‘Climate Change’ Is No More Credible than Magic Says Top Physicist

[NC252]

well, you just assumed that im a liberal. i am on some issues and not on others.

id totally be cool with tax breaks being offered for companies that go greener. there is a reason why republicans dont make these suggestions even though its a very conservative position.

You are right I think the politicians are bad on both sides and I do agree with your idea about tax breaks. Both the Democratic and the Republican leadership are a joke. They have become so entrenched that the only thing they care about is their next election. It doesn't seem like there will ever be be meaningful change with the partisan bickering that we are encountering now.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

You are right I think the politicians are bad on both sides and I do agree with your idea about tax breaks. Both the Democratic and the Republican leadership are a joke. They have become so entrenched that the only thing they care about is their next election. It doesn't seem like there will ever be be meaningful change with the partisan bickering that we are encountering now.

its not the politicians. we could vote every one of them out and guess what? the same shit will go down. if people want real change they need to look in the mirror.

our govt. was built on compromise. if you dont compromise, it wont F'ing work. so what happens these days when a republican meets a democrat in the middle? the partisan media burns them on the damn cross for it. fox and breitbart will vilify the hell out of the republican and question their conservative credentials. msnbc will do the same to the offending democrat.

then you have citizens united ruling. a field day for special interests that want to pay politicians off for turning a blind eye to things like climate change, or whatever else.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

So what's the alternative? Repeal all restrictions on emissions and live in a toxic paradise like the Chinese do?

Maybe human influenced global warming is a myth, maybe it isn't. Nobody actually knows for sure, and it doesn't matter if you're talking about regular people like us, or educated scientists like the guy this thread is about. You can find plenty of scholarly people arguing both sides.

We do know that completely trashing our environment is a bad thing, and much of the environmental movement is in place to prevent this happening, regardless of whether global average temperatures go up or not.

This is exactly the way I feel and why we need more centrists in powerful legislative positions. The practical approach is to not want cities covered in smog from exhaust, places hit with acid rain from power plant runoff, etc. We should be excited about clean energy and emissions, and we should do everything we can to promote that evolution.

We should just do it in a practical, ambitious manner. Most people with common sense can spot the line between practical regulations and incentives vs over-regulation and fear mongering.

 

[ultramanhyata]

So what's the alternative? Repeal all restrictions on emissions and live in a toxic paradise like the Chinese do?

Dude, where is the evidence that the smog in China is the result of man-made pollutants?

Sounds like a Marxist, pseudo-science money grab.

I remember when the Marxists claimed that kids shouldn't eat lead paint chips. Well, I ate a lot of those paint chips back in the day. And am fine I.

 

[Madmick]

Never seen so many plumbers hard at work on a calculus equation without actually learning anything about numbers.

 

[rj144]

Never seen so many plumbers hard at work on a calculus equation without actually learning anything about numbers.

Talk to the flat earthers.

 

[waiguoren]

Warming before man burning fossil fuels:

For its entire history, human civilization has existed in a relatively short inter-glacial warming period. I have more to fear from cooling than warming. Google "Milankovitch Cycle" for real climate science.

Why do we bother arguing with people who can't be bothered to open a textbook?

Most of the alarmists on Sherdog get their climate change info from shock media headlines. Talking to them about Milankovitch is probably pointless.

Still, I salute your efforts.

 

[Helden]

Why do we bother arguing with people who can't be bothered to open a textbook?

Most of the alarmists on Sherdog get their climate change info from shock media headlines. Talking to them about Milankovitch is probably pointless.

Still, I salute your efforts.

You honestly believe the Milankovitch cycle has anything to do with the rapid rate of warming we've seen over the last ~150 years???

 

[waiguoren]

You honestly believe the Milankovitch cycle has anything to do with the rapid rate of warming we've seen over the last ~150 years???

No, I do not.

I also don't believe that 1 degree of global mean warming is necessarily "rapid".

 

[Helden]

No, I do not.

I also don't believe that 1 degree of global mean warming is necessarily "rapid".

Are you kidding? 1 degree in less than 200 years is extremely rapid.

So, why even mention Melankovich if it has nothing to do with the warming? Every alternative to CO2 being the primary forcing factor put forth by the deniers (and yes, they are deniers, they are doing it for partisan reasons, not because there is data backing up their claim), every single alternative has been shown wrong... So tell me, what if not rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing this previously unseen temperature anomaly???

 

[waiguoren]

what if not rapid increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing this previously unseen temperature anomaly???

It's absurd to talk about "previously unseen" rates of warming given that our thermometer data only go back 130 years on a planet that is 4,500,000,000 years old. Sure, this rate of warming was "previously unseen"---because we didn't have thermometers across the globe and record-keepers to compile the data! The resolution of proxy data is too coarse to allow a comparison.

I think you're smarter than this. Why act like you know for sure that 1 degree of warming in 130 years is out of the ordinary despite having no basis for comparison?

 

[Helden]

It's absurd to talk about "previously unseen" rates of warming given that our thermometer data only go back 130 years on a planet that is 4,500,000,000 years old. Sure, this rate of warming was "previously unseen"---because we didn't have thermometers across the globe and record-keepers to compile the data! The resolution of proxy data is too coarse to allow a comparison.

I think you're smarter than to this. Why act like you know for sure that 1 degree of warming in 130 years is out of the ordinary despite having no basis for comparison?

First of all, we don't need thermometers to measure temperatures from that far back.
We can use oxygen isotopes to fairly accurately to estimate the temperatures and the nice thing about it is that we get them from ice cores, which also happen to give us a fairly accurate representation on the time scale we are seeing the shifts in. And yes, it's previously unseen.. it exceeds the temperature shifts we see as a result of glacial cycle change by an order of magnitude. On top of that there seems to be an almost direct correlation between the rate of warming and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, with similar correlations also observed in the ice core data.

 

[BossRootin]

The Earth warmed over 10 degrees within a 10 year period according to these oxygen isotopes.
This was 12,000 years ago, likely due to an asteroid impact, but it does show that CO2 is nothing compared to what the universe can throw at us.

 

[Helden]

The Earth warmed over 10 degrees within a 10 year period according to these oxygen isotopes.
This was 12,000 years ago, likely due to an asteroid impact, but it does show that CO2 is nothing compared to what the universe can throw at us.

So let me get this straight...

...we as a species should ignore the obvious signs and potentially doom the next generations to not only having to deal with ever increasing overpopulation problem, but also combat extreme climatic conditions that could very well not only force us together into tighter habitable zones, but also have a significant impact on agriculture.. limiting our ability to feed said population... all because... we may or may not get hit by a large asteroid in 15,000 or so thousand years.... maybe...

???

Spoiler

 

[BossRootin]

You said that warming of a degree within 100 years is orders of magnitude greater than we have ever experienced. It isn't.
It's a very small amount of warming and will not doom future generations.
Some areas may become less habitable, while others may prosper.
The rate our technology is increasing is orders of magnitude greater than our climate is changing.

 

[Helden]

You said that warming of a degree within 100 years is orders of magnitude greater than we have ever experienced. It isn't.
It's a very small amount of warming and will not doom future generations.
Some areas may become less habitable, while others may prosper.
The rate our technology is increasing is orders of magnitude greater than our climate is changing.

You sir, are an idiot

 

[JonnyRingo84]

You said that warming of a degree within 100 years is orders of magnitude greater than we have ever experienced. It isn't.
It's a very small amount of warming and will not doom future generations.
Some areas may become less habitable, while others may prosper.
The rate our technology is increasing is orders of magnitude greater than our climate is changing.

lol dude....

no one is worried about you burning alive due to climate change. here are the major threats, and it doesnt take that much of a temp change to cause this. its already happening:

1. when climate changes quickly, plants and animals cannot adapt. that place where you buy apples from now, may not grow apples any longer. we've ALREADY had to pull seeds out of the so-called "dooms day" vault in antarctica.

2. sea level rise. ask people in miama FLA how many are "skeptics" of climate change. hard to be a skeptic when your city floods while its not even raining.

 

[gatchaman]

First of all, we don't need thermometers to measure temperatures from that far back.
We can use oxygen isotopes to fairly accurately to estimate the temperatures and the nice thing about it is that we get them from ice cores, which also happen to give us a fairly accurate representation on the time scale we are seeing the shifts in. And yes, it's previously unseen.. it exceeds the temperature shifts we see as a result of glacial cycle change by an order of magnitude. On top of that there seems to be an almost direct correlation between the rate of warming and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, with similar correlations also observed in the ice core data.

I hope you don't mind my interjection into your conversation with waiguoren, but if you use tree ring data, which has been correlated with ice core data and can be measured yearly, then you have no warming in the last 100 years. Google the "tree ring divergence problem". So waiguoren is correct that you have no basis for comparison for the claimed increase over 100 years being rapid because, when you compare apples to apples, there is no increase.

I question whether the increase has happened at all. As I've already stated the increase is not to be found in the tree ring data. The claimed approximately 1C increase in 100 years is from surface temperature measurement in which individual measurement station data have been adjusted. Furthermore, minus adjustments, the surface measurements do not correlate with the satellite measurements. Furthermore, to get a claimed 1C in 100 years, there is a claimed error of only 0.1C in measurement of global temperature. It is claimed that the error rate in measuring global temperature has been the same 0.1C today and 100 years ago, as if there have been no changes in the accuracy of temperature measurement.

When looking at Milankovitch cycles, derived from real climate science that look over a time span of thousands of years, there is nothing outrageous about today's temperature. Your hysteria comes from pretending to see climate trends in decades of data that have been adjusted.

 

[gatchaman]

lol dude....

no one is worried about you burning alive due to climate change. here are the major threats, and it doesnt take that much of a temp change to cause this. its already happening:

1. when climate changes quickly, plants and animals cannot adapt. that place where you buy apples from now, may not grow apples any longer. we've ALREADY had to pull seeds out of the so-called "dooms day" vault in antarctica.

2. sea level rise. ask people in miama FLA how many are "skeptics" of climate change. hard to be a skeptic when your city floods while its not even raining.

Excuse my interjection into your coversation with BossRootin, but I think you are spouting speculative nonsense.

We have established safe limits for, for example, lead in drinking water, so what is the safe limit for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? What is the formula that relates atmospheric carbon dioxide level to sea level? If we were to burn every known reserve of fossil fuel today then what would be the increase to atmospheric carbon dioxide? I can play the same speculative game as you. What if the Canadian prairies become arable all the way to the North West Territories? This game is nonsense.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Excuse my interjection into your coversation with BossRootin, but I think you are spouting speculative nonsense.

We have established safe limits for, for example, lead in drinking water, so what is the safe limit for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? What is the formula that relates atmospheric carbon dioxide level to sea level? If we were to burn every known reserve of fossil fuel today then what would be the increase to atmospheric carbon dioxide? I can play the same speculative game as you. What if the Canadian prairies become arable all the way to the North West Territories? This game is nonsense.

dont know. does that mean we should throw our hands up and keep polluting like mad?

lets have some tax cuts for green companies. should be an EASY start. republicans wont suggest such a pro business idea, though. there is a reason why.