LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Linux Power User Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: Human Caused Climate Change is Real?
Yes 24 68.57%
No. It's a Hoax 9 25.71%
Jury Isn't In Yet 2 5.71%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-06-2018, 02:31 AM   #211
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,015

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
They cannot even accurately predict the weather, how can they predict the climate in the future? Just today New Jersey (USA) shore area, was predicted to have just flurries, well the snow fall is currently at 7" and counting, still coming down.
I don't know where you got "just flurries" for today when weather.com ran this 2 days ago (emphasis mine)

Quote:
Originally Posted by weather.com
Winter Storm Quinn will hammer the storm-weary Northeast with heavy snow and strong winds, triggering additional power outages and tree damage just days after another nor'easter knocked out power to over 2 million.
Actually weather prediction's accuracy depends on two things - 1) Time - how far in the future? and 2) Scale - Localized versus Global

If you want to know what weather will be like 2-4 days from now in your area not at your home or all over the State but an average in a sizable radius around where data is collected near your locale, the odds have gotten extremely good. Similarly global changes since the earth is essentially a Closed System and averages out statistically very well, that too has become vastly more accurate than the time before Super Computers.

Want to try this for yourself? Here is a link to a modeling service hosted by an MIT group where you can plug in variable scenarios and check out how they play out.

--- Climate Interactive Modeling ---

Here's an overall example of a few scenarios. The reason this is indeed urgent is because much like human disease, cure is more likely and less expensive when started early. The longer we put off action the more expensive and disastrous it will be.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	4QY3BIXXNEI6RBSCZFYYUJLMXU.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	160.8 KB
ID:	29103  
 
Old 12-06-2018, 02:53 AM   #212
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,015

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenJackson View Post
A little. But I don't think man had anything to do with it.
So gigatons dumped in the atmosphere continuously for a century has had no effect, eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenJackson View Post
And trying to stop it is like spitting into the wind.
That assumes the former that we didn't have any effect. Because it is easily proven we did, it is also provable we can curb it. You have a dog-biting-it's-tail argument there, a self-fulfilling as well as defeatist prophecy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenJackson View Post
I've read some estimates that North America is losing (if memory serves) something like 2/3 of a centimeter of soil per year on average. I figure if that's true for N.A., it's probably roughly true for the world. Wind probably dumps loads of sand from deserts into the ocean too. And there is just about twice as much ocean as land. So that much soil running into the world's ocean should raise ocean levels by 1/3 cm per year, just due to erosion alone, regardless of the weather.
1/3 cm is a mere fraction of the measured rise already, even if your numbers are accurate. Go to NOAA site and check out what is happening, what is actually measured.

Here's an excerpt

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOAA0
Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2017, global mean sea level was 3 inches (77 millimeters) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). It was the sixth consecutive year, and the 22nd out of the last 24 years in which global mean sea level increased relative to the previous year.
Here's the full site - https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...obal-sea-level

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenJackson View Post
Seriously? Weather gets worse and better, worse and better. Several times in past decades we were told we only had 10 years to solve climate change or we were done. Done! (We're still here.)
Oh please do link some authoritative citation where anyone actually studied in Climatology stated "we will be done". I want to see that in print and dated and not from some idiots blog or YouTube channel, but an actual peer-reviewed source. If, as I suspect, someone actually said that and who wasn't some Climate Change Denier using hyperbole to muddy the waters and discredit the entire concept of Human Caused Global Climate Change, it was some lojne nut and I've already pointed out that nutjobs exist at both extremes. Pay no attention to these sensationalist ON EITHER SIDE. Look for real credentials like accredited Universities and their sponsored study groups. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Mark Dice and the like long enough expect to be skewed. Don't expect to be informed or accurate.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KenJackson View Post
Response to what? Evil-doers want you to run around with your hair on fire so they can control your vote by feeding you lies from the Apoplectic Church of Sensational Destruction.
No that's what sensationalists prefer, not accredited, peer-reviewed scientists. Besides being silly and useless,"hair on fire" contributes more Carbon to the atmosphere (that last bit was a joke, just to be perfectly clear and avoid being misquoted).
 
Old 12-06-2018, 02:54 AM   #213
KenJackson
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Distribution: Fedora and others
Posts: 720

Rep: Reputation: 141Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Here's an overall example of a few scenarios. The reason this is indeed urgent is because much like human disease, cure is more likely and less expensive when started early. The longer we put off action the more expensive and disastrous it will be.
Your graph says "... global carbon dioxide emissions ... temperatures from rising ..."

Are you claiming that CO2 is the driving cause of climate change?

If so, could you please answer the question I asked at the bottom of post 190 of this thread?
 
Old 12-06-2018, 03:08 AM   #214
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,015

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911
Ken, that's already been answered by a few here.

You might think of it this way - IF the massive dumping of CO2 that humans contribute was instead entirely natural and would continue even if Homo Sapiens went extinct and stay that way for millions of years then that is exactly what would happen. Since the accelerated rate is, in fact, human-caused, there is no way for it to continue for millions of years. There are also other factors at play as to why Venus and Mars evolved the way that they did. Both are smaller than Earth and Mars has no molten iron core like Earth does as just some minor examples for you to consider.

At one time, actually more than once, the Earth was completely molten. At another time it was "Snowball Earth". Over millennia an equilibrium developed that made it possible for, well... US! Sometime in the very distant future the Sun will expand to nearly Earth's orbit and it will again go molten. We are in The Goldilocks Zone in both Space and Time and we needn't concern ourselves with thousands of year slow changes, let alone millions or billions, other than to grasp how it all works and on what scales. This Climate Change we are talking about here is taking place in mere decades. That is why it is pressing and important. That is both good and bad - Good that it gives us Time, but Bad that it's more difficult to feel gradual change and unfortunately the system is so large humans can not expect overnight or perfect solutions, but sooner is cheaper and more effective.

Last edited by enorbet; 12-06-2018 at 03:10 AM.
 
Old 12-06-2018, 03:26 AM   #215
KenJackson
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Distribution: Fedora and others
Posts: 720

Rep: Reputation: 141Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
1/3 cm is a mere fraction of the measured rise already, even if your numbers are accurate. Go to NOAA site and check out what is happening, what is actually measured.

Here's an excerpt

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOAA0
Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2017, global mean sea level was 3 inches (77 millimeters) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). It was the sixth consecutive year, and the 22nd out of the last 24 years in which global mean sea level increased relative to the previous year.
1993 to 2017 is 24 years. So the ocean rose 77mm in 24 years. That's 3.2mm/year.

The silt study I referred to (sorry I didn't save the link) plus what I extrapolated, came to about 1/3cm/year or 3.3mm/year due to erosion, NOT CO2.

I don't know how accurate that study was, and my extrapolation didn't help. But you can surely guess that erosion washing silt into the ocean raises the ocean level a little every year no matter what the weather does or climate is.

But if that study is remotely close, then the major component of sea level rise is due to erosion, NOT CO2! You may be on the wrong bandwagon. You should be fighting erosion!
 
Old 12-06-2018, 07:58 AM   #216
Mill J
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2017
Location: 127.0.0.1 Sweet 127.0.0.1
Distribution: Void, LFS, Haiku, Quirky on Rpi and many others
Posts: 884
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 331Reputation: 331Reputation: 331Reputation: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenJackson View Post
1993 to 2017 is 24 years. So the ocean rose 77mm in 24 years. That's 3.2mm/year.

The silt study I referred to (sorry I didn't save the link) plus what I extrapolated, came to about 1/3cm/year or 3.3mm/year due to erosion, NOT CO2.

I don't know how accurate that study was, and my extrapolation didn't help. But you can surely guess that erosion washing silt into the ocean raises the ocean level a little every year no matter what the weather does or climate is.

But if that study is remotely close, then the major component of sea level rise is due to erosion, NOT CO2! You may be on the wrong bandwagon. You should be fighting erosion!
Erosion is a real threat. Especially when the soil is toxic from all the fertilisers and other chemicals.
 
Old 12-06-2018, 05:04 PM   #217
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,083

Rep: Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I don't know where you got "just flurries" for today when weather.com ran this 2 days ago (emphasis mine)



Actually weather prediction's accuracy depends on two things - 1) Time - how far in the future? and 2) Scale - Localized versus Global

If you want to know what weather will be like 2-4 days from now in your area not at your home or all over the State but an average in a sizable radius around where data is collected near your locale, the odds have gotten extremely good. Similarly global changes since the earth is essentially a Closed System and averages out statistically very well, that too has become vastly more accurate than the time before Super Computers.

Want to try this for yourself? Here is a link to a modeling service hosted by an MIT group where you can plug in variable scenarios and check out how they play out.

--- Climate Interactive Modeling ---

Here's an overall example of a few scenarios. The reason this is indeed urgent is because much like human disease, cure is more likely and less expensive when started early. The longer we put off action the more expensive and disastrous it will be.
enorbet, as I said for South Jersey, especially the shore area they were predicting (ABC news Philadelphia/Accuweather) flurries, just one day before the storm hit, the snow totals were over 7"+, with drifts much higher. I completely disagree that weather forecasting has improved, it remains the same BS it was decades ago. Weather man says its sunny today---better grab the umbrella, he says its going to rain---bring your sunglasses etc... 1 out of 10 times they might get it right, just like the slot machines at any Casino.

Best weather forecaster still remains (animals, the naked eye, observing seasonal changes and this....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathe..._-_1708774.jpg
 
Old 12-06-2018, 05:13 PM   #218
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,083

Rep: Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post

Oh please do link some authoritative citation where anyone actually studied in Climatology stated "we will be done". I want to see that in print and dated and not from some idiots blog or YouTube channel, but an actual peer-reviewed source. If, as I suspect, someone actually said that and who wasn't some Climate Change Denier using hyperbole to muddy the waters and discredit the entire concept of Human Caused Global Climate Change, it was some lojne nut and I've already pointed out that nutjobs exist at both extremes. Pay no attention to these sensationalist ON EITHER SIDE. Look for real credentials like accredited Universities and their sponsored study groups. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Mark Dice and the like long enough expect to be skewed. Don't expect to be informed or accurate.
In other words, only provide links to publications that already agree with everything the "Natural Climate Change Deniers" promote/proselytize, or it will be discredited as bunk science etc...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...global_warming
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#153039843f9f
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...us-ian-tuttle/
 
Old 12-06-2018, 05:50 PM   #219
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,083

Rep: Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851
Thomas Sowell: Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM

Thomas Sowell on Al Gore & global warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNn80IkUNxk

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 12-06-2018 at 05:53 PM.
 
Old 12-06-2018, 08:15 PM   #220
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,015

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911
You have me a bit confused as to how you evaluate data, ChuangTzu, but I am beginning to think that it is you who are politically driven in this case. That's not to say that some on the opposing side aren't also but they aren't here and I'm not responding to them.

Your sentence above
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu
In other words, only provide links to publications that already agree with everything the "Natural Climate Change Deniers" promote/proselytize, or it will be discredited as bunk science etc...
clearly puts the cart before the horse in my view. In order for the collection and analysis of data to hope for any manner of accuracy it must be obtained by people trained in that field (I doubt you'd accept a world class brain surgeon to operate on your heart, let alone accept a world class auto mechanic to do that) and especially if speculative, must pass through the rigors of review by others schooled in that field. The reason that peer-reviewed conclusions about Climate fall heavily on one side (that it is real and urgent) is because that's what the data says to those in the field, not because of political affiliation or because of any other kind of bias.

I, for one, would be very pleased if tomorrow some previously unknown mechanism was discovered that showed with great odds in peer-reviewed journals, checked and double-checked, that all the experts were mistaken due to not knowing about this mechanism and that the trend would not continue but self-correct. That would be wonderful news. I very much want to see Homo Sapiens get beyond burning fossil fuels but not at the peril I see unfolding. I would breathe a huge sigh of relief to know we had the luxury of more time. I'd feel we dodged a bullet.

However on the heels of the cart-before-the-horse you post Thomas Sowell who is in fact a highly creditable source in the field of Economics. He just has no training, exposure, instrumentation, effort, study, etc etc that I can find that qualifies him as an authority on climate on any scale, let alone global. His views are worth reading because I think he is revealing about the nature of Intelligentsia and it's foibles but his assessment of climate has no foundation whatsoever and especially because he is driven by his politics.

For a little over a decade I was a paid subscriber to The Freeman a Libertarian publication, and I voted in 3 presidential elections for the Libertarian candidate. I also subscribed to Avant Garde and The New Republic but only for a few years. I have read Mein Kampf, twice actually, but sadly never got around to Das Kapital or Communist Manifesto as I tend to view far left philosophy and politics as pedantic and sanctimonious not to mention focusing far too much on some narrow view of "what should be" instead of "what is". I don't think you can write me off as some Liberal, spouting party line. My concerns with climate are not political. they are pragmatic, based on the preponderance of verifiable evidence so far withstanding all attempts at actual falsification not skewed by economics or politics. Just Science.

Last edited by enorbet; 12-06-2018 at 08:19 PM.
 
Old 12-07-2018, 01:49 AM   #221
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,722
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1170Reputation: 1170Reputation: 1170Reputation: 1170Reputation: 1170Reputation: 1170Reputation: 1170Reputation: 1170Reputation: 1170
Wake up and smell the garbage heaps, asphalt and* corperations people,,, times 7* billion* multiplying* rabbits...
 
Old 12-07-2018, 05:26 PM   #222
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,083

Rep: Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851Reputation: 851
Tucker vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo

PS: regarding the Natural Climate Change Deniers claim that "we know this is being accelerated by humans, because it's happening much faster..." If you look closely at the geological data, it takes thousands of years, sometimes tens of thousands of years for the changes to occur slowly, however, right before the big changes---it accelerates to decades, years, months etc... Also, how do you explain the rise of temperatures preceding the rise of CO2? If CO2 is causing this rapid change, then the rise of CO2 would have occurred prior to the rise of temperatures not the other way around.

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 12-07-2018 at 05:31 PM.
 
Old 12-07-2018, 06:30 PM   #223
greencedar
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2018
Location: Missouri
Distribution: Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.3 Rosa & 18.3 Sylvia.
Posts: 23

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Thumbs up Thanks!

I appreciate the intelligent, informing, and quite correct news articles.

Keep up the good work
greencedar
 
Old 12-07-2018, 06:44 PM   #224
greencedar
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2018
Location: Missouri
Distribution: Linux Mint Cinnamon 17.3 Rosa & 18.3 Sylvia.
Posts: 23

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Good Articles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Thomas Sowell: Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM

Thomas Sowell on Al Gore & global warming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNn80IkUNxk
Thanks for bringing to our attention some fine articles concerning the climate issue.

greencedar

Last edited by greencedar; Today at 09:32 AM. Reason: (1) grammer & inserted "climate" (2) Deleted off the subject statement.
 
Old 12-07-2018, 08:51 PM   #225
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 2,015

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
Tucker vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo
So this is Scientific for you? Yeah I always use Fox News as my source for authoritative, hard Science

FWIW at first Tucker asked somewhat reasonable questions but the he switched up to diatribe, actually lending even more evidence to the cognitive dissonance exhibited by what passes for Conservatism these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
PS: regarding the Natural Climate Change Deniers claim that "we know this is being accelerated by humans, because it's happening much faster..." If you look closely at the geological data, it takes thousands of years, sometimes tens of thousands of years for the changes to occur slowly, however, right before the big changes---it accelerates to decades, years, months etc... Also, how do you explain the rise of temperatures preceding the rise of CO2? If CO2 is causing this rapid change, then the rise of CO2 would have occurred prior to the rise of temperatures not the other way around.
Before I can answer this I need to know when it is that you think increases in CO2 did not precede temperature increase, but rather only followed it. Keep in mind there are indeed natural causes in fluctuation in atmospheric CO2, as I'm sure you are aware, but that ever since we started burning coal and population began a highly accelerated climb, we began to catch up with those causes and actually reached something of a tipping point because the extra CO2 that man produces does not get absorbed because of the amounts and time frames, so the change accelerates more than if Earth's capacity to absorb was greater. In short it's "the straw that finally breaks the camel's back". Here is a thorough explanation of that process and exactly why it is that what is a fairly low gross percentage gain proportionately, becomes a high net effect. Please do take the time and effort to read this. It's rather crucial to solid understanding of how this mechanism works. I think it will make sense to you.

See it here ===>> https://www.skepticalscience.com/hum...-emissions.htm (Any TLDR is solved by a fairly decent, quite reasonable and most certainly NOT "hair on fire" YouTube video on that page)

Also what you seem to refuse to see is that there is a very tight relationship between human increased fossil fuel burning and the rate of climate change. It is most certainly not merely incidental or a fluke relationship. It is a direct cause and effect to the very best of our knowledge. Again it is very faintly possible that we are mistaken in this conclusion but the overwhelming odds are that we are not and it behooves us to err, if at all, on the side of safety, not on the side of catastrophic risk. If we manage to do it right, it could be a major win for the future of Mankind as well as many other species that may avoid extinction.

Last edited by enorbet; 12-07-2018 at 09:05 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Human-Caused Global Climate Change enorbet General 29 05-12-2016 05:14 PM
The truth about the falsified pseudo-science and kleptocracy of "man-made climate change" Steven_G General 36 02-05-2016 12:52 PM
systemd responsible for climate change, bad coffee, and athlete's foot mrclisdue Slackware 23 11-15-2013 07:57 PM
LXer: The World’s Most Powerful Climate Change Supercomputer Powers Up LXer Syndicated Linux News 6 10-18-2012 11:38 AM
Data transfer online is slow "at times" or "stops at times" Balarabay1 SUSE / openSUSE 14 04-30-2006 11:00 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration