Congress to slash funding for Global Warming research at NASA

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Kittamaru, Feb 21, 2017.

  1. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Looking at just a few decades is very myopic. It is often useful to zoom out and look at the larger picture. In the last 20k years sea level has risen somewhere around 120 meters. That is a fact that is often skipped in these discussions. It does not deny global warming but it puts the effects of sea level rise in perspective. People tend to think that sea level is a static thing. It isn't.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    On even larger time scales of millions of years sea level moves around as much as 400 meters. An interesting fact is that 20k years ago you could walk across the English Channel.
     
    sculptor and Syne like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,164
    The thousands of adaptations that must now occur all have their own maximum rates. Some will keep up. Others won't. The faster the alteration, the fewer that will keep up.

    We find rapid and laggard adaptations in the records of things like meteor strikes, volcanos, severe natural events in restricted regions (see the Younger Dryas, that sculptor keeps linking as a global event), modern regions of rapid environmental change, and so forth. Science.
    Correlation, plus mechanism, plus observation of mechanism in action, plus generated hypotheses confirmed, plus contradiction of alternative hypotheses, does imply causation.
    Yes. That's why it was promoted and established in the public discussion by paid, professional, rightwing corporat media efforts.

    It was taken up by the Republican punditry and campaign media operations under the recommendation of Frank Luntz, to replace the scarier term "global warming" in Republican media punditry and political campaigns, for example;

    - with the deliberate intention of helping denialists to use it for dissembling and obscuring as you are doing right here,

    - by the recommendation of the corporate marketing expert and Republican campaign advisor Frank Luntz.

    You can see, in the widespread adoption of the term, the direct influence of rightwing propaganda operations on American public discourse.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Where's the predictions that these changes will be faster than adaptation? Most I've seen show small changes over many decades...exactly what adaptation responds to.
    So...correlation, plus correlated mechanism, plus observation of correlated mechanism, plus hypothesis of correlation, plus nothing better....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    That's hypothesis, not cause. Considering climate science will never be able to remove confounding variables, there's little reason to believe it even can determine definite causation.
    Really? Maybe you should go correct NASA:
    Or maybe just not get your talking points from Slate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sculptor likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,164
    Check out the scientific literature on the topic. Since you are apparently completely new and uninformed in this famous, much-discussed, and currently researched matter, maybe start with some kind of overview like this 2012 publication: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr285/rmrs_gtr285_048_059.pdf
    There is an extensive literature list at the end, and exploring it will lead you to more recent findings by the researchers in the field.

    No. This is a science forum, familiarity with the classic structure of scientific research and discovery is assumed, to some degree, here: correlation, mechanism, mechanism generated hypotheses, research verification of mechanism generated hypotheses, repeated enough times to settle questions of evidence etc, establishes "cause". It's called "science". It has an excellent track record.
    In science the criteria are preponderance of evidence, and removal of reasonable doubt. In this way confounding variables are handled by research and reason. For example, the influence of the changes in the luminosity of the sun on global atmospheric temperature has been investigated - that variable thereby ceased to confound the investigation into the current global warming, and was instead incorporated into the body of theory and knowledge.
    It's you who objected to the term. Nobody needs "correcting" according to me.
    NASA has their reasons, and they make sense for such scientific organizations - meanwhile, I posted on why "climate change" was adopted by the mainstream media. It's because Frank Luntz recommended it to the rightwing media operations and Republican politicians to aid in their dishonesty and bs (as it aided your posting) and their influence on US public discourse is dominant in such matters. You've seen the links, etc, and if they slipped your mind there's always Google.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Really? Plants? Plants that will migrate or die off, being replaced by species that thrive on higher concentrations of CO2.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Extinction has a natural role in evolution:
    The sudden disappearance of plants and animals that occupy a specific habitat creates new opportunities for surviving species. Over many generations of natural selection, these lineages and their descendent lineages may evolve specializations suited to the newly freed up resources and may take over ecological roles previously held by other species, or may evolve brand new ecological strategies. - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/massextinct_04
    It's not the end of the world.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And most animal species are more than capable of adapting to the predicted rate of change.
    Cite a credible source for your assertion. Those do not establish cause, only a confidence in findings. Do you even know the difference between a fact and a finding?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    In climate science, the first problem is temporal order, where the CO2 supposedly driving the warming increases after the warming. And then establishing that ANY climate cause is not spurious is nigh impossible.
    The first thing to remember with causality, especially in the non-physical sciences, is that it is impossible to establish complete causality.

    However, the magical figure of 100% proof of causality is what every researcher must strive for, to ensure that a group of their peers will accept the results. The only way to do this is through a strong and well-considered experimental design, often containing pilot studies to establish cause and effect before plowing on with a complex and expensive study.
    - https://explorable.com/cause-and-effect
    If you really understood science, you'd already know that causation is notoriously difficult to establish, even for systems simpler than climate which do lend themselves to actual experimental testing.
    And you naively seem to believe that the climate is a simple enough system to isolate and eliminate ALL confounding variables.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    If it were, you wouldn't have to tout the "99% of scientists" appeal to authority so much.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Where? Straw man much?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Nah, you're parroting a leftist source with any substantiation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,134
    Agreed. If you want to see massive extinctions, then continue to emit CO2 as rapidly as possible. After all, a mass extinction cleared out the dinosaurs to make way for mammals; perhaps this next extinction will clear the way for the next dominant form of life. And who are we to stand in their way?
    NASA is a leftist source? Well, I can see that; they do science, and science is an evil leftist plot to make people stop smoking, eat less fat, exercise more, get vaccinations and drive more efficient cars.
    Right. That's why no scientists accept gravity, evolution or the Big Bang theory - because all those things lack 100% proof of causality.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,164
    They're going to migrate away from the CO2? The CO2 will cause them to die off? WTF?
    Never mind.
    Whatever: that's called failure to adapt. That's called major wave of extinctions.
    It's the end of many species of plants - and of course the animals that depend on them. As well as the animals that can neither handle or escape the rate of change of their environment. And all the plants and animals that depend on them, in turn.
    Among the findings with established confidence are what we term "causes".
    There aren't that many capable of explaining the current global warming. Remember, you not only have to account for the temperature trends, you would have to account for the lack of influence by the measured CO2 boost. The possible explanatory variables anyone has thought of are quite few, and they've been checked out.
    In your post, just as I quoted you. And that's not what straw man means - yet another term you use wrongly.
    No, I'm not. If you have decided to pretend to forget the two or three times I linked various records for you, you can easily Google for yourself - it's not a secret. Just Google 'Frank Luntz climate change'.
     
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Nope.
    Apparently you missed his claim of "I posted on why "climate change" was adopted by the mainstream media."
    Accepted finding are not proven cause. Scientists know this. They accept THAT gravity, etc. occur, and admit they don't know the ultimate causes. It's called intellectual honesty, mate.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,164
    It's called you pretending you don't know what the word "cause" means, and trying to slide in "ultimate cause" for purposes of muddle. And then yapping about intellectual honesty.

    Your argument, btw, fails either way - if CO2 is no more the "cause" of global warming than gravity is the "cause" of dropped things falling to the floor, it is no less either. And we were talking about the mainstream media, remember?
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,134
    Incorrect. They know the causes of evolution - mutation and natural selection. They accept that, even though they cannot prove it 100%. They know that mass attracts mass and thus causes gravity. They do not claim "there's no proof of any of that! Sure, mass seems to attract mass, but you can't prove it's gravity! It might be angels pushing us down to the Earth. There's no CONSENSUS!" They know that the universe was created by a singular event that we even today see the remnants of. They do not claim that since we don't even have the tools to figure out what happened in the first 10e-43 seconds of the universe, that therefore there is no way to know how the universe got here.

    Fortunately, most scientists are not anything like climate change deniers.
     
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Most plants have a habitable temperature and seasonal variance range, and plants that have a wider range will thrive where other don't. All plants like CO2.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No predictions claim a fast enough change to be much impact on animal life, and as already shown, extinction is a natural mechanism of evolution.
    So no credible source, huh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Bare assertion in lieu of argument.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Show where or be proven a liar.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So a pollster duped the public? You know, instead of a pollster finding what the public already thought.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,164
    As you agreed - we see a major wave of extinctions incoming.
    They all do. Every single prediction is of a rate of change in the climate with severe enough impact on animal life to boost the extinction rate by an order of magnitude.
    For starters, merely the plant extinctions and habitat disruptions you have stipulated will do that all by themselves - animals depend on those plants and habitats.
    Post #82. Why does everyone else have to keep track of your posting for you?
    You claim so many "confounding variables" no one will ever know what happened. That bare assertion is false. Mine is true. You can demonstrate otherwise by providing examples of such confounding variables - you claim many: name a few.

    Hell, name one.
    Your claim of no substantiation was false - as you have been shown now five times. Google 'Frank Luntz climate change'.
     
  16. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Cite one. I haven't stipulated anything, just granted the premise for sake of discussion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Climate has always changed. I agree, and I have no problem with the phrase itself. Its triviality actually stands in contrast to the CAGW alarmists.
    If CO2 is the supposed driver of global warming, but CO2 lags warming, there could be any number of unknown variables responsible for both or mediating the interaction between the two. While ocean heat sink may help explain the recent warming hiatus, which was long denied, it doesn't explain the historic trend, and even accounting for the age differences of air bubbles in ice cores still only narrows the lag to about 200 years.
    And these are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Leftist sources all. The fact is that the advise was derived from existing public opinion...found by a pollster.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,164
    And that is the reason Lunz recommended the media propagandists and AGW deniers use that term - so people like you could conceal their dishonesty (or stupidity, dunno which) behind the vague term.
    The modern CO2 boost is not lagging the warming it is causing. Neither did the past CO2 boost lag the warming it caused - you are confused about the indicated timelines of the past, in which the CO2 boost did not trigger warmings but rather amplified them.
    None of which you - or anybody - can name, describe, or locate. Because nobody can think of anything that would explain the current warming except the CO2 boost.

    Meanwhile, you still have to account for the CO2 boost - if it isn't warming the planet, why not? It certainly should be. You not only have to find these mythical "confounding variables" you need, you also have to explain what's preventing the CO2 from having the effects it should have according to basic physics.
    They're all fictional. The hiatus, the lags, the whole scene is made up. Try thinking based on physical reality.
    Nonsense. Pick your own. You wanted substantiation, there it is.
    Irrelevant (as well as false - marketing surveys and focus groups are not "polls"). Luntz was correct - using "climate change" in the mass media allows rightwing and Republican public figures to conceal their denial of physical fact and the risks of their irresponsible policies behind what you accurately noted was more vague and manipulable terminology. And that correct recommendation was adopted by the rightwing corporate media who pay Lunz for his services, and that adoption is the primary reason we have "climate change" as the term.

    And that's why we have to put up with fuckwits who say things like "the climate is always changing", and part of how we get their favored politicians dinging around in Congress with real life influence on real life policy and not the common sense God gave a gopher - an animal that will routinely dig a couple safety holes in addition to the main entrance, and not bitch about the cost.
     
  18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Sure, buddy. Whatever you say.
    If CO2 only amplifies an existing warming, what initially prompted the warming? Seems CO2 isn't the ultimate cause after all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Who has disputed that greenhouse gasses contribute to warming?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Seems the only things disputed are the sources, their contributions, and the degree of alarm warranted.
    We've found that the oceans may work as a heat sink and that plants absorb more CO2 than models accounted for...leading to significant predictive discrepancies. These and other potential mechanisms are confounding variables (which you conveniently failed to quote from my post

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).
    Science denier. The hiatus, and to some extent the CO2 lag) has been hypothesized to be due to the oceans working as heat sinks, verified by a rise in ocean temperatures. Look it up. You even admit that CO2 lags warming, since CO2 can only boost what warming has already occurred. Look up "boost" in a dictionary.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It's humorous how often you say facts are irrelevant.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    29,164
    CO2 boosting warms the globe by trapping more heat from sunlight. Because CO2 traps heat, boosting it causes global warming. If there is an existing warming trend, it will add to it and amplify it. If there isn't, it warms on its own.
    It doesn't matter what boosts it, whether there is an existing warming trend, etc - it behaves the same no matter how it got into the air.
    There was no hiatus. A rise in ocean temperatures is not a hiatus in global warming, it is a continuation of global warming. Oceans are part of the globe.
    There has been no lag.
    The oceans act as a "heat sink" by warming up. That's called global warming. It's a consequence of the CO2 boost - nothing else explains the warming of the oceans we have measured.

    Plant absorption of CO2 does not change the measured CO2 boost, or alter the greenhouse effect of it, or prevent global warming from it. That is not an explanatory variable at all, let alone a "confounding one", for the current warming trend that CO2 explains and nothing else explains.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2017
  20. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Yet CO2 lags warming.
    The oceans actually warm much slower than the atmosphere, so you would have to demonstrate a sudden increase in the rate of ocean warming to account for the atmosphere warming hiatus. Yet:

    You also seem to be confusing lag and hiatus. They are not the same things.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,781
    So what?
     
  22. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    If you don't see any problem with the cause of something lagging it (wrong direction fallacy), I certainly can't help you.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,134
    Not this time. Dinosaurs didn't drive cars, so for them, CO2 was a positive feedback - not an initiating event.
     

Share This Page