Anthropogenic Global Warming

Topic: Anthropogenic Global Warming (Read 198286 times)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #725 – 2015-12-05, 04:11:06

What, I'd ask, do you consider to be "the civilized world"?

Well, Belfrager, spell it out!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #726 – 2015-12-05, 04:59:25

Bel has ceased to be even worth the effort. He'd rather believe the lies told by the warmunists than what his own senses tell him. There's no hope for something like that.

In other news: Seems the warmista crowd isn't happy just doing away with the pause. They're also doctoring the data from the Medieval Warm Period so that it wasn't so warm. Can't have it competing with the present-day "hottest EVER" drama, now can we?

Note: This past Summer may have been a bit warm, but hottest ever? Not around here it wasn't. In 1995, Cook County had to contract with LaGrou Transport for several refrigerated trucks. Too many died because of the heat (over 700) and the county needed the trailers to store bodies until the morgue technicians could get to them. Nothing like that has been seen before or since around here. Actually, Winter accounts for more weather-related deaths around here (heart attacks from shoveling snow, exposure, hypothermia) than Summer does.

That's the problem you have when you run across someone who has a memory that dates back several decades. It's hard to snow such a person unless he really wants to be snowed.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/study-shows-they-are-still-trying-to-erase-the-medieval-warm-period/

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #727 – 2015-12-05, 07:16:43

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-12-05, 04:59:25

...lies told by the warmunists...

...the warmista crowd...

Or as Oakdale says, loony cult of environmentalists like Scientology.

There are specific characteristics to cults. One of them happens to be when your name-calling applies to the overwhelming majority.

Then there's this statement,

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-12-05, 04:59:25

That's the problem you have when you run across someone who has a memory that dates back several decades.

I apparently have a longer memory, even though I am probably a few decades younger than you. I have noticed over time how the issue morphed into something like an argument from warming. It wasn't originally. It was an argument from atmospheric instability. Air pollution (greenhouse gases) was related to phenomena like acid rains and El Niño. But these days, for denialists in particular, the whole issue is nothing but warming.

It's like reducing the advantages of ecological food down to taste and only to taste. Well done, both of you.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #728 – 2015-12-05, 08:03:40

OK. How do you propose to stop climate change? Keep in mind that the planet's climate has been changing one way or the other before Man got here.

Acid rain probably is controllable. The El Nino/La Nino cycle has been going on since----- and is most likely not controllable. Here in the States we've done wonders with scrubbers on coal-burning plants so the stuff that causes acid rain gets caught before it gets into the atmosphere. We've also restricted severely the use of certain types of coal which are more likely to cause problems. But, it's never enough for those who want to ban the use of ALL fossil fuels in the belief that renewables can lead us into the future.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #729 – 2015-12-05, 13:56:38

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-05, 07:16:43

But these days, for denialists in particular, the whole issue is nothing but warming.

The whole issue seems to be to them an attack against their "lifestyle". Even if they don't have any idea about how their lifestyle is achieved. Add the lacking of basic knowledge, cultural "deep America" mental frame set and just general trogloditism and there you have it, denialists at their best.

You'll need a miscroscope to whatch them clearly. A powerful one. At 10x magnification you'll whatch them complaining about warmunists, at 100x magnification that climate concerns are a complot to take their guns away...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-12-05, 04:11:06

What, I'd ask, do you consider to be "the civilized world"? Well, Belfrager, spell it out!

The part you're not in?

Nope, you have representatives in Paris these days.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #730 – 2015-12-05, 22:30:58

Here's another one. Ozone hole--- global warming. (Sorry pal, not gonna leave CAGW out of this. It's so much a part of what we're talking about that to deny we're talking about it is similar to buying a new car without an engine. You may feel justified in pushing it--- but most people wouldn't.) See below:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #731 – 2015-12-06, 11:15:49

On both sides of the issue there's a remarkable inability to comprehend dynamic systems. It's quite alarming to see the argument "more CO₂ --> more warming", which only makes sense on linear relations. The argument has been reduced to this due to so-called skeptics (denialists, really) who distort the issue as much as they can. If the proponents go along with this, everything will be lost. Evidently, the proponents have gone along with this and everything is indeed lost, including any hope of recovery of elementary sanity.

A static system is like the volume button on the radio. You turn it one way and the volume increases. You turn it the other way and the volume decreases. There's a linear relationship between turning the button and change of volume.

A dynamic system is for example like a bicycle. Look at it at first: Two thin wheels, no way it could physically stay up! But keep pedalling the right way, and it will stay up and it will keep moving forward. This is a dynamic system, a non-linear relation between bicycle's staying up and pedalling. When you stop pedalling, the bicycle will keep moving for a while. At this stage the denialist could say, "See, pedalling makes no difference at all to the bicycle!" whereas the bicycle is actually losing momentum now and is doomed to fall down eventually.

The (political) debate is over how much CO₂ to permit to regulate "warming" as if there were a volume-button-like relationship between the output of CO₂ and "warming". But the greenhouse model describes climate like a pot of water: On constant added fuel, water will reach a boiling temperature. When the boiling temperature has been reached, water does not become hotter anymore. Instead, it becomes turbulent and it will blow away the lid of the pot. Thus there's an indirect relationship between added fuel and water temperature - and temperature does not refer to the essential character of the system. Until the end of last century, climate was known to be a dynamic system like this, but denialists have torn the debate down to their idiotic level and now they beat everybody else with experience.

Economics suffers from the same idiocy. Almost all mistakes that economists make are due to the false assumption that economy is fundamentally linear: Reduced prices increase the demand. In reality, economy is fundamentally non-linear: Low prices may have their attraction, but when people are fed up, they care little about goods at any price.

In Western economy, the main driving factor is the advertising industry that foments perceived needs (such as envy) so that all other industries can sell dubious goods at any price. It works precisely because the system is non-linear: When actual needs have been fulfilled, it operates on perceived needs - and at advanced stages, when perceived needs are in turmoil, people will fail to discern actual needs. So, most mistakes by economists stem from the flawed assumption that economy is static, while the rest of their mistakes stem from mischaracterising the nature of the dynamic system, even when it's understood to be dynamic.

Global Warming is the wrong name. It never was about warming. Human output of CO₂ is not the main issue. It's a side issue in the wider topic of industrial pollution, human role in the cycle of elements on the planet. The problem with fossil fuels is not the output of CO₂ but the structural change: Taking a layer from one place (oil inside the solid earth) and putting it to another place (surface and atmosphere) while claiming it has no consequences - or that it "scientifically" has no consequences as long as we haven't empirically verified the precise consequences. You could just as well say that "scientifically" it doesn't matter (to atmosphere and to earth's crust) if vegetation exists or not. Well, then perhaps it doesn't matter (to humanity and the animal world) if edible vegetation exists or not. Does humanity really have no power over these things? When you poison water, can you say there are no consequences as long as nobody has publicly taken a sip and fallen sick or died? Of course there are immediate consequences to poisoning of water, and someone dying of it is a further consequence - and we should not be so stupid as to experiment with it.

"Warming" is a gravely reductive misdirection. As soon as the topic was named "Global Warming", the defeat of sanity was secured. Now it's named "Climate Change" and that's just vague - it shows that the debate under the previous name was lost. For a while I was justified to say that this only concerns the Anglo-American world whose silliness is beyond repair, but now their misnomers are steadily reaching the media via translations here too, and people with short memory forget the original topic.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #732 – 2015-12-06, 12:26:49

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-06, 11:15:49

The problem with fossil fuels is not the output of CO₂ but the structural change: Taking a layer from one place (oil inside the solid earth) and putting it to another place (surface and atmosphere) while claiming it has no consequences - or that it "scientifically" has no consequences as long as we haven't empirically verified the precise consequences.

The increase on the ouput of CO₂ it's exactly one of the consequences of what you call, and very well, a structural change.
It's not the only consequence and, besides, it generates per itself more consequences.

The example of a bycicle as a dynamic system is a good one, the same happens with one of the most important ways of self regulation of worldwide temperature, the Gulf/Humbolt set of streams.
The fact being no one knows how much amount of non salted water (as in Artic defreeze) will disrupt it due to the difference of salinity in a way that it stops working, and so the bycicle crashes. What everybody knows is that such happening will be catastrophic.

There's nothing mankind can do but to decrease and stop oil consumption as the main source for energy. The technology exists, it only needs the will to apply it.
The rest are private interests trying to overpass the common good.

The question of labels it's an important one, but sometimes it's better a non perfect label that permits things to be corrected than to have the perfect label (or nothing) that will lead to no change at all. Labels are basically just a problem of illiteracy. Never the world changed only when people understood what was happening.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #733 – 2015-12-06, 15:23:29

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-06, 11:15:49

So, most mistakes by economists stem from the flawed assumption that economy is static, while the rest of their mistakes stem from mischaracterising the nature of the dynamic system, even when it's understood to be dynamic.

This was all pretty much spelled out even for those who couldn't figure it out for themselves in Dutch high school economics. Although it was talking about the price/demand thing as if it were linear, it also came up with examples of e.g. raising the price on cigarettes as showing that the price increase had virtually no effect on demand. On the other hand, I guess you had to think for yourself about how that might apply to the necessities of life…

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-06, 11:15:49

Now it's named "Climate Change" and that's just vague - it shows that the debate under the previous name was lost.

One small remark on that — the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) stems from 1988.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-06, 11:15:49

For a while I was justified to say that this only concerns the Anglo-American world whose silliness is beyond repair, but now their misnomers are steadily reaching the media via translations here too, and people with short memory forget the original topic.

Agreed. Terms like opwarming van de aarde (warming of the Earth) and klimaatverandering (climate change) are being used increasingly alongside or instead of the original broeikaseffect (greenhouse effect).

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #734 – 2015-12-06, 16:03:23

Quote from: Frenzie on 2015-12-06, 15:23:29

This was all pretty much spelled out even for those who couldn't figure it out for themselves in Dutch high school economics.

The good thing is that you at least have economics in high school. I have had the impression that law and economics are the two things that are not taught anywhere in the world before university.

Quote from: Frenzie on 2015-12-06, 15:23:29

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-06, 11:15:49
Now it's named "Climate Change" and that's just vague - it shows that the debate under the previous name was lost.

One small remark on that — the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) stems from 1988.

I heard "climate change" first from Al Gore, if I remember right. Good to know that he didn't cook up the phrase on his own, but took it from somewhere where it was already in use. But ever since Al Gore entered the stage, it has been clear that the topic cannot reasonably be salvaged from politicians. Now it's irreparably politicised in America, as seen from the manner of conversation of Americans here.

Wikipedia says that prior to IPCC there was UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme. This is a better name, in my opinion, spelling out the actual focus of concerns. Better still would be spelling out "ecology". It's the debate where economy and ecology clash. This has been my view of it since forever.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #735 – 2015-12-06, 17:44:37

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-06, 16:03:23

The good thing is that you at least have economics in high school. I have had the impression that law and economics are the two things that are not taught anywhere in the world before university.

Law is taught to a certain degree in maatschappijleer (society teachings), the equivalent of which is called civics in the US. Unlike economics, which is an elective, that's actually a required subject. I'm not familiar of things being significantly different in Belgium, Germany or Illinois.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #736 – 2015-12-06, 21:31:48

Quote from: Frenzie on 2015-12-06, 17:44:37

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-06, 16:03:23
The good thing is that you at least have economics in high school. I have had the impression that law and economics are the two things that are not taught anywhere in the world before university.

Law is taught to a certain degree in maatschappijleer (society teachings), the equivalent of which is called civics in the US. Unlike economics, which is an elective, that's actually a required subject. I'm not familiar of things being significantly different in Belgium, Germany or Illinois.

Well, I am also familiar with something that translates like "society teachings", that was a required but minimal subject even in Soviet Union. It didn't teach much besides that things like laws and courts, constitution and separate powers of the state exist. Basically just the names of it.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #737 – 2015-12-07, 08:34:22

Is there a reason to promote a supra-national governmental authority — to keep our "climate" from changing?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #738 – 2015-12-07, 08:48:38

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-12-07, 08:34:22

Is there a reason to promote a supra-national governmental authority — to keep our "climate" from changing?

This question would make sense if there were somebody here promoting IPCC. Specifically, if there were somebody here promoting IPCC has a supra-national governmental authority. And your question presupposes that it should be a government's job to keep climate from changing. Instead, one of the tasks of governments is to arrange for disposal of waste, best so that the disposal would be real disposal, not merely hiding under the rug.

Quote from: the IPCC website

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.

Looks like the IPCC does not see it as their task to keep climate from changing.

As to the ongoing climate meeting in Paris, politicians and government officials have been meeting in various capacities for various purposes since forever. How do you plan to stop them?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #739 – 2015-12-07, 09:30:46

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-07, 00:48:38

This question would make sense if there were somebody here promoting IPCC.

Which makes me wonder (as I've asked, before…) what is the point of your posts…

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-07, 08:48:38

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-12-07, 08:34:22

Is there a reason to promote a supra-national governmental authority — to keep our "climate" from changing?

This question would make sense if there were somebody here promoting IPCC. Specifically, if there were somebody here promoting IPCC has a supra-national governmental authority. And your question presupposes that it should be a government's job to keep climate from changing. Instead, one of the tasks of governments is to arrange for disposal of waste, best so that the disposal would be real disposal, not merely hiding under the rug.

Quote from: the IPCC website

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis.

Looks like the IPCC does not see it as their task to keep climate from changing.

Then, the "goal" of keeping the "earth's temperature" from rising beyond 2ºC during the next century — well, that's just smoke and mirrors?!

Quote from: ersi on 2015-12-07, 08:48:38

As to the ongoing climate meeting in Paris, politicians and government officials have been meeting in various capacities for various purposes since forever. How do you plan to stop them?

By soberly considering the actual science — and ignoring the hype most people -and most governments- promulgate, in order to "redistribute" the world's "income"…

Are the poor parts of the "world" really going to be better off, if the richer parts give them money (Look at history…)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #740 – 2015-12-07, 09:35:56

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-12-07, 09:30:46

Then, the "goal" of keeping the "earth's temperature" from rising beyond 2ºC during the next century — well, that's just smoke and mirrors?!

It's the same kind of goal as the ECB has: Inflation rate below, but close to, 2%. Make an effort to consider the parallel when sober.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-12-07, 09:30:46

By soberly considering...

To do that, drop the booze, and then consider.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #741 – 2015-12-07, 09:45:56

ersi, my intellect and education surpass your jibes…

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #742 – 2015-12-07, 23:46:35

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-12-07, 09:30:46

Are the poor parts of the "world" really going to be better off, if the richer parts give them money (Look at history…)

He must be reffering to the credits the Sultan of Morroco gave to the recently born USA...
The first international diplomatic agreement between USA and anyone else...

Receiving money from Marroco...

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #743 – 2015-12-13, 10:58:41

Paris climate deal: nearly 200 nations sign in end of fossil fuel era
Et voilá, the agreement is done.

I think, like Hollande said, to be an historical moment. Not for the results but because it's clearly a moment of singularity when the "five that counts" announces a new era.
As for the results, well see just in five years how potences are honouring their word.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #744 – 2015-12-13, 14:56:43

So now the big confab at the Tower of Babel-- whoops, I mean Paris-- is nearly done. Men think that by getting rid of fossil fuels they can stop climate change. Gotta hand to them, they never read a history book in their lives.

Way back in the dusty old days of England, when kings were thought to be placed there by God and no edict of the king was to be questioned, King Canute ran an experiment to show his people that the power of the king was indeed limited and could not match the power of God. He placed his throne between the high and low tide marks at the beach, then commanded the tide not to rise and wet his shoes and robe. Of course the tide rose and got him wet, showing that the tide at least paid no attention to the king's edict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_waves

Lately I've been a might curious about whether certain of you would be willing to stand in front of an avalanche, hold up your hand and shout "Stop" to the avalanche. Surely men have this power, don't they? Pass a law and avalanches will stop. Anybody who doesn't believe this is an avalanche denier.

I think much the same about climate change. We have great hubris thinking that any law we can pass will stop climate change. The climate is going to keep doing what it has always done since creation, and no law that can be passed by men will change that. For that, I am called a "denier" and declared to be hopelessly ignorant. For stating a truth that doesn't gel with the present AGW/CAGW mindset. OK, so be it.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #745 – 2015-12-13, 19:11:02

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-12-13, 14:56:43

Lately I've been a might curious about whether certain of you would be willing to stand in front of an avalanche, hold up your hand and shout "Stop" to the avalanche. Surely men have this power, don't they? Pass a law and avalanches will stop. Anybody who doesn't believe this is an avalanche denier.

This metaphor seems to be tailor-made for being turned around on you.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #746 – 2015-12-13, 22:35:44

Quote from: Frenzie on 2015-12-13, 19:11:02

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-12-13, 14:56:43
Lately I've been a might curious about whether certain of you would be willing to stand in front of an avalanche, hold up your hand and shout "Stop" to the avalanche. Surely men have this power, don't they? Pass a law and avalanches will stop. Anybody who doesn't believe this is an avalanche denier.

This metaphor seems to be tailor-made for being turned around on you.

Doubtful. I know enough--- having seen enough avalanches on TV which is a good place to see them--to know that standing in front of one trying to stop it by holding up your hand and shouting "Stop" won't do any good. I worry, though, about those who think governments can pass laws that can stop a moving avalanche from doing what it does. They just might try something like that.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #747 – 2015-12-14, 00:43:42

Unlike the tides, we can pass laws and implement policies that seriously reduce our carbon emissions. I'll believe that when I actually see that.

Will that stop global warning? I'm not sure. We may be too late. The world is heating up and the added heat is causing the release of stored carbon from ice sheets and the deep ocean. We may have gotten a carbon release cycle that feeds upon itself.

Its like a runaway train, where locomotive power is applied on an uphill slope and finally after passing the top of the slope the engine power is cut and everyone hopes the train will be stopped while racing downhill laking brakes.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #748 – 2015-12-14, 01:48:31

Or: The analogies may be way off-base… The published science is contradictory, and that which relies upon IPCC-approved (…read "vetted") sources has been wrong for close to two decades.

But expect the public relations campaign to continue: There's a lot of money at stake!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #749 – 2015-12-14, 11:33:27

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-12-13, 22:35:44

Doubtful. I know enough--- having seen enough avalanches on TV which is a good place to see them--to know that standing in front of one trying to stop it by holding up your hand and shouting "Stop" won't do any good. I worry, though, about those who think governments can pass laws that can stop a moving avalanche from doing what it does. They just might try something like that.

Well, for one thing here in Europe we have something called avalanche barriers and other avalanche control techniques, so we can indeed largely counteract the potential harm that might come from avalanches. I can't imagine that's any different in the US. Your metaphor merely highlights the difference between passing a law and actually implementing it. But that aside, is it possible for people to cause avalanches to occur even when they wouldn't have naturally?