2024: Leas snow than normal

[skiguy]

No. They should be ostracized from public, civil discourse.

According to who?

 

[DayTrip]

No. "This whole climate argument" is not an argument. The oil and gas industries have lobbied politicians and created propoganda for decades to create denialism of anthropogenic climate change and maintain our dependency on the oil and gas industries. It really is as simple as that.

Bad choice of words. I am not arguing that point. I believe the scientific evidence.

What I was trying to illustrate is that a lot of people make predictions based on the scientific evidence, which involves judgement based on what they know. When these predictions do not come to be, people blame the scientific evidence not the flaws in the person's predictions.

To use my "snow in the living room example", when the prediction that the snow would melt in 3 minutes and it didn't come to be we don't declare that ice doesn't melt. We point out the flaw that the temperature in my living room was not accurately taken into account by the 3 minute guess and they were wrong on the timeline of the melting.

 

[skiguy]

Anyone want to debate about Chem Trails?

 

[DayTrip]

Anyone want to debate about Chem Trails?

Debate what?

 

[maineguy]

Anyone want to debate about Chem Trails?

There's a youtuber out here who lives in Fort Collins. He has a great channel where he does hikes in the Front Range. I've been following him since we got here and patterned a lot of my hikes around what he shows. His hikes usually take place on bluebird days (we get a lot of that here), but on one day he went off on a rant about chem trails, which he was pointing out in the sky. It was pretty weird.

 

[skiguy]

Debate what?

My apologies. Did not mean to insult you. Forgot you had a Ph.D.

 

[NH2112]

Human induced global warming is an inconvenient truth. There is no denying it.

If folks have not read it, Greta Thunberg’s book, The Climate Book, is phenomenal. Little bite sized chapters, 2-4 pages, on one specific topic, written by the world’s leading scientists in plain English. If you have any doubts about climate change, you won’t after reading that.

Also, NPR’s show Marketplace has an excellent new podcast on how the U.S. is grappling with climate change (since their naval bases are flooding and the boots on the ground are dealing with more temperature extremes).

Brian

Solely addressing the graph, why would anyone think the last million years mean anything when the planet has been able to support life for 3.8 billion years? 1M years is what, 0.00026% of the planet’s habitable lifetime thus far? It seems to be a pretty big assumption that the ppm of CO2 that’s best for our continued existence is the way it’s supposed to be. Imagine your doctor using the most recent 1/3800 of your life to diagnose your lifetime’s health.

 

[NH2112]

An interesting problem is that so many LDCs look at the U.S. and say wait a minute, you guys have had (and still have of course) a massive carbon footprint that fueled your development into a first world country and yet we, as an LDC, are expected to reign in our carbon footprint b/c of the impact you say your behavior has caused. Sounds like more colonialism and oppression to them. I can understand their annoyance with us.

The first-world countries had to invent everything from scratch as they went along. The better, cleaner stuff is out there now and technology has made it cheaper in the not very long run. LDCs don’t have to reinvent the wheel. China’s oldest car manufacturer, FAW, didn’t make Model Ts when it started in 1953, it took advantage of at least SOME of the advances of the past 50 years.

 

[KRooney]

I didn't realize there was a controversy re: chem trails until this thread. Thank goodness for Wikipedia.

 

[DayTrip]

I didn't realize there was a controversy re: chem trails until this thread. Thank goodness for Wikipedia.

Yup. Billions and billions of tons of C02 dumped into the atmosphere for decades has no impact whatsoever but trace amounts of chemicals released from the tips of airplane wings? Full control of the weather and mass poisonings of people.

 

[KRooney]

Yup. Billions and billions of tons of C02 dumped into the atmosphere for decades has no impact whatsoever but trace amounts of chemicals released from the tips of airplane wings? Full control of the weather and mass poisonings of people.

Pesky wings.

 

[skiguy]

I didn't realize there was a controversy re: chem trails until this thread. Thank goodness for Wikipedia.

Most indeed thank goodness for Wikipedia. Otherwise potentially many more would be flogged in the town square by the self anointed intellectual elite. Also therefore avoiding mass ostracism of the plebs.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Solely addressing the graph, why would anyone think the last million years mean anything when the planet has been able to support life for 3.8 billion years? 1M years is what, 0.00026% of the planet’s habitable lifetime thus far? It seems to be a pretty big assumption that the ppm of CO2 that’s best for our continued existence is the way it’s supposed to be. Imagine your doctor using the most recent 1/3800 of your life to diagnose your lifetime’s health.

Comparing human evolution to 3.8 billion-year-old, single-cell life forms on Earth in the context of atmospheric CO2 seems bizarre to me.

Homohabilis, our Homosapien’s ancestors, made their appearance about 2.8 million years ago, about the same time that the Cenozoic Ice Ages began when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the 280 ppm range. So humans are an “ice age species,” as for the past 2.8 million years we have experienced 40,000-year and 100,000-year cyclic patterns of glaciation in which continental ice sheets have grown slowly to cover large parts of the Northern Hemisphere for about 90,000 years on average and then rapidly disintegrated during interglacials for about 10,000 years on average over the past million years or so. Between 2.8 and about 1..0 million years ago, the 40,000-year glacial-interglacial cycle predominated, with the cause of the switch to the 100,000-year cycles one of atmospheric science’s major unsolved questions.

During nearly the entire past 2.8 million years, atmospheric CO2 remained between about 185 ppm during glacials and 285 ppm during interglacials, until a couple hundred years ago when CO2 began rising rapidly due to anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, and others). Because our current interglacial, known as the Holocene, began about 13,000 years ago, we have been overdue for the next natural-cycle glacial by a few thousand years. Atmospheric CO2 has not been at its current level close to 420 ppm in the previous 14 million years, long before the Cenozoic Ice Ages. Humans have interrupted the next interglacial to glacial transition, which may not only preclude slow build up ice ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere as in the past, but also disintegrate the Greenland Ice Sheet (about 7 meters global sea-level-rise) for the first time in over 430,000 years and also large parts of Antarctic Ice Sheet (tens of meters of additional global sea-level rise). The only question now is how rapidly might these two remaining ice sheets disintegrate, although some modeling suggests as few as a couple hundred years for Geeenland.

So, sure, single-cell life forms may survive such climate changes, as they have been around for 3.8 billion years, but humans will not, as we are an “ice-age species,” with Homosapiens only appearing about 315,000 years ago, well after the last time that the Greenland Ice Sheet disintegrated.

 

[NH2112]

Comparing human evolution to 3.8 billion-year-old, single-cell life forms on Earth in the context of atmospheric CO2 seems bizarre to me.

Homohabilis, our Homosapien’s ancestors, made their appearance about 2.8 million years ago, about the same time that the Cenozoic Ice Ages began when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the 280 ppm range. So humans are an “ice age species,” as for the past 2.8 million years we have experienced 40,000-year and 100,000-year cyclic patterns of glaciation in which continental ice sheets have grown slowly to cover large parts of the Northern Hemisphere for about 90,000 years on average and then rapidly disintegrated during interglacials for about 10,000 years on average over the past million years or so. Between 2.8 and about 1..0 million years ago, the 40,000-year glacial-interglacial cycle predominated, with the cause of the switch to the 100,000-year cycles one of atmospheric science’s major unsolved questions.

During nearly the entire past 2.8 million years, atmospheric CO2 remained between about 185 ppm during glacials and 285 ppm during interglacials, until a couple hundred years ago when CO2 began rising rapidly due to anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, and others). Because our current interglacial, known as the Holocene, began about 13,000 years ago, we have been overdue for the next natural-cycle glacial by a few thousand years. Atmospheric CO2 has not been at its current level close to 420 ppm in the previous 14 million years, long before the Cenozoic Ice Ages. Humans have interrupted the next interglacial to glacial transition, which may not only preclude slow build up ice ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere as in the past, but also disintegrate the Greenland Ice Sheet (about 7 meters global sea-level-rise) for the first time in over 430,000 years and also large parts of Antarctic Ice Sheet (tens of meters of additional global sea-level rise). The only question now is how rapidly might these two remaining ice sheets disintegrate, although some modeling suggests as few as a couple hundred years for Geeenland.

So, sure, single-cell life forms may survive such climate changes, as they have been around for 3.8 billion years, but humans will not, as we are an “ice-age species,” with Homosapiens only appearing about 315,000 years ago, well after the last time that the Greenland Ice Sheet disintegrated.

As I said, going solely by the graph we have a time frame cherry-picked to make a point. Believe it or not, most people are intelligent enough to know when they’re being given cherry-picked data with the intent of making them come to a certain conclusion. Why not graph something like CO2 levels being higher and increasing more rapidly than they have since the great oxygenation event of some 2.4 billion years ago (assuming that’s true), to show the true scale? We know that in the past the earth has been both much warmer and much colder than it is now, so why not graph the relationship between CO2 levels and average global temperature over, say, the last billion years?

Just like with politics, the majority of people fall in the center scientifically, with small but not insignificant fringes at either end of the spectrum. With the costs of reversing or even stabilizing climate change being enough to pauperize even the wealthiest nations and partly based on technologies that aren’t fully-developed and in some cases nonexistent, the people in the center whose money will be used for this deserve to see all the data and have unbiased scientists advising their leaders. Having unbiased leaders would be nice as well but that ain’t happening, and scientists make crappy leaders. Sabine Hossenfelder has a number of YouTube videos referring to bias and/or activism amongst scientists.

When you have stuff like this <—link because people will see “Fox” on the pic and automatically dismiss it — going on it’s a little hard to take scientists and other professionals seriously, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Lone Stranger]

I just need someone to post about the liberals using their weather machine to attack NC/TN to steal the land and I'll have a bingo! The age of man is over, the age of the orc arrived, but that doesn't mean we can't laugh about it on the way down.

 

[JoshandBaron]

When you have stuff like this <—link because people will see “Fox” on the pic and automatically dismiss it — going on it’s a little hard to take scientists and other professionals seriously, rightly or wrongly.

There are definitely actors out there who have that as their goal. I'll let you judge what their motivations might be.

 

[bellowthecat]

This guy wants to consider 1000x more years than humans have been alive because only considering the last 50% or so years of human existence is "cherry picking", then in the same breath uses 100 "public health advocates" to paint all scientists as unable to be taken "seriously". This is impressive cognitive dissonance on its own, but coupled with you completely ignoring every single point in the good post by @Dr. Dasypodidae makes this a true masterclass in bad message boarding.

Believe it or not, most people are intelligent enough to know when they’re being given cherry-picked data with the intent of making them come to a certain conclusion.

Yeah, I don't think so. People are extremely easy to manipulate by cherry picking data that fits the conclusions they want to arrive at.

You are plainly not qualified to read the data, let alone make conclusions about it. When did society get like this? When everyone thinks they can be an expert in every field despite having no formal training or even basic fundamentals in math or science?

At this point why don't you just come out and tell us the Bible says the earth is only about 5000 years old and that's all we really need to know about it.

 

[NH2112]

This guy wants to consider 1000x more years than humans have been alive because only considering the last 50% or so years of human existence is "cherry picking", then in the same breath uses 100 "public health advocates" to paint all scientists as unable to be taken "seriously". This is impressive cognitive dissonance on its own, but coupled with you completely ignoring every single point in the good post by @Dr. Dasypodidae makes this a true masterclass in bad message boarding.



Yeah, I don't think so. People are extremely easy to manipulate by cherry picking data that fits the conclusions they want to arrive at.

You are plainly not qualified to read the data, let alone make conclusions about it. When did society get like this? When everyone thinks they can be an expert in every field despite having no formal training or even basic fundamentals in math or science?

At this point why don't you just come out and tell us the Bible says the earth is only about 5000 years old and that's all we really need to know about it.

The length of human existence is irrelevant. If the **** genus had been around 20 million years would it change anything about what’s happening now? 200 million years? Using only the data that makes your point in the strongest possible way is called intellectual dishonesty.

I didn’t “ignore” anything, I just didn’t respond to anything I didn’t or couldn’t disagree with. I didn’t analyze the ice cores or isotope ratios in sedimentary rock so how could I possibly disagree with his CO2 concentration numbers? My sole point of contention with the original post was the cherry-picking of data.

If you’re going to decide who is and isn’t qualified to do something, why don’t you post your CV that gives you the qualifications to make those statements? Probably because you have no such qualifications. You believe in dogma, not science.

 

[skiguy]

Yeah, I don't think so. People are extremely easy to manipulate by cherry picking data that fits the conclusions they want to arrive at.

I disagree. According to who? Where is your data? When debating on an empirical paradigm it is best to stay objective rather than injecting personal opinions. While we are at it. I will agree that data is manipulated to paint the scenario that the beholder wishes to display that best fits their own conclusions. Data is one thing but the way in which it is interpreted and extrapolated is another. That is in itself the conundrum of this discussion.

 

[maineguy]

While we are at it. I will agree that data is manipulated to paint the scenario that the beholder wishes to display that best fits their own conclusions. Data is one thing but the way in which it is interpreted and extrapolated is another.

If you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything.