[rockdoc123]

So do. Oh dent the Arctic is warming? If not then by what process?

Not understanding the question....some typos in there me thinks.

[Newfie]

Sorry for that, my apologies.

So you do not think the Arctic is warming? If you do think it is warming then by what process?

[GHung]

How reliable is geologic dating?

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... bility.php

(long article - excerpt)
.....................
Along this line, Roger Wiens, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, asks those who are skeptical of radiometric dating to consider the following (quoted in several cases from [Wiens2002]):

There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some [skeptics] make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.

Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.

A recent survey of the rubidium-strontium method found only about 30 cases, out of tens of thousands of published results, where a date determined using the proper procedures was subsequently found to be in error.

Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.

The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

.... and, yes, I know they generally can't narrow a specific sample down to a few years, and I was expecting the correlation/causation thingy, but it's quite clear that:

rising levels of atmospheric CO2 coincide with rising temperatures (that mechanism is well understood),

that we are pumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year,

that the current rising temperature trend coincides with the onset of the industrial age and dramatically increased burning of fossil fuels along with vast human destruction of carbon-sequestering mechanisms,

that the vast majority of climate and atmospheric scientists agree that humans are warming the planet,

that the Arctic and Greenland are melting at an accelerating rate,

that this process has been scientifically predicted for over 100 years,

that most current organisms on Earth are adapted to a fairly narrow range of temperatures,

that extinctions and other environmental degradations are proceding apace, many accelerating,

that human population and consumption are increasing,

..... and that virtually all measurements of these things coincide.

Your mother may have raised a fool, but mine did not. Considering the above (and many other factors) I'm certainly not going to fall for some weak-assed argument about how "correlation doesn't prove correlation". I mean, really? If some guy bops you in the head with a ball bat, are you going to blame the pain on a headache? A brain tumor?

.... and while we're at it, let's throw in a few million tons of methane, just for good measure.

[Newfie]

I came upon an appropriate quote.

THE INFINITE IS NOT JUST A WHILE LOT MORE IF THE FINITE.

Prior to human influence Earth resides in a state of near balance, things changed but mostly in a much more gradual time frame. There was the odd meteorite or massive eruption but they were sufficiently infrequent events to be named and become marked spots on the timeline of Earth.

Humans have upset this balance through mining and releasing vast amounts of stored carbon, ONE effect is Climate Change. others include:
The human population bloom.
Which includes massive agriculture.
Which has terra formed large parts of the planet.
And the oceans through over fishing and dragging.
Aquifers are disappearing along with arable land.
And the creation of vast amounts of plastic.
Which we dump into the environment.
Creating toxic land and ocean dead zones and dead rivers.

Fossils fuels, Earth’s store of fossil carbon resources are huge but not infinite. Time is infinite. At some point we will run out. But we will likely run out of water and/or land first, if we don’t kill ourselves otherwise.

Our economic system is based on growth. All 25 Presidential candidates agree, including Trump. But growth can not be infinite. There are limits. So the question becomes where do we set the limits.

The thread is titled “Runaway Global Warming” which is good but a more accurate description would be “Runaway Growth”.

So while we may argue about the details of warming and it’s processes the growth continues unabated. The growth is fueled by fossil carbon.

To limit the growth is to limit fossil carbon release.

To limit fossil carbon is to limit growth.

Combating climate change is to focus upon one single effect of the disease. We may disagree about this singular aspect while agreeing to the treatment plan.

That someone doesn’t agree on Climate Change does not mean that they disagree on limiting the release of fossilized carbon because of the other poisonous effects.

On the other hand to argue for the limitation of fossilized carbon while calling for WWII levels of industrial infrastructure development is muddled thinking. It is essentially making the argument that we can continue infinite growth by replacing carbon with other “renewable” resources. It completely ignores that climate is a singular symptom. Even if this power substitution could be accomplished the pollution and depletion of land and water resources would continue.

[Ibon]

We wont do anything but many things will be done to us.

[Newfie]

Short summary:

When arguing climate change you are arguing a single point about the negative effects of releasing fossilized carbon. It is a resource to be used sparingly, to be share with many future generation, as is the land and water. It’s release degrades and pollutes the land and water. It’s release supports the myth of infinite economic growth.

Infinite economic growth is a modern myth that has infected our culture and which blinds us to the inevitable outcome.

I don’t know how to fix that, but the start is to recognize the core problem.

[Newfie]

We wont do anything but many things will be done to us.

That is undoubtedly true, but I don’t intend to be passive in that interaction.

[Ibon]

We wont do anything but many things will be done to us.

That is undoubtedly true, but I don’t intend to be passive in that interaction.

The entire planet is not going to be passive either..... this very fact is what has lead me to hypothesize that the times ahead are a great opportunity for cultural and social change toward how we treat our mother earth...... you know, down right revolutionary.

Corporal punishment does lead to respect, capitulation, obedience and humility.

Sometimes children act out in order to test limits and a good spanking is actually a relief as the limits are then known. Can such a thing apply to spoiled cultures as well?

[rockdoc123]

How reliable is geologic dating?

Your article has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was describing. The article refers to the repeatability of various dating methods. Having spent time doing Rb/Sr and U/Th dating back in grad school many decades ago I would agree, you can reproduce dates based on several sample runs. What you can’t do, however, is measure time periods less than thousands of years due to the error bars associated which are a product of longer decay rates and sample alteration. If you think this article supports the idea that you can measure temperature change over a range of a couple of decades you have a comprehension problem

rising levels of atmospheric CO2 coincide with rising temperatures (that mechanism is well understood),

wrong….Ordovician as an example where high CO2 corresponded with worldwide glaciation, Silurian when CO2 dropped and temperatures rose, Permain-Triassice where temperatures rose and remained high while CO2 did not rise. As well the detail from Antarctic ice cores shows an offset of several hundred years between rise or fall in temperature and similar effects in CO2. More recently there was a relatively wide swing in temperatures from the MWP through the LIA and CO2 remained relatively constant. You only need the disconnect to happen once to suggest a correlation is not relevant.

that the vast majority of climate and atmospheric scientists agree that humans are warming the planet, 

the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas means some warming will be the result of anthropogenic CO2 …the question is how much, hence all the ongoing research in ECS/TCS. How many times do I have to reiterate this very basic point? There are scads of papers on the subject, doesn't anyone read the literature anymore?

that the Arctic and Greenland are melting at an accelerating rate,

that this process has been scientifically predicted for over 100 years,

Hardly. How many times in the past has there been predictions of an ice-free Arctic? And not just boneheads like Al Gore but actual climate “gurus” like Mark Sereeze who predicted the Arctic would be ice-free back in 2008. Hansen predicted the Arctic would be ice-free by 2018 at the latest. Jay Zwally a NASA climatologist focused on ice sheets predicted an ice-free Arctic in 2012. Never happened.

that most current organisms on Earth are adapted to a fairly narrow range of temperatures,

adaptation is something you can’t measure unless it happens. We actually have no idea how certain species will respond to changing climates…they can migrate, change patterns or over long periods adapt genetically. There are species of fish that have been present in the oceans for 600 MMy, Crocodilians have been around since the Cretaceous (100 MMya), ginkgo trees have been around for about the same time. When you say “narrow range” you are referring to average daily temperature but in fact, most species have done well over a wide range of temperatures when you look at daily minimum to daily maximum and yearly minimum to the yearly maximum. As an example, the deer that keep eating my rose bushes are tromping around in the snow when it is -30 C and busy nibbling away at my roses when it is +30 C. That is a much wider range than the predicted 2 C rise in average temperature they might have to deal with under current predictions.

[Newfie]

Ibon,

My point was more along the lines that when discussing the problems that face is its best to not restrict your discussion to climate change. You will run into some folks like Rocdoc123 who you can not reach, WITH THAT ARGUMENT.

When you engage these same folks on other issues then you sometimes find that in practical matters you are on the same page. Conservatives, real conservatives, have a penchant for living frugally and protecting natural resources, treating the Earth with respect. I’ve never found anyone who thinks throwing plastic bags to the wind is a good idea. Nor that we are depleting our aquifers. Nor that we should just dump pollutants into our earth, air, and water.

Yes there are a few who are so infected with Consumerism that they are beyond all reason, but they are far and few between.

I think the bigger and better argument to tackle is the concept of unlimited growth. It’s like someone trying to argue for a perpetual motion machine. And the science well and truly is settled on that, I thin Roc will even stipulate to that one.

While I would like folks to agree with me on climate change I will settle for them agreeing to reduce emissions in order to leave a habitable planet for their grandkids.

[rockdoc123]

I think the bigger and better argument to tackle is the concept of unlimited growth. It’s like someone trying to argue for a perpetual motion machine. And the science well and truly is settled on that, I thin Roc will even stipulate to that one.

If you go back to some of my original posts oh so many years ago I did point out that we were consuming way too much with no need. I always draw comparisons back to the way we were raised in the fifties and sixties...you didn't need a lot, clothes went a long way, we ate smaller portions but were never hungry, we enjoyed the great outdoors, played lots of team sports as well as individual sports. Society, to that end has advanced in a bad direction. I find this to be a topic that is too often confused with climate change. I'm a scientist, I read journals for my information and I base my opinions on the wide disparity in research results that are published not on the politicized information that appears in the press. I took a couple of courses in climate as an undergrad way back when...it was taught in the earth sciences curriculum back then and it was simply science-based. There were no degrees in climate science, if you wanted to study that area you got a degree in geophysics and took the climate courses available. Much of the basics that were taught back then still hold, the idea of CO2 being a greenhouse gas is of course not new, neither is the potential impacts of methane etc but there was also considerable effort put into explaining impacts of moisture, cloud cover, ENSO etc. It seems now anybody who believes CO2 is completely responsible for everything that has ever happened with climate whether they have a degree beyond high school or journalism school, have ever read a technical journal etc. seems to believe they are completely right....ignore all the evidence to the contrary, must stay a member of the team. Science in this area has taken a massive step backwards because of this very inappropriate group think.

[GHung]

It seems now anybody who believes CO2 is completely responsible for everything that has ever happened with climate whether they have a degree beyond high school or journalism school, have ever read a technical journal etc. seems to believe they are completely right....ignore all the evidence to the contrary, must stay a member of the team. ....

Or maybe in a world full of short attention spans and superficially educated/distracted people who are largely reactionary, CO2 is the low-hanging fruit. Want to lose most people's attention, just throw in a bunch of complexity. It's all about creating a narrative that encourages lower, well considered, levels of consumption, hopefully of all things.

Nobody cares much if you have an issue with how carbon emissions are portrayed, especially when you are in service of an industry that has the most to lose. They just want people to stop burning so much stuff.

[Newfie]

Roc,

See it’s a non argument, in the fundamentals we agree, stop consuming so much.

[Ibon]

Science in this area has taken a massive step backwards because of this very inappropriate group think.

We would not have this problem if we were 8 billion scientists on the planet. But we are not and so any mitigation to curb the imbalances of human overshoot will require narratives that folks not well versed in science can understand.

IF you think standing on the firm bedrock of rational science is the pathway well I have news for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKlSVNxLB-A

[rockdoc123]

Nobody cares much if you have an issue with how carbon emissions are portrayed, especially when you are in service of an industry that has the most to lose. They just want people to stop burning so much stuff.

as I keep repeating here to all of you "oh, he disagrees with me he must be an industry shill", I've been retired for many years, no longer own any oil company shares directly although a few bits and pieces in the various ETF....so hardly "in service of an industry that has the most to lose".

Perhaps you should consider that it is actually the average person who currently stands the most to lose if the oil industry were to just say....OK, we aren't looking for it or producing it anymore. Alternatives cannot replace oil and gas at the moment and it will be decades before that is even remotely possible and likely much longer when you try to replace it's uses outside of fuel. Your home, vehicle, clothes, much of the food you consume etc etc are all a product of the oil and gas that has been found, produced and refined into products.

[Newfie]

Roc,

The average guy is gonna loose because of all the damage that carbon does, even if not through CC.

The best way for the average guy to protect himself is to learn how to live with less and be happy.

[Ibon]

Roc,

The average guy is gonna loose because of all the damage that carbon does, even if not through CC.

The best way for the average guy to protect himself is to learn how to live with less and be happy.

Amen and worth noting that living with less actually increases wellbeing. At least this is the case at current excessive consumption levels.

[jupiters_release]

Guys,

If you stopped replying to rockdoc the positive feedback loop of noise in the thread will diminish greatly.

[Newfie]

We need to learn how to build a consensus for action and that means listening to dissenters.

Obviously I don’t agree with Roc in the CC issue but he and I largely agree that we need to limit fossil fuel use.

Many of the actions we want to see taken have multiple reasons for that action. We don’t have to agree on ever reason so long as we agree on the action.

Otherwise we just get bogged down in the argument and never actually do anything.

[Ibon]

Consensus will come gift wrapped and delivered external of all the bla bla bla of what we should be doing but aren't because can't come to an agreement.