1. Welcome Hearth.com Guests and Visitors - Please enjoy our forums!
    Hearth.com GOLD Sponsors who help bring the site content to you:
    Hearthstone Soapstone and Cast-Iron stoves( Wood, Gas or Pellet Stoves and Inserts)
    Caluwe - Passion for Fire and Water ( Pellet and Wood Hydronic and Space Heating)

Conservative Argument on Climate Change

Post in 'The Green Room' started by Flatbedford, Sep 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jharkin

    jharkin Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,250
    Loc:
    Holliston, MA USA
    The earth did, but humans did not. During the Permian when most of this carbon was deposited the earth was much warmer than today, mostly desert and tropical which insects as large as birds flying about. It was not an earth that humans in our present evolution would do well on, much of our existing agriculture would fail or have to move.

    The problem that people who think "warm is good" ignore is that life adapts when these changes happen over millions of years, but right now we are forcing millions of years of change in a century. Thats why the arctic is melting, species are going extinct at record rates, every year brings record floods, drought and other natural disasters worldwide.

    Helpful Sponsor Ads!





  2. jharkin

    jharkin Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,250
    Loc:
    Holliston, MA USA
    They are absolutely connected. The Ocean is the largest moderator of airborne CO2, the point woodgeek was making that you are skirting around is that the level of airborne CO2 doesnt match human emissions because the rest was absorbed in the Ocean. That absorption creates carbonic acid and leads to increasing Ocean acidification. Its the main reason the Great Barrier reef is dying off, among other things.
  3. Thomas Anderson

    Thomas Anderson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    149
    Loc:
    Central PA
    How did you come up with that conclusion?
  4. Thomas Anderson

    Thomas Anderson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    149
    Loc:
    Central PA

    Pure alarmism. We haven't had a warming trend in 16 years. Yes, life does adapt, and humans are adaptable. Warm is good. If we could farm Canada, that would be amazing for humanity. I'm much more fearful of cooling than warming. Way more people die from cold than from heat and a significant cooling trend would certainly destroy most of our farming, with little room to move it.

    Wow do you jump to a lot of unsubstantiated conclusions. Really, human produced CO2 has caused the Great Barrier reef to die off? I'd love to see your evidence of that! But regardless, this is not speaking to anthropogenic global warming. It's a red herring.
  5. Flatbedford

    Flatbedford Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,219
    Loc:
    Croton-on-Hudson, suburbs of NYC
    ...And if it got warm enough we could all run with the dinosaurs again!
  6. jeffoc

    jeffoc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    116
    Loc:
    Blandinsville, IL
    I don't believe that he/she came to that conclusion on his or her own, but thousands of researches and decades of work came to that conclusion.
  7. jeffoc

    jeffoc Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    116
    Loc:
    Blandinsville, IL
  8. woodgeek

    woodgeek Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,577
    Loc:
    SE PA
    Thomas,

    Climate is a complex phenomenon, and I have no hope of trying to argue you out of your position. I find the current models to be compelling, but that is that.

    Actually, I was responding to your assertion that CO2 was not harming life on earth. If you believe in anthrogenic ocean acidification, (a much simpler process than climate) and saw some studies of sea life sensitivity to acid, then maybe you can worry about CO2.

    The 'warm is good' question you discuss really hinges on rainfall....and as I mentioned earlier current models suggest CO2 results in a warmer earth that is far drier than currently until the ocean temp catches up a couple centuries later....

    take a deep breath, go read these, and then go short 2050 wheat futures....
    http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/10/terrifying-drought-projections.html
    http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/01/another-terrifying-drought-paper.html

    technically, all of the (net) rainfall we get on land starts as water on the surface of the ocean. IF we bias the land temp a little warmer than the ocean (at any temp of both) then precipitation over land falls. Not a matter of vapor pressure....just less drive on the hydrological cycle (over land).
  9. Gary_602z

    Gary_602z Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    930
    Loc:
    Lake Odessa,MI
    I can remember stories of my Great- Great - Grandfather actually catching them and training them to ride, or pull a plow!

    Gary
  10. jharkin

    jharkin Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,250
    Loc:
    Holliston, MA USA

    I'm about done with this discussion. I could post 1000 links supporting what myself, woodgeek, and others are saying but you will just claim its false because it doesn't fit your worldview.


    If you were not aware of the Barrier reef dieoff thats already begun I suggest you start following international news a bit closer. Its not new. There is a lot of publish research linking it to increasing ocean acidification which is also linked to human CO2 emissions through much research.

    Oh, and by the way, I think the Canadians would be interested to learn that they cant farm there
  11. TMonter

    TMonter Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,408
    Loc:
    Hayden, ID
    Not true. The last Ice Age was a mere 15,000 years ago not millions of years ago.
  12. jharkin

    jharkin Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,250
    Loc:
    Holliston, MA USA

    Forgot to address this one. Unfortunately what you are trying to do is very transparent. I can see you recently read the denialist article in the tabloid Daily Mail from 3 days ago claiming such. The thing is, that pet theory has been around for a long time. And this latest incarnation has already been debunked here. Its easy to cherry pick the record hot year of 1998, and then compare it to incomplete data for 2012 and say - "lookie no warming" But if you look at these 2 years in context of the rest of the record the overall trend is obvious.

    [​IMG]
  13. jharkin

    jharkin Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,250
    Loc:
    Holliston, MA USA
    Alright you caught me. So we are compressing thousands of years of change into a century, not millions.
  14. TMonter

    TMonter Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,408
    Loc:
    Hayden, ID
  15. begreen

    begreen Mooderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    46,743
    Loc:
    South Puget Sound, WA
    One problem with regional studies is that regional trends don't always reflect the planetary temp trend as a whole.
  16. Thomas Anderson

    Thomas Anderson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    149
    Loc:
    Central PA
    You people want to have it both ways all the time... this period or that is too short to make any statistical difference, but look, if you choose just the right points it looks like it warmed a fraction of a degree. Sorry but "global climate change theory" or whatever you want to call it is pure bunk. I asked you to prove a single point, and you can't do so. You say, look at all of these people smarter than me saying this stuff. Sorry, not convincing. For every PhD you bring saying the earth is about to boil, I can bring 10 saying that guy's a moron. And then you want to turn around and say it makes no difference what those people say. Why, because "it doesn't fit your worldview". Sorry, but I don't have a worldview like you guys do. I have science. I have skepticism. Either prove what you claim or go bark up another tree. I wasn't born yesterday; I've been evaluating these claims for two decades. It's politically-driven alarmism, and you've bought it hook, line, and sinker. What you have is a faith-based position. Not a person on this planet can prove that humans cause climate change, because we don't. Physics doesn't work that way. We also don't cause ocean pH changes (other than on a very, very local level). The carbon cycle is unfathomably massive. Underwater volcanism is millions of times more energetic and effusive than humans. Changes in solar output is billions of times more powerful than humans. Changes you see in the oceans and climate are caused by factors completely out of our control. We can no more influence climate than we can plate tectonics. You'd be more convincing if you told me that fleas built the Brooklyn Bridge.
    Nickolai and save$ like this.
  17. save$

    save$ Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,916
    Loc:
    Chelsea Maine
    The earth is alway in a state of change, why in hell anyone wants to take credit for being more powerful than the forces in the earth is way beyond my comprehension. Greed driven. Has lead to political and financial changes, but that is about it.
    Nickolai and Thomas Anderson like this.
  18. TMonter

    TMonter Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,408
    Loc:
    Hayden, ID
  19. woodgeek

    woodgeek Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,577
    Loc:
    SE PA
    Thomas,

    I think you are being more than a little unfair here. I am not trying to argue anything from the historical mean temperature curve--low statistical power and iffy signal to noise, superimposed on a fluctuating background from natural fluctuations. IF that were the only argument, then there would be no argument. (In fact, reducing the science of global warming to the fitting of such data is IMO a denier tactic---sorry TM)

    All of 'us' are not arguing that our folks are smarter....I link stuff cuz I think you might want to read something or drill through to the primary material, I am assuming you can digest, understand and judge the primary material.

    The actual argument is one that contains many things that, when you want to, you 'take off the table', so that they can't be used in the argument.

    1.
    For example, models. Model building is a key component of the scientific method. Simple systems need only simple models (F=ma, Beers Law), and those get taught in schools and make some people excited because a few simple formulae capture some process nicely. However, the world also has more complex systems (the earths climate, weather, the human body responding to a pharmaceutical) that humans have a vested interest in understanding (i.e. millions of lives hang in the balance). So researchers in science and engineering don't sit around just marveling at the simplicity of E=mc2 or the second law of thermodynamics, they are trying to cobble together that basic understanding to build GPS networks, better drugs, or an understanding of how the earth works and will behave in the future. This may be distasteful to someone turned on by the coolness of the formulae when they were in school, but models are where the rubber meets the road. And in modern science and engineering these models are all mucho complicated. And computerized. And they work. Better and with more detail every year.

    When you put all models aside from the discussion, and say 'garbage in garbage out' you are making a deeply anti-scientific statement (that reads a bit naive to me personally). Frankly I can't see how you describe yourself as a scientist and not believe that model building is possible.

    2.
    AS for the whole 'the earth is big and we are ants', I asked you to discuss the numbers. The question here is not different than balancing your checkbook. The carbon cycle has large natural flows that are (presumably) nearly in balance on the century scale, and human CO2 is a modest perturbation to that cycle, but one whose effect is additive over decades. It seems you DO agree that the higher CO2 in the air (direct measurement record) is anthropogenic. So we are ants that can increase the concentration of a significant and enduring (~few century lifetime) greenhouse gas in the atmosphere by more than 50%. Since the simple radiative balance would suggest the whole earth would be frozen without greenhouse gases, we should prob be concerned enough about this to pay some interested folks to build us a model... So this is the other thing you set aside when it suits you...someone has tried to add up the cumulative release of CO2 by humans over the last century, to tote up one column of the checkbook, and you are going to wave them away with a 'the earth is huge and we are ants' argument, after saying you did agree with the numbers!

    3.
    And the cherry on top is you invoking models when it suits you--cherry picking. You mention the Milankovich climate cycles. Now there is a plenty complicated model, many of whose parameters are just guesses based not on physics but on (climate) data fitting. For example, the correlation between CH4 and temp, which causes which? Has to be built in to get the model to fit. IOW, those models are not as rigorous as those to model current climate, because we can go out and measure the parameters and fluxes of the current model directly (with geologists and satellites). BUT, you cite those models as evidence that global warming is not human made. In fact, much of the early evidence (e.g. from Hansen) for AGW came from the striking departure of the earths climate in the modern period (last couple thousand years) from the record prevailing for the previous 200,000 years. That is, folks had built a kinda funky model that fits all the weird twists and turns in the earths climate through all the many ice ages, for the last 200,000 years, and it worked AWESOME at describing all the data except for the last 2000 years (1% of the record). And the only thing that happened in that period was Homo Sap started to burn down forests and till and plant stuff on continental scales and burn fossil fuels. And Mr Hansen is now hounded day and night as a hoaxer.

    So, 1-2-3 you are clearly making an argument, but is it certainly not a scientific one.
  20. jharkin

    jharkin Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    3,250
    Loc:
    Holliston, MA USA
    You know what Thomas, I am NOT a scientist. I never claimed to be one. I am a mechanical engineer by degree. So I know that I am no expert on climate.

    But what I can do is read, and all the literature I read, all the statements by the IPCC, the NOAA, NASA, most national governments, etc are overwhelmingly in agreement that CO2 forced climate change is the best theory we have to fit the data. Surveys of the scientific literature have demonstrated that the vast majority of published studies agree.

    i.e. (working backward from most recent)
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf html
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html
    http://journalistsresource.org/stud.../structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/
    http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full.pdf

    I figure that thousands of people who went to school for this and study this day in and day out know better than 'little ol me...

    Frankly the thought that a bunch of unrelated scientists scattered all over the world, most living on grant money, would create a worldwide conspiracy to fake this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. As opposed to the dissenters, many of whom are baked by the FF industry that stands to loose billions. hmmmmmm



    So please, lets see your credentials, what qualifies you to discredit the science as bunk on an internet forum with no links to backup your statement other than an "i told you so"
  21. maple1

    maple1 Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    3,779
    Loc:
    Nova Scotia
    What the heck does that mean?
  22. woodgeek

    woodgeek Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,577
    Loc:
    SE PA
    It means that in some AGW deniers' fantasy, their plan B (if they were wrong) is to simply move north. I am sure that all the lichen covered rocks north of the artic circle and alpine forests and peat bogs to the south will magically turn into fertile black loam suitable for the intensive production of corn and soybeans, offsetting any decreased production in the lower 48 and canada due to, for instance, the model predicted 'permanent drought'. If not, we can always move our midwest topsoil north. No problem.

    Disclaimer: My grandparents were potato farmers in Newfoundland.
  23. TMonter

    TMonter Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,408
    Loc:
    Hayden, ID
    1) Models have to mesh with reality. They have to be repeatable and you have to be able to put in subsequent years data and get accurate results in order to prove the model works. Current climate models don't do this.

    2) The carbon cycle is not well understood and even the IPCC admits this. The carbon sinks for the earth and how carbon cycles through the process is not well understood.

    3) The "striking departure" isn't so striking: http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOK-DOMECIceCoreCompare_Stewart2009.pdf
  24. woodgeek

    woodgeek Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,577
    Loc:
    SE PA
    With all due respect.....I do not understand any of your responses.
  25. TMonter

    TMonter Minister of Fire

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,408
    Loc:
    Hayden, ID
    May I suggest you reread yours and then mine again. They are quite clear.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page