h a l f b a k e r yYou could have thought of that.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This Idea has the purpose of targeting someone who claims
Global
Warming isn't a real thing. I might point out that arguments
pro
and con, on that subject, have been compared to Religious
arguments (thus the chosen category for this Idea). We start by
observing that person's "routine".
Then we buy a few thousand
microwave ovens, and disassemble them somewhat. We want to
convert each one into a parabolic microwave-beam generator,
that looks like an ordinary satellite TV dish. We
place these ovens at various places and distances from the
target's
normal path of motion, and turn them on.
Each oven generates a beam that will weaken with distance.
This
is fine, and part of the reason why we locate them at
reasonable
distances from the target. The goal, however, is to ensure the
target is always being beamed-at by a multitude of these
modified
ovens.
We all know that water makes up a large portion of the human
body, and microwave ovens are specifically designed to
generate
electromagnetic waves that can be easily absorbed by water
molecules. Our target will therefore become somewhat warmer
than normal.
It won't matter what the outside temperature is, or how cold an
air conditioning system is set, as long as the target is getting
beamed by multiple modified ovens, extra warmth will be
experienced by the target.
The final step is to make sure that the target is told that Global
Warming is a real thing, and everyone will be affected by it
sooner or later. Indeed, some might be affected sooner than
others....
After the target has become convinced that Global Warming is
indeed a real thing, perhaps some of the ovens can be
repurposed,
and aimed at a different target who needs to be similarly
educated. But some of them should remain focused on the
original target, just to ensure that person's mind doesn't change
again.
Apparently lobsters can't deal with high water levels
http://www.pressher...vive-ocean-warming/ [theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016]
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
http://response.res...cience-vs-myth.html [theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016]
Our genes are already changing!
http://www.ibtimes....ing-climate-1591112 [theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016]
Some Data
http://phys.org/new...spheric-co2.html#ms Historical data, and our ability to measure ancient stuff, are two different things. [Vernon, Nov 11 2016]
I think we've seen this before...
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [RayfordSteele, Nov 11 2016]
Recent Month by Month Temperature Data
http://www.ncdc.noa.../sotc/global/201606 Average global temperature is definitely on an upward trend. [Vernon, Nov 13 2016]
NASA graph of CO2 concentration over the millenia
http://climate.nasa...2-graph-021116.jpeg [FlyingToaster, Nov 13 2016]
Ice Ages data
http://muller.lbl.g...ory_of_climate.html As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 14 2016]
Measuring atmospheric transparancy
http://www.atmosphe...ent-techniques.net/ As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 14 2016]
Opposition to the Clean Air Act
http://www.ucsusa.o...t.html#.WCnJXC0rKw4 As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 14 2016]
A pretty well-supported list of >1300 peer-reviewed papers that disagree with anthropogenic climate change.
http://www.populart...ers-supporting.html Organization of Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve Climate Change [MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2016, last modified Nov 15 2016]
A who's who of the skeptics and believers
http://www.eecg.uto...e/list_sources.html [RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016]
Biased but interesting
http://www.desmogbl...und-latest-petition [RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016]
Top 10 Nostradamus Predictions for 2016
http://alexnoudelma...edictions-for-2016/ Aparently also prophesied in 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016 [Voice, Nov 15 2016]
A correlation
http://time.com/448...l-moon-earthquakes/ The recent "supermoon" perhaps triggered the 7.8 jolt in New Zealand? This link was inspired by an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 15 2016]
Latest GW news
https://www.theguar...r-on-record-un-says 15 of the hottest years EVER happened in the time period 2000-2015, and 2016 is on track to set a new record. [Vernon, Nov 16 2016]
Eh hem...
http://www.msn.com/...Bnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP [RayfordSteele, Jan 05 2017]
[link]
|
|
Too much rant, not enough idea. |
|
|
We have no problem with the fact that your planet's average temperature is rising. |
|
|
We do have a problem with the unproven assertion that the change is exclusively anthropogenic. |
|
|
Vernon, the issue is ultimately not warming, or the
correctness of the models -- how's Tuesday's results for
reliable statistical modeling, btw? |
|
|
The issue is ultimately prioritization, and the relative,
absurd weight being put on this versus what energy
provides, and, refusal to accept that when the
appropriate tech actually gets there, the drop in fossil
fuel use will be so fast as to make any of the current
"gestures" irrelevant. |
|
|
What we don't understand is that if your species is so concerned about atmospheric CO2, why don't you just shut down a bunch of your planet's volcanoes ? They're a major source, and you wouldn't have to worry about switching energy supply. |
|
|
gotta laugh... well, not me, I'm human... but the fact that most of the emphasis on denial - right in the face of solid evidence - consists of "not me, I din't do it, you can't prove it", like a) it actually matters what's causing it, wouldn't you want to stop it ?, and b) some superior being's gonna show up and give us hell (ha) for it, and somehow that superior being is too stupid to recognize bullshit. |
|
|
it doesn't matter what's causing it. What matters is there
are 7B people on the planet, all of whom did not request
to be born, and a tiny fraction of whom -- mostly those
who oppose global warming -- lives better than any
Roman emperor might have imagined -- and the rest, who
would really love some fucken heat and air conditioning. |
|
|
That all political propaganda weapons are used for denial
-- just as they are used for support, (see lobster link) is
even less surprising then the shocking realization that we
didn't really have a war on women until Trump showed
up, and McCain and Romney were kind of ok guys after
all. |
|
|
I mean lobsters, for fucks sake -- arthropods that evolved
600 Mil years ago, and survived multiple impacts, ice ages
and snowball earth, are threatened by global warming. |
|
|
Perhaps I should have mentioned that manhy naysayers
basically suffer from the problem of "parochialism".
They think that if Global Warming doesn't appear to be
happening locally, then it isn't actually happening
elsewhere (can't embrace concepts of GLOBAL and
AVERAGE). So, this Idea tries to make the experiencing
of warming "up close and personal", to compensate for
that parochialism. |
|
|
[8th of 7], look up how many tons of chlorocarbons
were associated with the anthropogenic "ozone hole" --
and then look up the total number of tons of carbon
dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere. That
second number is at least *half*a*million*times* as
much as the first number. How is it possible for anyone
to think that that much CO2 cannot have an effect upon
the atmosphere, considering how little it took to make
the ozone hole? |
|
|
There was a great quote that Peter Thiel used about
Trump -- he said people in the establishment were taking
him literally, but not seriously, and the people that voted
for him took him seriously, but not literally. |
|
|
We'll see how that plays out ultimately, but Vernon: don't
you understand they are not denying it. They are denying
the govt. the power to dictate to them. Denial is a
weapon, the only weapon they have left. |
|
|
You want to fix that? Figure out how to get coal workers
jobs, they'll stop denying it. |
|
|
The amount of fluorocarbons needed to make the ozone hole has fuck all to do with the amount of CO2 needed to warm the globe. |
|
|
When Eyjafjallajökull erupted, it emitted far less CO2 than
the airplanes it grounded would have had they been flying.
Therefore, triggering many volcanic eruptions could help
slow global warming. Also, all of the ash they put in the
atmosphere could cause some cooling (like the Year Without
a Summer). |
|
|
We need fewer jobs. Millions of makework jobs need to go away and be replaced with welfare fed by an efficient market. Either the people who believe in technological unemployment are wrong, in which case the market will find new work for them or they're right in which case at least the government won't be poking its dirty fingers into the economic pie. |
|
|
you'll get there with basic income within 30 years, I would
guess |
|
|
How can any thinking, scientifically minded person say
that
the attached article is anything but pure, unadulterated
nonsense. |
|
|
Apart from the fact that genes -- like climate -- are
always
changing -- it is this nonsensical propaganda to those who
understand genetics just about as well as they
understand
meteorology, so they can bully everyone else into
submission that drives everyone on the opposing side
nuts. |
|
|
// How is it possible for anyone to think that that much CO2 cannot have an effect upon the atmosphere, considering how little it took to make the ozone hole? // |
|
|
1. Chlorofluorocarbons are an artificial product, which never previously existed on your planet in significant quantities. |
|
|
Your argument is fallacious; it could be phrased as "Since it only took X amount of cyanogen to kill the subject, dimethylhydrazine must be just as toxic, as it too is a compound of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen" |
|
|
2. We are not asserting that anthropogenic CO2 has no effect. We are questioning how much of an effect it has, compared to all other natural sources. |
|
|
3. Your planet is billions of your years old. Your accurate written records cover at best 300 years. Evidence from geological sources clearly demonstrate that 10 millennia ago, there was extensive glaciation. |
|
|
We ask again: where is the evidence ? The timescale is much too short to be meaningful on a planetary scale. |
|
|
The link is interesting, but: |
|
|
The x-axis is not linear. On the left, 700,000 years. On the right, 200 years, or 0.03% of the timespan. The historic data is inferred from other sources. There are substantial error bars. |
|
|
// despite decades of progress, the number is still subject to uncertainty ... Our results imply ... Using these estimates... The researchers project .... range of estimates ... human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are likely ... // |
|
|
Not lot of certainty there. We expect "conclusive" or "beyond reasonable doubt" or "indisputably". |
|
|
If a hammer is dropped on your planet today, the probability of it accelerating at 9.81m/s2 is .99999; if a hammer is dropped tomorrow, the probability of it accelerating at 9.81m/s2 is .99999; if a hammer is dropped in 2116CE, the probability of it accelerating at 9.81m/s2 is .99999. |
|
|
Climatologists can't even say if next month is going to be warm or cold. When they can do that, we might start to consider listening to their longer term predictions. |
|
|
Mere accumulation of observational evidence is not proof. |
|
|
Polar icecap maps go back 150 years, available on the 'net. |
|
|
But not to worry: eventually our telescopes will spot a planet-killer asteroid headed our way; and the deniers can say "Hey, we didn't put it there, it's not our problem". |
|
|
Wow, that's a huge data set ... not. |
|
|
// our telescopes will spot a planet-killer asteroid // |
|
|
No, they won't - we've stuck a big "stealth" shroud, coated with platinum black, on the front. Its albedo is virtually nil across the whole e-m spectrum. |
|
|
We're going to let it get uncomfortably close before we detach it. Oh, how we will laugh ... |
|
|
// the deniers can say "Hey, we didn't put it there, it's not our problem". // |
|
|
Thankyou for proving our point. Confidence factor that said object will strike your planet: 0.6 or better. Conclusion: serious problem, take action. |
|
|
Anthropogenic climate change: confidence factor .... errr ... um... anybody ? |
|
|
[8th], you should know by now that a religion needs no proof. In fact, the less proof there is, the stronger the conviction. |
|
|
No, there's reasonable evidence that it's correct: but it was a rather small eruption from a modestly-sized volcano. |
|
|
Hekla is HUGE, and counting down to a Big One ... though it doesn't need to be a VEI8 eruption to throw out a lot of CO2. Huyaputina in Peru is a medium-sized "puffer" but it goes pretty much all the time. There are plenty of vents like that, and their collective emissions dwarf human efforts. |
|
|
//their collective emissions dwarf human efforts.// You have clearly never spent time in a combined space with Sturton. |
|
|
All we need is one world-capacity air conditioner and one world-capacity heater. The air conditioner would transfer heat to space-facing radiative vanes. |
|
|
So, Vernon. Your posted plan to show those people who
believe that Global Warming is a hoax and a fraud that it is
indeed real, is to construct a hoax and a fraud? |
|
|
What about those who do not believe that global warming is a fraud and a hoax, but are just not convinced by the theories and evidence presented ? |
|
|
Theory: A very long time ago, there were huge lizard-like creatures living on this planet.
Evidence: Identifiable petrified remains of huge lizard-like creatures are regularly found in rocks that are proven to be very old. |
|
|
Theory: Vesuvius will erupt within 25 years
Evidence: Historical and geologic records show that Vesuvius erupts on average every 55 years. Vesuvius last erupted 70 years ago. |
|
|
Theory: The Red Sox will score 30 points in the first 15 minutes of their next game.
Evidence: They scored 2 points in the last minute of their previous game ... |
|
|
The main problem with "global warming" is that the theory has been adjusted repeatedly to fit the evidence, but at no stage has predicted what will happen next. |
|
|
Nobody predicted - when global warming was a novel idea - that there would be long pauses without warming. But, now that there's been a long pause, the theory has been adapted to account for it. Nobody predicted that some places would actually get colder but, now that it's happened, the theory has been adapted to account for it. Nobody predicted that some glaciers would grow, or that polar ice might sometimes expand as well as recede - but those have now been incorporated into the theory. |
|
|
I tell you, it is pathological science on a vast scale. It's sickening. |
|
|
// at no stage has predicted what will happen next. // |
|
|
The important question is not "Are average planetary temperatures changing ?". The important question is "Are average planetary temperatures changing as a result of human activity ?". |
|
|
What makes climatology exempt from the critical analysis to which any theory based on a short-term observation of an extremely large, chaotic, multivariant system should be subjected ? |
|
|
Of course, the great advantage of an extremely big data set is that large portions of it can be discarded until what remains confirms with the hypothesis, while still retaining a generous enough sample to be convincing. |
|
|
[8th], we appear to be in agreement. Should I change my opinion, or will you? |
|
|
[AusCan531], the Idea involves actual warming. There is
no fraud in that. Nor is there any fraud in recent averages
of global temperatures, rising practically every month. See
link |
|
|
"Human history is the story of limited resources that have competing uses". |
|
|
// Nor is there any fraud in recent averages of global temperatures, rising practically every month. // |
|
|
Can anyone prove what's causing it ? |
|
|
In a couple years we can probably blame Trump. |
|
|
//Can anyone prove what's causing it ?// |
|
|
The output of a few billion automobiles and massive deforestation are generally considered to be decent clues. |
|
|
The actual calculations aren't too difficult, either. (A bit beyond yours truly, but I can see them even if I can't do them) |
|
|
- does anthro carbon energy usage, and deforestation, account for 225ppm-->400ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ? Y/N |
|
|
- what effect does near doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere have on its heat absorption and reflection properties. |
|
|
- how much heat is then being absorbed by the planet (which is a known percentage of ice, water and rock at the surface, and rock under that, also being warmed from within) |
|
|
But hey, it might turn out to be the Moon getting closer to the Earth or something and stirring things up gravitationally. |
|
|
//The output of a few billion automobiles// Number check: current world automobile population is about 1.2 billion. |
|
|
//what effect does near doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere have on its heat absorption and reflection properties. // |
|
|
Actually, saying "near doubling" is bamboozle. It's like saying that humanity is doomed because deaths from spear-fishing accidents have doubled. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. CO2, even at its present levels (which are less than 50% above pre-industrial levels, not double), makes a relatively small contribution to the earth's heat balance. |
|
|
If global warming weren't a religion, we might actually be able to do something about it. But it is, and so we won't. Both sides make up numbers and science to suit their beliefs. |
|
|
//less than 50% above pre-industrial levels// oh, well that's okay then. |
|
|
<link> CO2 chart going back a million years - how long before it actually *is* "double" ? |
|
|
//water vapour// which concentration will increase, the hotter the planet gets. Also methane, also hydrogen (which will increase as we use it more). |
|
|
Also, one-shot deals but probably massive ones, clathrates from a warming ocean and decomposition from warmed up tundrae. |
|
|
Oh, and given the huge energy transferred in phase change, a melted polar icecap removes the buffering "lake effect" off the top of the world. |
|
|
I still think we should nuke Antarctica for a short-term partial mitigation. |
|
|
//humanity is doomed because deaths from spear-fishing
accidents have doubled// |
|
|
Finally, the word is getting out. |
|
|
//If global warming weren't a religion, we might
actually be able to do something about it. But it is, and so
we won't.// |
|
|
Ask a true believer about addressing the problem by
increasing the use of nuclear power plants and watch how
they
get that look on their face like a dog gets when you hide
his ball behind your back. The neat thing about the
nuclear option (the good kind of nuclear option) is that it
would be advantageous even burning coal and oil were the
best thing ever for the environment. |
|
|
The most important discoveries are made through science. The most important inventions are made through technology. The most important decisions are made through superstition. |
|
|
//<link> CO2 chart going back a million years // Well, your chart only goes back half a million years, but that's a minor detail. I wonder why they cut it off at half a million years ago? |
|
|
I guess my point is that the physics simply doesn't support the idea that an increase in CO2 concentrations of 0.025% (ie, from 250ppm to 500ppm, which we ain't at yet) will have any significant effect on the earth's energy budget. And although the climate is currently warming (or has been until recently, give or take the odd pause; and give or take the effect of urbanization of many of the points at which reference temperatures are recorded), the current fluctuations are nothing unusual when set against the historical record. And the current changes don't correlate with changes in CO2 levels anyway. |
|
|
The point is, there is no science in "climate science", and there hasn't been since it became a religion and declared anyone else a heretic. If it were a clinical trial, it would be laughed out of court in under half an hour. |
|
|
//Can anyone prove what's causing it?// |
|
|
Yes. As an object in space, the Earth both receives and
radiates energy. Whenever the rates of the two things
are balanced, global average temperature is constant.
Whenever they are unbalanced, global average
temperature either rises or falls. |
|
|
Since we observe a warming trend, the conclusion is
inescape-able, that the Earth isn't radiating energy at
the rate energy arrives (regardless of source; consider
nuclear fission power plants, totally independent of the
stored-solar-energy releasing system known as the
"fossil fuel industry"). |
|
|
Of course, the above is a bit simplistic in that it doesn't
include any barriers to the reception of energy (clouds
in the daytime) or the emission of energy (clouds at
night). We've discovered that "greenhouse gases" are
another type of barrier (allowing light-energy to arrive
while inhibiting the escape of infrared energy). |
|
|
We all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I already
mentioned that we've dumped at least half a million
times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we ever
dumped the chlorocarbons that caused the ozone hole.
I might mention something apparently overlooked so far
in this page, that the concrete-production industry
makes millions of tons of the stuff every year, and the
production process involves heating limestone to
release CO2, an entirely separate source of the gas,
different from burning carbon. |
|
|
About that "half a million times", I simply asked how
anyone could possibly
think that all that CO2 could have absolutely no effect
whatsoever --and various deniers here appear to be
saying exactly that. Possibly because to admit that if all
that CO2 had even a tiny global-warming effect, then
that tiny effect absolutely positively certainly would
qualify as "anthropogenic global warming" --which is
NOT what I talked about in the main text of this Idea. I
was talking about Generic Global Warming, and the
deniers of THAT, and how to convince them otherwise. |
|
|
But "generic" global warming, i.e. a rise in planetary average temperature as a result of entirely natural processes, is irellevant, because it's outside the control of your species' puny technology - and therefore not worth worrying about. |
|
|
Atmospheric CO2 has risen substantially as a result of fossil fuel use. |
|
|
Average temperatures have risen correspondingly, there being a clear correlation between the two measurements. |
|
|
Let us consider a potential countervailing process: |
|
|
Oceanic CO2 rises. Ocean temperatures also rise. This encourages a massive increase in algal blooms and phytoplankton.
Things that eat phytoplankton and algae, like zooplankton, correspondingly increase.
Both these processes can happen very quickly as the life cycle of both types is fast.
Some zooplankton sequester carbon to construct their exoskeleton; other creatures that feed on them also sequester carbon.
Zooplankton and their predators then die, and their insoluble carbonaceous residue descends to the ocean floor, where it remains.
This strips carbon from solution - potentially in vast quantities. |
|
|
All it needs is the system to reach a "tipping point". |
|
|
We are not, repeat not, suggesting that plankton will reverse the temperature rise. We are merely asking if there may be a mechanism that abruptly reverses the trend, plunging your planet into a new ice age, as suggested in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" ... which will require a slight rethink by climatologists. |
|
|
It wasn't our fault ... we told them to fix it ... |
|
|
// But "generic" global warming, i.e. a rise in
planetary average temperature as a result of entirely
natural processes// |
|
|
NOT. The word "generic" doesn't care what the cause
might be. It encompasses any and all causes. |
|
|
//But "generic" global warming ... is ... outside the
control of your species' puny technology// |
|
|
Wrong again. Since it is *known* that CO2 is a
greenhouse gas, it logically follows that the more CO2 in
the air, the greater its contribution to Generic Global
Warming, regardless of how small that contribution
might be. And, ditto with methane, an even more
potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (and mostly produced
by bovine digestive tracts). In either case, adding more
of the gas to the atmosphere can only help average
global temperature rise, not fall. Therefore it logically
follows that we should add less. The logic is very
simple. |
|
|
The entire argument of AGW deniers is that the
atmosphere can absorb endless amounts of CO2 and
methane with zero consequences. That is a stupidity
reminiscent of earlier decades when it was claimed that
the atmosphere could absorb endless amounts of SO2
and other pollutants, with zero consequences. Acid
rain and smog and the ozone hole proved it was stupid
then, and ocean acidification (causing coral reefs to
die) proves the deniers are still espousing stupidity
today. |
|
|
Ice ages are associated with astronomical configurations
(see link). It is quite possible that modern Global
Warming is actually preventing the start of the next Ice
Age (average interglacial periods have been a few
thousand years, and our current interglacial has passed
10,000 years). This means we need to be careful about
how we go about reining-in Global Warming. If we can
avoid World War 3 for about 50 more years, then our
presence in near-Earth space should make it possible to
control the Earth's average temperature with "solar sail"
mirrors and sunshades. Then, except for ocean
acidification, it won't matter too much how much CO2
and methane is in the atmosphere --and it won't matter
how little there is, either. |
|
|
//The entire argument of AGW deniers is that the atmosphere can absorb endless amounts of CO2 and methane with zero consequences.// |
|
|
Since you seem to be speaking on behalf of me, [Vernon], might I be allowed to comment? |
|
|
First, the use of the term "deniers". Have you ever encountered that word elsewhere, except in the context of "holocaust denier"? Probably not. It was chosen, as a label for those who doubt modern climate "science", precisely because it equates us with rabid holocaust "deniers". It is one example of the religification of climate science, and shows more ignorance on the part of AGW believers than on the part of doubters. |
|
|
Second, you are stooping quite low if you need to use straw men and false arguments. Nobody is suggesting that the atmosphere will be unaffected by "endless" amounts of CO2 - that was your phrase, [Vern]. What we are suggesting is that an increase in the amount of CO2 on the order of 0.02-0.03% (as a fraction of atmospheric gases) is, based on known physics, unlikely to have a significant impact on the earth's energy budget; and that there is little if any evidence to suggest that the climate is responding to elevated CO2 levels, as opposed to its undergoing another one of the thousands of fluctuations which have happened since the dawn of time. |
|
|
So, am I being unreasonable? Am I a rabid fool, to be equated with a "holocaust denier"? Or am I exercising my right to be skeptical of what appears, to me at least, to be some very bad science? |
|
|
I won't stoop to your level by bandying about perjorative terms, nor by mis-characterizing your arguments. If I were to do that, I would probably call you an uncritical twat with no opinion other than that fed to you; but, as I said, I wouldn't stoop to that level. |
|
|
[MaxwellBuchanan], are you telling me that no one has
made measurements of gas-combination transparency?
When we build things like LIGO (laser interferometric
gravitational observatory) with kilometers-long
EVACUATED laser tubes, you can be quite certain one
reason for the vacuum is because of energy-absorption
by gases. To say that "known physics" doesn't knows
enough about what photon frequencies the Earth's
atmosphere is able to transmit easily and absorb easily,
so as to allow AGW deniers a valid rationale, sounds a
great deal like lying, to me. See link. |
|
|
Furthermore, nothing in what you wrote to me offers
any refutation whatsoever of the data and simple logic I
presented (in that "wrong again" paragraph). If what I
wrote was erroneous, why didn't
you point out an actual error? |
|
|
And regarding the label "deniers", it is my understanding
that most of them have financial interests in the fossil-
fuel industry (or are funded by the fossil-fuel industry),
and their selfish desire to protect that is all the excuse
they need to deny AGW. It is the same sort of greedy
selfishness that causes folks to push for eliminating
things like the Clean Air Act (see link), no matter who
gets harmed afterward. |
|
|
//Whatever the cause of high CO2// Most people (even me) agree that the current high CO2 levels are due to human activity. But then again, the historically high levels of mozarella are also anthropogenic. The question is whether it has any significant effect. |
|
|
//It's pretty clear from historical graphs that CO2 levels and temperature are linked// It's also pretty clear that they are not linked at the timescale expected if CO2 drives earth's temperature. CO2 cycles through the atmosphere very quickly, and also should have an immediate effect on temperatures (if it has any effect at all). So, CO2 and temperature ought to correlate with almost no time lag, at least on an archeological (let alone geological) level. |
|
|
Also, the climate change people claim that higher temperatures result in more loss of CO2 from various sinks, meaning that temperatures might be driving CO2, rather than the other way around. Their whole argument for a "tipping point" is, equally, an argument that CO2 is not a major causative factor. |
|
|
// the historically high levels of mozarella are also anthropogenic // |
|
|
Now, there's an easy Ph.D. thesis in that for a smart postgrad who's good with the ol' Weasel Words ... |
|
|
//[MB] Are you running for some kind or orifice ? There's a lot of rhetoric there.// So, you're saying it's a rhetorical question? |
|
|
//historically high levels of mozarella// Ever noticed how many parts of Italy are quite warm - and pizza ovens are especially so? Ever noticed that a slab of Mozarella absorbs huge amounts of infra-red if you put it under a grill? During the last ice age, there is very little evidence of there being any Mozarella at all; and, since the end of the "Little Ice Age" of 1300-1870, anthropogenic Mozarella has increased more than ten-fold. |
|
|
Anyone who argues that a more-than-tenfold increase in global Mozarella levels cannot have some impact on the climate is, frankly, a Mozarellacaust Denier and beneath contempt. Any data supporting the position of these Deniers is, of course, spurious and anomalous and must therefore be de-selected. Only the evidence supporting a causal link can be correct, so we are performing a public service by selecting such evidence. |
|
|
Extra mozzarella on ours, please. |
|
|
Once people tire of Global Warming, I'm going to rally a few geologist friends and see if we can start a movement to slow down Anthropogenic Global Bending. It's caused (since you asked) by the slow expansion of re-bar in old reinforced concrete, due to water penetration and rusting. Because of the huge increase in the use of reinforced concrete (especially in foundations) since the start of the industrial revolution, this phenomenon is causing an overall expansion of land in developed countries, leading to tectonic bending which, in turn, triggers earthquakes. |
|
|
New Zealand has been the latest victim of Anthropogenic Global Bending, and my computer models suggest that there will be at least one major earthquake over the coming decade. We must act now! |
|
|
Max, I think I'd take you more seriously and less likely to aim
my microwave ray at you if you could provide
some dissenting papers as produced by the Organization of
Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve
Climate Change or somesuch. |
|
|
Global deflation. That's where it's at. All of these leaky
volcanoes are going to cause this place to just flatten
someday. |
|
|
//provide some dissenting papers as produced by the Organization of Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve Climate Change// |
|
|
OK, would, say, 1300 such dissenting papers - all published in decent peer-reviewed journals - satisfy you? |
|
|
If so, the <link> lists about 1360 such papers. The <link> also carefully explains the methods used to identify those papers, to check their validity, and so forth. |
|
|
That's over 1300 peer-reviewed papers either debunking or questioning anthropogenic climate change, brought to you by the Organization of Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve Climate Change. |
|
|
Gave the [+] for the title. Didn't read the details, sorry. It
seems most people didn't like the content... |
|
|
[edit] ok, I read the details. I too don't like the content... |
|
|
You had me at "Start with a bunch of modified
microwave
ovens." |
|
|
It might, if the link worked. |
|
|
Well that's all a bit convenient, isn't it? I'm sorry I should have specified the "Organization of Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve Climate Change That are Not Bought and Paid For by the Oil Industry." |
|
|
Dr. Sherwood Idso is the most-cited author of the papers listed, president of the 'Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a think tank funded by ExxonMobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. |
|
|
The second-most cited author is Dr. Patrick Michaels, known climate skeptic whose largest funding source is also from the oil industry. |
|
|
The linked list might be interesting. |
|
|
//most of them have financial interests in the fossil- fuel industry// |
|
|
The most intelligent and best-qualified person I know of who *does* believe in AGW actually works for an oil company. This helps to keep me confused. |
|
|
//I'm sorry I should have specified...// Anything else? |
|
|
I suspect that, if you're a climatologist and not part of the Church of Global Warming, funding is pretty thin on the ground. So, perhaps the fact that some of the authors of those 1300+ papers are funded by the oil industry isn't so surprising. |
|
|
Just out of interest, if you were on a jury, would you say "Yeah, but all those defence lawyers are being paid by the defendant." ? |
|
|
Seriously, dude, what do you expect? Anthropogenic climate change is, truly, a religion. It might be real, or it might not - you might be right and I might be wrong. My point, though, is that any hope of doing objective science on this was lost a long time ago. |
|
|
Seeing as how the military is planning for climate change
events in their budgets, and given NOAA's interest in the
matter, I would think a sufficiently creative group of
environmental scientists could secure funding from
government project inquiry. |
|
|
I would not be skeptical of the defense in that example.
However, if it were found that the judge were on the
take as well, I'd start to open an inquiry. |
|
|
The error in your analogy here is that there is or should
be no prosecution and no defense. This is simply
investigative science, which works rather differently than
law in that when the 'defendant' is 'truly guilty,' the
defense team is not bound to vigorously defend him
anyway. |
|
|
//The error in your analogy here is that there is or should be no prosecution and no defense.// |
|
|
But that's the thing - it is no longer a matter of objective enquiry. Look at the language which is used to decry anyone who dissents! |
|
|
It would be wonderful if it were //simply investigative science//. It isn't, though, and hasn't been for a few decades now. There is a huge investment in AGW - both in terms of policies espoused and money invested. AGW is now simply too big to be allowed to be wrong. |
|
|
I'd be more curious about research on the negative impact
of warming. It's the "justification" studies -- our genes are
already changing! -- the lobsters are dying! -- that are
driving me nuts. Surely it's obvious these grants, from the
governments, are primarily for propaganda purposes. |
|
|
It seems to me as a workhorse in the automotive world that
current industry has much more economic entrenchment
than developing science. |
|
|
Climate change, if it does happen, in my estimation, would
be catastrophically expensive, dwarfing the cost of research
support from either side. |
|
|
[MaxwellBuchanan], I still don't see anything you wrote
that points out an error in this simple data and logic: |
|
|
// Since it is *known* that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it
logically follows that the more CO2 in the air, the
greater its contribution to Generic Global Warming,
regardless of how small that contribution might be.
And, ditto with methane, an even more potent
greenhouse gas than CO2 .... In either case, adding
more of the gas to the atmosphere can only help
average global temperature rise, not fall. Therefore it
logically follows that we should add less. The logic is
very simple.// |
|
|
Let's fast forward past the "why", add "carbon caused
global warming or not, it's a good idea to save oil and gas"
and start looking at possible solutions. |
|
|
According to the global cooling cabal, nuclear power
plants aren't acceptable because a few people have been
killed by them over the last 60 years. I thought global
warming was going to kill billions of people? Where's the
risk/reward evaluation here? |
|
|
The solution given by the politicians is giving more money
and power to the politicians. Shocking. This is the number
one reason given for needing an all powerful planetary
governing body with the ability to tax all the citizens of
Earth as necessary. Not a new idea, just a new spin on a
very old idea. Fascists always warn of us some disaster
that requires us to surrender our sovereignty and
freedom to them immediately if not sooner. Global
capitalism, the Jews, the infidels, it's always something. |
|
|
So while we're evaluating risk to reward ratios, let's
look at what's caused the most chaos and death in the
past century. Totalitarian governments operating under
Communism and National Socialism were the black plague
of the 20th century. A tenth of a billion souls wiped out
because of the "un-refutable science" of totalitarian
socialist doctrine. So what's the solution to the new
challenges we face? The "un-refutable science" of
totalitarian socialist doctrine. |
|
|
It is the nature of science that it is done collaboratively--
even when lone discoverers find new things they are
eventually shared. Is that socialist? |
|
|
It is also the nature of government to also collaborate, in
some horrid fashion or other. |
|
|
That those Venn diagrams have some overlap into the
same world is probably a good thing.
Is it perfect? Not by a longshot. |
|
|
More nuke plants are very welcome. |
|
|
//nuclear power plants aren't acceptable because a few people have been killed by them over the last 60 years. I thought global warming was going to kill billions of people? Where's the risk/reward evaluation here?// |
|
|
You are witnessing what is known as Mulligan's Law: a law that saves 100 lives and costs 1 will never be passed. Why? Well, if one person dies in a nuclear accident, he has a mother who will mourn him on TV. If a hundred people are saved by not being globally warmed, nobody knows who those hundred people are. |
|
|
Ray and Doc agreeing, the Cubs winning the World Series, a
reality TV star winning the Presidency. Hmm. Wonder what
Nostradamus said about 2016. |
|
|
I'm blaming the supermoon. |
|
|
Give me a week and I'll have hard data on next weeks
lottery numbers. Climate change might take a little
longer. I tend to listen to the voices that I believe
have the best scientific minds. |
|
|
Are we in Back to the Future II? The Cubs win and Biff
becomes President... |
|
|
Climate is basically weather. Weather is known for changing over time, hence the reason that the French use the same word for "time" and "weather". |
|
|
Weather is also fractal, in the same way that the stock market or Sturton's BMI are. Hence, there will be as much long-term variability as short-term variability. |
|
|
Personally, I blame the seals. Seal evil is rising. |
|
| |