12-23-2016 02:49 AM
#76
| |
Last edited by CoccoBill; 12-23-2016 at 02:53 AM.
| |
12-24-2016 03:31 AM
#77
| |
|
It would appear that is slightly/highly misleading as a link.Agriculture is down as 9% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US but I struggle to believe that that is a net figure after taking into consideration the co2 removed from the atmosphere by the crops photosynthesis removing CO2 from the atmosphere by converting co2 back to O2. |
12-24-2016 04:20 AM
#78
| |
| |
12-24-2016 07:44 AM
#79
| |
That's the best thing keith has ever said. | |
| |
12-24-2016 07:50 AM
#80
| |
Professor Brian Cox - "Look at this graph" | |
| |
12-24-2016 09:24 AM
#81
| |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-24-2016 at 09:45 AM. | |
12-24-2016 09:59 AM
#82
| |
Nah the other guy is a moron, but that moment beautifully illustrates the global warming argument. Someone clever pointing to a graph, as though it's concrete proof. I get where wuf is coming from... science presents consensus like fact, which is not how science works, at least it wasn't last century. | |
| |
12-24-2016 11:24 AM
#83
| |
They should, but they're hard to find. Usually they just cherry pick elements of the story like guy in OP and say 'ha! if you just look at this and ignore/discount everything else, it's not convincing.' | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-24-2016 at 11:27 AM. | |
12-24-2016 12:46 PM
#84
| |
| |
12-24-2016 03:30 PM
#85
| |
IOW, there's no plausible reason for scientists to collectively lie about this so they come up with nonsense ones, and hope that if they repeat them enough times people will start to believe it. | |
12-24-2016 09:07 PM
#86
| |
ITT Keith shares his feelings: | |
12-24-2016 09:13 PM
#87
| |
The fact that this is the response to what Keith said is the mountain that scientists have to climb and why many scientists don't see the point in talking about their fields with laymen who don't have any true ambition to understand what the scientists have done or what the results mean. | |
12-24-2016 09:25 PM
#88
| |
What? That's not what science is. It's not a thing you can trust or not. It's a process of Q&A supported by experimentation. | |
12-25-2016 12:21 AM
#89
| |
|
I genuinely appreciate that because it really does solve the problems being asked about & I feel like I posted it very early on. |
12-25-2016 01:13 PM
#90
| |
| |
12-25-2016 01:50 PM
#91
| |
|
It's more than the doomsaying too. |
12-25-2016 01:58 PM
#92
| |
|
It would be so easy for me to get on board with the issue of tackling AGW if there was sense in the proposals. Externality is a serious issue and the case can credibly be made that only governments have the power to handle them. I can get on board with using government to do what it should do, and that includes managing externality. But nope, the movement is joined by the hip with the desire for government to do anything and everything. It galvanizes people like me to want to de-legitimize any part of the movement. |
12-25-2016 06:31 PM
#93
| |
This is good science. However, this is not your actual position (or I've misunderstood your position). | |
12-25-2016 06:35 PM
#94
| |
Again, this seems like hypocrisy to me. | |
12-25-2016 09:46 PM
#95
| |
|
I agree. For some, it becomes about opposing it at all costs. For me it becomes questioning it at every corner. |
12-25-2016 09:57 PM
#96
| |
|
My perception has been that there is a lower standard of rigor in climate science. AGW has not been demonstrated, yet a near total majority of climate scientists who make statements on the subject do so as if it has. I think AGW is real and I understand why climate scientists would think it's real, but that's different than their scientific opinion. My argument is that if global warming was not such a hot political topic, they would have a much more robust opinion, which would be along the lines of "AGW could be real but we need more research". Instead what we get is "98% of climate scientists think AGW is real." This is political talk, not science talk. |
12-26-2016 06:21 AM
#97
| |
|
with an B.Sc (Hons) in Agricultural science ,I would think that I am not the layman that you seem to think i am with regards CO2 production by agriculture. Hence the fact that i picked on that part of the figures because its part that i can make informed comment on. |
Last edited by Keith; 12-26-2016 at 06:46 AM. | |
12-26-2016 06:46 AM
#98
| |
Not an expert, but I think the 9% has mainly to do with livestock and machinery. Don't think the crops are reducing photosynthesis more than the plants that were growing on that land before it was converted for agriculture. | |
12-26-2016 07:40 AM
#99
| |
|
Agriculture has aggressively selected for increased yield for hundreds of years , so current cops are a lot better at light interception (selecting for greater leaf area usually called Leaf Area Index),higher growth rates from the light that is intercepted ( selecting genotypes that produce higher yield) and to a lesser extent selecting for harvest index (% of the crop that is the desired crop rather than unusable plant tissue) so that as a result , crops will typically have a lot more biomass production than unimproved native indiginous plants. increased biomass means increased co2 removed from the atmosphere.. You are also assuming that in pre industrial era that natural vegetation wouldn't produce co2 but uneaten vegetation would either die back /be shed as leaves and rot down by the soil bacteria and produce co2 that way. |
12-26-2016 09:45 AM
#100
| |
Ok, but agriculture involves more than just crops and livestock sitting there on the land doing what they do. | |
12-26-2016 01:06 PM
#101
| |
| |
12-26-2016 01:54 PM
#102
| |
|
the link that i gave MMM shows that atmospheric CO2 is plateauing due to plants taking up more co2 and converting it to biomass. Considering how much co2 is being pumped into the atmosphere by non agricultural means its difficult to see how total co2 is plateauing if agriculture is a net contributor of co2 to the atmosphere. |
12-26-2016 02:15 PM
#103
| |
12-28-2016 09:07 AM
#104
| |
Been away for xmas but would like to resume my discussion with poop... | |
| |
12-28-2016 09:30 AM
#105
| |
Specifically, I was referring to this... | |
| |
12-28-2016 09:59 AM
#106
| |
Any argument should be evaluated on its own merits, independent of who is making it. The collection of arguments put forth in favour of AGW are stronger than the arguments against it imo (and also in the opinion of the experts who are more qualified to evaluate the evidence than I am). | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-28-2016 at 10:01 AM. | |
12-28-2016 10:27 AM
#107
| |
| |
| |
12-28-2016 10:48 AM
#108
| |
12-28-2016 11:05 AM
#109
| |
Well it's provable. Observation is acceptable. We can look at it from afar and observe it is round. Of course, there's still room for the ultra-paranoid to argue that we're being lied to, that the photos are faked by NASA and all that nonsense, but we're no longer in an age where the world being round is "consensus"... it is proven beyond doubt. As a side note, the concept of "round" could become a little fuzzy once we can start to observe deeper dimensions, but it's certainly "non-flat" in geometry. | |
| |
12-28-2016 11:27 AM
#110
| |
12-28-2016 01:13 PM
#111
| |
We can do experiments and prove the world is round if we want to. The theory will hold. Sending a satellite up to take images is doing an experiment, our observation and our agreement on what "round" means is confirmation. We theorise the world is round, so we take a look and see it is round. Observation is how we confirm an experiment. That's fine by me, so long as we have faith in the means of observation. | |
| |
12-28-2016 01:29 PM
#112
| |
If you think this, then you don't understand what an experiment is. An experiment is when we manipulate one or more variables while holding the rest of them constant. An example would be giving two groups of patients different treatments for their disease and measuring which works better. | |
12-28-2016 01:52 PM
#113
| |
| |
| |
12-28-2016 02:49 PM
#114
| |
All of these alternatives have been disproven afaik (apart from a conspiracy to falsify the data, which is where the deniers all seem to end up). It's not like climate scientists are a bunch of idiots who have no clue what they're talking about. Yet we're supposed to ignore them and instead accept the arguments of people who aren't experts in the topic area, often don't understand how science works, and even more often have clear personal agendas for being deniers. It's beyond absurd. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 12-28-2016 at 02:51 PM. | |
12-28-2016 04:08 PM
#115
| |
Yup, this is a basic limitation for laymen. The only other choice is to become an expert which takes a fantastic amount of effort and resources. It would be a much better idea for people to specialize and rely on other specialists to fill in the gaps. Basic economics. | |
| |
12-28-2016 07:38 PM
#116
| |
The atheist might be wrong indeed, but we're talking about probabilities here. Someone claiming kings might beat aces isn't wrong. | |
Last edited by OngBonga; 12-28-2016 at 07:49 PM.
| |
12-28-2016 07:41 PM
#117
| |
| |
| |
12-28-2016 07:46 PM
#118
| |
ugh sorry I clicked edit instead of quote, fucking mod powers. | |
Last edited by OngBonga; 12-28-2016 at 07:50 PM. | |
12-28-2016 07:50 PM
#119
| |
| |
12-29-2016 04:18 AM
#120
| |
12-29-2016 04:20 AM
#121
| |
12-29-2016 04:47 AM
#122
| |
Luckily that's not the case. The 2% sceptics have consisted mainly of petroleum geologists and meteorologists. Climate researchers have always been in pretty much total agreement. | |
| |
12-30-2016 01:24 PM
#123
| |
Related, but unrelated: | |
| |
12-30-2016 04:13 PM
#124
| |
01-02-2017 01:43 AM
#125
| |
The following was forwarded through my department and around physics and astronomy departments throughout the country to collectively educate physicists about the state of knowledge on climate change. | |
01-02-2017 01:31 PM
#126
| |
There's too much going on in those links. | |
01-02-2017 02:15 PM
#127
| |
|
I agree with your assessment. Your point on the "demands" is a good point. I think it hurts the departments' credibility. |
01-02-2017 03:12 PM
#128
| |
|
I'm with Adams on this, I find the arguments from both sides highly persuasive. |
01-02-2017 03:18 PM
#129
| |
|
What I think is clear is that none of the models for the future have a high degree of certainty, and that making significant enough changes to thwart AGW would have more dire economic/social consequences than responding to the issues at a later date. |
01-02-2017 03:34 PM
#130
| |
Always prudent to go to the original source when quoting the 'lying media': | |
01-02-2017 03:39 PM
#131
| |
|
Figured you would do it for me. I really don't have a dog in this fight. If anything the dog is that AGW is real. |
01-02-2017 03:48 PM
#132
| |
There's something to be said for this argument, as it isn't at all obvious that the short-term economic costs won't be tremendous. However, there's a couple of counters to that: 1) The short-term costs could be outweighed by the long-term costs of not doing anything; it's not just about shoring up NYC, but the entire coast of every inhabited country (and that's just one possible consequence); 2) Continuously pumping GHG into the atmosphere could send us to a point of no return where a feedback loop pushes the planet beyond 'a bit warmer' to 'a lot warmer' to 'uninhabitable'. The good news is that it probably won't get that far until we've all been dead a while, but that's not really the kind of legacy I want to be a part of. | |
01-02-2017 03:58 PM
#133
| |
| |
01-02-2017 09:27 PM
#134
| |
|
I assume "geoscientists" means phds in their field. If it doesn't, I'm an economist shortly after I get my bachelors. |
01-03-2017 04:47 AM
#135
| |
Geophysicists study the earth (e.g., soil, rocks, magnetic fields), not climate. That's why they work for the oil and mining industries, not doing research on climate change. | |
01-03-2017 07:53 AM
#136
| |
Y'all should read the 3rd link MMM posted, it's a systematic review on the consensus. | |
| |
01-03-2017 10:25 AM
#137
| |
Looks pretty convincing to me. | |
01-03-2017 10:59 AM
#138
| |
| |
| |
01-03-2017 11:05 AM
#139
| |
Also, isn't it about time poop got himself an avatar? | |
| |
01-03-2017 11:38 AM
#140
| |
Obama signed the Paris Accord and ratified it. I expect Trump will be doing his best to dodge it given the guy he appointed to the EPA is a climate change sceptic who's repeatedly sued the EPA in the past. | |
01-03-2017 11:43 AM
#141
| |
01-03-2017 12:01 PM
#142
| |
Of course Obama signed it. It doesn't come into force until 2020, so Obama hasn't got to worry about the economic consequences. Trump will be in power when this comes into force. | |
| |
01-03-2017 12:03 PM
#143
| |
Any leader who makes actual progress in fighting climate change won't be in power for long, because the economy will be in the shit. | |
| |
01-03-2017 12:15 PM
#144
| |
Maybe, maybe not. Assuming he isn't impeached, assassinated, otherwise dead, or quits, he will be just about finished his one and possibly only term by then. | |
01-03-2017 06:11 PM
#145
| |
|
Found poopy's new avatar |
01-04-2017 06:57 AM
#146
| |
That's cute. | |
01-04-2017 04:07 PM
#147
| |
Oh sorry it was six weeks. Let's see, Nov. 8 + 42 days = Dec. 20th = Time's up! | |
01-04-2017 05:30 PM
#148
| |
We should just ignore him until he conforms. | |
| |
01-04-2017 05:59 PM
#149
| |
Well I'm never getting one if you do that. | |
01-04-2017 05:59 PM
#150
| |
|
Oh don't worry, Trump is making his world better whether he likes it or not. |