Climate Change Report

[MontyPython]

Let me get this straight. I keep hearing concern about Arctic glaciers which are obviously seaborne so their melting would have no effect on sea level. Only land based glaciers would cause sea level rise so what percentage of worlds glaciers are on land?

It seems counterintuitive, but this isn't so. Freshwater is less dense than saltwater, and thus has a greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.

 

[McDad]

It appears to have happened 20,000 years ago. IIRC it's hypothesized to have happened commonly. But, that doesn't make it any less of a problem. The effects on the climate would be crazy. Not necessarily life threatening, per se, but ocean productivity would change locally and regionally, and the weather would be changed from region to region.

Nothing to fret over, then.

 

[McDad]

That's the basis of science, isn't it? What's the point of studying something, if everything is already known about it as established 'fact'?

Meterorologists use 'likely' and 'possibly' as standard protocol for stuff that is predicted to happen in a matter of hours.

Then metrology and climatology aren't science.

 

[0nelilreb]

Then metrology and climatology aren't science.

Do you remember that time Dave Brown the weather man from Memphis got beat up by a farmer because he lied to him about it raining ? True story
Edit : I guess Dave didn’t say likely or maybe loud enough lol

 

[Orangeburst]

It seems counterintuitive, but this isn't so. Freshwater is less dense than saltwater, and thus has a greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.

Point taken..A 2% difference in density is insignificant and certainly if the Arctic melted completely there would be no consequential sea rise.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Then metrology and climatology aren't science.

There wouldn't be much that qualifies as science if it's limited to that which is beyond any doubt.

 

[Burger]

US cuts carbon emissions more than foreign nations that criticize Trump environmental policies
How the U.S. Became the Top Climate Leader — Despite Trump’s Denialism
https://www.investors.com/politics/...-faster-than-anyone-else-but-media-ignore-it/

There's a great climate policy going on right now.... No politician had to implement it... It's called EVOLUTION!!!!

 

[golfballs]

RIP Climatards
'Climate Despair' Is Making People Give Up on Life

 

[McDad]

There wouldn't be much that qualifies as science if it's limited to that which is beyond any doubt.

I'm not attempting to be argumentative here but you aren't helping your position of ACC with statements like these.
Qualifiers of uncertainty cannot exist if the science has gone through a rigorous scientific method. Those uncertainties would make reproduction of results impossible. If the data hasn't gone through the SM, i don't consider it science.
Climate change exists as observation and theory. That's really about it. It is very challenging to test global climate because of the complexity. Much like economics, imo. Both systems (climate and economics) are too complex to test as traditional hard science.
Still not worried one bit about climate change.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Qualifiers of uncertainty cannot exist if the science has gone through a rigorous scientific method.

The scientific method does not always (or often) eliminate all uncertainty. As I mentioned previously, science is largely based on inductive inference which inherently precludes absolute certainty.

Those uncertainties would make reproduction of results impossible. If the data hasn't gone through the SM, i don't consider it science.

This isn't really true. We can come up with some explanation for a phenomenon which is close enough to the truth to allow for repeatable test results to be produced but still isn't completely accurate. See Newtonian gravitation and general relativity.

Climate change exists as observation and theory. That's really about it.

And gravitation exists as a theory as well.

It is very challenging to test global climate because of the complexity. Much like economics, imo. Both systems (climate and economics) are too complex to test as traditional hard science.

You're correct that both of these are complex but that doesn't mean they're beyond the reach of traditional methods of inquiry.

Still not worried one bit about climate change.

So what science did you do to eliminate consideration of anthropogenic climate change? Is it absolutely certain?

 

[Roustabout]

The scientific method does not always (or often) eliminate all uncertainty. As I mentioned previously, science is largely based on inductive inference which inherently precludes absolute certainty.



This isn't really true. We can come up with some explanation for a phenomenon which is close enough to the truth to allow for repeatable test results to be produced but still isn't completely accurate. See Newtonian gravitation and general relativity.



And gravitation exists as a theory as well.



You're correct that both of these are complex but that doesn't mean they're beyond the reach of traditional methods of inquiry.



So what science did you do to eliminate consideration of anthropogenic climate change? Is it absolutely certain?

Conflation.
Gravity, while being theoretical is in fact a law.

We have a group of people who start their hypothesis with the conclusion that man is causing warming, and then work backwards from there. If you don’t see that you’re more naive than I thought.

Even so, that doesn’t change the facts that our government complied with EPA and works to reduce emissions and pollutants, while a good part of world thumbs its nose. Would you support cutting all trade with China? I would.
The US cannot continue to compete while playing under two different sets of rules.

 

[McDad]

The scientific method does not always (or often) eliminate all uncertainty. As I mentioned previously, science is largely based on inductive inference which inherently precludes absolute certainty.



This isn't really true. We can come up with some explanation for a phenomenon which is close enough to the truth to allow for repeatable test results to be produced but still isn't completely accurate. See Newtonian gravitation and general relativity.



And gravitation exists as a theory as well.



You're correct that both of these are complex but that doesn't mean they're beyond the reach of traditional methods of inquiry.



So what science did you do to eliminate consideration of anthropogenic climate change? Is it absolutely certain?

The multi quote/multi reply approach is difficult for me. I'll take each point in order though.

Theories, hunches, educated guesses, etc. are part of the SM process. Uncertainty at the end of experiments is not traditional science. Chemistry works the same in all labs globally. If it didnt, the chemistry books and labs in college would include words like may/likely/possibly; walking coeds through a chemistry experiment to get a standard result would be impossible. Climatology does not work this way. Even though many of the small scale experiments have reproducibility and are more scientific.

Good point. Don't all things exist as theories until they can be proven? Part of the process of proof is definitive results by others using the same experimental parameters.

I do not understand your "gravitation is theory" statement. Unless the term gravitation and gravity are different the force which acts on a body of mass relative to its mass isnt a theory. It is defined, testable and proven. In fact, gravity is called the universal constant because it is so well understood. Using a planetary or satellite body to slingshot a spacecraft works the same around the moon or around Jupiter. Why? Because gravity is constant, defined, testable and the same regardless of the researchers testing it. Climate science is nowhere close to that precision. Perhaps some day it will be.

Agree again. Inquiry, hunches, theories, observational phenomena are all part of the process. But they are NOT the whole process of science. Higher levels of complexity unfortunately means higher levels of challenge for science to predict complex systems. I think studying subatomic particles is also like this.

None. I've observed geologic evidence and previous climate predictions which led me to my position. A position you will not change. And, im aware i will not alter yours. But ive enjoyed the conversation so far.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

It appears to have happened 20,000 years ago. IIRC it's hypothesized to have happened commonly. But, that doesn't make it any less of a problem. The effects on the climate would be crazy. Not necessarily life threatening, per se, but ocean productivity would change locally and regionally, and the weather would be changed from region to region.

Can we start with getting all the trash out of the oceans and heavy sanctions on countries that dump in to the oceans? Be a great start.

 

[McDad]

Can we start with getting all the trash out of the oceans and heavy sanctions on countries that dump in to the oceans? Be a great start.

This is the Saving the Earth i fully support

 

[Orangeslice13]

Can we start with getting all the trash out of the oceans and heavy sanctions on countries that dump in to the oceans? Be a great start.

It’s amazing how many people there are who’ve don’t understand the real problem.

 

[Orangeslice13]

If you’ve ever been around after a climate change rally it’s unbelievable. They leave trash everywhere. Makes it even more difficult to take them seriously as they obviously don’t really care about the environment

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

It’s amazing how many people there are who’ve don’t understand the real problem.

What's the estimate of trash in the ocean slice? Billions of tons?

 

[Wafflestomper]

Conflation.
Gravity, while being theoretical is in fact a law.

There is a law of gravitation and a theory as well. We can use the law to make calculations but the theory tells us the why and how. I know it's not your style but you could always utilize the internet to research something a bit prior to accusing someone else of being wrong.

We have a group of people who start their hypothesis with the conclusion that man is causing warming, and then work backwards from there. If you don’t see that you’re more naive than I thought.

Care to post the evidence you have of this?

 

[Wafflestomper]

None. I've observed geologic evidence and previous climate predictions which led me to my position. A position you will not change. And, im aware i will not alter yours. But ive enjoyed the conversation so far.

But if absolute certainty is required for a scientist then why do you not have the same burden for your claim (i.e., that anthropogenic climate change is false)? Doesn't that seem like a double standard?

 

[McDad]

But if absolute certainty is required for a scientist then why do you not have the same burden for your claim (i.e., that anthropogenic climate change is false)? Doesn't that seem like a double standard?

Of course not. In what world would my observations need to meet the same standard or burden of proof necessary as from a professional?
I gave mechanic advice to kiddiedoc in the pub and i am not a certified Jeep technician. I gave real estate/tax advice a couple days ago to another even though I am not an agent, CPA, or real estate attorney.
There is no reason for anyone to trust what i say when i am out of my area of expertise. Similarly, i don't trust those claiming to be experts who also present themselves as scientists when they do not follow the SM. Climatologists have a bad track record in their predictions.

Their "conclusions" do not effect me. I still live and behave as i always have.

Another thing bothers me about their predictions. Would you be willing to discuss?

 

[Wafflestomper]

Of course not. In what world would my observations need to meet the same standard or burden of proof necessary as from a professional?

Sorry, aren't you claiming the professionals are wrong?

Similarly, i don't trust those claiming to be experts who also present themselves as scientists when they do not follow the SM.

As I addressed previously, the scientific method isn't intended to provide absolute certainty. Someone even posted earlier a snippet of the wikipedia page on the problem of induction. Do you not believe that science is largely based on inductive reasoning or are you saying it isn't actually a problem?

I kind of doubt both yours and Roust's accusation that these scientists aren't following consensus methods of scientific inquiry. Do you have evidence that this is a widespread problem in this field?

Climatologists have a bad track record in their predictions.

It's easier to analyze the past than to predict the future.

Another thing bothers me about their predictions. Would you be willing to discuss?

Maybe. I'm not a scientist though so my opinion on the matter may not be useful at all.

 

[DynaLo]

Let's throw in a possible extended solar minimum and it's really party time around the globe.

 

[Orangeslice13]

What's the estimate of trash in the ocean slice? Billions of tons?

Last I checked there is over are 5.5 trillion pieces of plastic debris in the oceans. Of that mass, 270,000 tons float on the surface, four billion plastic microfibers per square kilometer litter the deep sea. With an estimated 200 tons a murder futon day added.

It’s ridiculous.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Last I checked there is over are 5.5 trillion pieces of plastic debris in the oceans. Of that mass, 270,000 tons float on the surface, four billion plastic microfibers per square kilometer litter the deep sea. With an estimated 200 tons a murder futon day added.

It’s ridiculous.

If we got every single piece of trash out of the oceans wonder how much the water level would recede?

 

[Orangeslice13]

If we got every single piece of trash out of the oceans wonder how much the water level would recede?

Lolololol
That’s an excellent point.