Climate Change discussion (always fun)

[Rstanley0312 0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4

discuss.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[brenthutch 383]

It is exactly what I have been saying for the past ten years.

[DJL 232]

Rstanley0312

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4

discuss.

It's a 20 minute list of what you see in typical internet arguments and Facebook info-graphics.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 383]

And it just happens to be true, with back-up documentation and footnotes.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

And it just happens to be true, with back-up documentation and footnotes.

Fuck it, I have an hour to burn. Surprisingly, I was able to listen to most of his video even though he looks and sounds like Rush Limbaugh fucked Dane Cook. What is he, a Re-bro-blican?

From his sources: http://louderwithcrowder.com/top-5-climate-change-myths-debunked/#.V8nC4JgrK00

#1 MYTH: The world is getting hotter at a significant rate: Links to an article that explains how a 1.7F rise is actually "very high".

#2 MYTH: Rise in CO2 is dangerous and can directly be traced to man-made emissions: Links to an article written by a well know ultra-right winger. A few clicks result in pages at various colleges using his work as a example of how data can be incorrectly analyzed using the equipment and methods he used (MODTRAN) and basically how wrong he is.

#3 MYTH: The Ice Sheets are MELTING AWAY!: Be sure to keep your eye on this one. The linked article talks about localized gains that will be reversed in three decades by loss in other areas of Antartica. Crouter seems to say that three decades is no big deal. Fuck it, 1/3 of humans will be dead by then anyway, lol.

#4 MYTH: Climate change models are reliable.: Links to the petition signed by 300 scientists sent to Republican Senator Lamar Alexander (Chairman of the House Science Committee) a while back. He appears to think their petition is not worthy of action.

#5 MYTH: Climate change is the consensus of scientists.: Here's further clarification on that (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/) Some figures make it 92% and some over 97%, does that change anything?

#6 MYTH: Hybrid cars are better for the environment.: This links to an article about how hybrid cars are more energy intensive to build, not that they are worse for the environment in their operational life cycle.

#7 MYTH: The polar bears are dying off!: This links to an article about how polar bear populations are twice the numbers as their historic low. It's about the whether polar bears should be a threatened, vs endangered, vs. etc because of how difficult it is to track their numbers.

Well, that was fun. For all of this guys talk about how people should be getting their sources from actual scientist instead of Bill Nye you would think that the links provided would go somewhere better than his own video blogs or to links that do not uphold his claims as to whether or not these items are myths.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,393]

>And it just happens to be true, with back-up documentation and footnotes.

Yep. And smoking isn't bad for you; the tobacco companies proved it. They had doctors and back-up documentation and footnotes and everything. Oh, sure, the so-called "medical consensus" (which is a total myth) says it can cause emphysema and lung cancer, but some guy lived to be 100 smoking two packs a day. And I heard a doctor said it was good for you.

Proof attached.

[brenthutch 383]

Bills favorite red herring.

[jclalor 12]

Rstanley0312

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4

discuss.

Are YouTube videos, such as this one, the primary way in which you educate yourself?

[billvon 2,393]

>Are YouTube videos, such as this one, the primary way in which you educate yourself.

It's often easy to predict what sort of evidence someone is going to post based on their claims. Climate change deniers, Clinton Body Count people, 9/11 Truthers, anti-vaxxers, chemtrail types, moon landing hoaxers etc are far more likely to post links to videos than other posters.

"Here, watch this video and it will BLOW YOU AWAY! You'll understand once you sit through this 35 minute video. Look at those graphics! Listen to those sound effects! Do sound effects that loud lie? Would you really waste 35 minutes on something that wasn't true?"

[brenthutch 383]

Just look at the cute polar bear cub on a piece of ice.

[kallend 1,623]

brenthutch

It is exactly what I have been saying for the past ten years.

That's nothing to be proud of.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gowlerk 1,904]

kallend

***It is exactly what I have been saying for the past ten years.

That's nothing to be proud of.


I don't know. There is something to be said for long term stubborn willful blindness. It allows you to get away without critical thinking. You just make up your mind and that's it, you're set for life. Just ask Ron!

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 383]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430380/al-gore-doomsday-clock-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again

I pay $4 a gallon for locally produced organic milk and $2.20 for a gallon of gas. NYC, polar bears, and the Maldives are all still here, record high levels of food production record low levels of hurricanes and tornados, yada yada.... What am I missing?

[normiss 622]

Facts, scientific evidence, the understanding of either.

[brenthutch 383]

Every metric I referenced is a verifiable fact.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>And it just happens to be true, with back-up documentation and footnotes.

Yep. And smoking isn't bad for you; the tobacco companies proved it. They had doctors and back-up documentation and footnotes and everything. Oh, sure, the so-called "medical consensus" (which is a total myth) says it can cause emphysema and lung cancer, but some guy lived to be 100 smoking two packs a day. And I heard a doctor said it was good for you.

Proof attached.

Desperation alert!! Tobacco brought up again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/whistleblower-sues-duke-claims-doctored-data-helped-win-200-million-grants

Surprise?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tkhayes 125]

which is an anecdotal example and not actually statistical evidence of a 'conspiracy' or anything else.

Once again people...the overwhelming vast majority of scientists educated and studying global climate agree that climate change is real and is most likely caused by man-made insertion of nasty bits into the atmosphere.

I stopped watching after 5 minutes of this guy, because, afterall - he is NOT a scientist...he said it himself.

I decided instead to go read some peer reviewed scientific articles...
the vast majority of which do not agree with his position.

By the way, his myth #5 that only the US Govt can fix this is something new to me? Never saw that claim ever being made by anyone ever anytime except him.

yawn - don't bother replying rushmc, I was not directing this to you. the post was just the last one and I hit 'reply.

and I am not looking at this thread again anyway since it is a regurgitation of the same shit that has been said for a decade now and nothing will change anyone's mind anyway.....

[rushmc 18]

Ohttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/04/chaos-climate-part-3-chaos-models/[/url]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AlanS 1]

Rstanley0312

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwviDPo4Rh4

discuss.

The attached graphs should be the starting point for any climate change debate. It shows the amount the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the last 400,000 years.

Look at it carefully. From 400,000 years ago until about 150 years ago it drifted between 175 and 275 ppm. Now look at the spike on the right side of the graph. That is "man made"! That is 100% us humans. Nobody can deny the cause of that.

So what is happening with that? Well from the 1750 to 1950 it went up from 275 ppm to 325 ppm because of the industrial revolution. Then from 1950 until now it has gone up to above 400 ppm. This is a value that hasn't been seen since before man existed, and we did it in 50 years. The last time CO levels were that high the earth was 11 degrees fahrenheit warmer than it is today.


Why isn't the Earth 11 degree fahrenheit warmer now? The reason is climates take a while to change. Maybe 100 to 1000 years, but change it will. We have started the ball rolling in that direction and once it starts it will be very hard to stop.

But that isn't the part to worry about. What we need to worry about is what we will do to CO2 levels during then next 100 years. That will determine the fate of this planet and it's biosphere. If we don't change anything about what we are doing today, In the year 2100 CO2 levels will be more than double what they are now, likely 950 ppm. Even in the best case they will be above 600 ppm.

Those are levels that should make us all worry.

[AlanS 1]

And this link provides the latest data directly from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

In the summer of 2016 it reached a new peak of 408 ppm.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/graphics_gallery_images/mlo_record.png

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

wattsupwiththat

Very funny.

You should try some real science sometime. Science is not a liberal conspiracy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

And what has been the result, Other than fewer hurricanes and tornados and more food and polar bears?

[Anachronist 2]

So one of the greatest failings in the scientific community is the lack of disseminating information in a way that is comprehensible to the general public and one of the greatest failings of the educational system is not ensuring the general public can understand scientific information.

There are a great deal of variables that go into assessing information and understanding how it represents the "real world." Just as a seasoned auto mechanic may be able to interpret how to fix a problem with a car not explicitly stated in the manual, so those heavily involved in research are better able to understand the data that is presented versus those who just read secondary or tertiary literature on the internet.

If you don't have a very strong understanding of statistics (at the university level) and very good understanding of biology (at the university level) and you haven't been heavily involved in scientific research (at the university level) and read literally hundreds of primary literature papers, you would do yourself and everyone else a favor by keeping your damn mouth shut, other than to ask questions of course :)

That said, there is overwhelming evidence that human activity has caused an unprecedented increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 does two really nasty things, it acidifies water (the same reason when you hold your breath you feel the need to breath, thats your blood becoming acidic that is causing that feeling, not a lack of O2) and of course it retains heat.

Both of these things have a sever impact on the global climate, but the global climate is complex and also subject to irregular and regular variations as well as local variations, that is why "global climate change" is now favored more than "global warming." Some areas will experience increases in temp, others reductions, some areas will experience more rain fall, others less. We simply do not have the tools or resources to predict the changes over every square mile of Earth.

This is accepted and supported by the overwhelming majority of scientific bodies in the entire world.

Now there is something you old folks seem to have a hard time with, there is no singular authority, there never has been, you were just lied to your whole lives and accepted it.

No one study, or one scientist matters, the scientific method relies on consensus. Citing singular examples and anecdotes is the stuff of high schoolers and lay wannabe intellectuals.

The consensus on this issue is in the 90+% realm of certainty that human activity has caused extreme CO2 emissions and that will indeed have severe consequences on the global climate, therefore every living thing. Some will flourish, others will go extinct.

If you think that you have any reason to believe the contrary, I am here to tell you that you are a glaring retard not fit to have any sort of intelligent discussion and are trying to play so far outside of your own league that it isn't even the same sport. Backyard wiffle ball vs. MLB.

And for those of you that accept the scientific consensus, good for you, you know how to recognize some fundamental aspects of cumulative effect. But unless you have met all the criteria I mentioned before, you also have no idea what you are talking about and aside from saying "I'm gonna go with what the researches said as a whole," are grossly unqualified to delve any deeper.

Your law degree, MBA, psych degree, god forbid art degree or no degree at all, means nothing, your 50 years of successful business means nothing, your 80 years of life means nothing, everything you've ever read or heard that was not published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (the majority of which you have to pay for or have an affiliation with a university to even read (another failing of the scientific community)) means nothing.

Know your place as the glorious and unfortunate majority of people who are totally reliant on someone else to tell you what is going on in the world or inside your own bodies.

Your ignorance and confidence in it, is a plague.

Isaac Asimov said it well, and was qualified to do so having earned a PhD in biochemistry.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

[AlanS 1]

brenthutch

And what has been the result, Other than fewer hurricanes and tornados and more food and polar bears?

"What has been the result?"

So far not much. But consider this. Ice ages took 100,000 year to cycle through and during that period the CO2 levels varied by about 100 ppm.
We've changed them MORE in less than 50 years and the resulting changes will take 100-200 years to become fully apparent, but once the changes start they will be impossible to stop even if we magically could restore the CO2 levels to what they were originally, which we cannot.

What have the effects been so far?

Well let's start with the drought in California. Have you seen the reservoir levels recently? The California drought might not be an aberration, it might be the "new normal". And this new normal will lead to a depleted water supply, and water wars between cities and farms and north and south California. In California, Canada and Alaska forrest fires will burn and the trees that are burned will never come back. The habitat will change and many animals will become extinct. In geologic terms the human generated extinction event is happening right now before our eyes. We are just too short sighted (in time scale), to see it.

Scientists are already debating to declare the end of the last geologic epoch the Holocene, and declare a new epoch the Anthropocene. If you want to know when the Anthropocene began, look that that chart I posted earlier. It began when we started to spike the CO2 levels in 1950.

The question shouldn't be "what has the result been so far", because changes have just begun. The question should be "what will the result be in the future".

And in geologic terms they will be an extinction of many species. Parts of this planet will become drier like California and other parts will become wetter like Bangladesh. Many species will become extinct and the biodiversity of the Earth will (indeed already is) drop drastically.

Humans will not go extinct by any means but we will kill this planets biodiversity in the process. Anthropocene epoch has begun and what it looks like will be determined over the next 1,000 years by what we do over then next 100 year.