Alfa Romeo 4C Forums banner

81 - 100 of 134 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
Hey Bob, your comment about the Yellowstone super volcano should have read when, not if it erupts. :oops: Hopefully not for a long, long time yet. Geological history has shown several massive eruptions in the past. Quite likely there’ll be another. It’s all still very active. S’pose things‘ll cool off for a bit while the dust and debris hang in the air from that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
I shared the article for one point only...to show that often claims are not what they seem. While it is correct that the video's 'evidence' (that is demonstrative misleading) does not prove an impact of global warming, it does not prove the opposite either. The causes in the video may actually not have anything to do with global warming at all. What is clear, is that the creator was disingenuous. Either side misleading the other with falsified data to score early points just flat out sucks. Unfortunately for those that believe in global warming, there are many many stories that have been shown to be massaged information to support an intended result. Can you not see how these intentioned errors cause people to not believe any of it? It also doesn't help that the biggest names out there sharing these views are both making a buck off the argument and themselves have HUGE 'carbon footprints' and no signs of slowing. The 'holier than thou' smugness is more than I can take. Most of it is for appearances only. Greta sailed to the summit to ensure no carbon footprint....yet the captain flew across the world to sail her there and then flew back??? Bothbsides must admit, that's obviously a show, not true belief. An honest conversation would have been better from the start....and labeling people that don't believe or aren't yet convinced of it 'climate deniers' is an intentional process to lump them with the holocaust deniers, 9/11 deniers, and moon landing deniers, thereby invalidating anything that exists their mouths...not the best way to win an argument.
I have an open mind and will read the articles (which admittedly I haven't yet). I am against pollution and damage from it. Some things people want to change I could even back. But saying it is an obvious conclusion therefore not open to discussion is something I do when I'm telling my kids to do something and I don't want them to reason and think for themselves. Personally, I don't think it's settled science.
I enjoy everyone's thoughts on cars and sometimes other things, but I'll try to stay out of this topic as much as possible, like abortions and guns. Sometimes they make friends, always enemies.
@Philster - when I read your posts, I could see Joe Pesci typing them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
  • CO2: is a colorless, odorless gas. The more CO2 in the air the more plant life, as plants need it for their photosynthesis. CO2 is not a pollutant. Therefore CO2 emissions do not soil the environment. I mention this for all those press stories that mix up CO2 with poisonous waste (which is what you get from cadmium mining for batteries, for example).
As Alfanut mentioned, CO2 is seen as the culprit because it traps heat. The atmosphere warms by solar radiation reflecting off/radiating from the earth. Much of that is lost to space again. CO2 is referred to as a "greenhouse gas" because it holds that heat in much like the glass roof of a greenhouse does.
My point with that one, which seems to trigger you guys, is that it - is - not - a - pollutant. And yet the sources we perceive as informative says it is.
That is a lie. Here is an example of such lie: 6 Ways to Reduce CO2 Emissions in Industry and Fight Climate Change
Yes it is a greenhouse gas. No it is not a pollutant.

  • Temperature: has only been measured since the mid-1800's. Basically in places where people lived and there was some form of civilization and interest. All the temperatures before that are derivative.That is not exactly rock-solid data. But it is the best we have and used for hypothesis. Fair enough.
The effects of temperature have been measured over millennia. There is no question that it has always been cyclical. The causes of past events are mostly impossible to determine (except perhaps the effects of the asteroid strike that killed most life on the planet 66 million years ago, perhaps.
Pray tell, who was there 4 billion years ago to measure anything on our flaming ball of fire? What kind of thermometer did the dinosaurs use exactly to measure?
I am not saying there is no data. There is data. But it is derived - not measured. Therefore there is a significant margin of error.

  • Hockey stick: this is what the entire thing is about: there is a climate model that shows that man-made CO2 will cause the climate to go into an unstoppable acceleration. This is the graph showing an upward curve like a hockey stick. A couple of things with that:
  • --> It is a model. It is not reality, not yet and perhaps not ever*. So how are the climate models like the hockey stick, IPCC models comparing to reality? After all did Al Gore not say (a lot of crazy stuff like inventing the internet and) that the artic would be ice free in 10 years... over ten years ago?
The "hockey stick" is not just a model.
The last 40 or years are all that matter.
Source for this one is NASA:
View attachment 104283

Real data on CO2 going to 2010 (it looks even steeper today, but I wanted a graph with population included on it and this was the best that I could find).

View attachment 104282
Yes. It is a model. Nothing but a model. I do not care if it is a NASA model or a Greta model or a Jesus model. It is a model. And what you show is not the hockey stick. It is an increase in temperature.
At the same or lower rate than increases of temperature of previous warm periods. The hockey stick is this but pulled up until we all fry in hell.

My thoughts on this are:
  • Global climate does appear to be changing. This is not just a localized experience, anecdote, or short term trend. Why? I do not know. How much does CO2 have to do with it? More learned people than I have suggested "significantly".
Of course it is. That is what climate does. Here is ice core data for the past 400 000 years (so not: since 1958). See how there is no straight line with a sudden hockey stick?

The change is on average worldwide. So some places can see a lot of change and some none at all. That is what average means.
  • Perhaps humans are the only, or primary cause. Perhaps not. We can do very little to change natural causes. Our only lever is human behavior.
Show me the evidence, not the model, or the theory but the evidence that humans have any impact whatsoever. There is none.


  • How likely is it that nearly 8 billion people will agree on this (or anything)? It isn't. Doesn't matter if you stick your head in the sand, or if you have fully embraced climate change, I don't see a way out besides the planet solving the issue on its own terms.
In the end, it is not industrialization, farting cattle, or the internal combustion engine that is the enemy of the planet. It's the human infestation.
Here I agree. And yet we have the technology to design ourselves out of this. Did you ever hear a Greta puppet or politician (our elected leaders) say anything about that? I sure haven't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
And to respond to your last, lurrr, there is no doubt that true scientists will couch their work with reservations - we simple DON'T know how this complex system all fits together. We cannot even predict the weather with consistent, decent accuracy more than 36 hours in advance. But we know that things are changing. And there are only a few things which can be done about it. Whether or not they will have any bearing on a positive outcome is purely speculation.
Things are always changing, climate per definition is changing, and short of "pay green tax" I have only heard one thing that can be done against it.
And that is to put all money on nuclear for the next decades and massively invest in future technology for the next centuries. You know who does that? Nobody.
It stops at "feel guilty and pay more taxes".

You live in a country where there is ice on the road for part of the year. I ask you this - if you hit a patch with a curve on the road ahead, do you turn the steering wheel in the hopes that you won't crash? After all, there's no way that you can tell if the road or your tires will keep you safe. Or do you deny that the curve exists and just barrel through hoping for the best?
There is a way to know. You look at the temperature and you know it is freezing. You either stay home or you adopt your driving style.
So what is the mechanism: you compare your proven-fact knowledge of temperature with your proven-fact knowledge of speed vs contact patch vs ice and you apply logic.
You do not put on a red gown and start chanting and then drive off like a lunatic (at least not on weekdays) because some newspaper article or teen puppet told you a theory that this will help, over the television.

Next episode, ask me about the German 'Energiewende' and how that is going ;)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,533 Posts
It means he doesn't have a functional spacebar.

And he is a conservative who wanted to poke fun at the liberals because unrelated reasons.
Yup. Got that.
The "argument" (giving it way more credit than it deserves here) struck me as akin to: "The earth is round. Therefore I have two feet."
:D
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,533 Posts
Like - "The world will end at 9PM tonight.
10:00 Central and Mountain"

LOL

It's unfortunate that both sides of this debate (in general - not necessarily here) do use a lot of misleading or even downright false documentation (won't go as far as to say "evidence").
Even one chink in the armor is enough for already-converted opponents to dismiss the entire argument.

But look who they are trying to persuade. A population largely addicted to Jersey Shore, Big Brother and The Bachelor(ette).

Sadly, "reality" is harder and harder to find anymore. And persuasive, factual arguments get shouted down by the bluster of idiots.

And "deep fake" technology is just in its infancy. Wait until every Tom, Dick and Harry can put words in anyone's mouth and broadcast that to the globe in an instant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Unfortunately the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.
The only thing that I know to be true is that carbon is the world’s dominant source of energy today, because it is affordable and directly leads to poverty eradication as well as the lengthening and quality enhancement of human life. Because of these benefits, usage is rising around the world, despite calls for its limitation.
Given that there is no readily available alternative, throwing the baby out with the bath water (as advocated by young Greta and those in her camp) just isn’t feasible.
If anything productive is to be done, we’ve got to find middle ground between climate apocalypse and denial. Judging from the degree of rancor in this thread alone, that ain’t gonna be easy.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,533 Posts
Unfortunately the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.
The only thing that I know to be true is that carbon is the world’s dominant source of energy today, because it is affordable and directly leads to poverty eradication as well as the lengthening and quality enhancement of human life. Because of these benefits, usage is rising around the world, despite calls for its limitation.
Given that there is no readily available alternative, throwing the baby out with the bath water (as advocated by young Greta and those in her camp) just isn’t feasible.
If anything productive is to be done, we’ve got to find middle ground between climate apocalypse and denial. Judging from the degree of rancor in this thread alone, that ain’t gonna be easy.
I’ll buy your first point. Certainly, the way it is framed does not do it any favours.
And blaming everything from a mid-winter thaw, to higher water levels on the great lakes, on climate change is equally dumb (but done routinely by particularly stunned members of the media).

But carbon is the dominant source of energy because it is cheap (and always has been). From the first dry sticks used on the very first ever fire (I was there!), to coal, to hydrocarbons. Not sure how it eradicates poverty any more than any other source of fuel, though. You’ll have to explain that part.

And definitely agree that getting any form of agreement on any serious action is inconceivable when there isn’t even agreement on whether or not there is a problem, let alone its cause or the best way to address it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
Today it was 62 F / 16 C in the Northeast usa. In January. It was amazing! You ask me, climate change ain't happening fast enough. Let it become 60 degree straight from November to April, and dry for four months in a row, before you stop it.
The “I’m all right, Jack so bugger the rest of you“ attitude might be OK for some living in a very mild climate, but down here we’ve a real problem or two. Apart from the fires and smoke, towns are baking and running out of water. Aquifer levels are dropping. Some towns don’t have bore water to draw from. This is serious stuff. I do realise you were probably joking but.......Here’s a relevant article ...NSW drought: Burrendong Dam that supplies Dubbo close to empty
To give you some perspective of the temps down here, our winter temps in Sydney are the equivalent to northern European/English summers. We laugh when we hear of heat waves there of 30 deg C. That’s a mild summer day down this way, as it is today. No air-con required. We’ve always had an occasional day in the 40s during summer but the occasional is becoming common place and trending upwards. At the same time, rainfall in the southern half of the country is trending downwards. We are currently on water restrictions here. There’s more rain up north in the tropics, though I’ve noticed a distinct lack of cyclone activity So far this year. Only one weak cyclone in the northwest so far this wet season. You’re up that way on a regular basis Alf alpha so you’d have a better idea.

By the way, if you want to visit Oz, late July/August is a great time. Cool nights, mild days, most of the the things that sting or bite are asleep (apart from the crocs up north), and the flies go on holiday. The fires should be well and truly out by then too. And the sprogs are all back at school. There’s still lots to see, though not as much as before. Vegetation will regenerate quickly once we have some rain. Our native vegetation has adapted to cope with fires. So long as pockets of wildlife have survived, the forests will repopulate, but it will take time. It’s just that the fires have never been this extensive before and in many areas precious little food is around for the survivors.

Now the good news story of the week. Our ‘dinosaur trees’, the Wollemi pines were saved from the fires. Hopefully you can read about it here........
Incredible, secret firefighting mission saves famous 'dinosaur trees'

Someone mentioned there was no such thing as a climate scientist. I don’t know what anyone with a PhD in Climatology would say about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Someone mentioned there was no such thing as a climate scientist. I don’t know what anyone with a PhD in Climatology would say about that.
If they were honest they would say that the vast majority of "climate scientists" that are agreeing with each other so much on IPCC and elsewhere are do not have a PhD in Climatology.

This is what it is about
Climate is the average weather over 30 years. Trends should not be zoomed into relatively short periods to then use to make predictions for the long term. A PhD does not absolve from manipulation.
104305


Look at the time axis.

Does that prove absolutely that pumping CO2 in the air is a-ok? No.
Does it give a better perspective on what is going on? Hell yes.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
Here are some graphs from reliable Australian sources. Their sources are indicated on the right hand vertical axis of each graph.

Of all the graphs the only thing trending down here in Oz is the rainfall in the southern half of the country, where most of us live. Everything else is trending up....for those of you who have forgotten your chemistry, a decrease in pH indicates an increase in acidity.So that downwards trend in the graph of oceanic pH really indicates an increase in oceanic acidity.
So atmospheric CO2 has increased, oceanic temps increased, oceanic acidity increased, atmospheric temps increased, hot days increased, temperate climes rainfall decreased. Looks like a pattern to me.

This data has been peer reviewed and is accepted as factual.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Here are some graphs from reliable Australian sources. Their sources are indicated on the right hand vertical axis of each graph.

Of all the graphs the only thing trending down here in Oz is the rainfall in the southern half of the country, where most of us live. Everything else is trending up....for those of you who have forgotten your chemistry, a decrease in pH indicates an increase in acidity.So that downwards trend in the graph of oceanic pH really indicates an increase in oceanic acidity.
So atmospheric CO2 has increased, oceanic temps increased, oceanic acidity increased, atmospheric temps increased, hot days increased, temperate climes rainfall decreased. Looks like a pattern to me.

This data has been peer reviewed and is accepted as factual.
These are graphs depicting measurements on climate. What's your point?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
These are graphs depicting measurements on climate. What's your point?
Yes they are and they are all showing an uncomfortable upward trend apart from rainfall, which is showing an equally uncomfortable downward trend. They are all indicators of climate and show a pattern of change. and align with the pattern of increase in concentration of atmospheric CO2. Please go to the site I referenced and engage in some self education. The site is as reliable as it gets.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,533 Posts
If they were honest they would say that the vast majority of "climate scientists" that are agreeing with each other so much on IPCC and elsewhere are do not have a PhD in Climatology.

This is what it is about
Climate is the average weather over 30 years. Trends should not be zoomed into relatively short periods to then use to make predictions for the long term. A PhD does not absolve from manipulation.
View attachment 104305

Look at the time axis.

Does that prove absolutely that pumping CO2 in the air is a-ok? No.
Does it give a better perspective on what is going on? Hell yes.
I think that you are getting hung up on definitions, whereas we are in uncharted territiory here.

As for the graphs that you posted (“models”, not evidence, as you would call them), note that global population levels in the previous warm time was essentially nothing. And more nomadic - they were more easily able to adapt. If areas became too warm and dry to support a population, cities could be abandoned. Today, that is a lot harder to do with our notions of land ownership, along with immense investment in structures and infrastructure. Feeding 8 billion people in the world becomes an issue when arable land becomes unproductive due to drought or changed growing seasons. Or if fish stocks collapse.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
If they were honest they would say that the vast majority of "climate scientists" that are agreeing with each other so much on IPCC and elsewhere are do not have a PhD in Climatology.

This is what it is about
Climate is the average weather over 30 years. A PhD does not absolve from manipulation.
Agreed, and the data I’ve provided is over a span of 100yrs. And about manipulation, as was demonstrated by Dr Crockford in presenting misrepresentations in her criticism of the polar bear video and it’s author.

Is the Tim Ball author of the graph you are quoting is the same Tim Ball as presented here? Tim Ball - RationalWiki
If so, there may be a question or two regarding whether the publication has been properly peer reviewed. Which publication is the graph from?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
Agreed, and the data I’ve provided is over a span of 100yrs. And about manipulation, as was demonstrated by Dr Crockford in presenting misrepresentations in her criticism of the polar bear video and it’s author.

Is the Tim Ball author of the graph you are quoting is the same Tim Ball as presented here? Tim Ball - RationalWiki
If so, there may be a question or two regarding whether the publication has been properly peer reviewed. Which publication is the graph from?
This is exactly what happens if you show data with a name attached. Not the picture it shows but the name of the person that from afar does not appear to agree gets looked at in detail.

That is why the IPCC approach is genius. You let everyone from the cleaning lady to the sharpest mind become a reviewer - provided they agree with the direction you are thinking in - and boom! you have a peer reviewed document that has been concrete-cased and teflon coated. Peer review is the new bible. You can state anything at all, have it peer reviewed and it is the word of the internet God.

I point this out because since you guys do not seem to be reading a whole lot of links I posted, I did not do much effort and just picked the graph showing what I wanted to show from the first site google threw at me. That Mr Ball I do not know. He may be the biggest goofball in the universe. But what that graph shows is the same as it does in the wikipedia link I posted earlier (but not as a picture) that shows climate changes all the time, in waves, and when there is warming that seems to happen at the exact same rate before as it does now.

As said the data you provided shows the climate doing what it does. As said in my first post I have yet to meet the first person who does not believe that climate changes. So yes, nice graphs of changing climate there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,259 Posts
I think that you are getting hung up on definitions, whereas we are in uncharted territiory here.

As for the graphs that you posted (“models”, not evidence, as you would call them), note that global population levels in the previous warm time was essentially nothing. And more nomadic - they were more easily able to adapt. If areas became too warm and dry to support a population, cities could be abandoned. Today, that is a lot harder to do with our notions of land ownership, along with immense investment in structures and infrastructure. Feeding 8 billion people in the world becomes an issue when arable land becomes unproductive due to drought or changed growing seasons. Or if fish stocks collapse.
Either we talk science and use definitions, or we do not and then we can go straight to the dancing in red gowns and making ritual sacrifices. Using definitions is kind of crucial to separate between those.

Graphs are short for Graphical depictions. They can depict any old data we like. It can for example depict data measured with validated tools in agreed stable conditions (= historic data), it can depict derived data based on earth or ice core readings (= historic data), it can depict data that is extrapolated from historic data using a theory (=model data). If we show a graph of how the earth will warm up an not cool down (=hockeystick), since that has obviously not yet happened, we are showing a model. When we show actual historic data we are not showing a model. I have not been showing a model.

Feeding overpopulation is not directly related to climate change. It can be theorized to be, but for now there is no historic data to show it does. It is however what is known as "a big fXcking problem".
Politicians are typically not keen on addressing it, by evidence of lots of noise about climate data models but zero noise on overpopulation.
 
81 - 100 of 134 Posts
Top