Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (3): « First < Previous 1 [2] 3 Next > Last »

Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

Author Message
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #11
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

That is like saying that natural climate changes also happen. Which is fine, natural climate changes ocurr.

The subject here is man-made climate changes. These also happen, and unfortunately have far worse consequences than natural changes.

11.03.2014 19:00
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #12
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

Rising Phoenix Wrote:
These also happen, and unfortunately have far worse consequences than natural changes.

I totally disagree with this statement. There is no sufficient evidence that leads to such a claim - that natural climate change disasters are worse or less worse than anthropocentric ones.

There are two main scientific schools within the climate change debate: The first school includes those who believe the current global warming and climate change we are experiencing is caused by increases in atmospheric anthropogenic (man made) greenhouse gases. This group subscribes to the hypothesis that greenhouse gases (namely CO2) when released into the atmosphere, due to their irradiative qualities (e.g. heat trapping qualities) act to warm the planet, e.g. Anthropogenic GHG Proponents of Climate Change.
The second school includes those who believe that historic and climate change is a function of nature, itself, e.g. Natural Variability Proponents of Climate Change.

Although considerable attention and resources have been dedicated to advocates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory, particularly those adherents who emphasize man's contribution to increased atmospheric CO2 (Anthropogenic contribution) being the causal agent, many fundamental questions about climate change remain unanswered. For example:

To what extent is the earth warming?
Has this phenomena occurred before?
In addition to man's contribution have we accounted for the possible natural drivers behind climate change (i.e., natural variability, hydrothermal heating, natural geophysical, solar events, volcanic eruptions, seismic activity, geo-magnetic jerks, and other natural events)?
Is the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouses gases (GHG's) from natural sources or anthropogenic sources? If from both sources, what relative percentage is being contributed by each?
Is the observed variation of natural heat release driving recorded global temperature trends or are man's greenhouse gases overpowering these natural variations?
What will be the long-term impact of climate change for life on Earth?
Can the anthropogenic based climate prediction models (IPCC and CCSP) reliably forecast real temperature trends and climate change? If not, why?
Is there a better natural driver predictor or group of natural predictors of climate change?

I've seen enough statements from anthropocentric theory guys admitting that they messed with the data in order to favor their stance. As much as I would like to see big oil collapse, and antiquated technology removed from use - I will never agree to intellectual fraud, to perjury. Science should not be politicized. For everything else is politicized, religion, history, family upbringing, community laws, the entertainment industry - EVERYTHING.
Please bear in mind that this post's purpose is not to cast a shadow of doubt over the empirical fact which is climate change. I'm not advocating "denialism"; climate change is a very real phenomenon - but we need to study it from a scientifical point of view. When a model is proved to be wrong, that model needs to be correct or scrapped. And another, different one, needs to take its place.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 11.03.2014 19:27 by Helsworth.

11.03.2014 19:14
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #13
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

Helsworth Wrote:
I totally disagree with this statement. There is no sufficient evidence that leads to such a claim - that natural climate change disasters are worse or less worse than anthropocentric ones.

Have ever tried living in Chernobyl? No? Well, there you have it. Nature did not change the environment of Chernobyl by itself. Nature does not makes faulty soviet reactors, either.

Or what about Mumbai? Fancy yourself inhaling the equivalent of a pack of cigarrettes per day? That, too, is environmental change made by humans.

It only follows that if we can affect the environment in such direct ways, we can also alter it in subtler ways as well. I do not know why you disagree with such a fact.

Helsworth Wrote:
There are two main scientific schools within the climate change debate: The first school includes those who believe the current global warming and climate change we are experiencing is caused by increases in atmospheric anthropogenic (man made) greenhouse gases. This group subscribes to the hypothesis that greenhouse gases (namely CO2) when released into the atmosphere, due to their irradiative qualities (e.g. heat trapping qualities) act to warm the planet, e.g. Anthropogenic GHG Proponents of Climate Change.
The second school includes those who believe that historic and climate change is a function of nature, itself, e.g. Natural Variability Proponents of Climate Change.

There are no "scientific schools". Science is not philosophy. There are only observations, and the suggested courses of action to take from those observations. Observations point out that humanity has horribly destroyed the environment in many cases, and case-in-point we daily pour a lot of pollutants into the atmosphere.

Helsworth Wrote:
Although considerable attention and resources have been dedicated to advocates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory, particularly those adherents who emphasize man's contribution to increased atmospheric CO2 (Anthropogenic contribution) being the causal agent, many fundamental questions about climate change remain unanswered.

Not for me. If you contaminate a room with pollutants consistently whilst living inside that room then at some point you will suffer the consequences - unless, of course, proper ventilation is in place.

The Earth however has no such "ventilation system" -- it cannot simply say "Okay, time to open the windows!" and let go off the pollutants into space. Not at all: The pollutants remain in our room... In the atmosphere.

Helsworth Wrote:
To what extent is the earth warming?

Irrelevant, because it also cools down excessively in the opposite seasons. If there is a 1°C increase due to man-made changes, then the next winter will also be -1°C more cold. I have noticed that denialists persistently refuse to acknowledge that unbalances work both ways, for some reason I cannot fathom.

Helsworth Wrote:
Has this phenomena occurred before?
In addition to man's contribution have we accounted for the possible natural drivers behind climate change (i.e., natural variability, hydrothermal heating, natural geophysical, solar events, volcanic eruptions, seismic activity, geo-magnetic jerks, and other natural events)?

Has species in the Earth other than the humans ever manage to contaminate the environment in such a widespread fashion?

You tell me which other species does stuff like this and then I will concede to that.

Helsworth Wrote:
Is the observed increase in atmospheric greenhouses gases an actual cause or merely a symptom of climate change?

Symptom, and they are not the only kinds of pollutants being poured into the environment, as I have previously stated.

Helsworth Wrote:
What will be the long-term impact of climate change for life on Earth?

Reduced habitability which, coupled with other forms of contamination, may very well lead to turning entire areas into utter wastelands as time goes on.

Helsworth Wrote:
Can the anthropogenic based climate prediction models (IPCC and CCSP) reliably forecast real temperature trends and climate change? If not, why?

Straw man. These models are observations. A prediction requires more data -- such as how many new factories would open up, how much more pollutants would be poured into the atmosphere, and so forth. Even then and based on only the data collected so far, it has been said that the present amount of contamination is too high.

Helsworth Wrote:
Is there a better natural driver predictor or group of natural predictors of climate change?

Why should we distrust the observations of scientists, specially when these have been peer-reviewed and fact-checked? Noplan

Helsworth Wrote:
I've seen enough statements from anthropocentric theory guys admitting that they messed with the data in order to favor their stance. As much as I would like to see big oil collapse, and antiquated technology removed from use - I will never agree to intellectual fraud, to perjury. Science should not be politicized. For everything else is politicized, religion, history, family upbringing, community laws, the entertainment industry - EVERYTHING.

Man, these studies are one of the few areas on which all serious scientific institutions around the world agree which have performed similar studies agree -- precisely because the politicization ocurrs on the other side. A scientist who collects data and then presents it has nothing to lie about. He is just presenting data. A tabloid reporter on the other hand, or a "dissident scientist", will do so in order to attract attention. It is simple as that (Also a fun fact here: Most prominent denialists have their own books and documentaries, and these are not done for free in the great majority of cases).

Helsworth Wrote:
Please bear in mind that this is post's purpose is not to cast a shadow of doubt over the empirical fact which is climate change. I'm not advocating "denialism"; climate change is a very real phenomenon - but we need to study it from a scientifical point of view. When a model is proved to be wrong, that model needs to be correct or scrapped. And another, different one, needs to take its place.

The model is not at fault here, neither are the scientists who warn us that the contamination is likely to continue. This is akin to saying: "Look, I have studied Y for Z amount of time and can say that A has ocurred." The issue here is that these particular observations are harmful to the status quo.

The fault here is our current form of societal operation. So long as the best way to live is called "Profit! Profit! Profit!", then the planet can blow up ten times and the buffoons with the money would still not care.

11.03.2014 19:51
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #14
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

Climate change is not like double-entry bookkeeping. If you get a part of the globe warmer than it's used to. It doesn't automatically mean that somewhere else it will be more cold. If that were the case, then the average temperature of the world would have always stayed constant. ^^ We're pretty much clueless about how an open system like earth's climate functions.

As for polutants, what about when a Volcano erupts and shoots up enourmous amounts of heat, CO2, dust, and other things into the atmosphere. What about when it erupts under the water, boiling up all life that happens to be around the eruption sight.

As for Chernobyl. People still live in those parts, wild-life and green-life as well. http://totallycoolpix.com/2011/04/cherno...n-and-now/

My point was not to make a competition between which one is the most ruthless in destruction, man or nature itself. But to suggest that anthropocentric disasters are bigger than natural disasters is a statement which cannot be backed by scientific argument. Simply because we don't know how many anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric forces are causing extreme weather phenomenons.
Remember those people at Pompei? Heads literally exploded during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius.

We know this because that's precisely what happened at Herculaneum when everyone in the city was hit by a cloud of gas with a temperature of nearly 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. In less than two-tenths of a second, "skin vaporized, ... brains boiled, and skulls exploded." Like, without any shotguns or grape shot. It just happened all on its own, just as mother nature intended.

Sorry to burst your bubble, some of those models are bullshit. And anthropocentric activity will always exist that will impact the environment in a negative way. Even if you achieve a Technocracy.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 11.03.2014 20:45 by Helsworth.

11.03.2014 20:12
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BaktoMakhno
Looter
*


Posts: 1,058
Words count: 245,068
Group: Basic
Joined: Mar2011
Status: Offline
Reputation: 39
Experience: 496
Glory Points: 10
Medals: 1

Post: #15
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

I like you Hels, but please, enough with the pseudoscience. The ancient astronauts stuff is just cute. Climate denial is malignant.

Helsworth Wrote:
As for polutants, what about when a Volcano erupts and shoots up enourmous amounts of heat, CO2, dust, and other things into the atmosphere. What about when it erupts under the water, boiling up all life that happens to be around the eruption sight.

Ash goes high in the atmosphere and blocks out sunlight. This cools the planet. Indeed volcanic eruptions cause a lot more cooling than they do warming.

Quote:
My point was not to make a competition between which one is the most ruthless in destruction, man or nature itself. But to suggest that anthropocentric disasters are bigger than natural disasters is a statement which cannot be backed by scientific argument. Simply because we don't know how many anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric forces are causing extreme weather phenomenons.

No, but we can make educated guesses. That's what science is most of the time. When I was a teenager I believed climate denial shit - partly because the climate science we learned in school was insultingly simplistic and partly to spite my teachers. Then I realized that there are people called climate scientists who have entertained and refuted much more sophisticated versions of my juvenile objections.

Natural climate change has caused mass extinctions in the past. Past natural climate change shows how unstable a system the earths climate is and how small changes can set off positive feedback precipitating much larger ones. Go have a read about how much and how quickly sea levels have changed.

We know about all sorts of plausible anthropocentric causes for the climate change we are currently observing. No one has ever laid out a plausible hypothesis for natural ones.

Quote:
And anthropocentric activity will always exist that will impact the environment in a negative way. Even if you achieve a Technocracy.

Yes, but under a sane economic system which does not subordinate everything to its own self perpetuating propaganda, we would actually listen to the scientists telling us about this. And plan/adapt accordingly. With serious investment current climate change could be easily reversed through geo-engineering. This won't happen now because it would make the market economy look bad.


"The beauty of free trade is that 1 and 1 can be 3" - Titian

"There is no conversation more boring than one where Globaltom speaks" - Triniterias

This post was last modified: 11.03.2014 21:20 by BaktoMakhno.

11.03.2014 20:58
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #16
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

Why are you reducing the talk to just temperature? We were talking about all sorts of harmful effects. Destroying villages, killing people, burning trees, plants, and animals. Boiling to death wild-life in seas and plants etc.
A volcano doesn't realease just ash and brimstone, but CO2 as well. Volcanic activity has the ability to affect global climate on still longer time scales. Over periods of millions or even tens of millions of years, increased volcanic activity can emit enormous volumes of greenhouse gases, with the potential of substantial global warming (Pickering & Owen, 1994; Rampino & Volk, 1988). However, the global cooling effects of sulphur dioxide emissions (Officer & Drake, 1983) will act to counter the greenhouse warming, and the resultant climate changes remain uncertain. Much will depend upon the nature of volcanic activity. Basaltic outpourings release far less sulphur dioxide and ash, proportionally, than do the more explosive (silicic) eruptions.

The possibility that large eruptions might, during historical and prehistorical times, have occurred with greater frequency, generating long-term cooling, cannot, however, be dismissed. In order to investigate this possibility, long, complete and well-dated records of past volcanic activity are needed. One of the earliest and most comprehensive series is the Dust Veil Index (DVI) of Lamb (1970), which includes eruptions from 1500 to 1900. When combined with series of acidity measurements in ice cores (due to the presence of sulphuric acid aerosols), they can provide valuable indicators of past eruptions. Using these indicators, a statistical association between volcanic activity and global temperatures during the past millennia has been found (Hammer et al., 1980). Episodes of relatively high volcanic activity (1250 to 1500 and 1550 to 1700) occur within the period known as the Little Ice Age, whilst the Medieval Warm Period (1100 to 1250) can be linked with a period of lower activity.

You're pretty quick to dismiss the negative effects upon nature and humans caused by natural occurring phenomenon. And as for your ending certainty about easily reversing climate change... that's pretty much wishful thinking. Since even if we reduce our anthropocentric activity to 0, climate change will still continue.
When debates get too personal and too mired in ideology, I like to draw back. Cause their outcome is always pointless.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 11.03.2014 21:46 by Helsworth.

11.03.2014 21:40
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BaktoMakhno
Looter
*


Posts: 1,058
Words count: 245,068
Group: Basic
Joined: Mar2011
Status: Offline
Reputation: 39
Experience: 496
Glory Points: 10
Medals: 1

Post: #17
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

I am not dismissing anything. Merely stating the fact that no plausible hypothesis has ever been put forward which attributes the climate change we are currently observing to natural causes. No climate scientist denies that major natural climate change has occurred in the past. I never claimed to know everything about the climate impact of volcanoes. I was merely pointing out how ambivalent their effects are, anthropogenic greenhouse gasses on the other hand only really influence things in one direction. I was merely looking at climate effects for volcanoes - the impact on local environment is irrelevant when considering climate change on a global scale.

When I said climate change could 'easily' be reversed, I meant 'easily' if billions of dollars and massed scientific talent were applied to the problem. Small scale pilot studies with iron seeding, modeling of its impact on ecosystems and investigation of methods to counter likely negative effects would be a good place to start. This would take a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere. Numerous other methods of modifying the climate have been proposed and this is without any serious investment in the field.

This isn't about 'reducing' anthropogenic activity. (People who advocate that do so because they think claiming that we could easily do things much more cleverly than what the market prescribes is bad tactics.) Rather about intelligently planning our overall impact, managing the climate to prevent large changes which are likely to produce massive death tolls.

However, taking the existing political-economic order as given the best mitigation of climate change we can hope for is probably to see Yellowstone erupt.


"The beauty of free trade is that 1 and 1 can be 3" - Titian

"There is no conversation more boring than one where Globaltom speaks" - Triniterias

This post was last modified: 11.03.2014 22:17 by BaktoMakhno.

11.03.2014 21:57
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #18
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

That manner of speech... Hey everyone, our favourite troll is back! Trini we missed you! Daumenhoch

12.03.2014 03:24
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #19
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

I happen to agree with Trini, when he says that we have every reason to question what we're being told - regardless if its comming from academia or not. There's no holy source of knowledge in my view.
It was not long ago when medical scientists told parents that masturbation cripples the minds of young children. Claims that had nothing to do with reality. If that could happen in a field of health care research, why couldn't it happen in the field of the so-called natural sciences?
Hell, even Varoufakis and Keen have said that in the field of economics (which wants, at least, to be considered or to operate as a science) - if you wrote something that didn't go well with orthodox thinking, you were cast out as a paria; made fun of, with no chance to get a seat as a professor or good references for future employment. Thus, they had to bow their heads and do their own research while at the same time writing stuff that they didn't believe in.
Once again, this is not to say that climate change isn't real. It is. This is not to suggest that human industry should keep on polluting. Cause we're not causing harm, or "not enough" harm. We certainly are, and it's more than enough harm. I've seen quite enough battles on the internet over this issue, people trying to defend and attack climate change - when, in fact, most of them agreed on the solutions. Despite the fact that they thought the mainstream theory had holes. Climate change, whether its warming or cooling, is happening whether we like it or not. Human pollution and deforestation are serious problems. Wars are a serious problem. And a potential nuclear WW3 the gravest threat of all.
Therefore, I resist the idea that if someone is criticizing mainstream climatologists or their data, that they must be automatically denialists. There certainly is such a group out there, pretty big, and financed by many interested parties. Big oil, for example, funds green tech as well as denialist groups. That way, the muster support for government tax breaks and subsidies for green technology investments. And with the denalists, they muster enough support to defend their existing earners - which rely on oil. Every criticism needs to be looked at in context, not dismissed on the principle that "we don't like dissent".


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 12.03.2014 10:48 by Helsworth.

12.03.2014 10:41
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #20
RE: Floods, Catastrophe and Climate Denial

Radiuju Wrote:
And we have to power the vehicle with fossil fuels because if god gets back before we have used them all up, she will ask why we didn't use all the coal and mescaline she left us.

lol Hehe


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
12.03.2014 11:42
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  The five presidents of the Eurozone remain firmly in denial Helsworth 0 911 03.07.2015 20:38
Last Post: Helsworth
  Warning of humanitarian catastrophe as Egypt tightens siege of Gaza Helsworth 3 1,422 07.07.2013 08:07
Last Post: Herman Cain

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: