Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-11-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 09:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-11-2016 05:38 AM)Aractus Wrote:  There is no solid academic evidence published, here or anywhere in the world, that says that we can prevent climate change by eliminating CO2 emissions.
Straw man. Scientists aren't proposing methods to stop climate change.

It's not a straw man, I just over-simplified the argument. I'll put it to you another way, the last time I'm aware of that someone with authority actually calculated the predicted reduction in climate due to curbing CO2 emissions was Hadley for the UK government. Keep in mind their job was to inform the government of how their actions would impact real-world climate. The report they gave was (IIRC) based on a huge reducing in CO2 levels, something like 50% of 2000 levels by 2050. The report showed that even a huge reduction would have only a minimal non statistically relevant impact on climate, while the measures were projected to cost beyond a trillion GBP.

I can't look the report up right this minute, but if I've misremembered any of the facts I'm sure you'll inform me.

(29-11-2016 09:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-11-2016 05:38 AM)Aractus Wrote:  What we do need to do is work out how to respond to climate change to prevent the crisis of climate refugees that will happen in just 60 years or so!
That is one thing we can do, but it isn't true that we can't offset some of the human effects. If we can do something to reduce the rate and/or magnitude of change, we should. And while we do so, we should adapt.

It's not "one thing we can do", it is by far the most important. We need to take proactive action now to prevent the future refugee crisis instead of taking reactive action later to manage it. It can be managed now if countries can agree to a setting up something similar to the EU to ensure their citizens can move freely between nations in their regions. It might take 40 years to get that kind of corporation in places in the world where this will be required, which is why it needs to begin now. If it doesn't, then the countries that benefit from climate change will close their borders to those who are adversely affected.

(29-11-2016 09:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-11-2016 05:38 AM)Aractus Wrote:  If I must say so, we're not the problem - it's those asshole counties that have bred to unsustainable populations that have cause this problem.
I assume by "we" you mean the United States. If that is what you mean, then you are wrong.

No, I mean Japan, European countries, and others that are net importers of food because their population levels are way too high to be sustainable. Australia exports almost 50% of the food we produce - so our population could double and we would have enough food to feed ourselves. In fact we'd have more than enough due to how much gets spoiled/wasted. The USA I'm pretty sure can also sustain their population on their own food supply.

(29-11-2016 09:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Some parts of the US have enough water right now. Other places, like the desert SW and California, water is very scarce.

Right, so you see what I'm saying. Imagine the USA was 50 different nations which didn't allow free movement of people. Then you'd have the problem that I'm talking about that will happen in Africa, and in south-east Asia.

(29-11-2016 09:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And then on top of all of this, the US isn't an island in an increasingly global economy. So expecting any country to be able to just sit back and weather the storm is naive. The effect that climate change has on Europe or China will have serious implications for the US too.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying we could chose to be self-sufficient if we wanted to. Any country that cannot do that has a population that is too high.

Quote:And this doesn't even account for the other adverse effects (some as mentioned by Rocket) that aren't strictly related to climate. Ocean acidification impacts not only corals, but calcareous nanoplankton like coccolithophores.

I'm with you on that, ocean acidification is a global problem that needs to be addressed.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-11-2016, 10:57 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
TL;DR advisory

(28-11-2016 12:51 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Second, do not use offensive stigmatising language like "denier"!

(28-11-2016 05:33 PM)Aractus Wrote:  Now I want to go over the lies that are told about all this.

Please remember to respect climate change deniers even when they show no respect to you.

Lovely double standard you've got going there. Such a shame you followed it up with a steaming heap of misinformation, misrepresentation, irrelevance, and outright... well I'm sure they were honest mistakes.

Quote:Antarctica is not a land mass like Greenland. It is a series of islands like Indonesia that is presently covered by ice. If the ice wasn't there, no one would call it a "continent", and the word continent is purely arbitrary anyway.

This could not be more wrong if you had tried. As a Professional Geologist I feel that I can state without fear of contradiction that continents are not simply an arbitrary designation. Here's a quick overview from the USGS.

Antarctica is a continent, composed of continental crust, some of which is older than 2.5 Billion years. Dinosaur fossils have been found on Antarctica.

Quote:Now to get onto the real issues. Climate change is happening, and IMO it's not a matter of what we can do to prevent it so much as it's a matter of how we handle the issues it will create, particularly in Africa, South America, and other regions of the world where average rainfall shifts away from some nations and towards others.

I'll let the people who are scheduled to be living underwater know that they can expect changes to their rainfall patterns. If it's a refugee crisis that you want then displacing the coastal populations of the planet is a great way to go.

Quote:[*]The earth has been warming since at least the 1800's.

So since about the start of the industrial revolution.

Quote:[*]According to NASA in 2009, CO2 accounts for around 50% of the anthropogenic warming trend observed from greenhouse gasses. The remaining 50% is due to a combination of Methane, Black Carbon, and trace CFCs.

Nobody's claiming CO2 is the only culprit. Guess who's responsible for all the rest of that mess too?

Quote:[*]The global climate is always warming or cooling by a few tenths of a degree per century, therefore nature is likely playing a role in either curtailing the trend, or in exacerbating it (more likely).

The current long term Milankovich orbital forcings and short-term solar cycle forcings should both be counter-acting anthropogenic climate change. That anthropogenic effects clearly dominate should worry you.

Quote:[*]Humans are playing a significant role in climate change, but we're not sure how much.

No, but we can get a feel for how badly we've buggered it up. Under normal conditions, the primary short-term driver of climate change is the ~11 year solar cycle. In 2004-2009 we dropped into the deepest solar minimum in the last century. Earth's upper atmosphere cooled 100 C and shrank 50%. Satellites failed to deorbit on schedule due to reduced drag. On the surface we continued setting records for hottest year. We are now coming out of a particularly unimpressive solar maximum, the "minimax", and headed into what is forecast to be an even deeper solar minimum. The cooling that we didn't observe is a clear sign that the anthropogenic signal now dominates, overwheling the natural climate forcings.

Quote:Firstly - sea level rise. Sea level rise has nothing to do with glacial melting, nor is it directly related to surface air temperature. Sea level rise is due to the deep ocean temperature increasing, which causes water to expand and occupy more volume. This is very well attested to in the scientific literature, and yet it gets completely ignored by climate scientists and the media who wrongly use sea level rise for their agenda.

Wrong. From your NASA source below (emphasis mine):

Vivian Gornitz (NASA) Wrote:Climate warming is expected to result in rising sea level. Should this occur, coastal cities, ports, and wetlands would be threatened with more frequent flooding, increased beach erosion, and saltwater encroachment into coastal streams and aquifers... Over the past few thousand years, the rate of sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths of a millimeter per year... Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter... Recent observations of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet raise concerns for the future. Satellites detect a thinning of parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet at lower elevations, and glaciers are disgorging ice into the ocean more rapidly, adding 0.23 to 0.57 mm/yr to the sea within the last decade. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is also showing some signs of thinning. Either ice sheet, if melted completely, contains enough ice to raise sea level by 5-7 m. A global temperature rise of 2-5°C might destabilize Greenland irreversibly.

Quote:in fact sea levels have been rising at a consistent rate for at least 20,000 years now:

[Image: grLpR9t.jpg]
(Image: NASA)

You can see clearly, that sea levels have not fallen at any time in the past 20,000 years - not even during the Little Ice Age.

Wow. Sea level's been rising since the last glaciation started to wane. I'm underwhelmed. And you call *that* a consistent rate?!? Looks pretty damned variable to me.

Quote:Okay, secondly - we don't know how much the world is going to warm by over the next century.

Between 2 and 4 C by 2100 according to the IPCC models. And that's assuming we don't do anything stupider than we already are.
[Image: figure-spm-5-l.png]

Quote:Now - sure don't take my word for it, I'm a sceptic. Let's listen to a humanist who is a strong warmest, and a highly respected philosopher - Noam Chomsky:

Appeal to Authority. Asmuch as I like Noam Chomsky, he isn't a climatologist.

Quote:The issue here is that it's reasonably well established now in climate science that CO2 is only 50% of the anthropogenic cause that contributes to climate change.

[Image: Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png]

And it isn't as if the methane and soot responsible for the remainder are unrelated.

Quote:Let's imagine a scenario where we are sure the world will warm by 4°C over the next century. And let's assume it's all due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. That means that if we eliminate all CO2 emissions then we could limit the warming to 2°C. Australia is responsible for 1.5% of global CO2 emissions. That means we are responsible for 0.03°C of the predicted trend over the next century.

Of course if we assume that the trend is 50% due to nature, and 50% due to human activity that improvement we make then drops to 0.015°C. And if the world is only going to experience 2°C of warming over the next century, not 4, then it drops even further to 0.0075°C - a level that we can't even measure! So if that were the case then we would make a completely immeasurable difference to the overall climate trend.

No single lead atom in a bullet kills you. No individual on the planet is responsible for more than a few billionths of a degree over the next century. Our collective impact is still T +4 C, so we all need to work to curb emissions. Let's imagine a scenario where Australia decides to do bugger all because they're only 1.5% of the problem. Guess what everybody else does.

More meaningfully, Australia accounts for 1.5% of global CO2 emissions but a mere 0.3% of global population. On a per capita basis, Australia emits five times more CO2 than average. The problem is not "those asshole counties that have bred to unsustainable populations" it is developped countries with access to wealth and thus energy and its consequences.

Quote:So I reiterate what I said earlier - climate change policy should focus on addressing the real world problems associated with climate change, such as shifts in rainfall. If that's not addressed then 60 years from now

California called. The words you want are "ten years ago". India and Africa concur. We're waiting on your rain dance.

Quote:we will face a refugee crisis far greater than the present refugee crisis and people need to move from arid regions to fertile regions.

That and the people moving so as to not be underwater.

Quote:Well here's the thing that many people don't get. There is no solid academic evidence published, here or anywhere in the world, that says that we can prevent climate change by eliminating CO2 emissions.

No, but there's a vast aount of data that shows that we'll completely screw the planet by pumping it out at current rates. See the pretty graphs from the IPCC above.

Quote:We could cut ourselves off from the rest of the world and live quite happily - we have enough food, shelter, and water for everyone even if a climate crisis happens here.

We'll get right on building a dome over you Aussie fucks and your 500% per capita emissions.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
29-11-2016, 11:28 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 10:57 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Please remember to respect climate change deniers even when they show no respect to you.

Lovely double standard you've got going there.

I don't have a double-standard. I didn't call warmists "alarmists" which is what a lot of people call them.

Quote:This could not be more wrong if you had tried. As a Professional Geologist I feel that I can state without fear of contradiction that continents are not simply an arbitrary designation. Here's a quick overview from the USGS.

Antarctica is a continent,

There's no such thing as continents, unless you're going to define them consistently, in which case Europe would not be a continent, and in fact Asia-Europe-Africa should really be counted as just one continent - especially if you're going to call a series of islands at the south poll a "continent".

This is what Antartica look like under the ice:

[Image: fqgLah0.jpg]

I think I can confidently say without contradiction that most of it is below sea level, and it is a series of islands and not one giant island like Australia as people imagine it to be.

Quote:I'll let the people who are scheduled to be living underwater know that they can expect changes to their rainfall patterns. If it's a refugee crisis that you want then displacing the coastal populations of the planet is a great way to go.

Sea level change follows trends that span tens of thousands of years, if not longer. I'm sure you'll agree with me that they're most directly related to deep ocean temperature, and not air surface temperature.

Quote:So since about the start of the industrial revolution.

Actually it's been warming since the Mini Ice Age, which is the 1600's, and why we don't think it's purely anthropogenic. I agree that CO2 plays a role. However I would point out to you that CO2 absorbs almost all radiation leaving the Earth in its absorption bandwidth already - it simply doesn't have the space to expand into that warmists claim.

Quote:Nobody's claiming CO2 is the only culprit. Guess who's responsible for all the rest of that mess too?

What part of "anthropogenic" do you not understand? Was I not perfectly clear?

Quote:Wrong. From your NASA source below (emphasis mine):
Vivian Gornitz (NASA) Wrote:[u][b]Climate warming is expected to ...

What exactly does "expected to" mean? It means we can't have any confidence in the science. It's not evidence based practice to develop and implement policies on mere expectations.

Quote:Wow. Sea level's been rising since the last glaciation started to wane. I'm underwhelmed. And you call *that* a consistent rate?!? Looks pretty damned variable to me.

Perhaps not consistent in the way you're thinking, but they have set periods of consistency that span thousands of years - are you disagreeing with this?

Quote:Between 2 and 4 C by 2100 according to the IPCC models. And that's assuming we don't do anything stupider than we already are.
[Image: figure-spm-5-l.png]

No serious sceptic believes the IPCC to be impartial in this. They are politically motivated. Anyway, that's the amount of warming I quoted isn't it?

Quote:Appeal to Authority. Asmuch as I like Noam Chomsky, he isn't a climatologist.

Neither is Tim Flannery, but he was still put into a position of authority on it. This is the fucking shit that I'm talking about - people who are given roles of authority to do with this need to be climate scientists. We don't put geologists in charge of medical practice, nor should they be in charge of climate policy - that is not evidence based practice.

Quote:More meaningfully, Australia accounts for 1.5% of global CO2 emissions but a mere 0.3% of global population.

Right, so that should tell you as I've been saying in every post that we have a sustainable population. The global population should only be around 1-2 billion people at the most for the best for the environment. It is going to grow to and stabilise at 9-10 billion people. And while we can live and feed that many people, the effects on the environment are going to be devastating.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 12:26 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2016 12:34 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Geologists are perfect for climate work, since they deal with most of the issues related to the evidence for climate change (e.g. radioisotope sampling, ice cores, etc).

Your analogy is beyond false. Geologists also provided the primary (early) evidence for the ancient world and the evolution of species through the different rock layers, over millions of years. What you're doing is essentially criticizing those geologists for not being biologists.

Also, who exactly is claiming the International Panel on Climate Change has political motivations?

International political motivations? Really? Are we talking about the "one world government" paranoiacs, here?

You're also drawing false parallels with the "deep ocean temps" versus "air temperature" issues. The problem with global warming is that it's not any one location you can stick a thermometer. It's how much energy is being added to the total system. You have to add up ALL the thermometers to get the number, in other words. That's why I mentioned the sea ice/glacier melt (which is absorbing joules), and why we talk about surface temps as the oceans warm up*, even if there are still locations that the energy has not yet reached (such as the upper atmosphere, which Crichton focused on, and the deep sea, which other "skeptics" have focused on)... failure to grasp that this is all part of one collective whole is the problem of the skeptics, not of the model.

That's one of the reason we have geologists working on it.

*And boy are they warming up! But I'm sure NASA is "politically motivated", right?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Go ahead, click on the link and slide the tab until you get from the cool 1880s

[Image: 786_Gistemp_fahrenheit_4degrees2015updat...es1884.jpg]

to this image:

[Image: 680_Gistemp_fahrenheit_4degrees2015updat...es2015.jpg]

(Edit: That's 2015. Of course, 2016 was even hotter. Because fuck 2016.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 01:17 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 12:26 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Also, who exactly is claiming the International Panel on Climate Change has political motivations?

Their own contributors, such as Richard Lindzen.

Quote:You're also drawing false parallels with the "deep ocean temps" versus "air temperature" issues.

All I am saying is that sea level rise is due to an increase in deep ocean temperature more than any other single factor. I'm not saying that air temp doesn't affect it at all, it might, but it's not what drives sea level rise.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 04:09 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 01:17 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(30-11-2016 12:26 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Also, who exactly is claiming the International Panel on Climate Change has political motivations?

Their own contributors, such as Richard Lindzen.

No, he didn't. He never claimed it was politically motivated. He has claimed that scientists are being more alarmist than is called for, and that there are still elements that need to be accounted for before they can make some of the predictions being made (because it doesn't fit a narrow window of less-rising-rate-than-expected), but at no point has he claimed that the GCC issue is political.

What he actually claimed with regard to the IPCC report was that the summary paper that gave advice to policy-makers (politicians) was not done entirely by scientists, but by a "dialogue" between scientists and policymakers. He felt it should have been left 100% to scientists. He did not take issue with most of the conclusions of the paper, nor did he try to argue that humans aren't the cause of the incredible rise of CO2 or that this is going to cause problems (in fact, he refers to denialists as, quote, "nutty"), but only that there may be other factors to take into account. He wrote a paper in which he supported a mitigating factor related to changes in the cloud layers as the planet's temperature rises, which will offset a runaway reaction (he thinks). But note that even he is saying "this is what will happen when the temperature rises due to human activity".

Lots of people have criticized him for taking advantage of an audience that is keen to have a counter-message to what is otherwise a very frightening scenario. Like drowning people will grab onto the first piece of detritus that floats by, people want to hear anything other than what 99% of the scientific community is saying (we're all doomed!), and it provides unfortunate motivation for men like Dr. Lindzen to have their voices magnified beyond their actual impact in the community-- and to encourage them to keep speaking on the part of their overall message that finds the most receptive audience. It is ironic, of course, that he has criticized the IPCC for talking to non-scientists about a scientific subject in generating their summary recommendations, while the trajectory of his career has been shaped by outside (nonscience) influences.

But yes, there is a guy who thinks that the other 99 scientists in the room are exaggerating. Dodgy

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 04:56 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2016 05:09 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Oh yes, I almost forgot... there's also this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/...al-funding

New to me, but hardly surprising. Documents were made public during a bankruptcy filing in 2016 that showed Linden among the people on the payroll for a coal company that funded multiple anti-climate-change think tanks and spokespersons. Oops!

Edit to Add: Interestingly, it notes that oil companies have shifted from directly funding denalists to indirectly doing it, so they don't get caught openly lying to counter actual science (as I pointed out before, this was a problem for the cigarette companies when it was time for the lawsuits), to doing it through proxy agencies... but that coal companies have been hard-hit by drastically lower natural gas prices, and haven't been able to make the switch. It's how these files came to light. Fascinating.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 05:08 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 01:17 AM)Aractus Wrote:  All I am saying is that sea level rise is due to an increase in deep ocean temperature more than any other single factor.

Isnt the deep ocean temperature always 4C, because water has its highest density at 4C and 4C-water will always sink to the bottom?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 05:11 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
I've kind of lost track of this thread.

Does this father need a loan or something? I could probably give a couple of dollars.

No idea.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2016, 07:58 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 04:09 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  What he actually claimed with regard to the IPCC report was that the summary paper that gave advice to policy-makers (politicians) was not done entirely by scientists, but by a "dialogue" between scientists and policymakers.

No, that's not what he said. He said the "policymakers" changed the conclusion in that section after he and the other contributors had seen it without their involvement. That's politically motivated.

Quote:But yes, there is a guy who thinks that the other 99 scientists in the room are exaggerating. Dodgy

No, that's not true. He disagrees with the feedback mechanism that allows climate to grow by up to 4 degrees over the course of this century due to anthropogenic GHG's. There are many scientists who disagree with it.

He also criticised the consensus as it was a question relating to whether they believed humans have contributed to climate change, and is cited as meaning they agree with the future projections - he's always been very sceptical of modelling.

(30-11-2016 04:56 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  New to me, but hardly surprising. Documents were made public during a bankruptcy filing in 2016 that showed Linden among the people on the payroll for a coal company that funded multiple anti-climate-change think tanks and spokespersons. Oops!

That doesn't concern me. Other stakeholders have been funding the other side with far more money than coal companies are prepared to spend.

(30-11-2016 05:08 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Isnt the deep ocean temperature always 4C, because water has its highest density at 4C and 4C-water will always sink to the bottom?

I'm not an expert, I don't know. But what I do know is that water has its highest density at the bottom of the ocean because of the weight of the water on top - just like the atmosphere - but obviously water is less compressible. And it does move, cycle, rotate, through deep ocean currents, etc. El Niño is caused by the ocean.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: