Once more about Climate Change..

[SunsetBengal]

(06-13-2017, 05:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You argued this . . .


. . . is a "meaningless blanket statement as a valid argument."

Now you're argument is that you didn't even have an argument. In which case, I concur.

BTW, please learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and how to use them in a sentence correctly. "You guys" could at least make an attempt at science literacy.

So, what exactly does everyone mean, when they say "You guys"?

I mean, if we delve deeply into the meaning of "You guys", we could likely have an epic thread that lasts indefinitely.

[GMDino]

(06-13-2017, 05:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, what exactly does everyone mean, when they say "You guys"?

I mean, if we delve deeply into the meaning of "You guys", we could likely have an epic thread that lasts indefinitely.

That is a very obtuse question.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-13-2017, 05:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: That is a very obtuse question.

Yet one with tremendous philosophical merit.

We really should investigate the true meaning of "you guys".

[GMDino]

(06-13-2017, 06:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yet one with tremendous philosophical merit.

We really should investigate the true meaning of "you guys".

[GMDino]

[SunsetBengal]

(06-13-2017, 06:09 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Well, that certainly is one possibility.  I was going to start small, suggesting it was merely a reference to an undefined number of individuals.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-12-2017, 09:18 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I don't know if climate change is man made or not but I will say this,

What is wrong with doing your part in reducing pollution?

There are many things an individual can do to reduce the amount of pollution they produce.
Buy a car that uses lass gas
Cut your grass after 6:00pm
Recycle
Get solar panels
Get a windmill that produces electricity
Only cook what you will eat...no leftovers
Insulate your home better
Walk, ride your bike, take the bus or carpool to work

So many things you can do plus it will save you money...everyone likes money.

I just wish solar panels were better then more people would have them.

This is pretty close to where I am on it. I think the climate changes on it's own (hence the no more Ice Age right now, or how there were no ice caps during the Dinosaurs) and I don't know how much of an impact humans have on it (or how much it really matters) but I do enjoy having clean air and water.

That's why I wanted the US to pull out of the Paris Accord, but maintain their reduction in emissions/pollution anyway.

- - - - - -
Some of your list is good, but some of it is a bit silly, though.

For instance solar panels. I live in an area with large old trees, and Southern Ohio isn't exactly prime sun catching territory anyway. I would spend $10k or whatever, and then spend all my time cleaning the panels of tree buds, leaves, and snow. Then a tree branch will break off in a storm and break them, no doubt.

Cost aside, very few people live in an area where 1. They are legally allowed to set up a wind turbine, and 2. A wind turbine would actually be useful. Once again, large old trees and stretches of woods everywhere would block all the wind, and it would be extremely costly/probably illegal to put it up high enough what with small craft airports and the like around. Plus they're noisy.

I'm not sure what leftovers has to do with any of it? Besides, if you don't have leftover chili, how are you going to later make chili mac? Lol

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2017, 05:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, what exactly does everyone mean, when they say "You guys"?

I mean, if we delve deeply into the meaning of "You guys", we could likely have an epic thread that lasts indefinitely.

Youse guys. You all. Y'all. Youens. They. Them. People.

Who "they" are varies depending upon the situation, the usage, and, the user.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-13-2017, 07:07 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Youse guys. You all. Y'all. Youens. They. Them. People.

Who "they" are varies depending upon the situation, the usage, and, the user.

Hmm, interesting.  Let's start with "Youens", because depending on where you're from can have a lot of influence of the dialect and inflection one is using "Youens".

For example, if one is a Western Pa. hillbilly, they might likely say it as "Yinz".  As in,  Yinz best git to work, if ya know what's good fer ya.

Or maybe a trailer trash mother from the farming Midwest might pronounce it as "Yuns".  As in, If Yuns don't stay out of mamma's Vodka, you'll be sorry.

Or, if one were just a slack jawed yokel from Southeast Ohio, you might really try to accent it by saying "Yoons".  As in, I had a dollar, till Yoons took it from me.

But in a lot of places, if you were to pronounce it as "Youens", you might get some strange responses.  Someone might say "Youens?, weren't they the name of the family on Dallas?".

[Beaker]

(06-13-2017, 06:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: This is pretty close to where I am on it. I think the climate changes on it's own (hence the no more Ice Age right now, or how there were no ice caps during the Dinosaurs) and I don't know how much of an impact humans have on it (or how much it really matters) but I do enjoy having clean air and water.

That's why I wanted the US to pull out of the Paris Accord, but maintain their reduction in emissions/pollution anyway.

My take based upon logic and evidence provided by longer term info such as ice cores that give very accurate info going back hundreds of thousands of years, and fossilized stomata evidence that can go back millions of years is the following:

The earth has natural climate/temperature cycles.

Temperatures have been shown to have a very close correlation to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

The normal cycling of CO2 levels has hardly ever exceeded 300 ppm in the Earth's atmosphere, and when they did, they just barely exceeded it. This was even during massive volcanic eruption times and other natural events that disperse large volumes of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Since humans began burning fossil fuels, the levels of free CO2 in the atmosphere have been steadily increasing...the Earth can't recapture it at the rate we are emitting it.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now exceeding 400 ppm...a level which the Earth has never seen before as far as we can tell from all our methods of evidence.

With newer industrialized and high population nations coming online such as China and India, those levels will do nothing but rise due to the lack of regulations for emissions in those countries.

I don't believe humans are the sole cause of climate change, but the evidence shows that we are definitely contributing to a faster rate of change....and possibly a higher amount of temperature change than would occur naturally.

If we say man is the most intelligent creature on Earth, then that in effect means we should be stewards of the Earth for all other living things. The Earth is sending us clear cut signals that things are not healthy, yet we continue to debate it at the political level, instead of the common sense level.

Humans are contributing to climate change....there is no way we cannot be doing so.

[ballsofsteel]

(06-13-2017, 08:28 AM)Vlad Wrote: Yeah I'm sure you would in hopes Mathews does all the talking again.  When he isn't liking what he's hearing, he talks over and interrupts his guest.
That asswipe doesn't need a guest..he asks a question then answers it.

Your right that weatherman, he was an asswipe. Mathews does talk over and interrupts guest especially if they aren't answering the questions they were asked. You must feel blessed having Trump as your potus, no?

[Stewy]

k I can't help myself.............

Both sides use the same data and it's amusing because there is a truism in science about numbers.  You can make statistics say anything you want depending on how you sort them or shake them out or present them.  For example you can see charts or graphs such as below which show how important man made CO2 is to the green house gases.

What it doesn't present to the viewer is exceedingly important....in the title is says "Man-Made and Natural CO2" but excludes Water Vapor.  Here is why that is important:

Note:  Man made contribution to total CO2 is less than 4%.  CO2 total contribution is 3-4% due to the importance of Water Vapor.

So while it is absolutely true that CO2 levels are high, it is also true that things like the Vostok Ice Cores do not measure CO2 from the past, but measures O18/O16 ratios which are a temperature indicator, the levels of past CO2 are estimates based upon those temperatures suggested by the O Isotope ratios.  So we must rely upon a foundation of Geology which is Uniformitarianism or "the Present is the key to the past" to make estimates of CO2 levels, but they are NOT direct measurements.  Hell even the O Isotope ratios aren't direct measures of temperature.  So one has to be very careful about comparing estimated temperatures and estimated CO2 levels from indirect measurements and comparing them to current day temperatures.  It's poor science to make that comparison and declare it conclusive.  Essentially, estimating CO2 levels from the Vostok Icecores is two steps removed from real temperature readings making them suggestive at best and inconclusive at worst.

What the Vostok Ice Cores do show is a natural cycle of heating a cooling over the last ~500k years associated with the Ice Ages.  They show a slow build up of rising temperatures through time, and a rapid near instantaneous (geologically) temperature drop into an Ice Age.  It has been estimated that the temperature drop can happen in likely less than a century and possibly as quickly as a decade.  This rapid temperature drop is likely assocaited with the shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation.  It is a real effect, and the main reason why Rome is so warm at the same latitude as Boston (as an example).  The TC can be shutdown by global  warming leading to the melting of the Arctic leading to a flood of fresh water into the North Atlantic which can shut down the Gulf Stream leading to abrupt cooling across the Northern Hemisphere.
Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

If one wants to worry about anything, I'd be worrying an impending abrupt global temperature collapse associated with the Shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation.  Oh and the Vostok Ice Core suggests that we are on the verge of the next Ice Age as well....


Note:  These are reconstructed curves from the O18/O16 ratios....not direct measurements.  Note the rapid temperature drops of the blue peak maximums are associated with the last few Ice Ages.

[Dill]

(06-13-2017, 09:21 AM)Vlad Wrote: That may make a good meme.
There you guys go again using meaningless blanket statements as valid arguments.

Which one was the meaningless blanket statement--

"Make America Great again" or "Science literacy"?

[Dill]

(06-13-2017, 12:00 PM)Vlad Wrote: Nope, see no arguing a point there, just stating an observation.
There you guys go again making stuff up ..lol

That wasn't an "observation." It was an inference based upon a question.
An unwarranted inference at that, but certainly arguing a point, just not very well.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(06-13-2017, 09:55 PM)Stewy Wrote: If one wants to worry about anything, I'd be worrying an impending abrupt global temperature collapse associated with the Shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation.  Oh and the Vostok Ice Core suggests that we are on the verge of the next Ice Age as well....

Psh... who cares, I am set either way. My Dad is Dennis Quaid:

and my uncle is Kevin Costner:


I am good to go either way.

[Beaker]

(06-13-2017, 09:55 PM)Stewy Wrote: So while it is absolutely true that CO2 levels are high, it is also true that things like the Vostok Ice Cores do not measure CO2 from the past, but measures O18/O16 ratios which are a temperature indicator, the levels of past CO2 are estimates based upon those temperatures suggested by the O Isotope ratios.  So we must rely upon a foundation of Geology which is Uniformitarianism or "the Present is the key to the past" to make estimates of CO2 levels, but they are NOT direct measurements. 

Isotope ratios are indeed one method, but direct measurement of CO2 levels trapped in bubbles in the ice is used also. One example of this is at the Bern Labs where they crush samples under vacuum conditions and then measure the amounts of C02 via gas chromatography. This is also done at the Grenoble labs (to provide more than one example). So to say that direct measurements of CO2 do not occur and all we are going by are indirect estimates is not the case. The fossilized stomata method is an indirect estimate based upon correlation. That is one of the methods used to take us farther back than the ice cores.
This is one of the sites that Trump is cutting off. You can see their notice at the top of the page. But it gives more detail to the outline I provided above:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

[Stewy]

(06-14-2017, 09:33 AM)Beaker Wrote: Isotope ratios are indeed one method, but direct measurement of CO2 levels trapped in bubbles in the ice is used also. One example of this is at the Bern Labs where they crush samples under vacuum conditions and then measure the amounts of C02 via gas chromatography. This is also done at the Grenoble labs (to provide more than one example). So to say that direct measurements of CO2 do not occur and all we are going by are indirect estimates is not the case. The fossilized stomata method is an indirect estimate based upon correlation. That is one of the methods used to take us farther back than the ice cores.
This is one of the sites that Trump is cutting off. You can see their notice at the top of the page. But it gives more detail to the outline I provided above:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

I was speaking more of the Vostok Ice Cores specifically.  My understanding is that they don't use the methods above just just the Isotope ratios.  I misunderstood what you were trying to say.  I thought you were specifically speaking of the Vostok Ice Cores directly measuring CO2.  It would be interesting to see the direct measurements of CO2 vs. the estimated ones from other methods and compare the correlation.

As an aside:
I found no published articles linking all these methods, except a post from a noted "climate denier" (they basically just call him a geologist who makes blog posts.  I guess being a geologist makes you a climate denier) here - https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

Without getting into the details, it appears very well written and covers most methods of CO2 analysis.  I don't have time to niggle the details of it, but he references many published articles and quotes many of the methods mentioned here and more.  Read it and decide for yourself.

[GMDino]

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-28/minnesota-scientist-epa-pressured-her-to-change-testimony

Quote:Minnesota Scientist: EPA Pressured Her to Change Testimony
A Minnesota scientist who leads an Environmental Protection Agency advisory board says she was pressured by the agency's chief of staff to change her testimony before Congress.
June 28, 2017, at 1:01 p.m.


Minnesota Scientist: EPA Pressured Her to Change Testimony



By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press



MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minnesota scientist who leads an Environmental Protection Agency scientific advisory board says she was pressured by the agency's chief of staff to change her congressional testimony to downplay the Trump administration's decision not to reappoint half the panel's members.


Emails show that EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson asked Deborah Swackhamer, who recently retired from the University of Minnesota, to stick to the agency's stance at a hearing last month that the decision on those appointments had not yet been made.


Democratic leaders of the House Science Committee have asked EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins to investigate Jackson's actions, which they say were "inappropriate and may have violated federal regulations."


The Republican committee chairman says the EPA was just performing "due diligence" to ensure that Swackhamer's testimony was accurate.

[SunsetBengal]

(07-01-2017, 09:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-06-28/minnesota-scientist-epa-pressured-her-to-change-testimony

EPA forced her to change her testimony from what, to what? 

[SunsetBengal]

What does everyone make of the new island, off the coast of NC?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/new-shelly-island-appears-cape-hatteras-north-carolina-coast/