Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2016, 09:35 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 07:58 AM)Aractus Wrote:  That doesn't concern me.

Well, it really should. Even the best-case scenario I've seen is bad news. No one (even your boy) is saying that the best-case scenario is anything but a nightmare - really, the only question is how long, how fast. So the idea that he might be paid by companies that profit directly from carbon in order to shade things in their favor should concern you deeply. There is a long, long history of companies finding and purchasing such men, with each issue that science discovers that might cut into their profits. Every time, there are such scientists, and every time it turns out that the ones being paid by the companies were either wrong accidentally, or deliberately shading their data, or playing ignorant, or outright lying. Make those ors into "and/or".

(30-11-2016 07:58 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Other stakeholders have been funding the other side with far more money than coal companies are prepared to spend.

More money than the energy industry!?

[Image: man_file_1112579_horsepoopstartsfire.jpg]

"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, 10:18 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 08:09 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(29-11-2016 09:43 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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:  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:  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.

"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."

It is so oversimplified that it is a straw man and you're still beating it. Remember that what you actually said was "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." <- That is simply not true, as I showed. The IPCC reports also show models for reducing and/or eliminating anthropogenic CO2 sources. It doesn't have to be something that is constantly calculated year after year. We can use the previously published studies (some of which I linked that show ways of doing it).

"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."

That isn't an accurate representation of what they say nor is it an accurate representation of what I discussed in my previous post you're replying to.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/iea-c...data-17459

They (the IIRC report you reference) are talking about methods of reducing CO2 emissions forward in time or capturing CO2 as we release it. There are methods for taking CO2 already in the atmosphere from human effects for the last 200 years and sequestering it or other methods of trying to reduce global temperatures (some of the articles I cited in the previous post).

The point is that we CAN reduce our emissions moving forward, which will prevent additional contribution to the climate feedback. And on top of that, there are hypothesized methods for addressing the CO2 we have already released.

"It's not "one thing we can do", it is by far the most important."

That is your subjective unprofessional opinion. My subjective professional opinion is that we should start working to reduce our emissions and begin to sequester CO2 where and when we can in order to offset the future impacts.

"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.

This also isn't a zero sum game. We can address the effects of climate change on human populations WHILE we address issues related to trying to slow down or stop the human impact we are having on climate change.

"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."

"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."

"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."


You're ignoring the bulk of what I said. No country (Australia or the US or anywhere) will be unaffected with respect to its food and water reservoirs. While Australia might currently export 50% of its food resources, don't expect the rate of food production to remain unaffected in Australia under climate change scenarios.

Some areas will benefit from the changing climate in that they might become better suited for growing food or they might receive more water resources, but a redistribution of where and when we can grow our food will have an impact. Especially considering that we can't simply pick up an move our cities and urban centers.

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

It is one of many global problems related to the anthropogenic effect.



"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"."

I can't let this one go, this is bad. Facepalm

Continents as they are defined based on geology and physical geography are different than continents as defined historically and geopolitically. That does NOT mean that continents don't exist.

Below is a picture of the surface of the Earth broken up into its constituent lithospheric plates. Continents are comprised of continental lithosphere (essentially a granitoid body) and rest largely upon their own plates (note that not even all of Eurasia rests upon a singular plate and that India is on its own plate and is referred to as a sub-continent).
[Image: worldstecton.jpg]

Why is that the case? Here is a picture of what the continents looked like in the Middle Ordovician (most of Europe here is shown as Baltica) to show why the continents are in part the way they are. It is because not even continents are static through time. They grow and they rift. Europe is its own continent geologically speaking because it has not always been attached to Asia. Part of Africa is attached to the SE US (Florida is actually a piece of Africa).
[Image: sc458ma.jpg]

Continents are defined as more than just the political boundaries that rest upon them. And with respect to climate change and the factors controlling it and its effects, the political boundaries are completely pointless. So Antarctica is a continent with a unique geologic history, the very same way that Australia and North America and Eurasia and the Indian sub-contienent have their own unique histories. What makes Antarctica unique right now is that it is isolated on the southern pole, and when I say isolated I mean oceanographically because it has the circumpolar current that helps thermally isolate it. BUT that does not mean that Antarctica is immune to the effects of climate change. Recent studies are showing that the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf are not as stable as we once thought. That means that not only is the ice on Greenland susceptible to melting, but the Western Antarctic Ice Shelf is too. We are already seeing it thin and break off in increasingly larger quantities.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
30-11-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 07:58 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(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 NiƱo is caused by the ocean.

"Other stakeholders have been funding the other side with far more money than coal companies are prepared to spend."

The majority of science that is funded, is funded through the public sector.
For the US for instance: https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...r-science/

So, when you have scientists studying climate change who receive grants from their respective institutions or from TAX-funded science organizations, YOU (taxpayers) are the one funding the vast majority of it.

This is why it is curious (highly suspicious) when the scientists who refute the human effect on climates or downplay the adverse effects from climate change, are funded by the private sector that stands to gain financially from these conclusions.

Working as a scientist and having worked with scientists at dozens of universities and research institutions, the vast majority of geologists I have met are funded either by these science organizations (like the National Science Foundation, or the Geological Society of America, etc), by the institutions they work for (primarily public, tax-funded, universities), or by fossil fuel companies. I can't think of anyone or any project funded by any other private energy sector company (any green energy company for instance).

So when you say "Other stakeholders have been funding the other side with far more money than coal companies are prepared to spend.", you are completely and utterly wrong. Show me the numbers that show "other stakeholders" spending money on climate change research that exceeds what the fossil fuel industry spends.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
30-11-2016, 11:48 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(27-11-2016 11:08 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Aliza, I'd invite him to question the degree to which he has been fed misinformation by people (and the corporations they run) with an agenda to muddy the waters in order to keep doing what makes them money. They often accuse scientists of having an agenda, to which I reply, "WHAT agenda?" To make money through grants, they say... to which I reply, "That's absolute bullshit."

As if scientists just can't find enough stuff to work on, so they go into environmental science and try to make up stuff so they can make money. "Well, I was going to use my science degrees to get into cancer research, or look for the next subatomic particle, or develop a new medicine, or find a new species, or isolate the gene for Alzheimer's Disease... but no, there are just too many people already doing that kind of work, and no demand, really, so I'll go into this field where I'll be smeared and called a charlatan by every profit-making company, get paid a minimal amount, just in the hopes that I can get in on the action of grant writing for a nonsense field."

I mean, honestly, is this what they think is happening?!?

Okay, I'll try to help. Your father, who might have been poisoned to distrust the climate scientists who have been screaming at the top of their lungs for the past several decades about this, might perhaps be swayed by the fact that the US military experts have recognized the military implications of Climate Change for decades and have been making active plans to adapt to the fact that it is happening. They're the ultimate pragmatists, are usually highly conservative, and already have enough threats to worry about without making up a whole new arena of them unless there's really something there to worry about.

You can dig up old reports from the military on this, but here's the latest version of their recognition that this is real and that our military will lose effectiveness unless we incorporate it into our planning. I used a Fox News link so your dad would not dismiss it before reading it... I don't know that your dad is conservative enough to prefer Fox over other news sources, but it's a tactic I've learned is useful when debating people who have bought into a particular ideological narrative; use their own sources and they can't dismiss it before considering it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/14/cli...-says.html

A better (less political) article on the subject comes from the DoD themselves:

http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710

And finally, here's a Forbes article about the fact that it's coming from the Generals and strategists themselves, so he can't just dismiss it as Obama pushing the agenda (as if the President could tell military people what to write and suggest for military planning... but I've heard that one), but from the military establishment that recognized long ago that this was an issue:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2...93422a1f23

"At a time when Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush 41, and even British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, called for binding international protocols to control greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. Military was seriously studying global warming in order to determine what actions they could take to prepare for the change in threats that our military will face in the future.

The Center for Naval Analysis has had its Military Advisory Board examining the national security implications of climate change for many years. Lead by Army General Paul Kern, the Military Advisory Board is a group of 16 retired flag-level officers from all branches of the Service.

This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers."


Edit to Add: "Flag-level officers" means Admirals, and has been expanded to mean Generals, as well, now that they're all working together instead of as totally separate branches.

I'm slowly going through this thread and trying to compile information to present to my dad. He and I just talked and I asked him what agenda he thinks climate scientists have... sure enough, it was grant money. He does agree that global warming is occurring, he just thinks that humans are not to blame.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
30-11-2016, 12:24 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 11:48 AM)Aliza Wrote:  He and I just talked and I asked him what agenda he thinks climate scientists have... sure enough, it was grant money.

*sigh*

Yeah, it's the usual case. It's why I got so angry at what Aractus said, when I pointed out that the guy who's the denialist, who's calling everyone else "alarmist" in order to pull the teeth of what they're saying and the public someone to point to as a "see? This Expert says it's totally okay that I keep burning ancient sunlight trapped in carbon bonds! No problem!", is taking money from a source with clear profit motives... selling that carbon energy.

Because on the other side of that coin, the same propaganda source has convinced large numbers of otherwise reasonable people that the average [climate] scientist out there is the dishonest person who is willing to lie to the public for profit... and worse, to collude with literally thousands of other scientists to promote a hoax, an hysteria, for... some few bucks in grants?

How much do they think a scientist can profit from a grant? Do they really think we have no other way to make money with an advanced science degree? And even if we granted the entire argument was true (it's not!), do they think it in any way compares to the profit margin and thus motive for the freaking fossil fuel industry?

It's a madhouse... a maaaaaaaaaaaaaaad hooooooooooooooouuuuse!!

[Image: tenor.gif]

"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
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
30-11-2016, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2016 02:30 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 11:48 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(27-11-2016 11:08 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Aliza, I'd invite him to question the degree to which he has been fed misinformation by people (and the corporations they run) with an agenda to muddy the waters in order to keep doing what makes them money. They often accuse scientists of having an agenda, to which I reply, "WHAT agenda?" To make money through grants, they say... to which I reply, "That's absolute bullshit."

As if scientists just can't find enough stuff to work on, so they go into environmental science and try to make up stuff so they can make money. "Well, I was going to use my science degrees to get into cancer research, or look for the next subatomic particle, or develop a new medicine, or find a new species, or isolate the gene for Alzheimer's Disease... but no, there are just too many people already doing that kind of work, and no demand, really, so I'll go into this field where I'll be smeared and called a charlatan by every profit-making company, get paid a minimal amount, just in the hopes that I can get in on the action of grant writing for a nonsense field."

I mean, honestly, is this what they think is happening?!?

Okay, I'll try to help. Your father, who might have been poisoned to distrust the climate scientists who have been screaming at the top of their lungs for the past several decades about this, might perhaps be swayed by the fact that the US military experts have recognized the military implications of Climate Change for decades and have been making active plans to adapt to the fact that it is happening. They're the ultimate pragmatists, are usually highly conservative, and already have enough threats to worry about without making up a whole new arena of them unless there's really something there to worry about.

You can dig up old reports from the military on this, but here's the latest version of their recognition that this is real and that our military will lose effectiveness unless we incorporate it into our planning. I used a Fox News link so your dad would not dismiss it before reading it... I don't know that your dad is conservative enough to prefer Fox over other news sources, but it's a tactic I've learned is useful when debating people who have bought into a particular ideological narrative; use their own sources and they can't dismiss it before considering it.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/14/cli...-says.html

A better (less political) article on the subject comes from the DoD themselves:

http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710

And finally, here's a Forbes article about the fact that it's coming from the Generals and strategists themselves, so he can't just dismiss it as Obama pushing the agenda (as if the President could tell military people what to write and suggest for military planning... but I've heard that one), but from the military establishment that recognized long ago that this was an issue:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2...93422a1f23

"At a time when Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush 41, and even British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, called for binding international protocols to control greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. Military was seriously studying global warming in order to determine what actions they could take to prepare for the change in threats that our military will face in the future.

The Center for Naval Analysis has had its Military Advisory Board examining the national security implications of climate change for many years. Lead by Army General Paul Kern, the Military Advisory Board is a group of 16 retired flag-level officers from all branches of the Service.

This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers."


Edit to Add: "Flag-level officers" means Admirals, and has been expanded to mean Generals, as well, now that they're all working together instead of as totally separate branches.

I'm slowly going through this thread and trying to compile information to present to my dad. He and I just talked and I asked him what agenda he thinks climate scientists have... sure enough, it was grant money. He does agree that global warming is occurring, he just thinks that humans are not to blame.

Indeed, the things to point with respect to this are:
1) when we get grants, we have to spend it doing the research. It isn't free money to buy Porsches
2) the bulk of grant money is from the government, so it's tax money. That means that people like your dad are funding the research. Does he think that climate scientists are beholden to the taxpayer to produce a particular result? If he does, point out that is not how science works. If he doesn't, point out that this is how objectivity works in science
3) if I wanted to make a fuck-ton of money doing science, I wouldn't be doing research in academia. I'd be working for Shell or BP or Exxon. There are so many better ways to make easier and larger sums of money
4) also, grants don't fund always only fund individual researchers. Meaning that when a professor writes a research grant, it funds the research (the analyses and other technical costs) and the money to pay everyone involved. The university takes its money off of the top (or the research institution), the labs cost money to operate, samples require money to analyze, you have to go get the samples, TAs are typically paid by the university to teach and the tuition is waived (this is where the university would take some money off the top of the grant for the TAs tuition waiver) while RAs are paid on the grant (but they too would have their tuition waiver paid for from the grant), and that research money that pays people isn't free cash (it pays for all of the costs of employing someone full time)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
30-11-2016, 09:03 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 11:48 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I'm slowly going through this thread and trying to compile information to present to my dad. He and I just talked and I asked him what agenda he thinks climate scientists have... sure enough, it was grant money. He does agree that global warming is occurring, he just thinks that humans are not to blame.

Ask him how you think a conspiracy of scientists Laughat would make more money more rapidly:

- Begging from the NSF and various other grant organizations?

- Selling out to Exxon-Mobile?

Ask him how it's possible that the oil companies haven't been able to purchase an "honest" scientists to expose "the truth".

---
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
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
30-11-2016, 10:06 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 09:03 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(30-11-2016 11:48 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I'm slowly going through this thread and trying to compile information to present to my dad. He and I just talked and I asked him what agenda he thinks climate scientists have... sure enough, it was grant money. He does agree that global warming is occurring, he just thinks that humans are not to blame.

Ask him how you think a conspiracy of scientists Laughat would make more money more rapidly:

- Begging from the NSF and various other grant organizations?

- Selling out to Exxon-Mobile?

Ask him how it's possible that the oil companies haven't been able to purchase an "honest" scientists to expose "the truth".

Oooooohhhhh.... clever question. Yeah, the key word is honest. My father believes that doctors and scientists working for tobacco are paid off, so I can draw a parallel with that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
30-11-2016, 10:37 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(29-11-2016 11:28 PM)Aractus Wrote:  
(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.

You want respect for climate deniers but refer to arguments from the opposing side as "lies". How is that not a double standard?

I love "warmist". It rhymes with "evolutionist".

Quote:There's no such thing as continents

Wow. A continent denier. I didn't see that coming. What next? Flat Earth?

Quote:unless you're going to define them consistently

A stable tectonic plate consisting of bouyant, chemically differentiated crust. As opposed to oceanic plates, which only have transient stability and short-lived bouyancy because they aren't chemically evolved.

Quote:in which case Europe would not be a continent, and in fact Asia-Europe-Africa should really be counted as just one continent

The eurasian plate commonly is viewed as one continent, at least for the moment. Asia and Europe may well split in the not too distant future. Africa is separate because of an independant plate motion and a fair bit of oceanic crust between it and Eurasia. Likewise, India is a separate continent.

Quote: - 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.

Yes, much of it is below sea level. 40-50% ish by the looks of it. Continents don't care. Look closely at the water depth. All shallow. Funny how plunking a few km of ice on something depresses the topography. Give it some time for isostatic rebound and that will look be one giant island just like Australia.

[Image: Rodriguez_Antarctica.jpg]

Note the abrupt transition from shallow water to deep in your image. That's the shelf break, the transition from the continental shelf to oceanic crust. That sudden transition occurs because continental crust is buoyant and rides higher, whereas oceanic crust is only vaguely buoyant over the short term and rides lower. You can see the edge of the continent on your map but it isn't where the water starts.

Quote:Sea level change follows trends that span tens of thousands of years, if not longer.

Normally. Normally global temperature changes span similar durations.

Quote:I'm sure you'll agree with me that they're most directly related to deep ocean temperature, and not air surface temperature.

Nope. Surface temperatures beget oceanic temperatures, it just takes a while. Oceanic crust loses heat to the oceans, so if they're heated from below and from above, then you know they're going to warm up. The big difference is that the deep oceans have immense thermal inertia. Slow to respond but once they do get moving we'll be screwed. Especially if we manage to destabilize the methane clathrate.

Quote:Actually it's been warming since the Mini Ice Age, which is the 1600's

Keep moving those goal posts. If you pick the "mini-Ice Age" as your datum, things are bound to have warmed.

Let's compare with the Holocene optimum instead. Temperatures plateaued at +0.5 C (relative to the 1961-1990 mean) between 8000 BCE and 5000 BCE before slowly declining to -0.3 C until 1900 CE. There's a bit of change between 1600 and 1900 CE but not much and slow. Then in the last century we gain +1.5 C in a big damned hurry.

We are ~1 C warmer than any time in the last 100,000 years when we ought to be cooling. Simultaneously, we're 50% over the highest CO2 level in the last million years. There's a causal link, so this isn't coincidence.

Quote:and why we don't think it's purely anthropogenic.

You figure we can pump hydrocarbons into the atmosphere with no consequences. There is a reason that stuff got buried. It's the mercury in the global geothermostat.

Quote: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.

No. The geological record shows that CO2 has been much higher in the past, keeping the planet snug when the sun was dimmer. Now that the sun is warmer you'll want that blanket off. Look to Venus for an example of just how hot CO2 infrared trapping can get.

Quote: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.

It means that science isn't a crystal ball looking magically into the future. Global climate change is complex so any honest scientist won't tell you "We know this for certain!" If you wish to wait until the future becomes the present it will be too late.

Quote:No serious sceptic believes the IPCC to be impartial in this.

Serious sceptic Laughat Is that like a professional creationist? You disagree with a scientific consensus that you don't even comprehend because somebody on the internet posted something that agrees with your biases.

Quote: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.

Agreed! Let's do that. The climate scientists that I worked with would have had you biking to work back in the 80's.

Quote: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.

Most geologists get a broad base of Earth Science courses, including paleoclimate, so we'd be better than most. We also understand the feedback mechanisms that drive carbon burial. Still, a climatologist would be best.

Quote:
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.

With an unsustainable carbon footprint. How do you even excuse a 500% CO2 emission level?

Reducing the population is fine and dandy. I'd love to see it down around 100 million. It's a very long-term solution though. Unless you want to do something very drastic, very stupid, or both simultaneously.

Until then, let's work on not having a lot of people die horribly on account of myopia, greed and stupidity.

---
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
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
30-11-2016, 10:39 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(30-11-2016 10:06 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Oooooohhhhh.... clever question. Yeah, the key word is honest. My father believes that doctors and scientists working for tobacco are paid off, so I can draw a parallel with that.

Oddly, there are damned few climatologists working for oil companies. What does that tell you about the science?

---
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
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: