Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Climate Refugees Pt. 2

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 05 May 2016, 20:00:18

clif wrote:
So don't ever mention AGW as more than a theory. That's what it is, all it can ever be.


So is gravity, nothing more than a theory.

Right. And this is the same nonsensical argument that the religious right has been using to try to "disprove" evolution for decades -- that evolution is "only a theory".

Such arguments from KJ against AGW being a valid scientific theory don't even pass the "are we having an adult conversation?" test.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7127
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 05 May 2016, 20:06:00

I guess KJ, does not understand that in the jargon of science "theory" is about as close to fact as can be. Tested and/or analyzed with the empirical methods and severe scrutiny of science. Like the theory of relativity or of gravity.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10510
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 05 May 2016, 20:13:17

rockdoc123 wrote:I could go on but I think that should be sufficient to indicate you have your head planted firmly where the sun doesn't shine.

Ah, so the 97% of climate scientists have no idea what they're talking about re AGW, but you do since you are capable of using grade school level insults. Absolutely brilliant analysis. :roll:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Too bad that being an AGW denier you can't win the intellectual argument by shouting really really loudly and trying to be scary and intimidating and waving your credentials as a scientist.

So OK, you and KJ have earned the "ignore" status on that topic, IMO. Congratulations.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7127
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 05 May 2016, 20:23:30

onlooker wrote:I guess KJ, does not understand that in the jargon of science "theory" is about as close to fact as can be. Tested and/or analyzed with the empirical methods and severe scrutiny of science. Like the theory of relativity or of gravity.


I guess YOU don't understand the scientific method. Be that as it may, engineers are trained to use it, lay people don't even understand what it means.

This is why the entire debate about AGW is so tiresome. You and the rest of the AGW fanboys don't even understand that there is no debate possible. AGW cannot be "proved" by definition. It will never be "settled science", that very term is an oxymoron. You see: I could be up to my neck in warm sea water, with the rest of you AGW ignoramuses standing around in boats screaming at me, and I would still be completely correct and you would still be completely wrong.

Go ahead, argue some more, and confirm your ignorance yet again. (Hint: "Ignore" status means you folded, confirming you lost.)
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby ralfy » Thu 05 May 2016, 20:51:50

dohboi wrote:Ralfy, how absolute does your proof need to be?

It's really just basic physics and basic facts:

1) CO2 (and methane...) is a Greenhouse Gas...the more there is in the atmosphere, the more the atmosphere will warm. This is a fact of physics, established about two hundred years ago. It has to do with absorption spectrum of these molecules. It's the kind of thing that's so well established, it's just listed in tables in the back of physics text books, like the boiling point of water...

2) We have been dumping hundreds of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. To deny this, you would have to either deny that we have been burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and methane) for about two centuries, or you would have to claim that burning these carbon-based fuels (which is a process of oxidation) somehow does not produce CO2.

3) CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily going up. Well established by Keeling many decades ago and by countless studies since.

4) Average global temperatures have been going up. Again, affirmed by countless studies, include those studies that set out to prove that all the other studies were wrong!

One would have to be a total imbecile to deny any of these, and would have to be an even bigger imbecile to not be able to connect these very obvious dots.

So when you are arguing with denialists, you are arguing either with total imbeciles (which...why bother), or you are arguing with people pretending to be imbeciles, who are, of course, even more pathetic, and with whom it is an even bigger waste of time to argue.

As the saying goes, you can't wake someone up who is only pretending to be asleep.


I think some of them are referring to the CO2 levels needed for a tipping point to be reached, such that warming is no longer reversible for the short term, as well as the effects. But the need to find proof for such is irrelevant if the effects of peak oil, overpopulation, pollution, etc., are similar.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby ralfy » Thu 05 May 2016, 20:56:44

Take note of limits to growth as described in this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

and those forecasts did not account for the effects of AGW.

That's why it's a waste of time for anyone who acknowledges global problems such as pollution, peak oil (and resource depletion in general), and related crises to remain in denial of AGW.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 05 May 2016, 21:13:37

Ah, so the 97% of climate scientists have no idea what they're talking about re AGW, but you do since you are capable of using grade school level insults. Absolutely brilliant analysis.


and perhaps you need to stay up to speed with the fact that 97% number has been extensively debunked in the literature. It was fabricated.

Calling yourself a scientist doesn't allow you to twist the scientific method any way you want it to claim that AGW is an "invalid" theory -- any more than it allows the religious right to (validly) claim that Intelligent Design has a "scientific basis", but thanks for playing.


exactly how am I twisting the scientific method? Did I not quote some pretty famous scientists who said precisely what I did? Are you suggesting that the theory is still acceptable without any adjustments given the model predictions don't match the actual measurements? The theory stated we should see more and more storms etc which the data is also not supporting (see IPPC AR5). There are many holes in the theory as it stands. The scientific method requires that the theory is either scrapped or needs to be adjusted. You seem to think that it is OK to just muddle ahead and ignore the issues. That flies in the face of the scientific method under anyones definition.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 05 May 2016, 21:24:17

The 97% figure has not been debunked, of course. It is an old conservative figure. The actual, current figure is much, much higher.

Unless you want to listen to a self-described 'scientist' (of the Sarah Palin variety, apparently) who doesn't even understand the very simple basic mechanisms that allow salty warm water to reside below fresh cold water in many polar situations.

what an utter and total dipwad.

why is anyone even listening to him anymore???
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18451
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 06 May 2016, 02:48:40

Well, as far as my opinion goes..

Generally, scientists are not crusaders and climate justice warriors. They're dry. Just the facts ma'am, here's the facts, here's some theories, here's some other explanations, and let's be neutral about it and go where the facts take us, and never get upset if the facts do not fit a particular theory. To the contrary, a scientist should be excited to be wrong about something -- it's only religion that does not want to be wrong, and cannot allow itself to be wrong.

So anyhow, for my opinion anyway, I've concluded most serious scientists believe that the large human population and its industry on earth, have had an effect.

I think -- where the REAL question lies, is just to whatever degree the earth compensates. That's the bigger unknown, and there's no consensus about it.

And here's another thought for y'all -- we are part of the earth. We are gaia, too. We've burned a lot of fossil fuels; and the rest of this organism planet earth, just grew more plants in response. And things are balanced.

The other thing going, is the solar cycles. We actually should be headed into an ice age. But oh look at this, all these humans that burned all these fossil fuels -- and gaia is balanced, despite the solar cycle change.

How do y'all know we weren't MEANT to do this? Hm?

Having said all the above.. it's a good idea to get off fossil fuels, yeah. But GRADUALLY. And there needn't be climate change hysteria going off the deep end, about it.

Whenever someone is shouting "the end is near!" -- check your wallet.

Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

Image
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346


Here's what I wonder -- is a greener earth not a GOOD thing? This helps out with all the deforestation problem, and regrowing the rain forests, no?
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15161
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby kiwichick » Fri 06 May 2016, 05:55:38

@ six strings........don't know about the rest of the planet but the Australian part is complete BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



having lived in inland NSW it sure as HELL ain't getting greener.............in fact the locals are extremely worried about the falling reserves of water .......currently approaching the lowest levels since the Millennium Drought
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 06 May 2016, 06:06:27

Six, that is not accurate. The warming trend more than offsets and overwhelms whatever greening occurs. Meaning plants of various regions cannot tolerate even slightly higher average temps.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10510
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Lore » Fri 06 May 2016, 06:07:08

At some point the end is near. You only have to be right once.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Will the "North" shoot on Climate Refugees soon?!

Unread postby M_B_S » Fri 06 May 2016, 10:55:11

To feed the discussion we have problem in Europe <=Year 2030!

http://www.sciencealert.com/global-warm ... rth-africa

Global warming could trigger a 'climate exodus' from the Middle East and North Africa
Climate refugees.
JOSH HRALA 4 MAY 2016
Facebook Icon2.4k Twitter Icon
As millions of refugees continue to pour into Europe from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa to escape wars and oppression, researchers have just announced that the greatest migration from the region is likely still on the horizon. But in the future, instead of seeking refuge from violence, families in the Middle East and Africa might have to flee for a completely different reason: climate change.

According to researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany and the Cyprus Institute, temperatures in the Middle East and North Africa will soon reach levels too high for human survival.
*************************

We will shoot and must defend our borders or our own food security is in danger. We in Europe cannot feed the billions!

You cannot fool physics minimum is 2000kcal/capita/day or famine and war again in Europe

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3766
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby careinke » Fri 06 May 2016, 12:15:45

KaiserJeep wrote:
onlooker wrote:I guess KJ, does not understand that in the jargon of science "theory" is about as close to fact as can be. Tested and/or analyzed with the empirical methods and severe scrutiny of science. Like the theory of relativity or of gravity.


I guess YOU don't understand the scientific method. Be that as it may, engineers are trained to use it, lay people don't even understand what it means.

This is why the entire debate about AGW is so tiresome. You and the rest of the AGW fanboys don't even understand that there is no debate possible. AGW cannot be "proved" by definition. It will never be "settled science", that very term is an oxymoron. You see: I could be up to my neck in warm sea water, with the rest of you AGW ignoramuses standing around in boats screaming at me, and I would still be completely correct and you would still be completely wrong.

Go ahead, argue some more, and confirm your ignorance yet again. (Hint: "Ignore" status means you folded, confirming you lost.)


Sometimes you can be "dead right." Although your argument is valid, Climate change is still happening, and you will probably die from it. Congrats.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3649
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 06 May 2016, 13:14:08

careinke wrote: -snip-
Sometimes you can be "dead right." Although your argument is valid, Climate change is still happening, and you will probably die from it. Congrats.



I have never denied that the climate is changing. I acknowledge that. The only thing that I dispute is that the burning of FF's is the driving cause.

Let me provide a simple to understand alternative explanation for Climate Change. Our star that we call "The Sun" is classified by astronomers as a G2V spectral type - meaning main sequence G (towards the cool side), 2 meaning towards the hotter side of the G range, and V (Roman Numeral V) meaning that it is an average sized body that started as a Blue Luminous Variable Star and has now decayed to a Yellow Main Sequence Star and will in the distant future die as a Brown Dwarf Star. Now we have recently discovered that all stars are variable stars, meaning that lots of observations, but not yet a lot of understanding, indicates that the output of the Sun's fusion furnace varies by several percent - and with it, the temperatures of all the associated planets in the Solar System.

This is very bad for the planet called Earth - or at least the majority of existing species on that planet - but not so bad for the humans, who have a unique tool we call "intelligence" to survive. So, all you have to do is:

1) Make a plan to survive a warming globe. MY personal plan is to move North of where I am today, from about Latitude 34 degrees N in the Silicon Valley, to Wisconsin about Latitude 43.5 degrees N. This area is surrounded by the largest fresh water lakes in the world, and has enough rainfall to be the headwaters of the Mississippi River. It is bordered by two large lakes that moderate temperature extremes in both the Summer and Winter. It is not underlain by either oil or natural gas shales, nobody will be fracking there. They grow a lot of corn and other grains, meaning that ethanol fuels, ethanol liquors, and breads will be plentiful and cheap - as will cheeses and beef.

2) Execute your plan. Don't even worry about whether the warming is man-caused - I think it most likely is not - just execute your plan.

It really is that simple. Or you could wring your hands over who is "Right" and who is "Wrong" about AGW. That seems a fruitless endeavor to me.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Will the "North" shoot on Climate Refugees soon?!

Unread postby dolanbaker » Fri 06 May 2016, 13:42:33

They'll run out of water first!
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Planned obsolescence, one of the largest contributors to the man made element of climate change, but the one least discussed: dolanbaker
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

Re: Will the "North" shoot on Climate Refugees soon?!

Unread postby Lore » Fri 06 May 2016, 14:07:27

I hear they're all planning on swiming to Ireland!
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Will the "North" shoot on Climate Refugees soon?!

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 06 May 2016, 14:19:23

London has just elected its first Muslim mayor, and the city of London is on track to go majority muslim in 5-10 years.

Germany just welcomed a million Muslim immigrants, and is on track to take in another Muslim immigrants this year, and another million the following year, and another million, and another....etc. etc.

And you are fantasizing that Europe will take military action to stop refugees?

Dream on.

France was already on track to be majority Muslim by about 2050. With this huge new influx of Muslims look for Germany to go majority Muslim by 2035-40, and France, England, Belgium and Italy won't be far behind.

Cheers!

Image
Allah be praised! We will soon be the majority in many European cities!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22665
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 06 May 2016, 15:27:54

The 97% figure has not been debunked, of course. It is an old conservative figure. The actual, current figure is much, much higher.

Unless you want to listen to a self-described 'scientist' (of the Sarah Palin variety, apparently) who doesn't even understand the very simple basic mechanisms that allow salty warm water to reside below fresh cold water in many polar situations. 


Lets see I have a PhD in the sciences, taught for a couple of years at university, have published close to 40 papers on subjects ranging from stratigraphy, structural geology, organic geochemstry, rock mechanics and petroleum basin analysis whereas you are, let me remember now...a school teacher? Yes I can see where everyone would think you more credible. :roll:

There are several published papers and another in press that address the problems with Cook's analysis which resulted in the faux 97% number. Irrespective of the fact consensus has no place in scientific studies.

- Cook claims that 97% of the scientific literature takes a position on climate change when most acutally does not.
- noted problems with sampling in that it wasn't representative of the scientific literature, their conclusions being about the papers they happened to look at rather than the literature as a whole.
- attempts to replicate their search criteria for papers resulted in many more papers they did not include, all of which disagreed with the hypothesis
-their sample of papers was padded with irrelevant papers . Tol pointed out that 3/4 of the papers counted as endorsements had nothing to say about the subject matter.

Legates, D. R., Soon, W., Briggs, W. M., & Monckton of Brenchley, C. 2013. Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change. Science and Education

However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic


Tol, R. S. J. 2014a. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis. Energy Policy, 73(0): 701-705

Removing irrelevant papers, I find that, rather than 3%, up to 10% of papers explicitly disagree with the hypothesis that climate change is real and largely anthropogenic. Cook et al. report a time trend towards greater endorsement. This, however, is due to an increase in the number of papers that are not on the causes of climate change. Although Cook et al. survey a large number of papers, the number of published papers is larger still. The sampled papers are not representative of larger samples of papers, and probably not representative of the population either. Cook's sample statistics are just that. No conclusion can be drawn about the level of consensus in the wider literature. The sampling strategy may have worked in favour or against the measured consensus on the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. The data reported by Cook et al. show signs of error: Taking their ratings at face value (Legates et al., 2013), 7% of the ratings are wrong, and biased towards endorsement of the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Furthermore, the rating data show inexplicable patterns, revealing an inconsistent survey instrument (or worse). Cook et al. failed to report that their data fail their own validation test. The full data-set would shed further light on possible causes of these problems but is unavailable. Cook has refused to release such diagnostic tests as the ratings profiles of individual raters, and the histogram of times between ratings.


this was followed up by a second paper by Tol pointing to additional problems:

Tol, R. S. J. 2014b. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder. Energy Policy, 73(0): 709

and he has another one in press at the moment.

comments from Tol to the Guardian where Cook tried to defend his 97% number and attempted to villafy Tol:

Cook’s sample is not representative. Any conclusion they draw is not about “the literature” but rather about the papers they happened to find.

Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless.

Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

The data is also ridden with error. By Cook’s own calculations, 7% of the ratings are wrong. Spot checks suggest a much larger number of errors, up to one-third.

Cook tried to validate the results by having authors rate their own papers. In almost two out of three cases, the author disagreed with Cook’s team about the message of the paper in question.


So sorry, the study was crap statistics. IF the method is flawed the result is irrelevant. But it has become a go to statement for those who know almost zero about the various sciences that fall into the realm of climate study...so I guess you have that going for you. :lol:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7092
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Will the "North" shoot on Climate Refugees soon?!

Unread postby dolanbaker » Fri 06 May 2016, 15:47:33

Lore wrote:I hear they're all planning on swiming to Ireland!

Google "Irish Water", one of the biggest fiascos in Irish history!
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Planned obsolescence, one of the largest contributors to the man made element of climate change, but the one least discussed: dolanbaker
User avatar
dolanbaker
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3651
Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 09:38:47
Location: Éire

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests