Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 tracksonthetrail
Joined: 12/4/2011
Msg: 1
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?Page 1 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
I've just come from pouring through 'most' of the comments made in the extemsive discussion in this forum on "Timothy Ball and Climate Change Deniers".

I have to wonder how many of the over 700 billion (+) organisms that exist presently on this planet have given the topic of climate change (and climate change deniers) as much attention as we are. Likely not much, and many of these organisms are still thrivin, survivin, and instead of sitting around their leaflet homeranges, most organisms just start adapting faster than hell to keep a toe-hold on this planet, rahter than debating the shit about who'se right, wrong, and what the CC Reality is.

So, lets take a step back from discussions on CO2's relation with temperature, climate monitoring stations, and even the discussions on whose in charge of what companies. Maybe, just maybe, nows a good time to look to the natural world itself for answers and solutions. I think this is where we might be able to put a lot of our unease about climate change to rest. Granted there are PLENTY of VERY shitty activities going on that ARE threatening our very survival, but my question is this:

What can we learn from natural world?

I'm not just talking about 'biomimicry' *though this is a good example.

To get things rolling, I think the first thing we can learn, and that a lot of other folks have learned is self sufficiency, encouragement of community connections, and that 'actions speak louder than words'

ok....GO!
 KWurx
Joined: 10/21/2011
Msg: 2
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/11/2013 2:31:26 PM
The natural world is far from being on the forefront. Very few people care. But to answer your question. We'd learn that free energy exists and our reliance on fossil fuels has nothing to do with sustaining our species but rather sustaining the riches pockets. Like I said, no one cares or at the very least, no one that seems to matter cares.

Weather changes, has changed and will continue to change. Unless we start caring a little more Earth might just have to fix itself by ridding itself of the disease that is us.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/11/2013 2:58:10 PM
Tons to learn from the natural world.

First and foremost, we aren't special. We're critters just like every other critter, and far more have gone extinct than survived. Some went extinct due to their own mistakes, some via external factors. In global life history terms, we haven't been around all that long and are still in the process of sorting out whether there's a place for us here.

We strut and fluff and act like we own the place, but the planet doesn't care. Ultimately it will "win". It's up to us if we want to play on the winning team.

What we can learn from other survivors is to find and foster our niche, not seek to conquer all. Adapt. Change. Move if need be.
 Zamboni_Operator
Joined: 11/20/2012
Msg: 4
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/11/2013 8:17:24 PM
HEY!!! We need to focus on the pros of global warming (1) huge stimulus to the moving industry, housing construction, & real estate business, because of coastal areas being flooded - making millions of people move inland (2) inland real estate will boom in value as it becomes oceanfront & ocean-view. (3) ocean sports previously unavailable to inland towns will suddenly be at their doorstep, providing new recreational opportunities for those families. These are just a few of the many benefits. Think positive! Don't be a pessimist about Global warming - the glass will be half full, not half empty!
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 5
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/12/2013 6:51:51 AM

" ... I have to wonder how many of the over 700 billion (+) organisms that exist presently on this planet have given the topic of climate change (and climate change deniers) as much attention as we are. ... "


The correct answer as to the number of organisms possessed of sentience so as to properly ( ahem ) 'consider' the hypocritical self-serving anti-science farce known as 'climate change' (previously: 'anthropogenic global warming') is precisely: ZERO. I'm still in a state of disbelief that such a question is even capable of being formulated, much less asked openly in a public forum with an apparently straight face. The fact it can be conceived and, then, asked is testament to the limits some people impose on their ability to deal with reality. This is 'magic-fairy-thinking' at its best - or worst. Need an example ... ? "Oh Mummy! Please let's ask Mister Earthworm his thoughts on being made extinct by that horrible Climate Change and how we can stop it all! He's wise - he'll tell us the truth!" Please note - this is what is implied by the question (above). 'Mister Earthworm' is simply a device used for illustrative purpose.

'Climate Change' is nothing more than the newest NeuroLinguistic Programming catchphrase used to gull dull-witted sheeple into believing non-science advanced in the cause of a self-serving political agenda which goes unbelieved by even its own founder. He, at least, has enough insight to know better than to believe his own story. It's the Birkenstock-and-Vulvo crowd who buy into his 'The sky is falling! We're all gonna dieeeeeee!' bullshit. Tell you what: Next time you screw in one of those crappy little pig-tail Compact Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) and then biitch about how poor the light is, how much it buzzes, how pricey they are, or that you've automatically created a Hazardous Materials incident when you drop and break one, thank the 'Climate Change' and 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' crowd - but don't get pissed 'cuz, hey, it's all about saving 'Holy Mutha the Urf' and her billions and billions and billions of non-sentient organisms going blithely about their day without disturbing their weltanschaüung because they are unable to be so brilliant as to formulate fake concern over a non-existent 'threat'.

Oh: Who ever said 'change' is necessarily - or always - for the better ... ? We're now experiencing the end result of a campaign which promised 'change' ... how's that workin' out for ya? At least you still have 'hope' ... right ... ?
 KWurx
Joined: 10/21/2011
Msg: 6
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/12/2013 11:22:05 AM
That gaping hole that our ozone layer once had is gone. It's been fixed and we have no idea how. Thus it's inconceivable to think CO2 emissions are still causing it. That's not to say it was the cause at one point though. The Earth is much older than our recorded history can attest to. Observations tells us that everything goes through cycles of some sort so why should the Earth be any different?

The Earth becomes 'polluted' over time. It goes through a cycle where it heats up to the point the polar caps melt. All those good minerals, air, etc stored in the ice are released onto Earth and its atmosphere. Pollution gone, rinse and repeat.
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 7
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/12/2013 11:42:22 AM

" ... Kings_Knight:

I have asked this before in these forums. Given that satellites have detected a decrease in outbound radiation at greenhouse gas absorption wavelengths, mainly such wavelengths as those associated with CO2, water vapour and methane, while other wavelengths, particularly those in the atmospheric window, remain relatively unchanged what do you propose the current warming is caused by? Do you even acknowledge it is warming? Humans emit over 33.5 gigatonnes of CO2 annually while the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of 15.6 gigatonnes annually. Nature emits over 10x the amount humans emit but has increased it's uptake to absorb all it emits as well as half of what humans emit in attempt to maintain equilibrium via Le Chatelier's Principal. Given this, how do you propose then CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere if the oceans pH level is decreasing at the same time? All I see you doing is calling those that think differently than you names. I don't see any science in your post at all. Actually I see you complaining about CFL lightbulbs, which do not emit CO2, and from that claiming that the climate science regarding global warming is full of falsehoods. Here's an idea, how about actually learning what you are trying to argue against first? ... "


You work(-ed) for the IPCC, didn't you ... ?

I don't try to convince you 'True Believer' types of anything 'coz it's impossible.

By the way, it's 'Le Chatelier's PRINCIPLE' ... If you can make a mistake as elemental as this simple misspelling while simultaneously misunderstanding that words actually mean things, your 'understanding' about that of which you profess to have some self-awarded measure of 'expertise' is therefore automatically called into question. You should beware being so glutinous with self-approbation.

principal (adj.)
Late 13c., from O.Fr. principal (11c.), from L. principalis "first in importance," from princeps (see prince). The noun is c.1300 in the sense of "ruler;" mid-14c. in the sense of "money on which interest is paid;" 1827 as "person in charge of a public school," though meaning "head of a college or hall" was in English from mid-15c., and the basic sense of "chief, commander, ruler" is recorded from late 14c.
 Proteaus
Joined: 6/9/2009
Msg: 8
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/12/2013 2:43:57 PM
Climate change won't give more weather, it will give more intense weather.Look how large the hurricanes are in the gulf of mexico are now . Scariest part will be the snow ball effect . the more it warms up the faster it will warm up and it is probably past the point of no return unless they take some very drastic action . Such as pumping billions of metric tons of pollution into the atmosphere to block out the sun etc. Also as the earth warms the phytoplankton in the ocean may be at risk . The phytoplankton generates half the breathable oxygen on the planet , so kill the ocean and the planet dies.
Besides it isn't profitable to save the planet . in this new age of the bottom line for profit , if it isn't profitable it wont get done .Shows just short sighted the people at the top are.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 9
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/12/2013 9:49:19 PM

You work(-ed) for the IPCC, didn't you ... ?


Who do you work for? Koch?


I don't try to convince you 'True Believer' types of anything 'coz it's impossible.

Ahh,,, that explains why you often post at length on topics like this without any of it being meaningful or particularly relevant. Got it.


By the way, it's 'Le Chatelier's PRINCIPLE' ... If you can make a mistake as elemental as this simple misspelling while simultaneously misunderstanding that words actually mean things, your 'understanding' about that of which you profess to have some self-awarded measure of 'expertise' is therefore automatically called into question. You should beware being so glutinous with self-approbation.

Your "self-awarded measure of 'expertise'" on the thread topic is somewhat "called into question" by your tendency to focus on trivial side issues that signify very little.

What is significant though is that your "self-awarded measure of 'expertise'" on the topic of correct spelling is "called into question" by your failure to note that 'principal/principle' often appear in lists of commonly misspelled words. It follows that disqualifying an entire argument on the basis of such a common misspelling is a demonstration of laziness, or stupidity. Or both.

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/spelling-and-word-lists/misspelled.html
100 Most Often Misspelled Words in English

Perhaps "You should beware being so" smugly "glutinous with" sly, though ill concealed "self-approbation".
Either that, or lift your game and render the self-laudatory tone of your posts justified.

It'll be a very steep ascent, given the starting position.


It's the Birkenstock-and-Vulvo crowd who buy into his 'The sky is falling! We're all gonna dieeeeeee!' bullshit.

Ignoring the lack of substantive argument and attempted smear via mischaracterisation, the implication of some hippie conspiracy is misplaced, It's an odd circumstance that so many conservative the-government-is-out-to-get-us conspiracy theorists think their own deranged whacko doom forecasts are examples of 'valid and balanced rational thinking' yet they so often perceive wild conspiracies everywhere else - even in the face of compelling and voluminous evidence that contradicts them.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/01/28/climate-denying-trolls-trained-to-disrupt-internet/


http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming.
Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

Read more -
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


http://kestrel.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph332/notes/energyflows/energyflows.pdf


http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
The amount of carbon dioxide,for example, has increased by more than 30% since pre-industrial times and is still increasing at an unprecedented rate of on average 0.4% per year, mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. We know that this increase is anthropogenic because the changing isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 betrays the fossil origin of the increase.


http://co2now.org/

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The graph shows recent monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii.



http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
Global Climate Change - Key Indicators
Carbon Dioxide - Global Temperature - Arctic Sea Ice - Land Ice - Sea Level

Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions.
The chart on the left shows the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores. The chart on the right shows CO2 levels in recent years, corrected for average seasonal cycles.

Global Temperature
This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS) The gray error bars represent the uncertainty on measurements. This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration.

The time series at right shows the progression of changing global surface temperatures from 1884 to 2010. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average.

Arctic Sea Ice
September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 11.5 percent per decade, relative to the 1979 to 2000 average. Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. The graph above shows the average monthly Arctic sea ice extent in September from 1979 to 2010, derived from satellite observations. The September 2010 extent was the third lowest in the satellite record.

The time series at right shows the annual Arctic sea ice minimum since 1979, based on satellite observations.

Land Ice
Data from NASA's Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica (left chart) has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

The time series at right shows average ice mass changes in Greenland each year for the month of September. Purple and blue colors indicate the areas and amount of ice loss, and white and red indicates areas of ice gain. The measurements are calculated in terms of centimeters of equivalent water height change per year.

Sea Level
Sea level rise is caused by two factors related to global warming: the added water coming from the melting of land ice, and the expansion of sea water as it warms up. The chart on the left shows historical sea level data derived from coastal tide gauge records (trend calculated using the linear regression method). The chart on the right shows the average sea level since 1993 derived from global satellite measurements.

The time series at right shows average annual sea-surface height variations. Red and yellow are regions where sea level is higher than normal; purple and dark blue show where sea level is lower.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects
http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population
The microscopic plants that form the foundation of the ocean's food web are declining, reports a study published July 29 in Nature.
The tiny organisms, known as phytoplankton, also gobble up carbon dioxide to produce half the world's oxygen output—equaling that of trees and plants on land.
But their numbers have dwindled since the dawn of the 20th century, with unknown consequences for ocean ecosystems and the planet's carbon cycle.
The scientists believe that rising sea surface temperatures are to blame.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=average-global-temperature-rise-creates-new-normal
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=co2-rising-follow-the-bouncing-carb-09-01-28

And the local perspective -

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/understanding-climate-change.aspx
Climate change science

Climate change is a change in the average pattern of weather over a long period of time.
There is clear evidence that our climate is changing, largely due to human activities. The Fourth Assessment Report, produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, states global warming is 'unequivocal' and 'most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations'.

In other words, there is overwhelming evidence for human-made global warming.

The IPCC report represents the international consensus on climate change science from literature that has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals.

There are multiple lines of evidence that show the Earth's climate system is warming. These include increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.

When scientists talk about climate change they mean warming of the climate system as a whole, which includes the atmosphere, the oceans, and the cryosphere (ice, snow and frozen ground). The evidence clearly indicates that the climate system is continuing to warm, including increasing land temperatures, warming oceans and melting snow and ice.

Climate change is not just about global warming. The science indicates that the climate will be altered in many other ways. For example, there will be changes in rainfall patterns and ocean currents, changes to the intensity and frequency of extreme events such as storms, droughts and floods, rising global sea level and ocean acidification.


,
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 10
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/13/2013 10:40:41 AM
I generally don't bother to respond to EnviRite poseurs because their tactic is to arrive at their conclusion first and then fit the 'science' to it so it appears - to the unschooled - to be legitimate … but it's not. That said, this will be my only reply to your secondary point about 'ocean acidification' … I have no plans to address the quasi-'science' you present as a 'case' for the overly-politicized and irrelevant matter of 'Climate Change'.

First, a definition of the term 'acidity', the prime requisite for 'Ocean Acidification':

“Acidity” is the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) in a liquid. pH is the scale on which this concentration is generally measured. The fundamental chemistry of the ocean carbon system (including the presence of calcium carbonate minerals on the ocean shelf and slope floor that can slowly dissolve and help neutralize some of the CO2), prevents the oceans from becoming acidic on a global scale. The weathering of continental rocks increases the alkalinity of seawater, which increases its ability to counteract pH decreases.

Let's not overlook a connecting timeline, tho': The ocean acidification problem was first predicted explicitly in the early 1970s. Why, golly - this is when the EnviRite crowd was busy telling us we were about to experience another Ice Age. Please - if you're going to lie to us, have the decency to keep your stories contiguous and consistent.

The flawed major premise on which ocean acidification rests is based refers specifically to the lowering of ocean pH resulting from its absorption of human-released CO2 from the atmosphere or by other chemical additions caused either by natural processes or human activity. See, there is really no difference between this and the 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' / 'We're all gonna dieeeeee!' flawed premise based on human causation of every evil which dares threaten 'Holy Mutha the Urf'.

In the EnviRite playbook, the root cause of everything affecting the 'Holy Mutha' is rising atmospheric CO2 released by human combustion of fossil fuels. Let's just overlook the fact that there is no such thing as a 'fossil fuel'. Oil is an abiotic product, produced independently of rotted dinosaur carcasses and decomposed plants. Additionally, there are no fossils found in the mis-named 'fossil fuel' extracted.

Finally: Even if all the known recoverable reserves of coal, oil and natural gas were to be burned over the next two centuries, it still would not release enough carbon dioxide to make the surface oceans become acidic.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 11
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/13/2013 4:32:10 PM
It's January 13, 2013 in my hometown.
5 years ago, I guarantee you there was snow. Today there was rain.
We're maybe 10 degrees Celcius warmer than ten years ago.
Anyone who says the Earth isn't warming is an idiot.

For those with the brains to comprehend what's being said here, I offer this up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8-ag2mAoWk
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 12
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/13/2013 7:56:29 PM

I think the two posters above need to draw a distinction between what is weather and what is climate. Climate refers to the average weather and other variables over a 30 year time period. what you two are talking about is weather not climate and you're talking about local weather not global climate.


You're right.

Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html


I did mention time, but I failed on space.

This VVV does not.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 13
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/14/2013 2:27:37 PM
Funny how I can take a many months break from the forums and come back to the same folk saying the same things. Paul keeps pretending he has never heard the answer to the CO2 lag question, even though he keeps getting the same answer every time he asks. KK keeps accusing others of practices he's far more apt to use himself.

I'm grateful others are stepping up to provide the science answers. It saves me the trouble of digging up citations to provide to those who think they know more about climate science than climate scientists do.

I would point out, though, that the diminished CFC's leading to shrinking the ozone hole were the direct result of a successful cap and trade system, as was the solution to the acid rain problem. And that the concept of cap and trade was developed by the Reagan administration, about as far removed as you can get from a hippie conspiracy.

As pointed out, it matters little what happens in any particular back yard. It's what's happening on a global scale over statistically significant time spans that really tells the tale. Climate change is happening, and will be happening to a much greater extent, so our ability to adapt combined with whatever steps we can muster the will to take to minimize our negative impacts will determine how comfy of an existence humans will have at the end of this century.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 14
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 8:53:51 AM

Funny how I can take a many months break from the forums and come back to the same folk saying the same things. Paul keeps pretending he has never heard the answer to the CO2 lag question, even though he keeps getting the same answer every time he asks. KK keeps accusing others of practices he's far more apt to use himself.


Yes, that is 'funny'.
In the same way that this is - http://climatecrocks.com/2011/01/28/climate-denying-trolls-trained-to-disrupt-internet/
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 15
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 9:03:35 AM

I have no plans to address the quasi-'science' you present as a 'case' for the overly-politicized and irrelevant matter of 'Climate Change'.

"Quasi-'science'" you say? Like all these whacko fruitcakes you mean?

Australian Bureau Of Meteorology
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf

In light of the above, one suspects the reason you have "no plans to address" any of the evidence, or the science behind it, is because you can't refute or challenge it on any intelligent or reasoned level, so you ignore the evidence and attack the messengers instead.
Furiously trying to discredit the sources might fool the gullible, it worked on you after all, but it won't fool the well informed.

It's notable in this ^^^ regard, that you yourself cite no references, produce no evidence, and rely on slightly hysterical sounding rhetoric and fevered ad hominems. Meanwhile, presumably to distract from the emptiness of your vacuous assertions, you try to mischaracterise the debate, and the issue.

This short representative passage from your most recent post (post #17), quite amazingly, illustrates all of the above.

The flawed major premise on which ocean acidification rests is based refers specifically to the lowering of ocean pH resulting from its absorption of human-released CO2 from the atmosphere or by other chemical additions caused either by natural processes or human activity. See, there is really no difference between this and the 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' / 'We're all gonna dieeeeee!' flawed premise based on human causation of every evil which dares threaten 'Holy Mutha the Urf'.

In the EnviRite playbook, the root cause of everything affecting the 'Holy Mutha' is rising atmospheric CO2 released by human combustion of fossil fuels.

^^^ No citations, and no evidence to support your claims, a few vague ad hominens, rounded off with a vacuous assertion that mischaracterises the issue, and the debate.



All of which is surprising, considering that some of the phrases you use in that recent post are remarkably similar to phrases appearing on this website -

http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112176

For instance, you say -
The ocean acidification problem was first predicted explicitly in the early 1970s.

And they say -
The ocean acidification problem was first predicted explicitly in the early 1970s...


You also say -
Even if all the known recoverable reserves of coal, oil and natural gas were to be burned over the next two centuries, it still would not release enough carbon dioxide to make the surface oceans become acidic.

Where they say -
If all of the known recoverable reserves of coal, oil and natural gas are burned over the next two centuries it still does not release enough carbon dioxide to make the surface oceans become acidic.


What a coincidence hey?

Except they go on to say a bit more, probably important stuff, that you mustn't have, like independently, thought of yet.
Interestingly, other parts that you didn't quote without attribution, oops! I mean think up by yourself just yet... add crucial information to the parts you, coincidentally, invented.

I'm sure you'll want to be reading it all, since they've obviously thought along exactly the same lines as you, Except they've gone further.

Their full passage reads -
http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112176

If all of the known recoverable reserves of coal, oil and natural gas are burned over the next two centuries it still does not release enough carbon dioxide to make the surface oceans become acidic.
Moreover, the fundamental chemistry of the ocean carbon system, including the presence of calcium carbonate minerals on the ocean shelf and slope floor that can slowly dissolve and help neutralize some of the CO2, prevents the oceans from becoming acidic on a global scale. However, if we also consider the vast stores of methane hydrates in ocean sediments, which can become unstable as ocean temperatures warm, the picture may change. If there were to be a massive release of methane from these sedimentary hydrates, the oxidation and subsequent production of CO2 could be enough for some regions of the ocean to actually become acidic (Caldeira and Wickett 2005). —C.L. Sabine, J. Mathis, R. Feely


This relates 'ocean acidification' as well, (the whole website does) -
http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112136
How much has CO2 already decreased pH and how much change is expected?
Surface ocean pH has fallen by about 0.11 pH unit since the Industrial Revolution. Computer models forecast a drop of 0.3-0.4 pH units more by the end of the century if we continue to burn fossil fuels as we are today.

Scientists estimate that surface ocean pH has fallen by about 0.11 pH units from preindustrial times to today. Because pH is a measure of hydrogen ion concentration and the pH scale is logarithmic — for a decrease of 1 pH unit, the hydrogen ion concentration increases by a factor of 10 — a 0.11-unit pH decrease is equivalent to about a 29% increase in the ocean hydrogen ion concentration.
If we continue on the expected trajectory for fossil-fuel use and rising atmospheric CO2, pH is likely to drop by 0.3-0.4 units by the end of the 21st century and increase ocean hydrogen ion concentration (or acidity) by 100-150% above what it was in preindustrial times.



This ^^^ is all rather interesting, and in more ways than one. I mean,not that I'm saying you are, but it looks as though you are cherry picking quotes and fitting the 'science' as it were, to your predetermined conclusion so that it appears legitimate.
Which is, funnily enough, exactly the thing you dismissively accused other people of doing.

I generally don't bother to respond to EnviRite poseurs because their tactic is to arrive at their conclusion first and then fit the 'science' to it so it appears - to the unschooled - to be legitimate …
(my emphasis)

Gosh! Those nasty corrupt and dishonest "EnviRite poseurs" must have no shame.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 16
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 9:13:49 AM
Yeah, there have been times when I've tangled online with people I suspected to be part of a concentrated climate change denial movement, but I don't think that's the case with these two, who are regular contributors here on all sorts of topics. I am more suspicious of those who pounce on any news article that in any way references climate change or global warming and fill the reader comment sections with disinformation, yet you never see them contribute on any other topics. Over the years there have been one or two trolls here doing exactly that.

I do know that for a time Exxon was offering cash rewards to anyone who could get a peer reviewed article published questioning the human role in a warming planet, yet often denialists try to use a follow the money argument to question legitimate science.

But I also recognize that there are people who just genuinely don't believe the overwhelming weight of science supporting AGW. Whether they think it's some shady conspiracy or latch on to a single point like CO2 lag or that a single paper contemplating the potential for cooling rather than warming due to particulates was published decades ago and even though it never was widely accepted somehow they argue that scientists are flip flopping on the issue.

So sure, there may be some people out there who actually get paid to play ostrich and vocally bury their heads in the sand, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt before accusing them of having dishonorable motivations. Some people just see the world through different lenses.
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 17
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 12:22:10 PM
wvwaterfall referred to climate science (sic) as "legitimate science."

I will believe your attribution if, and only if, you can show specifically how the "science" of AGW can be falsified, and; if you can convince me that a "science" is legit which demonizes opponents, refuses to share data and methods, and attempts to stop differing views from being published, and; if you can explain why a science which has failed miserably with so many of its predictions and (extremely unscientific) scenarios should nevertheless be given a pass for said failures and still be called a "science."

Absent clear and convincing evidence of the above, I'm just gonna have to continue to believe that the UN is a political organization with political goals, and science is a high and honorable calling, and never the twain shall meet.

RPL
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 18
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 1:28:43 PM
All right, rpl, for the sake of argument I'll avoid reference to any organization specifically formed to investigate climate change, pro or con. Never mind that the IPCC has consistently UNDERESTIMATED how soon we would see what results, as witness more rapid ice sheet loss, sea level rise, and global temperature rise than their early predictions indicated. Never mind all that. Let's just look at national and international science organizations whose principle focus is NOT climate change, have strong track records in other aspects of science, and never the less have issued statements endorsing the human role in a warming planet. Here you go:


Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Biology, UK
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

Now let's look at the list of nationally or internationally recognized science organizations that have issued statements challenging the human role in a warming planet......

Oops, there aren't any.

Certainly there are independent scientists with dissenting opinions, most of whom differ on the degree of human influence, not whether there is any at all, but not one of them has been able to sufficiently impress their peers with the quality of their science to elicit a single statement from a single national or international science organization disputing the human role in climate change.

I did my best to purge the above list of any organizations directly associated with the UN or whose principal focus was only climate change, but I might have missed one or two. It's a long list.

However you want to define legitimate science, it's hard to believe that so many science organizations would endorse an indefensible scientific position, while NO organizations challenge it, other than the smattering of controversial lists circulated by groups who clearly DO have a specific anti AGW agenda.

'nuff said
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 19
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 5:41:30 PM
Oh come on Paul, your reading comprehension is better than that.

The co2 lag has been explained to you many times, most recently here in this thread. It is not ignored by any of the groups I listed. It's understood. If you had any real interest in understanding it you'd research it yourself. Google is your friend.

Read my last post again. I made no claim that no scientists differ with the majority. I said that those who differed were unable to make a convincing argument to their peers. There certainly are dissenters. But they, like you, are unable to put together a compelling case.

The global cooling theory was based on the proven cooling effect of particulates in the atmosphere. The warming effect of co2 was already well known but the concern was that we were putting so many other pollutants into the atmosphere that there would be more cooling than warming. It was never a majority position. No science organizations issued statements endorsing it. But Newsweek picked up on it and brought it to the attention of the public. If we were to have a really large volcanic eruption ( like Yellowstone) it would create a cooling effect that would interrupt the current warming trend for a year or two, but then the warming would resume.

All of this is easy to research. Almost as easy as reading what has already been written in this thread.
 rpl55
Joined: 3/22/2009
Msg: 20
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 6:32:24 PM
Oh come on wvwaterfall, your reading comprehension is better than that. Or did you deliberately avoid my questions?

The list you provided, while boring, does not respond in any way to my questions. I don't care about votes, I don't give a shit about belief, I don't care how many misguided articles you present - I want science.

wvwaterfall said:


However you want to define legitimate science,...


How about YOU define "legitimate science" for us? Stretch it as far as you like - climate pseudo-science still won't fit.

If it is not falsifiable, it ain't science. So, show us how to falsify climate "science." If you can't (you can't), we will know that you, wvwaterfall, do not know if climate science is legitimate at all. We will know that your belief in the political sham that is climate "science" is based on emotion, not science.

Prove me wrong - show us how to falsify climate "science," or we will all know that you are lying.

RPL
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 21
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:12:13 PM
'Anthropogenic Global Warming' [sic] was first advanced as an 'issue' by AlGorezeera. You know, the flatulent gasbag liar who just sold his failed 'Current TV' to Al-Jazeera so they can continue promoting falsehoods and lies in English. AlGorezeera also advanced his flawed premise(-s) through the pious fiction he titled 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The real inconvenient truth is that 'AGW' - or any of its other cover names - is bullshit 'science' that is carefully tailored after the fact to fit conclusions drawn before the fact. If it ain't disprovable, it ain't a valid theory ...

Oh - remember that AlGorezeera would never appear on-stage with anyone to dispute his flawed 'theory'. He generally let his lead flunky and front man, Dr James Hansen (shamefully associated with NASA) do his dirty work. Never try to out-argue a 'True Believer'. You'll only get your blood pressure up without accomplishing a thing.

For those not familiar with how science works, here's a crash course:

The Scientific Method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon. e.g. I turned on my desk light, but nothing happened.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. The hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. This requires creative thinking. e.g. I think the filament in the bulb is broken and this prevents current from flowing through it causing the filament not to glow with heat. NOT e.g. The light doesn't work because I forgot to say the magic words: Klaatu barada nikto. The mechanism should be plausible. NOT e.g. I think gnomes are eating all the light as fast as it is produced.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. This requires critical thinking. e.g. If the bulb is placed in a fixture known to be working, then no light will be produced.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. e.g. The bulb did not light in a fixture that was known to work.

You have NOT PROVED the hypothesis is correct. You just have more confidence in your hypothesis after the test. It still might be wrong. e.g. The bulb might have a dirty contact which prevents current from flowing.

You can NEVER PROVE the hypothesis correct, but if your hypothesis passes test after test after test, you can be more certain of the hypothesis.

HYPOTHESIS > MODEL > "THEORY" > LAW > FACT

The word "theory" in the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc.) does NOT mean the same as "theorem" in mathematics. A mathematical theorem can be proven deductively to be absolutely true. Theories in the physical sciences may be disproven by a single counter-example at any time. OR e.g. The bulb did work in a second fixture.

This result DISPROVED the hypothesis. Try a different hypothesis. Repeat steps 2, 3, and 4. Hypotheses that are not in principle disprovable are not in the purview of science.

e.g. Invisible gnomes that can not be detected in any way are eating the light.

This can not be disproved by any test; it is a CONSTRUCT. It's worthless as a hypothesis. You learn nothing about bulbs, nothing about gnomes, nothing about anything.

And so it goes for 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' and 'climate change' ...
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 22
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:46:09 PM
Gentlemen. Legitimate science consists of theories developed through diligent application of the scientific method. Look it up if you don't know what that entails. The organizations I listed would not endorse any scientific theory unless they were convinced it represented valid application of the scientific method. Exactly zero comparable science organizations have rejected AGW. If any of you have competing theories you're welcome to submit your findings to any peer reviewed journal and see how it stands up. Merely throwing out unsupported claims that the vast majority of the science community is more interested in politics than science certainly is NOT legitimate science.

The scientists in the seventies knew plenty. That's why most of them then did not support the cooling theory. Scientists today know more. Scientists tomorrow will know more yet. That's how science works. Co2 as a greenhouse gas was proposed before evolution was. Research and observations have only strengthened that position ever since. AGW isn't a fad, isn't a temporary position. It certainly isn't a political movement, any more than nuclear energy, space travel, or computers were. All represent scientific progress that political leaders responded to, not invented out of whole cloth.

So feel free to accept or reject whatever you want. Just don't claim a position as representing legitimate science unless you're prepared to put it to the test of scrutiny from legitimate scientists who DO believe in the value of the scientific method.

(Edit) while I was typing kk did us the courtesy of sharing a nice definition of the scientific method. Unfortunately he seems to think al gore was the first person to propose the concept of AGW. That's ridiculous I'm not even a scientist, but went to see al gores rather mediocre movie with pen and paper prepared to take notes, but didn't hear anything I hadn't already learned through monitoring the journals for the previous decade or so, as I was a latecomer to the issue. Al gore isn't a scientist and I would never cite him as an authority. I, like he, simply cite scientists who ARE authorities.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 23
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/15/2013 9:03:00 PM

Anthropogenic Global Warming' [sic] was first advanced as an 'issue' by AlGorezeera. You know, the flatulent gasbag liar who just sold his failed 'Current TV' to Al-Jazeera so they can continue promoting falsehoods and lies in English.

Never let the facts get in the way of an almost believable misdirection, especially when it leads to such an attractive non-sequitur.

But the 'inconvenient truth' [/snicker] is quite different


http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm
Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming.

He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15C because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5C temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.

After the discoveries of Arrhenius and Chamberlin the topic was forgotten for a very long time. At that time it was thought than human influences were insignificant compared to natural forces, such as solar activity and ocean circulation. It was also believed that the oceans were such great carbon sinks that they would automatically cancel out our pollution. Water vapor was seen as a much more influential greenhouse gas.

In the 1940's there were developments in infrared spectroscopy for measuring long-wave radiation. At that time it was proven that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulted in more absorption of infrared radiation. It was also discovered that water vapor absorbed totally different types of radiation than carbon dioxide. Gilbert Plass summarized these results in 1955. He concluded that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would intercept infrared radiation that is otherwise lost to space, warming the earth.

In the late 1950's and early 1960's Charles Keeling used the most modern technologies available to produce concentration curves for atmospheric CO2 in Antarctica and Mauna Loa....
The curves showed a downward trend of global annual temperature from the 1940's to the 1970's. At the same time ocean sediment research showed that there had been no less than 32 cold-warm cycles in the last 2,5 million years, rather than only 4. Therefore, fear began to develop that a new ice age might be near. The media and many scientists ignored scientific data of the 1950's and 1960's in favor of global cooling.

In the 1980's, finally, the global annual mean temperature curve started to rise. People began to question the theory of an upcoming new ice age. In the late 1980's the curve began to increase so steeply that the global warming theory began to win terrain fast...
Stephen Schneider had first predicted global warming in 1976. This made him one of the world's leading global warming experts.

In 1988 it was finally acknowledged that climate was warmer than any period since 1880. The greenhouse effect theory was named and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was founded by the United Nations Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization.
This organization tries to predict the impact of the greenhouse effect according to existing climate models and literature information. The Panel consists of more than 2500 scientific and technical experts from more than 60 countries all over the world. The scientists are from widely divergent research fields including climatology, ecology, economics, medicine, and oceanography. The IPCC is referred to as the largest peer-reviewed scientific cooperation project in history.

In the 1990's scientists started to question the greenhouse effect theory, because of major uncertainties in the data sets and model outcomes. They protested the basis of the theory, which was data of global annual mean temperatures. They believed that the measurements were not carried out correctly and that data from oceans was missing. Cooling trends were not explained by the global warming data and satellites showed completely different temperature records from the initial ones. The idea began to grow that global warming models had overestimated the warming trend of the past 100 years. This caused the IPCC to review their initial data on global warming, but this did not make them reconsider whether the trend actually exists.
We now know that 1998 was globally the warmest year on record, followed by 2002, 2003, 2001 and 1997.
The 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1990.


The climate records of the IPCC are still contested by many other scientists, causing new research and frequent responses to skeptics by the IPCC. This global warming discussion is still continuing today and data is constantly checked and renewed. Models are also updated and adjusted to new discoveries and new theory.

So far not many measures have been taken to do something about climate change. This is largely caused by the major uncertainties still surrounding the theory. But climate change is also a global problem that is hard to solve by single countries.

From 1998 onwards the terminology on the greenhouse effect started to change as a result of media influences. The greenhouse effect as a term was used fewer and fewer and people started to refer to the theory as either global warming or climate change.

Source: Maslin, M., Global Warming, a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004
(abridged - full version here - http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm)


For anyone that bothered to read all that ^^^ (it's worth it, since it not only gives the true timeline, it incidentally describes how science actually works) here's the punchline...
Recall that it was in rebuttal to the claim, and associated misdirections, fallacies, and non-sequiturs, that "Anthropogenic Global Warming' [sic] was first advanced as an 'issue' by AlGorezeera".

The fact is... "AlGorezeera" only became prominent in this issue in 2006.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 documentary film directed by Davis Guggenheim about former United States Vice President Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show...

(It premiered) at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opening in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006,




The real inconvenient truth is that 'AGW' - or any of its other cover names - is bullshit 'science' that is carefully tailored after the fact to fit conclusions drawn before the fact.

Irony at its finest ^^^
One need only read the timeline above to see how your personal conception of 'science' is "tailored", some might say perverted, to "fit conclusions" you fixedly hold.
Meanwhile, real science moves on. The process described, in passing, in the timeline above actually conforms to your definition of 'The Scientific Method'.
Observation - Hypothesis - Prediction - Test - Repeat Endlessly

So... do you have any real facts to offer, or is misdirection, distortion, and hysterical rhetoric, combined with senseless non-sequiturs the best you can do?
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 24
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/16/2013 8:59:57 PM
One sometimes finds comedy in the most unexpected places.


My question to you and others, is very simple, yet all you seem to be able to do is to tell others to do your research for you..........

This ^^^ is the opposite of what is occurring.
It's notable that you cite no references, provide no evidence, and ignore requests to support your numerous wild claims.

Other people are doing research, and posting references to answer the 'simple' questions you keep asking. Over and over.
They are 'doing the research' for you. It's unfortunate, on many levels, that you seem unable to comprehend it, no matter how 'simply' it's put.
 lyingcheat
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 25
view profile
History
If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?
Posted: 1/16/2013 9:05:42 PM

I have a tendency to look at things from a simpler "show me" type of angle.

Really? It looks more like a simple 'I won't look at it, so I can ask the same already-answered questions over and over' angle.


Personally, I would rather see the average temperature go up a few degrees.

Do you have any comprehension of what that means? 'Earth climate' is an enormous, and complex, system involving land surface, all of the oceans, and parts of the atmosphere.
The amount of energy required to lift the global 'average temperature' by 'a few degrees' is mind boggling - and it won't just sit there in the system gently ripening grapes and helping you with your tan.
Energy, where enormous amounts of it are present, has a tendency to express itself.


Well, nothing bad except that now we have longer growing seasons, and more crops are raised. Yeah, that would be awful for a hungry world.


R i g h t . . . I'm starting to see the implications of your tendency to look at things 'from a simpler angle'.
Much research has been done on the effect elevated CO2 has on plants. One wonders if you're so keen on the 'show me' angle why you haven't looked at any of it.


http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
Effects of Rising Atmospheric Concentrations of Carbon Dioxide on Plants
Summary
Current evidence suggests that that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 predicted for the year 2100 will have major implications for plant physiology and growth. Under elevated CO2 most plant species show higher rates of photosynthesis, increased growth, decreased water use and lowered tissue concentrations of nitrogen and protein.


What this ^^^ means, put 'simply' to 'show you', is that with increasing CO2 plants tend to grow bigger, but have less nutritional value. They tend to take up less water from the soil, which sounds good until one recalls that that will lead to increased run off - which is unfortunate considering there is likely to be more, much much more, precipitation due to the elevated land/sea surface temperatures and consequent evaporation.
We will have to grow more plants to compensate for the lower nutritional value - on land that is probably having the minerals stripped from it by periodic inundation.

Good news for the poor and hungry hey?



I understand thermal expansion,
Great, then maybe we can get somewhere?
...but that is not what we are talking about...... we are talking about how much the oceanic levels will rise as a result of the ice/snow melting as a result of the earth warming. Do try to stay on point.

Oh dear... I thought you said you "understand thermal expansion"?
You understand that the oceans are an amorphous object don't you? It's not like the oceans have a 'ice/snow' component that remains separate and won't be subject to thermal expansion. Which then leads into... well, to keep it 'simple' - climate is a complex, interrelated system


And I am the one that is confused?

Yep, it certainly looks that way.

Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > If Change is good, then why does Climate Change scare me?