• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
ajbram

SCIENCE!

355 posts in this topic

On 9/8/2017 at 11:14 AM, Rum Runner said:

 

I was thinking the same way......sick fucks

Got a shot for you........

pyrat-rum1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two comments.  1) Global Warming is not political.  At least it should not be.  If you think it is political, you may be part of the problem.

2) You might enjoy this if they don't compress it beyond recognition, which they did.  Sorry. You can see it HERE

 

Untitled-3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, random said:

You are an anti science prosititute.

And you appear to be a bit of a fucking troll yourself.  Your argument with JohnMB was idiotic, with you being the pointless provocative idiot.

 

2 hours ago, Keith said:

OK, enough,

This thread needs to be moved to P.A. where it belongs with the many, many, other similar threads with the same, never ending, ad nauseam of inconclusive argument.

your next phase is unlimited graphs....  in 3-2-1...

This thread doesn't need to be moved.  Calling for that is antithetical to the spirit of anarchy.  This really is about science, not opinion.  There are powerful forces aligned against the facts on this subject, with at least one obvious shill posting here already (TFIO).  Suppressing discussion by moving it to PA or characterizing it as "ad nauseam of inconclusive argument" is just burying one's head in the sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wtf happened?

Looks like SA has been targeted by Exxon-Heartland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ProaSailor said:

And you appear to be a bit of a fucking troll yourself.  Your argument with JohnMB was idiotic, with you being the pointless provocative idiot.

Try to keep up.  Not my fault you didn't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, monsoon said:

So water vapor... how much water the atmosphere can hold is controlled almost entirely by temperature.  Warmer air holds more water. Water vapor thus is a positive feedback on global warming.

Exactly, the emissivity (ability to absorb heat in the form of infra red radiaton) of water is about 0.98 to 0.99 (maximum 1.0) so its good at it. CO2 below 306K 33 C has an emissivity of close to 0. So Its hard to understand that a trace element with little ability to  affect infra red radiation is the biggest issue.

Is it possible extra plantary events such as solar flares radiation etc could create an initial tempertaure excursuion which allows the water vapor to come into play? Or perhaps some intra plant event such as massive aerosol releases ?

the cartoon graph shows events since the last ice age and certainly taken in that context is alarming. If we change the time scale to represent the entire history of the planet, ice cores and the paleontological records indicate much higher temperatures and swings than is indicated on that chart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vibroman said:

Exactly, the emissivity (ability to absorb heat in the form of infra red radiaton) of water is about 0.98 to 0.99 (maximum 1.0) so its good at it. CO2 below 306K 33 C has an emissivity of close to 0. So Its hard to understand that a trace element with little ability to  affect infra red radiation is the biggest issue.

Is it possible extra plantary events such as solar flares radiation etc could create an initial tempertaure excursuion which allows the water vapor to come into play? Or perhaps some intra plant event such as massive aerosol releases ?

the cartoon graph shows events since the last ice age and certainly taken in that context is alarming. If we change the time scale to represent the entire history of the planet, ice cores and the paleontological records indicate much higher temperatures and swings than is indicated on that chart.

 

I think you missed the part where there is way way more change in 70 years than in 20,000.  Just so happens to lineup with atomospheric CO2 increasing like 30%.  We know what caused that increase.  Same with other green house gases.  

Changes in 70 million years are not the same as changes in 70 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vibroman said:

 

Is it possible extra plantary events such as solar flares radiation etc could create an initial tempertaure excursuion which allows the water vapor to come into play? Or perhaps some intra plant event such as massive aerosol releases ?

Or CO2. Granted water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, more so than many others. It's also a potent way for climate change deniers to deflect attention from the problem with pseudoscience when they don't understand the science behind the models. When climate modelers model climate scenarios, they build in the effects of additional water vapor due to evaporation etc. as well as things like methane liberated from permafrost. It's all in there. Scientists also frequently conduct sensitivity analyses to find oout it which independent parameters are really driving model responses. In climate models carbon dioxide comes up as a huge driver. Other effects cascade from that and the synergistic effects make the response seem disproportionate to the change in carbon dioxide.

besides, water vapor is regulated almost entirely by atmospheric temperature, so when you find a way to cool the planet down, we can talk about the effects of water vapor. We know what we can do to regulate CO2. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Keith said:

OK, enough,

This thread needs to be moved to P.A. where it belongs with the many, many, other similar threads with the same, never ending, ad nauseam of inconclusive argument.

your next phase is unlimited graphs....  in 3-2-1...

 

No.   This will affect far more people then Irma and Harvey combined, and is political primarily in the US, and the shale fields of Canada.   How we deal,with a charging elephant may be political, but the elephant is just an elephant,   

IMG_0209.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, didn't you guys hear. Rush Limbaugh said it's just a conspiracy to help move product off the shelves and feed the social media frenzy...

then he evacuated his bowels and got the hell out of Florida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ajbram said:

Or CO2. Granted water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, more so than many others. It's also a potent way for climate change deniers to deflect attention from the problem with pseudoscience when they don't understand the science behind the models. When climate modelers model climate scenarios, they build in the effects of additional water vapor due to evaporation etc. as well as things like methane liberated from permafrost. It's all in there. Scientists also frequently conduct sensitivity analyses to find oout it which independent parameters are really driving model responses. In climate models carbon dioxide comes up as a huge driver. Other effects cascade from that and the synergistic effects make the response seem disproportionate to the change in carbon dioxide.

besides, water vapor is regulated almost entirely by atmospheric temperature, so when you find a way to cool the planet down, we can talk about the effects of water vapor. We know what we can do to regulate CO2. 

Please understand that I am NOT denying climate change. I am NOT denying that CO2 levels have increased in recent times. I just trying to understand how a trace gas (0.04%) with little ability to affect IR radiation is the main cause of global temperature increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Please understand that I am NOT denying climate change. I am NOT denying that CO2 levels have increased in recent times. I just trying to understand how a trace gas (0.04%) with little ability to affect IR radiation is the main cause of global temperature increases.

Nutshell explanation above. Lots of published literature on how the models work. iPad typing makes it cumbersome for me to conduct a lit review so I will leave that to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Please understand that I am NOT denying climate change. I am NOT denying that CO2 levels have increased in recent times. I just trying to understand how a trace gas (0.04%) with little ability to affect IR radiation is the main cause of global temperature increases.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Please understand that I am NOT denying climate change. I am NOT denying that CO2 levels have increased in recent times. I just trying to understand how a trace gas (0.04%) with little ability to affect IR radiation is the main cause of global temperature increases.

Why are you trying to understand that?  Why not just accept this as fact as the vast majority of scientists say it is true.  I mean, you use GPS right?  Do you try and understand why all the calculations need to take relativity into account?  There are lots of things that it is just better accept what the people who do understand it are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The core issue that NO ONE wants to talk about is population!

This.   Stop breeding or one child max.   I know it's bad for the pryimid scheme society we have but if you want to get scared by a graph take a look at worldwide population growth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, solosailor said:
Quote

The core issue that NO ONE wants to talk about is population!

This.   Stop breeding or one child max.   I know it's bad for the pryimid scheme society we have but if you want to get scared by a graph take a look at worldwide population growth. 

True. It's a problem of success. We have really improved nutrition in countries where starvation is endemic. BOOM now we have a shitload more nearly-starving people.

Without an absolute tyranny imposing birth control from the git-go, human beings are just like rats in a box. Breed like crazy, when it gets too crowded you eat the other rats babies while trying to protect your own. A problem we will have (already seeing the beginnings of it) is that we will also destroy the planet.... ie the box we live in.... and the max sustainable population will plummet at the same time the birth rate is skyrocketing.

A key question in peoples' inmost beliefs: what kind of life do you want your grandkids to have?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, solosailor said:

This.   Stop breeding or one child max.   I know it's bad for the pryimid scheme society we have but if you want to get scared by a graph take a look at worldwide population growth. 

You also have far more boat bucks if you limit the number of unfunded mandates you are responsible for,  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, allene222 said:

Why are you trying to understand that?  Why not just accept this as fact as the vast majority of scientists say it is true.  I mean, you use GPS right?  Do you try and understand why all the calculations need to take relativity into account?  There are lots of things that it is just better accept what the people who do understand it are saying.

I say go ahead and try to understand it, if it's your interest.  A better understanding of the fundamentals behind some of this may help you better appreciate the enormity and the complexity of the task.  That is not a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

True. It's a problem of success. We have really improved nutrition in countries where starvation is endemic. BOOM now we have a shitload more nearly-starving people.

Without an absolute tyranny imposing birth control from the git-go, human beings are just like rats in a box. Breed like crazy, when it gets too crowded you eat the other rats babies while trying to protect your own. A problem we will have (already seeing the beginnings of it) is that we will also destroy the planet.... ie the box we live in.... and the max sustainable population will plummet at the same time the birth rate is skyrocketing.

A key question in peoples' inmost beliefs: what kind of life do you want your grandkids to have?

-DSK

We won't destroy the planet.  We'll just make it uninhabitable by the vast majority of humans.  The planet will go on its merry way as it always has.  That's why I think the focus needs to shift from "save the Earth" to "save our species".

Or, perhaps not, looking around. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bplipschitz said:

We won't destroy the planet.  We'll just make it uninhabitable by the vast majority of humans.  The planet will go on its merry way as it always has.  That's why I think the focus needs to shift from "save the Earth" to "save our species".

Or, perhaps not, looking around. . .

Right, the rock will still be there. It will almost certainly have some form of life on it, too. Whether or not that life will be in a form you & I would recognize is quite a different question.

So I apologize for using the phrase "destroy the planet" when I should have said "destroy the ability of the planet to harbor human life."

For many years I was a member of the L5 society, which is now the National Space Society with a much less-specific set of goals but a lot more money. Still not able to build independent colonies though.... if only we'd known back then how difficult it would be, and how long it would take......

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, allene222 said:

Why are you trying to understand that?  Why not just accept this as fact as the vast majority of scientists say it is true.  I mean, you use GPS right?  Do you try and understand why all the calculations need to take relativity into account?  There are lots of things that it is just better accept what the people who do understand it are saying.

mmm I have disagree with  Accepting facts "because the majority say its true".  After all I am sure the majority of "scientists" believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth at one time. I am just trying to understand the science of the relationship of CO2 to climate change.

Another concern I have is that a lot of the cited "science" is coming from computer models which are often less than accurate when confronted with extremely complex and dynamic systems with large numbers of different inputs such as the planet's climate and atmosphere.

I understand the general thermodynamic principles of how greenhouse gasses.

Again I am not denying the changes, just trying to understand the physics of how in increase of 60 or 80 ppm of CO2 is responsible for the climate change we are experiencing vs other influences 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

No.   This will affect far more people then Irma and Harvey combined, and is political primarily in the US, and the shale fields of Canada.   How we deal,with a charging elephant may be political, but the elephant is just an elephant,   

IMG_0209.JPG

There you go.  Those threads will keep you all busy.. have fun.... 

im sure there's a lot more, but I only went back as far as June 2017. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vibroman said:

I am just trying to understand the science of the relationship of CO2 to climate change.

You're not trying very hard,  The answers are there if you really want to find them.  Persisting with questions that have been answered is willful ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Keith said:

 

This one is very good, thanks - the NY Times article and "sweeping federal climate change report" it references can be found here:

Scientists Fear Trump Will Dismiss Blunt Climate Report
By LISA FRIEDMAN, AUG. 7, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html

Read the Draft of the Climate Change Report
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of-the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eastern motors said:

Thanks

thats a fair old chunk of info. From this chart from the wikipedia article It still seems that water vapor is a much bigger influence on up going thermal radiation than CO2.

Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Thanks

thats a fair old chunk of info. From this chart from the wikipedia article It still seems that water vapor is a much bigger influence than CO2

Atmospheric_Transmission.png

Do you see where the blue area ("Upgoing Thermal Radiation") peaks while the effect of water vapor at that wavelength (see the "Major Components" area) is nil (or nearly so)?  Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has a wide peak overlapping that wavelength range. 

Try harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Do you see where the blue area ("Upgoing Thermal Radiation") peaks while the effect of water vapor at that wavelength (see the "Major Components" area) is nil?

Try harder.

Of course it does !

Is that not because the water vapor is blocking the the other wavelengths and therefore reducing up-going thermal radiation ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Of course it does !

Is that not because the water vapor is blocking the the other wavelengths and therefore reducing up-going thermal radiation ?

Are you really that ignorant or just a troll?  Your reading comprehension is abysmal and your speculations border on the absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Thanks

thats a fair old chunk of info. From this chart from the wikipedia article It still seems that water vapor is a much bigger influence on up going thermal radiation than CO2.

 

Did you read the part directly under the ROLE OF WATER VAPOR heading?  It pretty clearly explains what you are asking about:

"Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[18] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. Indirectly, human activity that increases global temperatures will increase water vapor concentrations, a process known as water vapor feedback.[99] "

 

From the introduction: "Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F)."

The natural amount of greenhouse gases are good.  CO2 has already gone up 40% due to human activity.  That is bad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Again I am not denying the changes, just trying to understand the physics of how in increase of 60 or 80 ppm of CO2 is responsible for the climate change we are experiencing vs other influences 

Are you really sure that you are actually trying to understand ? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and if this is what you actually are trying to achieve, you can go and read what scientists whose job it is to understand such matters write about the subject : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

I have a doubt about your real motivation as some people whom economical interests don't align with "doing something about it" are really good at spreading doubts about the underlying science. It is deceitfully easy to do as in science things are never completely black or white and as long as you choose the "right" subset of data, you can come to any conclusion you like. These people are very well organised, as soon as some youtube videos came out on Irma, they were already busy commenting.

Science shouldn't be about politics, it is just about understanding the world that surround us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eastern motors said:

Did you read the part directly under the ROLE OF WATER VAPOR heading?  It pretty clearly explains what you are asking about:

"Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds.[18] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. Indirectly, human activity that increases global temperatures will increase water vapor concentrations, a process known as water vapor feedback.[99] "

 

From the introduction: "Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of Earth's surface would be about −18 °C (0 °F),[2] rather than the present average of 15 °C (59 °F)."

The natural amount of greenhouse gases are good.  CO2 has already gone up 40% due to human activity.  That is bad.  

Yes I did and agree that water vapor is the major contributor. I also understand that the water vapor content is temperature dependent. I also understand that something has to trigger the increase in temperature to get the water vapor etc etc. What I do not understand is how a trace element with little ability to block IR is the thermal blanket that kicks this thing off. 

10 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Science shouldn't be about politics, it is just about understanding the world that surround us.

+1

My motivation is scientific hence the attraction to the thread title. I have no interest in the politics of the issue on either side.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Yes I did and agree that water vapor is the major contributor. I also understand that the water vapor content is temperature dependent. I also understand that something has to trigger the increase in temperature to get the water vapor etc etc. What I do not understand is how a trace element with little ability to block IR is the thermal blanket that kicks this thing off. 

 

The fact that CO2 creates GW is something that has been observed, that should beat disbelief about how it can happen. Common sense used to be that stuff heavier than air shouldn't fly but seeing a plane fly is enough to knock off this disbelief.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Yes I did and agree that water vapor is the major contributor. I also understand that the water vapor content is temperature dependent. I also understand that something has to trigger the increase in temperature to get the water vapor etc etc. What I do not understand is how a trace element with little ability to block IR is the thermal blanket that kicks this thing off. 

+1

My motivation is scientific hence the attraction to the thread title. I have no interest in the politics of the issue on either side.

 

I don't understand why you haven't bothered to do any research whatsoever when you claim to be so interested in the topic.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vibroman said:

What I do not understand is how a trace element with little ability to block IR is the thermal blanket that kicks this thing off.

Either you're not reading (or comprehending) the recommended material or you are just bald-faced lying now.

Quote

Indirect radiative effects
The peak of the thermal IR emission from Earth's surface is very close to a strong vibrational absorption band of CO2 (15 microns, or 667 cm−1).

Atmospheric lifetime
Aside from water vapor, which has a residence time of about nine days,major greenhouse gases are well mixed and take many years to leave the atmosphere.
...
Carbon dioxide has a variable atmospheric lifetime, and cannot be specified precisely. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of the order of 30–95 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Keith said:

 

Really?  You think mockery is appropriate here?  Take it to PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 8:22 AM, ajbram said:

 We ultimately get most of our energy from the sun, and that amount of energy doesn't change all that much (give or take the odd solar storm).

 

I'm not sure you can make that statement with absolute assurance.  http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/SolVar.pdf

The most obvious changes to insolation relate to the number of sunspots in an 11 year cycle...less obvious insolation changes relate to the spectrum of the incoming irradiation.  Before dismissing insolation changes as contributing to the observed warming effects on our planet, I suggest reading the linked information (this thread is called Science, after all).  There are certainly other references as well.

Also, while there is certainly a correlation that can be observed with CO2 levels and recent warming; one should not neglect other compounds being thrust into the upper atmosphere by satellite launches using solid fuel propellants.  Most of those compounds have similar structures and effects as our more recent bug a boo with freon.  Also, don't neglect the contribution from methane being created in large quantities by bovines.  SO, if you want to experiment with changing the climate back; stop shooting rockets and eating hamburger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unsure who is trying to expand their knowledge and who is just slinging shit.  It is certainly admirable to expand one's knowledge.  I think this issue can be boiled down to a few simple statements,

1) Burning fossil fuels is warming the planet.

2) If we keep it up it will have catastrophic consequences and may make the earth uninhabitable.

4) The political and scientific communities of the world worked out an agreement that will limit the damage if implemented and all but two countries agreed to the terms.  It is a starting point and more would need to be done, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

5) Trump pulled the US out of the agreement.  The US cannot leave until Nov 4, 2020, the day after we elect the next president.

6) We need a new President.

7) If you don't agree with at least statements 1 - 5, you are in denial and any clarifications you are seeking are not to expand your knowledge but rather you are slinging shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, allene222 said:

I am unsure who is trying to expand their knowledge and who is just slinging shit.  It is certainly admirable to expand one's knowledge.  I think this issue can be boiled down to a few simple statements,

1) Burning fossil fuels is warming the planet.

2) If we keep it up it will have catastrophic consequences and may make the earth uninhabitable.

4) The political and scientific communities of the world worked out an agreement that will limit the damage if implemented and all but two countries agreed to the terms.  It is a starting point and more would need to be done, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

5) Trump pulled the US out of the agreement.  The US cannot leave until Nov 4, 2020, the day after we elect the next president.

6) We need a new President.

7) If you don't agree with at least statements 1 - 5, you are in denial and any clarifications you are seeking are not to expand your knowledge but rather you are slinging shit.

You are perfectly correct, of course.  And yet... this reminds me of a proa thread here five months ago:

Proa question started by Wess, March 28

No matter how many ways his question was answered, he never understood or accepted the answers.  Time after time he would reject the "mental models" and explanations offered and propose his own theories of a trimaran with one ama lopped off and proceed to "logical conclusions" that are contradicted by experience and reason.  I don't think he was deliberately "slinging shit".  He was trapped by a learning disability, and/or confirmation bias, that blinded him to the evidence presented, including video.  He resorted to a common tactic used by those who are out of their depth on any given topic: mockery and suggesting the same "never ending, ad nauseam of inconclusive argument" we heard in this thread.  It's not an effective learning strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ProaSailor said:

Either you're not reading (or comprehending) the recommended material or you are just bald-faced lying now.

 

Neither actually

Using the chart that was provided in the "recommended material" it shows that the Indirect Radiative Effects of CO2 are at a wavelength that is close but slightly above 15 microns in an area where it enhances the existing absorption by WATER. In terms of Total Absorption and Scattering it appears that trace gasses are only minor players in preventing Upgoing Thermal Radiation when compared to water. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vibroman said:

Please understand that I am NOT denying climate change. I am NOT denying that CO2 levels have increased in recent times. I just trying to understand how a trace gas (0.04%) with little ability to affect IR radiation is the main cause of global temperature increases.

Yup, the employees from Heartland and Assoc. are here.  I hate faaarkin shills.

The only thing they deny is that burning fossil fuels changes the climate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, vibroman said:

Neither actually

Using the chart that was provided in the "recommended material" it shows that the Indirect Radiative Effects of CO2 are at a wavelength that is close but slightly above 15 microns in an area where it enhances the existing absorption by WATER. In terms of Total Absorption and Scattering it appears that trace gasses are only minor players in preventing Upgoing Thermal Radiation when compared to water. 

 

Sorry you don't understand.  Please don't procreate.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faaaarkin shills have invaded the place.  I hate faaarking shills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, allene222 said:

Why are you trying to understand that?  Why not just accept this as fact as the vast majority of scientists say it is true.  ...  There are lots of things that it is just better accept what the people who do understand it are saying.

This sounds very much like the various explanations that come from [insert your favorite religion].

 

There is too much propaganda on both sides of this discussion to even begin to wade into it on a BB, esp one were statements like the one above are accepted and embraced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XTR said:

This sounds very much like the various explanations that come from [insert your favorite religion].

 

There is too much propaganda on both sides of this discussion to even begin to wade into it on a BB, esp one were statements like the one above are accepted and embraced.

One side has evidence based, peer reviewed science.  97% of climate scientists and every country except Nicaragua, Syria and Trump are on this side.

One side likes to play dumb and talk about water vapor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exxon Shills say water vapour = bad.  Burn black stuff = good

I hate faaarkin shills.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, XTR said:

This sounds very much like the various explanations that come from [insert your favorite religion].

 

There is too much propaganda on both sides of this discussion to even begin to wade into it on a BB, esp one were statements like the one above are accepted and embraced.

My point is your, and by that I mean all of us, are way over our head.  It is like if we all had a discussion of when there will be a solar eclipse.  Now how would we go about discussing it?  Would we start with theories of gravity and equations of motion. Would we worry about the effects of the various planets on the orbit of the earth that might change the timing slightly?  No, we would fucking look it up. In other words look to people who know to give us the answer.  It should be the same thing on global warming and the effects of putting carbon in the atmosphere.  We should not try and figure out if it is water vapor or cow farts.  We should look it up.  And if we did that we would find that climate change is real, caused by man, and we better do something about it.  Don't over think this people. Just look it up and don't go the conspiracy websites to do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Energy input = sun    

Energy escape = reflection, radiant heat, etc

The two must achieve an equilibrium.    That equilibrium. may resemble Venus (800F)  Mars (-120 to 70 F), or somewhere in between.   Without the greenhouse effect Venus would be only slightly warmer then our grandkids' Earth with its current and predicted increases in greenhouse gasses, including water vapor and CO2.  It is closer to the sun.   (Numbers approximate and not confirmed with NASA since they believed in fake science prior to the new director).   The take home message is a big difference equates to Venus, a small difference is a sci fi disaster movie that doesn't end.

Simple so far.

The equilibrium has varied over a small range over the history of land based multicelled life, but us puny life things can only handle a small range.   A slight fluctuation by meteorite impact wiped the dinosaurs.   BIt players like CO2 make a small difference in where the balancing point is.   A small difference means no permafrost, no Florida, etc, etc.    Massive upheaval causes severe challenges for civ.   Countries may gain (Canada overall) or lose.  The Middle East may have areas too hot for humans to survive sitting in the shade without air conditioned suits in just half a century.  Island nations may cease to exist.    Large sections of the US including the ocean coasts, the south, the islands, etc, etc may no longer get rain or may flood out with every storm.   Eventually society will quit rebuilding and abandon those areas too expensive to fortify, causing waves of even American refugees.   Food production may plummet in areas.   Diseases migrate with ticks.   Ecosystems shift or fail.   Life survives, the planet still spins, but it isn't the same place we evolved to inhabit and built civilizations to exploit.  People suffer from a tiny change of a couple degrees, the goal is to limit change to that tiny margin though.    Either way international oil executives buy another vacation home somewhere still nice and write off the flooded ones.

Any questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, allene222 said:

My point is your, and by that I mean all of us, are way over our head.  It is like if we all had a discussion of when there will be a solar eclipse.  Now how would we go about discussing it?  Would we start with theories of gravity and equations of motion. Would we worry about the effects of the various planets on the orbit of the earth that might change the timing slightly?  No, we would fucking look it up. In other words look to people who know to give us the answer.  It should be the same thing on global warming and the effects of putting carbon in the atmosphere.  We should not try and figure out if it is water vapor or cow farts.  We should look it up.  And if we did that we would find that climate change is real, caused by man, and we better do something about it.  Don't over think this people. Just look it up and don't go the conspiracy websites to do it.

 

"Look to people who know to give us the answer"...OK, this is the anarchist website, right?  What about anarchist don't you get? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MultiThom said:

"Look to people who know to give us the answer"...OK, this is the anarchist website, right?  What about anarchist don't you get? 

Some thing on the nose about his one, isn't there ... sniff sniff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vibroman said:

Thanks

thats a fair old chunk of info. From this chart from the wikipedia article It still seems that water vapor is a much bigger influence on up going thermal radiation than CO2.

Atmospheric_Transmission.png

You got it!  CO2 absorbs at the wavelengths of radiation emitted by the earth, not incoming solar radiation.

 

BTW Narragansett Bay was fabulous today.  12-15 from the N. Sunny, dry, cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and Random, if you have nothing positive to contribute, would you please go back to PA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shbokjlc.jpeg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can pick a Faaaarkin shill.  Easy.  From miles away.  They have this whiff about them too.

Shills say:

  1. Water vapour = bad
  2. Burn black stuff =  good

So check out this latest batch ... what's the call do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

Linking a denial site?  Well done, great attempt to distance yourself from it by calling the nut a nut, didn't work.

"Oh looky over there the sun is getting bigger and we will all be toast in a decade so who gives a fuck!!!  Let's all use more fuel so that the share price of the Exxon reserves still in the ground will be worth more for this year and we will all get our massive bonuses!"

Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The utter lack of observation by so many people is just astounding.

But the reason is due to the bug in our brains that allows civilization to exist.

Of course human activity is warming the climate. To deny, you are letting the bug in your brain run unfettered.

That same bug is the one that allows people to believe in religion.

That same bug is the one that allows people to believe in nations, in tribes, in families, in love.

That same bug is the one that allows people to believe in money.

That same bug allows us to dress appropriately for whatever culture we live and work. To drive cars. To go to war. To trust in peace.

That same bug is sometimes "good" and sometimes "bad" but without it we would still be monkeys.

Like the Black Plague that killed millions but enabled the Renaissance: sometimes bugs enable civilization to advance.

So while I am absolutely certain that climate change deniers are simply acting idiotically, I act idiotically and believe in money, in love, in my family, in my nation, in laws. Civilization does not work if we completely eradicate that idiocy.

Nevertheless, I am a scientist, so I in fact do work hard to eradicate that idiocy in areas where idiocy works against us. And the idiocy of climate change denial works against us all, our children, this planet we depend upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post carcrash.

The really scary part is that those with the vested interests in destroying the planet, target even this forum.  Even this one.  Incredible.  Really desperate.

Shills are cheap and Oil and Coals Companies have seemingly endless funds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry don't have time to read the entire thread, will do it when I can as it seems lots of good info. This one has been beat to death in PA (what topic hasn't) and so my response became anomalies are the new normal.  Of course if it's hotter and colder the averages aren't that different, if it floods and then drought but the long term totals are close then change is minimal.  Here is TX it's odd when I realize someone believes we are effecting the climate.  Over my life I have seen significant changes the first is coastal winds and of course "that's weather not climate". 

Good topic, thanks for those taking the time to write about real science.  This from a guy who is spending every day in flooded areas that never flooded before. Can't describe the misery and it will only get worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, random said:

shbokjlc.jpeg.jpg

If this is intended for me, you need to read my posts more carefully.

It is just a fact that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.  But we have no control over water vapor, it just responds to T.  Any T increase due to CO2 will be almost doubled by the positive feedback from increased water vapor.  I mentioned water vapor not to distract from the overwhelming evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is the root cause of recent global warming, but to point put that the relative warmth of our planet is not due to CO2 alone.

It seemed to me that Vibro was genuinely trying to understand how a trace gas in the atmosphere, CO2, can have such an outsized effect on global climate.  That effect is only partly due to absorbance of outgoing radiation.  It would be much smaller without positive feedbacks such as water vapor. And then there is albedo, but that's another discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Monsoon

Unfortunately the random noise generator has drowned out any cogent discussion on the topic so I will have to continue my search for understanding elsewhere. 

Thanks for your input

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

science.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, vibroman said:

mmm I have disagree with  Accepting facts "because the majority say its true".  After all I am sure the majority of "scientists" believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth at one time. I am just trying to understand the science of the relationship of CO2...

If you think about it, those that continued to investigate those mysteries came to a different conclusion about those issues that they were investigating with the resources they had available as science evolved in the Renaissance Period. (Run on sentence) Keeping in mind that you had to agree with the church at that time since God made all the rules and boundaries clear in the book he authored. Think Galileo...

They were also scientists. They were not regular citizens...

And if you really want to understand the relationship of CO2 and climate change I suggest you do a google search co2 for dummies or check YouTube. They both have explainations that are easily understood:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aloha27 said:

science.png

I need a T-shirt like this....... however it might not go down too well with a lot of the neighbors, this is the Bible Belt after all.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I need a T-shirt like this....... however it might not go down too well with a lot of the neighbors, this is the Bible Belt after all.

-DSK

To me, that sounds like a perfect reason to get one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the Earth was a sphere and that it revolved around the sun were both well-accepted facts among astronomers long before Galileo. Eratosthenes (ancient Greek astronomer) conducted experiments that demonstrated that the Earth wasn't flat over 2000 years ago. Similarly, Aristarchus came up with a notion that the Earth revolved around the sun about the same time. Copernicus is widely credited with this idea, but he based his models on his observations AND ancient Arabic sources as well. It was the general public (spurred on by the church) that did not want to believe the evidence presented. Rinse and repeat for plate tectonics, germ theory, evolution etc. Hell, some people still refuse to believe in evolution.

The point of all this is that being skeptical of broadly-accepted notions does not make you Galileo. On the contrary. Scientists are usually the ones driving paradigm shifts and working hard to dispel myths that are widely-held in the common populace. We like to say we stand on the shoulders of giants. Science is a practice of careful reconsideration - of testing and re-testing and modifying ideas as new evidence and new techniques are made available. When an idea about how the world works is put forth by scientists actually makes it into the popular lexicon, it has been tested to hell and back. We are a competitive lot, with egos to match most Grand Prix owner/drivers. When I am asked to peer-review a manuscript, I am actively trying to poke holes in it and reject it. When the preponderance of published literature weighs in so heavily in favor of one side of an argument, it is a virtual certainty that those who are in opposition to the idea have challenged it vehemently, tried to reject it, and were unable to do so.

Perhaps as scientists we have done a poor job of making ourselves approachable and accessible to the general public.I feel like this has led push-back against perceived elitism etc. Some  of the coolest people I know are scientists, but whenever you show up at a party, there's always someone who says "When the hosts told me there was a scientist coming, i thought 'Oh shit. Now we have to put up with a socially retarded asshole who can only talk about physics.'" We're working on changing that perception. Let us know what we can do. In the meantime, don't worry about "what scientists say." We're doing the best we can to tell you the story the way the planet is telling us. Believe me, there is no monetary reward for a scientist that bends the data (in fact, that's a pretty fast way to end your career unless you work for an oil company) Learn about the methods. Learn about the measurements. See the evidence for yourself. Listen to the story the planet is telling you and make your own decision.

Remember this though.... when you go to the dentist, 1 guy who has some science training (a few years less than most people who would describe themselves as scientists) related to teeth looks at 1 data point (that visit) and makes an assessment. Then he proposes a course of action that will make you physically uncomfortable and cost you hundreds of $. Do you challenge him? In the case of climate change, thousands of highly trained professionals are looking at millions of data points and making assessments that are subject to peer review and challenge from the rest of those highly qualified professionals. It's not simply a matter of following the herd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ajbram said:

That the Earth was a sphere and that it revolved around the sun were both well-accepted facts among astronomers long before Galileo. Eratosthenes (ancient Greek astronomer) conducted experiments that demonstrated that the Earth wasn't flat over 2000 years ago. Similarly, Aristarchus came up with a notion that the Earth revolved around the sun about the same time. Copernicus is widely credited with this idea, but he based his models on his observations AND ancient Arabic sources as well. It was the general public (spurred on by the church) that did not want to believe the evidence presented. Rinse and repeat for plate tectonics, germ theory, evolution etc. Hell, some people still refuse to believe in evolution.

The point of all this is that being skeptical of broadly-accepted notions does not make you Galileo. On the contrary. Scientists are usually the ones driving paradigm shifts and working hard to dispel myths that are widely-held in the common populace. We like to say we stand on the shoulders of giants. Science is a practice of careful reconsideration - of testing and re-testing and modifying ideas as new evidence and new techniques are made available. When an idea about how the world works is put forth by scientists actually makes it into the popular lexicon, it has been tested to hell and back. We are a competitive lot, with egos to match most Grand Prix owner/drivers. When I am asked to peer-review a manuscript, I am actively trying to poke holes in it and reject it. When the preponderance of published literature weighs in so heavily in favor of one side of an argument, it is a virtual certainty that those who are in opposition to the idea have challenged it vehemently, tried to reject it, and were unable to do so.

Perhaps as scientists we have done a poor job of making ourselves approachable and accessible to the general public.I feel like this has led push-back against perceived elitism etc. Some  of the coolest people I know are scientists, but whenever you show up at a party, there's always someone who says "When the hosts told me there was a scientist coming, i thought 'Oh shit. Now we have to put up with a socially retarded asshole who can only talk about physics.'" We're working on changing that perception. Let us know what we can do. In the meantime, don't worry about "what scientists say." We're doing the best we can to tell you the story the way the planet is telling us. Believe me, there is no monetary reward for a scientist that bends the data (in fact, that's a pretty fast way to end your career unless you work for an oil company) Learn about the methods. Learn about the measurements. See the evidence for yourself. Listen to the story the planet is telling you and make your own decision.

Remember this though.... when you go to the dentist, 1 guy who has some science training (a few years less than most people who would describe themselves as scientists) related to teeth looks at 1 data point (that visit) and makes an assessment. Then he proposes a course of action that will make you physically uncomfortable and cost you hundreds of $. Do you challenge him? In the case of climate change, thousands of highly trained professionals are looking at millions of data points and making assessments that are subject to peer review and challenge from the rest of those highly qualified professionals. It's not simply a matter of following the herd.

Nice exposition! You articulated very well the way science works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo ajbram, extremely well said.  Neil deGrasse Tyson put it this way in a tweet yesterday: "Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference."

And while there can be no doubt that forces like this are a fact of life:

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
The Koch Brothers have sent at least $100,343,292 directly to 84 groups denying climate change science since 1997.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

There is also this: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2016/12/30/not-malice/

Quote

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
  -- Robert J. Hanlon, 1980, “Murphy’s Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong”

“—I would say that you have fallen into the commonest fallacy of all in dealing with social and economic subjects—the devil theory.”
“Huh?”
You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.
  -- Robert Heinlein, 1941, “Logic of Empire”

In this world much of what the victims believe to be malice is explicable on the ground of ignorance or incompetence, or a mixture of both.
  -- Thomas F. Woodlock, 1937

Not malice but ignorance is the deadliest foe of human progress. If the present war was conceived in iniquity, at any rate it was born and has been nourished in ignorance. Enlightenment is the world’s chief need now as always.
  -- Arthur Cushman McGiffert, 1918

The most dangerous of the three great enemies of reason and knowledge is not malice, but ignorance, or, perhaps, indolence. The gods themselves still strive in vain against these two latter influences when they have happily vanquished the first.
  -- Ernst Haeckel, 1899, “Die Welträthsel”

It is the game of life we are playing; and if men, by their professions, lead other men into disaster, I maintain it is a serious thing. Some men, in fact, I think, most men, do it with no malice at all; in fact, far from it, it is more like stupidity; still, the result is the same.
  -- William James Laidlay, 1898

Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives. Do we not often afflict others undesignedly, and, from mere carelessness, neglect to relieve distress? Our own concerns, interests, and wishes engross our thoughts
  -- Jane West, 1812, “The Loyalists: An Historical Novel”

And I have again observed, my dear friend, in this trifling affair, that misunderstandings and neglect occasion more mischief in the world than even malice and wickedness. At all events, the two latter are of less frequent occurrence.
  -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1774, “Die Leiden des Jungen Werthers”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, random said:

Linking a denial site?  Well done, great attempt to distance yourself from it by calling the nut a nut, didn't work.

"Oh looky over there the sun is getting bigger and we will all be toast in a decade so who gives a fuck!!!  Let's all use more fuel so that the share price of the Exxon reserves still in the ground will be worth more for this year and we will all get our massive bonuses!"

Fail.

It is what the guy said. I could give a shit about the site.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aloha27 said:

science.png

Shirt should have a cell phone on it. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Bravo ajbram, extremely well said.  Neil deGrasse Tyson put it this way in a tweet yesterday: "Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference."

 

This ^^^  And I've been to many scientific conferences.

Human nature is one of the biggest reasons science works as well as it does.  The more controversial a scientific result or the more new ground it breaks, the more likely it is to be examined at microscopic level for some kind of flaw.  Why do so many people allow that the scientific process works for physics or astronomy or biology, but not for climate change?  Only answer I see is that special interests have worked very hard to apply political labels to AGW proponents (liberal weenies) and skeptics (conservative iconoclasts). With great success it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Bravo ajbram, extremely well said.  Neil deGrasse Tyson put it this way in a tweet yesterday: "Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference."

As a young undergrad, the things I learned at my first scientific conference were:

1. Scientists do not like to agree with one another. 

2. "Collegiality" means using polite-sounding, multi-syllabic words to say "I think you're full of shit."

3. Scientists like beer. A lot.

4. After publicly tearing somebody a new one, and calling into question everything they have worked on for the last few years, you get really, really drunk together a few hours later and figure out an experiment you can do to figure out whose idea holds the most water. We're very competitive with each other, but ultimately we all just want to figure out how the universe works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, monsoon said:

 Why do so many people allow that the scientific process works for physics or astronomy or biology, but not for climate change?  Only answer I see is that special interests have worked very hard to apply political labels to AGW proponents (liberal weenies) and skeptics (conservative iconoclasts). With great success it seems.

Al Gore made a movie.  The guiding light of the right for a very long time is to oppose anything the left likes. All the climate deniers I personally have talked to say it was just Al Gore's plot to enrich himself.

The Redneck Liberal said it best. "People on the right would gladly burn their house down so that the liberal next door would have to smell smoke for 15 minutes"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, XTR said:

This sounds very much like the various explanations that come from [insert your favorite religion].

 

There is too much propaganda on both sides of this discussion to even begin to wade into it on a BB, esp one were statements like the one above are accepted and embraced.

You're showing way to much wisdom to be wading into this shit fight.  Stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, monsoon said:

It seemed to me that Vibro was genuinely trying to understand how a trace gas in the atmosphere, CO2, can have such an outsized effect on global climate.

Anyone "genuinely trying to understand how a trace gas in the atmosphere, CO2, can have such an outsized effect on global climate" on a non-sailing section of a sailing forum is either a troll or needs guidance from an adult. 

I have cast my vote already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God is on our side this time.  Pope has this to say about climate change deniers:

“Man is stupid, the Bible said,” he said. “It’s like that, when you don’t want to see, you don’t see.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, allene222 said:

God is on our side this time.  Pope has this to say about climate change deniers:

“Man is stupid, the Bible said,” he said. “It’s like that, when you don’t want to see, you don’t see.”

Hah!  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/11/pope-francis-hurricanes-show-humanity-will-go-does-not-address/

Quote

Pope Francis has warned the recent spate of hurricanes should prompt people to understand that humanity will "go down" if it does not address climate change and history will judge those who deny the science on its causes.

Francis said history will judge those who deny the science on its causes and that "if we don’t turn back, we will go down".

He also chastised politicians who doubt man-made climate change, saying they have a moral responsibility to act and branding those who do not as “stupid”.

Doubters should study the evidence of global warming produced by scientists, which was “very clear”, he said.

The Pope made the remarks as he returned from a five-day trip to Colombia, flying over parts of the Caribbean which have been devastated by hurricanes in the past few days.

"Those who deny this must go to the scientists and ask them. They speak very clearly," he said. "These aren't opinions pulled out of thin air. They are very clear," he said. 
[...]
He had a blunt message for world leaders who impeded the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, quoting an Old Testament saying: "Man is stupid."  "When you don't want to see, you don't see," he said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, allene222 said:

God is on our side this time.  Pope has this to say about climate change deniers:

“Man is stupid, the Bible said,” he said. “It’s like that, when you don’t want to see, you don’t see.”

Refreshing to finally come across a religious leader who won't let dogma blind him to evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ajbram said:

Refreshing to finally come across a religious leader who won't let dogma blind him to evidence. 

You have to be fucking kidding me.  You are being sarcastic right?

MV5BMjA1NTkxMjk0NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjU2

bewareofdogmabillboard_jdean.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, ajbram said:

That the Earth was a sphere and that it revolved around the sun were both well-accepted facts among astronomers long before Galileo. Eratosthenes (ancient Greek astronomer) conducted experiments that demonstrated that the Earth wasn't flat over 2000 years ago. Similarly, Aristarchus came up with a notion that the Earth revolved around the sun about the same time. Copernicus is widely credited with this idea, but he based his models on his observations AND ancient Arabic sources as well. It was the general public (spurred on by the church) that did not want to believe the evidence presented. Rinse and repeat for plate tectonics, germ theory, evolution etc. Hell, some people still refuse to believe in evolution.

The point of all this is that being skeptical of broadly-accepted notions does not make you Galileo. On the contrary. Scientists are usually the ones driving paradigm shifts and working hard to dispel myths that are widely-held in the common populace. We like to say we stand on the shoulders of giants. Science is a practice of careful reconsideration - of testing and re-testing and modifying ideas as new evidence and new techniques are made available. When an idea about how the world works is put forth by scientists actually makes it into the popular lexicon, it has been tested to hell and back. We are a competitive lot, with egos to match most Grand Prix owner/drivers. When I am asked to peer-review a manuscript, I am actively trying to poke holes in it and reject it. When the preponderance of published literature weighs in so heavily in favor of one side of an argument, it is a virtual certainty that those who are in opposition to the idea have challenged it vehemently, tried to reject it, and were unable to do so.

Perhaps as scientists we have done a poor job of making ourselves approachable and accessible to the general public.I feel like this has led push-back against perceived elitism etc. Some  of the coolest people I know are scientists, but whenever you show up at a party, there's always someone who says "When the hosts told me there was a scientist coming, i thought 'Oh shit. Now we have to put up with a socially retarded asshole who can only talk about physics.'" We're working on changing that perception. Let us know what we can do. In the meantime, don't worry about "what scientists say." We're doing the best we can to tell you the story the way the planet is telling us. Believe me, there is no monetary reward for a scientist that bends the data (in fact, that's a pretty fast way to end your career unless you work for an oil company) Learn about the methods. Learn about the measurements. See the evidence for yourself. Listen to the story the planet is telling you and make your own decision.

Remember this though.... when you go to the dentist, 1 guy who has some science training (a few years less than most people who would describe themselves as scientists) related to teeth looks at 1 data point (that visit) and makes an assessment. Then he proposes a course of action that will make you physically uncomfortable and cost you hundreds of $. Do you challenge him? In the case of climate change, thousands of highly trained professionals are looking at millions of data points and making assessments that are subject to peer review and challenge from the rest of those highly qualified professionals. It's not simply a matter of following the herd.

I should have been a dentist, then people would believe me.

Nice post. I know a few scientists and you are right about them; they try to debunk each other to the last for our benefit. :D

And they drink a lot of beer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, random said:

You have to be fucking kidding me.  You are being sarcastic right?

MV5BMjA1NTkxMjk0NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjU2

bewareofdogmabillboard_jdean.JPG

Does the pope shit in the woods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sail4beer said:

I should have been a dentist, then people would believe me.

Nice post. I know a few scientists and you are right about them; they try to debunk each other to the last for our benefit. :D

And they drink a lot of beer

So much beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OWENSBORO, KY—Taking all necessary measures to reinforce his cherished beliefs ahead of the impending storm, local climate change denier Michael Dunn reportedly spent Friday battening down his worldview to help weather Hurricane Irma. “This could be the big one that completely destroys my position that climate change is a government conspiracy,” said Dunn, who sources confirmed had fortified his stance that global warming was merely a scheme by climatologists for research funding and hastily stockpiled pseudo-scientific reports from the internet claiming that excess CO2 is good for the environment. “All I can do now is ride it out and hope that I’ve done enough to protect my ideology from being completely leveled by this storm. I hate to say it, but I’m preparing for the worst.” At press time, Dunn was reportedly praying this hurricane was just another act of God’s vengeance against homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 4:49 PM, ajbram said:

That the Earth was a sphere and that it revolved around the sun were both well-accepted facts among astronomers long before Galileo. Eratosthenes (ancient Greek astronomer) conducted experiments that demonstrated that the Earth wasn't flat over 2000 years ago. Similarly, Aristarchus came up with a notion that the Earth revolved around the sun about the same time. Copernicus is widely credited with this idea, but he based his models on his observations AND ancient Arabic sources as well. It was the general public (spurred on by the church) that did not want to believe the evidence presented. Rinse and repeat for plate tectonics, germ theory, evolution etc. Hell, some people still refuse to believe in evolution.

The point of all this is that being skeptical of broadly-accepted notions does not make you Galileo. On the contrary. Scientists are usually the ones driving paradigm shifts and working hard to dispel myths that are widely-held in the common populace. We like to say we stand on the shoulders of giants. Science is a practice of careful reconsideration - of testing and re-testing and modifying ideas as new evidence and new techniques are made available. When an idea about how the world works is put forth by scientists actually makes it into the popular lexicon, it has been tested to hell and back. We are a competitive lot, with egos to match most Grand Prix owner/drivers. When I am asked to peer-review a manuscript, I am actively trying to poke holes in it and reject it. When the preponderance of published literature weighs in so heavily in favor of one side of an argument, it is a virtual certainty that those who are in opposition to the idea have challenged it vehemently, tried to reject it, and were unable to do so.

Perhaps as scientists we have done a poor job of making ourselves approachable and accessible to the general public.I feel like this has led push-back against perceived elitism etc. Some  of the coolest people I know are scientists, but whenever you show up at a party, there's always someone who says "When the hosts told me there was a scientist coming, i thought 'Oh shit. Now we have to put up with a socially retarded asshole who can only talk about physics.'" We're working on changing that perception. Let us know what we can do. In the meantime, don't worry about "what scientists say." We're doing the best we can to tell you the story the way the planet is telling us. Believe me, there is no monetary reward for a scientist that bends the data (in fact, that's a pretty fast way to end your career unless you work for an oil company) Learn about the methods. Learn about the measurements. See the evidence for yourself. Listen to the story the planet is telling you and make your own decision.

Remember this though.... when you go to the dentist, 1 guy who has some science training (a few years less than most people who would describe themselves as scientists) related to teeth looks at 1 data point (that visit) and makes an assessment. Then he proposes a course of action that will make you physically uncomfortable and cost you hundreds of $. Do you challenge him? In the case of climate change, thousands of highly trained professionals are looking at millions of data points and making assessments that are subject to peer review and challenge from the rest of those highly qualified professionals. It's not simply a matter of following the herd.

Thanks for the well put post.

I am a mere engineer, I only am a science "end user" and I dispair at all this science denial crap that is becoming so prevalent. I know from (bitter) experience that when the science appears to be wrong the chances are that I am just "using it improperly" as much as I would like to be one of the very few lucky bastard who find something meaningful inadvertently and gets to publish his finding after stumbling on something new that invalidates "old science". The bad news for the climate denialists is that the climate change is a very well studied field, clever people have spent an awful lot of energy and money to understand it better and the chances that there is a flaw in the theory is just absolutely minimal probably on a par with your mother in law who is a PITA to be hit by a meteorite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Thanks for the well put post.

I am a mere engineer, I only am a science "end user" and I dispair at all this science denial crap that is becoming so prevalent. I know from (bitter) experience that when the science appears to be wrong the chances are that I am just "using it improperly" as much as I would like to be one of the very few lucky bastard who find something meaningful inadvertently and gets to publish his finding after stumbling on something new that invalidates "old science". The bad news for the climate denialists is that the climate change is a very well studied field, clever people have spent an awful lot of energy and money to understand it better and the chances that there is a flaw in the theory is just absolutely minimal probably on a par with your mother in law who is a PITA to be hit by a meteorite.

You "mere engineers" are often the ones responsible for selling scientifically-defensible solutions to people in the "real world" who would often be happy enough with something cheap, easy, and wrong. Having a working knowledge of the scientific concepts that make your solutions viable and being able to show a project proponent how science can save them time and money in the long run is an important skill set to have. Sometimes taking our science and applying it to someone's personal example is what it takes to get the message home.

E.O. Wilson once wrote, "The ideal scientist thinks like a poet, works like a bookkeeper, and writes like a journalist." That's a pretty apt description, but we are also indebted to the mathematicians who give us the tools to evaluate our ideas and datasets, and the the engineers who take our dry technical writing and use those concepts to (hopefully) enhance our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ajbram said:

You "mere engineers" are often the ones responsible for selling scientifically-defensible solutions to people in the "real world" who would often be happy enough with something cheap, easy, and wrong. Having a working knowledge of the scientific concepts that make your solutions viable and being able to show a project proponent how science can save them time and money in the long run is an important skill set to have. Sometimes taking our science and applying it to someone's personal example is what it takes to get the message home.

E.O. Wilson once wrote, "The ideal scientist thinks like a poet, works like a bookkeeper, and writes like a journalist." That's a pretty apt description, but we are also indebted to the mathematicians who give us the tools to evaluate our ideas and datasets, and the the engineers who take our dry technical writing and use those concepts to (hopefully) enhance our lives.

You made me feel good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

You made me feel good!

No, not you . You just keep throwing new ingredients into the cauldron and hoping for the best. (seriously Lobster, crude oil.... what next)

He means real scientists :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

No, not you . You just keep throwing new ingredients into the cauldron and hoping for the best. (seriously Lobster, crude oil.... what next)

He means real scientists :) 

Dude, don't be a dope.  ajbram was speaking about engineers in general and replying (and referring) to Panoramix specifically.

Why the fuck are so many people here so god damned mean?  Fuck off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I say the same thing to myself when you go over to the Perry threads and act god damned mean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ajbram said:

You "mere engineers" are often the ones responsible for selling scientifically-defensible solutions to people in the "real world" who would often be happy enough with something cheap, easy, and wrong. Having a working knowledge of the scientific concepts that make your solutions viable and being able to show a project proponent how science can save them time and money in the long run is an important skill set to have. Sometimes taking our science and applying it to someone's personal example is what it takes to get the message home.

E.O. Wilson once wrote, "The ideal scientist thinks like a poet, works like a bookkeeper, and writes like a journalist." That's a pretty apt description, but we are also indebted to the mathematicians who give us the tools to evaluate our ideas and datasets, and the the engineers who take our dry technical writing and use those concepts to (hopefully) enhance our lives.

As opposed to just building a better mousetrap and having the world beat a path to your door.

One of the first-world problems is that we're all too comfortable, too secure, too used to having stuff -sold- to us instead of making hard choices for ourselves. But the hard reality is, the choices are still there masked by a pleasant veneer of salesmanship.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Panoramix said:

Thanks for the well put post.

I am a mere engineer, I only am a science "end user" and I dispair at all this science denial crap that is becoming so prevalent. I know from (bitter) experience that when the science appears to be wrong the chances are that I am just "using it improperly" as much as I would like to be one of the very few lucky bastard who find something meaningful inadvertently and gets to publish his finding after stumbling on something new that invalidates "old science". The bad news for the climate denialists is that the climate change is a very well studied field, clever people have spent an awful lot of energy and money to understand it better and the chances that there is a flaw in the theory is just absolutely minimal probably on a par with your mother in law who is a PITA to be hit by a meteorite.

I'm an engineer too. It's the bad engineering practices that annoy me with these discussions. First off, I'm not what you guys love to label as a "denier" even though you probably will.  I firmly believe we're fucking up our planet and need to knock it off. 

Where you guys lose me is to constantly treat models as facts. They aren't. Period. None of this is "settled science."  This big marble we live on is constantly changing, and what effect we've had or will continue to have is far from definitively provable for a long time to come, simply because our data set is minuscule compared to how long the planet's been around. It's been doing weird things for an awfully long time.

I'm all about minimizing our impact, so fully endorse a green movement, just hate the chicken little arguments being treated as facts. They aren't. 

But as an engineer, I use common sense and weigh possible outcomes and go for the best and safest choice. Logic says quit fucking up the planet is the safest choice. This is where politics comes back into play. Too much is being done for feel good reasons, as opposed to truly making a difference. Driving a Prius is nice and all, but if you've got a few kids in the back, you're doing more harm than the redneck truck owner who never pro creates. Population control is the needed, but ugly answer. Let's face it, from the view of all life on earth, we're parasites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Monkey said:

I'm an engineer too. It's the bad engineering practices that annoy me with these discussions. First off, I'm not what you guys love to label as a "denier" even though you probably will.  I firmly believe we're fucking up our planet and need to knock it off. 

Where you guys lose me is to constantly treat models as facts. They aren't. Period. None of this is "settled science."  This big marble we live on is constantly changing, and what effect we've had or will continue to have is far from definitively provable for a long time to come, simply because our data set is minuscule compared to how long the planet's been around. It's been doing weird things for an awfully long time.

I'm all about minimizing our impact, so fully endorse a green movement, just hate the chicken little arguments being treated as facts. They aren't. 

But as an engineer, I use common sense and weigh possible outcomes and go for the best and safest choice. Logic says quit fucking up the planet is the safest choice. This is where politics comes back into play. Too much is being done for feel good reasons, as opposed to truly making a difference. Driving a Prius is nice and all, but if you've got a few kids in the back, you're doing more harm than the redneck truck owner who never pro creates. Population control is the needed, but ugly answer. Let's face it, from the view of all life on earth, we're parasites. 

 

At a fundamental level everything is a model,

Newtons laws of motion are a model, the are only settled science in that we know some significant areas where things diverge from those laws and they are no longer a useful model. Over the vast range of applications we know they are a model that works very well.

The climate change model has a range of possible outcomes, but the predictions over temperature rise due to added CO2  have been pretty decent, as such its the best model we have for the behavior of this little ball to predict what we can expect if we keep doing the same things. And even what we can achieve if we manage to change the way we do things.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

 

At a fundamental level everything is a model,

Newtons laws of motion are a model, the are only settled science in that we know some significant areas where things diverge from those laws and they are no longer a useful model. Over the vast range of applications we know they are a model that works very well.

The climate change model has a range of possible outcomes, but the predictions over temperature rise due to added CO2  have been pretty decent, as such its the best model we have for the behavior of this little ball to predict what we can expect if we keep doing the same things. And even what we can achieve if we manage to change the way we do things.

 

 

Very respectable answer, and I don't disagree. It's just the muppets that call predictions facts that annoy me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Monkey said:

I'm an engineer too. It's the bad engineering practices that annoy me with these discussions. First off, I'm not what you guys love to label as a "denier" even though you probably will.  I firmly believe we're fucking up our planet and need to knock it off. 

Where you guys lose me is to constantly treat models as facts. They aren't. Period. None of this is "settled science."  This big marble we live on is constantly changing, and what effect we've had or will continue to have is far from definitively provable for a long time to come, simply because our data set is minuscule compared to how long the planet's been around. It's been doing weird things for an awfully long time.

I'm all about minimizing our impact, so fully endorse a green movement, just hate the chicken little arguments being treated as facts. They aren't. 

But as an engineer, I use common sense and weigh possible outcomes and go for the best and safest choice. Logic says quit fucking up the planet is the safest choice. This is where politics comes back into play. Too much is being done for feel good reasons, as opposed to truly making a difference. Driving a Prius is nice and all, but if you've got a few kids in the back, you're doing more harm than the redneck truck owner who never pro creates. Population control is the needed, but ugly answer. Let's face it, from the view of all life on earth, we're parasites. 

1. The data that demonstrate that the earth is quite rapidly warming do not come from models.  They come from measurements of land and ocean temperatures, measurable changes in ecosystems, changes in sea ice cover, ice volume of continental and mountain glaciers and so on. No models were bowed down to in accumulating these data.

2. Earth has not been doing 'weird things'.  Climate has been certainly been changing, but for well understood reasons.  The driving forces and timing of glacial/interglacial cycles have been investigated for 150 years.  And we have clear evidence that CO2 is one of the primary drivers of climate change on multiple timescales.

3. Models are the only way to predict and estimate the direction and magnitude of future climate change, unless you have a time machine handy.  No serious scientist, least of all the modelers, treats model results as 'facts'.  That is why there are error bars on the outputs of any modeled piece of climate (T, sea level). 

4. Far too many well meaning people claim that population is the real problem.  Maybe, maybe not.  But it cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring the threats of global warming.  And in my opinion it is sea level that is the truly scary one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I haven't seen anyone refer to predictive models as 'fact'. The facts that people talk about are the world wide consensus of climate scientists, the incredible amount of data that consensus is based on, and the robustness of the models themselves. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, surfsailor said:

^ I haven't seen anyone refer to predictive models as 'fact'. The facts that people talk about are the world wide consensus of climate scientists, the incredible amount of data that consensus is based on, and the robustness of the models themselves. 

 

The starter of this thread did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now