Climate Change - Fact or Fiction

[Jane]

Joshpantera:   I don't think theories of what happened 65 million years ago are scientific fact. They are just theories, like evolution.  It might have been like that, or not.  Basing everything on some ice in the arctic doesn't sound very scientific to me.  Theory is just that, it is NOT fact, until you can prove it. You will never be able to prove what happened 65 million years ago. Well, maybe some day they will invent some sort of new science, that we can't even imagine yet. But for now, theory is not fact.( It's like evolution and the beginning of life. Until someone can create life out of the molecules, and then breed either 2 species and get a new one, or breed the same and get a new one, evolution is only theory also.  Want to have a thread on that? )

 

My point is this,  if there was warming and this warming was caused by increases in CO2  caused by human activity, you should be able to prove it with temperature data ( date, location , temp, and who measured and how) and show a simple trend line that temperature has increased as CO2 caused by humans has increased.  It is not rocket science! You should be able to do this for many places on this planet.  Human population has exploded in the last roughly 100 years and fuel consumption resulting in CO2 has increased with the increase in population.   It should not be that difficult, and it isn't.   You can't get this data because there is no warming trend.    The church of global warming has been created for political purposes, that's all.   

 

Why I picked 100 years?  Because in the last roughly 100 years population has increased in a huge way, and CO2 production caused by humans has increased in a huge way. This IS what we are supposed to be measuring right?  I know it's not exactly 100 but close enough.   We can probably assume that more than 100 years ago, humans were not capable of affecting anything on this planet very much except in their immediate area.  There were just not enough people there, plus the technology was limited to burning coal or wood.  Now humanity could destroy this planet for real ( by setting off enough nukes) .  So I don't really care what the temperature was 65 billion years ago. I only care what it has done in the last roughly 100 years.  I would have said 200 but I doubt there is any sort of meaningful data available from 200 years ago for most locations.   

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

19 minutes ago, Jane said:

They are just theories, like evolution. Theory is just that, it is NOT fact, until you can prove it.

 

You have a severe misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. It's not a 'guess' like I have a 'theory' that the stock market will crash kind of thing.

 

A scientific theory is an explanation of all the observable facts about a particular natural phenomenon.

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains this fact, and does so quite well.

[LogicalFallacy]

25 minutes ago, Jane said:

My point is this,  if there was warming and this warming was caused by increases in CO2  caused by human activity, you should be able to prove it with temperature data ( date, location , temp, and who measured and how) and show a simple trend line that temperature has increased as CO2 caused by humans has increased.  It is not rocket science! You should be able to do this for many places on this planet.  Human population has exploded in the last roughly 100 years and fuel consumption resulting in CO2 has increased with the increase in population.   It should not be that difficult, and it isn't.   You can't get this data because there is no warming trend.    The church of global warming has been created for political purposes, that's all.   

 

What do you think they've been doing? You can get the data, it just takes effort, and probably some technical expertise. The databases they are stored in require knowledge of how to use those databases. They aren't sored on clean little spreadsheets.

 

Carbon dioxide levels 800,000 years:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

 

Relationships between CO2 and temperature

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

[disillusioned]

31 minutes ago, Jane said:

I don't think theories of what happened 65 million years ago are scientific fact. They are just theories, like evolution.  It might have been like that, or not.  Basing everything on some ice in the arctic doesn't sound very scientific to me.  Theory is just that, it is NOT fact, until you can prove it. You will never be able to prove what happened 65 million years ago. Well, maybe some day they will invent some sort of new science, that we can't even imagine yet. But for now, theory is not fact.( It's like evolution and the beginning of life. Until someone can create life out of the molecules, and then breed either 2 species and get a new one, or breed the same and get a new one, evolution is only theory also.  Want to have a thread on that? )

 

Not exactly the point of the thread, but this is very telling about how you view science in general. Scientific theories are not speculative. Not even those which concern events from 65 million years ago. A detailed discussion of this may be beyond the purview of the thread, but I'm happy to go there anytime.  Here or elsewhere.

[sdelsolray]

Another empty suit, folks.

[LogicalFallacy]

16 hours ago, Jane said:

All the fear about sea levels comes from climate models. *None* of it comes from actual measurements."

 

It's not just climate models. We can track the amount of total ice and see that the total amount is becoming less. That means its melting. You can calculate the effect of so many billions of tones of ice melting on the sea level. That doesn't require a model.

 

Quote

Good comments and it shows what sort of hypocrites the church of global warming believers are in many cases.

 

And here I thought we were going to avoid name calling and labelling? You were the one who requested that we refrain from such. Perhaps those of us who are the Hypocritical Church of Global Warming Believers" should come up with an appropriate title for non believers. Suggestions anybody? (Joking of course, I don't want actual suggestions, lets keep this thread… ahem scientific.)

 

Quote

I just read somewhere ( I will look for the link if someone really wants it) that Al Gore just bought some millions of $ ocean front property.  Obviously , if he expected the oceans to rise anytime soon, he would not have done that. Never mind the HUGE carbon footprint ( I can't imagine running A/C for something that size) a huge mansion requires.    These people are just liars.

 

It's an "Ocean View" property. Find me the article that claims it's on the ocean. My parents have an "ocean view property". Its about 4 km from the ocean and some 100+ meters above it. I feel they are quite safe from even the most extreme sea level rise predicted. I've no problems with buying ocean view property, and if you do buy property right on the ocean where it's prone to sea changes then you are an idiot.

 

As a final note, what Al Gore says and does is of little importance to me. The fact of global warming is independent of the money Al Gore makes from it.

 

Quote

Even if all the ice on the planet melted, it would not increase the ocean level by much.

 

Citation please.

 

(PS I know it won't flood the earth, but "by much" is not a qualifying factor. Sure compared to Everest at 8km, 216 feet is "not much" but will flood a massive percentage of current human habitation and wipe out many major cities. (See Midnite's youtube vid showing what would happen.) Incidentally if we continue warming, which I think we will because I do not think humanity will come together to negate the effects they are having, then all ice will eventually melt. It will take a while, but it will melt, and once again earth will be ice free. 

 

Quote

 Remember that stupid movie Waterworld?  It's FICTION, not possible in realty.

 

I liked the movie. No one claimed it was based on reality... it's a movie not a science paper.

 

Quote

  But the sort of idiotic thing people are worried about.    Land does go underwater, but usually because erosion removes it from one place, but then deposits it in another.   Perfectly normal and why constantly have to dredge and put sand back at certain beaches. 

 

No, people are worried about real world effects. Not just sea level rise. Changing climates bring all sorts of challenges. Some areas may experience much better growing conditions while other areas become desert wastelands.

 

Quote

Besides I don't think people should be allowed to build right next to the beach anyway.   It spoils the beach, and make everyone's insurance go up

 

Agree here.

[midniterider]

 

 

And my favorite YT comment: Flat earthers be like "don't worry, the water will fall of the edges"

[LogicalFallacy]

Also I'd like to thank Midnite for posting that vid - I was going to post it but he beat me to it!

[Derek]

What I'm about to say is from my own experience and I have no data to back it up...over the past 30-40 years around here, the annual temperature curve seems to have flattened a little. The winters aren't as cold as they were back in the 70s and 80s, but then the summers aren't as warm either. On top of that, there are more intense storms here than there used to be. Back in the old days, a single rain event with 100+ mm of rain was pretty much unheard of. Now it's almost an annual event. Things have changed...whether it's natural or human-made...Idk. I find myself hoping that it's part of the natural ebb and flow of the global climate...but there's a part of me that thinks that maybe we (humans) f*cked up.

[Jane]

Logical fallacy:  you are now doing what the people that believe in global warming ( no name calling, sorry) always do in these sort the threads on any sort of forum.  You are repeating what you already said and not coming up with any actual data.  You are insisting what happened 65 billion years ago is relevant and can be proven, when it isn't.   You STILL haven't come up with any actual data for the last 100 years showing warming that correlates with CO2 increase.,  I would say this conversation is done until you ( or someone) comes up with data.   

 

You can blindly believe what people tell you, or you can research for yourself, if something is questionable.  One more example of how  "science" and the "authorities" make mistakes:  smoking used to not be considered bad, they gave cigarettes to those in the military at almost no cost even in the 80s still.  The food pyramid as it used to be is now causing obesity and diabetes and they now tell you to eat different.  Like I already said, 500 some years ago a majority of authorities believed the earth was flat.   They used to do all sorts of horrible things to people a few hundred years ago in the name of science and medicine to cure diseases.  The list goes on.  You are somewhat deluded if you think NOW , science is perfect and the "authorities" are always correct.    You don't need to believe what I say,  you seem to have a lot of time to research, post on here and read,  maybe you can use this time to find some actual data, as I suggested and find out for yourself.   If you do, I would love to see it .  That's all.   I think I am done here, I said what I wanted to say. 

 

Wait one more thing: the ice is NEVER going to all melt, no amount of fuel burning will accomplish that, and even if it did, there would still be plenty of land left.  The process would also be very gradual, plenty of time to relocated. It's an unimportant point.  The most the ocean might rise, IF there was significant warming would be a few feet over a very long period of time.  The Netherlands has land below sea level now, no big deal to them. They used technology ( real science) to keep the water out.  It's just another thing to try and scare people with.   I have yet to see a condo in Florida sink underwater ( unless there is a hurricane) because the ocean is rising. It's not happening. 

 

 

[Jane]

Ok, so I lied, me bad....

I do have one more thing to post ( friend just sent this)

 

Still no real data, but I bet this could be obtained

 

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html

 

 

[Jane]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/51018/internet-wrecks-obamas-over-15-million-marthas-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

and here is another good one! Make sure you read the comments on the bottom, they are very entertaining....

 

 

[florduh]

These climate exchanges always remind me of when smoking fell out of favor decades ago. A vast majority of scientists and researchers around the world come to consensus, yet a few people focus on the outliers. and there are always outliers trying to make a name or sell a book. They do this either because they either have skin in the game (in the tobacco/fuel industry) or they just like smoking and don't want to believe the science. Both the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry have mounted huge documented campaigns of disinformation to battle against the evidence that could cost them money. I tend to believe the 97% of independent scientists around the world rather than the business and political interests of a few wealthy Americans. Simple observation and common sense should lead one to realize that smoking often causes health issues and burning fossil fuels at an ever growing rate will affect the ecosystem. We were experiencing the problems caused by fossil fuel pollution and we found ways to fix and reverse the trends with EPA regulations. It worked, thus proving that it was indeed a problem. Now some people want to go back to the bad old days because propaganda convinced them that unchecked pollution doesn't hurt anybody and it helps the rich get richer. It's a weird world.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

These climate exchanges always remind me of when smoking fell out of favor decades ago. A vast majority of scientists and researchers around the world come to consensus, yet a few people focus on the outliers. and there are always outliers trying to make a name or sell a book. They do this either because they either have skin in the game (in the tobacco/fuel industry) or they just like smoking and don't want to believe the science. Both the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry have mounted huge documented campaigns of disinformation to battle against the evidence that could cost them money. I tend to believe the 97% of independent scientists around the world rather than the business and political interests of a few wealthy Americans. Simple observation and common sense should lead one to realize that smoking often causes health issues and burning fossil fuels at an ever growing rate will affect the ecosystem. We were experiencing the problems caused by fossil fuel pollution and we found ways to fix and reverse the trends with EPA regulations. It worked, thus proving that it was indeed a problem. Now some people want to go back to the bad old days because propaganda convinced them that unchecked pollution doesn't hurt anybody and it helps the rich get richer. It's a weird world.

 

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore it contributes to global warming, but how much does man's contribution to it actually change temperatures? this is the debate. Aside from CO2 pollution, the smoke (AKA smog) from pollution some believe also captures heat from the sun and therefore many believe it adds to global warming. Others assert that smoke of any kind, like a volcano, blocks sunlight and has a net result of global cooling. Smoke pollution also increases the amount of rainfall in an area since its particulates seed the clouds above. In any case the resultant temperature change is probably not the worst effect of smog concerning humanity. The biggest negative to smoke pollution is the effect on human lungs and health in general. The young and the old are the most vulnerable to its negative health effects. Separate from the global warming issue, smoke pollution must be controlled for the betterment of human health and longevity, something like the negative effects from cigarette smoking or second hand smoke. 

 

As to ecosystems, increased CO2 is a boon to plant life. Increased plant life and growth decreases the amount of atmospheric CO2. But smoke pollution is detrimental to the health and proliferation of many or most plants and animals as well as the human concern of natural beauty.

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, florduh said:

These climate exchanges always remind me of when smoking fell out of favor decades ago. A vast majority of scientists and researchers around the world come to consensus, yet a few people focus on the outliers. and there are always outliers trying to make a name or sell a book. They do this either because they either have skin in the game (in the tobacco/fuel industry) or they just like smoking and don't want to believe the science. Both the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry have mounted huge documented campaigns of disinformation to battle against the evidence that could cost them money. I tend to believe the 97% of independent scientists around the world rather than the business and political interests of a few wealthy Americans. Simple observation and common sense should lead one to realize that smoking often causes health issues and burning fossil fuels at an ever growing rate will affect the ecosystem. We were experiencing the problems caused by fossil fuel pollution and we found ways to fix and reverse the trends with EPA regulations. It worked, thus proving that it was indeed a problem. Now some people want to go back to the bad old days because propaganda convinced them that unchecked pollution doesn't hurt anybody and it helps the rich get richer. It's a weird world.

 

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

 

[trashy]

16 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

It's not just climate models. We can track the amount of total ice and see that the total amount is becoming less. That means its melting. You can calculate the effect of so many billions of tones of ice melting on the sea level. That doesn't require a model.

 

actually, Jane didn't say that part, I did.

 

Given that ice melt and deglaciation has been rather steady for a long time, that would already be included in the current SLR rates. Almost the entirety of SLR projections are based on increasing CO2 and models making projections based on CO2 sensitivity. Many believe this sensitivity is greatly overestimated, which throws the models way off. They are also based on the concept that CO2 drives warming, while many believe it is the exact opposite (or completely disconnected). 

 

But even if those things could be proven, given the thousands of years of warming and melting since the last ice age, it is truly difficult to suss out a manmade signal from 415 CO2 molecules per 1,000,000 molecules of atmosphere.

 

16 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

(PS I know it won't flood the earth, but "by much" is not a qualifying factor. Sure compared to Everest at 8km, 216 feet is "not much" but will flood a massive percentage of current human habitation and wipe out many major cities. (See Midnite's youtube vid showing what would happen.) Incidentally if we continue warming, which I think we will because I do not think humanity will come together to negate the effects they are having, then all ice will eventually melt. It will take a while, but it will melt, and once again earth will be ice free. 

 

at the current rate of 1/8 inch/year it would take over 20,000 years to reach 216 feet. This seems about right based on natural earth cycles and history. I think that's probably enough time for the cities involved to adapt...

 

[LogicalFallacy]

8 hours ago, Jane said:

Logical fallacy:  you are now doing what the people that believe in global warming ( no name calling, sorry) always do in these sort the threads on any sort of forum.  You are repeating what you already said and not coming up with any actual data. 

 

And yet you want us to believe your personal testimony about rain gauges with no corroborating evidence.

 

Let's say I mange to extract a database and provide it? What then? You'll probably come up with a million reasons why it's no good.

 

8 hours ago, Jane said:

You are insisting what happened 65 billion years ago is relevant and can be proven, when it isn't.   You STILL haven't come up with any actual data for the last 100 years showing warming that correlates with CO2 increase.,

 

Actually only @Joshpantera was talking about 65 million years ago.

 

8 hours ago, Jane said:

 I would say this conversation is done until you ( or someone) comes up with data.   

 

Please standby while I contact every scientist to ask them for every database on every theory. We of course will have the knowledge and expertise to know what to do with the data once we have it.

[wellnamed]

I did try to provide an outline of the answer to the question of where the data comes from. I'm not sure if it actually helped or not

 

One thing I was thinking the other day is that it seems like some of the debate on climate change is a useful context for thinking about making decisions while taking account of uncertainty, or risk. I think to some extent our normal language makes this seem harder than it is? That is we tend when speaking about stuff like climate to reduce the question to either "do you accept this or not?" as a very binary thing. And it seems like a false dichotomy when treated as indicating either absolute certainty or absolute disbelief.

 

There's an epistemic need to evaluate claims like this that account for uncertainty without giving up all possibility of drawing any conclusions whatsoever. Awareness of uncertainty and different sources of potential error are really important, particularly when you reach the point of trying to decide what to do about it (I realize that question was disclaimed in the OP). Some courses of action might seem entirely reasonable even given a large amount of uncertainty (perhaps working towards a transition to renewable energy in some incremental way). Others won't seem desirable unless you're absolutely certain of devastating consequences (like say violently overthrowing the government in order to immediately implement some drastic climage change agenda).

[florduh]

"Germ Theory" is only a theory. I prefer to not wash my hands before doing surgery because I don't have enough hard data going back far enough.

 

Scientists tell me we're going to have an eclipse, but I'll believe it when I see it. There's no way they can predict the future.

 

I believe what I want, not what "they" want me to believe.

 

- Assholes Everywhere

 

 

[midniterider]

I remember working for a government agency and we were supposed to take some readings from a certain device every week, but you know...sometimes you just gotta say fuck it. So on occasion we just sat in our office and filled in the blanks with similar numbers from the previous week. So data can be wrong.

 

Regarding actually getting those readings, there was very little corroboration involved. I think it happens in everyday life too, not just science. Individuals are typically entrusted to collect data correctly and without bias. What happens to the data later on might be up for grabs. 

 

While some agencies are corrupt, I think it is hard to get everyone on board with doing corrupt stuff (politicians excepted here). Some employees (read: me) are just lazy bums and do the bare minimum to remain employed. 

 

So bottom line is there is some bullshit and some truth with global warming. I would hate to go whole hog for it or whole hog against it though.

[midniterider]

7 minutes ago, florduh said:

"Germ Theory" is only a theory. I prefer to not wash my hands before doing surgery because I don't have enough hard data going back far enough.

 

Scientists tell me we're going to have an eclipse, but I'll believe it when I see it. There's no way they can predict the future.

 

I believe what I want, not what "they" want me to believe.

 

- Assholes Everywhere

 

 

 

Maybe we should give up on global warming and work on global polluting instead. I 'dont think' it can be disputed that vehicles are polluting the atmosphere. 

[florduh]

22 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Maybe we should give up on global warming and work on global polluting instead. I 'dont think' it can be disputed that vehicles are polluting the atmosphere. 

We should set the bar a bit higher than that. How about we believe established scientific consensus and our own eyes for a change?

[disillusioned]

Forget scientific consensus. Forget government agencies. Forget what you see with your own eyes. Check this out. 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

 

They knew,  and they very thoroughly lied because they had a clear vested interest in promoting the idea that C02 emissions don't drive climate change. I find this very telling.

[florduh]

9 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

Forget scientific consensus. Forget government agencies. Forget what you see with your own eyes. Check this out. 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

 

They knew,  and they very thoroughly lied because they had a clear vested interest in promoting the idea that C02 emissions don't drive climate change. I find this very telling.

Yes, same as the tobacco companies. It's been known for some time but deniers still deny. Ah, well, whatever.

[LogicalFallacy]

30 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

Maybe we should give up on global warming and work on global polluting instead. I 'dont think' it can be disputed that vehicles are polluting the atmosphere. 

 

You'd be surprised at what people will dispute.