Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Stupid" Questions :o  (Read 579776 times)

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 477
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2800 on: November 26, 2019, 12:13:17 PM »
Quote from: nanning link=topic=143.msg238469#msg238469
Eleven steps

...

I wonder what kind of forces/powers could bring about the socialist planning society that is depicted here?
Probably after the singularity has come, and AI takes over.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7434
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2198
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2801 on: November 26, 2019, 02:21:20 PM »
"Formal recognition of the end of material growth " ... yeah right. And the earth is flat and created by the flying spaghetti monster.
Quote
For ten years, the Emissions Gap Report has been sounding the alarm – and for ten years, the world has only increased its emissions,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “There has never been a more important time to listen to the science. Failure to heed these warnings and take drastic action to reverse emissions means we will continue to witness deadly and catastrophic heatwaves, storms and pollution.”
https://newclimate.org/2019/11/26/emissions-gap-report-2019/
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 308
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2802 on: November 26, 2019, 02:56:31 PM »
Which does not imply "formal recognition of the end of material growth".
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7434
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2198
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2803 on: November 26, 2019, 03:31:18 PM »
Which does not imply "formal recognition of the end of material growth".
Yep.

This cynic believes we will see the end of material growth -

Some seek  the end of material growth.
Some have the end of material growth forced upon them. Ouch.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1587
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 10590
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2804 on: November 26, 2019, 04:34:56 PM »
Quote from: gerontocrat
This cynic believes we will see the end of material growth -

'We' only have 1 finite and exhausted planet with a collapsing biosphere so material growth HAS to end because the bottle will soon be empty. He is no cynic, he is a realist in my view and said so himself.
What was that thing again that now moved to August. Something with to do Earth's resources.

I forced the end of material growth upon myself and there was/is no 'Ouch'. It is a question of wanting. Having many 'wants' make you unhappy and unsatisfied regardless of how much you have. No wants, no ouch.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2805 on: November 26, 2019, 04:38:50 PM »
Quote from: gerontocrat
This cynic believes we will see the end of material growth -

'We' only have 1 finite and exhausted planet with a collapsing biosphere so material growth HAS to end because the bottle will soon be empty. He is no cynic, he is a realist in my view and said so himself.
What was that thing again that now moved to August. Something with to do Earth's resources.


No, growth does not have to end.  Materials can be reused/recycled.  New sources are available, and organic sources are inexhaustible.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1587
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 10590
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2806 on: November 26, 2019, 04:44:44 PM »
That has the ring of someone terminally addicted to drugs.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 308
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2807 on: November 26, 2019, 04:52:45 PM »
Which does not imply "formal recognition of the end of material growth".
Yep.

This cynic believes we will see the end of material growth -

Some seek  the end of material growth.
Some have the end of material growth forced upon them. Ouch.
No it does not imply "formal recognition of the end of material growth".

And wishing or asking for such a change is simply ridiculous and is never going to happen.

But possibly it will be forced upon mankind at some point although I doubt it.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

SimonF92

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2808 on: November 26, 2019, 06:46:43 PM »
Irrespective of ecological effects, based purely on geophysics, would a wall here help to preserve Arctic ice?

philopek

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 531
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2809 on: November 26, 2019, 08:19:41 PM »
Irrespective of ecological effects, based purely on geophysics, would a wall here help to preserve Arctic ice?

It would not preserve arctic ice, hence whether it would help to do so is irrelevant.

It would PERHAPS help to slow down the loss of arctic ice on that side but even that is not certain, who knows, perhaps we shall see high heat intrusion from the atlantic side and be glad that some of it can flow out there. (not saying it will be that way, just a possibility to consider due to our lack of understanding of the system as a whole.)

BTW the answer goes irrespective of ANY side-effects, there would be other than just ecological ones, this just as an aside.

Stephan

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 952
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 165
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2810 on: November 26, 2019, 09:56:49 PM »
Then you could also build a wall in the Strait of Gibraltar to maintain sea level rise in the Mediterranean as it is and to preserve Venezia from drowning.
But...then the rest of the world's oceans would rise a little bit faster.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7434
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2198
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2811 on: November 26, 2019, 10:01:33 PM »
Irrespective of ecological effects, based purely on geophysics, would a wall here help to preserve Arctic ice?

If you fancy a VERY LONG read, you can start here...

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1545.msg76945.html#msg76945
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

SimonF92

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2812 on: November 26, 2019, 11:07:17 PM »

Interesting replies, thanks.

I was looking at the 6m swells in the chukchi- that really cant be helping at the moment.  Crazier things have been proposed (arctic air con etc).

The Hong Kong - Mainland  (edit- its the HK- Macau) bridge is 20+ miles long and im pretty sure China is planning an even bigger one so it could be done- could even generate clean energy.

As an aside I read they are considering tidal barriers around the Venetian inlet alongside pumping something (cant remember what) into the sub-sea fresh water aquifers [probably water]- which apparently should help raise the city.

Thanks for the link Gerontocrat I will have a read of this.

Forgive my ramblings, this seems to be the place for it by namesake.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4723
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1046
  • Likes Given: 1346
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2813 on: November 27, 2019, 07:34:13 AM »
A couple of stupid questions as I dig into this fascinating subject. First, there was a huge fuss over plastic drinking sta in the us, and in response, many places now outlaw them. They have since been replaced with products that require the manufacturing of more plastic. Isn't that worse, as it's not the final product but the manufacturing that raises greenhouse gases? Second, if the earth's crust is constantly changing at a rate of about 1 inch per year, that means that in the last 40 years, the Atlantic has gained a lot of room. How would we expect the arctic to respond to that?
I can't fully answer your questions but: the problem with plastic is not just it's manufacturing but mostly the pollution of it getting thrown around and lasting for many years in the environment.
As for the Atlantic, I googled 17mm, 2/3 inch, per year. Anyway I don't think it matters so much. 17mm added to 6000 km width, while sea level rise is 3mm per year added to 4km depth. So SLR is much more significant by a factor of ~250 in terms of ocean volume. So I  would expect the Arctic not to respond to continental drift at all.
However, considering SLR: Bering Strait is up to 50m deep. The Barents Sea average depth is 230m. These are the two regions where warm salty water enter the Arctic, So the 3mm added per year is much more significant. Simplistically, over 40 years Bering flow increased by at least 0.25% (3*40/50000) and probably more* - not huge but not zero either.

* More because average depth is less than 50m, and even more because flow at the top suffers less friction than at the bottom.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2814 on: November 27, 2019, 08:09:18 PM »
Quote
Experts calculate the odds of an asteroid big enough to wipe out all life on Earth hitting Earth in the next billion years is 99.996%. ...
I'd say those experts don't know what is included in "life". There are bacteria, archaea and eukarya  that live 1,000s of feet below our feet.  A moon-sized asteroid hitting the earth would kill all 'higher life', very possibly, but 'all life'? I surely doubt it.  Now, running into a star - that'd do it.
...
In the Earth-logs blog is this article on Extraterrestrial sugar that ends:
Quote
... Moon formation by giant impact shortly after accretion of the proto-Earth would almost certainly have  destroyed such organic precursors. So, if the Earth’s surface was chemically ‘seeded’ in this way it is more likely to have occurred at a later time, perhaps during the Late Heavy Bombardment 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago
So maybe it takes only a large [rocky(?) or would a gas giant do?] planet and not a star to destroy all life on Earth.  ("Almost certainly" seems less certain than "99.996% probability" to me, so a Mars-sized candy bar planet isn't enough.)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4106
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2815 on: November 27, 2019, 09:25:51 PM »

No, growth does not have to end.  Materials can be reused/recycled.  New sources are available, and organic sources are inexhaustible.

You might want to reconsider this statement as...

"Half of the topsoil on the planet has been lost in the last 150 years."

https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradation

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2816 on: November 28, 2019, 12:42:30 AM »
Perhaps you people with more background than me can help with that Furry Forum I am on.
Here are a few arguments I don't know how to answer;
Quote
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's a saturated one. It's already trapping practically all the heat it can based on bandwidth coverage, and increasing the amount doesn't actually increase its capacity for trapping heat (that band is already blocked; radiation curves are distorted by the blockage and increase wavelengths that AREN'T blocked, and the net loss of heat to space is practically unaffected.

Quote
In all the charts I've seen on CO2 concentration and earth temperature, the temperature has *led* the CO2 rise, not followed it.

Quote
They use a benchmark pre-industrial CO2 level that cherrypicks the available data to come up with a ridiculously low value by disregarding all the high measurements - apparently on the grounds that 'they shouldn't count because we know they were wrong'. The actual statistical average of the 1750-1850 measurements is on the order of 425 ppm, not the 280 they claim.

Quote
This reminds me of how Australian automated climate stations being used for global warming research were found to be programed to consider any temperature below -10C as an error and to alter it. Not flag such data for review as possible errors. Not throw it out. No, they "adjust" the data to some value above -10C. Even when independent measurements for that time and area clearly show that the raw data was the correct value, and not an error.


<snip, no links to climate risk denier websites, please. Didn't know that Jo Nova, many cranky pensioner's wet dream, was still around. The business must still be profitable, I guess; N.>


Quote
More than 80% of thermometers in the official global network are in urban areas or at airports, which are both unnaturally warm localities. Take a look out the window when you fly—the vast bulk of the land is not at an airport or in an urban area.
Isn’t the climate establishment measuring urban warming and airport warming rather than global warming? They have placed their thermometers to measure the growth and use of cities, air conditioners, planes, water treatment plants, cars, buses, trucks, asphalt, concrete, and tarmac. They measure temperature in many of the globe’s warmest localities, but not global temperature. Yet they report those temperatures as “global warming”.

How do I answer these?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 12:55:45 PM by Neven »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 142
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2817 on: November 28, 2019, 02:02:59 AM »
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

basic, intermediate and advanced tabs depending on audience.


https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm

https://skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm
(perhaps not quite the concern raised but....)

https://skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

It might be possible to add something along the lines of:

All these common myths are so often debunked that someone felt the need to create website containing the rebuttals so it can just be referred to rather than working out how to state the rebuttals each time. If all 5 listed items are pretty well dealt with, this might imply something about the denialists drifting from one rebutted myth to another and never managing to come up with anything that hasn't been debunked.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 02:15:03 AM by crandles »

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3255
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 519
  • Likes Given: 229
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2818 on: November 28, 2019, 02:13:19 AM »
exactly!
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4723
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1046
  • Likes Given: 1346
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2819 on: November 28, 2019, 10:28:18 AM »
Quote
How do I answer these?
Bear in mind that considering the issues raised, you are almost certainly dealing with a seasoned denier, which means all your responses will fall on deaf ears and the next 5 well known denier memes will come your way. These are not innocent questions of some armchair hobby scientist.

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 308
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2820 on: November 28, 2019, 11:06:32 AM »
I´m currently very busy answering denialist misinformation on an open forum in Icelandic. Making surprisingly good headway, most of the nutters have given up and the remaining skeptics are open to discussion. Having said that, I don't think any of them have changed their minds, but I might have saved some innocent youngsters from falling for their nonsense. I hope. But really it's just because I enjoy being argumentative as many of you have perhaps noticed.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2821 on: November 28, 2019, 01:50:30 PM »
Here is the answer I got on the first issue:
Quote
Whoever wrote this is an idiot. They're conflating peak radiation absorption with heat. NOT the same thing.
What actually happens in a saturated system is that the radiation is scattered in all directions instead of passing through a transparent medium. This makes it far harder for it to escape, and the energy starts heating up the environment around it. HOWEVER. As the temperature climbs, the radiation frequencies of the heat transmission go up as well, until they reach a point where the primary emission frequencies are not absorbed by the gas in question and it escapes.
Adding more gas at this point will not further increase the temperature, since the heat that is trapped continues to radiate at frequencies that CO2 will not trap. The writer does not comprehend that the absorption patterns themselves change as the temperature goes up.
And his analogy is complete BS. The situations are not analogous at all.
Now, the more advanced version does more math, and references the Arrhenius paper; but the issues stand. They don't carry the analysis to the edge of the absorption band for some reason (I suspect squirrels are involved) where the net retention DOES drop to zero again. And Arrhenius demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but did most certainly NOT demonstrate that it was a major one.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2822 on: November 28, 2019, 02:37:09 PM »
Tom,
I would not say there are an idiot, mainly because the response is science-based.  Your key answer lies in your statement about the edge of the absorption bands.  At this point, increased concentrations will result in greater absorption.  Another thing, frequently omitted in these answers is that the absorbed radiation will be re-emitted in all directions.  One-fourth will be returned to the surface and another quarter will be lost to space.  The remaining half will remain in the atmosphere (at a different frequency) and be subject to absorption and re-remittance subject to the physics of the gases present.  This will continue.  Arrhenius was correct, and modern measurements show that.

ivica

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 988
  • Kelele
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2823 on: November 28, 2019, 08:52:54 PM »

blumenkraft

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2582
  • Fans of Hans Ø Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1008
  • Likes Given: 1507
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2824 on: November 28, 2019, 09:00:35 PM »
.criminals {
    top: 30px;
    left:50px;
}

Fixed your chart with CSS, Ivica. ;)
Beware, this user bites.

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2825 on: November 28, 2019, 11:05:41 PM »
All these common myths are so often debunked.
PRATT.
Point Refuted a Thousand Times.

Tom 2/3 of the globe is water.
Overwhelmingly the greatest adjustment to the raw data is found in the ocean temperatures .
The early measurements for temperatures over the ocean have been adjusted up reducing global warming .
Before the II world war  most measurements were taken from a canvas bucket lowered over the side of the boat. Evaporation will cause the contents of a wet canvas bucket to cool. Since about 1940 sea water temperatures are taken direct from the raw water intake on boats giving a more accurate reading that is on average warmer. The major adjustment to the global temperature data of about 0.2C upwards before 1940 is for this very simple reason  that most 12 year old's can grasp.

If the scientists were corrupt as the wacko's propose why would they actually reduce warming with their adjustments?

I highly recommend referencing skeptical  science if you want to refute any nonsense.
They have  all the pratt's covered in depth with graphics and video explanations.
You will not convince the rusted on whacko's.
You can however influence those bystanders who are not so blinded by ideology and give them a good resource to continue to expand their understanding . 

You will have to excuse my upmost contempt for those in denial.
I spent a decade debating with the denial nutbars on line. In that time I ended up totally reevaluating my political standpoint . I was once firmly in the free market neoliberal camp  I would now be considered  left wing.
To many of the right's talking points come from the same sources as climate change denial to be trusted.
They are not your friends. 
« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 11:12:53 PM by KiwiGriff »

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2826 on: November 29, 2019, 01:19:04 PM »
Here is a link given on that forum.
Anyone know the truth of this contention?
<snip, N.>
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 12:57:43 PM by Neven »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2827 on: November 29, 2019, 03:17:21 PM »
Tom,
Just like the aforementioned skeptical science website, there is some truth involved.  However, they both focus solely on those aspects that support their contentions, and ignore the rest.  They are the opposite tail ends of a Gaussian curve (namely, they have a real, but small chance of occurrence).  One could read both, and combine the two, but it is probably better to read neither.

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2828 on: November 29, 2019, 08:46:48 PM »
Klondike Kat
If you think skeptical science is as unreliable as Joe Nova you  really are a denier .
Many respected climate scientists have contributed to SK SC. Some you may have heard of like Benjamin D. Santer, Carl Mears, Jason Box, Kevin Trenberth, Zeke Hausfather and some random guy who uses the name Neven .
Joe Nova has fringe cranks and posts that contradict both each other and accepted science .

As to Toms question.
Without being able to access the papers involved I think the reduction in the number of recorded high days is due to the culling of multiple records at the same site. The method BOM use to get a regional temperature relies on constructing a single record for a location like a town or city rather than the one used by BEST that uses every record or part of they can find. That the BOM data set comes to the same result as BEST shows that both methods are reliable.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 02:47:00 AM by KiwiGriff »

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2829 on: November 29, 2019, 10:48:53 PM »
Here is more on that saturation thing. I replied:

Quote
if I understand what you are saying, you are wrong. As temperature climbs, all frequencies go up. The peak of the radiation goes up, but the curves do not cross.
Say you heat up the sun. Its color (to our naked eyes) will turn white, then blue-white, then blue, then deep blue. Meanwhile, the maximum of the radiation will go from visible, to UV, to X-ray, to gamma. The apparent visual brightness of the "deep blue" sun will slowly grow brighter and brighter all the time.
Your body emits a visible photon (usually red) something like once a day (I asked this question on the cosmoquest forum, you can look for the precise calculations there). If I heat you up to 5000˚K you will glow like the sun. If I heat you up to 5000000˚K you will appear to glow deep blue considerably brighter than you were before...your "apparent" brightness does not decrease. Most of your radiation is hard radiation at this point, but the now smaller percentage of your radiation in the visible range is even brighter than your 5000˚K "glow" was, when a large percentage of your total radiation was, at that "cooler" level, in the visible range.

Here is the reply I got:
Quote
You obviously do NOT understand what I'm saying. Take what you just said, which is accurate. Now... the point is that as this happens, the peak radiation of the Earth goes from a region where there is a significant blockage of radiation by the CO2 absorption band, to a situation where the higher temperature means that more of the black-body radiation is NOT blocked by the CO2 absorption bands because the peak radiation band has moved out of that region of the spectrum. The increased transmission at higher temperature caps the total amount of heating, which limits the effect of CO2 on the temperature increase. Since CO2 is a minor component of Earth's atmosphere, and of the total greenhouse effect, this actually is a stabilizing influence.
Now, if we went to Venusian thickness of atmosphere, you would have a case, but that's not what's happening.

I asked this also on the CQ forum, and they referred me to a couple articles, so I gave him the links.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii

Here is his reply:
Quote
Do these people have ANY qualifications in thermal physics at all? This stuff is chock full of stuff that I would have to put a big red CE -10 on if I was grading it.
The whole thing is a smooth transition from ground to space, and not 'layers'. Proper treatment mathematically involves some form of integration. The comment about CO2 being relatively more significant as the upper atmosphere gets dryer is particularly disingenuous, since the absolute amount of atmosphere is dropping off quite rapidly as well - most of the heat-trapping occurs in the troposphere. The bottom of the stratosphere is effectively the point where the earth behaves as a blackbody emitter, and at -55 F is at the temperature expected of a black body at our distance from the sun. To a first approximation, the greenhouse effect occurs below that altitude.
I'm also quite curious to know how the writer can be sure that the climate computer models have correctly done the integration of this effect, since Mann and his buddies refuse to release the code for it; nor, to the best of my knowledge, has it been updated to take advantage of more powerful computers over the past thirty years or so.
Mann has repeatedly claimed that the code is 'proprietary' when asked to provide it for crosschecking. Since it is scientific research, done under public funding... NO, YOU HACK, IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF PROPRIETARY! If he's not hiding something, then what the double hockey-sticks is he playing at?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4723
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1046
  • Likes Given: 1346
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2830 on: November 29, 2019, 11:11:44 PM »
Dealing with deniers is not going to get you far. Each claim will be fully confident and will require you to do more and more research and drilling down to find the logical holes. It is designed so that eventually you give up.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2831 on: November 30, 2019, 12:41:48 AM »
Klondike Kat
If you think skeptical science is as unreliable as Joe Nova you  really are a denier .
Many respected climate scientists have contributed to SK SC. Some you may have heard of like Benjamin D. Santer, Carl Mears, Jason Box, Kevin Trenberth, Zeke Hausfather and some random guy who uses the name Neven .
Joe Nova has fringe cranks and posts that contradict both each other and accepted science .

As to Toms question.
Without being able to access the papers involved I think the reduction in the number of recorded high days is due to the culling of multiple records at the same site. The method BOM use to get a regional temperature relies on constructing a single record for a location like a town or city rather than the one used by BEST that users every record or part of they can find. That the BOM data set comes to the same result as BEST shows that both methods are reliable.

Irrelevant.  Even the best can spin the data to support their cause.  I know Dana.  We have sparred often in the past.  He used to be more objective, but John appears to have swayed him towards a more activist approach.  In the end, it is the science that counts, not the scientists.

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2832 on: November 30, 2019, 02:23:24 AM »
Quote
Irrelevant.  Even the best can spin the data to support their cause.  I know Dana.  We have sparred often in the past.  He used to be more objective, but John appears to have swayed him towards a more activist approach.  In the end, it is the science that counts, not the scientists
This is what is known as a straw man in that you did not address my comment.
I did not name Dana I named a few well respected individuals including the proprietor of this site.
In reply You mounted an Ad hominem attack on someone I did not even mention .
Quote
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the ...

Sk Sc is based on science and insists that any claims are linked to and supported by peer reviewed literature. 


False Equivalence
Quote
Description: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.
Joe Nova post any old nonsense with no such restrictions on content . Witness the series of posts by her husband David Evens pushing a fringe theory called at last iteration "force x the notch and the delay theory of global warming. This in a site that also frequently claims that warming is a  result of a conspiracy to doctor records by a cabal of corrupt scientists .

Your use of "activist" was also Poisoning the Well by  using Loaded language .
Poisoning the Well
Quote
(also known as: discrediting, smear tactics)
Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent.  That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim
Quote
Loaded language or prejudicial language is language intended to produce an emotional response in the mind of the audience, in order to directly affect their views on a topic.
Many of us on here could also be included under the title activist it comes from being informed about the issue and an understanding of the risks we face. 

The frequent easy discerned logic errors of those who oppose any actions to address the issue is what convinced me of global warming .


« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 02:52:16 AM by KiwiGriff »

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2833 on: November 30, 2019, 02:54:54 AM »
Quote
Irrelevant.  Even the best can spin the data to support their cause.  I know Dana.  We have sparred often in the past.  He used to be more objective, but John appears to have swayed him towards a more activist approach.  In the end, it is the science that counts, not the scientists
This is what is known as a straw man in that you did not address my comment.
I did not name Dana I named a few well respected individuals including the proprietor of this site.
In reply You mounted an Ad hominem attack on someone I did not even mention .
Quote
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the ...
Denial is usually based on such logic errors.
Sk Sc is based on science and insists that any claims are linked to and supported by peer reviewed literature. 
Your use of "activist" was also Poisoning the Well by  using Loaded language .
Poisoning the Well
Quote
(also known as: discrediting, smear tactics)
Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent.  That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim
Quote
Loaded language or prejudicial language is language intended to produce an emotional response in the mind of the audience, in order to directly affect their views on a topic.
Many of us on here could also be included under the title activist it comes from being informed about the issue and an understanding of the risks we face. 

False Equivalence
Quote
Description: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.
Joe Nova post any old nonsense with no such restrictions on content . Witness the series of posts by her husband David Evens pushing a fringe theory called at last iteration "force x the notch and the delay theory of global warming. This in a site that also frequently claims that warming is a  result of a conspiracy to doctor records by a cabal of corrupt scientists .

The frequent easy discerned logic errors of those who oppose any actions to address the issue is what convinced me of global warming .

I see you are using common denial tactics of ad hominem attacks, false equivalence, and deflection (poisoning the well and straw men are good ones also).  There appears to be little use in arguing with you, as your mind appears to be made up, and no amount of science or logic will change that.  SK uses only that science which supports their beliefs, and by your own admission, do also.

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 481
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2834 on: November 30, 2019, 03:10:35 AM »
Edited to reduce the snark.
 
Quote
Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/; Latin for "you also"), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 03:30:31 AM by KiwiGriff »

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2835 on: November 30, 2019, 05:39:12 AM »
Is that a little self-reflection?

Hefaistos

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 477
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2836 on: November 30, 2019, 08:26:03 AM »




Thanks Kiwi, really good graph.
I looked up the paper where it is to be found
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/homogenization2015/background.html

There is also a nice presentation by the author:
https://youtu.be/xjIb3G5PFTw?t=46

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7304
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 768
  • Likes Given: 490
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2837 on: November 30, 2019, 01:04:16 PM »
By stating that SkS and Jo Nova are two sides of the same coin, KK proves that he/she is 0% serious about AGW, and so is banned.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4723
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1046
  • Likes Given: 1346
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2838 on: November 30, 2019, 01:25:19 PM »
Good point Neven. The lukewarmism was clear but this was outright denier talk.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2839 on: November 30, 2019, 02:11:32 PM »
The forum I am debating is that of a Furry Webcomic artist.
Here is something he posted on Facebook:
Removed per Neven's request.

How do I reply?

EDIT:
Here is another article link from the forum:
Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels
Removed per Neven's request.
Quote
It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 10:20:39 PM by Tom_Mazanec »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2840 on: November 30, 2019, 02:38:02 PM »
The forum I am debating is that of a Furry Webcomic artist.
Here is something he posted on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/ralph.j.hayes/posts/10215763945519823

How do I reply?

EDIT:
Here is another article link from the forum:
Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels
[notorious denier site deleted]
Quote
It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.

Well, that was a stupid post by Dr. Gray.  He shows a chart of estimated temp and CO2 levels over the entire 4 billion years of earth's history.  Vastly varying biological chemistry, geology, and solar output over that span of time.  The entire period of time of interest to us is confined to the last 2mm on the right side of that chart.  No way to show millenial-scale changes of interest.  Snort.

SKS (again) has a hand-dandy chart or two to show the blindingly obvious correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature over the past 400,000 years.
[https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif][/img]
from:
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is very tight.  Blindingly obvious.  No math needed.

Countering climate skeptics on public forums is an important job, but a genuinely Sisyphean task.  I couldn't do that more than just occasionally.  My hat's off to you, Tom.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2019, 02:51:56 PM by SteveMDFP »

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7434
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2198
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2841 on: November 30, 2019, 02:44:36 PM »
The forum I am debating is that of a Furry Webcomic artist.
Here is something he posted on Facebook:


How do I reply?

EDIT:
Here is another article link from the forum:
Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels

Quote
It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.

Tom, what are you playing at?

Your quote is from an extremely well-known denier website that is totally impervious to facts or reasoned thought.

Dr Vincent Gray is a pain in the butt who has made the list of shame known as "the Climate Denier List" - a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths.
Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

I for one, am not wasting any more of my energy on reading your posts from these assorted plonkers.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2019, 04:57:56 PM by Neven »
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2842 on: November 30, 2019, 02:48:53 PM »

...Tom, what are you playing at?
...
I for one, am not wasting any more of my energy on reading your posts from these assorted plonkers.

It seems clear to me that Tom wants to do his part to dispute all the climate denier crap that's out there.  But would like some help with the science from us.  A noble endeavor.  This was in the "stupid" question thread, appropriately.

However, Neven has a strict rule about not linking to climate denier sites.  For solid reasons, I think.

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 491
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2843 on: November 30, 2019, 02:53:26 PM »
You can choose not to reply at all. This saves energy and i don´t think we will lose a lot of souls over this.

It can be a fun game for a while and worth it if you think there are third parties reading that you can convince by sane arguments. I did this on a general preparedness forum. Simple explanation of the falsehood and some links for more in depth explanations. Then i kept a list of simply repeated points which he never debated and reposted that. That did kill his enthousiasm a bit.

But you can only debate what you know (or are really good at faking as your opponent) so if you do not know how to rebuke it yourself then you can´t.

Sayings like You can´t win them all and Pick your battles apply.
And all energy saved helps even it is a tiny bit.   
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2844 on: November 30, 2019, 03:04:39 PM »
You can choose not to reply at all. This saves energy and i don´t think we will lose a lot of souls over this.

It can be a fun game for a while and worth it if you think there are third parties reading that you can convince by sane arguments. I did this on a general preparedness forum. Simple explanation of the falsehood and some links for more in depth explanations. Then i kept a list of simply repeated points which he never debated and reposted that. That did kill his enthousiasm a bit.

But you can only debate what you know (or are really good at faking as your opponent) so if you do not know how to rebuke it yourself then you can´t.

Sayings like You can´t win them all and Pick your battles apply.
And all energy saved helps even it is a tiny bit.

I'd disagree.  The fossil fuel interests fund disinformation.  These denier sites seem popular with lots of unsuspecting readers.  It's impossible to win a public debate over policy when the other side has megaphones and the science followers speak in whispers.

Publicly disputing misinformation is a thankless, unpaid, never-ending chore, but it's vitally important.  If Tom has the time and interest, I think we should be supportive of his efforts, and thankful for them.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2845 on: November 30, 2019, 03:12:47 PM »
Thank you for the feedback.
Yes, I have the time (retired on disability for Asperger's) and the interest (I really like that forum except they call people who believe in AGW "idiots" or worse...it is a Furry Forum and I am a Furry).
How can I post their arguments without linking to the sites they cite? I don't want to promote them, but I can't give the denier arguments without doing that or quoting the whole article (which violates copyright).
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2846 on: November 30, 2019, 03:59:17 PM »
Thank you for the feedback.
Yes, I have the time (retired on disability for Asperger's) and the interest (I really like that forum except they call people who believe in AGW "idiots" or worse...it is a Furry Forum and I am a Furry).
How can I post their arguments without linking to the sites they cite? I don't want to promote them, but I can't give the denier arguments without doing that or quoting the whole article (which violates copyright).

I don't know the best approach, but one that might work is to select a distinctive phrase, put quotes around it, and see if a google search yields only a couple of hits.  You can post that as a signpost to the article for folks here who want to help, without driving more Google searches to that site.

In this case "the gas that was once there promotes the growth of forests, the yield of agricultural crops" shows that Vincent Gray has been recycling this crap article all over the internet.  I presume he gets paid per placement.  Easy work, if you have no ethics.  So qualify that with Watts, and everyone will quickly find the offensive entry.

This approach can yield brief entries here which needn't be too obtrusive for those who want to avoid the great battle for public opinion. 

Good on ya, mate.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2258
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2847 on: November 30, 2019, 04:35:39 PM »
One poster said that 97% of climatologists said we would all be dead by 2017. I asked for a link. He replied it was in Gore's Inconvenient Truth. I replied with https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors-intermediate.htm (I've never seen the film). Someone said this:
Quote
No, he was a lot less accurate than they're claiming on that website. Seriously, they neglected to mention his reversed-time-axis graph? Pull the other one, it's got bells on...

What is the reversed-time-axis graph?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1501
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2848 on: November 30, 2019, 04:57:53 PM »
One poster said that 97% of climatologists said we would all be dead by 2017. I asked for a link. He replied it was in Gore's Inconvenient Truth. I replied with https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors-intermediate.htm (I've never seen the film). Someone said this:
Quote
No, he was a lot less accurate than they're claiming on that website. Seriously, they neglected to mention his reversed-time-axis graph? Pull the other one, it's got bells on...

What is the reversed-time-axis graph?

I think Al Gore made a number of technical errors in some of the data he tried to present.  Like data from Mann that he said was from Thompson, mis-labeled Y axis.  Some scientific graphs in the literature put most recent times on the right, some on the left.

None of which matters one whit.  Al Gore is not a climate scientist.  He's a science popularizer.  The argument is like saying modern physics is all wrong because Bill Nye The Science Guy said something wrong.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4723
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1046
  • Likes Given: 1346
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #2849 on: November 30, 2019, 05:05:04 PM »
Tom, I appreciate your good intentions in battling deniers on the web, a thankless and soul-consuming task, but seeing this stuff here in mass is a bit unpleasant.
The best thing would be to only choose battles which you are already armed to answer, or that you can arm yourself from skeptical science, climate central and other reliable sources. Know that you are up against professional trolls so you cannot win in the traditional sense.
Of course, it's ok that you continue seeking weapons here, as you are serving a good cause. However, personally I will refrain from reading your questions on this thread as I've had enough of denier crap and it pains me to read it. I hope you are not offended by this. I fight them in my own little way in the place and time of my choosing, but I'm not looking for more.
Note that links to denier sites like WUWT are a no-no as this just gives them more clicks and a higher placement on search engines.