Dr StrangeHarpper or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying (About Global Warming) and Love CO2

[DJL 235]

airdvr

So it is a religion. There are 2 stories. God is real. God isn't real. And your response is neither is to be believed. Yet you believe in this theory of man made global warming. What day do you worship?

There's even prayers...

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS720US720&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=global+warming+prayer

But really. Did you read the articles? I'm not talking about the headlines, that's the author, not the source. Besides, the internet is big, I'm sure you can find someone saying the drought is not caused by global warming. As I said above, you need to actually read the article, for one, and also look at who is being quoted, what the context is, etc. In the first article the source describes the drought to being exactly like every drought we've ever had and is not necessarily related to global warming. (By the way, the same source has written quite a bit about how Global Warming is exacerbating if not causing more conflict in the Middle East). The second article talks about the weather patterns that create the drought and state that because of global warming those weather patterns are becoming more prevalent. It's a set/subset issue that doesn't require mutual exclusivity. All the second person is saying is that as the dice roll the weather created by the changing climate will result in more droughts (set) as we have just seen. To that end it is possible that the most recent drought was a result of an already changing climate (subset).

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[airdvr 210]

I did. So are you saying that NOAA is not a trustworthy source for information? Or is it just not trustworthy when it doesn't agree with your religion? And are you OK with the "dice roll" analogy?

In every article I read I see a lot of use of the words possibly or might be, things of that nature. I thought the science was settled.

Quote

But really. Did you read the articles? I'm not talking about the headlines, that's the author, not the source. Besides, the internet is big, I'm sure you can find someone saying the drought is not caused by global warming. As I said above, you need to actually read the article, for one, and also look at who is being quoted, what the context is, etc. In the first article the source describes the drought to being exactly like every drought we've ever had and is not necessarily related to global warming. (By the way, the same source has written quite a bit about how Global Warming is exacerbating if not causing more conflict in the Middle East). The second article talks about the weather patterns that create the drought and state that because of global warming those weather patterns are becoming more prevalent. It's a set/subset issue that doesn't require mutual exclusivity. All the second person is saying is that as the dice roll the weather created by the changing climate will result in more droughts (set) as we have just seen. To that end it is possible that the most recent drought was a result of an already changing climate (subset).

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

>In every article I read I see a lot of use of the words possibly or might be, things
>of that nature. I thought the science was settled.

The science is settled. The future is not.

Smoking causes lung cancer; that science is settled. It does not mean that if you smoke two packs a day a doctor can tell you that you will die on December 11, 2023.

[DJL 235]

Article 1: The drought is a result of weather patterns.

Article 2: The weather patterns are becoming more prevalent.

That's the difference.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[sonnyblu 0]

DJL

you need to actually read the article, for one, and also look at who is being quoted, what the context is, etc.

Spoken like a true religious apologist!

But seriously, I just don't think most people are willing to put forth the effort to confirm the validity of a statement that already supports their own bias.

For example, if CNN says that Trump is a chicken fucker, I doubt you'll see Trump haters going out of their way to say, "hey, this has gone too far! I have done the research! I have examined the evidence! There is nothing to support the claim that Trump fucks chickens - this is fake news!"

[headoverheels 334]

sonnyblu

For example, if CNN says that Trump is a chicken fucker, I doubt you'll see Trump haters going out of their way to say, "hey, this has gone too far! I have done the research! I have examined the evidence! There is nothing to support the claim that Trump fucks chickens - this is fake news!"

I saw the video. He said "you can just grab them by the cloaca. If you're famous, they just let you."

[airdvr 210]

billvon

>In every article I read I see a lot of use of the words possibly or might be, things
>of that nature. I thought the science was settled.

The science is settled. The future is not.

Smoking causes lung cancer; that science is settled. It does not mean that if you smoke two packs a day a doctor can tell you that you will die on December 11, 2023.

The smoking comparison is a poor one. If I smoke two packs a day there's no guarantee that it will kill me. We already have the evidence that shows smoking is causing damage.

Unless I'm missing something the question isn't whether the earth is warming...it is. The question is what's causing it. Hardly the same situation. What science has settled that man is the cause? Not that a bunch of scientists concur. We don't elect leaders by the popular vote either. And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[wmw999 2,587]

I guess that to me, the smoking analogy still works. There are causes of cancer, even lung cancer, that aren't smoking.
Man is not the only cause of climate change, there aren't a lot of serious people who really think that people are the only cause. However, if climate change is affecting us in a negative way, or is likely to, isn't it a little short-sighted not to look at how to make a transition easier?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[airdvr 210]

wmw999

I guess that to me, the smoking analogy still works. There are causes of cancer, even lung cancer, that aren't smoking.
Man is not the only cause of climate change, there aren't a lot of serious people who really think that people are the only cause. However, if climate change is affecting us in a negative way, or is likely to, isn't it a little short-sighted not to look at how to make a transition easier?

Wendy P.

A good point. But I don't hear anyone talking about transition. I hear talk of changing the outcome. And we're talking about making changes based on information dating back to the 1800's? A small slice of the millions of years of earth history. And there has been some good work done. I can't have spray deodorant. A small price to pay to reduce the ozone hole. But we sit and fret about so much that we think is in our control when in reality it isn't. Humans love to think they're in control.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

>The smoking comparison is a poor one. If I smoke two packs a day there's no
>guarantee that it will kill me. We already have the evidence that shows smoking is
>causing damage.

Exactly. And there's no guarantee that climate change will cause any specific event - a category 6 hurricane, or polar bear extinction, or a steady, year-over-year increase in temperature. We already have the evidence that it is happening and causing damage.

>Unless I'm missing something the question isn't whether the earth is warming...it
>is. The question is what's causing it.

Anthropogenic release of gases, primarily. We also know why smoking causes cancer - because of a mix of toxins in cigarette smoke that does damage to lungs.

>What science has settled that man is the cause?

Three aspects lead to that conclusion:

1) We have increased the concentration of CO2 (and to a lesser degree methane) in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and drilling for oil. This is demonstrable through simple chemistry and math.

2) We know that increasing the concentration of those gases leads to increased retention of heat. This is demonstrable through simple lab experiments.

3) We see the increase in temperature that we expect to see due to those increasing concentrations.

>Not that a bunch of scientists concur.

Science has confirmed that smoking causes cancer. Science has also confirmed that an increase in AGW gases causes warming.

>We don't elect leaders by the popular vote either.

??? So? And some places still have monarchies. Neither political system is a good example of how science works.

>And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them
>to investigate.

Hmm. What "problem" has led to the discovery of thousands of planets outside the solar system? Many scientists investigate important questions, not just important problems. Keep in mind that Arrhenius first proposed that greenhouse gases could be a problem long before they actually were.

[kallend 2,146]

airdvr

And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

AND your view is hopelessly wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Quote

And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

Do you also believe that scientists secretly infect millions of people with malaria, just so we can get research grants to study how to control it? Seriously?

Quote

The question is what's causing it.

Suppose you come home to find your house on fire, and notice a guy with a gas can and a lighter running out of the back door. Would you ignore the guy and say sometimes houses catch fire because of electrical problems, or being hit by lightning, etc. There is no reason to seriously consider arson.

Globally, temperatures are increasing. CO2 levels are also increasing, in an amount that closely matches human-caused CO2 release to the atmosphere. CO2 has been experimentally shown many times to act as a greenhouse gas. Yet you claim anthropologically produced CO2 is unrelated to climate change, and invoke "natural causes". What causes, specifically? Have you actual data to prove, or even strongly implicate, any natural cause? Increases in solar output, Milankovitch cycles, and other natural causes have been proposed, investigated, and excluded.

It seems to me that you are determined to deny that a known greenhouse gas, which is increasing in concentration in the atmosphere in direct proportion to human activities, has no effect on climate, and instead prefer to invoke mysterious "natural forces" you have not (and likely cannot) explain, that somehow magically produce warming closely similar to what would be expected from CO2. I think it is you that has a religious perspective, relying on mysterious forces and discarding science to explain how the world works.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Suppose you come home to find your house on fire, and notice a guy with a gas can and a lighter running out of the back door. Would you ignore the guy and say sometimes houses catch fire because of electrical problems, or being hit by lightning, etc. There is no reason to seriously consider arson.

Hopefully my wifi would work long enough to see if I can find an "article" on whatsupwiththat.com

[brenthutch 444]

***


1) We have increased the concentration of CO2 (and to a lesser degree methane) in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and drilling for oil. This is demonstrable through simple chemistry and math.

2) We know that increasing the concentration of those gases leads to increased retention of heat. This is demonstrable through simple lab experiments.

3) We see the increase in temperature that we expect to see due to those increasing concentrations.



What would we expect if CO2 levels where to QUADRUPLE.....an ice age perhaps?

[DJL 235]

The answer to your question:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[airdvr 210]

kallend

*** And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

AND your view is hopelessly wrong.

You really believe in a 340,000,000,000 dollar industry there is no competition for government funding? That the possibility of massaged data to insure grant money isn't a possibility? Here's a list of the Federally Funded Research & Development Centers. What other government program with that budget is squeaky clean? I think you need to step away from the chalkboard and look around.

The following list includes all current FFRDCs:

Facility Administrator Location Sponsor
Aerospace FFRDC The Aerospace Corporation El Segundo, CA Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force
Ames Laboratory Iowa State University of Science and Technology Ames, IA Department of Energy
Argonne National Laboratory UChicago Argonne, LLC Downers Grove Township, IL Department of Energy
Arroyo Center RAND Corporation Santa Monica, CA Department of Defense, Department of the Army
Brookhaven National Laboratory Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC Upton, NY Department of Energy
National Security Engineering Center MITRE Bedford, MA, and McLean, VA Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development MITRE McLean, VA Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
Center for Enterprise Modernization MITRE McLean, VA Department of the Treasury, Department of Veterans Affairs, Internal Revenue Service
Center for Naval Analyses The CNA Corporation Arlington, VA Department of Defense, Department of the Navy
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses Southwest Research Institute San Antonio, TX Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Centers for Communications and Computing Institute for Defense Analyses Alexandria, VA Department of Defense, National Security Agency
CMS Alliance to Modernize Healthcare MITRE McLean, VA United States Department of Health and Human Services
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Fermi Research Alliance, LLC Batavia, IL Department of Energy
Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute Analytic Services, Inc. Arlington, VA Department of Homeland Security, Under Secretary for Science and Technology
Homeland Security Systems Engineering and Development Institute MITRE McLean, VA Department of Homeland Security, Under Secretary for Science and Technology
Idaho National Laboratory Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC Idaho Falls, ID Department of Energy
Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Judiciary Engineering and Modernization Center MITRE McLean, VA United States Courts
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of California Berkeley, CA Department of Energy
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC Livermore, CA Department of Energy
Lincoln Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lexington, MA Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force
Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos National Security, LLC Los Alamos, NM Department of Energy
National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center Battelle National Biodefense Institute Frederick, MD Department of Homeland Security, Under Secretary for Science and Technology
Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research Leidos Biomedical Research Frederick, MD Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health
National Center for Atmospheric Research University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO National Science Foundation
National Cybersecurity FFRDC MITRE Rockville, MD Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Defense Research Institute RAND Corporation Santa Monica, CA Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense
National Optical Astronomy Observatory Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. Tucson, AZ National Science Foundation
National Radio Astronomy Observatory Associated Universities, Inc. Charlottesville, VA National Science Foundation
National Solar Observatory Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. Boulder, CO National Science Foundation
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC Golden, CO Department of Energy
Oak Ridge National Laboratory UT-Battelle, LLC Oak Ridge, TN Department of Energy
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Battelle Memorial Institute Richland, WA Department of Energy
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Princeton University Princeton, NJ Department of Energy
Project Air Force RAND Corporation Santa Monica, CA Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Stanford University Stanford, CA Department of Energy
Sandia National Laboratories Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Albuquerque, NM
Livermore, CA Department of Energy
Savannah River National Laboratory Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC Aiken, SC Department of Energy
Science and Technology Policy Institute Institute for Defense Analyses Washington, DC National Science Foundation
Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA Department of Defense, Department of the Army
Systems and Analyses Center Institute for Defense Analyses Alexandria, VA Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility Jefferson Science Associates, LLC Newport News, VA Department of Energy

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Phil1111 1,173]

DJL

The answer to your question:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

Why bother citing national bodies filled with scientists that review the studies of other scientists. Trying to pick holes in their methods,conclusions and data.

Deniers have "whatsfakeit" to quote in reply.

[brenthutch 444]

"Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

[DJL 235]

brenthutch

"Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

I'll look at this one later but now your source is a West Virginia mining engineer from his 2006 website? Hmmmm......

"Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as a evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training."

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

*** And in my view scientists need there to be a problem so someone will pay them to investigate.

AND your view is hopelessly wrong.

"The only thing we are absolutely sure of, is that more research is necessary"

[DJL 235]

http://www.geocraft.com/games/battleship/battleship.html

There's a pretty fun battleship game on his site too.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Phil1111 1,173]

DJL

***"Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

I'll look at this one later but now your source is a West Virginia mining engineer from his 2006 website? Hmmmm......

"Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as a evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training."

West Virginia mining engineer he's a freaking coal miner!

[airdvr 210]

Phil1111

******"Over the last 400,000 years the natural upper limit of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is assumed from the ice core data to be about 300 ppm. Other studies using proxy such as plant stomata, however, indicate this may closer to the average value, at least over the last 15,000 years. Today, CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 ppm. Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.

Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show."

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

I'll look at this one later but now your source is a West Virginia mining engineer from his 2006 website? Hmmmm......

"Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, serving as a evangelist for the viewpoint (he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training."

West Virginia mining engineer he's a freaking coal miner!

I know you like to dismiss people who are in the fossil fuels business but doesn't it make sense if your livelihood is under attack you might want to try and fight back just a little?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Phil1111 1,173]

OK, but I would give him the same credence as I would a Philip Morris flavor blending botanist. Who published a study that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

[airdvr 210]

Phil1111

OK, but I would give him the same credence as I would a Philip Morris flavor blending botanist. Who published a study that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

I agree. Almost the same as scientists fighting over scraps of federal funding

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne