Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2019-01-18, 19:52 #23 Prime95 P90 years forever!     Aug 2002 Yeehaw, FL 713010 Posts You are looking at the issue completely wrong. You are looking for 100% certainty of the "do nothing outcome" before taking any action. You will never get that 100% certainty. Let's say you knew that in a 100 years there is a 20% chance that all is peachy-keen, 79% chance that climate changes raise sea levels, change weather patterns, kill off some vulnerable species with an economic impact of say $200 trillion, and a 1% chance of vicious feedback loop where billions die, would you spend$1 trillion dollars a year to change those percentages to 70%/30%/0% ?? It's fine if you say no, its an opinion question with no right or wrong answer. It's not fine for you to say society cannot take any action until we know the exact percentages with 100% certainty.
2019-01-18, 19:55   #24
M344587487

"Composite as Heck"
Oct 2017

2·52·13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Carnivore ... If it really were a clear fact, why is there such a significant amount of disagreement on it? ...
This planet has—or rather had—a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much all of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

2019-01-18, 20:57   #25
The Carnivore

Jun 2010

7·29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by wombatman It's also odd to me that you assign ulterior motives to people pushing for action on climate change (stop calling it global warming--that alone belies your ignorance) while somehow having trouble imaging why fossil fuel companies might want to deny climate change.
I call it global warming because it is falsifiable. Climate change can mean anything. If it's hot, it's climate change. If it's cold, it's climate change. If there's a lot of rain, it's climate change. If there's not a lot of rain, it's climate change. Same thing goes with hurricanes, tornadoes, and other kinds of weather events or disasters.

Global warming is much more easy to disprove. If the world's average temperature has not significantly increased, global warming is false. But how are you going to disprove climate change?

From various in-person interactions and from reading various blogs, forums, news articles, and the comment sections of those articles, it's easy to see the appeal of the global warming belief. For one thing, it's a convenient scapegoat. The weather's bad outside? It's global warming, not natural variation in weather. Species are disappearing? It's global warming, not habitat destruction or pesticide overuse. Global warming even gets the blame for high crime rates: https://www.theguardian.com/environm...warmer-winters
Note: if that were the case, why does cold Alaska have a higher crime rate than almost any other state despite having a relatively high household income and a basic income safety net that no other state has? And why is tropical Hawaii's crime rate lower than the US average?

In some hopefully less common cases, a few people want global warming to be real because it provides them with a perverse form of excitement, entertainment, or revenge. Some youth believe in global warming because being activists makes them feel like heroes who are standing up to the big bad fossil fuel companies. They love the excitement and attention from going on marches, sit-ins, and school strikes to protest global warming. Some middle-aged people believe in global warming because the fantasy provides them with an escape and relief from drudgery of the workweek, the rat race, and the daily routine grind, just like many movies do. Some elderly believe in global warming because the worst effects will hit them after they're gone, and they'd like to believe that what they enjoyed and lived in what was the peak of human civilization.

Some of the poor want global warming to be real because they are jealous of richer people and can't wait to see them being forced to stop driving their SUVs, going on luxury cruises and yachts, jet-setting around the world for fun, and enjoying their beachfront vacation homes. Some of the rich, in turn, want global warming to be real so that they can hide away in their gated communities or bunkers while watching the news and seeing the useless peasants fighting and killing each other in the chaos and societal breakdown caused by catastrophic warming.

I'll end this by going back to the beginning of the post and having a different take on the thread's title. My question now becomes:

Global warming and/or climate change believers, what would it take to convince you that you were wrong?

2019-01-18, 21:44   #26
Mysticial

Sep 2016

7×47 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Carnivore Global warming and/or climate change believers, what would it take to convince you that you were wrong?
When the globe stops warming and the climate stops changing. Duh.

2019-01-18, 23:07   #27
The Carnivore

Jun 2010

7·29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mysticial When the globe stops warming and the climate stops changing. Duh.
The climate has never stopped changing. It has changed for the past few billion years and will continue changing for the next few billion.

Is there any physical observation that would change your mind? What if ice sheets started regrowing and covering most of Canada again, like during the past Ice Age? What if sea levels began dropping, and the Bering Land Bridge re-formed?

2019-01-19, 00:32   #28
Dr Sardonicus

Feb 2017
Nowhere

67368 Posts

I find it telling that, instead of pointing to any actual observations indicating the climate in any region is in fact cooling, you present hypotheticals.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Carnivore Is there any physical observation that would change your mind? What if ice sheets started regrowing and covering most of Canada again, like during the past Ice Age? What if sea levels began dropping, and the Bering Land Bridge re-formed?
If someone claimed actually to be observing any of those things currently, (rather than merely hypothesizing them) I hope they would not be using power tools, driving a motor vehicle, or operating heavy equipment, because manifestly they would be hallucinating.

I can think of any number of observations that indicate a warming climate -- from melting sea ice and permafrost, to earlier spring greening, to insects and birds shifting their ranges further away from the equator or moving uphill. If you haven't heard about any of these things, you haven't been paying attention.

Oh, wait. I know! It's a conspiracy, and the insects, plants, and birds are all "crisis actors!"

Last fiddled with by Dr Sardonicus on 2019-01-19 at 01:28

2019-01-19, 00:38   #29
The Carnivore

Jun 2010

7·29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Prime95 Let's say you knew that in a 100 years there is a 20% chance that all is peachy-keen, 79% chance that climate changes raise sea levels, change weather patterns, kill off some vulnerable species with an economic impact of say $200 trillion, and a 1% chance of vicious feedback loop where billions die, would you spend$1 trillion dollars a year to change those percentages to 70%/30%/0% ??
The outcomes aren't just "nothing will happen", "something bad will happen", or "something really bad will happen." There is also another possibility: Global warming is happening and is primarily caused by humans, but the net benefits will be positive. Among other things, new, shorter shipping lanes will be opened as a result of melting sea ice, crop productivity will rise due to increasing CO2 concentrations, arable land in high northern latitudes will increase, and cold-related deaths will decrease: https://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...aths/27657269/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

In that case, you'd be spending a large sum of money and forcing people to drastically change their lifestyles to prevent a net benefit to humanity.

2019-01-19, 01:13   #30
Dr Sardonicus

Feb 2017
Nowhere

355010 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Carnivore Some of the poor want global warming to be real because they are jealous of richer people and can't wait to see them being forced to stop driving their SUVs, going on luxury cruises and yachts, jet-setting around the world for fun, and enjoying their beachfront vacation homes. Some of the rich, in turn, want global warming to be real so that they can hide away in their gated communities or bunkers while watching the news and seeing the useless peasants fighting and killing each other in the chaos and societal breakdown caused by catastrophic warming.
In Miami, decades ago the rich folks decided they wanted the real estate right on the shore, with the nice sea views. The poor folks were shuffled off to the less-desirable areas further inland.

Apparently, the rich folks have been hypnotized into thinking that, due to rising sea levels, the water is now encroaching on their shoreline properties. Seaside property values are dropping. And the rich folks are now after the formerly undesirable inland areas of Miami where the poor folks have been living for decades, because they have one appealing feature: they're on higher ground. The result is being called "climate gentrification."

2019-01-19, 01:22   #31

"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

67·149 Posts

Quote:
 And what about the other negative feedback loops?
What we were discussing is a positive feedback loop, though it has negative results.

2019-01-19, 01:36   #32

"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

67×149 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Carnivore The climate has never stopped changing. It has changed for the past few billion years and will continue changing for the next few billion. Is there any physical observation that would change your mind? What if ice sheets started regrowing and covering most of Canada again, like during the past Ice Age? What if sea levels began dropping, and the Bering Land Bridge re-formed?
Those geological-time episodes are being brought up as a diversion. They would have minute effect in the next-hundred-years scenarios in question. You can deny plentiful evidence until you are blue in the face. However, as I said, conjuring up an ice age is purely a diversionary tactic.

EDIT: You mentioned ocean currents earlier. This is one area which could be source of really rapid change.
Take the Gulf Stream. It brings warm water from the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico to the higher latitudes. This affects the whole North Atlantic basin. It especially keeps places like the British Isles, all of Western Europe, and the many smaller islands warmer especially the more Northern parts.

That transfer also takes heat away from the Tropical waters.

Now stop the conveyor. It gets a lot colder pretty quickly in the lands surrounding the North Atlantic. At the same time, with less circulation the tropical and Gulf waters heat up even more than they already have. For some years we've been seeing surface temperatures in the Gulf in the lower to middle 80s F. With less circulation, those waters warm a lot more. Warmer water evaporates more, transferring moisture and heat to the air. These are the ingredients of thunderstorms. Thunderstorms over the ocean can form hurricanes. The warmer the water, the more energy is being transferred to the atmosphere. Also, the more intense rain these storms will deliver if they come to land. Also, more energy does not necessarily manifest as greater wind intensity. It can make extremely large storms, instead. The winds may not be higher, but with a wide cyclone they hammer you a lot longer.

This leaves aside what the Polar Vortex might be doing, and what might happen if some mega-cyclone traveled up and tangled with a serious Arctic outburst.

I can go on at length, but you deny evidence, so I have already wasted my time.

To the others here, does it seem possible that this user is, as xilman put it recently, "Taking the piss"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss#Usage
Quote:
 The term sometimes refers to a form of mockery in which the mocker exaggerates the other person's characteristics; pretending to take on his or her attitudes, etc., for the purpose of comedic effect at the expense of another. This would be described as "taking the piss" out of that person, or "a piss-take". It may be also be used to refer to a ruse whereby a person is led to believe a plainly unbelievable fact for the purpose of ridicule of the subject, e.g. "Are you being serious?" "No, I'm just taking the piss."
I can imagine that Carnivore making an argument from ridiculous premises, just to engage people who know better and jerk them around. I already noted that it is wasting time to argue with someone who rejects science. What's that old saying? Oh, Yeah:
Don't wrestle with a pig. You get all muddy, and the pig enjoys it.

Last fiddled with by kladner on 2019-01-19 at 07:29

2019-01-19, 01:51   #33
wombatman
I moo ablest echo power!

May 2013

3×577 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by The Carnivore I call it global warming because it is falsifiable. Climate change can mean anything. If it's hot, it's climate change. If it's cold, it's climate change. If there's a lot of rain, it's climate change. If there's not a lot of rain, it's climate change. Same thing goes with hurricanes, tornadoes, and other kinds of weather events or disasters. Global warming is much more easy to disprove. If the world's average temperature has not significantly increased, global warming is false. But how are you going to disprove climate change? Global warming and/or climate change believers, what would it take to convince you that you were wrong?
You can call it global warming all you like, but temperature rise is only one effect predicted. Climate change, as posited by the overwhelming majority (I don't know about you, but I consider 80%+ agreement in a scientific field overwhelming), can be falsified by demonstrating any abnormal climate change (e.g., disruption of typical climate patterns) is not a result of humanity's contribution to the carbon cycle.

As for what it would take to convince me otherwise--peer-reviewed, reproducible studies that demonstrate there is no connection between the greenhouse emissions produced by humanity and the significant changes in climate. In particular, studies that demonstrate a better explanation for the observations made and predicted would be most effective. The fact that none has been presented in lieu of a series of "what if"s is telling. To be clear, someone who presented such work would be heavily questioned and even doubted, but the thing about science is that if you're right, your work will stand up to such scrutiny, and that person would ultimately be known as a legend in the field of climatology and the sciences in general.

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post xilman Lounge 7 2013-01-21 20:38 cheesehead Soap Box 9 2012-04-14 03:12 davieddy Soap Box 5 2008-08-18 22:30 Pablo the Duck Soap Box 17 2004-04-29 14:19 nomadicus Lounge 17 2003-08-20 08:19

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:23.

Tue Oct 20 15:23:10 UTC 2020 up 40 days, 12:34, 1 user, load averages: 4.28, 3.74, 3.32