Climategate - Why are Liberals so stupid - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15196507
@Truth To Power

Mars has virtually no atmosphere, and because CO2 is so dense compared to other gases, the other gases have gone into space whilst CO2 is what is left. This is your problem. You only accept what you think you know and base your opinion on conjecture.

Also, I don't deal will you because fragmentation means you don't actually address the core argument. If you did, you wouldn't have said we can also go extinct like the Neanderthals given the original argument made by @Saeko wasn't that Climate change will wipe us out but that to accept the world will be benevolent to us and we will survive whatever it throws at us is frankly wishful thinking. The truth is I am old enough to remember leaves falling off trees in September and currently it is nearly November, temperature are seasonally high and the leaves are still on the trees. I also don't need to be told CO2 retains heat given I learnt that in high school. I also don't need to be told climate change is real and see the graphs of decades of step annual heat rises when I have experienced the difference between decades and remember it well. You are just an ignorant user who no doubt is so old that he knows full well that any action now is a condition to his way of life and given you won't be around when the shit hits the fan, you would rather be obtuse than change your habits.
#15196544
Truth To Power wrote:Of course there is: the stability that is more stable than instability.


That's not an argument. You just re-iterated your original point.

Irrelevant. Look at the solar system: four major planets, four small rocky planets, dozens of minor planets and major satellites, millions of smaller bodies: it is a massively complex system, yet it naturally reached stability. Any complex natural system will tend to spend most of its time in stable configurations because that's what stability is.


That's not at all irrelevant. You claimed that stability is a property of complex systems in general. Your singular example wherein long lasting stability is a property of a particular system is insufficient to support the original claim.

We have changed the rules, and will likely change them again very soon.


Technological civilization to some extent allows us to survive things that would not be possible to survive otherwise, but it does not eliminate all major risks, while, at the same time, it introduces new existential risks that didn't exist before. It may even introduce risks that it cannot eliminate. The idea that technology is some panacea is an instance of magical thinking, not rational thought.

Hominids get replaced by more advanced hominids. That may happen to us. But it won't be because we used fossil fuels.


At almost every point in the history of hominid evolution, there has existed more than one species of hominid that could fill the vacant niches left behind should another species of hominid go extinct. This is no longer true in today's world. If humans go extinct, we will not be replaced by another species of hominids.

Nope. We are the first species that understands ecological systems well enough to consciously engineer them.


Yeah, it's just too bad that we apparently don't have the will to change them to our benefit by eliminating CO2 emissions.

No, because we create the ecosystems we depend on for food.


No, those ecosystems were there before us.

They won't need to. Agriculture is not that complicated, and lots of people know how to farm. There is no way to put that genie back in the bottle.


The issue is not whether or not people know how to farm, but to what extent farming will even be possible in a warmer world. With rising global temperatures, desertification will place an enormous strain on our ability to farm.

Even if 99% of us died in some astronomically triggered climate warming catastrophe, that still leaves two orders of magnitude more than the paleolithic population. Our ancestors survived ice ages with paleolithic technology! There is simply zero (0) probability that any warming that could possibly be caused by fossil fuel use could extinguish the human species --


Our ancestors may have survived an ice age, but they weren't living through any mass extinctions at the same time like we are today. The two situations are not analogous. During the ice ages, our ancestors would have a choice of moving into a new environment only after they've figured out how to live in it. We will not have it so easy. Furthermore, our ancestors didn't have to deal with the possibility and aftereffects of nuclear war.

but hysteria over fossil fuel use is distracting fools from the threats that really could extinguish the human species, starting with bioweapons research.


Psychologizing nonsense.

Truth To Power wrote:No, they will be more plentiful, which is why warm periods were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect.


No, that's not why they are called "optimums". They are called "optimums" simply because they are either peaks or valleys in a graph. They have nothing to do with the abundance of plant life.

The surface of Venus is hot because of its atmosphere's pressure, not because it is CO2.


Please provide your calculations of the surface temperature of Venus to support the ridiculous notion that the surface temps are a product of atmospheric pressure alone. PROTIP: You can't because you obviously don't know crap about climate science or physics.
#15196546
late wrote:NASA says you're a liar.

No, you simply made that up. NASA's own data show temperature leads CO2:
Image
The correlations of CO2 with past and future temperatures and temperature with past and future CO2 prove conclusively that temperature causes CO2 variation much more than the other way around. The following plots show the probability that given a change in one variable (for example, temperature), then N years (0-10K in these plots) later, the same variable (autocorrelation) or a different variable (cross correlate) will be changing in the same direction (positive values) or in the opposite direction (negative values):

Vostok: http://www.palisad.com/co2/ic/v_corr_temp+co2+i1500.gif
Dome C: http://www.palisad.com/co2/ic/d_corr_temp+co2+i1500.gif

For both ice core sites, the correlation of CO2 with past temperature is uniformly greater than with future temperature. The green line always being above the magenta line shows that CO2 is always more correlated with past temperature than with future temperature. It is notable that in the Dome C data, temperature is almost totally uncorrelated with past CO2.
Image

And your point would be...? That graph leaves out temperature because it would show temperature leading CO2 by hundreds of years.
#15196549
Truth To Power wrote:No, you simply made that up. NASA's own data show temperature leads CO2:
Image
The correlations of CO2 with past and future temperatures and temperature with past and future CO2 prove conclusively that temperature causes CO2 variation much more than the other way around.


Historically, this is true, but it's only half the story. Since a lot of CO2 is dissolved in the ocean, rising temperatures (historically caused by changes in the Earth's orbit) force the ocean to release more CO2, driving the temperatures even higher via the greenhouse effect.

In post-industrial times, this relationship has been reversed. Now, increases in atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic factors have raised temperatures via the greenhouse effect, thereby triggering the oceanic positive feedback.
#15196552
Saeko wrote:That's not an argument. You just re-iterated your original point.

My original point was an argument. Just claiming that it isn't one doesn't make it not one, sorry. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way to explain that to you.
That's not at all irrelevant. You claimed that stability is a property of complex systems in general.

Real ones. Not mathematical ones.
Your singular example wherein long lasting stability is a property of a particular system is insufficient to support the original claim.

No it isn't. It supports the original claim. There are many such examples, such as punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary biology, commodity prices, demographic characteristics of populations, etc. This happens because real systems leak energy, and therefore naturally move towards stable configurations with low energy leakage.
Technological civilization to some extent allows us to survive things that would not be possible to survive otherwise, but it does not eliminate all major risks, while, at the same time, it introduces new existential risks that didn't exist before.

None of which is use of fossil fuels.
It may even introduce risks that it cannot eliminate. The idea that technology is some panacea is an instance of magical thinking, not rational thought.

I didn't say it was a panacea. You simply made that up.
At almost every point in the history of hominid evolution, there has existed more than one species of hominid that could fill the vacant niches left behind should another species of hominid go extinct.

More accurately, they filled the vacant niches they created when they made the other poor, dumb hominids go extinct.
This is no longer true in today's world. If humans go extinct, we will not be replaced by another species of hominids.

And your point would be...?
Yeah, it's just too bad that we apparently don't have the will to change them to our benefit by eliminating CO2 emissions.

Huh? CO2 emissions are massively beneficial to ecological systems and to us.
No, those ecosystems were there before us.

No they weren't. Look at any farm in the world, and try to find a willingness to know the fact that that ecosystem was created by the farmer, and was not there before us.
The issue is not whether or not people know how to farm, but to what extent farming will even be possible in a warmer world.

It will be easier. "Optimum," remember?
With rising global temperatures, desertification will place an enormous strain on our ability to farm.

No it won't. Deserts are already shrinking because of CO2 fertilization, and higher temperature accelerates the hydrological cycle, increasing precipitation.
Our ancestors may have survived an ice age, but they weren't living through any mass extinctions at the same time like we are today.

They most certainly were: they were causing one.
The two situations are not analogous.

They most certainly are.
During the ice ages, our ancestors would have a choice of moving into a new environment only after they've figured out how to live in it.

No they wouldn't. The environment changed around them, and they had to figure out how to survive in the new conditions. You seem to be unaware of the fact that climate has always changed. Are you a climate change denier?
We will not have it so easy. Furthermore, our ancestors didn't have to deal with the possibility and aftereffects of nuclear war.

Please present your evidence that use of fossil fuels increases the risk of nuclear war.
Psychologizing nonsense.

Fact.
No, that's not why they are called "optimums".

Yes it is.
They are called "optimums" simply because they are either peaks or valleys in a graph.

No, those would be maximums and minimums. Optimum means best, not most.
They have nothing to do with the abundance of plant life.

That's just false.
Please provide your calculations of the surface temperature of Venus to support the ridiculous notion that the surface temps are a product of atmospheric pressure alone.

That is just another blatant and disingenuous strawman fallacy from you. I never said it was pressure alone. Obviously there has to be sunlight to stop the CO2 from freezing out and balance the loss of heat from IR emissions in the upper atmosphere.
PROTIP: You can't because you obviously don't know crap about climate science or physics.

The surface temperature of Venus is 740K, which dips to 310K at an altitude of 53 km. That makes the lapse rate ~8.4 K/km, allowing for the effect of density on CO2's heat capacity. So the surface temperature is actually over 100K lower than that predicted by the ideal gas law:

http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com ... art-1.html

Note that the lines cross at an altitude of 60km because above that, direct heating by the sun makes the atmosphere much warmer than the lapse rate would predict. It's not clear why the observed temperature slope is greater than the theoretical one and surface temperature thus lower, but it may have something to do with mixing of layers by high-altitude winds. There is no empirical evidence in the observed data for any GHG effect from CO2.
#15196553
Saeko wrote:Historically, this is true, but it's only half the story. Since a lot of CO2 is dissolved in the ocean, rising temperatures (historically caused by changes in the Earth's orbit) force the ocean to release more CO2, driving the temperatures even higher via the greenhouse effect.

No, I just showed you the correlation graphs that prove that is false. The correlation between temperature and future CO2 is uniformly greater than that between temperature and past CO2. That just flat-out disproves your claims.
In post-industrial times, this relationship has been reversed. Now, increases in atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic factors have raised temperatures via the greenhouse effect, thereby triggering the oceanic positive feedback.

No it hasn't, because CO2 has almost no effect on the earth's surface temperature.
#15196557
Truth To Power wrote:That is just another blatant and disingenuous strawman fallacy from you. I never said it was pressure alone. Obviously there has to be sunlight to stop the CO2 from freezing out and balance the loss of heat from IR emissions in the upper atmosphere.


You mentioned ONLY atmospheric pressure as a cause of Venus' surface temperature. If you don't believe that it is the only cause, fine. But give me the calculations by which you arrived at the conclusion that atmospheric pressure can somehow explain Venus' surface temperatures without resorting to the greenhouse effect.

The surface temperature of Venus is 740K, which dips to 310K at an altitude of 53 km. That makes the lapse rate ~8.4 K/km, allowing for the effect of density on CO2's heat capacity. So the surface temperature is actually over 100K lower than that predicted by the ideal gas law:

http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com ... art-1.html

Note that the lines cross at an altitude of 60km because above that, direct heating by the sun makes the atmosphere much warmer than the lapse rate would predict. It's not clear why the observed temperature slope is greater than the theoretical one and surface temperature thus lower, but it may have something to do with mixing of layers by high-altitude winds. There is no empirical evidence in the observed data for any GHG effect from CO2.


The ideal gas law can't be applied here because you are not dealing with a gas enclosed by a container. Additionally, CO2 is a supercritical fluid under Venusian surface conditions and not a gas. This sloppy attempt and use of a random internet blog instead of real calculations or scientific publications proves that you have no clue what you're doing.
#15196566
Sorry for the long delay in responding.

Potemkin wrote:This is certainly part of what triggers the onset of an Ice Age. There is also the point that the elevated level of the land after orogeny gives glaciers a better environment on which to form and to persist. It also doesn't hurt that most of the land masses right now are in the northern hemisphere and far enough north to give lots of land for glaciers to advance across. Lots of factors came together at the right moment to create the Earth's present Ice Age. Milankovitch cycles don't create or end an Ice Age on their own - after all, the cycles are always at work, yet the Earth has been ice-free for most of its geological history. No, the Milankovitch cycles just regulate the advance and retreat of the glaciers - the stadials and the interstadials - of an already existing Ice Age. But the CO2 levels are usually just a small part of that. Until we came along of course....


Yes and no.
The CO2 levels track down as the Earth cools, after the orbital cycles triggered it.
This keeps the cooling going, it doesn't stop cooling.
It also delays the melting of the ice as the cycles begin warming the N. hemisphere.

We've probably extended the duration of our present interstadial - it may be up to 50,000 years before the glaciers advance again. But they will advance again....


No, we humans can be adjusting the CO2 level to stop ice sheets from forming.
You admitted this when you said that the cycles, by themselves, are not enough to cause ice sheeps to form for millions of years. I think that you didn't realize that if the CO2 level is high enough ice sheets will not form.

The CO2 levels usually track the formation of the ice sheets, and provide a reinforcing effect, as you say. But the CO2 levels are not usually a driving factor in either the onset of an Ice Age or the onset of interstadials within an Ice Age. This seems to have only happened with the rise of human industrial civilisation - and a case could be made that this started even with the Neolithic Revolution....


Yes, and yes. That was Dr. Britt's point that for 8000 years humans have been farming and this had the effect of keeping the temp quite constant, until we started burning fossil fuels. Then that ended the Little Ice Age ,and then we just kept the warming going exponentially.

People just don't grok the effect of sustained exponential growth.
The effect starts out slow and then takes off. For example
1, 2, 4, 8, (this doesn't seem so bad, but it continues), 16, 32, 64, (so now we are at 64 times where we started with population or economic activity, or whatever, then it just keeps getting worse), 128, 256, 512, 1024, etc.
.
#15196580
Truth To Power wrote:

The correlations of CO2 with past and future temperatures and temperature with past and future CO2 prove conclusively that temperature causes CO2 variation much more than the other way around.



You keep saying that, repeating stupid doesn't improve it. We've known about CO2 since the 1800s. When scientists first detected the warming in the 1970s, they speculated it was the result of carbon emissions. Since then they have proven it many times over...

That astonishing rise in CO2 means things are going to shit.
#15196613
late wrote:You keep saying that, repeating stupid doesn't improve it.

I provided the graph of correlations that prove it is correct. You have simply decided not to know facts that prove your beliefs are false.
We've known about CO2 since the 1800s.

And we've known it can't have a significant effect on the earth's surface temperature since 1900, which is almost as long.
When scientists first detected the warming in the 1970s,

There had been 30 years of cooling in the 70s.
they speculated it was the result of carbon emissions. Since then they have proven it many times over...

No, they have never offered any credible empirical evidence for such claims, just post hoc fallacies, cherry picking, falsified data, and question begging computer models.
That astonishing rise in CO2 means things are going to shit.

But they self-evidently are not. Agricultural production continues to soar, deserts to shrink, poverty to decline, etc. There is no evidence -- none -- of any kind of climate "crisis" or "emergency."
#15196615
Direct observational evidence of anthropogenic climate change:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 20GL091585

    Abstract
    Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiative imbalance to the climate system, quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing. This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models. In part, this is because current space-based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response. We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all-sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53 ± 0.11 W/m2 from 2003 to 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance. This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.

    Plain Language Summary
    Climate change is a response to energy imbalances in the climate system. For example, rising greenhouse gases directly cause an initial imbalance, the radiative forcing, in the planetary radiation budget, and surface temperatures increase in response as the climate attempts to restore balance. The radiative forcing and subsequent radiative feedbacks dictate the amount of warming. While there are well-established observational records of greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures, there is not yet a global measure of the radiative forcing, in part because current satellite observations of Earth’s radiation only measure the sum total of radiation changes that occur. We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 to 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long-term growth in the total top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period. We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past.
#15196632
Pants-of-dog wrote:Direct observational evidence of anthropogenic climate change:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 20GL091585

    Abstract
    Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiative imbalance to the climate system, quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing. This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models. In part, this is because current space-based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response. We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all-sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53 ± 0.11 W/m2 from 2003 to 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance. This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.

    Plain Language Summary
    Climate change is a response to energy imbalances in the climate system. For example, rising greenhouse gases directly cause an initial imbalance, the radiative forcing, in the planetary radiation budget, and surface temperatures increase in response as the climate attempts to restore balance. The radiative forcing and subsequent radiative feedbacks dictate the amount of warming. While there are well-established observational records of greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures, there is not yet a global measure of the radiative forcing, in part because current satellite observations of Earth’s radiation only measure the sum total of radiation changes that occur. We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 to 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long-term growth in the total top-of-atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period. We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past.

Radiative kernels are not direct evidence of anything but a question begging fallacy.
#15196634
B0ycey wrote:@Truth To Power
Mars has virtually no atmosphere, and because CO2 is so dense compared to other gases,

It's only dense relative to the cosmically common gases one expects to find in planetary atmospheres.
the other gases have gone into space whilst CO2 is what is left. This is your problem.

No it isn't.
You only accept what you think you know and base your opinion on conjecture.

That is an unsupported claim.
Also, I don't deal will you because fragmentation means you don't actually address the core argument.

False. I deal with it when it is stated.
If you did, you wouldn't have said we can also go extinct like the Neanderthals given the original argument made by @Saeko wasn't that Climate change will wipe us out but that to accept the world will be benevolent to us and we will survive whatever it throws at us is frankly wishful thinking.

Blatant non sequitur fallacy.
The truth is I am old enough to remember leaves falling off trees in September and currently it is nearly November, temperature are seasonally high and the leaves are still on the trees.

Yeah, well, it has certainly warmed since the cyclical cooling 1940-1970 ended.
I also don't need to be told CO2 retains heat given I learnt that in high school. I also don't need to be told climate change is real and see the graphs of decades of step annual heat rises when I have experienced the difference between decades and remember it well.

Perspective. Ask someone in their 90s who actually remembers the 1930s.
You are just an ignorant user who no doubt is so old that he knows full well that any action now is a condition to his way of life and given you won't be around when the shit hits the fan, you would rather be obtuse than change your habits.

I have kids. I don't want them to have to live in a world ruled by the apostles of absurd nonscience.
#15196635
Truth To Power wrote:Yeah, well, it has certainly warmed since the cyclical cooling 1940-1970 ended.


You mentioned this sixty year cycle before.

If it cooled from 1940 to 1970, it would have warmed from 1970 to 2000. Sixty years.

And so it would have cooled from 2000 onwards.

It has not.
#15196636
Saeko wrote:You mentioned ONLY atmospheric pressure as a cause of Venus' surface temperature.

Because the topic is Venus's atmosphere, and my point was that its surface pressure is what drives its surface temperature, not the fact that it is CO2.
But give me the calculations by which you arrived at the conclusion that atmospheric pressure can somehow explain Venus' surface temperatures without resorting to the greenhouse effect.

I just did.
The ideal gas law can't be applied here because you are not dealing with a gas enclosed by a container.

Wrong. The ideal gas law is used to calculate lapse rate (including for meteorological purposes here on earth) because the atmospheric gas at any point can be treated as being in a "container" consisting of the surrounding gas at ambient pressure. That is how meteorology calculates, e.g., the effect of convection on the temperature of a rising or falling air mass.
Additionally, CO2 is a supercritical fluid under Venusian surface conditions and not a gas.

You again demonstrate your ignorance of the relevant physics. Above ~400K (which is 340K below Venus's surface temperature, CO2 behaves much like an ideal gas, with density and temperature increasing almost linearly with pressure. That is why the lapse rate calculation works. At 740K and 92bar (Venus surface conditions), the difference between CO2 and an ideal gas is too small to be relevant.
This sloppy attempt and use of a random internet blog instead of real calculations or scientific publications proves that you have no clue what you're doing.

:lol: You are priceless. This stuff is so well known and uncontroversial, you'd have to go back several decades to find peer-reviewed papers about it. I've deigned to school you in atmospheric physics, but you should really be paying me.
#15196640
Truth To Power wrote:Radiative kernels are not direct evidence of anything but a question begging fallacy.


Again, TtP just makes an assertion of fact.

Did he even read far enough to know what a "kernel" is in this peer reviewed paper? Maybe, but likely not.

You see, he thinks that "what he says goes." And what others say is all just BS. Unless they agree with him.
.
#15196643
Truth To Power wrote:Wrong. The ideal gas law is used to calculate lapse rate (including for meteorological purposes here on earth) because the atmospheric gas at any point can be treated as being in a "container" consisting of the surrounding gas at ambient pressure. That is how meteorology calculates, e.g., the effect of convection on the temperature of a rising or falling air mass.


Incorrect. The ideal gas law can't be used to calculate surface temperatures because, unlike in a gas in a container situation, on a planet's surface, the variables in question, such as pressure, temperature, volume, and so forth are a function also of incoming radiation from the sun, the temperature of the planet's surface, gravity, and so on. If you ignore these things, as you do, you get results that are wildly off the mark, as you did.
#15196644
Truth To Power wrote:I have kids. I don't want them to have to live in a world ruled by the apostles of absurd nonscience.

Since when has the world not been ruled by the apostles of absurd nonscience? :eh:

The world has always been, is now, and likely always will be ruled by the apostles of absurd nonscience. And, as always, we'll likely manage to stumble our way through as we always have. I think it was Samuel Johnson who once said, "There is much ruin in a nation." In my view, the same can be said of our entire planet. We've survived worse in the past.
#15196668
Truth To Power wrote:
I provided the graph of correlations that prove it is correct.



That correlation cuts both ways..

You keep asserting it doesn't, but science says it does, shill.

"Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, remains a gas at a wider range of atmospheric temperatures than water. Carbon dioxide molecules provide the initial greenhouse heating needed to maintain water vapor concentrations. When carbon dioxide concentrations drop, Earth cools, some water vapor falls out of the atmosphere, and the greenhouse warming caused by water vapor drops. Likewise, when carbon dioxide concentrations rise, air temperatures go up, and more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere—which then amplifies greenhouse heating.

Rising carbon dioxide concentrations are already causing the planet to heat up."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

So, NASA or kook?

Tough call...
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]