User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 71 to 80 of 80

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #71
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433314
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,903x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    So, science, The Uncomfortable Limits of Human Knowledge

    ...I explore this challenge in my book, What Science Is and How It Really Works. If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that the ability of a theory to predict unobserved phenomena and lead to amazing new technologies is no proof that said theory is “true.”

    For example, in addition to explaining the dynamics of the known solar system, Isaac Newton’s mechanics enabled stunningly accurate predictions of other astronomical phenomena, such as Halley’s comet arriving later than normal in 1759 due to the gravitational effects of passing close to Jupiter. Even more impressive, in the early 1800s when astronomers determined that the orbit of Uranus deviated from Newtonian predictions, they concluded that Newton’s theory was not wrong; rather, the existence of a previously unobserved planet was posited and was later found exactly where it was expected to be (and named Neptune).

    Such successes of the scientific revolution were so impressive that philosophers developed whole new theories of knowledge to try to explain how scientists appeared to have used observation and reason to discover fundamental truths. In doing so, both scientists and epistemologists attempted to dismiss what logicians have known since antiquity: that no amount of correctly predicted effects can prove a hypothesized cause. Attempts to do so commit the fallacy of “affirming the consequent”—in other words, scientific theories are always underdetermined by the available data.

    ...In 1859, astronomers determined that the orbit of Mercury was not behaving, over time, as Newtonian mechanics predicted. So another new planet (named Vulcan) was posited and its probable position calculated. Unlike the prediction of Neptune’s existence, this supposition did not pan out; rather, Newtonian mechanics was an incorrect theory in this context. Its conceptions of time, space, and simultaneity were simply wrong. A different scientific theory—Einstein’s theory of relativity—was required to later explain Mercury’s abnormal perihelion precession....
    Eistein predicted someone would eventually refine his theory. They're working on it.

    Note, "no amount of correctly predicted effects can prove a hypothesized cause" is Hume's problem of induction, unresolved until Popper introduced falsification. Science is not in the business of proving things but disproving them.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Sunsettommy (08-13-2020)

  3. #72
    Points: 5,566, Level: 17
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 184
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    skepticalmike's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    130
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    687
    Points
    5,566
    Level
    17
    Thanks Given
    78
    Thanked 120x in 98 Posts
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rationalist View Post
    Assuming that we affect the climate to an extent is one thing. Assuming that we are the majority of the reason for the current climate trends is quite another.

    It has not been settled that we are the main reason for current trends.

    Granted, if we are to assume that we are the main factor, what exactly could be done? Cap and trade doesn't do much beyond lining the pockets of governments. The same is true for the carbon tax.

    Even if the West somehow stopped emitting CO2 altogether, China's pollution would continue to rise. The developing world is rapidly industrializing, so it's going to be extremely difficult to get these countries to cut emissions.

    At the same time, that makes getting Western countries to lower their emissions a hard sell. Even a lot of the most environmentally left wing nations have largely exited climate agreements. Canada exited the Kyoto Protocol, for example, after realizing they couldn't achieve its goals. Japan and Russia also stopped taking on the later targets.
    There is a very strong case that humans are responsible for all or nearly all of the warming since 1950. The 2 diagrams below are from Skepticalscience.com.
    https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-hu...confidence.htm





    Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, light green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WS12, dark green), and Jones et al. 2013 (J12, pink)




    China's carbon emissions are expected to peak in less than 5 years. This is from carbonbrief.org:

    With its enormous population and heavy reliance on coal, China is by far the world’s biggest polluter, responsible for more emissions than the US and EU combined.
    One of the drivers behind Chinese emissions is the intense urbanisation that has taken place across the country in recent years, as millions of people flock from rural areas to rapidly expanding cities.
    However, in new analysis published in Nature Sustainability, a team of researchers has shown that as China’s burgeoning cities become wealthier, their per capita emissions begin to drop.
    According to their analysis, this trend could in turn trigger an overall dip in CO2 levels across the nation, and mean that despite the current target for emissions peaking by 2030, they may in fact level out at some point between 2021 and 2025.

    I believe that it is just a matter of time before nearly all of the industrialized nations will unite in an effort to bring down carbon emissions because the case for serious environmental damage
    occurring in the future just keeps on growing. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 which discusses tipping points and that a 2 degree increase in global mean temperature could destabilize Greenland and West Antarctica.


    Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against

    The growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes must compel political and economic action on emissions.




    If current national pledges to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are implemented — and that’s a big ‘if’ — they are likely to result in at least 3 °C of global warming. This is despite the goal of the 2015 Paris agreement to limit warming to well below 2 °C. Some economists, assuming that climate tipping points are of very low probability (even if they would be catastrophic), have suggested that 3 °C warming is optimal from a cost–benefit perspective. However, if tipping points are looking more likely, then the ‘optimal policy’ recommendation of simple cost–benefit climate-economy models4 aligns with those of the recent IPCC report2. In other words, warming must be limited to 1.5 °C. This requires an emergency response.
    Ice collapse

    We think that several cryosphere tipping points are dangerously close, but mitigating greenhouse-gas emissions could still slow down the inevitable accumulation of impacts and help us to adapt.

  4. #73
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496568
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,578x in 94,412 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Stop exhaling CO2.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    FindersKeepers (12-13-2019)

  6. #74
    Points: 432,053, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307958
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,408
    Points
    432,053
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,178
    Thanked 76,973x in 55,600 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Climate change is constant and natural.

  7. #75
    Points: 15,626, Level: 30
    Level completed: 18%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranCreated Album picturesSocial10000 Experience Points
    Rationalist's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2002
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,391
    Points
    15,626
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    2,742
    Thanked 1,992x in 1,378 Posts
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalmike View Post
    There is a very strong case that humans are responsible for all or nearly all of the warming since 1950. The 2 diagrams below are from Skepticalscience.com.
    https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-hu...confidence.htm





    Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, light green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WS12, dark green), and Jones et al. 2013 (J12, pink)




    China's carbon emissions are expected to peak in less than 5 years. This is from carbonbrief.org:

    With its enormous population and heavy reliance on coal, China is by far the world’s biggest polluter, responsible for more emissions than the US and EU combined.
    One of the drivers behind Chinese emissions is the intense urbanisation that has taken place across the country in recent years, as millions of people flock from rural areas to rapidly expanding cities.
    However, in new analysis published in Nature Sustainability, a team of researchers has shown that as China’s burgeoning cities become wealthier, their per capita emissions begin to drop.
    According to their analysis, this trend could in turn trigger an overall dip in CO2 levels across the nation, and mean that despite the current target for emissions peaking by 2030, they may in fact level out at some point between 2021 and 2025.

    I believe that it is just a matter of time before nearly all of the industrialized nations will unite in an effort to bring down carbon emissions because the case for serious environmental damage
    occurring in the future just keeps on growing. See: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0 which discusses tipping points and that a 2 degree increase in global mean temperature could destabilize Greenland and West Antarctica.


    Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against

    The growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes must compel political and economic action on emissions.




    If current national pledges to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are implemented — and that’s a big ‘if’ — they are likely to result in at least 3 °C of global warming. This is despite the goal of the 2015 Paris agreement to limit warming to well below 2 °C. Some economists, assuming that climate tipping points are of very low probability (even if they would be catastrophic), have suggested that 3 °C warming is optimal from a cost–benefit perspective. However, if tipping points are looking more likely, then the ‘optimal policy’ recommendation of simple cost–benefit climate-economy models4 aligns with those of the recent IPCC report2. In other words, warming must be limited to 1.5 °C. This requires an emergency response.
    Ice collapse

    We think that several cryosphere tipping points are dangerously close, but mitigating greenhouse-gas emissions could still slow down the inevitable accumulation of impacts and help us to adapt.
    If industrialized nations choose to lower emissions due to technological advances or alternative energy sources, that's fine. What I'm against is the government getting in the middle of things. Most of the environmentalist left has unrealistic ideas about how to reduce emissions, and governments are all too eager to slap more taxes on things.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rationalist For This Useful Post:

    Chris (12-14-2019),Sunsettommy (08-27-2020)

  9. #76
    Points: 665,270, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 88.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433314
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,552
    Points
    665,270
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,903x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rationalist View Post
    If industrialized nations choose to lower emissions due to technological advances or alternative energy sources, that's fine. What I'm against is the government getting in the middle of things. Most of the environmentalist left has unrealistic ideas about how to reduce emissions, and governments are all too eager to slap more taxes on things.
    Exactly where I'm at as a luke warmist advocating market solutions.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Rationalist (12-14-2019)

  11. #77
    Points: 432,053, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307958
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,408
    Points
    432,053
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,178
    Thanked 76,973x in 55,600 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nemo View Post
    What is the insuperable line?
    How much evidence must there be
    To prove what is plain for all to see?
    Must there be unanimous consent -
    Are we now ruled by sole dissent -
    In the progress of time?
    . . .

    Global warming is a fact. It is happening, and at an accelerated rate. The ice is melting. The grim speed of the glacial retreat is there for all to see. It can no longer be denied. There is no point in arguing: the continued debate over the cause has all the absurdity of arguing over shuffleboard scores on a sinking Titanic. We are past the tipping point in the natural balance; and there is nothing that can be done to counteract the colossal elemental forces now set in motion. It is unstoppable. All that can be done at this late date is to deal with the inevitable consequences that are predictable, if not calculable to a mathematical certainty. It is only a matter of time.
    Basically none of that is true.
    Liberals are disingenuous on the climate change issue. They are focused only on the politics. They know that it's not the world ending threat they keep harping about.

    If they were genuinely convinced that man made climate change was going to destro the earth in 10 to 12 years, they'd be harping on Trump and the congress to do something about China as they are the most polluting nation on earth. But nope. Not a peep out of them about the nation creating the biggest threat.

  12. #78
    Points: 123,366, Level: 85
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 2,684
    Overall activity: 60.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    173984
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    35,702
    Points
    123,366
    Level
    85
    Thanks Given
    25,436
    Thanked 26,625x in 16,267 Posts
    Mentioned
    271 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nemo View Post
    What is the insuperable line?
    How much evidence must there be
    To prove what is plain for all to see?
    Must there be unanimous consent -
    Are we now ruled by sole dissent -
    In the progress of time?
    . . .

    Global warming is a fact. It is happening, and at an accelerated rate. The ice is melting. The grim speed of the glacial retreat is there for all to see. It can no longer be denied. There is no point in arguing: the continued debate over the cause has all the absurdity of arguing over shuffleboard scores on a sinking Titanic. We are past the tipping point in the natural balance; and there is nothing that can be done to counteract the colossal elemental forces now set in motion. It is unstoppable. All that can be done at this late date is to deal with the inevitable consequences that are predictable, if not calculable to a mathematical certainty. It is only a matter of time.
    The ice can reform -- just as the Jakobshavn Glacier that was melting in the early 2000s, is growing again.

    New NASA data shows that Jakobshavn Glacier — Greenland's fastest-moving and fastest-thinning glacier for most of the 2000s — grew from 2018 into 2019, marking three consecutive years of growth.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2882/j...straight-year/

    And NASA told us in 2015, that ice gains were greater than ice losses.

    A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses

    But, what does NASA know....?
    ""A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" ~George Bernard Shaw

  13. #79
    Points: 119,120, Level: 83
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 530
    Overall activity: 51.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album pictures50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    Cotton1's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    24496
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Mid-South
    Posts
    33,210
    Points
    119,120
    Level
    83
    Thanks Given
    27,205
    Thanked 24,505x in 16,031 Posts
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FindersKeepers View Post
    The ice can reform -- just as the Jakobshavn Glacier that was melting in the early 2000s, is growing again.


    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2882/j...straight-year/

    And NASA told us in 2015, that ice gains were greater than ice losses.


    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses

    But, what does NASA know....?
    They know Jay Lenos chin can be seen from space

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Cotton1 For This Useful Post:

    FindersKeepers (12-27-2019)

  15. #80
    Points: 7,669, Level: 20
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 81
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    5000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Sunsettommy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    934
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,143
    Points
    7,669
    Level
    20
    Thanks Given
    1,493
    Thanked 924x in 547 Posts
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Nemo View Post
    We are facing extinction. That is the catastrophic consequence of global warming. The warming of the Antarctic will slow the thermohaline conveyors (e.g., the Gulf Stream) that regulate the global climatic conditions, while the melting glaciers will dilute the salinity of the northern oceans, further slowing the ocean currents to the point of collapse. Then there will be glaciation across the former temperate zone (Younger Dryas) causing crop failures, mass population displacement, and, ultimately, starvation.
    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
    "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Sunsettommy For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (08-13-2020)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts