|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 20, 2023 20:26:17 GMT
The earth has been uninhabitable on several occasions in its life. It doesn't care if humans, animals or even vegetation survive. The Earth is not alive, it does not protect itself from change. Whether the Earth is alive or not is a philosophical question, but many people think it is a living organism. It doesn't have a conscious will but maybe humans don't either. Certainly people like James Lovelock - who is vastly more intelligent than you or I - would argue strongly that it is alive. But whether it is alive or not it does react in very clever ways that tend to keep it in a stable state - which it can't do if we continue to remove its stabilisers. The earth happily had an ice age that drove humans from vast areas of it surface. So its not our friend, indeed for 600 million years it was uninhabitable, so it seems quite comfortable with that idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 20, 2023 21:11:34 GMT
Whether the Earth is alive or not is a philosophical question, but many people think it is a living organism. It doesn't have a conscious will but maybe humans don't either. Certainly people like James Lovelock - who is vastly more intelligent than you or I - would argue strongly that it is alive. But whether it is alive or not it does react in very clever ways that tend to keep it in a stable state - which it can't do if we continue to remove its stabilisers. The earth happily had an ice age that drove humans from vast areas of it surface. So its not our friend, indeed for 600 million years it was uninhabitable, so it seems quite comfortable with that idea. Oh do stop it, life began on Earth c3.5-4.0 billion years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 20, 2023 21:13:54 GMT
The earth happily had an ice age that drove humans from vast areas of it surface. So its not our friend, indeed for 600 million years it was uninhabitable, so it seems quite comfortable with that idea. Oh do stop it, life began on Earth c3.5-4.0 billion years ago. Yes and? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 20, 2023 21:38:32 GMT
Almost All Scientific Fraud in Psychology Backs Up Leftist Dogmas : Why Has "Disruptive" Science Declined Since the 1950s, But Less Dramatically In the 2000s? ..." academia has been taken over by people who don't agree with the fundamental idea that you should pursue the truth". That's pretty good, it grabs your attention. Never heard of this guy, but he's very watchable. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 21, 2023 7:59:47 GMT
The paper in Nature is simply a suggestion as to why methane increased during lockdown, but it says that no detailed studies have yet been done. The slap-head who did the video added all the hyperbole - like "waking a sleeping giant" and "feedback loops" etc. Basically the only fact that he's got is that warming leads to release of methane and methane can cause warming - but no one knows how much. Very much like CO2. Water vapour can also cause warming - and it's a more powerful greenhouse gas than methane and exists permanently in the atmosphere at vastly higher concentrations. But, as I said, the Earth is an incredibly complex system and protects itself from things that try to destabilise it - otherwise it would have either burnt up or frozen up may millennia ago. And the scientists do NOT yet understand the Earth's system, as the non-functioning climate models demonstrate. The basic problem is that we don't have enough data. The Earth's system cannot be be replicated so ALL the data that we've got has to come from records of the Earth itself. The trouble is that we have only about 150 years of data and a lot of it is pretty sparse and not necessarily very accurate. That's not sufficient to know what's going on. As one scientist said "we need at least about another 200 years of data - then we might have a better understanding". Until then all the scientists are guessing. And, as the links SP posted explained, there are alternative explanations for the warming that we've seen - that do not involve CO2 or methane. They involve the Sun - which is also not fully understood. The real danger is if we eliminate the Earth's stabilisers. If we build over the whole planet to house and feed the still growing population then the Earth will flip to a new state - maybe cooler, maybe hotter. Who knows. Well what I got from hearing that was that the scientists did not know this would happen prior to it happening, and as methane is a very important greenhouse gas and if their model was thorough, then they would have already factored it in and be expecting to see it. It demonstrates the effect was not in any scientific literature prior to lockdown.
I think you're over-estimating how clever the climate models are. The models don't even factor in the cooling effects of CO2 (because they don't have the data or the equations to do that). The models simply make the hypothesis that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature (and that is governed by an assumed coefficient). And they've been gradually lowering that coefficient as the predictions consistently exaggerate warming. If they put it down to zero they'd be more accurate. But the main problem they've got is that there's this great yellow ball in the sky that sends huge amount of energy to the Earth while they're trying to evaluate the effects of minute amounts of cooling and heating caused by various factors on Earth. When they don't yet understand the behaviour of the Sun it makes it all very difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 10:19:56 GMT
The huge ball in the sky is pretty regular in its energy output and we measure that regularly. We know why the heat from the ball keeps this planet at a temperature that the current lifeforms adapted to. Its because the heat arrives as ultraviolet light but is trapped as infrared light by Co2 molecules attached to water molecules.
We therefore know that as you increase the amount of Co2 you increase the heat of the planet.
All the deniers arguments are based on what happens to that heat, none (except the most ignorant) argue that Co2 in NOT the reason our planet is an average 14 degrees Celsius rather than an average -50 Celsius.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 10:39:37 GMT
If the issue is just a simple matter of such basic science, why do they keep making grossly incorrect predictions?
If physicists got the future position of Jupiter badly wrong continuously, they would conclude there was something substantial and important missing from their theory or a bad assumption was being made - which is what the detractors are saying here
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 11:11:44 GMT
If the issue is just a simple matter of such basic science, why do they keep making grossly incorrect predictions? If physicists got the future position of Jupiter badly wrong continuously, they would conclude there was something substantial and important missing from their theory or a bad assumption was being made - which is what the detractors are saying here You know the answer to that, so I assume you want me to confirm it for you. Its because its difficult to predict accurately what happens to the extra heat. How much is converted into kenetic energy in storms, how much sucked into the oceans to later melt sea ice. Etc etc What effect losing the sea ice and glaciers has on the amount of heat reflected back into space. At each stage the calculations get harder. It boils (excuse the pun) down to this. Climate scientists agree Co2 is warming the planet and the changes in climate are very likely harmful to the humans and animals that are adapted to the pre-existing climate (Of the last 1,000's of years) Climate deniers agree that until you can accurately predict exactly what will happen you cannot know what changes you face so you should do nothing until its too late. That suffice? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 21, 2023 11:42:18 GMT
Its because its difficult to predict accurately what happens to the extra heat. How much is converted into kenetic energy in storms, how much sucked into the oceans to later melt sea ice. Etc etc What effect losing the sea ice and glaciers has on the amount of heat reflected back into space. At each stage the calculations get harder. Or, to put it another way, our model of the climate is currently insufficient to make useful predictions about the effects of a change. I'd say the reality is actually more profound than this - we only have the most tenuous grasp on what the current state is, never mind the future state. Climate scientists agree Co2 is warming the planet and the changes in climate are very likely harmful to the humans and animals that are adapted to the pre-existing climate (Of the last 1,000's of years) Climate deniers agree that until you can accurately predict exactly what will happen you cannot know what changes you face so you should do nothing until its too late. I think this is a bit of a strawman. The mere notion that consequences could be very harmful would be a complete case for preventative action if there was no trade-off in that action. "It might rain today, therefore I will put an umbrella in the car" is one kind of decision. However, "it might rain today, therefore I will reduce billions to a pre industrial standard of living and possibly endanger the continuance of civilisation" is quite another. At the end of the day we are concerned with humans and for us to be able to trade those interests and risks properly, we need predictions that are 'accurate enough'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2023 12:36:06 GMT
The huge ball in the sky is pretty regular in its energy output and we measure that regularly. We know why the heat from the ball keeps this planet at a temperature that the current lifeforms adapted to. Its because the heat arrives as ultraviolet light but is trapped as infrared light by Co2 molecules attached to water molecules. We therefore know that as you increase the amount of Co2 you increase the heat of the planet.
All the deniers arguments are based on what happens to that heat, none (except the most ignorant) argue that Co2 in NOT the reason our planet is an average 14 degrees Celsius rather than an average -50 Celsius.
You know that is a theory, right? The other being that it is rising temperatures which raise the CO2 level. So we don't "know" that at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 21, 2023 13:01:27 GMT
Its because its difficult to predict accurately what happens to the extra heat. How much is converted into kenetic energy in storms, how much sucked into the oceans to later melt sea ice. Etc etc What effect losing the sea ice and glaciers has on the amount of heat reflected back into space. At each stage the calculations get harder. Or, to put it another way, our model of the climate is currently insufficient to make useful predictions about the effects of a change. I'd say the reality is actually more profound than this - we only have the most tenuous grasp on what the current state is, never mind the future state. Climate scientists agree Co2 is warming the planet and the changes in climate are very likely harmful to the humans and animals that are adapted to the pre-existing climate (Of the last 1,000's of years) Climate deniers agree that until you can accurately predict exactly what will happen you cannot know what changes you face so you should do nothing until its too late. I think this is a bit of a strawman. The mere notion that consequences could be very harmful would be a complete case for preventative action if there was no trade-off in that action. "It might rain today, therefore I will put an umbrella in the car" is one kind of decision. However, "it might rain today, therefore I will reduce billions to a pre industrial standard of living and possibly endanger the continuance of civilisation" is quite another. At the end of the day we are concerned with humans and for us to be able to trade those interests and risks properly, we need predictions that are 'accurate enough'. Go to Google, input the name of a place followed by weather. You will get a list of weather predictions that vary from near antarctic to sub -tropical......well you know what I mean and it's not that long ago that the Meteorological Office claimed they would soon be able to forecast the weather for some months ahead when they often fail to forecast it for a a few days. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 21, 2023 13:05:49 GMT
The huge ball in the sky is pretty regular in its energy output and we measure that regularly. We know why the heat from the ball keeps this planet at a temperature that the current lifeforms adapted to. Its because the heat arrives as ultraviolet light but is trapped as infrared light by Co2 molecules attached to water molecules. We therefore know that as you increase the amount of Co2 you increase the heat of the planet. All the deniers arguments are based on what happens to that heat, none (except the most ignorant) argue that Co2 in NOT the reason our planet is an average 14 degrees Celsius rather than an average -50 Celsius. We do have the complication that other sources of CO2 or other greenhouse gases can exchange between the earth and the atmosphere. It makes the problem so much more difficult to measure because you introduce many variables and functions. Climate scientists work on all these different sources and sinks though and add it in as best they can to the model. This is why the climate model is such a big international effort. One thing you might know about is that it is even dependent on micro organisms down to the size of viruses and bacteria, especially in the sea. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 14:18:24 GMT
Its because its difficult to predict accurately what happens to the extra heat. How much is converted into kenetic energy in storms, how much sucked into the oceans to later melt sea ice. Etc etc What effect losing the sea ice and glaciers has on the amount of heat reflected back into space. At each stage the calculations get harder. You reiterate the deniers argument well. Climate scientists agree Co2 is warming the planet and the changes in climate are very likely harmful to the humans and animals that are adapted to the pre-existing climate (Of the last 1,000's of years) Climate deniers agree that until you can accurately predict exactly what will happen you cannot know what changes you face so you should do nothing until its too late. Again the deniers argument, which I have just addressed. The decision was that both man and nature are adapted to the current climate and therefore change is very likely to be costly. There is a reason why houses in Spain have flat white roofs and houses in Austria have steep dark ones. The same is true in nature for the creatures that rely on the climate they live in. And your objection to switching to renewable energy? The cost! If so why do you not consider the cost of adjusting to the changes? If you believe there will be no significant change then you are among those who deny Co2 controls temperature and that the heat must effect the climate. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 14:20:08 GMT
The huge ball in the sky is pretty regular in its energy output and we measure that regularly. We know why the heat from the ball keeps this planet at a temperature that the current lifeforms adapted to. Its because the heat arrives as ultraviolet light but is trapped as infrared light by Co2 molecules attached to water molecules. We therefore know that as you increase the amount of Co2 you increase the heat of the planet.
All the deniers arguments are based on what happens to that heat, none (except the most ignorant) argue that Co2 in NOT the reason our planet is an average 14 degrees Celsius rather than an average -50 Celsius.
You know that is a theory, right? The other being that it is rising temperatures which raise the CO2 level. So we don't "know" that at all.Everything is a theory, we've been here done that. That you exist is a theory. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 21, 2023 14:22:54 GMT
The huge ball in the sky is pretty regular in its energy output and we measure that regularly. We know why the heat from the ball keeps this planet at a temperature that the current lifeforms adapted to. Its because the heat arrives as ultraviolet light but is trapped as infrared light by Co2 molecules attached to water molecules. We therefore know that as you increase the amount of Co2 you increase the heat of the planet. All the deniers arguments are based on what happens to that heat, none (except the most ignorant) argue that Co2 in NOT the reason our planet is an average 14 degrees Celsius rather than an average -50 Celsius. We do have the complication that other sources of CO2 or other greenhouse gases can exchange between the earth and the atmosphere. It makes the problem so much more difficult to measure because you introduce many variables and functions. Climate scientists work on all these different sources and sinks though and add it in as best they can to the model. This is why the climate model is such a big international effort. One thing you might know about is that it is even dependent on micro organisms down to the size of viruses and bacteria, especially in the sea. Yep, it will only ever be a best guess, but sometimes that's what you have to work with. |
|
