Alfa Romeo Forums banner

961 - 980 of 1356 Posts

·
Push hard and live
Joined
·
8,932 Posts
Recommendation to all...

Unless you wish to continue being baited, simply place any member into your "Ignore List", and the irritant will disappear, and you can return to a civil conversation of this subject from all perspectives, not just one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
DPeterson3 said:
..return to a civil conversation of this subject from all perspectives, not just one.
By that do you mean continue to insult and demean the scientists doing the work and ignore the actual science of climate science?

Do you think it civil to call people grant sucking leeches?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
As has been already documented elsewhere, CO2 is problematic beyond being a key driver of warming. It is impacting the oceans as well.

Keep in mind this is Junior High level (or lower) chemistry...

"At its core, the issue of ocean acidification is simple chemistry. There are two important things to remember about what happens when carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater. First, the pH of seawater water gets lower as it becomes more acidic. Second, this process binds up carbonate ions and makes them less abundant—ions that corals, oysters, mussels, and many other shelled organisms need to build shells and skeletons...When water (H2O) and CO2 mix, they combine to form carbonic acid (H2CO3). Carbonic acid is weak compared to some of the well-known acids that break down solids, such as hydrochloric acid (the main ingredient in gastric acid, which digests food in your stomach) and sulfuric acid (the main ingredient in car batteries, which can burn your skin with just a drop). The weaker carbonic acid may not act as quickly, but it works the same way as all acids: it releases hydrogen ions (H+), which bond with other molecules in the area.

Seawater that has more hydrogen ions is more acidic by definition, and it also has a lower pH. In fact, the definitions of acidification terms—acidity, H+, pH —are interlinked: acidity describes how many H+ ions are in a solution; an acid is a substance that releases H+ ions; and pH is the scale used to measure the concentration of H+ ions."



Ocean Acidification | Smithsonian Ocean Portal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
More debunking of the "CO2 always lags temperature" myth;

"Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies."


Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Any yet more:

"The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.'

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Forbes (yes Forbes) On the myth that warming "stopped" in 1998 - which is often repeated here.

"The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. Therefore (they conclude) scientists must be wrong when they say that climate change is caused by humans, worsening, and ultimately a serious environmental problem that must be addressed by policy makers.

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth. Here is a tiny sample of the false claims...


“Current pause in global warming”
“lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”
“There is no credible (statistically significant) data that says global warming is occurring”
“fifteen years of warming, then fifteen of cooling”
“The last decades “rate of warming” is flat.”
“Forget global warming…no warming in 15 years.”

I could find a hundred more variations, but you get the idea. These statements are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming – an observation noted by every climate research institution tracking temperatures, the US National Academy of Sciences (over and over and over), every other national academy of sciences on the planet, and every professional society in the geosciences....

The next time you hear someone say it isn’t warming, or it hasn’t warmed for “xx” years, or “it’s actually cooling,” remember: someone is trying to deceive you with cherry-picked numbers."

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data - Forbes
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljayr View Post
So too can it be said about the belief that CO2 emitted by man causes global warming.

tdskip:
No, not really unless you reject nearly all of what we know about our world and how we know it and you cannot do that selectively (doing so is a logical fallacy in multiple ways and demonstrates that the person doing so is not interested in the actual science but is instead driven by things other than science).
Not a rejection; simple skepticism.

Modern science still cant fully explain the climate system or the effects of CO2 levels in said system. If science could it would would be easily said "X" amount of CO2 introduced by humans causes "Y" amount of global warming. Simply knowing how CO2 interacts with specific IR radiation is a far cry from understanding the interactions within a system. The logical fallacy here is the unequivocal belief that CO2 introduced by humans is the primary cause of climate change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Not a rejection; simple skepticism...

Modern science still cant fully explain the climate system or the effects of CO2 levels in said system. If science could it would would be easily said "X" amount of CO2 introduced by humans causes "Y" amount of global warming...
Good morning. How science deals with facts, theory and "proof" etc have all been explained here repeatedly. Please take the time to review that before dismissing it. Failure to do that is not "skepticism", it is a lack of effort to educate yourself to a point where you understand what you are criticizing. Big difference.


Your assertion is wrong because that is not how science works so you are creating a straw man argument as an excuse to dismiss science you don't like. In simple terms there is a huge difference from being able to explain "fully", and being able to explain enough that fits real world observations and consistently explains phenomenon to be reliably utilized.

There is a near 100% probability your own behavior shows that you are selectively engaging this standard since, for example:

- we cannot fully explain about why planes fly
- we cannot fully explain why exercise is good for you but no rational person doubts it is
- we cannot fully explain how gravity works but few doubt it will
- we cannot fully explain why the framing on your house can take the structural load it does
-we cannot fully explain why the sun will set tonight and will come up tomorrow morning


But chances are nearly 100% that you live in the house, have flown, probably at least know that exercise is good for you, and expect that a ball will roll downhill.

So - do you do anything of those things or believe in things rolling downhill?

The logical fallacy here is the unequivocal belief that CO2 introduced by humans is the primary cause of climate change.
Again - you are engaging in a straw man argument (which is inherently invalid as it is a logical fallacy). Science has never said it is "unequivocal", nor has science ever said that CO2 is acting alone. What science as said - and has already been documented here - is there is no plausible explanation absent CO2.

Our release of CO2 is consistent with all the changes we are seeing, including:

1) Ocean warming
2) Surface temperature warming
3) Differences in how layers of the atmosphere are warming/cooling
4) Ocean chemistry changes

The burden is on those that dismiss the science to provide a better explanation that explains all of these things. (Hint - it cannot be done but have fun trying...)

As Steven Dutch has written:

We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.

In the case of global climate change, we have an atmospheric gas, carbon dioxide, that is known to be effective at trapping solar heat. You can shine infrared light through carbon dioxide and measure the absorption. You can fill a transparent vessel with carbon dioxide, put it in the sun, and compare its temperature with an equivalent vessel of air. Or you can look at Venus, which has a dense atmosphere of carbon dioxide and is far hotter than it should be at that distance from the sun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Very interesting take you have on science.
- we cannot fully explain about why planes fly
- we cannot fully explain why exercise is good for you but no rational person doubts it is
- we cannot fully explain how gravity works but few doubt it will
- we cannot fully explain why the framing on your house can take the structural load it does
-we cannot fully explain why the sun will set tonight and will come up tomorrow morning
Please see the works of Newton, Einstein or simply take a high school physics, statics or astronomy class. Next you are going to tell me that we are not living in an ice age.

Science has never said it is "unequivocal"
Yes it has:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal..." ipcc
"'Unequivocal' evidence that global warming is man-made" Phys.org, Oct 11, 2013
Those are just a couple of quick web queries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Thanks for making my point - you apparently don't understand what you are criticizing and are contradicting yourself in an attempt to dismiss the actual science.

...Please see the works of Newton, Einstein...
All of those works are theory, and not "fully" understood. So either:

1) you buy into the idea of theory being useful even if not "fully" understood and thereby have to admit that "fully" is a silly standard

OR

2) you don't and thereby invalid what you wrote here.

Has to be one of the two - which is it?



....simply take a high school physics...class..
Right - and if you did that you could not argue that CO2 is not a powerful driver of warming and that what we are seeing cannot be explained absent CO2.

So - did you take high school physics?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
Unless you wish to continue being baited, simply place any member into your "Ignore List", and the irritant will disappear, and you can return to a civil conversation of this subject from all perspectives, not just one

Done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
All of those works are theory
Technically scientific laws are parts of theories. The law gives us the ability to test the theories. Other than yourself I don't think anyone would dispute the aforementioned laws. Maybe someday when you earn a science degree you will understand that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
Technically scientific laws are parts of theories. The law gives us the ability to test the theories. Other than yourself I don't think anyone would dispute the aforementioned laws. Maybe someday when you earn a science degree you will understand that.

No, no, no need to personalize things simple because you are apparently frustrated.

You are missing the point - and making mine. You clearly do not understand what you are saying nor what you are criticizing.

There are no "laws" that are absolutely, nor "fully" understood. Everything is a theory. Everything.

That you apparently readily endorse that theory can be useful in understanding the world around us you cannot selectively dismiss that the same approach can explain the impact of CO2. You cannot also not demand a different standard of "fully" for climate science when embracing everything else you wrote above
.

So again

1) you buy into the idea of theory and laws being useful even if not "fully" understood and thereby have to admit that "fully" is a silly standard

OR

2) you don't and thereby invalid what you wrote here.

Has to be one of the two - which is it?
 

·
Push hard and live
Joined
·
8,932 Posts
This thread has become so much easier to read lately. Kind of like carrying an umbrella on a sunny day. Lets one enjoy the view without having to submit to a sunburn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
I wonder which nations were wiped off the earth 15 years ago by global warming.

Mercury News: Search Results

All scientifically supported, so it must be true. Just could not find any.
It is exceptionally common than when confronted with actual science people trying to dismiss the science will resort to logical fallacy. The above is an example of this - namely selective evidence.

1) one newspaper article from 1989 (!) when hundreds of actual science references are available

2) summary presented absent any of the assumption contained within it

3) concussion drawn from a single abstracted article and applied to everything

4) engages in a argument that if applied back to their assertions invalidates everything they have said

5) omits more recent findings

6) the actual evidence of what is happening is counter to their assertion


"In the low-lying Pacific atolls of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati rising sea levels have made every high tide a dangerous event. Regular floods wash through villages causing damage to houses, killing crops and poisoning drinking water."

Worth also noting that all of the invalid assertions from prior posts being run away from. That is also highly consistent behavior by those who cannot actually support their assertions in climate scienc since they are usually just making stuff up or engaging in logical fallacy since the actual evidence and science is overwhelmingly counter to their attempts.

Climate change in the Marshall Islands and Kiribati, before and after ? interactive | Environment | The Guardian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
This thread has become so much easier to read lately. Kind of like carrying an umbrella on a sunny day. Lets one enjoy the view without having to submit to a sunburn.
It would seem an odd thing to be proud of choosing to remain ignorant of the actual science simply because it conflicts with ones beliefs...

Not very scientific (but consistent with the Pew findings on older, less educated, white male beliefs).

How Different Demographic Groups Think About Science Issues | Pew Research Center
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
If science could it would would be easily said "X" amount of CO2 introduced by humans causes "Y" amount of global warming.
Putting aside that you are contradicting yourself here in saying this should be simple and then elsewhere saying this is too complex to do....

A team of researchers from the universities of Southampton, Bristol and Liverpool have derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions since the late 1800s when human-made carbon emissions began. The results are in accord with previous data from climate models.

The theoretical equation reveals the complex relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the ocean system. Burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels leading to global warming and the greenhouse effect, which is partly offset by the oceans taking in both heat and carbon.

The results show every million-million tonnes of carbon emitted will generate one degree Celsius of global warming. They also show that the build-up of carbon emitted over the last 200 years will then last for many centuries to millennia, even if carbon emissions are subsequently phased out.

The results also reveal that surface warming is related to the total amount of carbon emitted from fossil fuels, with little change over time as ocean carbon and changes in heat uptake almost cancel each other out.

Dr Phil Goodwin, from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton, said: "Our analysis highlights the nearly irreversible nature of carbon emissions for global warming. Once carbon has been emitted into the atmosphere the warming effect will last many centuries, even after much of the carbon has been absorbed by the ocean."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141201113036.htm

So - how do you resolve this now that you have been provided actual science on your assertion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,048 Posts
More common, and already debunked, climate change denial "arguments" - well debunked 6+ years ago yet repeated here...;

"The alleged "hockey stick" graph of temperatures over the past 1,600 years has been disproved. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a "medieval warm period" around 1000 A.D. that was hotter than today is. Therefore, global warming is a myth.

It is hard to know which is greater: contrarians' overstatement of the flaws in the historical temperature reconstruction from 1998 by Michael E. Mann and his colleagues, or the ultimate insignificance of their argument to the case for climate change.

First, there is not simply one hockey-stick reconstruction of historical temperatures using one set of proxy data. Similar evidence for sharply increasing temperatures over the past couple of centuries has turned up independently while looking at ice cores, tree rings and other proxies for direct measurements, from many locations. Notwithstanding their differences, they corroborate that Earth has been getting sharply warmer.

A 2006 National Research Council review of the evidence concluded "with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries"—which is the section of the graph most relevant to current climate trends. The report placed less faith in the reconstructions back to 900 A.D., although it still viewed them as "plausible." Medieval warm periods in Europe and Asia with temperatures comparable to those seen in the 20th century were therefore similarly plausible but might have been local phenomena: the report noted "the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain." And a new research paper by Mann and his colleagues seems to confirm that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” between 1400 and 1700 were both caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that do not seem to be happening today.

After the NRC review was released, another analysis by four statisticians, called the Wegman report, which was not formally peer reviewed, was more critical of the hockey stick paper. But correction of the errors it pointed out did not substantially change the shape of the hockey stick graph. In 2008 Mann and his colleagues issued an updated version of the temperature reconstruction that echoed their earlier findings.

But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted... What of it? The case for anthropogenic global warming originally came from studies of climate mechanics, not from reconstructions of past temperatures seeking a cause. Warnings about current warming trends came out years before Mann’s hockey stick graph. Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead.

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense - Scientific American
 
961 - 980 of 1356 Posts
Top