Global Cooling will kill us all!

Stuff that’s happening in the world that may pertain to our survival. Please keep political debates off the forum.

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

User avatar
TDW586
* * * * *
Posts: 8844
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:03 pm
Location: Here, unless I'm not, in which case, somewhere else

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by TDW586 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:48 am

:applause:, DarkAxel. Well said and I agree completely.

Sent from my HTC VLE_U using Tapatalk 2
Image

User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by ghostface » Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:22 pm

I think DarkAxel offers a very well-stated rationale for why preppers should use the precautionary principle to treat climate change seriously:
DarkAxel wrote: I see little difference between reducing use in energy derived from hydrocarbons and stocking a prepper's pantry. I don't see the difference between that and carbon emission or wildlife/plant-life conservation. Sane preppers put away goods, skills, and technology for inevitable disasters (personal/financial, natural, and mad-made) that they hope to pass on unneeded to their children and their children's children. I want my grand-kids to have as much as possible so they can have the best chance to survive and thrive. If we do our part to reduce our ecological and climatological impact, isn't that prepping against the possibility that you were wrong?

...

I think global climate change is something worth prepping for. Even if it is a natural cycle there has been a noticeable uptick in the intensity of climate-related disasters, and a lot of that no-carbon or low-carbon emission technology also makes life easier during and after disasters. It's also a hell of a lot more convenient when it comes to self-sufficient living.
The great thing about this is that it illustrates why you don't have to have an immense academic background on the subject in order to take it seriously as a preparedness concern. Well done!

Just to pick a few nits in an otherwise great post:
couldn't we could alter the makeup of our atmosphere to a point where our impact could become the driving force behind it? If not that, could our influence hasten climate change? I'm not sure about the former given what little we really know about how natural phenomenon effect Earth's climate.
The answer to the former is unequivocally yes- it's really a matter of fundamental atmospheric chemistry and physics. The chemistry part is basically what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas, and the physics part is understanding a little bit about energy balance. A planetary body with a steady incoming shortwave energy source (i.e. the sun) will reach an equilibrium temperature, which it achieves by warming and emitting longwave radiation (i.e. heat) back out to space. Changing the amount of energy coming in or going out will create an energy imbalance, which requires the body to reach a new equilibrium state, warming or cooling along the way. In our case, we're decreasing the amount of energy going back out to space (by increasing greenhouse gases, preventing longwave radiation from escaping), necessitating that we warm to a hotter equilibrium.

That's really it. It really is that simple. Change the energy in the system, change the climate. We have unequivocal evidence of our increase in greenhouse gases, and the atmosphere's response to this increase.
Any scientist worth his salt knows the real limitations of their educations and practice


Sure. But any scientist worth his or her salt also knows that it's misleading to pretend that we don't know things that we really do know.
and long-term climate change and general climate change, for that matter,are relative newcomers to the scientific disciplines.
The underlying science behind human's ability to change the climate through our emission of greenhouse gases is quite a bit older than the physics that under-gird microprocessors that drive most of your electronic gear. And most people don't doubt the latter. :mrgreen:
To contrast, Algebra is hundreds of years old, and the science behind mathematical principles behind gear ratios, astronomy, and geometry are thousands of years old.


I think this isn't a fair comparison. Sure, we knew that stuff worked, but we would not understand the reasons why it worked for much, much, much longer. By any rights it's a little unfair to talk about astronomy as a science proper prior to Newtonian physics. That's kind of like pointing to prehistoric instances of trepanation to claim that the field of neuroscience is milennia old. :D
that scientific data is being collected and interpreted by human beings. Since human beings are also burdened by all sorts of agendas, political leanings, levels of confidence, and even ethical standards, it stands to reason that people on the edges of the scientific neutrality bell curve are more than willing to falsify their conclusions.
I'm not sure I understand what this is supposed to mean. People who falsify conclusions typically don't last long in science. Sure, there are examples, but they are incredibly rare and especially on matters of contentious issues are discovered relatively quickly.
If, as some people claim, the experts are seriously divided on the question of rapid climate change
As I mentioned a few comments back, "the experts" are not "seriously divided" on the reality of man-made climate change.

As I said, a few nits that I am only picking for any onlookers who might be a little confused. All in all, I think your post was a very reasonable one.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...

User avatar
Vicarious_Lee
* * * * *
Posts: 6650
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:21 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 days later, Resident Evil 2, Shaun Of The Dead, Bowling For Columbine, Farenheit 911
Location: Tumblrina City, TX

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by Vicarious_Lee » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:17 pm

ghostface wrote: I'm not sure I understand what this is supposed to mean. People who falsify conclusions typically don't last long in science. Sure, there are examples, but they are incredibly rare and especially on matters of contentious issues are discovered relatively quickly.
Yeah but they motherfucking thrive in pop culture and tend to get LOTS of coverage and exposure.


























Image
duodecima wrote:The tinfoil's a clever idea...
Image

User avatar
DarkAxel
* * * * *
Posts: 3847
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:25 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: The Evil Dead Series, Dawn of the Dead, Shawn of the Dead, NOTLD, Resident Evil Series
Location: Jackson, KY
Contact:

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by DarkAxel » Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:51 am

ghostface wrote:
To contrast, Algebra is hundreds of years old, and the science behind mathematical principles behind gear ratios, astronomy, and geometry are thousands of years old.


I think this isn't a fair comparison. Sure, we knew that stuff worked, but we would not understand the reasons why it worked for much, much, much longer. By any rights it's a little unfair to talk about astronomy as a science proper prior to Newtonian physics. That's kind of like pointing to prehistoric instances of trepanation to claim that the field of neuroscience is milennia old. :D
I'm pretty sure that the engineers behind things like Chinese Water Clocks were pretty well versed on the why behind gear ratios. Mesoamerican cultures had math advanced enough to predict planetary alignments far into the future and they were well aware of how celestial bodies moved. The trepanning comment doesn't really hold up, and it looks pretty close to be a straw-man here. Mathematics is a science, and humans understood that ever since cavemen understood that one rock plus two rocks equals three rocks.

As I said, the data supports the idea, but everyone should be open to the possibility that we are wrong, and scientific consensus is worthless from an accuracy standpoint. At one point, scientific consensus agreed that germs didn't cause disease, rotting meat made flies, and anyone who believed in the Big Bang was a crackpot. I trust reliable conclusions from scientific experiments and observations that can be independently verified and reproduced. So far most of them support the idea that mankind does have an effect on global climate. As our scientific understanding of our environment and our universe expand, those conclusions might change. Hell, let's take a look at the theory of bio-genesis. Most of the folks who explored the theory of spontaneous generation found evidence to support it. Then Pasteur came along and blew everybody's mind and forged new paths in the fields of food preservation and microbiology. Scientific consensus isn't gospel, and it can be wrong.
ghostface wrote: I'm not sure I understand what this is supposed to mean. People who falsify conclusions typically don't last long in science. Sure, there are examples, but they are incredibly rare and especially on matters of contentious issues are discovered relatively quickly.
What V_Lee said. The outliers make for attention-grabbing headlines and spirited discussion. News outlets love 'em, and once pop culture gets ahold of their conclusions, they never really go away (Ever hear of the Flat Earth Society?).

Let's take a look at the supposed link behind childhood vaccines and autism. Turns out that most of the data that supported the conclusion that childhood MMR vaccines cause autism was either misinterpreted or outright falsified. But for awhile, a lot of really smart folks accepted those conclusions because, yanno, science. Even other scientists. Then the media latched on and spread that info like wildfire, and now, 15 years later, people are dying from easily preventable disease because of it, and others still embrace those conclusions even after the fraud was exposed and humiliated like a bitch in the same news media that spread it.



My understanding of science informs me that eventually, all variables in a closed system will eventually reach equilibrium (A nod to ghostface for the reminder). Of all the variables in the closed system that is our global climate, humans are the ones us humans can directly change. We can have a positive effect or a negative affect, and so far, it looks to be a good bet that our influence is a negative one. How do you change a negative variable into a positive one? Why you add a positive amount to it, of course! And if you add a positive variable to one side of the equation, you have to do the same to the other side, or the solution is false. Adding a positive variable to both sides seems win-win in this equation.
vyadmirer wrote:Call me the paranoid type, but remember I'm on a post apocalyptic website prepared for zombies.
Fleet #: ZS 0180

Browncoat

Imma Fudd, and proud of it.

ZS Wiki

User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by ghostface » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:58 am

First off, let me reiterate that I found your post about erring on the side of caution as a responsible act of someone in the preparedness community to be very good. I hope you don’t take my disagreement with some aspects of what you’re writing as an attack or an insult. I would bet we’re probably in agreement about much, and my contestation shouldn’t be taken as a sign that I think you’re wrong about other things.
DarkAxel wrote:I'm pretty sure that the engineers behind things like Chinese Water Clocks were pretty well versed on the why behind gear ratios.
That was, by your own admission, engineering, not science. The difference is non-trivial.
Mesoamerican cultures had math advanced enough to predict planetary alignments far into the future and they were well aware of how celestial bodies moved.
This is actually a pretty good example of what I was talking about! The Maya, for example, had pretty sophisticated models for the (apparent from the Earth) behavior of Mars, but they still had essentially no understanding of physics or the real structure of the cosmos. They got very good at observing existing patterns and extrapolating into the future, but they lacked any sort of underlying basis for understanding that would let them understand why things moved like they moved. They got good at predicting where Mars might be in the sky, but they had no real understanding of Mars as a planet, or the laws of motion governing planetary bodies, or even what the actual position of Mars was relative to the Earth and sun.

Essentially, they got good at “statistical” forecasting. Which is not useless, but it doesn’t help much if your understanding of the system itself is wrong, and/or the system changes.
Mathematics is a science, and humans understood that ever since cavemen understood that one rock plus two rocks equals three rocks.


Maths and science frequently overlap, but neither have been “understood” since cavemen times. I feel like we’re running into a constant problem with you mistaking practical knowledge or application with theoretical understanding.

A kid can learn very quickly to throw a ball. The behavior of the ball is dependent on the physics of the ball itself, the environment, the throw, etc. A kid can get very, very good at throwing a ball without ever understanding Newtonian physics. He is essentially performing applied physics, but it would be silly to claim that he understood physics in a meaningful sense, in the same way a university student majoring in physics does.
As I said, the data supports the idea, but everyone should be open to the possibility that we are wrong
Sure. But the possibility that we’re wrong, given the enormous amount of evidence and the accumulation of knowledge on the subject spanning more than a century, is small. If we want to play the “we can always be wrong” game, there are far, far more concerning things to worry about us being wrong about than the physics of radiative transfer.
scientific consensus is worthless from an accuracy standpoint.


I cannot disagree more strongly. Science is a constantly evolving best approximation of reality. Our model of reality may constantly be refined, and- rarely- changed dramatically, but it is towards successively better approximations of reality, not binary states of “right” and “wrong”.

Scientific consensus, when it is evidence-based (a significant distinction), is the best approximation of reality in a given subject we have. It will assuredly be incorrect in some way, as our understanding of everything is necessarily incomplete. But in relative terms, it is the best description of reality available to us.
At one point, scientific consensus agreed that germs didn't cause disease, rotting meat made flies, and anyone who believed in the Big Bang was a crackpot.

As our scientific understanding of our environment and our universe expand, those conclusions might change. Hell, let's take a look at the theory of bio-genesis. Most of the folks who explored the theory of spontaneous generation found evidence to support it. Then Pasteur came along and blew everybody's mind and forged new paths in the fields of food preservation and microbiology. Scientific consensus isn't gospel, and it can be wrong.
I hear this sort of line of argument quite a bit. And I certainly understand the sentiment behind it, even if I don’t at all agree that it’s correct.

When people talk about supposed scientific consensus in the past and how it was wrong, and how that means we can’t know if something is true or not, I like to point to two quick reads- Asimov’s essay The Relativity of Wrong and some variation on discussion of the meaning of consensus like this one.

The tl;dr version is that most claims of past, wrong, scientific consensus typically fail to fulfill one or more of those terms- they weren’t actually science-based, they weren’t actually the consensus position, they weren’t actually “wrong”, etc.
What V_Lee said. The outliers make for attention-grabbing headlines and spirited discussion. News outlets love 'em, and once pop culture gets ahold of their conclusions, they never really go away (Ever hear of the Flat Earth Society?).
While these outliers and the media embrace of them is unfortunate, that only emphasizes the importance of sticking with the scientific consensus even more strongly.
Let's take a look at the supposed link behind childhood vaccines and autism. Turns out that most of the data that supported the conclusion that childhood MMR vaccines cause autism was either misinterpreted or outright falsified. But for awhile, a lot of really smart folks accepted those conclusions because, yanno, science. Even other scientists. Then the media latched on and spread that info like wildfire, and now, 15 years later, people are dying from easily preventable disease because of it, and others still embrace those conclusions even after the fraud was exposed and humiliated like a bitch in the same news media that spread it.
I don’t understand how you can talk about the vaccines-autism scare in the context of this discussion and not come away even more impassioned about the need to hew to the scientific consensus.

The Wakefield fraud took place in 1998. It never enjoyed anything remotely approaching scientific consensus. Coauthors of the initial paper denied that there was evidence for a vaccine-autism link. Relevant scientific and health organizations loudly stressed that there was not good evidence for such a link, and issued numerous reports and public statements telling people to get their kids vaccinated. The scientific consensus was that vaccines did not cause autism. The consensus was reexamined in light of the (fraudulent as we later learned) supposed evidence, and then the consensus was reaffirmed (and very quickly at that).

So, we have a lone fraud on the one hand, and the scientific and medical communities on the other. One of them was correct. One of them was wrong. And this, to you, means that consensus is not to be trusted? That it has no value?

I have to say I don’t understand that at all.

Scientific consensus is not infallible. But it is the best approximation of reality available to us. In the absence of superior knowledge, it is where (IMO) practically-minded people (such as those in the preparedness community) place their qualified trust. And while our understanding of given subjects will unquestionably change, we are increasingly less "wrong" about the things we don't have exactly right.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...

User avatar
Old_Man
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:16 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 days and weeks later, I am legend, the original dawn of the Dead...etc.
Location: NE Florida
Contact:

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by Old_Man » Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:07 am

Interesting article along the anti-vaccine thread...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzb ... -70-years/

User avatar
Vicarious_Lee
* * * * *
Posts: 6650
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 5:21 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 days later, Resident Evil 2, Shaun Of The Dead, Bowling For Columbine, Farenheit 911
Location: Tumblrina City, TX

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by Vicarious_Lee » Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:07 pm

ghostface wrote: I don’t understand how you can talk about the vaccines-autism scare in the context of this discussion and not come away even more impassioned about the need to hew to the scientific consensus.

The Wakefield fraud took place in 1998. It never enjoyed anything remotely approaching scientific consensus. Coauthors of the initial paper denied that there was evidence for a vaccine-autism link. Relevant scientific and health organizations loudly stressed that there was not good evidence for such a link, and issued numerous reports and public statements telling people to get their kids vaccinated. The scientific consensus was that vaccines did not cause autism. The consensus was reexamined in light of the (fraudulent as we later learned) supposed evidence, and then the consensus was reaffirmed (and very quickly at that).
No, Ghosty I'm certain that he was using the vaccines/autism scare as an example of my "hucksters get news coverage" counterpoint, not that scientific consensus is sometimes wrong. My Dr. Oz example is about how the fringe outliers in the "scientific community" often are the best at getting attention and making money, regardless of how correct or incorrect they are. Dr. Oz is a very talented cardiothoracic surgeon, and he has become very wealthy by pretending he's Jack LaLanne, MD, but in reality he's no more qualified, scientifically speaking, to talk about health, wellness, or primary care and preventative medicine than the trainers on the Biggest Loser TV show. Probably less so, in fact.

That clear that up?
duodecima wrote:The tinfoil's a clever idea...
Image

User avatar
DarkAxel
* * * * *
Posts: 3847
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:25 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: The Evil Dead Series, Dawn of the Dead, Shawn of the Dead, NOTLD, Resident Evil Series
Location: Jackson, KY
Contact:

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by DarkAxel » Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:59 pm

ghostface wrote:First off, let me reiterate that I found your post about erring on the side of caution as a responsible act of someone in the preparedness community to be very good. I hope you don’t take my disagreement with some aspects of what you’re writing as an attack or an insult. I would bet we’re probably in agreement about much, and my contestation shouldn’t be taken as a sign that I think you’re wrong about other things.
DarkAxel wrote:I'm pretty sure that the engineers behind things like Chinese Water Clocks were pretty well versed on the why behind gear ratios.
That was, by your own admission, engineering, not science. The difference is non-trivial.
Mesoamerican cultures had math advanced enough to predict planetary alignments far into the future and they were well aware of how celestial bodies moved.
This is actually a pretty good example of what I was talking about! The Maya, for example, had pretty sophisticated models for the (apparent from the Earth) behavior of Mars, but they still had essentially no understanding of physics or the real structure of the cosmos. They got very good at observing existing patterns and extrapolating into the future, but they lacked any sort of underlying basis for understanding that would let them understand why things moved like they moved. They got good at predicting where Mars might be in the sky, but they had no real understanding of Mars as a planet, or the laws of motion governing planetary bodies, or even what the actual position of Mars was relative to the Earth and sun.

Essentially, they got good at “statistical” forecasting. Which is not useless, but it doesn’t help much if your understanding of the system itself is wrong, and/or the system changes.
Mathematics is a science, and humans understood that ever since cavemen understood that one rock plus two rocks equals three rocks.


Maths and science frequently overlap, but neither have been “understood” since cavemen times. I feel like we’re running into a constant problem with you mistaking practical knowledge or application with theoretical understanding.

A kid can learn very quickly to throw a ball. The behavior of the ball is dependent on the physics of the ball itself, the environment, the throw, etc. A kid can get very, very good at throwing a ball without ever understanding Newtonian physics. He is essentially performing applied physics, but it would be silly to claim that he understood physics in a meaningful sense, in the same way a university student majoring in physics does.
As I said, the data supports the idea, but everyone should be open to the possibility that we are wrong
Sure. But the possibility that we’re wrong, given the enormous amount of evidence and the accumulation of knowledge on the subject spanning more than a century, is small. If we want to play the “we can always be wrong” game, there are far, far more concerning things to worry about us being wrong about than the physics of radiative transfer.
scientific consensus is worthless from an accuracy standpoint.


I cannot disagree more strongly. Science is a constantly evolving best approximation of reality. Our model of reality may constantly be refined, and- rarely- changed dramatically, but it is towards successively better approximations of reality, not binary states of “right” and “wrong”.

Scientific consensus, when it is evidence-based (a significant distinction), is the best approximation of reality in a given subject we have. It will assuredly be incorrect in some way, as our understanding of everything is necessarily incomplete. But in relative terms, it is the best description of reality available to us.
At one point, scientific consensus agreed that germs didn't cause disease, rotting meat made flies, and anyone who believed in the Big Bang was a crackpot.

As our scientific understanding of our environment and our universe expand, those conclusions might change. Hell, let's take a look at the theory of bio-genesis. Most of the folks who explored the theory of spontaneous generation found evidence to support it. Then Pasteur came along and blew everybody's mind and forged new paths in the fields of food preservation and microbiology. Scientific consensus isn't gospel, and it can be wrong.
I hear this sort of line of argument quite a bit. And I certainly understand the sentiment behind it, even if I don’t at all agree that it’s correct.

When people talk about supposed scientific consensus in the past and how it was wrong, and how that means we can’t know if something is true or not, I like to point to two quick reads- Asimov’s essay The Relativity of Wrong and some variation on discussion of the meaning of consensus like this one.

The tl;dr version is that most claims of past, wrong, scientific consensus typically fail to fulfill one or more of those terms- they weren’t actually science-based, they weren’t actually the consensus position, they weren’t actually “wrong”, etc.
What V_Lee said. The outliers make for attention-grabbing headlines and spirited discussion. News outlets love 'em, and once pop culture gets ahold of their conclusions, they never really go away (Ever hear of the Flat Earth Society?).
While these outliers and the media embrace of them is unfortunate, that only emphasizes the importance of sticking with the scientific consensus even more strongly.
Let's take a look at the supposed link behind childhood vaccines and autism. Turns out that most of the data that supported the conclusion that childhood MMR vaccines cause autism was either misinterpreted or outright falsified. But for awhile, a lot of really smart folks accepted those conclusions because, yanno, science. Even other scientists. Then the media latched on and spread that info like wildfire, and now, 15 years later, people are dying from easily preventable disease because of it, and others still embrace those conclusions even after the fraud was exposed and humiliated like a bitch in the same news media that spread it.
I don’t understand how you can talk about the vaccines-autism scare in the context of this discussion and not come away even more impassioned about the need to hew to the scientific consensus.

The Wakefield fraud took place in 1998. It never enjoyed anything remotely approaching scientific consensus. Coauthors of the initial paper denied that there was evidence for a vaccine-autism link. Relevant scientific and health organizations loudly stressed that there was not good evidence for such a link, and issued numerous reports and public statements telling people to get their kids vaccinated. The scientific consensus was that vaccines did not cause autism. The consensus was reexamined in light of the (fraudulent as we later learned) supposed evidence, and then the consensus was reaffirmed (and very quickly at that).

So, we have a lone fraud on the one hand, and the scientific and medical communities on the other. One of them was correct. One of them was wrong. And this, to you, means that consensus is not to be trusted? That it has no value?

I have to say I don’t understand that at all.

Scientific consensus is not infallible. But it is the best approximation of reality available to us. In the absence of superior knowledge, it is where (IMO) practically-minded people (such as those in the preparedness community) place their qualified trust. And while our understanding of given subjects will unquestionably change, we are increasingly less "wrong" about the things we don't have exactly right.

I think I'll just sum up my thinking by re-stating this: I have my doubts that humanity is the largest factor in climate change, even though I do agree that we are a factor in climate change, simply because we still don't have the whole picture. And I highly suspect anyone who claims that we do. So I'll continue trying to reduce my carbon emissions through individual means (I think the concept of carbon credits is ridiculous and naive) while trying to get others to do the same.
vyadmirer wrote:Call me the paranoid type, but remember I'm on a post apocalyptic website prepared for zombies.
Fleet #: ZS 0180

Browncoat

Imma Fudd, and proud of it.

ZS Wiki

User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by ghostface » Sun Jul 28, 2013 12:58 am

DarkAxel,

Thanks for the civil discussion. I feel like I'm in a bit of a bind, because I am happy and supportive for your ultimate actions here, even though I feel like some of the things you're saying can indeed be answered by actual evidence. I don't want to seem like a nag or a scold who is more worried about demanding total agreement than whether or not someone is working to fix the problem (I care about the latter not the former).

At the same time, there may be people reading who might not know that we have successfully used pollution permit/credit trading in the past to tackle environmental problems, or that there is a pretty substantial body of evidence demonstrating that not only are humans responsible for the majority of recent warming, we're actually responsible for essentially all of it over the past several decades (and we can demonstrate this in a number of ways).

I will just leave it at this, for the time being- I am most grateful for the polite conversation, and I hope you don't come away feeling too hectored by my comments. And if others have questions or would like to see evidence for something I've stated, I am happy to reply to them rather than failing to "take yes as an answer" with regards to you. :D
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...

User avatar
DarkAxel
* * * * *
Posts: 3847
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:25 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: The Evil Dead Series, Dawn of the Dead, Shawn of the Dead, NOTLD, Resident Evil Series
Location: Jackson, KY
Contact:

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by DarkAxel » Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:35 am

ghostface wrote:DarkAxel,

Thanks for the civil discussion. I feel like I'm in a bit of a bind, because I am happy and supportive for your ultimate actions here, even though I feel like some of the things you're saying can indeed be answered by actual evidence. I don't want to seem like a nag or a scold who is more worried about demanding total agreement than whether or not someone is working to fix the problem (I care about the latter not the former).

At the same time, there may be people reading who might not know that we have successfully used pollution permit/credit trading in the past to tackle environmental problems, or that there is a pretty substantial body of evidence demonstrating that not only are humans responsible for the majority of recent warming, we're actually responsible for essentially all of it over the past several decades (and we can demonstrate this in a number of ways).

I will just leave it at this, for the time being- I am most grateful for the polite conversation, and I hope you don't come away feeling too hectored by my comments. And if others have questions or would like to see evidence for something I've stated, I am happy to reply to them rather than failing to "take yes as an answer" with regards to you. :D
No prob, Bob. I'm open to the idea that my doubts are unfounded. I'm still slogging through the science of it all, and I'm man enough to admit it if I'm wrong on things like this. Hell, I'm not a scientist. I don't even play one on TV, and I've never slept at a Holiday Inn except that one time in Florida. I've seen some shit, man! :lol: :lol: :lol:
vyadmirer wrote:Call me the paranoid type, but remember I'm on a post apocalyptic website prepared for zombies.
Fleet #: ZS 0180

Browncoat

Imma Fudd, and proud of it.

ZS Wiki

User avatar
Old_Man
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:16 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 days and weeks later, I am legend, the original dawn of the Dead...etc.
Location: NE Florida
Contact:

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by Old_Man » Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:03 am

The problem I have with the global discussion is the focus on CO2 ( anthro). CO2 isn't that great a holder of heat, water vapor on the other hand is (also a result of burning fossil fuels and other human activity), but I guess it is easier to get people worked up over CO2 that water vapor.
Temperature just isn't following CO2 like it has in the past... At least not in relation to temp in ice cores.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... e-plot.svg

Though glaciers are indeed melting, I think an ignored contributor is humans redirection or rain/wastewater runoff. As we remove vegetation and pave we also put in storm drains, which direct water to streams, rivers and the ocean much faster than if it was to be absorbed into the ground. This also adds a pollutant quality via the transportation of chemicals on roadways, pesticides and nutrient loading.

Of course the flip side is, higher CO2 levels and temperatures (greenhouse effect) does encourage vegetative growth...the basis for our food web. If we were cycling into the next ice age, the human loss would be far more massive than if we warm up. Dring the Jurassic, with massive bio levels and sizes, CO2 was almost 10 times higher and global temps roughly 10 deg C higher. Of course rapid change causes more chaos....not that the planet hasn't had massive rapid earth changing events in the past.

Too much coffee...shutting up....

User avatar
ghostface
* * * * *
Posts: 5808
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 8:14 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by ghostface » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:32 am

Old_Man wrote:The problem I have with the global discussion is the focus on CO2 ( anthro). CO2 isn't that great a holder of heat, water vapor on the other hand is (also a result of burning fossil fuels and other human activity), but I guess it is easier to get people worked up over CO2 that water vapor.
This is a very pervasive misconception about the relative roles of different types of greenhouse gases in the climate system. Is water vapor a powerful greenhouse gas? You bet! But water vapor acts as a feedback (i.e. it amplifies changes) rather than a forcing (i.e. driving changes). The reasons are pretty straightforward- 1) concentrations of water vapor are dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere, roughly following the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, and 2) as a consequence, water vapor's lifetime in the atmosphere absent changes in temperature is quite short. What this means in plainer English is that a warmer world can hold more water vapor in the atmosphere, and a colder world less, and any change in water vapor absent a change in temperature will result in water vapor levels rapidly (on the timescale of days) adjusting to the appropriate level for a given temperature. If you crank up water vapor on its own, it will simply rain out. If you could suck water vapor out of the atmosphere below levels commensurate with atmospheric temps, water vapor would evaporate out bodies of liquid water until they returned to normal.

On the other hand, if you jack up solar energy or increase "long-lived"/"non-condensing" greenhouse gases (like CO2, methane, CFCs, etc.) and cause warming, water vapor will increase as a consequence. This is why CO2 is the dominant greenhouse control of the atmosphere rather than water vapor, even though water vapor is indeed a more "effective" greenhouse gas (Lacis et al., 2010).
Temperature just isn't following CO2 like it has in the past... At least not in relation to temp in ice cores.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... e-plot.svg
Temperature and CO2 have become uncoupled because of the incredible rate at which we're currently emitting CO2. Temperature will follow, but it takes time. In the ice core record, changes are taking place on millennial timescales. In that context, our present increase has happened almost instantaneously. It takes time for the increase in energy from the increase in GHGs to warm the ocean which in turn warms the surface. On top of that, CO2 is not the only thing we have been emitting. Via a number of processes, but signficantly burning coal and biomass, we have also emitted a lot of aerosols, and these act to cool the Earth in the same way a large, tropical volcano does- by decreasing the amount of solar energy that makes it into the system.

If you account for aerosol dimming, and the time lag we expect due to the immense thermal inertia of the ocean, we are seeing the amount of warming given the increases in CO2 we expect from changes we see in the ice core record.
Though glaciers are indeed melting, I think an ignored contributor is humans redirection or rain/wastewater runoff. As we remove vegetation and pave we also put in storm drains, which direct water to streams, rivers and the ocean much faster than if it was to be absorbed into the ground.
While this is true, we have also sequestered an enormous amount of water in the form of dams and reservoirs, and the net effect of both processes is decidedly in favor of the latter.
Of course the flip side is, higher CO2 levels and temperatures (greenhouse effect) does encourage vegetative growth...the basis for our food web.


Yes and no. All things being equal, plants do better under somewhat elevated CO2 levels. However, in the real world CO2 is rarely the limiting factor in growth. So while we may expect to see a "fertilization effect" from increasing CO2 levels initially, we do not expect the effect to continue as we add ever increasing levels of CO2 to the atmosphere. Other limits, such as soil nutrients, will prevent that. Additionally, the climatic impacts of increasing CO2 levels, principally changes in heat and water stress will cancel out the benefit of increasing CO2 and eventually become a net negative for many plants in the long run. There is evidence that the climatic impact is already negatively effecting important agricultural crops despite the beneficial fertilization effect (Lobell et al., 2011).
If we were cycling into the next ice age, the human loss would be far more massive than if we warm up.


This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Glaciation cycling, which is driven by changes in orbital forcing (and feedbacks, including GHGs), takes place over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Ecosystems fare far better under gradual change than they do under abrupt change. In the absence of our emissions of GHGs, it is not as though we would be immediately plunged into a 4°C colder world and all of the negative consequences of that.

Rapid warming comes with its own consequences, including changes in temperature and precipitation extremes and spatial patterns, alteration of storm tracks, sea level rise, etc. We're not talking about trading beneficial warming for deletrious cooling. We're talking about trading rapid, negative warming with cooling so gradual as to be effectively unnoticeable for the thousands of years.
Dring the Jurassic, with massive bio levels and sizes, CO2 was almost 10 times higher and global temps roughly 10 deg C higher.


Actually, CO2 levels during the Mesozoic greenhouse intervals probably were not that high. Those estimates tend to come from flawed interpretations of proxies called paleosol carbonates, and failed to account for seasonality, biasing estimates of CO2 high by around a factor of two (Breecker et al., 2010). CO2 levels during the Jurassic were probably only around ~1000-1500ppm, which is comparable to what we're capable of reaching if we burn through the easily extractable fossil fuels and engage a moderate or strong carbon cycle feedback. And recall, this is something happening on the timescales of centuries rather than millions of years. Rapid changes in greenhouse gases in the geological record are associated with mass extinction events, the Permian-Triassic extinction and the Triassic-Jurassic extinctions were probably caused by geologically rapid CO2 and CH4 increases, and ensuing climatic change, due to the emplacement of flood basalts as Pangaea was rifting apart.
Of course rapid change causes more chaos....not that the planet hasn't had massive rapid earth changing events in the past.
Yes. The earth has experienced geologically rapid changes in the past, and these are associated with mass extinction events. Whether deliberately bringing such an event on rather than preventing it is a wise decision is up to individuals to decide.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own...

User avatar
jnathan
Meat Popsicle
Meat Popsicle
Posts: 1331
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by jnathan » Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:09 pm

For non-scientists, myself included, the best we seem to be able to do is to look for consensus among scientists who are educated and work in the field of climate science. If we look towards a single voice of authority (that is, one or two scientists), we fall victim to the logical fallacy of argument from authority.

In contrast to some other areas of science, it appears as though it's been difficult for climate scientists to look at one or two pieces of the strongest evidence upon which to base a theory. Instead, it seems as though they need to take a great deal of evidence into account and then formulate falsifiable hypotheses.

The idea being that theories will always have gaps, but over time for theories that haven't been falsified (disproven) the gaps shrink; which is one way of measuring progress. Another is that the peer-review process (including rebuttal) separates the wheat from the chaff so to speak. If you see science practiced by way of press release, the odds are that it's completely sidestepped this peer review process in which case the reliability of such science may be very low.

As for science reporters, if the story you're reading seems entirely credulous and not the least bit skeptical, I wouldn't consider it to be very reliable.

One source of information for us plebes is http://www.realclimate.org, a blog run by several climate scientists on their own time.

-Jeff
My name is Jeff, not Jonathan. Jonathan would fit...

ZSC:020 Chicagoland | How to search ZS | GHB

Image

User avatar
Dawgboy
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
Posts: 3072
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:35 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Shaun of the dead, Fido
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by Dawgboy » Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:46 pm

Another interesting read... Basically, this place is going to get more hot, and more wet, and people are going to get more violent...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142422.htm
shrapnel wrote:Dawgboy, please refrain from stirring shit for the sole purpose of stirring shit.
[ZS/]# .40/Pie/CERT/Wireless...
My homebrew stove kit
IMPROVED Solar Redneck Hot tub
Dawgvan
Chupa Chihuahua
GHB

User avatar
Boondock
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 2691
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:37 pm
Location: Chicagoland

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by Boondock » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:56 pm

Guess it's gonna be hot in a few years, according to this study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/scien ... .html?_r=0

User avatar
.milFox
* * *
Posts: 382
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:58 am

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by .milFox » Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:03 pm

I think that the focus on prediction, while relevant, is kind of misguided on an individual level. Or even on a societal level.

Given current trends, it's more likely that we should look at mitigation. Avoiding low lying areas (which, coincidentally, is great for the regular ole' heavy rain as well) in siting things, having supplies onhand so that disruptions, whether manmade, cyclical, whatever, are less impactful to us and ours, perhaps even a bit of independence from outside forces which also, incidentally, saves us resources in case it IS some sort of manmade effect and 'mandatory' measures are taken (in vain or not) to counteract those effects. Prep, not just with stockpiles, but with lifestyle changes that increase our independence and allows us options.

User avatar
phil_in_cs
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 11424
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:18 pm
Location: central tx

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by phil_in_cs » Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:01 am

Boondock wrote:Guess it's gonna be hot in a few years, according to this study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/10/scien ... .html?_r=0
I saw that, but that's quite different than the recent IPCC release which scaled back how much warming they expected. It's also focused on greenhouse emissions, which the IPCC deemphasized in the current reports.
Don't confuse a belligerent and aggressive attitude with the strength, training, and conditioning needed to prevail in a fight. How do you know you have the Will To Win, if you don't even have the will to train?

User avatar
Old_Man
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 824
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:16 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: 28 days and weeks later, I am legend, the original dawn of the Dead...etc.
Location: NE Florida
Contact:

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by Old_Man » Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:22 am

Not sure if this has anything to do with climate change..but something happened.
http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Sudd ... story.html
A $32-million commercial fishery has inexplicably and completely collapsed this year on the B.C. coast. The sardine seine fleet has gone home after failing to catch a single fish. And the commercial disappearance of the small schooling fish is having repercussions all the way up the food chain to threatened humpback whales.

User avatar
bgnad
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Tulsa, OK.
Contact:

Re:

Post by bgnad » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:00 pm

phil_in_cs wrote:When I was in high school 30 years ago, the 'Coming Ice Age' got almost as much press as 'Global Warming' does these days.
Yep, according to the accepted wisdom back in the 70's by now we would all be cannibals, living in the glaciers, out of oil, heat, food and overpopulated to the point of collapse.

Sound familiar? :?
====================================================================================
Brian "Bubba" Gnad
Zombie Squad Fleet Vehicle ZS-069

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to prosper." -Benjamin Franklin

John Ringo's "Black Tide Rising" series is now my favorite Zombie PAW Universe.

User avatar
bgnad
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Tulsa, OK.
Contact:

Re:

Post by bgnad » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:03 pm

Flying Lead wrote:Should I be up all night worrying about global warming or pissing my pants about the coming ice age?
Will someone please help me here??? :shock:
Yes.

:lol:
====================================================================================
Brian "Bubba" Gnad
Zombie Squad Fleet Vehicle ZS-069

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to prosper." -Benjamin Franklin

John Ringo's "Black Tide Rising" series is now my favorite Zombie PAW Universe.

User avatar
ineffableone
* * * * *
Posts: 3604
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:15 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Undead, Dead Alive/Braindead, Shaun of the Dead, Zombieland, 28 days, 28 Weeks Later, I Am Legend, Resident Evil franchise, Serenity (I would call Revers pretty damn zombie), Versus, Black Sheep
Location: Pac Northwest, East of the Cascades

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by ineffableone » Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:57 pm

A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970s (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions. Setting aside the logical flaws of such an ad hominem argument, was there any consensus among 70s climate scientists predicting global cooling?
Seriously, people still are using the argument "back in the 70's they said it would be an ice age"?
People do some research, it is not that hard. I will even help you with some place to start.

From http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... -1970s.htm
Image

For more info
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-19 ... oling.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/They-pr ... e-70s.html

Image
DarkAxel wrote: I see little difference between reducing use in energy derived from hydrocarbons and stocking a prepper's pantry. I don't see the difference between that and carbon emission or wildlife/plant-life conservation. Sane preppers put away goods, skills, and technology for inevitable disasters (personal/financial, natural, and mad-made) that they hope to pass on unneeded to their children and their children's children. I want my grand-kids to have as much as possible so they can have the best chance to survive and thrive. If we do our part to reduce our ecological and climatological impact, isn't that prepping against the possibility that you were wrong?

...

I think global climate change is something worth prepping for. Even if it is a natural cycle there has been a noticeable uptick in the intensity of climate-related disasters, and a lot of that no-carbon or low-carbon emission technology also makes life easier during and after disasters. It's also a hell of a lot more convenient when it comes to self-sufficient living.
This argument is very akin to the one put forward by the youtuber wanderingmind42 http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

Image

He did a series of videos explaining the cost analysis of doing nothing vs doing something

Starting with his video the most terrifying video you'll ever see


After putting out a few "patch" videos fixing issues brought up by people

He then went on to another video series How It All Ends which expanded the first video and incorporated the "patches" And is broken into many different segmented series.
"Once a man has seen society's black underbelly, he can never turn his back on it. Never pretend, like you do, that it doesn't exist"

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with ME!"


ZS Wiki ZS Acronyms

Gun Self Defense Counter

User avatar
phil_in_cs
ZS Member
ZS Member
Posts: 11424
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:18 pm
Location: central tx

Re: Global Cooling will kill us all!

Post by phil_in_cs » Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:34 am

ineffableone wrote:
A persistent argument designed to discredit the field of climate science is that scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s. So popular in fact that it ranks an impressive #7 in the most cited skeptic arguments. The logic goes that climate scientists got it completely wrong predicting global cooling in the 1970s (it started warming instead). Hence climate science can't be trusted about current global warming predictions. Setting aside the logical flaws of such an ad hominem argument, was there any consensus among 70s climate scientists predicting global cooling?
Seriously, people still are using the argument "back in the 70's they said it would be an ice age"?
People do some research, it is not that hard. I will even help you with some place to start.

From http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age ... -1970s.htm
Image
As today, most people see science in popular media, not in science journals. Problems come when those diverge widely, and policy makers take advantage of popular perceptions to push their own agendas.
Don't confuse a belligerent and aggressive attitude with the strength, training, and conditioning needed to prevail in a fight. How do you know you have the Will To Win, if you don't even have the will to train?

Post Reply

Return to “Disasters in Current Events”