What if climate change is no hoax?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by ARDY, Apr 3, 2019.

  1. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Climate change just like the Russian collusion conspiracy is a hoax until proven otherwise. Evidence has been manufactured, hidden and manipulated to further this hoax which is evidence in and of itself that it is indeed a hoax.
     
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously climate changes and always is changing. No such thing as a normal stable climate.
    The possibility that man's industrialization has some effect on climate is acknowledged by most if not all skeptics which is why manipulated polls say most scientist and people in general believe in global warming. The question asked is as you phrased it (is it possible for humans to be a factor in that change). When the poll is reported it is framed as a response that says most scientist and people believe man is "responsible" for climate change which is a huge distortion of the original question and it's answer. Even Judith Curry who is the "denier" that true believers love to hate says man may well play some minor role in climate change. The difference between acknowledgement that man plays a minor insignificant role in climate change to man is responsible for climate change is monumental.
     
    Collateral Damage likes this.
  3. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it is a monumental difference
    Skeptics often ask for proof
    In that line of thought
    Do you have proof for your view
    “Man plays a minor insignificant role in climate change”
    with my revision to include the word “now”.
     
  4. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is what I said in context and your deceptive attempt to take it out of context smacks of desperation.

    "Even Judith Curry who is the "denier" that true believers love to hate says man may well play some minor role in climate change".

    "The difference between acknowledgement that man plays a minor insignificant role in climate change to man is responsible for climate change is monumental.
    Now for honest conversation I'll conclude with I would never say man has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. I would then be as idiotic as those that's say man is absolutely responsible for climate change.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  5. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmm, lets try to sort this out

    we agree that climate has always changed with out without mankind
    So that it also becomes true that mankind cannot logically be responsible for “all climate change”

    In my opinion, the misunderstanding comes from an casual use of the terms of discussion
    There is climate change that happens over hundreds of millions of years.
    Such climate change happens in response to very slow moving events.... changes in the sun’s output, wobble of earths rotation, changing earth orbit, massive volcanoes, etc.
    Lets call that LONG TERM CLIMATE CHANGE. Abbreviated as LTCC

    There is also short term climate change that happens over decades and centuries. ... call it STCC

    When people say that “man is responsible for climate change” they are not talking about LTCC because that happens over very long time periods.... earth’s orbit and wobble change very slowly. And to the extent that any of these LTCC factors are changing, we can observe such massive changes... and project their impact. And, for our discussion, these factors are not involved in the climate change that we are discussing (albeit that there has been some change in solar radiance... but this change does not map to the observed STCC... which is to say that solar radiance has been reducing while STCC temperatures have been increasing)

    So basically, for examining current STCC we can ignore LTCC factors

    With that said, when people talk about man being responsible for climate change.... the discussion is Essentially about a 200 year period ...STCC

    Can we agree that this is the context for our discussion of climate change and mankind's role in what we claim to observe about STCC?
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keep in mind the earth had no trouble with STCC all on its own well before internal combustion engines. The most recent example well documented in history is the LIA in which climate changed very rapidly with farmland and even towns disappearing under advancing glaciers. Some of the remnants of the glaciers formed in that era are still melting today such as the ones in the Grand Teton NP. The LIA began and ended in a sudden fashion and scientist today still debate what caused it.
     
  7. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes that is true
    But does not impact whether or not man might be doing that today.

    For example... lets say that there was a full scale nuclear war... most people agree that could well impact the climate via nuclear winter. So the fact that STCC existed before man does not logically preclude the fact that man could have an impact on climate.... maybe even a significant impact

    Again, these facts do not logically preclude the possibility that man may now be having a significant impact on climate... you are simply pointing out that significant climate shifts have (indisputably) happened in the past via non human causality

    What I think that is indisputable is that for well over a hundred years scientists have identified greenhouse gasses, have noted that human activity is increasing greenhouse gasses, and have further theorized that at some point this could impact the climate.

    This theory and the possible impacts have then been checked against actual climate changes.... and, although it is not conclusive proof of the human caused climate change theory, the evidence over the past 100 years is certainly consistent with that theory.

    And, i would add, over the past 20 years, so called skeptics have consistently suggested that warming trends were temporary in nature and that future cooling would soon be upon us. those predictions by skeptics seem not to be consistent with the actual results.

    So for that reason it seems more evidentially accurate to say that those skeptics were perpetrating a hoax
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  8. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Difference between skeptics and true believers is skeptics don't want to force anyone into any course of action based on their skepticism. True believers desire to enforce their beliefs on others with draconian life style changes enforced with laws, policies, taxes and financial penalties. If you believe man is warming the planet with his C02 contribution feel free to reduce your contribution by whatever means you deem appropriate but don't force the rest of us to live by your beliefs. Supposedly the vast majority of people believe in AGW so if the vast majority of people took action to greatly reduced their C02 output it would surely accomplish what they are desirous of and significantly slow if not stop warming. Walk the walk.
     
  9. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Skeptics want to make it impossible to respond to a potential problem. You could say that chamberlain was a skeptic that hitler was a problem. You cannot say that chamberlains skepticism on this issue was without impact

    There are also sensible risk mitigation policies available.
    The reality is that government action on any issue drags us all along, however we feel

    .

    I do that
    But government policies are also important
    You can give people the option of getting vaccinated against measles..., but that has its shortcomings
     
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you figure skeptics "want to make it impossible to respond to a potential problem."? As I previously stated live your life however you see fit. Us skeptics demand nothing of you.
     
  11. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How is it possible to meaningfully respond when even the president calls it a hoax?

    Btw
    Here is an article including info on climate skeptics who have wrongly predicted cooling

    https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-climate-science-deniers-predictions-stack-up
     
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The president's beliefs effect policy not personal behavior and you are free as a bird to reduce your own carbon footprint no matter what Trump thinks. As for global cooling I think that's just as possible as global warming. Climates gonna do what climates gonna do and we are just along for the ride. Man has already experienced ice ages, mini ice ages and warming periods and we just got here. Civilizations have come and gone due to climate shifts. Wars have been won and lost due to climate shifts. Whole populations have immigrated to other continents due to climate shifts. Hang on tight it's always a bumpy ride.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
    Robert likes this.
  13. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Btw, just as a reminder, i started this thread to discuss what might happen were it the case that human caused climate change is no hoax.

    As far as i can tell, So called skeptics accuse non skeptics of alarmism without being willing to discuss the potential impacts of climate change in case they are wrong. Further, it seems like skeptics inevitably respond with their own version of alarmism when they insist that any response to ACA would necessarily destroy the world economy... and further make the baseless claim that ACA is a hoax
     
  14. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OKay DOkay

    Here is what will happen should it warm 2 more degrees

    You will have a bit warmer Summer. And you can tan just a few days earlier.
    Winter You perhaps can still tan.

    Very very dangerous. But i think i will manage to get by.

    When is the last time you were forced to endure 2 degrees more warm? Was it life threatening?
     
  15. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Clearly...critical thinking and complexity escape you. Simplicity is much easier aint it?
     
  16. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, we already understood you have a gift to insult, so what else are you capable of?
     
  17. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was not intending to insult as much as point out the limitations of you commentary and indicate you should avoid trying to simplify a complex issue with long dismissed and childish talking points. I am capable of providing you with data that disputes your assertions and have done so many times, you however seem incapable of reading and digesting it to expand your knowledge concerning the issue. An increase of 2 degrees world wide would have vast effects on many aspects of our environment from ice melt to atmospheric instability and more storm energy. The intricacies of these effects would vary dramatically by location and thermal variation as well as jet stream changes. The Ocean/Ice albedo would also play a major role as would Temp/Salinity going forward....many pieces of the Earth biota would suffer very adverse effects including us.
     
  18. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    AgaIn, a return to what I objected to. The discussion of me, or other posters should not be done since it violates forum rules.

    I noticed how you politically editorialized. I see no proof from you at all to support your claims. In fact I object to the dark gloom and doom presented by your unscientific presentation. Why do the Democrats persist in lecturing as if we never experienced Climate? All the gloom and doom. Never including proof to back up their claims. Climate is that complex that even the scientists of top repute use models. Models are fun. But they do not show doom. Those are political claims.

    I made a realistic remark. Why did you not dispute what happens when a 2 degree warmer day presents itself? Do not say climate. We don't live in that world. We live in the world of weather.

    I will give you an idea of a normal day in a place in Ca.

    Death Valley gets many visitors. They may depart SF in a day of 65 degrees and arrive in Death Valley where it is often above 115 degrees. Are there posted signs telling the visitors to beware due to extreme danger? I have been to that valley and never fainted or fell dead. I survived a much larger heat value than what I named. I survived a temperature change of more than 50 degrees. i do not understand the panic over a few more degrees.

    That is the real world.

    Here is a sign in Death Valley confirming that one can post signs and not tell visitors to keep away. And that is serious heat alerts.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  19. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As it seems you are being offended by discussion and upset that I reply to YOU by mentioning YOU I think it best to avoid getting a report and corresponding infraction.

    Have A Nice Day:)
     
  20. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So in essence you want to avoid any conversation that questions the legitimacy of the AGW hysteria and focus solely on a hypothetical. OK I'll play.
    "What if human caused climate change was no hoax"?
    My answer would be we better prepare for that climate change because you can't put the genie back in the bottle and as the population of the world grows and third world countries move into the industrial age and want the lifestyle of the modern west the "problem" will only get worse. More planes trains and automobiles. More factories, more power plants, more houses with heating and AC, more mouths to feed, more forest slashed and burned to replace with crops and cities. In your what if game I'd say the earth would continue to warm until some natural event overwhelms man made climate change and we go into yet another ice age. Fun party game. Take a drink every time you can think of a new doomsday prophecy for man. :)
     
    Robert likes this.
  21. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just think that the discussion defaults to discussion on that topic so that it is more than adequately discussed
    I more or less agree with you
    Although i think that identifying the problem has and will lead to meaningful research that will produce technologies and actions that will somewhat mitigate the problem.

    It is like you are in the process of falling off a high ladder.. come what may, you are falling.... yet still you can often do something... like twist to avoid falling on your head
    I think you overlook how you started your post
    My answer would be we better prepare for that climate change
    Whether natural, or man made. Climate change is happening. Sticking our head in the sand hoping for cooling does not seem to be working. And although near term impacts seem small, continued warming over a long period will require significant adaptation.

    And that is a major disagreement that i have with your attitude. Along with your view that mans activity is not changing the climate... you are also dismissing the potential impacts that climate change may have .... impacts that we will need to adapt to if warming continues from what ever cause
     
  22. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    None of us are responsible, per logic, science, and mathematics.

    There IS evidence though. That evidence is logic, science, and mathematics.

    Logic, science, and mathematics are my evidence that climate change is a hoax.

    Logic, science, and mathematics.
     
  23. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Legally and morally.... if our choices have negative impacts on others.... we are responsible

    Saying this without presenting any of that evidence does not make it true
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
  24. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But our choices are NOT having negative impacts on others. We are not causing Earth to increase in temperature.

    Okay, I will present evidence for each one then...

    LOGIC: AGW zealots reject logic because they form their argumentation around words which are circularly defined (such as "global warming" and "climate change"). Circular definitions do not work; they are meaningless, as they do not make reference to anything outside of themselves. Thus, any argumentation based on such a circular definition is a void argument.

    SCIENCE: AGW zealots also reject science, typically rejecting the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law. They have two main arguments: the "magick blanket argument" and the "bouncing photon argument". These arguments attempt to make heat flow uphill (from cold to hot instead of hot to cold, in violation of the 2nd LoT), and also attempt to decrease radiance of Earth while increasing temperature of Earth (the SB Law states that radiance and temperature are directly proportional).

    MATHEMATICS: AGW zealots reject mathematics when they claim that a "global temperature" can be accurately measured using current technology. In actuality, there is no way to accurately measure it. The Earth is about 197 million sq miles. NASA (if I recall correctly) makes claim to about 7,500 land based thermometers (which are NOT uniformly spaced nor are they simultaneously read by the same observer, as required by statistical mathematics, but for sake of argument, I will assume that they are). That would mean that each thermometer covers an area of approx. 26,266 sq miles, or similar to the size of West Virginia. Now, do you really think that one thermometer can accurately measure the temperature of anywhere within West Virginia? Obviously not... especially when one thinks about the range and variance of temperatures... Temperatures have been observed to range from -128deg F to 134deg F (262deg F range) and have been observed to vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and 49degF per TWO MINUTES. This shows the importance of close proximity and simultaneous reading of thermometers to get any sort of semi-accurate result. Thus, in order to bring the margin of error down to +-10deg F, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers, many more than NASA's 7,500...

    BUT, but what about magickal satellites??!! Well, satellites do not measure absolute temperature; they measure light. The issue with converting that light reading into a temperature reading is that we don't know the emissivity of Earth. We don't know how much light is a result of Earth's radiation nor how much is a result of starlight, moonlight, etc... In order to figure out the emissivity of Earth, we would need to know what we are trying to figure out in the first place, the temperature of Earth. Thus, a chicken and egg issue...

    AGW is nothing more than a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword. It is a void argument. It rejects laws of science. It rejects statistical mathematics. I'm not going to believe in a religion which requires me to reject logic, science, and mathematics...
     
    Josephwalker and Robert like this.
  25. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is more than mentioning me. It was what you kept saying bad about me. I have no active role in this issue. I am like most, a spectator to the action.

    I did not report you. I prefer none of us get infractions.
     

Share This Page