's just that eventually we recognize that the odds are very much in the concept's favor so we act accordingly. Man-made climate science is in that territory already.

They say the climate MIGHT change drastically but they cant say how hard it might be. If we are doomed to die from climate change that was our fate there is no stopping your destined way you are going to die.
thinking you can influence it is arrogance.

If it is caused by man, it certainly CAN be halted. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

climate has always changed. it always will,man made i s typical human arrogance and greed.

a reply to: yuppa

Yes, climate has always changed and will continue to change in the future, but that doesn't mean that humans are affecting it as well. Evolution has happened since life first appeared on this planet and will continue to happen to all life until it is gone, but we've demonstrated that we can harness evolution to breed traits and genes in various things.

I would first question why they have the National Aeronautic and Space Administration is doing research on terrestrial climate change.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Do you have a citstion for the Michael E. Mann issues with tge demdrochronology snd ice core ssmples? I looked but havdnt found amy yet. All i found was-

The first truly quantitative reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures had been published in 1993 by Bradley and Phil Jones, but it and subsequent reconstructions compiled averages for decades, covering the whole hemisphere. Mann wanted temperatures of individual years showing differences between regions, to find spatial patterns showing natural oscillations and the effect of events such as volcanic eruptions. Sophisticated statistical methods had already been applied to dendroclimatology, but to get wider geographical coverage these tree ring records had to be related to sparser proxies such as ice cores, corals and lake sediments. To avoid giving too much weight to the more numerous tree data, Mann, Bradley and Hughes used the statistical procedure of principal component analysis to represent these larger datasets in terms of a small number of representative series and compare them to the sparser proxy records. The same procedure was also used to represent key information in the instrumental temperature record for comparison with the proxy series, enabling validation of the reconstruction. They chose the period 1902–1980 for calibration, leaving the previous 50 years of instrumental data for validation. This showed that the statistical reconstructions were only skillful (statistically meaningful) back to 1400.[12] Their study highlighted interesting findings, such as confirming anecdotal evidence that there had been a strong El Niño in 1791, and finding that in 1816 the "Year Without a Summer" in Eurasia and much of North America had been offset by warmer than usual temperatures in Labrador and the Middle East. It was also an advance on earlier reconstructions in that it went back further, showed individual years, and showed uncertainty with error bars."[13] Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" (MBH98) was published on April 23, 1998 in the journal Nature. In it, "Spatially resolved global reconstructions of annual surface temperature patterns" were related to "changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols" leading to the conclusion that "each of these factors has contributed to the climate variability of the past 400 years, with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing during the twentieth century. Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since (at least) AD 1400.[14] The last point received most media attention. Mann was surprised by the extent of coverage which may have been due to chance release of the paper on Earth Day in an unusually warm year. In a CNN interview, John Roberts repeatedly asked him if it proved that humans were responsible for global warming, to which he would go no further than that it was "highly suggestive" of that inference.[15]

originally posted by: paradoxious
NASA needs to be living up to its name: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If you're unfamiliar with the term "aeronautics", it quite literally means navigating air.

NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration)... you know them right? They're one of many groups that can't even tell you if it'll rain in the next hour. THEY should be watching the oceans and atmosphere, not NASA.

Both institutions do it.

The technology and scientific expertise from planetary physics, including much of the remote sensing, simulation and geophysics is centered around NASA. Why else did the correct understanding of the greenhouse effect come to clear scientific understanding through planetary space missions in the 1960's? They were looking at Mars and Venus as well as Earth.

Saying that NASA shouldn't work on Earth Science is like saying that the Department of Energy shouldn't work on physics, tha'ts for NSF.

NASA like DOE, and unlike NSF, has its own operating centers of scientists & engineers.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If science was so precise it would not have made the errors it did that was over turned later on .This notion of settled science are only for those religiously connected to it to believe it .Like I say ,science has it's dogmas that get over turned and they create a new one until it cant stand any longer . When it comes to the present agw climate change subject it belongs in the religious forum .If the skeptics had nothing of value then the conversation would have been over . it's not and there are plenty of holes in the science that supports it . not settled .

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Living life for WHAT IFS is NO WAY to live. They say the climate MIGHT change drastically but they cant say how hard it might be. If we are doomed to die from climate change that was our fate there is no stopping your destined way you are going to die.
thinking you can influence it is arrogance.

Ah yes, the "arrogant" criticism. It's just fact-free emotional shaming.

Assuming people CANNOT influence climate, despite tremendous, deep quantitative, and experimentally verified physics and observations is far more "arrogant".

Can people influence the population of whales in the ocean? Yes, they did so using spears and wooden ships. Can people influence the ecology of grasslands? Why yes, fly over and a huge fraction of the area is devoted to agriculture.

And people can pull out fossil fuels buried *MILES* deep beneath the earth, in hard rocks, and burn them. Are you going to say "oh that's arrogance to say that humans can dig that deep?"

Never underestimate what 8 billion people can do.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: greencmp
Way to mis quote me there.

So destroying the planet so we can continue to pump CO2 and other stuff in the atmosphere in the name of cheap energy is the best as approach?

We have alternative solutions today.

I am all for better solutions. Nuclear is at the top of the list.

Indeed, we could basically discard the list if we chose nuclear, it solves all of the problems associated with deriving energy from breaking chemical bonds.

Then let's suppose this scenario.

Nuclear power plants pump a lot, I mean a lot, of water vapor into the atmosphere. We know that water vapor is one of the major greenhouse gases.

But the amount emitted by people in any circumstance is insignificant because of the massive equilibrium with oceans and rain, and the short timescale (~2 weeks) of its residence in the atmosphere, unlike decades to millenia of other greenhouse gases.

In any case, water vapor is emitted by cooling towers, and these are on the thermodynamic power generation side of nuclear plants (not the nuclear reactor) and it would be the same with fossil fuel plants which don't have rivers for their cooling loops.

Now imagine this, a nuclear power plant in the US melts down, all that water vapor now is irradiated and pumping radiation into the atmosphere. There goes the safety of 100,000,000 people. But melt downs in highly technological countries can't ever happen, right?

Water vapor is not significant.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If science was so precise it would not have made the errors it did that was over turned later on .

Under what reasoning do you presume this is true? Humans are human. Scientists are no exception. Clearly they too are prone to mistakes. Though as time goes on, science updates to reflect that those mistakes are accounted for. I'm not sure why you'd think that because the scientific method is precise, that scientists can't make mistakes.

This notion of settled science are only for those religiously connected to it to believe it .Like I say ,science has it's dogmas that get over turned and they create a new one until it cant stand any longer . When it comes to the present agw climate change subject it belongs in the religious forum .If the skeptics had nothing of value then the conversation would have been over . it's not and there are plenty of holes in the science that supports it . not settled .

This argument is so naive... Science gets overturned when applicable evidence is presented to show it as wrong. You can't just say it is wrong because you disagree with it. This is why scientists don't listen to amateurs.

The skeptics LITERALLY have nothing of value. I haven't seen a single climate change denier post a relevant study to back up their claims. The only religion around here is Climate Change denial. Just keep repeating it over and over again until people believe it is true.

By the way, ALL science has holes in it... I tire of seeing that reasoning as well. "welp such and such theory doesn't explain EVERYTHING I want it to explain, therefore it is invalid." WRONG! That's not how it works. Science acknowledges that it has holes in its theories and it works to fill them. Then when it fills a hole, many new ones appear. It's a never ending process.

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So how do we go about preventing the climate from changing? It's been doing that for millions of years ........ so we've been told. Were they wrong?

No.

One point of understanding climate change historically is to understand the physics behind it. Since we know some of it, we also predicted, and have seen, climate change from burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The numbers on the economic benefits of using hemp as a product are quite impressive . I read that it takes the equivalent of 4 acres of forest to produce as much paper of a lesser quality to 1 acre of hemp .It takes 30 years to replace the wood pulp in the forest but the hemp can be grown every year and rotating hemp as a crop controls the weeds that we need to control with chemicals in standard agricultural practices . The number of products that can be derived from the plant is simply amazing .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: jrod

Prior to talking about global warming in the 80's 90's we or scientist were talking about a new ice age in the 60's 70's .

Yes, the new ice age would occur in between 10 to 50 thousand years as evidence for the Milankovitch hypothesis (which was pretty radical) started to appear.

Not imminently and not from humans.

journals.ametsoc.org...

Actual facts:

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

Thomas C. Peterson
NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

William M. Connolley
British Antarctic Survey, National Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom

John Fleck
Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico



Abstract
Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: the2ofusr1

I don't care about al gore, he is not the end all say all figure in this matter.

Nope, he's just the guy who got the money rolling in.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, if they really cared about the planet they could do the research with less money? How about they get paid less and then see if they come up with the same results.

They did come up with the same basic results 30 years ago, when fewer people were working on the problem.

Roger Revelle predicted, in a 1968 report to President Lyndon Johnson, that by the year 2000 there would start to be evidence of influence from burning fossil fuels.

That was at a time when there was just the overall basic physical theory, and no direct observational evidence (and N Hemisphere was then cooling a bit, from what we now know to be lower level atmospheric pollution, i.e. soot and smog).

Guess what? Laws of physics matter. They are the most reliably predictive part of the universe. And there is no field of human endeavor other than physical science and research mathematics in which the opinions of laymen are so irrelevant and useless compared to that of the researchers who work int he field.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You were the one that said the scientific method was very precise .Now consider just how precise it must have been to be over turned .I am assuming that when a scientific fact gets over turned then the precise nature of the scientific method speaks for it's self .

eta ....or it's just a fact that a scientist can and has made mistakes in the past and may be in a position of doing the same thing now a days .Its not a infallible art .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I said the scientific method is precise. I didn't say that the scientists who use it are always precise. Yes, back in earlier times, science wasn't as precise as it is now. Scientists operated under more assumptions than we do now. However, as time goes on, science dispels assumptions (overturning scientific ideas), but in the case of man-made climate change, science HASN'T overturned anything as the instruments get more precise. Science just further confirms that it is real.

Your argument is just an example of rhetoric. You haven't exactly put forth any evidence in favor of your opinion, yet you accuse people on the side of science of being dogmatic in their beliefs. It's ridiculous how hypocritical you (and other denialists) are being.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Here. I found this link about why scientists believe AGW is real. It's 8 years old, but not much new evidence has come to contradict it in the meantime.

Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong?

I'm curious if you'll actually read it or not.

a reply to: mbkennel

So now they have very expensive computer models and what seems to be a unlimited source of funds to get to the fact of the matter but cant explain where the missing heat went or don't know why the oceans have not washed away most of the coastal regions and the models they are using diverge from reality . Sounds like the agw scientist are a bunch of politicians who blame the other guy and are not held accountable for their own inability to back up what they claim as the gospel when it comes to the climate ....sounds about right .

I'm going to throw this out there. I live in Canada alberta. We've had stranger and warmer winters before this one and I have no worries that Mother Earth will have cycles and do what it needs to all in time... So why not let people with lots of money fund it privately instead of chasing after all who already pay way to much in taxes for something so indefinite such as "Global Warming"
Like someone mentions we would need climate records from millennia's ago for accurate data, which we do not have. As I also do not see this as a major crisis factor to be worrying about yet.