Evidence for Climate Change: The Water Knife

[Seraphim]

Let me make my position clear for you gcal:

I've known since a teenager that many of the actions of humanity adversely affect the environment in which we live. When I spoke in another thread of books such as Silent Spring, the Naked Ape, and Ecotage, I was speaking about myself as well.

My contention isn't about scientific fact. My argument is against those who claim climate change is SOLELY caused by mankind's intervention. That claim cannot be proven and I am skeptical of that claim. Climate change exists. I merely doubt at this point that anyone can offer a proven percentage of how much that change has been to natural causes and how much to mankind's interference. To me, the point is moot anyway. Even if mankind in toto suddenly got all motivated and began greatly reducing carbon output, it won't cause a regression in the effects on climate. Bob even referred to this. Damage has been done, change has occurred, and we have not the technology to undo what has been wrought. We may be able to slow down the rate at which we contaminate the environment, but I doubt we could - or would - do that to any significant level. The environment will still continue to change. We can't reverse that.

If you have any further difficulties with my POV, you can continue to attempt to convince me mankind is the SOLE contributor to climate change. You won't succeed, as I stated early on in this thread. But, if it makes you happy, go for it.

 

[Seraphim]

"Let me make my position clear for you gcal:

I've known since a teenager that many of the actions of humanity adversely affect the environment in which we live. When I spoke in another thread of books such as Silent Spring, the Naked Ape, and Ecotage, I was speaking about myself as well."

But quite frankly, while those books I read spoke about damage to the environment, I recall none of them referring to effects on climate, per se, and that was about 50 years ago, the time frame you mentioned. Except for acid rain, perhaps - but that might not fall under the term climate (?)

But it's been a long time...

 

[akrvbob]

The theory of greenhouse gasses is MUCH older than Relativity theory and just as established. Quotes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]

As early as 1917 Alexander Graham Bell proposed that man's extreme carbon production could cause the earth to heat up dangerously (and back then it was a tiny fraction of what it is today):  

In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]


No one claims it is the SOLE cause of climate change, however it is the only reasonable explanation for the extreme and rapid change that occurred in the last century and models tell us is will occur in the next century. This quote is from the same Wikipedia page and they quote the UN report inside it:

According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".[23]

There is actually quite a bit of proof that it is man-caused, it's all just too complicated to boil down to a simple headline and so the popular press will never report on it. If you don't go looking for it, you will never hear about it. The proof is there and it is abundant. 

This simple diagram shows the 10 strongest proofs, but they are so simplified that you will probably just blow them off--that's why they never get published in the press. If you will go and research them, they are utterly convincing.

We have literally changed the atmosphere of our planet. As the troposphere (the lower atmosphere where we live) dramatically heats up the Stratosphere directly above it cools down. There is only one explanation for that and for it's rapid occurrence--human carbon in the air.

From ice core samples we know how much carbon has been in the air for a very long time. That more carbon in the air causes the earth to dramatically heat up and that we have incredibly increased it is a well established fact among climate scientist--just as established as relativity is among physicists.

For the last 800,000 years the carbon level has never gone over 300 ppm. We are currently over 400 ppm and it increases every month. You can argue that this increase in carbon is normal and not attributable to man but it doesn't seem reasonable or logical to me. But, we all think differently

Temperature and carbon in the air are connected--we know that for a fact. This chart shows the obvious rise in each begining in this century. In the chart the temperatures are for above and below the average temperature for the previous which is zero. The blue years are below average and the red years are for above average and how many degrees above and below.

You can argue that this increase in carbon is normal and not attributable to man but it doesn't seem reasonable or logical to me. But, we all think differently

 

[B and C]

Interesting graph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbo...re#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

 

[Seraphim]

Bob

Not going to disregard anything you post - it's all good stuff.

"No one claims it is the SOLE cause of climate change, however it is the only reasonable explanation for the extreme and rapid change that occurred in the last century and models tell us is will occur in the next century. This quote is from the same Wikipedia page and they quote the UN report inside it:

According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".[23]"

There you go. That says it. So where's our disagreement?

 

[FALCON]

Sorry, I'm posting without having read the thread, but you know what? Bringing aliens into a conversation is nearly always a good thing. SO:

I heard something interesting related to this on Dan Carlin's (wonderful) Hardcore History Podcast.. He was on a little side subject about the human race reaching the point of technological development where they became capable of messing up the earth enough to kill itself off. He told about a group of some kind of scientists or mathematicians who were doing theoretical calculations on the likelihood of other intelligent life existing outside of earth. They did the math and found it to basically be an absolute certainty. But then one of them asks - so if it's certain - WHERE ARE THEY? Why haven't we met them? Then he discussed the possibility that many species could have already reached vast technological levels but also screwed up their own planet fast enough that it killed them all of before they could establish a long-term and independent space travel program. So, for all species, there comes to be this sort of "escape before you kill yourselves" challenge. It's interesting to consider where we humans, may currently be at in this challenge, and to consider the two planes (1: Interplanetary travel and life sustainment, vs. 2: killing ourselves off first by changing the earth too much vs. learning how not to do so and actually not doing so)

If you consider the fact that if you took 1,000 random humans from earth, the portion of those that understands what's going on, AND that actually cares bout it, AND that is willing to do something about it themselves - that portion is pretty ******* low. It's going to take a lot of Elon Musks and a lot of hippies to make up for all of the other people, if that's even possible at all...

 

[Seraphim]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around hippies making up for other people. Were you actually ever around hippies in the 60s, or have you some, IMO, naive glorification of them spinning around in your head?

 

[FALCON]

ahh sorry. I use the term hippy very widely. I don't mean those hippies.

 

[GotSmart]

IMHO there is doubt that there is intelligent life ON EARTH.  

Perhaps my cat who has it made...

 

[SoulRaven]

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

You are viewing science as accurate, instead of something that should be viewed with substantial skepticism.

History has proven that many of those thought of as kooks, oddballs, and certainly non conformers who bucked mainstream wisdom, were actually the ones who contributed the most to mankind, with their inventions and their wisdom.  Their contributions in many cases were only recognized after their death, and sometimes many years after their deaths.

In today's scientific community, if you don't get on the money wagon, you will be ostracized and shunned.  The money wagon isn't interested in the free thinkers, or the truth.

I consider anything that the scientific community decides to feed us right up there with what the press decides to feed us.  We are only exposed to what they decide to expose us to, and it may or may not have much to do with the facts or the truth.

 

[SoulRaven]

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

So I take it that you have come to the conclusion that the money wagon scientific community is more accurate than the free thinking scientific community which is where such headlines come from...  I give all sides equal credibility.

The idea that their supposedly more accurate ocean temperature readings show the temperatures are much higher than they thought is a false science.  One pound weighs one pound, no matter how accurate or inaccurate a scale is used.  If they want accurate comparison ratios, then they must use the same measurement technique throughout the test period. 

Many of the highest temperatures were recorded <b><u>BEFORE</u></b> the industrial revolution.  What's their excuse for that?

Many of the non money wagon scientists believe we're in a normal 100(?) year cycle of things.  History has proven these 20, 50, 100, etc. year cycles.  We KNOW recorded history is pretty accurate on this subject.  We're only guessing whether or not ANY of the scientists actually have a clue.

 

[SoulRaven]

IMHO there is doubt that there is intelligent life ON EARTH.  

Perhaps my cat who has it made...

hehehehehehehehehe

Finally, something I can agree wholeheartedly with!

 

[SoulRaven]

Back maybe in Jr. High School, I read some quotes from somebody probably important, although I can't remember who said it. Here's what they said basically:

Those who seek out confirmation of their own beliefs, are doomed to repeat their own failures. Only those who seek out opposing beliefs with an open mind, and continually question their own beliefs, shall become truly knowledgeable.

I can't remember if this one was by the same person, or not:

Any opinion or advice connected to any sort of monetary or material gain should be viewed as highly suspicious both on it's surface, and in it's depths.

Those quotes have had a profound and positive impact on my life, and I have learned that those with less than popular opinions or views are often the best choices.

Today we know the importance of the wheel, but in the future the wheel may become obsolete technology.

Only history written in the far distant future will tell if any of this global warming stuff is fact or fiction. Meanwhile, I will live my life the way I figure is the most beneficial to everything I care about, our planet included. If we each do our own little part, in whatever way we see fit, then the world will be a better place.

 

[flying kurbmaster]

Stop making babies humans can survive and maintain a nice lifestyle, we either have to lower the population on the planet or the planet will do it for us.

 

[GotSmart]

From reading the opinions posted here, I am thinking that Bob is right.

I should get a Camel and a sheet to wear, and hit the trails cooking over poop to keep from doing further damage.  But then Camels produce a lot of "greenhouse" gasses...

I am stuck in a world of flat earthers and climate change deniers     :huh:

 

[Seraphim]

ahh sorry. I use the term hippy very widely. I don't mean those hippies.

Just showing age lol.  I didn't know there WERE any other hippies...

 

[Seraphim]

So I take it that you have come to the conclusion that the money wagon scientific community is more accurate than the free thinking scientific community which is where such headlines come from...  I give all sides equal credibility.

The idea that their supposedly more accurate ocean temperature readings show the temperatures are much higher than they thought is a false science.  One pound weighs one pound, no matter how accurate or inaccurate a scale is used.  If they want accurate comparison ratios, then they must use the same measurement technique throughout the test period. 

Many of the highest temperatures were recorded <b><u>BEFORE</u></b> the industrial revolution.  What's their excuse for that?

Many of the non money wagon scientists believe we're in a normal 100(?) year cycle of things.  History has proven these 20, 50, 100, etc. year cycles.  We KNOW recorded history is pretty accurate on this subject.  We're only guessing whether or not ANY of the scientists actually have a clue.

Other way around - newer accurate readings show lower ocean temperatures. One article stated these lower temperatures prove we are not in a ten year warming plateau as previously speculated, a plateau skeptics used in arguments.

 

[Seraphim]

I am stuck in a world of flat earthers and climate change deniers     :huh:

If that's the worst you have to worry about, you've got it made.

But I guess a Renogy rep, as indicated in your CheapRVLiving title, wouldn't be expected to question a controversy which would have an effect on their sales lol. (Just teasing). Commentary here reflects on them, now, since you publish the connection under your username. (Not just teasing).

Be that as it may, the topic stales, so I'm u subscribing to the thread.

Although, as a final note, I was reading a paper somewhere which indicated if man completely stopped adding carbon to the atmosphere, the damage would repair itself in a thousand years. Not making any point, just thought it was interesting.

 

[GotSmart]

If that's the worst you have to worry about, you've got it made.

But I guess a Renogy rep, as indicated in your CheapRVLiving title, wouldn't be expected to question a controversy which would have an effect on their sales lol. (Just teasing). Commentary here reflects on them, now, since you publish the connection under your username. (Not just teasing).

Be that as it may, the topic stales, so I'm u subscribing to the thread.

Although, as a final note, I was reading a paper somewhere which indicated if man completely stopped adding carbon to the atmosphere, the damage would repair itself in a thousand years. Not making any point, just thought it was interesting.

Who wrote that paper???     

There is a theory of harvesting carbon from the atmosphere to run jet engines.  I do not know if we have progressed in our working knowlege that far yet.

 

[akrvbob]

So I take it that you have come to the conclusion that the money wagon scientific community is more accurate than the free thinking scientific community which is where such headlines come from...  I give all sides equal credibility.

Many of the non money wagon scientists believe we're in a normal 100(?) year cycle of things.  History has proven these 20, 50, 100, etc. year cycles.  We KNOW recorded history is pretty accurate on this subject.  We're only guessing whether or not ANY of the scientists actually have a clue.

Off Grid, I'd love to read there material, thanks for making me aware of them!

Can you give me links and credentials for them, I'd appreciate it!! I'd love to read their studies.

Can you tell me how much money, the "money wagon scientests" are making? It must be a whole lot to sell out your ethics, integrity and love for science! I honestly wasn't aware that so many people went into science just for the money. Can you give me a link or evidence of that?

Where do the non money wagon scientists work that they don't get paid? How do they live? I'd love some links for that.

You're being very helpful, I'm looking forward to learning all about this.
Bob