Climate Change Anyone?

Magnum

Well-known member
I've disproved everything you've provided so far.
That seems unlikely, I don't think you've disproven a single thing, just showed some opinions on data that you agree with.

I'm not closed minded or intentionally ignorant, also not trying to give you a hard time I would be completely willing to believe data if it were conclusive , concrete, indisputable and repeatable. So far I haven't seen it, can you show an example of what you've disproven?
 

WrongHanded

Active member
That seems unlikely, I don't think you've disproven a single thing, just showed some opinions on data that you agree with.

I'm not closed minded or intentionally ignorant, also not trying to give you a hard time I would be completely willing to believe data if it were conclusive , concrete, indisputable and repeatable. So far I haven't seen it, can you show an example of what you've disproven?

Okay, let's take the first graph you presented from the ice core data. You're claim there was that it had been warmer in the recent past than it is today. But the data only took us to 1850. And that's assuming the ice formed at the time or before hadn't been compromised by melting in recent years (so let's assume for right now that it hadn't). The graph failed to take into consideration the entire industrial revolution. So with that graph, you can't prove it was warmer in say the medieval warm period than now. Because it doesn't include 'now'. Not to mention that if it was warmer then that it is now - and right now the glacier is melting more from the exposed top every year - how could that ice even still exist? It would have melted away the summer after it formed like it does now. So not only is it not proof that the planet or even that glacier was warmer within the past 10,000 years than it is now; but also logically, it's proof that it's currently warmer at that glacier (as an annual average) than it was within that 10,000 years. From that perspective it proves the opposite to your claim.

Now as far as the Antarctic Sea Ice goes, I'm not claiming that it's not increasing. It is. Scientists have measured it. They are still trying to determine what factors are causing it. But that do not prove that global average temperatures are not continuing to trend up (which they are, and I've provided information to that effect). Nor does it prove that the temperature increase is not man made. One pole has increasing ice, the other is decreasing. But the global average temperatures don't lie.

I hadn't even bothered responding to the temperature in your backyard for years 1934 and 1985, because I thought it was pointless. Just because it snows a lot in Wyoming one year doesn't mean it snowed more than usual everywhere. This seems pretty obvious. Average temperature in one place on the planet means nothing in terms of the global average temperatures. That's why they work out a global average.

We discussed the ozone layer and cfc gases. We don't use them any more. The ozone replenishes over time. That's why it's better now than it was. You're argument that the hole hasn't fully recovered and it takes many decades for the cfc gases to degrade is a moot point. It's recovering.

You made a claim that you couldn't see the record highs exceeding the record lows when you circled paragraphs from a website in some screenshots. The graph represents years and the baseline in 0.0 degrees Celsius. What is below the line doesn't represent record low temperatures, it represents the average temperature of the year. The average temperature per year is trending up through the years, as is clearly evident in that graph and every other graph of average global temperature per year through the industrial revolution. What that guy is saying is that in any given place on earth, there may still be a record low temperature recorded for that area (like your backyard), or a record high temperature. But we are seeing more new record highs than record lows. You've simply misunderstood what the graph represents and taken it out of context.

Then there was some question or comment about how 2021 should be the hottest year on record, and 2022 should be hotter than that. But you can clearly see by the annual average temperatures through the industrial revolution, that such a linear progression does not happen. And yet the tend is that the temperature has (and is) increasing through time. So that's a nonsensical argument.

We also discussed why more CO2 and warmer conditions seem like they should increase plant growth. But that's not always the case. Water is a big factor. Arid conditions aren't conducive to plant growth.

I apologize from saying previously that I'd disproven everything you had provided as evidence. I believe I've addressed them now. Did I miss anything?
 

WrongHanded

Active member
wiki? Seriously?

It's hard to satisfy everyone. Show a graph using multiple sets of paleo data, and some people get confused. Show a simple explanation from wikipedia and someone else gets offended.

So here you go Selena.





How bad would things have to get, before you started to wonder if you might be wrong? I'd really like to know. How many years of drought and floods, and tropical storms battering the coast? Do we need famine from crop failure? How many more species have to die off before you start to wonder if this is part of the normal cycle?
 
And yet the tend is that the temperature has (and is) increasing through time.
Except when it hasn’t.

If we all died tomorrow, the earth will still heat, or not. The sun will rise, the wind will blow. It will do this with or without us.

In one of the ridiculous graphs it warmed quickly right before the following ice age. I am of the mind that we need to keep the temperature where it is and resist the next ice age.
More northern hemisphere dwelling humans would parish in an ice age than would die in tropical storms.

Many other ‘graphs’ show increasing heat and CO2, they portend it as theCO2 rising, causing heating. But oceanic waters dissolve CO2, holding less as they warm. I think the heat is causing less CO2 to be trapped, not CO2 causing the heating.

So how do we stop the heating? Blot the sun?

Much more oxygen is produced, and carbon dioxide fixed from the atmosphere, in grass lands and algae than the worlds jungles. (Not that we shouldn’t save them, but Brazilians like steak too, should they not eat, so we can breath their oxygen?)


I apologize from saying previously that I'd disproven everything you had provided as evidence. I believe I've addressed them now. Did I miss anything?

You haven’t disproven them, only that you don’t believe his conclusions, like he does not believe yours.
Because two scientists don’t come to the same conclusion does not mean one is full of “BS”.

“It is hard to stand in the middle, between to factions, I’m the only one that gets hit...” said the populace.

Climate change. Ha! Yes! Is does!
Change is the only constant. When Entropy takes hold, then I’ll worry. When the seas don’t rise and fall, when some winters in Michigan don’t suck, when the Mississippi doesn’t flood, when a hurricane doesn’t level Haiti, then I’ll worry.
But for why? I still will be unable to change it.

When my sister no longer believes I am the sole reason the earth is dying because my 17 year old fuel inefficient truck burns oil when she barrows it to move her junk into my pole barn, junk she could pass on to another human to save one more tree from become cheap IKEA furniture, driving it fifty miles just so I’ll have to drive it back down to her new townhouse, then I’ll worry.

But I will still be unable to do anything about it.
So, I’ll not start wringing my hands at it yet...


What I dream of is a future earth where any human can use what works best, or what they like best, without being denigrated with “denier” or “alarmist”.

And let us all face it, electric cars run on coal.

Soon it will all be electric and steam. FlashNuke steam engines will use the deplete from reactors for ships and trains, cars will be battery powdered.
Glassmat solar cells will turn the Negev into a prairie. LED light will focus and save energy, turning the night sky gloriously dark again. The stars will still shine.

The future won’t be bleak as long as we don’t crush technology and innovation with draconian laws and regulations and vitriol.

I don’t think humans are as bad as we make ourselves out to be, and I think we are coming Along faster and farther than Evniro-Apoco’s would have us believe.
If the Earth was cooking us alive, the books wouldn’t need to be “cooked” to prove it.

We can’t keep every species. Haven’t you seen Jurassic Park??
And not always is it climate that does it. Sometimes Mother Nature is just cruel.

Super good thread! Way nicer than talking to my Sleepy Sister about it. (She’s so damn woke she’s got her eyes shut...)
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Except when it hasn’t.

If we all died tomorrow, the earth will still heat, or not. The sun will rise, the wind will blow. It will do this with or without us.

In one of the ridiculous graphs it warmed quickly right before the following ice age. I am of the mind that we need to keep the temperature where it is and resist the next ice age.
More northern hemisphere dwelling humans would parish in an ice age than would die in tropical storms.

Many other ‘graphs’ show increasing heat and CO2, they portend it as theCO2 rising, causing heating. But oceanic waters dissolve CO2, holding less as they warm. I think the heat is causing less CO2 to be trapped, not CO2 causing the heating.

So how do we stop the heating? Blot the sun?

The first quote of mine, you took out of context. That was a statement made about the period beginning in the industrial revolution to the present day. And yes the global average temperatures HAVE been trending up through that period of time. That's a measurable fact.

I can't speak to an "ridiculous graph" because I don't know which one you're referencing. But regarding resisting the next ice age: that's not a terrible idea. And if we were still on the natural cycle we might suggest people start burning some coal in about 10,000 years or so. But currently, resisting another iceage is the least of our concerns. If we keep going in the direction we are (regarding temperature) we won't be seeing another iceage for a long time.

Regarding CO2 and it's interactions with the ocean, we could pontificate about that all day. But as neither of us are climate scientists, that wouldn't do much good. It has been proven that CO2 blocks radiant heat. It's also been proven that the lower atmosphere has warmed in the last 100-150 years (as have the oceans), but the upper atmosphere has cooled. They say ("they", being the scientists) this is because the CO2 is trapping the heat down here with us. So do oceans trap and dissolve CO2? Yes. It turns into an acid. Do they trap less when they get warmer? I don't know. But they are certainly getting the warmer. Which seems like a pretty obvious outcome, given that the planet is warming up.

But if you think the CO2 is not causing the increase in heat, what do you think IS causing the increased heat? That's a critical component of the issue. You don't have to explain it, but I think the rest of the world would love to know. Especially considering, there's no correlation between any other possibility that science is currently aware of. And that's what's so messed up about this situation, it's not like it could be this thing, or it could be that thing. The evidence is clear, and some people choose to ignore it.

"How do we stop the heating?" What are we doing here brainstorming? I mean seriously, these questions have already been answered by the climate scientists. We need to stop, on a global level, producing CO2. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to stop completely. But it mean we have to make significant changes to the way we do a lot of things. And really, that's what people don't like. The idea that they will have to give up something for a problem they can't see.

You haven’t disproven them, only that you don’t believe his conclusions, like he does not believe yours.
Because two scientists don’t come to the same conclusion does not mean one is full of “BS”.

Oh, I think I quite successful have. Neither he nor I are scientists. But if you're so convinced that I haven't disproven his arguments or evidence, show me how. Show me which of those arguments still stand. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and make a judgement. But if you're going to make that accusation, prove me wrong.

It's easy to cherry pick data that doesn't fit the model and then claim that because a relatively tiny piece of data doesn't fit the model, everything is wrong or a lie. It's easy to ignore overwhelming facts, and focus on pseudo-science to try and make nonsensical arguments against the concept. But the overwhelming data is still there. Nothing can change that data, because it's real and it exists. It doesn't matter how long it is ignored, it will still be there, and is still presenting the same conclusion. How much of that data an individual is aware of is up to them. If you care, you can find the data. If you care, you can find documentaries. Just yesterday I watched one titled 'The Age Of Consequences' which is about the interaction between climate change and war, and what the US Department Of Defense is doing about it. Yes the DOD has acknowledged climate change, according to this documentary.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Do one thing:

David Attenborough is now 93 years old. His whole life has been spent learning about the natural world, and teaching the public about it through television. He's a household name in the UK, and has been in people's living rooms since TV became available.

Just today Netflix released his latest documentary: A Life On This Planet.

There's no graphs or masses of data. There's no politics. But if that documentary can't get you to understand; if it can't make you appreciate the situation, then nothing can. And certainly not me.
 
Last edited:

WrongHanded

Active member
I think a common failing with humans in general is the assumption that if a person does not agree with you, he just does not understand the situation.

I agree. However, I think many people assume they really understand something, about which they truly know very little. And this is where a far greater failing occurs:

That we come to a conclusion based on the information presented to us, and then refuse to accept any new information that might require us to change our perspective, or to re-evaluate our conclusion. No advancement to humankind has even been made through this way of thinking.
 
In what context should I be quoting? ?
I’ve been reading along, I know what you’re talking about, but I’m pecking this out on a phone while Little bear finishes English. I’m a teacher now, too.
And tired.?

The first quote of mine, you took out of context. That was a statement made about the period beginning in the industrial revolution to the present day. And yes the global average temperatures HAVE been trending up through that period of time. That's a measurable fact.

A fact that does not take into account any other time period on earth. Not the Roman warm period not the Precambrian, nor Cretaceous period of known warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels, that aren’t there now. It doesn’t take solar cycles into account, celestial dust storms that cloud the atmosphere or major volcanic activity cycles either.

You also assume I disagree with climate change. I don’t, usually, I just don’t agree with how you got there.
And further, hand wringing won’t fix it.

Arguing whether or not it is, is arguing with Muslims that Jesus is not a prophet, but the Messiah.
That just won’t take.

That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about human rights with them. Murdering humans is wrong.

In the same vein, I’m just a simple pirate, But I’m a decent and respectable type pirate. Most pirates know throwing oil in a sea is wrong. Given a GOOD alternative they won’t.

Evidently, driving a truck is wrong. But that’s my only option. There isn’t anyone standing here, just aching to give me an electric truck for free. Nor will they just give me the power transformer to install into my circuit panel.
Let alone if that truck could do all the things my planet killer does. Non-stop.

How many here actually take their bike the 2.1 miles to the corner store? I do. (Maybe you’ve seen my snafu...)
Anyone leave the truck at the corner and walk the three blocks to the barber and then the trinket store my daughter likes?
What about the cloth grocery sacks? There’s more to protecting the environment than gases and temperatures.
A brisk day pales when the ocean is dead with the shade of a plastic roof.

Who likes fruit? Well, stop. You know how much fuel it takes to get bananas and oranges to the white north?
And switching to vitamins won’t help, there is so much chemical stock necessary to strip the minerals from the foods. It takes chemicals to make chemicals. It takes energy to make those...

The fix, (if there is one, you know the sun is going to red giant eventually, right? It’s corona will be at earth’s orbit after expansion. It may be a touch warm!?) is making the globe saving technology popular and cost effective, not arguing with some Carpenter from Michigan about whether the Cenozoic era is actually warmer then the Mesozoic era, based on fossil records of the plant life, not ice cores from the other side of the planet, on the edge of a tectonicplate that literally could have moved to the other side of the planet in that time.

But I tend to look at a bigger picture than most.
In the end, even if human behaviors haven’t done the planet in, human behavior will have to change to repair it, or to deal with the aftermath, regardless.

And when I ask how to fix it, it’s not in jest.

We live in an amazing age. I believe there isn’t anything that humans can not do.
If everyone is worried about the polar ice, I have no problems with sending a solar shield satellite(a Shadellite? I named it first!?) to shade the pole and promote glacier growth.
There may be HUGE unintended consequences, but I know we could do it.
But we’re too interested in forcing behavioral change by boot sole about stuff that is no other humans business, yet I digress.

Really though, you said you proved it and anyone that is in doubt just doesn’t understand. So, it’s true. The climate is changing. Now what?


The castrating New Green Deal? Be the only country to go back to 1300 England, but with phones?
Force everyone to walk?
Trade cars and tractors for horses, and CO2 for methane? We could pump the methane under liquid pressure to the methane sea that lies under the Antarctic ocean... dang, dumping more stuff in the ocean...
Stop making plastic?

What about a moratorium on building new homes?
Driving the up cost and value of homes stifles all sorts of economic development, which lowers GNDP. Lower economic numbers means less energy burned, conversely more opportunity to break the law and destroy the environment for profit to live on, but we could hang those, which in turn saves food...

Force everyone to switch to immature electric technology? There couldn’t possibly be any environmental ramifications from increasing lithium battery production by a magnitude of a thousand...

I don’t mean to be flippant, but if the conclusion is reached, the time for solutions is now.

God please don’t say steam trains...

Depleted Uranium flash steam powered road trains, now that’s entirely different...?

Thanks for reading my rambling between homeworks. Time for some reading before bed. Little Bear reads to me!☺️
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Really though, you said you proved it and anyone that is in doubt just doesn’t understand. So, it’s true. The climate is changing. Now what?

You wrote a lot. And I appreciated much of it. So thank you.

I quoted this little section of what you wrote, because I think it's particularly relevant.

I didn't say I proved anything, so much as I disproved some points, or the relevance of those points. I haven't proved climate change is real or man made. Others have done that. I just looked at what they did.

But, the climate is changing. Now what?

Now we listen to some experts about how to go about reducing our share of the problem. We look to reduce our footprint on the planet, so that we don't consume it all. We use new technologies where we can, and do so without putting the burden onto the poorest people who can least afford to cover the costs. And we (along with the other rich developed countries) help other nations who are still developing, to find their own sustainable balance.

It's going to take governments, and the people. It's going to take international co-operation. But we can do that without losing our sovereignty. We can still be our own Nation, and work with the rest of the world.
 

George P

Well-known member
The idea that any "climate change" is man-made is laughable at best and idiotic at worst. And the even more moronic thought that paying carbon "tax credits" to some government agency or Al Gore is going to stop things is beyond stupid. The Earth regulates itself quite nicely and has done so for eons - and will continue to do so long after we eliminate ourselves as a species.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
- and will continue to do so long after we eliminate ourselves as a species.

We certainly agree on this point.

Perhaps you think we are too small and insignificant to make a difference. Individually, that's also true of a cancer cell. Or a virus, for that matter. The cumulative effect that all of us have is perhaps somewhat more than you assume.
 
I agree. However, I think many people assume they really understand something, about which they truly know very little. And this is where a far greater failing occurs:

That we come to a conclusion based on the information presented to us, and then refuse to accept any new information that might require us to change our perspective, or to re-evaluate our conclusion. No advancement to humankind has even been made through this way of thinking.

I agree with you completely, but it looks as though you are speaking of the "deniers" and I am speaking of the "believers"!
 

WrongHanded

Active member
I agree with you completely, but it looks as though you are speaking of the "deniers" and I am speaking of the "believers"!

I know you are.

So where's the new information so grand that it would make a person such as myself re-evaluate? You have any?

NASA claims 97% of actively publishing (that part is key) climate scientists believe the climate is changing due to the effects of man. 97%. That's a pretty strong majority. But maybe NASA is lying. Or maybe all those experts are wrong.

What seems more likely? That the climate scientists are lying or wrong; or that the gigantic fossil fuel industry has funneled a lot of money into propaganda and politics in order to protect their interests?

What do you think about all that?
 
I know you are.

So where's the new information so grand that it would make a person such as myself re-evaluate? You have any?

NASA claims 97% of actively publishing (that part is key) climate scientists believe the climate is changing due to the effects of man. 97%. That's a pretty strong majority. But maybe NASA is lying. Or maybe all those experts are wrong.

What seems more likely? That the climate scientists are lying or wrong; or that the gigantic fossil fuel industry has funneled a lot of money into propaganda and politics in order to protect their interests?

What do you think about all that?

I think a majority of people - scientists included - have historically been completely sure of themselves and simultaneously completely wrong on many, many occasions. The tendency of our herd to accept that because the majority believe a thing it must be true is such a common fallacy that we even have a name for it. It was not that long ago when a learned gentleman was imprisoned for resisting the Ad populem idea that the sun revolved about the Earth.
 
I think a majority of people - scientists included - have historically been completely sure of themselves and simultaneously completely wrong on many, many occasions. The tendency of our herd to accept that because the majority believe a thing it must be true is such a common fallacy that we even have a name for it. It was not that long ago when a learned gentleman was imprisoned for resisting the Ad populem idea that the sun revolved about the Earth.

That should not, for what it is worth, be taken as a rejection of the idea that humans may be causing global warming. Rather, it should be seen as an argument that we should continue to study the issue, but not yet take drastic action which will definitely impede human progress but may not solve a problem which we do not fully grasp.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
That should not, for what it is worth, be taken as a rejection of the idea that humans may be causing global warming. Rather, it should be seen as an argument that we should continue to study the issue, but not yet take drastic action which will definitely impede human progress but may not solve a problem which we do not fully grasp.

So more collecting data, but no action to reduce carbon dioxide outputs from fossil fuels. Til when? How much data is enough?

If we (the population of the planet) take action and make serious changes towards a rebalancing of the natural system, and it turns out climate change - contrary to the vast majority of data - is not man made, what do we ultimately lose?

The other option is that we keep on keeping on, and if the problem actually is man made, we not only make it much worse but possibly cause a positive feedback loop that we don't have the ability to fix.

What legacy do we want to leave behind for future generations? One of sustainability and conservation, or one of greed and destruction? I know how I feel.
 
Top