Evidence for Climate Change: The Water Knife

[Canine]

Don't quit now Bob,we've gottem on the ropes.HA

 

[Seraphim]

If the winner of the debate goes to whoever can insult and attack their opponent the best, then you guys are the big winners and I admit defeat.

However, in nearly all debates if that's the best you've got most people can see right through that. For some reason in this debate insults are given more credence than science. Very odd.

Must be something wrong with me, I like science and give it more weight than insults.
Bob

If you feel I've insulted or attacked you, let me know and I will sincerely apologize. 

I've debated no facts, not even mentioned that climate change advocates have revised certain temperature readings which were taken from ships.  When the same readings were taken from from weather buoys, they turned out to be significantly lower, and they have indicated the lower readings to be more accurate.

I sincerely believe man kinds actions have affected the environment and, while admitting I have no idea how much, I have a hard time believing mankind is the sole reason. No matter how small an effect, climate change would occur naturally over the past hundred some years.

And I have also indicated that a belief is different from a fact. I have yet to see a climate change scientist claim that mankind alone - as a fact - is responsible for climate change.

People keep trying to convince me to change my mind. I have indicated that will not occur, yet people keep trying, then deride me for not immediately changing my mind. What's left, then but humor?

Either way, I'm not going to sit around, complain, point fingers, and tell other people what they have to do or believe. Frankly, as the southern gentleman said, I don't care. Death comes to individuals and it comes to species. Humanity, in my book, has no greater value or right to survive than any other. We are arrogant enough, however, to believe otherwise. Death will one come and rub our noses in our arrogance, I believe.

But Im serious Bob, about the apology, if you felt I insulted you personally.

Al Gore, however, is fair game...

 

[akrvbob]

Seraphim, no need for an apology, I don't feel insulted in any way.

Water temperatures is a complicated subject. Before we had our advanced technology water temperatures were taken by ships. For a long time the literally lifted a bucket of water from the ocean to the deck and put a thermometer in it. Later, when ships got bigger they measured the temperature of the water in the hulls used to cool the engines. Obviously, neither of those are very accurate.

Todays buoys are fantastically accurate but they read lower than the old method. Does that mean the oceans aren't getting warmer?

The only way to know is do a study and so they did a study and found that the instrument bias of the old methods gave false readings that were too high. When you revise them to match accurate instruments, the oceans are heating dramatically.

These are complicated subjects and unfortunately most people get all their information from headlines in the popular press. Of course the popular press has one primary goal, to come up with headlines that sell advertising. I'm not doubting their integrity, they just can't do the topic justice without loosing readers. As a nation, we have an attention span of 5 seconds so that's what the press gives us.

Truly being able to reach an unbiased conclusion on cimate change will require quite a bit of time, mist of us can't give it the time so we read the headlines and if the headlines say the concensus is 50%, that's what we believe or the oceans are getting cooler, or Antarctic ice is increasing, or volcanoes cause the carbon in the air or it's just all natural variability, that's what we believe.

If you take the time, and I know that's hard, you'll find that science has conculded each of those headlines are simply wrong.
Bob

 

[Seraphim]

I have nothing in the world but time lol.

Essentially, I disagree with nothing you have just said.

Your last line, IMO, could have been better written.

Science concludes nothing. People come to conclusions, and a conclusion is not - by definition - necessarily accurate. Science is a process which permits us to make experiments and attempt to explain the world around us. Science may be well done, or it may be done poorly. The bogey man in the process is people.

Scientists once concluded the world was flat. We know better now. Everyone knows it's round. Only it's not *grin*, IIRC. It's pear shaped. We have more information and better tools, but that makes no guarantees our conclusions are accurate. Even scientists make causal errors, at times.

My skepticism affects no one but me, harms no one, changes nothing, and I don't try to change anyone's mind. So why the hell does that irritate those who are so convinced man is 100% responsible for climate change?

 

[Seraphim]

And the funny thing is, I bet I have a much smaller carbon footprint than the majority of those up on a pulpit, blaming everyone else for the condition of the world, and demonizing the evil climate deniers lol.

 

[akrvbob]

The theory of gravity, is strictly a theory and will never be a proven fact (we have very little understanding of it). And yet most of us are betting our lives that it is true.

E=MC2 is strictly an unproven and unproveable theory.It began as wild speculation, then it was published and then it was peer-reviewed. It has stood the test of time and everything we have learned since then supports it. BUT, it is just a theory and will never be a fact. And yet right now 1000s of American sailors are betting their lives it's true. And they are winning the bet. Every time a nuclear sub dives, they are all betting their lives that the theory of E= MC2 is true. For the Us Navy, that theory is a fact--but they are wrong, it is not a fact. It's just TRUE!!!! You can bet your life on that theory!

Some theories (while they are always theories and never fact) move beyond it and become consensus and accepted as facts.

Climate theory will not and can not be proved but for the great majority of scientists it has moved beyond theory and into the realm of fact.

Deniers, are betting their grandchildrens lives that the theory is wrong. Having studied the science, I think that's a bad bet.
Bob

 

[highdesertranger]

bob with all due respect there is "Newton's law of universal gravity" and "Einstein theory of general relativity" although relate, Einstein's theory does not replace Newton's. back before politics, money, and power drove science, scientist where expected to question everything and except nothing. what the hell happened to that. in this age of my way or the highway I refuse to be a sheep just because everybody says so. question authority, don't take anything for granted, power to the people. by the way I have no animosity towards anybody who chooses to believe I apologize if I have offended anybody. highdesertranger

 

[Seraphim]

When the theory of climate change has been around as long as the theory of relativity and Newton's Laws, and undergone as much scrutiny and testing, perhaps I'll be a little more confident.


Well said, HDR

 

[Seraphim]

I edited my above post because of my lack of in depth knowledge on the topic. May have misunderstood things.

We aren't betting our lives on the theory of gravity - we are betting our lives on the fact that - whatever the reason - we won't fly off the earth tomorrow because we have yet to do so. The situation will remain the same.

A quick research indicates E=mc2 is not always true. It's true within a given context. I need to research neutrinos a bit - do they ignore the theory?

 

[Seraphim]

Whatever became of that report indicating neutrinos had been measured exceeding the speed of light?

 

[gcal]

Whatever became of that report indicating neutrinos had been measured exceeding the speed of light?

Wev known that humans were changing the climate for over 50 years. The evidence just keeps getting stronger. The fact that  some people don't  want to believe it doesn't  change that it is so.

 

[LeeRevell]

Whatever became of that report indicating neutrinos had been measured exceeding the speed of light?

Here's a little light reading......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

http://phys.org/news/2012-03-faster-than-light-particles-cross-check.html



And NOTHING I have read above by anyone changes my views, or my statements, which stand as given. Neither of us seems likely to budge, or change the other's point of view. I am done with this........ debate.

 

[GotSmart]

Throughout all of recorded history, and from archaeological digs there is a history of man destroying his environment.  Lets go back to the dustbowl.  

How about THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH.  The oldest recorded history of deforestation.  Areas that have been desert for thousands of years used to be giant cedar forests.  

The Island of Crete was at one time a giant forest.  

Many ancient harbors were silted up by the massive erosion caused by this practice.  

Now we are doing this on a worldwide scale.  

Nothing changes.

 

[Seraphim]

Throughout all of recorded history, and from archaeological digs there is a history of man destroying his environment.  Lets go back to the dustbowl.  

How about THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH.  The oldest recorded history of deforestation.  Areas that have been desert for thousands of years used to be giant cedar forests.  

The Island of Crete was at one time a giant forest.  

Many ancient harbors were silted up by the massive erosion caused by this practice.  

Now we are doing this on a worldwide scale.  

Nothing changes.

Nor will it, IMO.  I might take the whole thing more seriously if I thought humankind was actually capable of changing anything.

 

[akrvbob]

We are in total agreement abut that. It's too late to really change the disaster we've set in motion.

Last year I went to hear Bill McKibben one of the very first popular authors to point out the depth of the problem back in the 80s. Somebody asked him during the Q&A what change they should make to help, and he said it's too late to make any real changes at the individual level. We all still should try to be greener just out of our own sense of moral responsibility but that the problem is so big that no realistic number of tiny individual actions can have an impact.

Only drastic, terribly disruptive actions at the Federal level can make any difference and that will never happen. The Republicans are totally opposed to it and the Democrats only give it lip service. They do tiny little things to keep their green  voting block happy but they are meaningless and have no impact.

If you doubt that compare this chart of US oil production under Bush (a "Big Oil") president versus Obama (an "Anti-Oil President)

No, politicians only want to get re-elected and if pumping more oil out of the ground and spewing more carbon in the air will accomplish that, they will gladly do it--Republican or Democrat. 

Once it becomes really obvious the climate is going terribly wrong they will decide to take strong actions, but even then it will be too little too late.

Environmentalists are fighting human nature and it's a losing battle. But you do what you feel you have to do.
Bob

 

[highdesertranger]

well bob for the most part your last post made sense, however from my experience environmental groups are in it for the money. they are not fighting human nature they are exploiting it. highdesertranger

 

[Seraphim]

I know, Bob. Make the masses happy with low fuel costs. Set benchmarks for improvement, so it seems we have a goal. Blame the other side for any lack of progress. Amazing how many other car dealers now have such great electric cars coming out, once Tesla began taking a small hold on the market: and they're all using Tesla as their own benchmarks.

 

[GotSmart]

Now all we have to do is to get the politicians to "out green" each other. 

 

[Seraphim]

Now all we have to do is to get the politicians to "out green" each other. 

All they'll do is try to green speak better than they're political opponents.

 

[Seraphim]

Wev known that humans were changing the climate for over 50 years. The evidence just keeps getting stronger. The fact that  some people don't  want to believe it doesn't  change that it is so.

Since you quoted ME, You haven't really been paying attention to what I've said, have you? And what does the neutrino report you quoted me as asking about have to do with changing the climate? We were discussing physics for a moment.