Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-13-2019, 10:48 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(12-13-2019, 10:15 PM)Chas Wrote:
(12-07-2019, 12:04 PM)Aractus Wrote: One day in the future, not in our lifetimes, in the far far future Antarctica will be green again.

Again?  It was never green in its current location at the South Pole.  It wasn't always there.

That's actually not correct.  Antarctica was green at the South Pole.

Quote:https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-eart...outh-pole/

Around 450 million years ago parts of Antarctica were actually north of the equator, and the continent only arrived at its present position at the South Pole within the last 70 million years or so. Even then, the much warmer global climate kept it free of ice.

Antarctica's present ice sheet dates from around 35 million years ago.

Thanks for the correction.
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. 
Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
― Napoleon Bonaparte
The following 2 users Like Chas's post:
  • Alan V, Deesse23
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-14-2019, 09:28 AM)Aractus Wrote:

Ah, yes. Decades upon decades of research into AGW, refuted by a simple, 3 minute satire video.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan.
The following 2 users Like GenesisNemesis's post:
  • Alan V, Cavebear
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-09-2019, 06:01 AM)Aractus Wrote: In September, 500 climate scientists and professionals sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Well, 10 climate scientists and 490 filler signatories, many of whom weren't scientists of any sort.

Quote:From: Professor Guus Berkhoutguus.
berkhout@clintel.org

So you think that the IPCC is too politicized to be trusted but you'll willingly swallow the bollox being produced by researchers and organizations accepting dark funding from fossil fuel companies. Does the hypocrisy burn?

Quote:Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming


Strictly true, but disingenuous since it neglects to mention that the anthropogenic factors have become orders of magnitude larger than the natural ones.

Quote:Warming is far slower than predicted


Far slower than who predicted?

Quote:Climate policy relies on inadequate models


According to...??? Climate modelling is admittedly difficult, but should we really wait to develop a 101% accurate model before taking action? I'm told that lifeboat policy relies on inadequate models of the Titanic's rate of sinking. It's only going down half as fast as we thought. Clearly we can ignore it since lifeboats cost money.

Quote:CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth


This is the sort of imbecilic tripe that proves that the speaker doesn't have the first clue. Sugar is human food but we don't grow so well on a 100% sugar diet. You'd think that Aractus might understand this nutritional lie.

Quote:Global warming has not increased natural disasters


A quick search on Google Scholar shows that this statement is a load of horseshit.

Quote:Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities


Isn't it a shame that the author couldn't manage that.
The following 6 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • Alan V, brunumb, Chas, GenesisNemesis, Deesse23, SYZ
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-03-2019, 07:09 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-03-2019, 05:15 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:
(12-03-2019, 01:02 AM)Aractus Wrote: Now I was taught in primary school, alongside that global warming was a big problem, that it's summer when the earth is closest to the sun. And that much is true...
Not necessarily. I was taught that its winter when the earth is closest to the sun.

Sadly, no.  It is all axial tilt.  The Earth doesn't rotate around a straight up and down axis.  It is tilted about 23.5 degrees (probably from a planetesmil hit that also formed the moon).  So the Earth heats unevenly.  In the north, it gets more direct sunlight in Summer, less in Winter.  Reverse for the South.  

The regular orbital changes do make some differences.  But if you want to go into those weeds, it gets really complicated.  

https://www.loc.gov/everyday-mysteries/i...in-winter/
I know im in the northern hemisphere, i know he is in the southern one. I know about seasons, he didnt realize this fact was relevant to his statement.
He is sloppy, but he thinks he has figured out something 97% of scientits are trying to hide.

Yep, sure.
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 4 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • GenesisNemesis, Thumpalumpacus, Cavebear, Paleophyte
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-07-2019, 03:00 AM)Aractus Wrote: Firstly, the term "greenhouse gas" is a complete misnomer. Something I've lamented time and time again. A greenhouse works by trapping heat: hot air is not allowed to escape.
As i just have stated: He lacks knowledge of the very basics, yet thinks he can lecture professionals (or accuse them of dishonesty, based on his ignorance). 

The comparison with a greehouse is, partially, valid, and for this validity the analogy was chosen by schientists. The did this in order to visualise the issue to the ignorant, like Aractus: Yet just with evolution (and lots of other things), the ignorant are too ignorant to understand even the simplification done for them, turn around with their false notion and think they know better. In other words: Nothing to see here, pass on, its all just Dunning-Kruger.

Why is the comparison (partially) valid? Because glass is transparent to light at optical wavelenths and completely opaque to mid infrared, just like earths atmosphere. Energy that is irradiated into the system across all wavelenths gets transformed into mainly mid infrared (typical wavelenght of radition at 270K = surface temperature of Earth) and then the mid infrared can not be radiated back through the opaque(!) glass. Thus energy gets trapped in the glass house.*

tl;dr: the comparison is not invalid because glasshouses prevent movement of (hot) air, but valid because of the ablility (of both glass houses and the atmoshpere) to absorb radiation across a big range of wavelenths and emit only across a narrow(er) wavelenght, thus trapping the remaining energy


Looks like scientists need to dumb down more, for people like Aractus, the comparison of properties of gases (in Earths atmosphere) with stuff Aractus knows. It certainly is not greenhouses. Chuckle


*and of course, the hot air carrying the glass house cant escape the glass house. Even in this regard the comparison is valid: hot air can move locally, but certainly not escpae the atmospere, thus the energy is still trapped even if you look at the problem only through the glass of "convection", like Aractus does.

As an engineer i am shocked time after time what amateurs like Aractus think scientists (and academics in general who spend the better time of a decade or longer) were doing all those years during and after study. Drinking at frat parties? And then a dude like him comes along, reads up some shit on the interwebz and thinks he has some competence or credibility. There is a fucking reason a scientifc education costs a fortune in countries like the USA. Dodgy
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 6 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • SYZ, Alan V, brunumb, Thumpalumpacus, Paleophyte, Kaneda
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-03-2019, 05:22 AM)Aractus Wrote: The third reason to be sceptical is that decarbonisation allows Europe to continue to prevent Africa from industrialising, something they've been actively doing for some centuries now. It will allow their exploitative and predatory "trade" practises with Africa to continue indefinitely. And who is most in favour of decarbonisation? Europe.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the conspiracy he is peddling.
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 2 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • Alan V, Thumpalumpacus
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-14-2019, 08:04 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 06:01 AM)Aractus Wrote: In September, 500 climate scientists and professionals sent a
registered letter to the UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

And this from the Aussie perspective:

"CO2 is plant food": Australian group signs international declaration denying climate science.

(The included image shows a coal-fired power station that was closed down three years ago!)

The letter repeats well-worn and long-debunked talking points on climate change that
are contradicted by scientific institutions and academies around the world, as well as
the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  And upon reading
through the listing of Australian signatories, I note the same old names of local climate
change deniers.  I also see lots of names of people who have irrelevant "professional"
accreditation, and/or zero scientific expertise.  And of course the list is stacked with past
or present members of the mining, minerals, and petroleum industries.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 3 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Cavebear, skyking, Paleophyte
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-13-2019, 05:18 PM)Ranjr Wrote: First time caller, long time listener here.

I've had such discussions as this several times in the last 15 years.  Deniers will always cherry pick and fall into the sharp shooter fallacy to feel like they know more than scientists.  They will use conspiracy theories about grant money, when, if scientists were all about the money, they'd be a shill for the oil companies.  They will shrug and say climate change has nothing to do with unprecedented levels of CO2, when stratospheric cooling data validates the predictions of greenhouse warming.  They will cite the opinion of some meteorologist or physicist who has never done a climate study, has no data to back up claims, and is actually a red tie republican.  If they were capable of critical thinking, they would learn the science for themselves and turn skeptical toward denial.  After all, if you're not skeptical of your own skepticism, you are no skeptic.

In short, climate change deniers carry the same bag of shit as religious apologists.

Great first post ... welcome, and post more.
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-14-2019, 02:16 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(12-14-2019, 09:28 AM)Aractus Wrote:

Ah, yes. Decades upon decades of research into AGW, refuted by a simple, 3 minute satire video.

Simple people make simple arguments.  Which are usually wrong.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-15-2019, 11:27 AM)SYZ Wrote:
(12-14-2019, 08:04 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(12-09-2019, 06:01 AM)Aractus Wrote: In September, 500 climate scientists and professionals sent a
registered letter to the UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

And this from the Aussie perspective:

"CO2 is plant food": Australian group signs international declaration denying climate science.

(The included image shows a coal-fired power station that was closed down three years ago!)

The letter repeats well-worn and long-debunked talking points on climate change that
are contradicted by scientific institutions and academies around the world, as well as
the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  And upon reading
through the listing of Australian signatories, I note the same old names of local climate
change deniers.  I also see lots of names of people who have irrelevant "professional"
accreditation, and/or zero scientific expertise.  And of course the list is stacked with past
or present members of the mining, minerals, and petroleum industries.

Plants do absorb CO2. But they they don't live forever. And they give up what they collected when they die. But what is more concerning is the melting of the permafrost. Millennia of plants are now exposed to heat and are giving up the CO2 they held. Things are even worse than "the crazies" said decades go.

We're in a deep serious plantload of carbon trouble...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • skyking
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-15-2019, 03:24 PM)Cavebear Wrote: Plants do absorb CO2.  But they they don't live forever.  And they give up what they collected when they die.  But what is more concerning is the melting of the permafrost.  Millennia of plants are now exposed to heat and are giving up the CO2 they held.  Things are even worse than "the crazies" said decades go.

We're in a deep serious plantload of carbon trouble...

Considering what Aractus wrote about coal being a "natural" source of CO2, he doesn't even understand the concepts of carbon sinks and sequestration.
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-15-2019, 03:24 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 11:27 AM)SYZ Wrote: And this from the Aussie perspective:

"CO2 is plant food": Australian group signs international declaration denying climate science.

(The included image shows a coal-fired power station that was closed down three years ago!)

The letter repeats well-worn and long-debunked talking points on climate change that
are contradicted by scientific institutions and academies around the world, as well as
the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  And upon reading
through the listing of Australian signatories, I note the same old names of local climate
change deniers.  I also see lots of names of people who have irrelevant "professional"
accreditation, and/or zero scientific expertise.  And of course the list is stacked with past
or present members of the mining, minerals, and petroleum industries.

Plants do absorb CO2.  But they they don't live forever.  And they give up what they collected when they die.  But what is more concerning is the melting of the permafrost.  Millennia of plants are now exposed to heat and are giving up the CO2 they held.  Things are even worse than "the crazies" said decades go.

We're in a deep serious plantload of carbon trouble...

I wasn't sure which angle they were going for with that absurdity. On the one hand they'll argue that plants take up CO2, so more CO2 makes them grow faster and that's good for agriculture, forestry, etc. Which completely ignores the fact that CO2 is rarely the limiting nutrient for most plants, that increasing one nutrient does not make for a healthier organism, and that the changes to climate are going to be more of a detriment than a simple boost in CO2 availability will ever offset.

On the other hand they sometimes argue that plants absorb CO2, suggesting that forests are some sort of CO2 sink. Which would apply if you were growing more forest than you were cutting down. As you mentioned, a forest in equilibrium has a net zero carbon footprint, releasing carbon back to the environment at the same rate that it absorbs it. And it isn't as if we're increasing the net biomass of plant material. Burning down the Amazon is just the latest in the millennia-long deforestation effort by our species.

Thawing of the permafrost is very worrying but for real nightmares try out methane clathrate destabilization.
The following 5 users Like Paleophyte's post:
  • Cavebear, Alan V, GenesisNemesis, brunumb, SYZ
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-15-2019, 04:51 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 03:24 PM)Cavebear Wrote:
(12-15-2019, 11:27 AM)SYZ Wrote: And this from the Aussie perspective:

"CO2 is plant food": Australian group signs international declaration denying climate science.

(The included image shows a coal-fired power station that was closed down three years ago!)

The letter repeats well-worn and long-debunked talking points on climate change that
are contradicted by scientific institutions and academies around the world, as well as
the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  And upon reading
through the listing of Australian signatories, I note the same old names of local climate
change deniers.  I also see lots of names of people who have irrelevant "professional"
accreditation, and/or zero scientific expertise.  And of course the list is stacked with past
or present members of the mining, minerals, and petroleum industries.

Plants do absorb CO2.  But they they don't live forever.  And they give up what they collected when they die.  But what is more concerning is the melting of the permafrost.  Millennia of plants are now exposed to heat and are giving up the CO2 they held.  Things are even worse than "the crazies" said decades go.

We're in a deep serious plantload of carbon trouble...

I wasn't sure which angle they were going for with that absurdity. On the one hand they'll argue that plants take up CO2, so more CO2 makes them grow faster and that's good for agriculture, forestry, etc. Which completely ignores the fact that CO2 is rarely the limiting nutrient for most plants, that increasing one nutrient does not make for a healthier organism, and that the changes to climate are going to be more of a detriment than a simple boost in CO2 availability will ever offset.

On the other hand they sometimes argue that plants absorb CO2, suggesting that forests are some sort of CO2 sink. Which would apply if you were growing more forest than you were cutting down. As you mentioned, a forest in equilibrium has a net zero carbon footprint, releasing carbon back to the environment at the same rate that it absorbs it. And it isn't as if we're increasing the net biomass of plant material. Burning down the Amazon is just the latest in the millennia-long deforestation effort by our species.

Thawing of the permafrost is very worrying but for real nightmares try out methane clathrate destabilization.

Here is a newer report about methane...

"In response to warming ocean waters, hydrates can degrade, releasing the methane gas. ... In addition to methane hydrates, carbon-rich permafrost that is tens of thousands of years old—and found throughout the Arctic on land and in seafloor sediments—can produce methane once this material thaws in response to warming.Jan 17, 2018".  

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-ocean-anci...thane.html

I won't be around to lack oxygen in we continue to ignore the problem.  But the children of my nieces ad nephews will.  I wonder what it is like to gasp for oxygen?  Not that I want to know.  But it will happen if we don't do something.

And let me add here that many (too many) theists think that it is "impossible for humans to change what God controls" so we don't have to worry about it.  

Let me just add that levels of oxygen haven risen an dropped naturally.  But we are doing it this time.  And consider this...  The human brain consumes 20% of all the oxygen we take in.  Brains are oxygen-burners.  Other animals need less than we do.  We'll be the first to go, when the level drops.  

And if that isn't bad enough, our possible successors are the other high-brain oxygen-burners.  Think about that...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-14-2019, 02:16 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(12-14-2019, 09:28 AM)Aractus Wrote:

Ah, yes. Decades upon decades of research into AGW, refuted by a simple, 3 minute satire video.

Jesus Christ what's wrong with you, do you really have no sense of humour?

I posted that video because it's on-topic: this is in the pseudo-science forum. I want the discussion to be on real science and real facts.

This on a more serious note fills me with hope:



But until this discussion is moved to an appropriate forum I'll post on-topic. I'm doing my part for Global Warming, how about you?

Reply

Climate Change from Alternative Viewpoints
(12-16-2019, 01:10 PM)Aractus Wrote:
(12-14-2019, 02:16 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:
(12-14-2019, 09:28 AM)Aractus Wrote:

Ah, yes. Decades upon decades of research into AGW, refuted by a simple, 3 minute satire video.

Jesus Christ what's wrong with you, do you really have no sense of humour?

I posted that video because it's on-topic: this is in the pseudo-science forum. I want the discussion to be on real science and real facts.

This on a more serious note fills me with hope:



But until this discussion is moved to an appropriate forum I'll post on-topic. I'm doing my part for Global Warming, how about you?


 I like to think I have sense of humour.  A part I sometimes forget;  MY rule 42: always  take the opportunity  to NOT take myself too seriously.

Not especially  fussed with Greta  Thunberg.   Am however impressed with what she has accomplished personally because Asperger's can be very socially limiting. 

Her message is very much a matter of preaching to the  choir with me. 

However, I AM thrilled at the response to her world wide from the youth.  It has increased my faith in the next generation.  As long as they don't come over all middle class and complacent  in their late twenties as my generation  did. 

These days I decline to become involved   in arguments  about  the validity  and extent  of man caused climate change. Regardless of the idiotic behaviour of our Prime Minister and his party--- it's become mainstream science, period. 

What have I done?   well, not a lot as far as I can see, although I've done about as much as I can;

I DO recycle, using the 3 bins council has provided.  However, Im unconvinced that more than a small fraction  of my recycled  waste is actually recycled.

In my home;

I have a 5kw solar power system.   On a hot clear day such a today, the system typically produces over 20 kwh, sometimes as much as 30 kwh.  The net effect of this over the  three years I've had it is has been  30% drop in my energy costs.

Last year I got rid of my 2.4 litre Camry and bought a 1.5 litre Mazda 2.  Much less use of fuel.

Garden; the first week after I moved in, I ripped out all the lawn, replacing out the front with 2 dozen rose bushes because roses are drought tolerant.    Trees are mainly native as are shrubs. This  coming year native succulents out the back as ground cover.  

South Australia is the driest state in the driest continent.Our average rainfall is about 21 inches. It is my unpopular opinion that it's  time South Australia got over its preoccupation with the English garden and lawn. True, some places use recycled sewerage water. This  is great, as long as there is nothing more useful which can be done with such water, which here is potable.       

Have outside  blinds at the front of the house, plus reflective film on one window .  Reflective film on kitchen window. This coming year new inside blinds.  Also want to check the prices of retro fitting a type of double glazing. It just clips into existing windows. Also  reduces noise.

I'm well aware that my efforts are very much a case of lighting a candle rather than  cursing the dark . I will do more  as money allows   .


I had hoped I would die before climate change became personally inconvenient. I'm starting to think that may not be the case. Some times I feel like chewing carpet at the selfish stupidity  of people who actually could make a vast difference. --and at our criminally ignorant,  incompetent politicians and their apparent corruption.
The following 3 users Like grympy's post:
  • brunumb, Kaneda, mordant
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)