What do you think of climate change?

[Ender]

Come up with something from Roy Spencer. At least he is a real scientist, even if he also biased against climate change.

I’m just trying to understand the arguments; I’m not grasping for confirmation of preconceived notions. Interestingly, it turns out that Spencer and Claes Johnson (the author of the article) have been arguing about this point themselves. I really did not expect differences of opinion on what seems a straightforward scientific question. How can this point not have been settled?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It has been settled - the basics anyway, not the numerical details. I think Claes is just out of his depth.

 

[phaster]

I’m afraid the author of the article cited has not properly described blackbody radiation …Black body radiation occurs as the result of temperature

sigh,… yet another idiotic-deniers-theory that is being spread on “teh interwebz” as legitimate scientific gospel truth

ever feel like you’re a character in ground hog day scenario trying to set things straight and escape?

back in high school as a demonstration my physics teacher used a small propane torch to heat up to “white hot” a copper toilet ball float (w/ a hole in it) before he gave a lecture on the topic

(see these applicable notes)

http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node48.html

anyway,… treating the planet as a simple uniform “black body” ignores the fact that the earth has at an atmosphere (w/ various layers) that don’t act like a black body AND it also ignores the energy imparted on the light side of the earth caused by a big ball of gas that is under going fusion @ the center of the solar system,…

FWIW found a link that outlines basic technical details about “black body” modeling mistakes (which has links, so facts can be verified), BUT have to disclose the comments made me laugh (I consider this a bonus)

…It’s all weird incoherent nonsense. There is no real flaw in his argument. It just doesn’t make any sense. Like dumping a physics text in a blender.

…One person says that physics must obviously be wrong because he doesn’t like what it tells him. Must be nice to believe that the world quite literally resolves around one’s own will.

…There is nothing on that web page that is actually ‘science’.

…It’s hand wavey bull$hit

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1371773

 

[phaster]

Phaster,

You’ve shown one side of the coin. How about showing the other. As in the scientific proof stating the opposite.

the goal of science is to find the root cause (of some effect)

therefore a truthful proof showing the opposite side of the coin (indicating that mankind isn’t causing climate change) does not seem possible,… this is because all the hard scientific evidence I’ve seen leads me to the same place/conclusion over and over again (as in a Möbius strip which is a one-sided nonorientable surface)

as I said, I frame the issue as being

anxiety and hubris of activists/believers (on both sides of the CC debate) who don’t want to admit they might be wrong vs what science is actually saying!!!

the scientific idea of an existential threat associated w/ CC is something few willingly face head on BUT because before attending a public university to get “a useless physics sheepskin” (as my dad would jokingly say), I had the benefit of going to catholic school(s),… point being, had to take a number of religion classes where I reminded throughout my formidable years, that life is terminal, greed is a sin that one should always avoided AND that “grief” can lead to paralysis if one does not recognize the big picture

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’ve never taken a psych class but what seems to be the case is, lots of willful denial that climate change exists (and/or that the cause is mankind) because doing so allows the status quo to continue

deep down I’m guessing many people have a gut feeling something isn’t kosher w/ what is happening, so this causes various degrees of emotional anxiety

How climate change threatens public health » Yale Climate Connections

Manage Climate Change Anxiety With These Cold-War Coping Techniques | Lifehacker

amateur psychoanalysis aside,… since there is overwhelming hard evidence provided by various fields of science (AKA the overused mainstream media soundbite phrases “settled science” or “97% consensus”),… the pope rightfully has used his prerogative of being leader of the catholic flock to try and teach people that there is a moral obligation we owe future generations good stewardship (to preserve natural resources and the environment)

http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

…recognize climate change as a moral issue. When done in this forum, he will be speaking with a groundbreaking level of papal authority on the subject, calling people of faith and goodwill to address this challenge.

This encyclical will have the ability to inspire faith-based environmental action and make a positive change in the world. However, this will only happen if Catholics recognize the authority of the document and receive its teaching accordingly.

Papal authority and climate change: Preparing for Pope Francis' encyclical

 

[Theo520]

ince there is overwhelming hard evidence provided by various fields of science

Nope, and you epitomize the discrepancy.

You put up a hundred posts on CO2 radiative forcing but have repeatedly failed to provide evidence supporting the feedback assumptions, the part where it goes from a mild temperature increase into something that is potentially catastrophic.

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Phaster
Not buying what you or the “experts” are selling.
Not because of any pyschological nonsense.
We haven’t been on the earth nearly long enough to do what the earth has done to itself since it was created.
300 or so years since the industrial revolution is but a grain of sand in time.
Core samples prove that.
How many millions of cubic feet of crap does a volcano spew when it erupts?
How many eruptions have occured in the last 300 or so years.
Bitumin from the tar sands comes out of the ground and runs into northern Canadian rivers all by itself etc etc.

 

[HumbleIOughtToBe]

The sheer quantity of my Apologetics hero’s who deny climate change is disappointing. My generation will face more damage than others. Climate Change was not politicized a long while ago. I stand by: https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/.

To the Republicans on Immigration:

Climate Change Will Create 1.5 Billion Migrants by 2050 and We Have No Idea Where They'll Go

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/d3ni9d/a_boomer_welcomes_millennial_and_genz_collapseniks

:

“If you are 15 years old, emissions went up 30% during your lifetime. For you we have Naomi Klein and Greta Thunberg, who are leading Millennials into the emerald green utopia of a socialist techno-nirvana.”

"I’m 42 and have watched the decadal climate shenanigans in bemusement. Humans have decided to whore themselves to our economic structure and will not stop. "

Warning, Language:

First rule of global warming, when the oil companies are planning for a 5 degree Celsius world, watch out. Yes, that may be their worst case.

BP and Shell planning for catastrophic 5°C global warming despite publicly backing Paris climate agreement | The Independent | The Independent

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Phaster
Not buying what you or the “experts” are selling

This is but another excellent illustration of phaster’s point that people have replaced respect for science education and expertise with their own backyard intuition.

 

[Ender]

Sftyvlv1:

Phaster
Not buying what you or the “experts” are selling

This is but another excellent illustration of phaster’s point that people have replaced respect for science education and expertise with their own backyard intuition.

At least acknowledge the difference between what experts say, and what “experts” say. When it comes to climate change, way too many fall into the “expert” category where it is their political viewpoints that support their science rather than the other way around.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Sftyvlv1:

Phaster
Not buying what you or the “experts” are selling

This is but another excellent illustration of phaster’s point that people have replaced respect for science education and expertise with their own backyard intuition.

At least acknowledge the difference between what experts say, and what “experts” say. When it comes to climate change, way too many fall into the “expert” category where it is their political viewpoints that support their science rather than the other way around.

Hmmm. Let’s see… Which experts was Sftyvlv1 saying are not to be trusted? Was it Al Gore or Bill Nye, who one might reasonably call pretend experts? Well, since the comment was in response to phaster’s posts, let’s see which experts phaster quoted. (Looking…looking…) Ok, we have the following experts cited by phaster:

• Jonathan Patz, M.D., MPH, director of the Global Health Institute at the University of Wisconsin
• Amir Sapkota, a professor at the Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health
• Berkely Lab
• NASA

Now phaster might have mentioned some non-expert sources too, like Pope Francis, but Sftyvlv1 didn’t qualify which experts of phaster’s he/she is not buying, so I assume all of them. Including the ones above. So while it might be interesting to list non-experts that are promoting climate change as untrustworthy, Sftyvlv1’s response, particularly the backyard observations that seems to be aimed at countering all climate change experts, justifies the conclusion that it was an excellent example of science education and expertise being dismissed in favor of one’s personal beliefs. If Sftyvlv1 had instead quoted some other experts to counter phaster’s that would have been a different matter. Then one might still see some vestige of respect for science, but there was none.

 

[PetraG]

What’s the count on people who changed their minds so far?

Ok, we have the following experts cited by…

We could just look at the run-down by the American Meteorological Society:

Climate Change - American Meteorological Society

I’m pretty sure they’re as capable as anyone here when it comes to deciding what is and what is not a trend in weather or climate. After all, if you don’t believe them, you probably have no data that you can believe, and therefore no way to argue one way or the other.

(It’s a good read, by the way…)

 

[PetraG]

Or chew on this; plenty here, as well:

https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Because I dont agree with scientist’s that promote they’re theory doesnt mean I’m using “backyard intuition”.
Lol you must be a Democrat. In as far as, as long as I agree with what your saying I’m allowed freedom of speech or thought.
Anywho, as you’re well aware there are other scientist’s who disagree with these theories and those are the folks I choose to believe. They’re findings are no more or less credible then the scientist’s you support.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Because I dont agree with scientist’s that promote they’re theory doesnt mean I’m using “backyard intuition”.

The “explanation” that you gave in terms of the short time span of the industrial age and man’s insignificance, etc. (you remember?) is all the evidence I need to support that you are using backyard intuition.

Anywho, as you’re well aware there are other scientist’s who disagree with these theories and those are the folks I choose to believe.

No, I am unaware of which scientists you mean. I suspect that your unwillingness to name them is either because

1. You are afraid they will be seen as not really experts, or
2. If you name a real expert, even one that is closest to denying climate change altogether, I will be able to show you that your expert does not in fact agree with you to the extent you claim.

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Here’s your list

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[84][85]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[86][87][88]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[89][90][91]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[92][93]
  There are more…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here’s your list

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[84][85]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[86][87][88]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[89][90][91]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[92][93]
  There are more…

Not a single climate scientist in the bunch. And half of them are retired. It is clear that you get your climate science from non-climate scientists.

 

[Theo520]

Not a single climate scientist in the bunch.

You do realize it wasn’t a field of study until fairly recently, don’t you.

Mann isn’t even a trained ‘climate scientist’.

 

[PetraG]

Because I dont agree with scientist’s that promote they’re theory doesnt mean I’m using “backyard intuition”.
Lol you must be a Democrat. In as far as, as long as I agree with what your saying I’m allowed freedom of speech or thought.
Anywho, as you’re well aware there are other scientist’s who disagree with these theories and those are the folks I choose to believe. They’re findings are no more or less credible then the scientist’s you support.

You’re talking about a certain number of individual scientists who don’t accept it. Put that next to all scientific societies or organizations of scientists who do: the American Meteorological Society, the American Physics Society, the American Chemical Society, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and the list goes on and on.

I don’t know how you personally decide “We haven’t been on the earth nearly long enough to do what the earth has done to itself since it was created.” Where did you get THAT? I mean that, because I’m pretty sure that you have no calculation to prove we’re so incapable as you believe we are.

300 or so years since the industrial revolution is but a grain of sand in time.

Again, what are your calculations that show what you’re claiming? The pH of the ocean is changing, the temperature of the earth is rising but it can’t be us…well, what IS it? You can’t just say “can’t be that!” You have to have a better suspect.

 

[Ender]

Which experts was Sftyvlv1 saying are not to be trusted?

I would have included people like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Kevin Trenberth plus John Cook, Naomi Oreskes and the IPCC. There is a depressingly large number to choose from.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Which experts was Sftyvlv1 saying are not to be trusted?

I would have included people like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and Kevin Trenberth plus John Cook, Naomi Oreskes and the IPCC. There is a depressingly large number to choose from.

I looks like you are confirm’s phaster’s point too.

LeafByNiggle:

Not a single climate scientist in the bunch.

You do realize it wasn’t a field of study until fairly recently, don’t you.

So is computer science. But if you want to go back to the very first inquires identifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you would have to go back to 1862.

Mann isn’t even a trained ‘climate scientist’.

Those that are trained as climate scientists agree with him more than any skeptic here.