The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-17-2016, 04:45 PM   #1
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default Discuss: Manmade Climate Change

Go right ahead, those of you who reject it.

Bring your best science to bear.

Let's see what you've got.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 12-17-2016, 04:58 PM   #2
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Again, you have to stay in a rude antagonistic manner.

What makes this warming out of the norms of the last 500k years?

So, before we prove a negative, how about you put forth your best case?
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 05:04 PM   #3
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

CO2 is now at 400ppm. That hasn't happened in at least 800,000 years.

Watch this:


We as a species have never experienced CO2 at this level. Nor have we had to accommodate this sort of incredibly rapid change with a population in the billions.

We know the climate is changing because of us. Period.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 05:23 PM   #4
rmsanger
Elway > PFM
 
rmsanger's Avatar
 
Another one bites the dust!

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,785

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Darian Stewart
Default

I don't deny that the earth is in a warming trend but still not sure of causation. Could be that carbon emissions have contributed to the acceleration of climate change. I also don't deny the cooling and warming trends have been around far longer than humans.

I also don't believe that science could agree it's way out of a paper bag. Are eggs healthy or unhealthy again?
rmsanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 05:34 PM   #5
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmsanger View Post
I don't deny that the earth is in a warming trend but still not sure of causation. Could be that carbon emissions have contributed to the acceleration of climate change. I also don't deny the cooling and warming trends have been around far longer than humans.
There are no factors that can explain the observations made of the last century or so as well as carbon emissions from us. If you've got some other explanation that does a better job, the science community sure would like to hear it.

Your argument also contains a flaw in logic. The existence of non-human-related climate change doesn't mean human-caused climate change is therefore impossible, just as the existence of lightning-caused fires doesn't mean we cause fires too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmsanger
I also don't believe that science could agree it's way out of a paper bag. Are eggs healthy or unhealthy again?
Uncertainty in one part of science doesn't mean all science realms are equally uncertain.

We don't understand all the complexities of the relationships between diet and health. Doesn't mean taking up smoking is a harmless idea.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 05:40 PM   #6
SVine
Ring of Famer
 
SVine's Avatar
 
Broncos 2017!

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Chadron, NE
Posts: 6,634

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris Jr
Default

I said this in the other thread and I'll say it here...

Personally, even if I denied human impact, I must realize that I don't know for sure and it would serve the interests of future generations to take as good care of the Earth as possible in the present in case human impact is real. It's simply too big a risk to look at it any other way.
SVine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 06:04 PM   #7
footstepsfrom#27
helmet to helmet hitter
 
footstepsfrom#27's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 34,751

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Royce Freeman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Go right ahead, those of you who reject it.

Bring your best science to bear.

Let's see what you've got.
Seriously?
footstepsfrom#27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 06:13 PM   #8
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
CO2 is now at 400ppm. That hasn't happened in at least 800,000 years.

Watch this:


We as a species have never experienced CO2 at this level. Nor have we had to accommodate this sort of incredibly rapid change with a population in the billions.

We know the climate is changing because of us. Period.
CO2 is not proof of man made warming or of temperatures and the effect on sea levels being out of normal climatic variations.

CO2 may, if the green house theory is correct as it applies to the atmosphere vs laboratory -- water vapor and the like, "may" increase temperatures, thereby melting ice and raising sea levels.

However, when it is still a theory only proven in computer models, you can't use only CO2 as your proof. Yes, it is a fact that we are putting more CO2 in the air than in the past. If that doesn't cause detrimental warming, it's actually a good thing, because it allows semi-arid land to convert to something that can better sustain life saving crops.

So, when you look at the last five inter-glacial periods, how does the current warming and sea levels compare to those?

It's incumbent on you, the believer, to show us the deniers, what proof you have that what we are seeing today in terms of temperature and sea level is out of the normal climatic variations seen within an inter-glacial period.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 06:18 PM   #9
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVine View Post
I said this in the other thread and I'll say it here...

Personally, even if I denied human impact, I must realize that I don't know for sure and it would serve the interests of future generations to take as good care of the Earth as possible in the present in case human impact is real. It's simply too big a risk to look at it any other way.
That's a very simplistic view. For instance, much of the "green" technology results in heavy metals and other various "earth poisons" being dumped all over the place.

So, on the one hand we have CO2, you know, plant food, that in theory and in computer models written with the sole purpose of proving said theories, might raise the temperatures, if water vapor is created..... On the other hand, we are making life harder on developing nations and lower income citizens in developed nations, by making energy more expensive, and we are mandating the use of "green" technology, that tends to be far harsher pollutants when dumped in landfills.

You can't use the, "well even if we are wrong, it's better for the planet" argument, because:

A. That doesn't support your premise of AGW.
B. It's not even true in many cases (that "green" is less polluting).
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 06:23 PM   #10
ShaneFalco
Infamous
 
ShaneFalco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 17,541
Default

So in Indonesia, forests are being burned for some palm oil for alot of companies in the US to have a cheaper version.

Most of these forests have years of carbon in the roots, so when they are burned, it releases all the carbon along with it.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that man has an effect on the climate.

Polluters are interfering with my life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I would not be opposed to a carbon tax as gary johnson proposed. The worst polluters should be punished.

The problem is so vast and involved with Americas and the worlds, entire way of life. The only way may to be develop new forms of energy like Fusion.

Last edited by ShaneFalco; 12-17-2016 at 06:27 PM..
ShaneFalco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 06:29 PM   #11
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
CO2 is not proof of man made warming or of temperatures and the effect on sea levels being out of normal climatic variations.
CO2 is the driver of the climate system.

Take out the CO2, only, from the atmosphere, and the earth's surface becomes completely frozen because we don't get enough solar energy to keep the surface temperature above the freezing point of water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
CO2 may, if the green house theory is correct as it applies to the atmosphere vs laboratory -- water vapor and the like, "may" increase temperatures, thereby melting ice and raising sea levels.
"[I]f the green house theory is correct" is like saying "If the theory of gravity is correct" or "If the earth-is-a-sphere theory is correct". Yes, it's that solid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
However, when it is still a theory only proven in computer models, you can't use only CO2 as your proof.
The relationship between CO2 and temperature (actually, the relationship between CO2 and the energy state of the climate system) was shown over 100 years ago. Long before computers and climate models. Here's a clip from 1958 - before computer models existed:



Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
Yes, it is a fact that we are putting more CO2 in the air than in the past. If that doesn't cause detrimental warming, it's actually a good thing, because it allows semi-arid land to convert to something that can better sustain life saving crops.
CO2 isn't the only limiting factor in agricultural productivity. Just because Canada gets warmer doesn't mean we can shift our agricultural regions northwards. The length of daylight doesn't change, and the soil is still poor for farming. There are also changes in the water cycle that will take place - shifts in precipitation patterns, more extreme events (floods, droughts, etc.) that we'll have to take into account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
So, when you look at the last five inter-glacial periods, how does the current warming and sea levels compare to those?
Far faster. We're seeing changes on the timescale of decades, not millennia.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 06:34 PM   #12
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
That's a very simplistic view. For instance, much of the "green" technology results in heavy metals and other various "earth poisons" being dumped all over the place.
Not to the extent that the burning of fossil fuels does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
So, on the one hand we have CO2, you know, plant food, that in theory and in computer models written with the sole purpose of proving said theories, might raise the temperatures, if water vapor is created.....
Climate models aren't written to "prove" that CO2 increases cause warming. That was known before climate models existed and is an unavoidable outcome of the nature of the CO2 molecule and its interaction with solar radiation. We can't escape the fact that CO2 is transparent to short wavelength radiation (what we get from the sun) and opaque to longwave radiation (which comes from the surface). That's an unalterable fact.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 09:51 PM   #13
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaneFalco View Post
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that man has an effect on the climate.
No, it takes a scientific theory that is proven correct ultimately with observational data.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 09:54 PM   #14
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Not to the extent that the burning of fossil fuels does.



Climate models aren't written to "prove" that CO2 increases cause warming. That was known before climate models existed and is an unavoidable outcome of the nature of the CO2 molecule and its interaction with solar radiation. We can't escape the fact that CO2 is transparent to short wavelength radiation (what we get from the sun) and opaque to longwave radiation (which comes from the surface). That's an unalterable fact.
The whole man made AGW movement is predicated on forcing factors that have been wildly overstated in the models, which is why even though CO2 has actually increased at a higher rate than expected, observational warming has not matched what the models have predicted.

So, again, without focusing on CO2, show where the warming we've seen in this inter-glacial and the sea level rise we've seen, or even that is predicted, is out of the ordinary for say the last five inter-glacial periods.

You guys are the ones that mock Christians for looking at the world as if it's only 6,000 years old, but the AGW crowd likes to focus on only the last 150 years or, when temperatures dipped well below the average of the previous thousand or so years.

Last edited by tnedator; 12-17-2016 at 09:56 PM..
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 10:08 PM   #15
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
The whole man made AGW movement is predicated on forcing factors that have been wildly overstated in the models, which is why even though CO2 has actually increased at a higher rate than expected, observational warming has not matched what the models have predicted.
Can you quantify "wildly overstated"?

What was "expected" for CO2 emissions?

Can you quantify "not matched"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
So, again, without focusing on CO2, show where the warming we've seen in this inter-glacial and the sea level rise we've seen, or even that is predicted, is out of the ordinary for say the last five inter-glacial periods.
Why do you believe non-human-driven climate change precludes human-driven climate change? It's not one *or* the other. Both exist.

How do you explain this divergence between incoming solar energy and surface temperature?



Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator
You guys are the ones that mock Christians for looking at the world as if it's only 6,000 years old, but the AGW crowd likes to focus on only the last 150 years or, when temperatures dipped well below the average of the previous thousand or so years.
You're incorrect. Climate scientists examine much more than the last 150 years. How do you suppose you've come up with the (incorrect) assertion regarding the "previous thousand or so years" if climate scientists hadn't determined what those temperatures were?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 10:33 PM   #16
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Can you quantify "wildly overstated"?

What was "expected" for CO2 emissions?

Can you quantify "not matched"?



Why do you believe non-human-driven climate change precludes human-driven climate change? It's not one *or* the other. Both exist.

How do you explain this divergence between incoming solar energy and surface temperature?





You're incorrect. Climate scientists examine much more than the last 150 years. How do you suppose you've come up with the (incorrect) assertion regarding the "previous thousand or so years" if climate scientists hadn't determined what those temperatures were?
Again, I asked you to show how this is out of the norm for what has been seen in the inter-glacial periods for the last 500k years (five inter-glacial periods). You can't put up a graph of 160 years or so, which is less than a blip in time, and use it as ANY sort of proof to prove the theory.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 10:58 PM   #17
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Elway needs to go to AA.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 38,015

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Phillip Lindsay
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
No, it takes a scientific theory that is proven correct ultimately with observational data.
Yes, and we have that. Higher levels of CO2 cause an increase in global temperatures. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have been the only major change to global CO2 emissions. CO2 levels are vastly higher today than before the industrial revolution began. All evidence points towards human beings being the cause of CO2 levels rising, and the effects of CO2 on the warmth of the planet are fully proven. Disputing the matter is like arguing gravity isn't real.
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 11:04 PM   #18
Agamemnon
Ring of Famer
 
Agamemnon's Avatar
 
Elway needs to go to AA.

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 38,015

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Phillip Lindsay
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Again, I asked you to show how this is out of the norm for what has been seen in the inter-glacial periods for the last 500k years (five inter-glacial periods). You can't put up a graph of 160 years or so, which is less than a blip in time, and use it as ANY sort of proof to prove the theory.
There is one known factor that has changed over the past 150 years and that's CO2 emissions via the burning of fossil fuels. Please point to any natural causes in the time period in question other than this that could cause such a huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm not aware of any. Your position is not unlike someone building a bonfire in their home and then asking for proof that the smoke filling their home came from the fire.
Agamemnon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2016, 11:08 PM   #19
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agamemnon View Post
Yes, and we have that. Higher levels of CO2 cause an increase in global temperatures. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution humans have been the only major change to global CO2 emissions. CO2 levels are vastly higher today than before the industrial revolution began. All evidence points towards human beings being the cause of CO2 levels rising, and the effects of CO2 on the warmth of the planet are fully proven. Disputing the matter is like arguing gravity isn't real.
Climatic change, including temperature rising and falling did not start at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

If it is so indisputable, I'll ask you the same question I've posed to the other two in this thread.

Where is the indisputable evidence that the change in temperatures over the last 160+ years, and the current temperatures and sea levels, are out of the normal variations expected in an inter-glacial period? Where is the evidence that the temperatures and sea level are higher than say in the last five inter-glacial periods?
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 12:07 AM   #20
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,927

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Climatic change, including temperature rising and falling did not start at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

If it is so indisputable, I'll ask you the same question I've posed to the other two in this thread.

Where is the indisputable evidence that the change in temperatures over the last 160+ years, and the current temperatures and sea levels, are out of the normal variations expected in an inter-glacial period? Where is the evidence that the temperatures and sea level are higher than say in the last five inter-glacial periods?
What you are asking for is pointless. The issue with climate change is not that the conditions are way out of the norm, it's that conditions are changing far more rapidly than via natural processes. Here's a nice visualization for you: https://xkcd.com/1732/
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 09:32 AM   #21
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Again, I asked you to show how this is out of the norm for what has been seen in the inter-glacial periods for the last 500k years (five inter-glacial periods). You can't put up a graph of 160 years or so, which is less than a blip in time, and use it as ANY sort of proof to prove the theory.
Here's a temperature reconstruction for the last 20,000 years, with a projection to 2100 based on a medium emissions scenario:



References:
Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene
The two epochs of Marcott
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 09:33 AM   #22
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
What you are asking for is pointless. The issue with climate change is not that the conditions are way out of the norm, it's that conditions are changing far more rapidly than via natural processes. Here's a nice visualization for you: https://xkcd.com/1732/
Exactly.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 10:24 AM   #23
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Here's a temperature reconstruction for the last 20,000 years, with a projection to 2100 based on a medium emissions scenario:



References:
Paleoclimate: The End of the Holocene
The two epochs of Marcott
Are you like climate creationists or something? What's happened in the previous inter-glacials? You do understand that the earth is for all intents an purposes in an ice age and that at the moment we are simply in a pause between glaciation (unless by some miracle man made warming holds off the next one).

So, how does current temps and sea level compare to other inter-glacial periods.

It's incumbent on you to PROVE that we are outside of natural variations, not for me to prove we aren't.

Take this out of the "just believe" arena, and show actual facts that we are outside expected norms. You can't just use the current inter-glacial, because in each inter-glacial period, the earth warms and cools, sea level rises and falls. So, what makes this one different. Show that, because that's the starting point of any conversation.
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 10:45 AM   #24
W*GS
Eppure si scalda
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 36,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnedator View Post
Are you like climate creationists or something? What's happened in the previous inter-glacials? You do understand that the earth is for all intents an purposes in an ice age and that at the moment we are simply in a pause between glaciation (unless by some miracle man made warming holds off the next one).

So, how does current temps and sea level compare to other inter-glacial periods.
I just showed you.

CO2 hasn't been at 400ppm in at least 800,000 years. We're well outside of the norm for that time period.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2016, 10:58 AM   #25
tnedator
Ring of Famer
 
tnedator's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,858

Adopt-a-Bronco:
He be gone..
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
I just showed you.

CO2 hasn't been at 400ppm in at least 800,000 years. We're well outside of the norm for that time period.
CO2 is not temperature. CO2 is not sea level. You are using a theorized predictor to Trump observational or historical temperature data.

So, now how does current temperature and sea level compare to those 800,000 years?

Further, look at the first graph you posted. It has the 0 axis line during the second portion of the little ice age when temps were about .5 C below average, which means 20th century warming at most is a rebound from that low, plus another .5 C or so above that average. If natural variation accounted for the .5C drop during the mini ice age, why not a .5-.6C climb now?
tnedator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:12 PM.


Denver Broncos