Global Warming Revisited

[Irvine511]

It's really dangerous, I think, this notion that people who are educated are somehow "elites" who must be resisted because they are trying to manipulate people who don't know as much as they do. I suppose that's an expected reaction when we are given information that we don't want to hear -- driving my SUV harms the environment, my energy consumption habits are unsustainable long-term -- and it might feel empowering to push back, but that doesn't change a thing. The facts remain the facts, and things just get worse because there isn't the political will to do anything. Although Obama's deal with China is a good start.

I'd posit that the manipulation is done politically, where politicians who want the vote of the "commoners" tell them what they want to hear, whatever makes said "commoner" feel justified in his lifestyle and belief system, so they can get their vote and then use that political power to lower taxes on the wealthy.

There's a whole media-industrial complex devoted to exactly this.


Sent from

[elevated_u2_fan]

I just don't understand how science is capable of lying but religion somehow is not?

[Hollow Island]

Mac would probably have a good explanation for that, though Charlie and Dee probably wouldn't buy it. Well, maybe Charlie could be swayed.

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by elevated_u2_fan

I just don't understand how science is capable of lying but religion somehow is not?

Of course religion is capable of lying; it is the best way to scam people.
In fact, Christianity is used as a scam constantly. Televangelists, the fake tbn preachers,etc. are the scum of the earth. Taking religion and manipulating it for money. The Bible speaks at length about false prophets.
It's just that science, like anything, needs to be challenged instead of taking every theory as truth. Religion sounds ridiculous to unbelievers and I know that. I also realize that many here will hound on one statement and ignore everything else someone has to say. That's why I'm leaving this discussion here. It's a pointless and fruitless debate and if I wanna get in a scientific debate about theories, etc. I will not waste my time doing so on a U2 forum.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

It's just that science, like anything, needs to be challenged instead of taking every theory as truth.

Please read this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

It's just that science, like anything, needs to be challenged instead of taking every theory as truth

There's a good reason why theories such as evolution and the Big Bang Theory are accepted as truth, it's because they have been challenged and tested many times over the years. There's a ton of evidence supporting those theories and that's why they're accepted as truth; because they have been repeatedly proven by empirical data gathered in experiments and the observations of the world around us. I think that you simply do not understand what science is.



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Here is my take on the Climate debate. I actually have a BS in Atmospheric Science/Meteorology.

With any good experiment to prove a theorem you must take into account every variable that can lead to an outcome. Ideally you want to eliminate factors that may contribute to a false result.

If you are an automobile company testing the output of a new engine design you want to have a pristine environment to test that engine. No residue in the engine itself, no impurities in the fluid, same atmospheric conditions in your lab. Basically you want to rid yourself of sources of error. Let's call them 'dirty variables' in the engine experiment.

Heck remember Walter White and Pinkman trying to get rid of the Fly in the lab in Breaking Bad . . . Same concept.

For Climate Change one hypothesis for an experiment can be Increased Emissions of Greenhouse Gasses will result in warming of the entire planet Earth.

Now we have to devise the experiment, but we don't have the ability to bring it down to something we can conduct in the lab. The experiment is taking place on the global scale. There are more variables at play than simply emissions. Hence we can call them 'dirty variables'. Some these include.

-Ocean circulation changes
-Solar Output
-Orbital Variations.
-Global Vegetation Coverage

In addition we cannot fully measure the amount of emissions being pumped into the atmosphere. We can estimate what our cars & power plants generate. We also need to account for Vulcanism and natural methane releases.

For me it's too much to say definetively that we can conduct the experiment. Instead we look for analog years and eras throughout Earth's history to compare via ice core drilling. To give us some idea as to where we stand today.

Bottom line is that for me to say ( as a scientist ) that human activity since the Industrial Revolution is the main driver of climate change is unverifiable.

A large Volcanic Eruption next week in Indonesia may generate the gas output of the entire Industrial Revolution up to this point. But the eruption may have a dimming effect that could put us in a cooler world for decades. But then the sun cycle may hit a maximum and level us out.

Too many variables in my book to make an honest assessment of what Human generated Carbon emissions factor into the grand scheme of things.

[DaveC]

Regardless of how much of an impact humans specifically are having on climate change, I don't understand at all why "let's try to pump the minimum required amount of toxic chemicals into the air we breathe" is a reprehensible idea to such a large segment of society.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Here is my take on the Climate debate. I actually have a BS in Atmospheric Science/Meteorology.



With any good experiment to prove a theorem you must take into account every variable that can lead to an outcome. Ideally you want to eliminate factors that may contribute to a false result.



If you are an automobile company testing the output of a new engine design you want to have a pristine environment to test that engine. No residue in the engine itself, no impurities in the fluid, same atmospheric conditions in your lab. Basically you want to rid yourself of sources of error. Let's call them 'dirty variables' in the engine experiment.



Heck remember Walter White and Pinkman trying to get rid of the Fly in the lab in Breaking Bad . . . Same concept.



For Climate Change one hypothesis for an experiment can be Increased Emissions of Greenhouse Gasses will result in warming of the entire planet Earth.



Now we have to devise the experiment, but we don't have the ability to bring it down to something we can conduct in the lab. The experiment is taking place on the global scale. There are more variables at play than simply emissions. Hence we can call them 'dirty variables'. Some these include.



-Ocean circulation changes

-Solar Output

-Orbital Variations.

-Global Vegetation Coverage



In addition we cannot fully measure the amount of emissions being pumped into the atmosphere. We can estimate what our cars & power plants generate. We also need to account for Vulcanism and natural methane releases.



For me it's too much to say definetively that we can conduct the experiment. Instead we look for analog years and eras throughout Earth's history to compare via ice core drilling. To give us some idea as to where we stand today.



Bottom line is that for me to say ( as a scientist ) that human activity since the Industrial Revolution is the main driver of climate change is unverifiable.



A large Volcanic Eruption next week in Indonesia may generate the gas output of the entire Industrial Revolution up to this point. But the eruption may have a dimming effect that could put us in a cooler world for decades. But then the sun cycle may hit a maximum and level us out.



Too many variables in my book to make an honest assessment of what Human generated Carbon emissions factor into the grand scheme of things.

Wow. Very impressive and interesting post; I enjoyed reading it.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Here is my take on the Climate debate. I actually have a BS in Atmospheric Science/Meteorology.

With any good experiment to prove a theorem you must take into account every variable that can lead to an outcome. Ideally you want to eliminate factors that may contribute to a false result.

If you are an automobile company testing the output of a new engine design you want to have a pristine environment to test that engine. No residue in the engine itself, no impurities in the fluid, same atmospheric conditions in your lab. Basically you want to rid yourself of sources of error. Let's call them 'dirty variables' in the engine experiment.

Heck remember Walter White and Pinkman trying to get rid of the Fly in the lab in Breaking Bad . . . Same concept.

For Climate Change one hypothesis for an experiment can be Increased Emissions of Greenhouse Gasses will result in warming of the entire planet Earth.

Now we have to devise the experiment, but we don't have the ability to bring it down to something we can conduct in the lab. The experiment is taking place on the global scale. There are more variables at play than simply emissions. Hence we can call them 'dirty variables'. Some these include.

-Ocean circulation changes
-Solar Output
-Orbital Variations.
-Global Vegetation Coverage

In addition we cannot fully measure the amount of emissions being pumped into the atmosphere. We can estimate what our cars & power plants generate. We also need to account for Vulcanism and natural methane releases.

For me it's too much to say definetively that we can conduct the experiment. Instead we look for analog years and eras throughout Earth's history to compare via ice core drilling. To give us some idea as to where we stand today.

Bottom line is that for me to say ( as a scientist ) that human activity since the Industrial Revolution is the main driver of climate change is unverifiable.

A large Volcanic Eruption next week in Indonesia may generate the gas output of the entire Industrial Revolution up to this point. But the eruption may have a dimming effect that could put us in a cooler world for decades. But then the sun cycle may hit a maximum and level us out.

Too many variables in my book to make an honest assessment of what Human generated Carbon emissions factor into the grand scheme of things.

But the meteorologist stance on this has been refuted, you can't act like this has been ignored. Many of these "dirty variables" have been accounted for and highly debated and for the most part refuted.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by DaveC

Regardless of how much of an impact humans specifically are having on climate change, I don't understand at all why "let's try to pump the minimum required amount of toxic chemicals into the air we breathe" is a reprehensible idea to such a large segment of society.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

There is surely a balance on the public policy side. Health wise I think the controls we put in large American cities to prevent toxic smog is a step in the right direction. We do have control of a micro-climate such as the air over Los Angeles and Houston. When a temperature inversion hits with a large amount of particulates people can die. Just look at Chinese cities with the masks on the faces. LA looks much better than it did 30 years ago.

I remember spending time in Las Vegas and the smog check caught me with a high idle setting me back 490 bucks.

Right now I think there is a bit of an overreach in the name of Climate Change.

New EPA regulations just came out banning 80% of wood burning stoves. Read somewhere that if you have any kind of wood stove you have to register it. Almost like a gun. I love my fireplace. Chopping up dead trees for fuel and exercise. Saves on me using propane.

That seems extreme to me.

EPA ban on wood stoves is freezing out rural America

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by BVS

But the meteorologist stance on this has been refuted, you can't act like this has been ignored. Many of these "dirty variables" have been accounted for and highly debated and for the most part refuted.

I knew I'd have a WWBVS do moment

By whom? I have many colleagues, professional contacts who think the same way I do. That '97%' stat gets thrown around very loosely.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

There is surely a balance on the public policy side. Health wise I think the controls we put in large American cities to prevent toxic smog is a step in the right direction. We do have control of a micro-climate such as the air over Los Angeles and Houston. When a temperature inversion hits with a large amount of particulates people can die. Just look at Chinese cities with the masks on the faces. LA looks much better than it did 30 years ago.



I remember spending time in Las Vegas and the smog check caught me with a high idle setting me back 490 bucks.



Right now I think there is a bit of an overreach in the name of Climate Change.



New EPA regulations just came out banning 80% of wood burning stoves. Read somewhere that if you have any kind of wood stove you have to register it. Almost like a gun. I love my fireplace. Chopping up dead trees for fuel and exercise. Saves on me using propane.



That seems extreme to me.



EPA ban on wood stoves is freezing out rural America

Check your facts. This isn't a ban, it's new regulations on new stoves built in 2015.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Here is my take on the Climate debate. I actually have a BS in Atmospheric Science/Meteorology.



With any good experiment to prove a theorem you must take into account every variable that can lead to an outcome. Ideally you want to eliminate factors that may contribute to a false result.



If you are an automobile company testing the output of a new engine design you want to have a pristine environment to test that engine. No residue in the engine itself, no impurities in the fluid, same atmospheric conditions in your lab. Basically you want to rid yourself of sources of error. Let's call them 'dirty variables' in the engine experiment.



Heck remember Walter White and Pinkman trying to get rid of the Fly in the lab in Breaking Bad . . . Same concept.



For Climate Change one hypothesis for an experiment can be Increased Emissions of Greenhouse Gasses will result in warming of the entire planet Earth.



Now we have to devise the experiment, but we don't have the ability to bring it down to something we can conduct in the lab. The experiment is taking place on the global scale. There are more variables at play than simply emissions. Hence we can call them 'dirty variables'. Some these include.



-Ocean circulation changes

-Solar Output

-Orbital Variations.

-Global Vegetation Coverage



In addition we cannot fully measure the amount of emissions being pumped into the atmosphere. We can estimate what our cars & power plants generate. We also need to account for Vulcanism and natural methane releases.



For me it's too much to say definetively that we can conduct the experiment. Instead we look for analog years and eras throughout Earth's history to compare via ice core drilling. To give us some idea as to where we stand today.



Bottom line is that for me to say ( as a scientist ) that human activity since the Industrial Revolution is the main driver of climate change is unverifiable.



A large Volcanic Eruption next week in Indonesia may generate the gas output of the entire Industrial Revolution up to this point. But the eruption may have a dimming effect that could put us in a cooler world for decades. But then the sun cycle may hit a maximum and level us out.



Too many variables in my book to make an honest assessment of what Human generated Carbon emissions factor into the grand scheme of things.

Here's the deal though, 99% of climatologists (the people who are the most knowledgeable on the subject) will say that you're wrong and they will also say that they're all but certain that human activity is the main contributing factor in climate change. I'm going to trust them, considering they've spent their whole
adult life researching the climate.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

We need to acknowledge this issue has been used as a political football.

The 97% number has been thrown around and has taken on a life of its own in the media-political realm. My question for you is how did you arrive at 99%?

Point in case State Climatologist is an honorary title given to an academic in each state. George Taylor was a 3%er would debated the "settled science" and succumbed to political pressure to resign his position as the Oregon state climatologist.

Truthfully, when you have outside pressure placed upon honest research and debate there will those who keep their opinions to themselves. I've taken climate courses and the professors (those adults you speak of ) are fascinated by their science and how technology is changing the way we look at climate.

The faculty was more along the lines of a 50-50 split on immediate anthropogenic warming . Climatologists are trying to figure out ten year cycles in Hurricane activity. Let alone how the 50 year cycle comes into play.

With all the talk of Free Speech in society lately with need to uphold that in the scientific community as well.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

We need to acknowledge this issue has been used as a political football.

The 97% number has been thrown around and has taken on a life of its own in the media-political realm. My question for you is how did you arrive at 99%?

Point in case State Climatologist is an honorary title given to an academic in each state. George Taylor was a 3%er would debated the "settled science" and succumbed to political pressure to resign his position as the Oregon state climatologist.

Truthfully, when you have outside pressure placed upon honest research and debate there will those who keep their opinions to themselves. I've taken climate courses and the professors (those adults you speak of ) are fascinated by their science and how technology is changing the way we look at climate.

The faculty was more along the lines of a 50-50 split on immediate anthropogenic warming . Climatologists are trying to figure out ten year cycles in Hurricane activity. Let alone how the 50 year cycle comes into play.

With all the talk of Free Speech in society lately with need to uphold that in the scientific community as well.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full This isn't a free speech issue. This is a science issue and the science is all but settled. Climate change deniers love to talk about how they're persecuted and similar to Galileo and other persecuted scientists, but they're wrong. Every year the planet keeps warming and every year CO2 emissions go up. The effects of climate change are being seen all across the planet. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore all the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

Science | From AAAS This isn't a free speech issue. This is a science issue and the science is all but settled. Climate change deniers love to talk about how they're persecuted and similar to Galileo and other persecuted scientists, but they're wrong. Every year the planet keeps warming and every year CO2 emissions go up. The effects of climate change are being seen all across the planet. You have to be willfully ignorant to ignore all the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Your entire response may seem to you to be an exercise in superior intellect, but in the context of a discussion you have cornered yourself into a back alley with no means to extricate yourself from your pervasive Orwellian groupthink. You are but a mere drone in a dystopian kangaroo court Twilight Zone episode repeating the mantra of a faceless bureaucracy. I would have loved to have the great thinkers of the world name dropping links and Folding their arms.

If the Earth has gone through dramatic warming and cooling the Onus lies on Science to prove why this next shifts will be a self-inflicted we can't recover from.

Ten years ago it was predicted Hurricanes would become even more violent a frequent, but in fact the opposite has occurred. My good sir, point of order, but can you provide me with a link of settled science from 2005 on this query?

You say 'the effects of Climate Change can be seen all across the planet' Try to Convince me without a link and only then will I deem you a worthy sparring partner.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

We need to acknowledge this issue has been used as a political football.

The 97% number has been thrown around and has taken on a life of its own in the media-political realm. My question for you is how did you arrive at 99%?

Point in case State Climatologist is an honorary title given to an academic in each state. George Taylor was a 3%er would debated the "settled science" and succumbed to political pressure to resign his position as the Oregon state climatologist.

Truthfully, when you have outside pressure placed upon honest research and debate there will those who keep their opinions to themselves. I've taken climate courses and the professors (those adults you speak of ) are fascinated by their science and how technology is changing the way we look at climate.

The faculty was more along the lines of a 50-50 split on immediate anthropogenic warming . Climatologists are trying to figure out ten year cycles in Hurricane activity. Let alone how the 50 year cycle comes into play.

With all the talk of Free Speech in society lately with need to uphold that in the scientific community as well.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yes it's become a political football, on all sides, but it comes down to science and nothing else. The onus is on science, you have all these friends and colleagues that don't agree but where is their science? The problem is that one side has decided to embrace bad science or anti-science rhetoric as their reasoning, if there are so many that disagree, bigger than 3% than there should be better, or at least more science saying so.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Your entire response may seem to you to be an exercise in superior intellect, but in the context of a discussion you have cornered yourself into a back alley with no means to extricate yourself from your pervasive Orwellian groupthink. You are but a mere drone in a dystopian kangaroo court Twilight Zone episode repeating the mantra of a faceless bureaucracy. I would have loved to have the great thinkers of the world name dropping links and Folding their arms.



If the Earth has gone through dramatic warming and cooling the Onus lies on Science to prove why this next shifts will be a self-inflicted we can't recover from.



Ten years ago it was predicted Hurricanes would become even more violent a frequent, but in fact the opposite has occurred. My good sir, point of order, but can you provide me with a link of settled science from 2005 on this query?



You say 'the effects of Climate Change can be seen all across the planet' Try to Convince me without a link and only then will I deem you a worthy sparring partner.

So I guess believing the scientific consensus is an example of "Orwellian group think?" Would you say the same for people for people who believe in the theory of gravity? Or for people who believe vaccines are safe? Putting trust in scientists who have spent their whole lives studying a topic doesn't mean I'm a "drone in a dystopian kangaroo court Twilight Zone episode." By denying climate change, I could say you're buying into the faulty research funded by fossil fuel companies who have a vested interest in denying climate change.

The science has proved why this next round of warming will be bad; even if it wasn't human caused it would still be bad, and the science is settled that this current round of warming is human caused, you just reject the evidence.

There was always debate over whether hurricanes would get more frequent. Some scientists thought they would, but the data was always inconclusive. But, the increased temperature of the ocean will make them stronger (which we've seen) and sea level rise will make storm surge deadlier (which we saw in Hurricane Sandy).

If you want to see the effects of climate go look at pictures of glaciers 30 years ago and then compare those pictures with pictures of the same glaciers today. Look at the awful drought in California and the increased amount of wildfires. Look at how dry Lake Mead's gotten over the past 30 years. Open your eyes as to what's happening all across the planet.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Your entire response may seem to you to be an exercise in superior intellect, but in the context of a discussion you have cornered yourself into a back alley with no means to extricate yourself from your pervasive Orwellian groupthink. You are but a mere drone in a dystopian kangaroo court Twilight Zone episode repeating the mantra of a faceless bureaucracy.

Who exactly is engaging in an exercise in superior intellect?

That's enough of the personal insults.