Climate Change reality

Slippertalk Orchid Forum

Help Support Slippertalk Orchid Forum:

Ray

Orchid Iconoclast
Staff member
Moderator
ST Supporter
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
210
Location
Oak Island NC
1) The shift in the chemistry of the atmosphere, coupled with the removal of forestation, certainly can change the environment, which will change the climate, and the weather.

2) Overpopulation of the world is the root cause of all of that.

3) I do not think we really have enough historical perspective to say - for certain - that the changes observed were 100% the result of the two items above. From a scientific and logical perspective, it make sense that there is some impact, but I don't think there's enough scientific evidence to prove, beyond a doubt, that is is causing all of the observed "changes".

Every system has some natural variability in it. That GISS graph shows that clearly. Are the ups and downs man-made? Not 100%, no, but denying that there is some impact is ridiculous, as well.

The thing that concerns me is that when you try to compensate for the natural variation of a system, it is called "tampering", and usually results in even more variation, long term. That makes me wonder how much "correcting a man-made problem", and how much "tampering with natural variation" is going on, and going back to point 3, I don't think we know.
 

emydura

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,829
Reaction score
121
Location
Canberra, Australia
Ray - there are almost an infinite number of graphs such as the one below showing CO2 levels and temperature over time. Earen showed a great one on the previous page. I think it is very difficult to argue that the rapid and steep climb after the late 1880's could in any way be considered mostly natural variation. Sure there is some variation in these variables over time, but the CO2 levels and temperature after 2000 go way beyond the levels ever seen before 1900. There is obviously something causing that huge spike in Co2 and temperature and I don't think it is natural.



 

ehanes7612

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
40
Location
seattle, wa
1) The shift in the chemistry of the atmosphere, coupled with the removal of forestation, certainly can change the environment, which will change the climate, and the weather.

2) Overpopulation of the world is the root cause of all of that.

3) I do not think we really have enough historical perspective to say - for certain - that the changes observed were 100% the result of the two items above. From a scientific and logical perspective, it make sense that there is some impact, but I don't think there's enough scientific evidence to prove, beyond a doubt, that is is causing all of the observed "changes".

Every system has some natural variability in it. That GISS graph shows that clearly. Are the ups and downs man-made? Not 100%, no, but denying that there is some impact is ridiculous, as well.

The thing that concerns me is that when you try to compensate for the natural variation of a system, it is called "tampering", and usually results in even more variation, long term. That makes me wonder how much "correcting a man-made problem", and how much "tampering with natural variation" is going on, and going back to point 3, I don't think we know.
I am not so sure that overpopulation has a strong correlation to climate change, this is a long standing myth..since the amount of per capita usage of greenhouse gases increases rapidly with economic prosperity. There is a stronger correlation to how those resources are distributed and utilized as to the root cause of man made greenhouse gases. It's a slippery slope argument to say that overpopulation is the root cause as this suggests people in these developing/poor countries are the problem, which they are not. The worst offenders (per capita) are developed 'modernized' countries..US, Canada, Russia, EU and Japan are in the top five..and the rate of child birth to death is much lower than in other countries..in other words, those who have the resources and are able to use them, are the worst offenders. And deforestation seems to be more tied to the economics of these modern countries...much like the drug trade, we have created a economic pathway for a small number of individuals to exploit their own resources (palm oil in Indonesia and cattle ranches for beef in the Amazon for example)...this is not sustainable in the long run and has potential to create a lot more instability in the world as resources dwindle for people who are used to a high level of comfort. I don't envy our future generations
 

emydura

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,829
Reaction score
121
Location
Canberra, Australia
I agree with you Ed. The only issue I have is I believe Australia is the highest producer of greenhouse gases per capita. Or at the very least we alternate with the US.
 

ehanes7612

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
40
Location
seattle, wa
I agree with you Ed. The only issue I have is I believe Australia is the highest producer of greenhouse gases per capita. Or at the very least we alternate with the US.
Having visited Australia, I certainly could see that. I have friends who live in Melbourne who are trying to help with changing attitudes ..but their feeling is that it's somewhat pointless as they feel Australia is in more denial than the US (they are dual citizens and have spent a lot of time in each country)
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
Ray - there are almost an infinite number of graphs such as the one below showing CO2 levels and temperature over time. Earen showed a great one on the previous page. I think it is very difficult to argue that the rapid and steep climb after the late 1880's could in any way be considered mostly natural variation. Sure there is some variation in these variables over time, but the CO2 levels and temperature after 2000 go way beyond the levels ever seen before 1900. There is obviously something causing that huge spike in Co2 and temperature and I don't think it is natural.




This graph is misleading because nobody knows the average earth temperature in the past. So it is useless.
 

Ray

Orchid Iconoclast
Staff member
Moderator
ST Supporter
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
Reaction score
210
Location
Oak Island NC
This graph is misleading because nobody knows the average earth temperature in the past. So it is useless.
That was exactly my point - insufficient perspective.

Overpopulation MUST be the root cause. The earth, "and all that is therein" is a giant, integrated system. Certainly natural changes in the earth have effects on that system, but I think it would be pure folly to say that the growth in human population has not been the most significant change.

If the population of the earth was unchanged from 100-200 years ago, the driving force for the technological developments would not exist, so the degree of impact on the earth would be minimized.
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
Overpopulation MUST be the root cause.
.
.
If the population of the earth was unchanged from 100-200 years ago, the driving force for the technological developments would not exist, so the degree of impact on the earth would be minimized.
Yes, the growing population also demands a more and more industrial monocultural food production.
These procedures change the landscape, which has influence onto the climate a lot.
 

emydura

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
6,829
Reaction score
121
Location
Canberra, Australia
This graph is misleading because nobody knows the average earth temperature in the past. So it is useless.
Not according to the experts in this field. Given you are not a specialist in this area, your opinion on the legitimacy of the methodology used in determining past temperatures is irrelevant. Scientists have 160 years of real temperature data to validate and calibrate their techniques of predicting past temperatures. Do you not think they would have done this? You must think scientists are complete idiots. They are some of the smartest people in our society.

At the end of the day, as long as the methodology is consistent, it is the trend that is important, not so much the absolute values. And you can't argue about the increasing trend of temperature and CO2 over time. You don't even try to. Your only response is to muddy the waters by questioning the methodology (a standard technique by climate change deniers when they can't argue the facts).
 

ehanes7612

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
40
Location
seattle, wa
That was exactly my point - insufficient perspective.

Overpopulation MUST be the root cause. The earth, "and all that is therein" is a giant, integrated system. Certainly natural changes in the earth have effects on that system, but I think it would be pure folly to say that the growth in human population has not been the most significant change.

If the population of the earth was unchanged from 100-200 years ago, the driving force for the technological developments would not exist, so the degree of impact on the earth would be minimized.
or maybe it was technology that is the root cause of overpopulation ( what you seem to referring to as non sustainable growth)? That maybe the technology of acquiring coal/oil from the ground allowed humans to expand and grow exponentially , because the energy source was easy to use and cheap, is the root cause. Without oil (or any other kind of cheap energy) , the ability to overcome the checkpoints of population control (disease and trade obstacles, lack of transportation in general) were mitigated. An out of control growing population is a consequence of coal/oil (cheap energy), not the other way around..now we are stuck in a cycle and whether or not the population grows at its current rate..our per capita usage is enough to do us in...cheap non renewable energy like oil reinforces our throw away mindset...that we can do anything and we will be fine..overpopulation is but a symptom of this mindset not the root cause..to draw an analogy....growing orchids should tell you enough about how energy and production work in a system

As someone stated way earlier in the thread and I paraphrase..it's our technology that creates more problems ...I also don't even think it's just the technology that is the root cause but how we view it ...do we have the capacity to change our perspective on technology? there are deeper philosophical flaws in our perceptions that create these problems..from looking at the current trends in technology that are mass produced (information based like Facebook and apps), I would say that we are pretty much doomed...but who knows where the trends will be next year or in a decade..right now, we are like teenagers squabbling over who done it. Being familiar with the avant garde trends in physics, there may be a day when we have a very clean, completely renewable and localized energy technology that rivals anything we have seen so far..that may take energy out of the equation (and no, I am not talking about 'free energy' systems)...but to reach that day..it may take a different perspective on how we view energy
 

ehanes7612

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
40
Location
seattle, wa
Not according to the experts in this field. Given you are not a specialist in this area, your opinion on the legitimacy of the methodology used in determining past temperatures is irrelevant.


LOve it!!...:clap:

wont change anything about his own self stated relevance..but nicely said
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
Not according to the experts in this field. Given you are not a specialist in this area, your opinion on the legitimacy of the methodology used in determining past temperatures is irrelevant. Scientists have 160 years of real temperature data to validate and calibrate their techniques of predicting past temperatures. Do you not think they would have done this? You must think scientists are complete idiots. They are some of the smartest people in our society.
No, You are wrong, because there is no procedure to calibrate their techniques due to missing data of the past. They only have very few points on the earth with good data over a long time. And that is not enough to calculate an average earth temperature. The fault tolerance is to high for such statement they make.

I was a scientist myself in physical chemistry and I can assure You I know how to measure temperature and I am very smart (maybe more or less than Donald Trump :) ) like all other scientists but not smart enough to calculate the average earth temperature 100 years ago by an accuracy of 1° C.

People who know the temperature at that time are no scientists, they are charlatans. And these people also know the earth temperature 100 years in the future.
 

ehanes7612

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
40
Location
seattle, wa
here is what Berthold is trying to say

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/mar/07/past-climate-temperature-proxies

oh wait, no he's not

as a botanist years ago, I learned that temperature could be correlated to tree rings and could be somewhat confirmed by other historical data..not as accurate as direct instrumental data but the inference does suggest a possible strong correlation to actual temp trends..until there is evidence that suggests otherwise, the argument that it's not accurate enough (because of a comparing to direct readings) will not supersede..scientists follow the evidence ..skepticism is fine but negating all of it is just pure denial

Just like in cosmology , all the evidence is pointing to a flat universe..it's by no means complete...but there is enough evidence to draw from this assumption and design future modeling systems ..if this modeling contradicts future evidence then cosmologists will move on..to the vast majority of climate scientists..mad made climate change is real ..it isn't a conspiracy , it's based on available evidence

And expressing fear over adopting an energy policy that vastly reduces fossil fuels is just plain FEAR...its not going to happen..it's a red herring to suggest that we are headed that way..it will take decades if not a century or two to change..our infrastructure is too entrenched..it's one of the worst fallacies in this debate and people are using it to stifle innovation and changing their impoverished mindset
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
here is what Berthold is trying to say

as a botanist years ago, I learned that temperature could be correlated to tree rings and could be somewhat confirmed by other historical data..not as accurate as direct instrumental data but the inference does suggest a possible strong correlation to actual temp trends.]
Yes I agree but You only get the temperature trend at one point on the earth over the time. That is not the absolute temperature, because the tree rings are influenced by other factors also like rain and light and nutrients like CO2 in the air.
That is not the average temperature of the earth. You can have wide rings in America and narrow rings in Asia for Example in the same year.

So there is a big lack in accuracy for the usability in the graph of medium earth temperature.
 

ehanes7612

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
40
Location
seattle, wa
hmm, interesting..never met a botanist who couldn't account for those variables, guess you are the only one out there who understands the concept of a control and cross referencing... why cant you extend the same courtesy you give yourself, to other professionals This bullshot is exactly people on this board dont buy your arguments..well, except one

and yes I meant to say 'bullshot'
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
I just studied the rings of a broken Pinus ponderosa, which was standing 29 years in my garden and has reached about 20 meters in high. It broke down on my house by a baby storm.
 

ehanes7612

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
4,335
Reaction score
40
Location
seattle, wa
yeah, a tree that evolved with fire ...how many fires in your area since it was planted or sprouted?
 

Berthold

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,729
Reaction score
68
Location
EU
hmm, interesting..never met a botanist who couldn't account for those variables, guess you are the only one out there who understands the concept of a control and cross referencing.
You should accept, no serious botanist will claim the accuracy of his researches necessary for the medium earth temperature graph showed here in the forum..
 

Latest posts

Top