disputed FACTS - Page 11 - Router Forums
 370Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #101 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-05-2019, 04:21 PM
Moderation Team
 
Cherryville Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
First Name: Charles
Posts: 15,262
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biagio View Post
@CC
Charles, I would value your opinion on the following article. It has over 11 000 signatories, contained in a supplemental file. But that is not the main point. It speaks to something you said, about not being able to state with confidence what may or may not have happened ages ago, and instead looks at measurable phenomena and correlations. Question: is this sound science?

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/...biz088/5610806

This discussion was started then aborted on another thread, a few months back.
My position remains that I do not know what does or does not constitute and/or contribute to climate change, but I can readily sign up to actions that seem reasonable to do, in any case (e.g. population control, reducing plastics use, etc). I was horrified to read the other day, that there are rivers in New Zealand so polluted, that it is unsafe to swim in them (phosphate runoff, bacterial contamination, etc). New Zealand! I thought that only happened to us in Third World countries.
I wonder how come nobody has thought of a way to extract the phosphates from the water? They are quite expensive to produce from raw materials, might be cheaper to extract.
Biagio population control and plastics reduction are first pollution control measures. They have nothing to do with climate change generally except that lower population would mean fewer factories and cars WHICH MIGHT prove to lessen climate effects IF the science actually proves to be true. More on that later. I'm all for doing what we can to lessen the impact from those two things. I'd love to see cities stop growing, less smog, less deforestation, less garbage ,etc. We need cities like Montreal and Victoria, BC to stop dumping their raw sewage into the St. Lawrence and Pacific Ocean respectively. That kind of thing should be a priority for them but spending tax dollars on more visible things that can garner votes seems more important.

We know with what we think is certainty how conditions were going back many years. We know certain conditions existed at around those same times. Most scientists think that half life isotope dating methods are accurate enough to do that. What we can't say with any certainty at all is what conditions contributed to climate change. The graphs that Dan posted a few pages back showed CO2 levels as high or higher than now 3 times in the last 400,000 years. CO2 rose too in proportionate levels but I found out that there was a lag time of 800 years. That is an indicator that the temperature rise caused to CO 2 levels to rise and not vice versa. Then when you look at CO2 solubility changes in sea water with temperature rise you have a reasonable explanation for why. Sea water loses it's capability to hold CO2 as temperatures rise and it takes hundreds of years to heat water that covers 360,000,000 square kilometers and is up to 11,000 meters deep.

A lot of info I've read says that water vapor is far more important and that cosmic rays play a significant role in cloud formation which has a major effect on weather. Sunspots are also thought to play a major role and I know of no way to tell what sunspot activity or cosmic ray output was millions of years ago. CO2 is considered a green house gas but at what percentage does it start making a difference. I would expect it would have to approach something like 5% to really start making a major impact and it's currently less than 100th of that. Remember that the theory how it works is that it reflects heat radiation back to earth that would otherwise radiate into outer space. My personal logic tells me that less than 1/500th of 1% can't reflect much of anything back.

[QUOTE]Question: is this sound science?[QUOTE/]

Yes and no. Making aware of what conditions were like way back during past climate changes can help us to know some of what to look for now to see if we can find patterns that accurately allow us to predict the future. But stating with the absolute certainty that climate alarmists are doing now is not responsible science. There is far too much about weather and particularly long term trends that for someone to say they know exactly what is going on is foolish. We still have no idea what caused the ice ages or what caused them to end. I've heard numerous stories about Wooly Mammoths being found frozen in Siberian permafrost and the meat was still edible. I've heard some froze to death so quickly that they hadn't finished chewing the food in their mouths. What could possibly cause that? We have no idea and until we do I don't see a need to go to extreme measures to fix something that we aren't sure is broken. Especially if we aren't prepared to address the primary fix which is overpopulation.

Someone I consider a master woodworker once told me that a master woodworker is not someone who never makes mistakes. He is someone who is able to cover them up so that no one can tell.

Last edited by Cherryville Chuck; 11-05-2019 at 04:25 PM.
Cherryville Chuck is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #102 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-05-2019, 05:16 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
You know Brent discrediting everyone who doesn't agree with your point of view only works with millennials. It doesn't hold up well with us older guys.
I'm not discrediting anyone, I'm refusing to agree with IDEAS that don't stand up to reasonable degrees of scientific scrutiny....there's a difference. My position is not my "point of view" it's the position of thousands of scientists all over the world, working independently and with their work exposed and available for scrutiny, that all support the same concerns about ACC.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
You have failed to name a scientist who supports your point of view as does everyone else who sides with you. Those scientists always tend to remain unnamed.
Really? You want me to list names? On this page,(https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/...biz088/5610806) 3/4 of the way down to the bottom, there is a link that takes you to two PDF files that contain the list of over 11 000 scientists who support ACC, say it's important and we need to do something about it. I guarantee you that's not the complete list...it's just those within reach of this exercise. Is that good enough or do you want me to copy and past some into here? Another good list of scientist is the "literature cited" section of the IPCC reports. If you look at this page you see the 2013 report that lists the authors, as well as the expert reviewers....
HTML Code:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
. These scientists are NOT and never have been nameless....a rudimentary google search would reveal many many people by name. Did you ever try that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
Furthermore you've failed to say how their facts are flawed. Such as the lag time in CO2 levels with previous warming periods. As pointed out in that video the lag time was always about 800 years. 800 years lag time is conclusive proof that the temperature rise was independent from any effects of CO2 and CO2 may have not played any role in temperature whatsoever during those periods. I know exactly how science works and there has never been any proof that CO2 affects climate. While we are able to tell what CO2 levels have been in the past what we don't know is whether they affected climate. We think they can but only in great enough quantity. Dyson said that too and I have no idea what you've read that makes you think he supported ACC. Everything I've seen from him said the opposite.
I did actually say how the significance of the CO2 lag is deliberately misrepresented by the denier camp. I said orbital oscillations initiate a temperature change but it is greatly enhanced by the resultant changes in CO2 in the form of a feedback loop. Did you read that? If not then I'm not terribly inclined to put much time into continuing to supply you with information......but here's a reference to a good explanation. Even if you don't like the web page itself, in contains research references that are independent of the web site authors. https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lag...termediate.htm

What's funny is that the denier camp uses this temperature lag as proof that this is all bunk, but they also believe that the scientists are all bought and crooked. If so...why didn't they doctor the data to say it wasn't so? Also, why did they publish the results at all? In fact the results were first predicted in 1990 ( https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/lo03000u.html) so how did the big global conspiracy allow this to get out?

Dysan said in an article" Heretical thoughts about science and society" the following: "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas." Look it up!

He also said: "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave". Basically conceding that he doesn't know much about the subject matter. He is a theoretical physicist after all. Citation can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freema...Climate_change


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
He said CO2 is a greenhouse gas not that it has now or ever affected climate. It may be capable of it. As someone who trained in physics I can tell with certainty that in order for you to predict an outcome you have to have a good data set. That doesn't exist. We have some weather measurements that go back 150 or so years and before that it was observational information about hot or cold, wet or drought, and ice or ice free. There were no measurements of all the various possible factors which include cosmic rays.

In that video and in other media I've seen the consensus was that water vapour played the major role in warming. This is easily observable. If it clears off at night this time of year here the night will be cold. Cloudy and it won't be. The water vapour in the clouds is what is holding the heat in.
There's a tremendous amount of data available and more collected every day, but you should look into the proxy data sets that allow scientists to understand temperature changes and dynamics in the distant past too. Their processes are all published and available for scrutiny.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
You said that my black body/white body example was flawed. How? It dealt specifically with the mechanics of how the CO2 molecule is supposed to affect climate, i.e. by bouncing the radiation back down to the ground again. The only way it was flawed is that it was a 2 dimensional representation of the problem when it is actually 3 dimensional. In a 3 dimensional setting if the radiation strikes near the edge of the molecule it will ricochet off at an angle, possibly still into outer space. So where my example assumed 100% reflection the real scenario won't possibly achieve 100%. If you disagree with that then quit spouting talking points and actually share some of your brilliance with us.
No need to get nasty here. I am the one who is aligned with the consensus of thousands of people who are ACTUALLY experts in the field, (unlike you and I by the way), so if you think those thousands of PhD wielding scientists are wrong, I want to see defensible DATA, collected by professionals and analyzed according to accepted methods that has also been exposed to other experts for scrutiny. I really don't care about what "seems" a certain way to relative lay people (and though I have multiple advanced degrees, in this subject matter I consider myself lay) who don't know what they're talking about in sufficient detail, because lots of things don't "SEEM" possible to people who don't know what they're talking about. The world being round "seemed" ridiculous to a lot of people for a long time, and that's quite reasonable actually. Fortunately, people listened to scientists...eventually.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
As I said, discrediting everyone who disagrees with you only works for a very short time. Dr. Judith Curry has 140 scientific papers to her name and has taught at several prestigious universities including Georgia Tech. She sounds like someone who should be listened to. Here is a small part of Tony Heller's bio.

BS Geology, Arizona State University
Masters Electrical Engineering, Rice University
Boston University Geology
Northern Arizona University Computer Science
Colorado State University Computer Science
University of New Mexico Geochemistry

Lifelong environmentalist.
I testified at my first Congressional hearing in support of Wilderness in 1972.
I fought for the Clean Air and Water acts
Wilderness Ranger Cibola National Forest, New Mexico
Wilderness Ranger Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico
Currently battling the City of Boulder, Colorado to stop development on the South Boulder Wetlands
Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years

Doesn't exactly sound like someone who would be a shill for oil companies does he? His credentials and accomplishments are far too lengthy to post here but here's a link to the rest: https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/ Once again, he seems the kind of person you would want to pay attention to unlike the 2500 unnamed scientists. BTW, is 2500 all the pro side can come up with? That's a pittance.
Take a look at Curry's satements and some replies. Don't take their word for it...look at the literature they cite: https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Judith_Curry.htm

She may have an impressive looking resume, but what about the thousands of scientists out there with similar resumes that agree with ACC? Is it REASONABLE to think that they are all bought, crooked and wrong just because you have a handful or people that say so? Really???

Tony Heller is a birther who has no training in the field..... What he has is thousands of formally trained and properly scrutinized scientists that say he is cooking the books.

DOn't try to impress people with numbers, look at the percentages of scientists in the fields that agree with ACC. 91-97% of relevant scientists agree it's happening and that people are the main drivers.....now if you were a betting man.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
If you want to talk conspiracy theories then let's talk about the Canadian government turfing out 100 years of actual measured data and replacing it with calculated data. The ONLY reason they would do that is that the actual data doesn't support their agenda. Couple that with the Spencer Fernando video of Katherine McKenna, our environment minister, admitting that she is lying about it and you have a smoking gun, not a conspiracy theory. And what about El Niño and La Niña? Thirty years ago that was all you heard about. If there was going to be an El Niño then California could expect hot dry weather and brush fires. Wonder why you haven't heard anything about them lately? It's because the ocean affecting weather that much destroys the CO2 debate. Tony Heller's presentation to the Washington State Senate shows how NASA has changed the weather data every few years since about 2000. There are some conspiracies for you Brent.
We can talk about this if you want! I spent years working professionally with climate data including the purchasing of hundreds of thousands of dollars of meteorological equipment for agencies in cooperation with WMO standards committees. I'm also familiar with processing of data that can be required but you seem to have forgotten about the things I mentioned before. I mean if you want to have a discussion, that's great, but if you're not going to read or comment on what I write, then it demonstrates that you don't want to discuss....you just want to rant. I'm not really interested. So I will try again and I would like to hear your response:

There have been attempts to criticize changes to temperature data. The assertions are that it's been to try and deceive people by altering the data. So answer me these questions:

1 - If people were trying to be crooked and change the data, why is the original, raw met station data still publicly available? Go look!! You will find it! I mean, if you wanted to be sneaky and cook the books.....why would you leave the "pre-cooked" data in a column right beside your crooked column???

2 - If people were trying to cook the books by altering data to make it look like it's warming when it's not.....why did they alter it so that it looks like it's warming LESS? See, like I mentioned above (I'm going to assume you missed it) the alterations made to the data set actually reduced the severity of warming. Look it up! Here's the paper where their findings were published, please read it and let me know how they were wrong. By the way, this group of scientists were all skeptics, until they looked at the data themselves: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pape...eley-Earth.pdf
timbrframr is online now  
post #103 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-05-2019, 05:36 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
I'd join you but taking antibiotics. But in a week or two, I may join you all with a bit of bourbon. Lots to celebrate now that we've solved the world's problems. I think we should invite Brent to join in the evening's festivities as well. This has made for a very lively and thorough discussion of what is usually a topic that sets tempers and emotions ablaze.
Hoo boy, I'd have a hard time saying no to some single malt. If I was in a different tax bracket I'd have a bottle of Lagavulin, Oban and Laphroaig in the cabinet just for diversity. And maybe some Glen Breton single malt just for patriotism....being a Nova Scotia boy originally.
jw2170 and DesertRatTom like this.
timbrframr is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #104 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-05-2019, 09:15 PM
Official Greeter
 
jw2170's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Australia
First Name: James
Posts: 18,321
 
Send a message via Skype™ to jw2170
Default

This debate has been going for some time now, and it appears to me that we are starting another circle...

I do believe that there is climate change in action as it has for more years than we can imagine. I am 73 yrs old, but cannot imagine being 100s of millions of years old....

I also do not believe that it is as drastic as many supporter claim.

We have to take positive steps to reduce pollution on this planet, but we still need fosil fuels to survive in the short term.

As an ex sailor, I still want my lights and medical equipment to work at night when the wind drops....


PS; This is my personal opinion, and I do not have to justify it to anyone who does not agree.
harrysin, DaninVan and marecat3 like this.

James
Sydney, Australia
.

I don't mind if other members disagree with my comments.
I don't profess to know everything, and I may learn something new.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."




jw2170 is offline  
post #105 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-06-2019, 12:34 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Country: South Africa
First Name: Biagio
Posts: 342
 
Send a message via Skype™ to Biagio
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbrframr View Post
Hoo boy, I'd have a hard time saying no to some single malt. If I was in a different tax bracket I'd have a bottle of Lagavulin, Oban and Laphroaig in the cabinet just for diversity. And maybe some Glen Breton single malt just for patriotism....being a Nova Scotia boy originally.
The world’s prize-winning single malt is made right here in South Africa (as well as the - ahem!- 2019 Rugby World Cup champions). Naturally, no longer available locally. I should have bought it up in bulk when it was launched - relatively dirt cheap at the time.

BTW, India’s top of the range single malt is right up there with the best, and if you have not tried Japanese vat-strength single malts, you are in for a treat. Unfortunately, the leading distillery was affected by the tsunami/nuclear radiation disaster, but there is still a quantity to be had.

Seems like @Coleve ’s crowd have rested on their laurels for awhile. If you like Lagavulin, try something called Smokehead. Man, what a blast of peat, smoke and iodine - actually two blasts - just as your palate settles down, you get a second bite. I encountered it soon after its launch in 2006. At the time, the Blurbs said it had been created by some guy from North America, who had gone to Scotland for that purpose. Are you guys going to build a better haggis too?
Biagio is offline  
post #106 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-08-2019, 01:50 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jw2170 View Post
This debate has been going for some time now, and it appears to me that we are starting another circle...

I do believe that there is climate change in action as it has for more years than we can imagine. I am 73 yrs old, but cannot imagine being 100s of millions of years old....

I also do not believe that it is as drastic as many supporter claim.

We have to take positive steps to reduce pollution on this planet, but we still need fosil fuels to survive in the short term.

As an ex sailor, I still want my lights and medical equipment to work at night when the wind drops....


PS; This is my personal opinion, and I do not have to justify it to anyone who does not agree.
I'm all for reducing pollution and I expect you're probably old enough to remember when any attempt to stop or reduce pollution was mocked and ridiculed as nothing more than tree hugger fanaticism and if we ever tried to reduce or limit pollution the whole world economy would collapse and people would be left starving to death in the streets everywhere. Sound familiar?
timbrframr is online now  
post #107 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-08-2019, 02:55 PM
Moderation Team
 
Cherryville Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
First Name: Charles
Posts: 15,262
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbrframr View Post
I'm all for reducing pollution and I expect you're probably old enough to remember when any attempt to stop or reduce pollution was mocked and ridiculed as nothing more than tree hugger fanaticism and if we ever tried to reduce or limit pollution the whole world economy would collapse and people would be left starving to death in the streets everywhere. Sound familiar?
No, I can't say it does. Growing up in the deep south I spent a lot of time walking around barefoot in the summer. As kids in those days we seemed to have an instinctive hate of wearing shoes in hot weather. One of the things that bothered me at a very young age was all the pull tabs (the predecessor of pop-tops) and broken glass along the sides of major roads. It wasn't long after that that the first anti litter laws came into being. Around the early 60s I remember reading that the pulp mill in Tuscaloosa, Alabama was responsible for polluting the Warrior or Black Warrior River (can't remember which one this many years later) and that the fish were unsafe to eat. That was also around the time that the toxicity of the Love Canal was exposed too and it became a national horror story. I would have to say that your statement either comes from another hemisphere or it simply isn't true. People in North America have been concerned about pollution for about as long as I've been alive.

Someone I consider a master woodworker once told me that a master woodworker is not someone who never makes mistakes. He is someone who is able to cover them up so that no one can tell.
Cherryville Chuck is online now  
post #108 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-08-2019, 03:30 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
No, I can't say it does. Growing up in the deep south I spent a lot of time walking around barefoot in the summer. As kids in those days we seemed to have an instinctive hate of wearing shoes in hot weather. One of the things that bothered me at a very young age was all the pull tabs (the predecessor of pop-tops) and broken glass along the sides of major roads. It wasn't long after that that the first anti litter laws came into being. Around the early 60s I remember reading that the pulp mill in Tuscaloosa, Alabama was responsible for polluting the Warrior or Black Warrior River (can't remember which one this many years later) and that the fish were unsafe to eat. That was also around the time that the toxicity of the Love Canal was exposed too and it became a national horror story. I would have to say that your statement either comes from another hemisphere or it simply isn't true. People in North America have been concerned about pollution for about as long as I've been alive.
How quickly we forget or we have selective memories.

Industry fought environmental laws tooth and nail years ago, with no end of doom and gloom rhetoric. Most people find it more palatable now, but it wasn't always so.
timbrframr is online now  
post #109 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-08-2019, 05:05 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
Then there is the hype about rising sea levels and if Greenland's ice sheet melts it will cause a rise in sea levels of 20 feet. I was very suspicious when I read that so I looked up the area of Greenland and compared it to the area of the world's oceans. If all of Greenland's ice sheet melted it would result in a rise of inches, not feet.
Exactly what complex analysis did you conduct using the area of Greenland? Can you give us the math, but also...can you explain how the scientists that calculated their projected sea level rise were wrong?
timbrframr is online now  
post #110 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-08-2019, 07:59 PM
Forum Contributor
 
DesertRatTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
First Name: Tom
Posts: 16,685
 
Default

Let's just not be stupid and chase the problem with trillions of dollars when we have no idea what to spend it on. Let's get to some practical solutions. So far, the main one seems to be plant more trees, and that won't cost $16 trillion bucks.

The more I do, the less I accomplish.
DesertRatTom is online now  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Router Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome