Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Not from concentrate.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Global Warming Convincer

Start with a bunch of modified microwave ovens...
  (+1, -5)
(+1, -5)
  [vote for,

This Idea has the purpose of targeting someone who claims Global Warming isn't a real thing. I might point out that arguments pro and con, on that subject, have been compared to Religious arguments (thus the chosen category for this Idea). We start by observing that person's "routine". Then we buy a few thousand microwave ovens, and disassemble them somewhat. We want to convert each one into a parabolic microwave-beam generator, that looks like an ordinary satellite TV dish. We place these ovens at various places and distances from the target's normal path of motion, and turn them on.

Each oven generates a beam that will weaken with distance. This is fine, and part of the reason why we locate them at reasonable distances from the target. The goal, however, is to ensure the target is always being beamed-at by a multitude of these modified ovens.

We all know that water makes up a large portion of the human body, and microwave ovens are specifically designed to generate electromagnetic waves that can be easily absorbed by water molecules. Our target will therefore become somewhat warmer than normal.

It won't matter what the outside temperature is, or how cold an air conditioning system is set, as long as the target is getting beamed by multiple modified ovens, extra warmth will be experienced by the target.

The final step is to make sure that the target is told that Global Warming is a real thing, and everyone will be affected by it sooner or later. Indeed, some might be affected sooner than others....

After the target has become convinced that Global Warming is indeed a real thing, perhaps some of the ovens can be repurposed, and aimed at a different target who needs to be similarly educated. But some of them should remain focused on the original target, just to ensure that person's mind doesn't change again.

Vernon, Nov 11 2016

Apparently lobsters can't deal with high water levels http://www.pressher...vive-ocean-warming/
[theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016]

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch http://response.res...cience-vs-myth.html
[theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016]

Our genes are already changing! http://www.ibtimes....ing-climate-1591112
[theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016]

Some Data http://phys.org/new...spheric-co2.html#ms
Historical data, and our ability to measure ancient stuff, are two different things. [Vernon, Nov 11 2016]

I think we've seen this before... https://xkcd.com/1732/
[RayfordSteele, Nov 11 2016]

Recent Month by Month Temperature Data http://www.ncdc.noa.../sotc/global/201606
Average global temperature is definitely on an upward trend. [Vernon, Nov 13 2016]

NASA graph of CO2 concentration over the millenia http://climate.nasa...2-graph-021116.jpeg
[FlyingToaster, Nov 13 2016]

Ice Ages data http://muller.lbl.g...ory_of_climate.html
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 14 2016]

Measuring atmospheric transparancy http://www.atmosphe...ent-techniques.net/
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 14 2016]

Opposition to the Clean Air Act http://www.ucsusa.o...t.html#.WCnJXC0rKw4
As mentioned in an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 14 2016]

A pretty well-supported list of >1300 peer-reviewed papers that disagree with anthropogenic climate change. http://www.populart...ers-supporting.html
Organization of Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve Climate Change [MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2016, last modified Nov 15 2016]

A who's who of the skeptics and believers http://www.eecg.uto...e/list_sources.html
[RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016]

Biased but interesting http://www.desmogbl...und-latest-petition
[RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016]

Top 10 Nostradamus Predictions for 2016 http://alexnoudelma...edictions-for-2016/
Aparently also prophesied in 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2016 [Voice, Nov 15 2016]

A correlation http://time.com/448...l-moon-earthquakes/
The recent "supermoon" perhaps triggered the 7.8 jolt in New Zealand? This link was inspired by an annotation. [Vernon, Nov 15 2016]

Latest GW news https://www.theguar...r-on-record-un-says
15 of the hottest years EVER happened in the time period 2000-2015, and 2016 is on track to set a new record. [Vernon, Nov 16 2016]

Eh hem... http://www.msn.com/...Bnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP
[RayfordSteele, Jan 05 2017]


       Too much rant, not enough idea.
Voice, Nov 11 2016

       We have no problem with the fact that your planet's average temperature is rising.   

       We do have a problem with the unproven assertion that the change is exclusively anthropogenic.
8th of 7, Nov 11 2016

       Vernon, the issue is ultimately not warming, or the correctness of the models -- how's Tuesday's results for reliable statistical modeling, btw?   

       The issue is ultimately prioritization, and the relative, absurd weight being put on this versus what energy provides, and, refusal to accept that when the appropriate tech actually gets there, the drop in fossil fuel use will be so fast as to make any of the current "gestures" irrelevant.
theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016

       What we don't understand is that if your species is so concerned about atmospheric CO2, why don't you just shut down a bunch of your planet's volcanoes ? They're a major source, and you wouldn't have to worry about switching energy supply.
8th of 7, Nov 11 2016

       gotta laugh... well, not me, I'm human... but the fact that most of the emphasis on denial - right in the face of solid evidence - consists of "not me, I din't do it, you can't prove it", like a) it actually matters what's causing it, wouldn't you want to stop it ?, and b) some superior being's gonna show up and give us hell (ha) for it, and somehow that superior being is too stupid to recognize bullshit.
FlyingToaster, Nov 11 2016

       it doesn't matter what's causing it. What matters is there are 7B people on the planet, all of whom did not request to be born, and a tiny fraction of whom -- mostly those who oppose global warming -- lives better than any Roman emperor might have imagined -- and the rest, who would really love some fucken heat and air conditioning.   

       That all political propaganda weapons are used for denial -- just as they are used for support, (see lobster link) is even less surprising then the shocking realization that we didn't really have a war on women until Trump showed up, and McCain and Romney were kind of ok guys after all.   

       I mean lobsters, for fucks sake -- arthropods that evolved 600 Mil years ago, and survived multiple impacts, ice ages and snowball earth, are threatened by global warming.
theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016

       Perhaps I should have mentioned that manhy naysayers basically suffer from the problem of "parochialism". They think that if Global Warming doesn't appear to be happening locally, then it isn't actually happening elsewhere (can't embrace concepts of GLOBAL and AVERAGE). So, this Idea tries to make the experiencing of warming "up close and personal", to compensate for that parochialism.   

       [8th of 7], look up how many tons of chlorocarbons were associated with the anthropogenic "ozone hole" -- and then look up the total number of tons of carbon dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere. That second number is at least *half*a*million*times* as much as the first number. How is it possible for anyone to think that that much CO2 cannot have an effect upon the atmosphere, considering how little it took to make the ozone hole?
Vernon, Nov 11 2016

       There was a great quote that Peter Thiel used about Trump -- he said people in the establishment were taking him literally, but not seriously, and the people that voted for him took him seriously, but not literally.   

       We'll see how that plays out ultimately, but Vernon: don't you understand they are not denying it. They are denying the govt. the power to dictate to them. Denial is a weapon, the only weapon they have left.   

       You want to fix that? Figure out how to get coal workers jobs, they'll stop denying it.
theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016

       The amount of fluorocarbons needed to make the ozone hole has fuck all to do with the amount of CO2 needed to warm the globe.
Voice, Nov 11 2016

       When Eyjafjallajökull erupted, it emitted far less CO2 than the airplanes it grounded would have had they been flying. Therefore, triggering many volcanic eruptions could help slow global warming. Also, all of the ash they put in the atmosphere could cause some cooling (like the Year Without a Summer).
notexactly, Nov 11 2016

       We need fewer jobs. Millions of makework jobs need to go away and be replaced with welfare fed by an efficient market. Either the people who believe in technological unemployment are wrong, in which case the market will find new work for them or they're right in which case at least the government won't be poking its dirty fingers into the economic pie.
Voice, Nov 11 2016

       you'll get there with basic income within 30 years, I would guess
theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016

       How can any thinking, scientifically minded person say that the attached article is anything but pure, unadulterated nonsense.   

       Apart from the fact that genes -- like climate -- are always changing -- it is this nonsensical propaganda to those who understand genetics just about as well as they understand meteorology, so they can bully everyone else into submission that drives everyone on the opposing side nuts.
theircompetitor, Nov 11 2016

       // How is it possible for anyone to think that that much CO2 cannot have an effect upon the atmosphere, considering how little it took to make the ozone hole? //   

       1. Chlorofluorocarbons are an artificial product, which never previously existed on your planet in significant quantities.   

       Your argument is fallacious; it could be phrased as "Since it only took X amount of cyanogen to kill the subject, dimethylhydrazine must be just as toxic, as it too is a compound of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen"   

       2. We are not asserting that anthropogenic CO2 has no effect. We are questioning how much of an effect it has, compared to all other natural sources.   

       3. Your planet is billions of your years old. Your accurate written records cover at best 300 years. Evidence from geological sources clearly demonstrate that 10 millennia ago, there was extensive glaciation.   

       We ask again: where is the evidence ? The timescale is much too short to be meaningful on a planetary scale.
8th of 7, Nov 11 2016

       8th, see link.
RayfordSteele, Nov 11 2016

       What [LimpNotes] said.   

       The link is interesting, but:   

       The x-axis is not linear. On the left, 700,000 years. On the right, 200 years, or 0.03% of the timespan. The historic data is inferred from other sources. There are substantial error bars.   

       // despite decades of progress, the number is still subject to uncertainty ... Our results imply ... Using these estimates... The researchers project .... range of estimates ... human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are likely ... //   

       Not lot of certainty there. We expect "conclusive" or "beyond reasonable doubt" or "indisputably".   

       If a hammer is dropped on your planet today, the probability of it accelerating at 9.81m/s2 is .99999; if a hammer is dropped tomorrow, the probability of it accelerating at 9.81m/s2 is .99999; if a hammer is dropped in 2116CE, the probability of it accelerating at 9.81m/s2 is .99999.   

       Climatologists can't even say if next month is going to be warm or cold. When they can do that, we might start to consider listening to their longer term predictions.   

       Mere accumulation of observational evidence is not proof.
8th of 7, Nov 11 2016

       Polar icecap maps go back 150 years, available on the 'net.   

       But not to worry: eventually our telescopes will spot a planet-killer asteroid headed our way; and the deniers can say "Hey, we didn't put it there, it's not our problem".
FlyingToaster, Nov 11 2016

       // 150 years //   

       Wow, that's a huge data set ... not.   

       // our telescopes will spot a planet-killer asteroid //   

       No, they won't - we've stuck a big "stealth" shroud, coated with platinum black, on the front. Its albedo is virtually nil across the whole e-m spectrum.   

       We're going to let it get uncomfortably close before we detach it. Oh, how we will laugh ...   

       // the deniers can say "Hey, we didn't put it there, it's not our problem". //   

       Thankyou for proving our point. Confidence factor that said object will strike your planet: 0.6 or better. Conclusion: serious problem, take action.   

       Anthropogenic climate change: confidence factor .... errr ... um... anybody ?   

       Where is the PROOF ?
8th of 7, Nov 11 2016

       [8th], you should know by now that a religion needs no proof. In fact, the less proof there is, the stronger the conviction.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 11 2016

       No, there's reasonable evidence that it's correct: but it was a rather small eruption from a modestly-sized volcano.   

       Hekla is HUGE, and counting down to a Big One ... though it doesn't need to be a VEI8 eruption to throw out a lot of CO2. Huyaputina in Peru is a medium-sized "puffer" but it goes pretty much all the time. There are plenty of vents like that, and their collective emissions dwarf human efforts.
8th of 7, Nov 11 2016

       //their collective emissions dwarf human efforts.// You have clearly never spent time in a combined space with Sturton.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 11 2016

       All we need is one world-capacity air conditioner and one world-capacity heater. The air conditioner would transfer heat to space-facing radiative vanes.
Voice, Nov 12 2016

       So, Vernon. Your posted plan to show those people who believe that Global Warming is a hoax and a fraud that it is indeed real, is to construct a hoax and a fraud?
AusCan531, Nov 12 2016

       So it would seem.   

       What about those who do not believe that global warming is a fraud and a hoax, but are just not convinced by the theories and evidence presented ?   

       Theory: A very long time ago, there were huge lizard-like creatures living on this planet. Evidence: Identifiable petrified remains of huge lizard-like creatures are regularly found in rocks that are proven to be very old.   

       Theory: Vesuvius will erupt within 25 years Evidence: Historical and geologic records show that Vesuvius erupts on average every 55 years. Vesuvius last erupted 70 years ago.   

       Theory: The Red Sox will score 30 points in the first 15 minutes of their next game. Evidence: They scored 2 points in the last minute of their previous game ...
8th of 7, Nov 12 2016

       The main problem with "global warming" is that the theory has been adjusted repeatedly to fit the evidence, but at no stage has predicted what will happen next.   

       Nobody predicted - when global warming was a novel idea - that there would be long pauses without warming. But, now that there's been a long pause, the theory has been adapted to account for it. Nobody predicted that some places would actually get colder but, now that it's happened, the theory has been adapted to account for it. Nobody predicted that some glaciers would grow, or that polar ice might sometimes expand as well as recede - but those have now been incorporated into the theory.   

       I tell you, it is pathological science on a vast scale. It's sickening.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 12 2016

       // at no stage has predicted what will happen next. //   

       ... which is irrelevant.   

       The important question is not "Are average planetary temperatures changing ?". The important question is "Are average planetary temperatures changing as a result of human activity ?".   

       What makes climatology exempt from the critical analysis to which any theory based on a short-term observation of an extremely large, chaotic, multivariant system should be subjected ?   

       Of course, the great advantage of an extremely big data set is that large portions of it can be discarded until what remains confirms with the hypothesis, while still retaining a generous enough sample to be convincing.
8th of 7, Nov 12 2016

       [8th], we appear to be in agreement. Should I change my opinion, or will you?
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 12 2016

       [AusCan531], the Idea involves actual warming. There is no fraud in that. Nor is there any fraud in recent averages of global temperatures, rising practically every month. See link
Vernon, Nov 13 2016

       "Human history is the story of limited resources that have competing uses".   

       // Nor is there any fraud in recent averages of global temperatures, rising practically every month. //   

       No, no fraud there.   

       Can anyone prove what's causing it ?
8th of 7, Nov 13 2016

       In a couple years we can probably blame Trump.   

       //Can anyone prove what's causing it ?//   

       The output of a few billion automobiles and massive deforestation are generally considered to be decent clues.   

       The actual calculations aren't too difficult, either. (A bit beyond yours truly, but I can see them even if I can't do them)   

       - does anthro carbon energy usage, and deforestation, account for 225ppm-->400ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ? Y/N   

       - what effect does near doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere have on its heat absorption and reflection properties.   

       - how much heat is then being absorbed by the planet (which is a known percentage of ice, water and rock at the surface, and rock under that, also being warmed from within)   

       But hey, it might turn out to be the Moon getting closer to the Earth or something and stirring things up gravitationally.
FlyingToaster, Nov 13 2016

       //The output of a few billion automobiles// Number check: current world automobile population is about 1.2 billion.   

       //what effect does near doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere have on its heat absorption and reflection properties. //   

       Actually, saying "near doubling" is bamboozle. It's like saying that humanity is doomed because deaths from spear-fishing accidents have doubled. Water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. CO2, even at its present levels (which are less than 50% above pre-industrial levels, not double), makes a relatively small contribution to the earth's heat balance.   

       If global warming weren't a religion, we might actually be able to do something about it. But it is, and so we won't. Both sides make up numbers and science to suit their beliefs.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 13 2016

       //less than 50% above pre-industrial levels// oh, well that's okay then.   

       <link> CO2 chart going back a million years - how long before it actually *is* "double" ?   

       //water vapour// which concentration will increase, the hotter the planet gets. Also methane, also hydrogen (which will increase as we use it more).   

       Also, one-shot deals but probably massive ones, clathrates from a warming ocean and decomposition from warmed up tundrae.   

       Oh, and given the huge energy transferred in phase change, a melted polar icecap removes the buffering "lake effect" off the top of the world.   

       I still think we should nuke Antarctica for a short-term partial mitigation.
FlyingToaster, Nov 13 2016

       //humanity is doomed because deaths from spear-fishing accidents have doubled//   

       Finally, the word is getting out.   

       //If global warming weren't a religion, we might actually be able to do something about it. But it is, and so we won't.//   

       Ask a true believer about addressing the problem by increasing the use of nuclear power plants and watch how they get that look on their face like a dog gets when you hide his ball behind your back. The neat thing about the nuclear option (the good kind of nuclear option) is that it would be advantageous even burning coal and oil were the best thing ever for the environment.
doctorremulac3, Nov 13 2016


       The most important discoveries are made through science. The most important inventions are made through technology. The most important decisions are made through superstition.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 13 2016

       //<link> CO2 chart going back a million years // Well, your chart only goes back half a million years, but that's a minor detail. I wonder why they cut it off at half a million years ago?   

       I guess my point is that the physics simply doesn't support the idea that an increase in CO2 concentrations of 0.025% (ie, from 250ppm to 500ppm, which we ain't at yet) will have any significant effect on the earth's energy budget. And although the climate is currently warming (or has been until recently, give or take the odd pause; and give or take the effect of urbanization of many of the points at which reference temperatures are recorded), the current fluctuations are nothing unusual when set against the historical record. And the current changes don't correlate with changes in CO2 levels anyway.   

       The point is, there is no science in "climate science", and there hasn't been since it became a religion and declared anyone else a heretic. If it were a clinical trial, it would be laughed out of court in under half an hour.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 13 2016

       //Can anyone prove what's causing it?//   

       Yes. As an object in space, the Earth both receives and radiates energy. Whenever the rates of the two things are balanced, global average temperature is constant. Whenever they are unbalanced, global average temperature either rises or falls.   

       Since we observe a warming trend, the conclusion is inescape-able, that the Earth isn't radiating energy at the rate energy arrives (regardless of source; consider nuclear fission power plants, totally independent of the stored-solar-energy releasing system known as the "fossil fuel industry").   

       Of course, the above is a bit simplistic in that it doesn't include any barriers to the reception of energy (clouds in the daytime) or the emission of energy (clouds at night). We've discovered that "greenhouse gases" are another type of barrier (allowing light-energy to arrive while inhibiting the escape of infrared energy).   

       We all know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I already mentioned that we've dumped at least half a million times as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we ever dumped the chlorocarbons that caused the ozone hole. I might mention something apparently overlooked so far in this page, that the concrete-production industry makes millions of tons of the stuff every year, and the production process involves heating limestone to release CO2, an entirely separate source of the gas, different from burning carbon.   

       About that "half a million times", I simply asked how anyone could possibly think that all that CO2 could have absolutely no effect whatsoever --and various deniers here appear to be saying exactly that. Possibly because to admit that if all that CO2 had even a tiny global-warming effect, then that tiny effect absolutely positively certainly would qualify as "anthropogenic global warming" --which is NOT what I talked about in the main text of this Idea. I was talking about Generic Global Warming, and the deniers of THAT, and how to convince them otherwise.
Vernon, Nov 13 2016

       But "generic" global warming, i.e. a rise in planetary average temperature as a result of entirely natural processes, is irellevant, because it's outside the control of your species' puny technology - and therefore not worth worrying about.   


       Atmospheric CO2 has risen substantially as a result of fossil fuel use.   

       Average temperatures have risen correspondingly, there being a clear correlation between the two measurements.   

       Let us consider a potential countervailing process:   

       Oceanic CO2 rises. Ocean temperatures also rise. This encourages a massive increase in algal blooms and phytoplankton. Things that eat phytoplankton and algae, like zooplankton, correspondingly increase. Both these processes can happen very quickly as the life cycle of both types is fast. Some zooplankton sequester carbon to construct their exoskeleton; other creatures that feed on them also sequester carbon. Zooplankton and their predators then die, and their insoluble carbonaceous residue descends to the ocean floor, where it remains. This strips carbon from solution - potentially in vast quantities.   

       All it needs is the system to reach a "tipping point".   

       We are not, repeat not, suggesting that plankton will reverse the temperature rise. We are merely asking if there may be a mechanism that abruptly reverses the trend, plunging your planet into a new ice age, as suggested in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" ... which will require a slight rethink by climatologists.
8th of 7, Nov 13 2016

       It wasn't our fault ... we told them to fix it ...
8th of 7, Nov 13 2016

       // But "generic" global warming, i.e. a rise in planetary average temperature as a result of entirely natural processes//   

       NOT. The word "generic" doesn't care what the cause might be. It encompasses any and all causes.   

       //But "generic" global warming ... is ... outside the control of your species' puny technology//   

       Wrong again. Since it is *known* that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it logically follows that the more CO2 in the air, the greater its contribution to Generic Global Warming, regardless of how small that contribution might be. And, ditto with methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (and mostly produced by bovine digestive tracts). In either case, adding more of the gas to the atmosphere can only help average global temperature rise, not fall. Therefore it logically follows that we should add less. The logic is very simple.   

       The entire argument of AGW deniers is that the atmosphere can absorb endless amounts of CO2 and methane with zero consequences. That is a stupidity reminiscent of earlier decades when it was claimed that the atmosphere could absorb endless amounts of SO2 and other pollutants, with zero consequences. Acid rain and smog and the ozone hole proved it was stupid then, and ocean acidification (causing coral reefs to die) proves the deniers are still espousing stupidity today.   

       Ice ages are associated with astronomical configurations (see link). It is quite possible that modern Global Warming is actually preventing the start of the next Ice Age (average interglacial periods have been a few thousand years, and our current interglacial has passed 10,000 years). This means we need to be careful about how we go about reining-in Global Warming. If we can avoid World War 3 for about 50 more years, then our presence in near-Earth space should make it possible to control the Earth's average temperature with "solar sail" mirrors and sunshades. Then, except for ocean acidification, it won't matter too much how much CO2 and methane is in the atmosphere --and it won't matter how little there is, either.
Vernon, Nov 14 2016

       //The entire argument of AGW deniers is that the atmosphere can absorb endless amounts of CO2 and methane with zero consequences.//   

       Since you seem to be speaking on behalf of me, [Vernon], might I be allowed to comment?   

       First, the use of the term "deniers". Have you ever encountered that word elsewhere, except in the context of "holocaust denier"? Probably not. It was chosen, as a label for those who doubt modern climate "science", precisely because it equates us with rabid holocaust "deniers". It is one example of the religification of climate science, and shows more ignorance on the part of AGW believers than on the part of doubters.   

       Second, you are stooping quite low if you need to use straw men and false arguments. Nobody is suggesting that the atmosphere will be unaffected by "endless" amounts of CO2 - that was your phrase, [Vern]. What we are suggesting is that an increase in the amount of CO2 on the order of 0.02-0.03% (as a fraction of atmospheric gases) is, based on known physics, unlikely to have a significant impact on the earth's energy budget; and that there is little if any evidence to suggest that the climate is responding to elevated CO2 levels, as opposed to its undergoing another one of the thousands of fluctuations which have happened since the dawn of time.   

       So, am I being unreasonable? Am I a rabid fool, to be equated with a "holocaust denier"? Or am I exercising my right to be skeptical of what appears, to me at least, to be some very bad science?   

       I won't stoop to your level by bandying about perjorative terms, nor by mis-characterizing your arguments. If I were to do that, I would probably call you an uncritical twat with no opinion other than that fed to you; but, as I said, I wouldn't stoop to that level.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2016

       [MaxwellBuchanan], are you telling me that no one has made measurements of gas-combination transparency? When we build things like LIGO (laser interferometric gravitational observatory) with kilometers-long EVACUATED laser tubes, you can be quite certain one reason for the vacuum is because of energy-absorption by gases. To say that "known physics" doesn't knows enough about what photon frequencies the Earth's atmosphere is able to transmit easily and absorb easily, so as to allow AGW deniers a valid rationale, sounds a great deal like lying, to me. See link.   

       Furthermore, nothing in what you wrote to me offers any refutation whatsoever of the data and simple logic I presented (in that "wrong again" paragraph). If what I wrote was erroneous, why didn't you point out an actual error?   

       And regarding the label "deniers", it is my understanding that most of them have financial interests in the fossil- fuel industry (or are funded by the fossil-fuel industry), and their selfish desire to protect that is all the excuse they need to deny AGW. It is the same sort of greedy selfishness that causes folks to push for eliminating things like the Clean Air Act (see link), no matter who gets harmed afterward.
Vernon, Nov 14 2016

       //Whatever the cause of high CO2// Most people (even me) agree that the current high CO2 levels are due to human activity. But then again, the historically high levels of mozarella are also anthropogenic. The question is whether it has any significant effect.   

       //It's pretty clear from historical graphs that CO2 levels and temperature are linked// It's also pretty clear that they are not linked at the timescale expected if CO2 drives earth's temperature. CO2 cycles through the atmosphere very quickly, and also should have an immediate effect on temperatures (if it has any effect at all). So, CO2 and temperature ought to correlate with almost no time lag, at least on an archeological (let alone geological) level.   

       Also, the climate change people claim that higher temperatures result in more loss of CO2 from various sinks, meaning that temperatures might be driving CO2, rather than the other way around. Their whole argument for a "tipping point" is, equally, an argument that CO2 is not a major causative factor.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2016

       // the historically high levels of mozarella are also anthropogenic //   

       Now, there's an easy Ph.D. thesis in that for a smart postgrad who's good with the ol' Weasel Words ...
8th of 7, Nov 14 2016

       //[MB] Are you running for some kind or orifice ? There's a lot of rhetoric there.// So, you're saying it's a rhetorical question?   

       //historically high levels of mozarella// Ever noticed how many parts of Italy are quite warm - and pizza ovens are especially so? Ever noticed that a slab of Mozarella absorbs huge amounts of infra-red if you put it under a grill? During the last ice age, there is very little evidence of there being any Mozarella at all; and, since the end of the "Little Ice Age" of 1300-1870, anthropogenic Mozarella has increased more than ten-fold.   

       Anyone who argues that a more-than-tenfold increase in global Mozarella levels cannot have some impact on the climate is, frankly, a Mozarellacaust Denier and beneath contempt. Any data supporting the position of these Deniers is, of course, spurious and anomalous and must therefore be de-selected. Only the evidence supporting a causal link can be correct, so we are performing a public service by selecting such evidence.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2016

       Extra mozzarella on ours, please.
8th of 7, Nov 14 2016

       Once people tire of Global Warming, I'm going to rally a few geologist friends and see if we can start a movement to slow down Anthropogenic Global Bending. It's caused (since you asked) by the slow expansion of re-bar in old reinforced concrete, due to water penetration and rusting. Because of the huge increase in the use of reinforced concrete (especially in foundations) since the start of the industrial revolution, this phenomenon is causing an overall expansion of land in developed countries, leading to tectonic bending which, in turn, triggers earthquakes.   

       New Zealand has been the latest victim of Anthropogenic Global Bending, and my computer models suggest that there will be at least one major earthquake over the coming decade. We must act now!
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2016

       Max, I think I'd take you more seriously and less likely to aim my microwave ray at you if you could provide some dissenting papers as produced by the Organization of Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve Climate Change or somesuch.   

       Global deflation. That's where it's at. All of these leaky volcanoes are going to cause this place to just flatten someday.
RayfordSteele, Nov 14 2016

       //provide some dissenting papers as produced by the Organization of Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve Climate Change//   

       OK, would, say, 1300 such dissenting papers - all published in decent peer-reviewed journals - satisfy you?   

       If so, the <link> lists about 1360 such papers. The <link> also carefully explains the methods used to identify those papers, to check their validity, and so forth.   

       That's over 1300 peer-reviewed papers either debunking or questioning anthropogenic climate change, brought to you by the Organization of Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve Climate Change.   

       Game, set and checkmate.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 14 2016

       Gave the [+] for the title. Didn't read the details, sorry. It seems most people didn't like the content...   

       [edit] ok, I read the details. I too don't like the content...
pashute, Nov 14 2016

       You had me at "Start with a bunch of modified microwave ovens."
doctorremulac3, Nov 14 2016

       It might, if the link worked.
RayfordSteele, Nov 14 2016

       Link fixed.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2016

       Well that's all a bit convenient, isn't it? I'm sorry I should have specified the "Organization of Scientists with the Good Common Sense to Disbelieve Climate Change That are Not Bought and Paid For by the Oil Industry."   

       Dr. Sherwood Idso is the most-cited author of the papers listed, president of the 'Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a think tank funded by ExxonMobil and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.   

       The second-most cited author is Dr. Patrick Michaels, known climate skeptic whose largest funding source is also from the oil industry.   

       The linked list might be interesting.
RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016

       //most of them have financial interests in the fossil- fuel industry//   

       The most intelligent and best-qualified person I know of who *does* believe in AGW actually works for an oil company. This helps to keep me confused.
pertinax, Nov 15 2016

       //I'm sorry I should have specified...// Anything else?   

       I suspect that, if you're a climatologist and not part of the Church of Global Warming, funding is pretty thin on the ground. So, perhaps the fact that some of the authors of those 1300+ papers are funded by the oil industry isn't so surprising.   

       Just out of interest, if you were on a jury, would you say "Yeah, but all those defence lawyers are being paid by the defendant." ?   

       Seriously, dude, what do you expect? Anthropogenic climate change is, truly, a religion. It might be real, or it might not - you might be right and I might be wrong. My point, though, is that any hope of doing objective science on this was lost a long time ago.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2016

       Seeing as how the military is planning for climate change events in their budgets, and given NOAA's interest in the matter, I would think a sufficiently creative group of environmental scientists could secure funding from government project inquiry.   

       I would not be skeptical of the defense in that example. However, if it were found that the judge were on the take as well, I'd start to open an inquiry.   

       The error in your analogy here is that there is or should be no prosecution and no defense. This is simply investigative science, which works rather differently than law in that when the 'defendant' is 'truly guilty,' the defense team is not bound to vigorously defend him anyway.
RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016

       //The error in your analogy here is that there is or should be no prosecution and no defense.//   

       But that's the thing - it is no longer a matter of objective enquiry. Look at the language which is used to decry anyone who dissents!   

       It would be wonderful if it were //simply investigative science//. It isn't, though, and hasn't been for a few decades now. There is a huge investment in AGW - both in terms of policies espoused and money invested. AGW is now simply too big to be allowed to be wrong.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2016

       I'd be more curious about research on the negative impact of warming. It's the "justification" studies -- our genes are already changing! -- the lobsters are dying! -- that are driving me nuts. Surely it's obvious these grants, from the governments, are primarily for propaganda purposes.
theircompetitor, Nov 15 2016

       It seems to me as a workhorse in the automotive world that current industry has much more economic entrenchment than developing science.   

       Climate change, if it does happen, in my estimation, would be catastrophically expensive, dwarfing the cost of research support from either side.
RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016

       [MaxwellBuchanan], I still don't see anything you wrote that points out an error in this simple data and logic:   

       // Since it is *known* that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it logically follows that the more CO2 in the air, the greater its contribution to Generic Global Warming, regardless of how small that contribution might be. And, ditto with methane, an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 .... In either case, adding more of the gas to the atmosphere can only help average global temperature rise, not fall. Therefore it logically follows that we should add less. The logic is very simple.//
Vernon, Nov 15 2016

       Let's fast forward past the "why", add "carbon caused global warming or not, it's a good idea to save oil and gas" and start looking at possible solutions.   

       According to the global cooling cabal, nuclear power plants aren't acceptable because a few people have been killed by them over the last 60 years. I thought global warming was going to kill billions of people? Where's the risk/reward evaluation here?   

       The solution given by the politicians is giving more money and power to the politicians. Shocking. This is the number one reason given for needing an all powerful planetary governing body with the ability to tax all the citizens of Earth as necessary. Not a new idea, just a new spin on a very old idea. Fascists always warn of us some disaster that requires us to surrender our sovereignty and freedom to them immediately if not sooner. Global capitalism, the Jews, the infidels, it's always something.   

       So while we're evaluating risk to reward ratios, let's look at what's caused the most chaos and death in the past century. Totalitarian governments operating under Communism and National Socialism were the black plague of the 20th century. A tenth of a billion souls wiped out because of the "un-refutable science" of totalitarian socialist doctrine. So what's the solution to the new challenges we face? The "un-refutable science" of totalitarian socialist doctrine.
doctorremulac3, Nov 15 2016

       It is the nature of science that it is done collaboratively-- even when lone discoverers find new things they are eventually shared. Is that socialist?   

       It is also the nature of government to also collaborate, in some horrid fashion or other.   

       That those Venn diagrams have some overlap into the same world is probably a good thing. Is it perfect? Not by a longshot.   

       More nuke plants are very welcome.
RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016

       //nuclear power plants aren't acceptable because a few people have been killed by them over the last 60 years. I thought global warming was going to kill billions of people? Where's the risk/reward evaluation here?//   

       You are witnessing what is known as Mulligan's Law: a law that saves 100 lives and costs 1 will never be passed. Why? Well, if one person dies in a nuclear accident, he has a mother who will mourn him on TV. If a hundred people are saved by not being globally warmed, nobody knows who those hundred people are.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2016

       Ray and Doc agreeing, the Cubs winning the World Series, a reality TV star winning the Presidency. Hmm. Wonder what Nostradamus said about 2016.
doctorremulac3, Nov 15 2016

       I'm blaming the supermoon.
RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016

       Give me a week and I'll have hard data on next weeks lottery numbers. Climate change might take a little longer. I tend to listen to the voices that I believe have the best scientific minds.
st3f, Nov 15 2016

       Are we in Back to the Future II? The Cubs win and Biff becomes President...
RayfordSteele, Nov 15 2016

       Climate is basically weather. Weather is known for changing over time, hence the reason that the French use the same word for "time" and "weather".   

       Weather is also fractal, in the same way that the stock market or Sturton's BMI are. Hence, there will be as much long-term variability as short-term variability.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 15 2016

       Personally, I blame the seals. Seal evil is rising.
MaxwellBuchanan, Nov 16 2016


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle