[Archived] Climate Change

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

"The global annual mean concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere has increased markedly since the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm to 400 ppm as of 2015.The present concentration is the highest in the past 800,000 yearsand likely the highest in the past 20 million years.

"Over the past 400,000 years, CO₂ concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods."

Says it all in my opinion. The effects can be debated, the fact that we're pumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere can't. Pretty sound logical conclusion to make that we're seriously ******* up the planet.

[Steve Moss]

On the 400 ppm of carbon supposed milestone- that's a relatively rare threshold. The earth's atmosphere is frequently well above that (upwards of 7000 ppm). http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

"Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm"

For those who read the qualifying language, there are lots of weaselly words in news reports. For example:

"For the first time in recorded history, the average level of CO2 has topped 400 ppm for an entire month. " http://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-time-in-800000-years-aprils-co2-levels-above-400-ppm/

Here's a clue. Compare "recorded history" with the history of the earth. One is a blink of the eye compared to the other.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Ok so the situation is that the current levels of carbon are definitely out of sync with the systematic rising and falling of the last 800,000 years, and probably out of sync up to 20 million years back, but not unusual for time before that.

You mentioned blink of an eye, well the time between the industrial revolution and now is an immeasurably small amount of time in geological terms. Do you honestly think its likely that ppm of CO2 will have naturally increased from 280 to 400 in absolutely no time at all? As an analogy, say hooligan arrests in the first game of the new season instantly soared to the 1980s level, you wouldn't find that suspicious at all?

Yes this amount of carbon has happened before, but not for a long time. 20 million years is a bit more than a blink of an eye and there were a number of things different about the earth back then that could have contributed.

You mentioned sources, I suggest you take a look at your own. Mine was a wikipedia article referencing 78 sources, completely absent of any noticeable bias. Yours was a 6 year old article written by:

"Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as a evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training."

[Steve Moss]

I'm curious. You seem to impugn Monte Helb's credentials, but he says the exact same thing wiki (your source) says.

"Reconstructions show that concentrations of CO₂ in the atmosphere have varied, ranging from as high as 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

So if the carbon low was 180 ppm 2 million years ago, and the high was 7,000 ppm 500 million years ago, why are we getting worked up because we're at 400 ppm now?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Surely everyone should impugn his credentials, he's lacking in any relevant qualification and works for a mining company!

I'd just be repeating myself if I said why everyone is getting so worked up. The further into the past the comparison is, the less relevant it is. And as I've said, the pace of the increase has been truly ridiculous.

This argument feels to me a lot like the evolution vs intelligent design one. 95-99% of the qualified scientific community think one thing, a few outliers and a sizeable number of biased amateurs think another, and the issue is apparently open for debate. I find it baffling.

[Steve Moss]

Surely everyone should impugn his credentials, he's lacking in any relevant qualification and works for a mining company!

So one must be properly credentialed to intelligently review and opine on data?

We should let such luminaries as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Jefferson, Luis Alvarez, Gregor Mendel, Arthur C Clarke, David Levy, and many others, that their processes, papers, discoveries and theories that are used world-wide should be tossed into the trash heap as they lacked the proper credentials and shouldn't have stepped out of their fields. There's even an English rocket scientist (who's name I forget) who only has a bachelor's degree but is/was considered the best in the world.

Credentials are nice, but at the end of the day it's the brain between the ears that count not the paper hanging on the wall.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

So one must be properly credentialed to intelligently review and opine on data?

We should let such luminaries as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Jefferson, Luis Alvarez, Gregor Mendel, Arthur C Clarke, David Levy, and many others, that their processes, papers, discoveries and theories that are used world-wide should be tossed into the trash heap as they lacked the proper credentials and shouldn't have stepped out of their fields. There's even an English rocket scientist (who's name I forget) who only has a bachelor's degree but is/was considered the best in the world.

Credentials are nice, but at the end of the day it's the brain between the ears that count not the paper hanging on the wall.

I take your point but all those great men tended to quietly investigate and experiment to disprove the mainstream theory before releasing their data and challenging it.

The likes of Monte Hieb do the opposite, they loudly challenge it based on no new data, insights or findings of their own. It could be that his intelligence is so incredibly high that he is able to interpret data better than the vast majority of the global scientific community.

However going off that article and his website, he clearly targets his apparently genius revelatory insights at the laymen, and not at the scientific community. I assume because several members of the scientific community have already dismantled his argument but giving up doesn't fit his clearly biased agenda.

[Baz]

Surely everyone should impugn his credentials, he's lacking in any relevant qualification and works for a mining company!

I'd just be repeating myself if I said why everyone is getting so worked up. The further into the past the comparison is, the less relevant it is. And as I've said, the pace of the increase has been truly ridiculous.

This argument feels to me a lot like the evolution vs intelligent design one. 95-99% of the qualified scientific community think one thing, a few outliers and a sizeable number of biased amateurs think another, and the issue is apparently open for debate. I find it baffling.

Picking holes in theory in order to advance the scientific knowledge is to be encouraged - as long as it is done in the right way. Its easy to pick a tiny fraction of the data and say this doesn't follow the theory, its a different ball game to extrapolate that and say 'its a conspiracy' / 'therefore the whole theory is wrong'.

[Steve Moss]

Here's a short, concise, highly educational video on climate change from Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace:

http://collegeinsurrection.com/2015/07/prager-university-what-they-havent-told-you-about-climate-change/

[Paul]

For the benefit of balance Patrick Moore left Greenpeace 29 years ago in 1986. More can be read on his life on Wiki, the quotes are especially interesting:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

[Mike E]

The rise in CO2 can equally be linked to the rise in cow population (farting), surely? Added methane and all that?

I admit I'm not clued up on the science of chemicals.

I'm one of those who suspects we worry about the tiny ups and downs compared to the simpler and bigger rises and falls in temp caused by our relationship with the Sun over thousands and millions of years.

[ABBEY]

If this summer is global warming then I can't wait for an ice age

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

The rise in CO2 can equally be linked to the rise in cow population (farting), surely? Added methane and all that?

I admit I'm not clued up on the science of chemicals.

I'm one of those who suspects we worry about the tiny ups and downs compared to the simpler and bigger rises and falls in temp caused by our relationship with the Sun over thousands and millions of years.

Would you concede though that your view is by a vast distance the easier option? If you're right we need to nothing. If you're wrong we need to massively, massively change the way we make money.

I'm on the right of the political spectrum, and all for capitalism and business.

But its simply not good business to make Earth uninhabitable. Even the chance that we're doing that should have a cataclysmic impact on the way we currently operate. America's (and the otherwise commendably intelligent Steve Moss') attitude is worrying. However its China that will likely destroy this planet, and I see nobody getting through to them.

[Mike E]

Would you concede though that your view is by a vast distance the easier option? If you're right we need to nothing. If you're wrong we need to massively, massively change the way we make money.

I'm on the right of the political spectrum, and all for capitalism and business.

But its simply not good business to make Earth uninhabitable. Even the chance that we're doing that should have a cataclysmic impact on the way we currently operate. America's (and the otherwise commendably intelligent Steve Moss') attitude is worrying. However its China that will likely destroy this planet, and I see nobody getting through to them.

It's not just the easier option imo. It's the option that has absolute and definitive evidence, taken from data spread over millenia, even geological eras!

The option discussed now (combating global warming) has been an issue for about 20 years...before which global COOLING was the hot topic of scientific debate.

I don't deny climate change, that'd be stupid. I don't deny Global Warming, that'd be stupid. But I think IF we've caused it, it's as much about the rise in human population than anything else.

To that end, I'd remove warning labels from everything and let Darwin take effect.

[Steve Moss]

For the benefit of balance Patrick Moore left Greenpeace 29 years ago in 1986. More can be read on his life on Wiki, the quotes are especially interesting:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

Did he lie in his 5 minute video explaining climate change?

And reading his wiki page (thank you for the link), he sounds like a very honest and sensible environmentalist. He left Greenpeace because it "took a sharp turn to the political left" and "evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas".

If this summer is global warming then I can't wait for an ice age

We're in an ice age, albeit in interglacial period. Per Wiki "we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Mr. Moore's video provides a concise overview of our climate issues.

[Paul]

Steve you're quite correct Moore did not lie and I did not even suggest he did. So why did you raise that as a point.?

Both the way you presented Moore and the way he signed off "co founder of Geeenpeace" ignored that he has had no connection with the organisation for 29 years. No arguing with the fact Moore was very active in Greenpeace but his views and actions of more than 30 years ago should not be passed off as credentials to support the video.

Moore haS turned about face on at least one major issue, having been a fervent anti-nuclear activist in his younger days to now working in and promoting the nuclear industry as the clean safe alternative to fossil fuels. I've no problem with this but it demonstrates his changing views.

For me your selective quoting is damaging your argument. Moore described Greenpeace's shift in policy 30 years ago. How does he describe it today? How does Greenoeace view itself today? Using 30 year old fact and quote doesn't support the argument.

I could play the same game. In the video Moore states:

"To call someone a climate change denier is to intentionally link them to people who deny the holocaust"

If I wanted to ridicule Moore and your post, which I don't, ihe does it for me in one sentence.

[Al]

I think there are two separate discussions here :-

Is the planet getting warmer.

If it is (not proven), is it influenced by human actions (again not proven).

[Steve Moss]

I could play the same game. In the video Moore states:

"To call someone a climate change denier is to intentionally link them to people who deny the holocaust"

If I wanted to ridicule Moore and your post, which I don't, ihe does it for me in one sentence.

But he is correct. Climate change is presented as a future human holocaust by its proponents. They speak in apocalyptic terms (Prince Charles and his cannibal comment is among my favorites). So to deny there is a looming holocaust due to climate change, does implicitly raise the stakes when one is accused of being a climate change denier.

So Moore is right again.

And I'm glad we agree that nuclear energy is a safe and environmentally responsible way to provide our energy needs. Moore is, again, way ahead of the run of the mill environmentalist pack.

I think there are two separate discussions here :-

Is the planet getting warmer.

If it is (not proven), is it influenced by human actions (again not proven).

Three questions:

1. Is the planet getting warmer? Yes.

2. Is this warming primarily man-made or natural? Unknown.

3. Is the warming, regardless of cause, a net detriment or benefit? Unknown.

Moore makes the case that the warming is a net benefit, but I'll be agnostic on the point for now. Though he correctly make the point in another video that modern life began it's evolution to it's current state when there was 10x the amount of carbon in the atmosphere than there is now.

[Paul]

Steve please watch the video you posted by Moore and read the on screen text. Moore is talking about the Holocaust with a capital H.

I could be completely wrong but in my opinion he is suggesting climate change deniers are being linked with those who deny the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were murdered. Perhaps I missing his point but I don't think he's talking about some future holocaust.

Why else would the H be capitalised and what else do people think of when "the Holocaust" is used as a phrase?

[Steve Moss]

Steve please watch the video you posted by Moore and read the on screen text. Moore is talking about the Holocaust with a capital H.

I could be completely wrong but in my opinion he is suggesting climate change deniers are being linked with those who deny the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were murdered. Perhaps I missing his point but I don't think he's talking about some future holocaust.

Why else would the H be capitalised and what else do people think of when "the Holocaust" is used as a phrase?

I understood Moore's point. You misunderstood mine.

The Holocaust killed millions. Some deny it. They are scorned.

Some scientists (97%!) claim the science is settled and man-made climate change is on track to destroy humanity. Some people who can look at data and think for themselves deny it. The "climate change deniers" are scorned.

[Baz]

In the past couple of weeks we have had a fly-by of Pluto, that has given us direct photographic evidence that the surface isn't cratered. That almost certainly means that the surface is actively changing. Previously we have thought through thermodynamic calculation that Pluto is too small and too distant from the sun to still be active.

That is pushing the scientists to come up with reasons why the current theories don't work- pushing the science forward.

Im sure there are extremes of scientists on either side of the debate who will never change their minds, but theres no harm in challenging the consensus as long as it is done in a scientific way. Those who don't believe that humans are affecting the climate just need to provide the evidence the current theory is wrong and what the theory should be instead.

To me picking a few spots on the planet and saying they don't follow the norm isnt compelling evidence to throw out the theory, those citing previous historical temperatures arent dealing with the fact the temperature is changing at an unprecedented rate either. I'm no expert on climate science, but I have faith in science.

[Mike E]

Arrogant as this sounds, my view is that scientists are making a schoolboy error.

They're looking at a correlation and prematurelt shouting 'Ah, causation!'

The carbon emissions and/or ozone data adds nothing to Earth's temperature rising and falling that can't be accounted for in our cycle around the Sun over millenia. That's my view even after some very knowledgeable people tried convincing me otherwise.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Putting this in the widest possible context, at present we've discovered 2,000 exoplanets (planets orbiting other stars) and none so far look even a confident contender for being able to support bacteria. Add in the fact that the galaxy has been around for about 13 billion years, has about 300 billion stars, and there is no evidence anywhere of past interstellar civilisations.

Basically we could be it. And if we're it then that means the conditions to produce a planet like Earth are unimaginably rare.

If you're given something that literally nothing you know of has or has ever had, doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution in looking after it? At best what we're currently doing is taking our unbelievably precious thing, hitting it over and over again and saying "nah its probably not doing much".

That's at best. That's if the climate change deniers are right. If they're wrong we're currently destroying the most valuable thing anywhere for millions of light years. And people got p***** over Cecil the Lion.

[Mike E]

Putting this in the widest possible context, at present we've discovered 2,000 exoplanets (planets orbiting other stars) and none so far look even a confident contender for being able to support bacteria. Add in the fact that the galaxy has been around for about 13 billion years, has about 300 billion stars, and there is no evidence anywhere of past interstellar civilisations.

Basically we could be it. And if we're it then that means the conditions to produce a planet like Earth are unimaginably rare.

If you're given something that literally nothing you know of has or has ever had, doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution in looking after it? At best what we're currently doing is taking our unbelievably precious thing, hitting it over and over again and saying "nah its probably not doing much".

That's at best. That's if the climate change deniers are right. If they're wrong we're currently destroying the most valuable thing anywhere for millions of light years. And people got p***** over Cecil the Lion.

Never thought of it that way tbh. Might knock my TV off standby now

[Steve Moss]

After digging into the models, an engineer discovers while "the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly."

As a result, the impact of man on the climate has been greatly exaggerated.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6