Global Warming/Climate Change

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
9,866
I highly doubt I will convince you and I know you will not convince me so I think we will have to agree to disagree.

LOL!

I'm not a very agreeable person :D

My own view is that as long as I can present both a good argument along with an effective rebuttal.......the beat goes on. :)

Just ask Valis....he's known me some 15 years or so ......shocking how time flies.

But I do like the civility. Makes for a better discussion.
( I also enjoy the 'dark side' if you know what I mean lol! )
 

valis

Moderator
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
78,676
I'm not a very agreeable person
shocked, I tell ya.....just shocked......

and yeah we've been banging heads for quite some time. Been a fun and learning ride to tell the truth.
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
9,866
lol.....just to correct any misconceptions, my reference to 'the beat goes on' was Sony and Cher inspired ;)

Not a physical confrontational reference. :)
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
9,866
good read....

rather reputable source, too.
Reputable, yes.
That's an issue in many mass media articles where the reporters/writers are simply regurgitating misunderstood/incorrect concepts.

This article is one of those, not only clear as mud, written in a way that could be misunderstood and a statement under a photo that is impossible.

Study warns of 'irreversible transition' in ocean currents that could rapidly freeze parts of North America
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-could-freeze-north-america-study/5501368001/

The average person reading that is coming away with the idea that the issue becomes global cooling.
And the deniers are likely going to present it as evidence .....of global cooling.
I'm not claiming it's intentional on the part of the reporter/s......it's probably their ignorance that leads them in that direction.

It's all about the distribution of energy. In this case, a radical redirection as the ocean's currents, it's transportation of energy ( warm water ) moves energy to a different location.
Some parts of the globe get warmer, some cooler depending on how that energy is diverted.

And the caption under one of the images doesn't help in understanding the situation.
Slow down, yes. Reverse, no.


(n)
 

valis

Moderator
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
78,676
I read it as the Love and Rockets remake of 'Ball of Confusion'.....;)

It's been a great (yikes!) 17 years here......and yeah, we definitely banged heads back in the day.....heck as recently as last year over Street Outlaws! :D All we've done is to learn to respect each others opinions no matter how stupid they are.
 

valis

Moderator
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
78,676
Reputable, yes.
That's an issue in many mass media articles where the reporters/writers are simply regurgitating misunderstood/incorrect concepts.

This article is one of those, not only clear as mud, written in a way that could be misunderstood and a statement under a photo that is impossible.

Study warns of 'irreversible transition' in ocean currents that could rapidly freeze parts of North America
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-could-freeze-north-america-study/5501368001/

The average person reading that is coming away with the idea that the issue becomes global cooling.
And the deniers are likely going to present it as evidence .....of global cooling.
I'm not claiming it's intentional on the part of the reporter/s......it's probably their ignorance that leads them in that direction.

It's all about the distribution of energy. In this case, a radical redirection as the ocean's currents, it's transportation of energy ( warm water ) moves energy to a different location.
Some parts of the globe get warmer, some cooler depending on how that energy is diverted.

And the caption under one of the images doesn't help in understanding the situation.

Slow down, yes. Reverse, no.


(n)
Actually read that article. Told myself when they mentioned 'Day After Tomorrow' I would go back to my Dave Barry book.

Didnt take long...
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
9,866
I read it as the Love and Rockets remake of 'Ball of Confusion'.....;)

It's been a great (yikes!) 17 years here......and yeah, we definitely banged heads back in the day.....heck as recently as last year over Street Outlaws! :D All we've done is to learn to respect each others opinions no matter how stupid they are.
But...but...but......Street Outlaws is real.....( LOL! )
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
9,866
This is a long and involved article.
I suspect most won't read it because of it's length and blindly fall back on their political positions, be it the socialist left, conservative right or fist pumping Trumplican.

Essentially, it's a discussion about the fallacies and unrealistic proposals of the degrowth movement.
It showcases what needs to be addressed and the realities of what degrowth can accomplish.

Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22408556/save-planet-shrink-economy-degrowth
 

valis

Moderator
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
78,676
it's an interesting read; not too sure of the of the argument. this:

What Hickel envisions is global movement in two directions: Poor countries could develop up to a certain level of prosperity and then stop; rich countries could develop down to that level and then stop. Thus, climate catastrophe could be averted, all while making the world’s poor more prosperous.
IMO, leans waaaay to heavy on the 'if' factor. But again, I'm looking at this anew as I've never heard of this theory before. Thanks for sharing it.
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
9,866
it's an interesting read; not too sure of the of the argument. this:



IMO, leans waaaay to heavy on the 'if' factor. But again, I'm looking at this anew as I've never heard of this theory before. Thanks for sharing it.

That was Hickel's argument.
But not only a big 'if'.
The flaw in his logic was in the following paragraph:
From a climate change perspective, though, there’s a problem. First, it means that degrowth would do nothing about the bulk of emissions, which are occurring in developing countries.
Current emissions output:
https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions



And to show how emission output has changed over time, a period 1850 to 2011:
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/climate-change-and-development-three-charts


Sharing economic output with poor nations would only create a an even greater CO2 output from them.
And if you compare the outputs of China and India in those two graphs, it's obvious
that as poor nations achieve greater economic development, the greater their share of CO2 output while the world output keeps increasing.
Doing more of the same doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

Consider....isn't degrowth really a repackaged form of socialism based on an 'if' that looks incredibly inefficient?
 

valis

Moderator
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
78,676
That was Hickel's argument.
But not only a big 'if'.
The flaw in his logic was in the following paragraph:


Current emissions output:
https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions



And to show how emission output has changed over time, a period 1850 to 2011:
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/climate-change-and-development-three-charts


Sharing economic output with poor nations would only create a an even greater CO2 output from them.
And if you compare the outputs of China and India in those two graphs, it's obvious
that as poor nations achieve greater economic development, the greater their share of CO2 output while the world output keeps increasing.
Doing more of the same doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

Consider....isn't degrowth really a repackaged form of socialism based on an 'if' that looks incredibly inefficient?
Yeah, there is something just 'off' about his logic. I applaud his effort but I don't see that in reality.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
2,643
So..... the climate is changing.... yes..?

Well that is not really surprising as it has been changing for about the past 3.5 billion years in endless cycles of deep freeze and impenetrable jungle.

And before I forget, I support 100% that we should clean up this grubby earth that we have defiled for centuries. What a joy it would be (not only for humans) to have clean air, clean rivers, clean oceans, sustainable farming..... yes, we absolutely have to achieve that goal and achieve it within the next 25 years.

But don't let us get our science all wrong because that won't do science any good at all. Already there are too many science-deniers. Get the science wrong and that won't only lead to a tsunami of new science-deniers but it will also lead us down the wrong road to an unknown end.

I would like to see a peer-reviewed paper published in "The Lancet"; a paper that is based on measurable facts and that deals with climate change in terms of all the possible factors, not simply a tunnel-vision view of one aspect only. So what are the other factors..... ?

1. Changes in all aspects of the sun
2. Variations in the orbit of the earth
3. Variations in the angle of inclination of the earth
4. Evidence from the geological record of causes of previous warm periods
5. Air pollution from volcanic activity and natural wildfires
6. Naturally occurring changes in ocean currents
7. Naturally occurring atmospheric changes

My concern, with respect to a warming planet, is that human activity might not be the major contributor, in fact human activity might contribute a relatively insignificant percentage to the warming trend. If we focus only on human activity then we might not be scientifically aware of other, perhaps much more significant, contributing factors, which when we do become aware of them, it might then be just a little too late.

T.
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
9,866
So..... the climate is changing.... yes..?
........................

My concern, with respect to a warming planet, is that human activity might not be the major contributor, in fact human activity might contribute a relatively insignificant percentage to the warming trend. If we focus only on human activity then we might not be scientifically aware of other, perhaps much more significant, contributing factors, which when we do become aware of them, it might then be just a little too late.

T.
Sounds like you are interested in what are called 'forcings'.
Natural versus man made.

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing

Do you really think man can alter the forces of nature any significant amount?
Or even any amount?

If so, what and how?
 

Johnny b

John
Thread Starter
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
9,866
in fact human activity might contribute a relatively insignificant percentage to the warming trend.
Yep...an 'insignificant percentage', but enough to speedup the warming process. It's a measurable difference, but it's taken 150+ years of data to show it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Top