What is some viable proof of Global Warming?

[EcK]

There was no mistake. I was going to correct you on your interpretation of "saturation", but I thought: why bother?

I already know what saturation is. So yes, it would seem a bit redundant from my perspective.

 

[Tellenbach]

I already know what saturation is.

There is saturation of concentration as in: you can only dissolve so much sugar in water before it starts to precipitate out. (This was your interpretation.)

There is saturation of effect as in: you can add red liquid dye to water and it'll change the color and the more dye you add, the more color the water will possess but eventually, the effect plateaus or flattens out and at some point, you'll hardly notice any additional color no matter how much dye you add. This is the saturation of relevance in that study.

 

[EcK]

There is saturation of concentration as in: you can only dissolve so much sugar in water before it starts to precipitate out. (This was your interpretation.)

There is saturation of effect as in: you can add red liquid dye to water and it'll change the color and the more dye you add, the more color the water will possess but eventually, the effect plateaus or flattens out and at some point, you'll hardly notice any additional color no matter how much dye you add. This is the saturation of relevance in that study.

Ok. I stand corrected on the particular use of the term. However for the purpose of this conversation, it doesn't change one thing to my interpretation of the data. Logic doesn't rely on terms.

More CO2 will slow down 'heat espace' into space. Except if you're implying that more co2 in the atmosphere will somehow not lead to more heat accumulation.
Which seems like Harry Potter science to me.

Though of course, and as I have stated previously, I am not knowledgeable in this field and these are all conjectures.
However given the attention you've given the use of a term which doesn't modify anything in my conclusions I'm not sure if you do know any more than I do.

So all we are left with is logic. In case there is something I'm not aware of I'd appreciate a link to the relevant study.

 

[jixmixfix]

What a difference a country makes!

Oz has nine parliamentary governments and we work with our governments and trust our governments based on compulsory voting.

While the USA has a paranoid view of its own government, and so few bother to even vote.

And the USA paranoia is extreme in that they arm themselves against the imagined tyranny of their own government.

And tragedy becomes dark comedy when the USA seeks to impose its form of government on foreign countries it doesn't even understand, by force.

Really that's why 90% of European countries have gone to shit due to socialization and Germany is suffering due to mass immigration.

 

[Mole]

Really that's why 90% of European countries have gone to shit due to socialization and Germany is suffering due to mass immigration.

Meanwhile, Oz (Australia) has had 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth through 3 global recessions. We have one of the worlds largest and most successful immigration programmes, as well as one of the biggest refugee intakes. And we are a successful multicultural society. And I look forward to our next multicultural festival.

 

[jixmixfix]

Meanwhile, Oz (Australia) has had 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth through 3 global recessions. We have one of the worlds largest and most successful immigration programmes, as well as one of the biggest refugee intakes. And we are a successful multicultural society. And I look forward to our next multicultural festival.

You mean multi racial where groups segregate themselves and form their own hiarchy of social status. "Multiculturalism" is just another word for lack of culture.Cultures derived from countries that hold true to their conservative beliefs.

 

[Mole]

Risorgimento and Conservatism

You mean multi racial where groups segregate themselves and form their own hiarchy of social status. "Multiculturalism" is just another word for lack of culture.Cultures derived from countries that hold true to their conservative beliefs.

In the Italian novel Il Gattopardo (The Leopard) by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, we see plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

In the same way, we maintain our conservative culture by inviting people from all over the world, from different cultures, to join us. The result is these different cultures cancel each other out leaving the conservative culture of Oz.

The conservative culture of Oz was formed in the 100 years of aristocratic peace in Britain prior to the settlement of Oz in 1788.

So Oz has inherited conservative aristocratic values such as love of the outdoors, brutality in sport and manners, and a jealous egalitarianism. So we love the outdoors in a beautiful climate, we are formally informal, and we make a sport of cutting down tall poppies.

Britain maintained an aristocratic peace for 100 years prior to settlement of Oz by a policy of divide and rule on the Continent of Europe. And so we maintain the same aristocratic principle of divide and rule in multiculturalism over a multitude of competing cultures.

Do read The Leopard (Il Gattopardo) by clicking on ftp://121.17.126.74/data1/ts01/english/novel/batch001/20100511205517895.pdf .
It will be good for your soul.

 

[tkae.]

Obviously you haven't read enough of them because it should be pretty obvious.

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

It is considered fact in the literature. Doubt you can find any other issue on earth where there is 97% consensus across 14,000 peer-reviewed papers.

Also came across this today: US town rejects solar farm after residents say it would suck up all the sunlight

Allowing these people to decide on policy that affects everyone is a problem. It's also not that surprising that there's an entire group that is so badly educated if it's the "science teacher" who thinks that installing solar panels sucks the sunlight away and kills plants and causes cancer.

Playing the devil's advocate, the literature considered many things to be fact that were disproven fairly soundly. Examples: a supervolcano causing the K/T dinosaur extinction (a meteor caused it), genetic difference between human races, that our solar system is the only one with planets and then that none of them were Earth-like (the first exoplanet was discovered in the 1990s), that dinosaurs had leathery skin (they had feathers), that a multi-regional evolution explains humanity (we all evolved in and migrated from Africa), that Earth is the only planet with water (we now know many exoplanets and multiple moons in our solar system with water), that humans have more genes than amoebas, and that expansion of the universe is slowing (it's speeding up).

Science is not infallible. Agreement in science just means people are finding the same result. There is nothing in the nature of agreement that guarantees accuracy. Two people or ten people or millions of people can agree to things that are blatantly wrong. Look at how many people agree that Obama is a Muslim. Look at how many people agree that Obama was born in Kenya. Look at how many people agree that a dress is black and blue rather than white and gold.

 

[21%]

Not if renewables are twice as expensive. See, if you double the cost of energy in parts of the midwest and the northeast, people on a fixed income, especially the elderly decide they can't afford to use the heater and they freeze. Also, solar thermal power plants have killed hundreds of thousands of birds and bats.

Nuclear power is fairly cheap and it's the safest form of energy, but the same people who want renewables oppose nuclear power. If global warming is as serious as they tell us, you'd think they'd jump on the nuclear power bandwagon.

I think the cost is high because the technology is new. As we perfect it, we will be able to have clean energy that is also cheap to produce. I think all energy businesses should be given a huge incentive to invest in clean energy right now.

Personally, I believe nuclear power should be a short-term solution before we have better solar cells or are finally able to harness the power of nuclear fusion. (IMHO, solar thermal power is still flawed in its current design)

Clean energy shouldn't be at the expense of the people, and I believe it can be done if people are actually sincere about it.

 

[nonsequitur]

Playing the devil's advocate, the literature considered many things to be fact that were disproven fairly soundly. Examples: a supervolcano causing the K/T dinosaur extinction (a meteor caused it), genetic difference between human races, that our solar system is the only one with planets and then that none of them were Earth-like (the first exoplanet was discovered in the 1990s), that dinosaurs had leathery skin (they had feathers), that a multi-regional evolution explains humanity (we all evolved in and migrated from Africa), that Earth is the only planet with water (we now know many exoplanets and multiple moons in our solar system with water), that humans have more genes than amoebas, and that expansion of the universe is slowing (it's speeding up).

Science is not infallible. Agreement in science just means people are finding the same result. There is nothing in the nature of agreement that guarantees accuracy. Two people or ten people or millions of people can agree to things that are blatantly wrong. Look at how many people agree that Obama is a Muslim. Look at how many people agree that Obama was born in Kenya. Look at how many people agree that a dress is black and blue rather than white and gold.

Except that even if we're wrong on why the dinosaurs became extinct, the nature of space, and evolution, it makes absolutely no difference to future generations. Those are purely theoretical discussions that have no effect on decision/policy making.

We are talking about practical realities here. If - let's say if - we're wrong and we change the way the world works to make it more energy efficient, is that a bad thing?

On the other hand, if the vast majority of climate change scientists are right and we choose to do nothing, how can we ever explain that decision to future generations?

"Oh, 97% of scientists were right, we knew that this was coming but we chose to do nothing because sometimes scientists are wrong and we didn't want to change how we live. We are all used to having our modern conveniences, it's too expensive to change and we're not gonna be here when the crap hits the fan anyway. Sorry we fucked up, too bad you'll have to live with our mistakes"?

 

[tkae.]

Except that even if we're wrong on why the dinosaurs became extinct, the nature of space, and evolution, it makes absolutely no difference to future generations. Those are purely theoretical discussions that have no effect on decision/policy making.

The existence of planets outside our solar system has fairly significant implications on policy, considering one of the options being kept in the back pocket for global warming is to leave the planet and find a new one. Understanding dinosaur extinctions is also pretty relevant, since we're comparing current global warming against past global warming events and its effects on ancient life. All of the projections of the climate's response to heating up is based on geological and fossil records. Understanding extinction events and global warming events being caused by supervolcano eruptions flooding the atmosphere from a weak magnetosphere that heated up the planet is the difference between current CO2 levels mattering and not mattering. All of the projections are based on historical records. So it's a pretty relevant fucking deal lol

Also, it being an important conversation doesn't change any of the rules of the game. Just because it's important doesn't suddenly make scientific consensus infallible.

We are talking about practical realities here. If - let's say if - we're wrong and we change the way the world works to make it more energy efficient, is that a bad thing?

No, and my personal opinion is that whether or not global warming is caused by carbon emissions or another, natural reason (such as the weakening magentosphere), we still need to not be dumping carcinogenic chemicals into the atmosphere or relying on a finite resource as the primary fuel of our species. I'm not against cleaning things up, I'm just playing devil's advocate because 1.) science is given too much say these days and 2.) approaching someone who isn't convinced with "Well you should be convinced!" is an asinine response.

On the other hand, if the vast majority of climate change scientists are right and we choose to do nothing, how can we ever explain that decision to future generations?

Sounds like they'll be pretty fucked, so we won't really have to. We'll be dead, and they'll be starving to death. The Romans never had to account for the Dark Ages, did they? That's not the answer you want, but it's the truth. I'm fairly cynical about catastrophe being a catalyst for positive change. I don't think companies or governments are going to go against their own interests in the finite short term for an intangible long term benefit. Unless there's a better and cheaper option, fossil fuels will do the heavy lifting of our energy needs. Cleaner doesn't matter. Better and cheaper are the only things that CEOs and politicians see on paper. A breakthrough in fusion is probably our last hope.

"Oh, 97% of scientists were right, we knew that this was coming but we chose to do nothing because sometimes scientists are wrong and we didn't want to change how we live. We are all used to having our modern conveniences, it's too expensive to change and we're not gonna be here when the crap hits the fan anyway. Sorry we fucked up, too bad you'll have to live with our mistakes"?

The majority of carbon emissions occurred during the Industrial Age. I don't hear anybody from the Industrial Age apologizing to us for bringing us so close to the edge that we're scrambling. They're all dead.

The human species is notoriously immobile. How many times in history have we banded together to make a single difference?

Never.

You act like we're going to collectively feel responsibility. We won't. Each individual will blame someone else. Each group will blame another. US will blame China (it is their fault though). The people will blame the government. The government will blame corporations. Corporations will blame the people.

You have a very optimistic view of our species' collective ability. We aren't a thousand atoms forming the rock. We're a bunch of individual grains of sand forming the beach. We don't make decisive action, we crumble underneath the pressure.

 

[nonsequitur]

The existence of planets outside our solar system has fairly significant implications on policy, considering one of the options being kept in the back pocket for global warming is to leave the planet and find a new one. Understanding dinosaur extinctions is also pretty relevant, since we're comparing current global warming against past global warming events and its effects on ancient life. All of the projections of the climate's response to heating up is based on geological and fossil records. Understanding extinction events and global warming events being caused by supervolcano eruptions flooding the atmosphere from a weak magnetosphere that heated up the planet is the difference between current CO2 levels mattering and not mattering. All of the projections are based on historical records. So it's a pretty relevant fucking deal lol

Also, it being an important conversation doesn't change any of the rules of the game. Just because it's important doesn't suddenly make scientific consensus infallible.

If you think that leaving the planet to find a new one is on the same level of feasibility as cutting carbon emissions I think we're operating from completely different planets. From a similarly scientifically nihilistic standpoint about our understanding of extinction events - like dinosaurs being killed by a meteor, and past global warming patterns based on volcano eruptions being based on models and therefore being "relevant", they are similarly models. How would you be able to pick what is "right" and "wrong since no one can go back in time and find out? Even if we went back in time to experience it, how would we know which model is right?

Epistemologically, every single phenomenon has an infinite number of explanations for it. So which are we going to go with? Or are we just going to be paralysed because we don't know what is 100% correct?

I have no intention of claiming scientific infallibility - I am a professional scientist, it would be fucking idiotic to do that. But if we're going to sit on our hands and burn to our death saying that we can't possibly prove one way or the other, that is to our own species' demise. I also note that the people criticising science in philosophical terms on the Internet are NOT scientists, and are only too happy to accept the benefits of what science provides (electricity, modern medicine, the internet, heating etc.) while claiming that science is "not to be trusted". Certainly, there are areas in which an individual can make very reasonably "unscientific" choices, and there are definitely situations where science is not applicable. But where the stakes affect not only one species but all of life on the planet, action needs to be taken based on current best possible understanding of the situation - especially when information suggests that waiting is not an option.

No, and my personal opinion is that whether or not global warming is caused by carbon emissions or another, natural reason (such as the weakening magentosphere), we still need to not be dumping carcinogenic chemicals into the atmosphere or relying on a finite resource as the primary fuel of our species. I'm not against cleaning things up, I'm just playing devil's advocate because 1.) science is given too much say these days and 2.) approaching someone who isn't convinced with "Well you should be convinced!" is an asinine response.

I have no interest in devils' advocates because that is just arguing theory. With regards to 1) only americans feel this way which suggests something about your education system 2) I have no real interest in convincing keyboard warriors who have their minds already made up. There will always be flat earthists around and I have better things to do with my time than trying to convince them that the earth is round. As long as politicians are making policy to act on the problem, that is the only thing that I care about.

Sounds like they'll be pretty fucked, so we won't really have to. We'll be dead, and they'll be starving to death. The Romans never had to account for the Dark Ages, did they? That's not the answer you want, but it's the truth. I'm fairly cynical about catastrophe being a catalyst for positive change. I don't think companies or governments are going to go against their own interests in the finite short term for an intangible long term benefit. Unless there's a better and cheaper option, fossil fuels will do the heavy lifting of our energy needs. Cleaner doesn't matter. Better and cheaper are the only things that CEOs and politicians see on paper. A breakthrough in fusion is probably our last hope.

The majority of carbon emissions occurred during the Industrial Age. I don't hear anybody from the Industrial Age apologizing to us for bringing us so close to the edge that we're scrambling. They're all dead.

The human species is notoriously immobile. How many times in history have we banded together to make a single difference?

Never.

You act like we're going to collectively feel responsibility. We won't. Each individual will blame someone else. Each group will blame another. US will blame China (it is their fault though). The people will blame the government. The government will blame corporations. Corporations will blame the people.

You have a very optimistic view of our species' collective ability. We aren't a thousand atoms forming the rock. We're a bunch of individual grains of sand forming the beach. We don't make decisive action, we crumble underneath the pressure.

I am not looking for accountability, and past actions do not dictate future ones. There is no point in pointing the finger at people from the past, or thinking in negative terms. Everything that you say here - it's like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. It might be true but it is completely unproductive.

"I don't need to change because no one else is gonna change anyway."

"It's the fault of the CEOs, the politicians, the people from the Industrial Age, the human species as a whole because unity on any issue will never happen. Not mine. I don't need to do anything, there is no individual responsibility on my side, even though I am living, I have agency in the world, I can take action."

"Nothing I do is gonna matter."

These are the words of a child who only acts in self-interest.

I am not going to say anymore here, since it seems futile. I do not act out of optimism, nor do I believe that anything that I do on an individual level will reverse climate change, or that I can make everyone act in a concerted way. BUT. I believe that it is my responsibility to at least ensure that I am doing everything that I personally can. Because whether I like people or not, whether I believe that we will fail or not, or whether others will take action or not, I am a member of this species, living on this planet, and it is my duty to act in its long-term interests. Not for myself, not for my country's economy, not for a company's balance sheet or my bank account's balance.

That is all. Do with it what you will.

 

[Tellenbach]

On the other hand, if the vast majority of climate change scientists are right and we choose to do nothing, how can we ever explain that decision to future generations?

It's a fact that every climate change computer model is wrong and wrong by large orders of magnitude. There are studies that look at the effect of carbon tax and carbon emission regulations and the conclusion is that none of those changes matter. They'll cost the global economy a hundred trillion dollars over the next century while reducing the temperature by a mere 0.5 degree. It's also a fact there there has been no global warming for 18 years from the best data we have (satellite data).

The best solution is nuclear power. You won't find a single Republican who opposes nuclear power. All the opposition comes from leftist politicians and leftist orgs like the Sierra Club. So the true question becomes: Why do leftists oppose the only real solution to climate change and only embrace solutions that don't work (while adding more misery to the world)?

 

[á´…eparted]

The best solution is nuclear power.

I think this is an area where we can agree. I am a very strong supporter for nuclear power. Have been for a long time. There are two reasons I support it: climate change, and industrial need. We can even ignore the climate argument and there is still a huge reason. We need fossil fuel sources to generate plastics, and a HUGE amount of industrial feedstocks. Use for fuel chews through this significant faster, and puts the wrong focus on it's use. This needs to be prolonged as much as possible while the science of synthetic feedstocks from other sources continues to be developed.

It makes no sense to me that people are against nuclear power. The waste and hazards associated are very easily solvable problems. The public is irrationally fearful of anything that says nuclear.

 

[Tellenbach]

I am a very strong supporter for nuclear power. Have been for a long time. There are two reasons I support it: climate change, and industrial need.

It doesn't really matter that you support nuclear power since you support politicians who oppose nuclear power.

What is Bernie’s view on clean nuclear energy?

Bernie has called for a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States. He believes that solar, wind, geothermal power, and energy efficiency are more cost-effective than nuclear plants, and that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit. Ever the financial watchdog, Bernie has also questioned why the federal government invests billions into federal subsidies for the nuclear industry.

Why does Bernie believe that renewables are more cost effective than nuclear plants when it's flat out false? Is he stupid?

 

[tkae.]

I have no intention of claiming scientific infallibility - I am a professional scientist, it would be fucking idiotic to do that. But if we're going to sit on our hands and burn to our death saying that we can't possibly prove one way or the other, that is to our own species' demise. I also note that the people criticising science in philosophical terms on the Internet are NOT scientists, and are only too happy to accept the benefits of what science provides (electricity, modern medicine, the internet, heating etc.) while claiming that science is "not to be trusted". Certainly, there are areas in which an individual can make very reasonably "unscientific" choices, and there are definitely situations where science is not applicable. But where the stakes affect not only one species but all of life on the planet, action needs to be taken based on current best possible understanding of the situation - especially when information suggests that waiting is not an option.

I love when a scientist lists things they had nothing to do with as a defense of their work. Thomas Edison gave us electricity and publically electrocuted an elephant with AC just to show his was better than Tesla's. But it was for electricity, so I guess it's okay, right?

Science has given us nuclear bombs, weaponized sarin and chlorine gas, DDT and other dangerous pesticides (that were scientifically supported), napalm and Agent Orange, insulin shock therapy, lobotomies for etc. John Watson was a scientist more than a psychologist, and he psychologically terrorized Little Albert in the name of science.

Does science do good things? Yes. Does science do horrible things because there's always the risk a scientist will fixate on their experiment at the cost of ethics and common sense? Yes. Just because you do some good things doesn't mean you shouldn't be kept in check.

I have no interest in devils' advocates because that is just arguing theory.

Oh, I thought you were a scientist, which implies that you care about devil's advocacy and alternative explanations that challenge the hypothesis being tested to rule out confounds. It's not very good sciencing if you just assume that the results confirm your hypothesis. I thought a professional would know better than to risk a confirmation bias like that.

"I don't need to change because no one else is gonna change anyway."

"It's the fault of the CEOs, the politicians, the people from the Industrial Age, the human species as a whole because unity on any issue will never happen. Not mine. I don't need to do anything, there is no individual responsibility on my side, even though I am living, I have agency in the world, I can take action."

"Nothing I do is gonna matter."

These are the words of a child who only acts in self-interest.

They're also the words of an adult who's given a doomsday scenario without realistic actions they can take as an individual, none of which have been provided. "We need to lower emissions," is not something an individual citizen can do because each individual produces an infinitesmal amount of carbon emissions with their car, which they didn't build themselves. "We need cleaner energy," is not something an individual citizen can do because the individual citizen has no choice in who provides their electricity and has no choice in what kind of method their electric company uses to produce that electricity. Scaring people without giving basic things they can do just makes them feel helpless, and the psychological reaction to helplessness is denial or devaluation of the issue's seriousness.

 

[á´…eparted]

It doesn't really matter that you support nuclear power since you support politicians who oppose nuclear power.

What is Bernie’s view on clean nuclear energy?

Why does Bernie believe that renewables are more cost effective than nuclear plants when it's flat out false? Is he stupid?

Wow, I try to find common ground, and this how you reply? Don't even bother to address the content, or even express mutual agreement. Just push your own moronic political agenda. Serves me right for ever thinking you'd give a fair response. Note to self: don't ever try again.

It's a wonder anyone ever listens to a damn thing you have to say.

 

[á´…eparted]

Oh, I thought you were a scientist, which implies that you care about devil's advocacy and alternative explanations that challenge the hypothesis being tested to rule out confounds. It's not very good sciencing if you just assume that the results confirm your hypothesis. I thought a professional would know better than to risk a confirmation bias like that.

You completely missed the point of what she was trying to say. Playing devils advocate is not always a useful activity. People who aren't in the field often think that it's always useful, and it's not. There needs to be a viable reason for doing so, otherwise it slows you down, and lends to a ton of wasted time effort and resources. A HUGE part of training as a scientist is learning how triage this, when to use it, and when to not. It's actually rather difficult to learn and takes several years of experience to get down. Further, there is nuances that vary from field to field. There needs to be evidence before devils advocate begins.

It's also crap like this why scientists are increasingly getting frustrated (and less willing to level/explain) with the public at large because they question foundations without understanding the process properly. Or, being willing to listen to expert opinion. Honestly, your entire post illustrates this perfectly. I'm at a point where if someone acts like this and questions foundations without being willing to listen, then I am not going to waste my time trying to explain or get them understand. Thankfully, the work will largely move on in spite of this.

P.S. Your post was insulting to her. Question her foundation as a scientist just because she said something that A. you didn't like, and B. didn't understand? That's cute.

 

[nonsequitur]

P.S. Your post was insulting to her. Question her foundation as a scientist just because she said something that A. you didn't like, and B. didn't understand? That's cute.

Dude, it's ok. My self-esteem with regards to my own professionalism isn't based on what some kid with internet access and no knowledge of research/science thinks. My colleagues who have been through the peer-review process and a similar training respect me because I get shit done properly, am strategic and have good judgment. Their opinions hold a lot more water than tertiary-educated laypeople engaging in intellectual masturbation through their keyboards. So it's completely fine.

 

[Tellenbach]

Just push your own moronic political agenda. Serves me right for ever thinking you'd give a fair response. Note to self: don't ever try again.

I don't think nuclear power is a "moronic political agenda" and I think that readers should know what Bernie Sanders' position on nuclear energy is. I'd also like people to know that Bernie is a huge climate change reform advocate who dismisses the best solution for climate change, probably because he's beholden to the extremist environmental groups. One wonders whether people like Bernie and Obama are truly concerned about climate catastrophes or merely using this movement to further their political ambitions and enrich themselves financially (like Al Gore).

As far as common ground goes, I'm in perfect agreement with every rational belief.