Global Warming a.k.a. Climate Change

[Trophyhunter01]

This was on the joke board but belongs here as well

 

[Zambezi]

Climate change as a science is largely a mix of subjective and objective science. (Objective science example is e=mc2, provable, repeatable and indisputable results obtained to the decimal point... Subjective science example could be the effects of El nino on a locality or country. The models can only predict to a certain degree of confidence what might happen in your backyard during the cycle due to the starting point being the cold current running up the west coast of South America)

Science is vital in preventing damage to the atmosphere an example is identifying and banning CFC/HFC products that largely created the ozone hole. They were banned and the hole is recovering. On the flip side look at the oil/grease that was/is used in the gearboxes of wind turbines... makes CFCs look like oxygen. But modelling can only go so far and man's hubris thinks he has control of the atmosphere and he can "fix it". Rubbish! We can fix it if we stop breeding, allow the global markets to collapse and we all go back to a pre-industrial revolution way of life. Developing countries will always stuff you and continue to provide food for their population. The developed countries made to become uncompetitive with the developing ones. So where do your goods get manufactured? In the third world. Where do your jobs go to? Where do your big companies HQ their businesses? In island tax havens to keep their profits untaxed.

Science has its place but POLITICISED science is a weapon.

As a footnote when I did my degree as a mature student @ Unv. of Surrey I wanted to do my dissertation on the economics/effects of hunting. Mostly to prove to my woke professors that they knew bugger all about Africa and the rhetoric they were pushing to the students (a bunch of woke young hippies). It was flat out rejected! No amount of appealing the ruling made a difference. As my major was Conservation Management you would think it would be acceptable... just further proof that agendas are pushed from scientific circles too.

 

[sgt_zim]

The question to ask, which nobody seems willing to answer, is that if our current CO2 concentration of about 425 ppm is too high, what is the Goldilocks CO2 concentration we should be shooting for? As I recall, CO2 concentration has been as high as about 20K ppm (about 1% of the atmosphere). Obviously, that wasn't a catastrophic end to the planet.

"The sea level is gonna rise..." Maybe, but it certainly already has. From the end of the last ice age (Pleistocene) into about the first 9000 years of the modern age (Holocene), the ice sheets that covered much of northern North America, Europe, and Asia all melted - in many places, the continental glaciation was 2 miles thick. This melt lead to a sea level rise of about 120 meters/400 feet. Simple arithmetic shows that's an average of about 1 meter every 75 years, or a little over 4 feet every century. And that's just an average. Some centuries probably experienced 12 or 15 feet of sea rise, and others didn't experience any at all. I don't know how much heat it would take to melt all that ice, but I'd guess it's quite a bit more than what we're being told our present experience is. Look at a present day map of the world that shows Ocean depths. The first topographical line in the Ocean is generally shown at 300 feet depth. Every square inch of those light blue, coastal areas was dry land. I'm not aware of any of these "scientists" predicting even a meter of sea rise over the next century, even in their worst case scenarios.

To say that there was a "land bridge" between Asia and North America 20K years ago is a bit of a misnomer. There was dry land between Asia and NA, and it stretched from the Arctic Sea all the way south to the Bering Sea. If you could call a landform that's about 1000 miles wide a bridge, then I guess it would be a bridge. It would be like calling the border between Mexico and the US a "land bridge." At that time, there were no British Isles - they were a part of the European landmass, and one could have walked from present day Belfast to Stockholm or Paris and never have gotten a single whiff of salty air, let alone see any salt water. Malaysia wasn't a peninsula, there was little or no Indonesian archipelago, and Australia and Papua/New Guinea were connected. Neither Miami nor Tampa were coastal cities.

One way to easily detect bullshit, especially from the media and politicians, is to note when they are referencing per cent changes.

A simple example to demonstrate how to manipulate people with a misleading truth. We'll say gas in Houston today is $3/gal, and LA is $5/gal. Tomorrow, we wake up and in Houston it's $3.50/gal and $5.50 in LA. The media and politicians would breathlessly report that gas prices have risen 17% in Houston and only 10% in LA - without reporting on the actual prices or the actual price increase or that yesterday there was a $2/gal difference between Houston and LA and that there's still a $2/gal difference.

This sort of deceit is rampant in Climate Change and any number of other hot-button issues.

 

[Jfet]

When someone starts talking to me about climate change I ask them one simple unanswerable question.

This is a great question to ask at an Advanced Placement Biology (AP Biology) seminar. When I taught AP Biology, I attended these seminars. On the whole these were good seminars to help develop ones curriculum for that course. However, almost every teacher there was an acolyte of climate change. When I asked that question the pitchforks and torches started coming out. My picture of me standing next to the foundation of Gregor Mendel’s greenhouse in Brno CZ always saved me.