Climate Change is a Hoax

[Doug1029]

7 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Not if you study "Trees" then the severity of the recent 4 year drought looks like a sunny day compared to some of the 50 and 100 and 130 year droughts that plagued California in the recent 3000 year past.

Agreed.  But I don't get your point.

Doug

[Doug1029]

5 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Well Gee Doug, guess we should have all starved out hundreds of millions of year ago yeah? No you didn't really mean what you said, I know. So what did you actually mean?

A perfectly good soil can be rendered nearly-sterile in less than a decade of mismanagement.  Most of what you're seeing in the way of almost-sterile soils in teh Amazon became that way since 1970.  Thousands of years ago has nothing to do with it.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

Agreed.  But I don't get your point.

Doug

The last 4 year drought was nothing compared to what the proxies tell us California is capable of in terms of drought like conditions. That was my point.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

MMGW is a cult and some members will die before giving up their membership. This is especially true for atheists, that have no belief, so cling to the world ending, since every human being Needs to believe in something greater than themselves.

Science, like everything else, advances one death at a time.  There is nothing quite so sad as watching a senior scientist who has spent his entire professional life working on a line of research that just got demolished.  His dreams of immortality just went up in smoke.  And that applies to nearly everybody.  You deniers are no different.  So what's left?  Follow the data!

Doug

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

A perfectly good soil can be rendered nearly-sterile in less than a decade of mismanagement.  Most of what you're seeing in the way of almost-sterile soils in teh Amazon became that way since 1970.  Thousands of years ago has nothing to do with it.

Doug

Yes it does! You don't know what you are talking about. Several thousands of years ago, a blink in geologic time, the "Amazon Rainforest" was mostly a 'savannah' type environment with mostly grasses. Had it been a "Rainforest" for tens of thousands of years it would be fertile soil no matter how much rain falls!

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, tmcom said:

Last quote pretty much sums it up, the world will end, so we have to run about like chickens, etc to demonstrate,....beats me,...dedicated, proactive, have to be right, (just spit balling here.

You are right, the world is going to burn up in the next 13 years, sea levels will rise 10 metres, and we are powerless to do anything about it, have a nice day!

The world is not going to end.  It has been here billions of years and will be here billions more.  Let's keep this in perspective.

There is still time to take effective action, but as is being noted, the door is closing.  Ten years?  Thirteen years?  The earth has no use-by date.  All the 2030 deadline means is that we are expected to cross two-degrees of rise about then.  The world won't end, but climate-related disasters will get gradually worse.  Remember "Super Storm Sandy?"  Those will be more common, as will hurricanes like Rita and Katrina and Maria.  There will be more crop failures.  In America, prices will climb as the market adjusts.  In poorer countries, some people might have to do without.

The sea will not rise 10 meters in 12 years.  It's going to take a lot longer than that.  But it will rise.

And there's a lot we can and will do.  New York is doing the planning work for a coffer dam around lower Manhattan.  And storm barriers.  So is London and Venice.  These are billion-dollar projects.  You complain about doing something about global warming costing a lot of money.  We are paying for these because we didn't do anything.

We are writing off Staten Island.  It will become a shoal-water for fish.  And we are arguing about saving New Orleans (costly) or letting the sea have it and moving all those docks and industries to Baton Rouge (costlier).  To New Orleans, sea-level rise is sort of irrelevant.  They're sinking and will disappear either way.

And Washington DC is only a few feet above sea level.  Eventually, we'll have to move the Washington Monument.  But there will be lots of time for that later.  A 125,000 year-old cypress log was recovered from the lot next to the National Geographic headquarters - Washington used to be a cypress swamp.  Still is a swamp, but the cypresses are gone.

After 2030, we can expect to see the extinction rate rise and see changes in our plant ecologies.  You know - the ones that make oxygen for us to breath.  Where, exactly, the breaking point is, nobody knows, but somewhere above four degrees.

Doug

Edited April 23, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, tortugabob said:

And I don't mean to be derogatory in any way but scientists, in general, can't relate with or to people. They can't communicate.  It's like Doug's failure with his two planks.  Sorry to keep picking on you Doug but I told you so.  (And my post about getting paid for 5 years for teaching how to plant a tree is a question taxpayers get to honestly ask. Others in here may think it an attack but everyday people roll their eyes when they hear this sort of story.)

There is some truth to this.  Lots of us STEM nerds can't communicate very well - me included.  The other part of the problem is that we are trying to communicate science to people who have no background in science.  Most of you non-scientists think "science" is the stuff science discovers, like dinosaurs, black holes and exoplanets.  But it is the WAY in which these things are discovered.  It is the reasoning process that goes into those discoveries.  The first principle is that science is evidence-based.  That means something physical, something I can count, measure, smell, see, hear. etc.  Then I reason from that to something I can't see, touch, etc. 

That also means you can't refute science without evidence.  If you are going to say you don't believe global warming is happening, you need a temperature record that shows that it's not happening.  You don't have to believe NOAA, but there are lots of other temperature records.  I have some and will be glad to share.

You can say that you don't think humans are the cause of global warming, but there are isotopic studies that show that.  So if you are going to deny it, you need to have a way to refute those studies.  Just trying to outshout the other side doesn't convince anybody.

Another communication problem is that some of the global warming true believers don't know anything about the subject and are spouting crap.  But because a few don't know what they're talking about doesn't mean the whole field is false.  That makes training yourself or teaching others more complicated, but that's the world we live in.

 

As for my two planks:  I got into this with a week to go before the publication deadline.  The piece I wrote was too long to fit and without the explanation nobody understood it.  My problem was in jumping in too fast.  I should have taken my time, written off the platform committee and gone at it from another angle, which I now think I have found.

 

Here's a time and cost breakdown of that tree-planting project:

There were two research sites.  Flagstaff is in the mountains.  The landowner paid for trees and materials and he and I planted it in one day.  I measured it eight times, taking from a half day to a full day to measure it; I had help from paid laborers on two of these occasions.  Subsequently, a volunteer and I remeasured it two times, taking less than a half day and leaving in time for lunch.

The second site (Baseline) was a plains site and twice as large as the mountain site.  The landowner paid for the trees and materials and me and a two-man crew planted it, taking two weeks.  I made six seedling measurements, taking a day each.  The final measurements were taken on two occasions by me and a volunteer (I was on vacation at the time.).

I held this data for 26 years while the trees grew (In each case, the last two measurements were taken at 16 years and at 26 years.).  It took me two months to analyze the data and write and submit the report.  The editor had it for about six months, then she and I began a series of back-and-forth discussions spending two or three days each time re-writing the report.  I have just submitted the tenth version and am waiting to see what happens.  You can blame that six-month delay on our good President's shutdown of the government (The editor was furloughed.).  Between submissions, there is nothing to do but wait, so I work on other things.

Total time investment:  me - about 50 days.  Paid help:  24 days.  Volunteer help:  15 days.  Editor:  about 4 days.  Reviewers:  about two days.  Two private companies furnished that paid help as contributions to the community.  I'm pretty sure they took tax deductions for it.  The McEntire-Stennis program covered the office work.   That's a 26-year program, so as research projects go, it's a good deal.

All this is in the record.  Payroll cards and time-accounting procedures would give you the exact figures, but digging those out after 26 years might be a bigger job than the project itself.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Yes it does! You don't know what you are talking about. Several thousands of years ago, a blink in geologic time, the "Amazon Rainforest" was mostly a 'savannah' type environment with mostly grasses. Had it been a "Rainforest" for tens of thousands of years it would be fertile soil no matter how much rain falls!

Why was it a savannah?

Doug

[lost_shaman]

2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Why was it a savannah?

Doug

Honestly, I don't know. It is a good question. It just was not the "Rainforest" it is today. 

[lost_shaman]

13 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Why was it a savannah?

Doug

Maybe people arrived and eventually started fighting fires?  Maybe even inadvertently by starting them? You are likely to have some insight here.

Could that lead to pockets of "Forest" that end up overtaking the grassland as megafauna and herding mammals dissipate and humans spread and populate the continent?

Edited April 23, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, tortugabob said:

The other thing going against the AGW crowd is that the people they're trying to convince have their own personal problems to solve. Do you really believe you are going to panic them into paying for the wild and impractical ideas you are shilling? I keep bringing this up but it seems to fly over the heads of my detractors.  AGW, even if it were true, is down the road and it doesn't help that you true believers keep postponing the tipping point. Another thing I will repeat is people the world over they are locked into this type of consumer society.  All media is geared to the idea that they must consume or the society will wither. Even the most ardent environmentalist is locked into the system. I'll wager they aren't going to change even if the flood waters are lapping at their feet.

Quietly, behind the scenes, the US is converting to wind power.  The big companies are doing it because wind is cheaper and they're worried about not being able to get enough coal.  I saw seven tower bases rolling up the highway last Saturday.  I don't know what those cost, but they're gigantic and each one is accompanied by three lead/tail cars.  There's a lot of money being spent on it.  Wind now pays more Oklahoma taxes than does oil.

Many of those "wild impractical ideas" are shills.  Coal companies don't want to lose their investment, so they put out a lot of bunk to scare people away from doing anything.  I spend a lot of time on this site trying to correct them.  Don't believe everything you see/hear.  Read over my exchange with tmcom.  I don't know what his source was, but most of the information was wrong.  That's the sort of thing I hear every day.  The misinformation shills have succeeded before.  Even if they ultimately lose, they'll delay things by years or decades.

And now, it appears we may actually be on the verge of doing something.  AOC's Green New Deal failed in the Senate, BUT:  there's a bipartisan effort under way to take the parts of it the two parties can agree on and begin implementation.  That's exactly what the Green New Deal would have done had it passed.  Don't let the decibels deafen you.  Quiet, sober people are working to make it happen.

 

"The other day I had to laugh when I saw an Earth Day ad proclaiming seven companies that sold sustainable clothing.  They weren't selling the idea of wearing clothes your clothes until they wore out either. Do you get my drift?  That's the level that people think about saving the Earth."

It's called a "green wash."  A little bit like white wash, but with an environmental twist.  Shysters are going to latch onto anything that comes along.  Are banks frauds because crooks steal credit cards?  Does that make banking something that should be abolished?

Doug

[lost_shaman]

7 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Quietly, behind the scenes, the US is converting to wind power.

Hey I'd tell you this is NOT BEING QUIETLY done around Vernon, Texas! I'm absolutely surrounded NOW by Windmills to the N,E,S,and W!!! I'm able to see about 400+ now. It is CRAZY and my electric bill is not any lower.

My Brother-in-law was driving us to a Cousins house, he is from Austin, he couldn't understand why none of the 50 or so Windmills in front of us were not turning. How could this be he asked? I had to explain to him that all the Towers and Windmills he was seeing were less than two weeks old and they are not turning because they haven't been turned on yet!

Edited April 23, 2019 by lost_shaman

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, tortugabob said:

What really surprised me in your responses about Graham Hancock is how narrow minded and petty you scientists are.  He was reading a great historical text, "The Lament of Hermes.".  It is an interesting  observation written over 2000 years ago and very applicable to this age.  And the snide remark about my allegorical mention of Atlantis just makes me sad for the state of education in this land.  I would retort that Plato believed it enough to write it down.  Have you heard of him? 

Speaking for myself, I think Atlantis really existed.  There were two sites:  one was the ruin now called Akritiri on the Island of Santorini.  There are lots of articles you can google about this, including lots of archeological journal articles.  Plato said Atlantis was beyond the Pillars of Hercules.  There was an ancient city on the coast of Spain that had the ringed shape Plato described.  It was almost at water level.  And the Atlantic has tsunamis.  Plato got the date wrong, but everything else fits.  I think the story is an conflation of the two.

I didn't see the snide comment.  I won't ask you to repeat it.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

8 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

There was an ancient city on the coast of Spain that had the ringed shape Plato described. 

I saw the Nat Geo doc about this and they found half a dozen ancient anchors in one dive. There was clearly an ancient port off that coast of Spain. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

  I know, one shouldn't just repeat posts, but this is a brilliant layperson's summary that shows (for anyone with a clue) where LS is trying to strawman his way into the heads of the gullible brigade, and is instead showing he truly does not understand the PROPER way to deal with a  thermodynamic system.  You don't pick a photon and give it intelligence, which, as Socks points out, is what LS just did.

You have to work on the entire environment.  If LS was sincere (he is not) he could/would immediately show just how important his tiny little photon argument is in the entire thermodynamic system.  Again, I ask - what is the magnitude of the effect, in comparison to the other major contributing factors?  Explain your answer...

If LS can't/won't answer that, it seems even a layperson would see that his argument holds no water.  Er, CO₂...?

Thanks socks, you summed it up far better than I could.  

I appreciate the kind words, boss.  I hope it's useful to the readers of the thread.

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I appreciate the kind words, boss.  I hope it's useful to the readers of the thread.

It is not. It won't be. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

Just now, lost_shaman said:

It is not. It won't be. 

Hypothetically, you can lead an idiot to knowledge, but you can't make them think.  I'm more concerned with intellectually honest people.

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

 I'm more concerned with intellectually honest people.

Well, nice to meet you. I'm probably one of the most intellectually honest people you will ever have the honor to meet. 

[Doc Socks Junior]

Just now, lost_shaman said:

Well, nice to meet you. I'm probably one of the most intellectually honest people you will ever have the honor to meet. 

Incorrect.

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Incorrect.

You have no information to base such a statement on other than I've told a truth that you are unwilling to accept.

[Doc Socks Junior]

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

You have no information to base such a statement on other than I've told a truth that you are unwilling to accept.

I've interacted with you in this thread multiple times.  Tells me all I need to know about your intellectual capability and honesty.

Full marks for optimism, though.

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

I wonder if Doug, ChrLzs, or DSJ can even articulate how Reinhardt explained why his coefficient was lower? 

Oh and BTW I forgot the (ln) in those equations. They should both read as  ΔT = 0.347 ln(Co/CO2), and  ΔT = 1.66 ln(Co/CO2) respectively. 

He states that a 'test calculation' (which of course he doesn't show) illustrated that it had to do with the occupation probability of the CO2 energy states.  Seems legitimate.

Except not really.  Generally, in a scientific paper, you're supposed to back up your assertions.  Of course, in a PDF blog post, Reinhart can do anything.

 

 

[lost_shaman]

8 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Of course, in a PDF blog post, Reinhart can do anything.

 

And Myhre can write a Paper without mentioning collisions? 

[lost_shaman]

Just now, lost_shaman said:

10 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Of course, in a PDF blog post, Reinhart can do anything.

 

And Myhre can write a Paper without mentioning collisions? 

Who is being "intellectually dishonest" ?

[Doc Socks Junior]

4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Who is being "intellectually dishonest" ?

Still you.  I think you should actually read Myhre's paper.  Specifically, the citations for the radiative transfer schema used.  You'll find plenty of reference to collisions therein.

[lost_shaman]

13 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Still you.  I think you should actually read Myhre's paper.  Specifically, the citations for the radiative transfer schema used.  You'll find plenty of reference to collisions therein.

Then what is specifically wrong with the Myhre Paper vs. Reinhardt Paper? Be specific! *snip*

Edited April 24, 2019 by Saru
Removed derogatory personal remark