Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 6716
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: (again) make of this what you will

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:22 am

Re: Henry's link quoted above:

Commentary:

As an impartial observer, not driven by a political agenda, it makes sense to me.

Since he is not part of the herd, what he says is incomprehensible to the herd, who view the world and judge others through the lens of political affiliations and agendas.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3269
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:24 am

Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:14 am
I am definitely not an extremist.

I am an apolitical, impartial observer.
You're a big black hole of wasted energy.

Walker
Posts: 6716
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:27 am

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:24 am
Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:14 am
I am definitely not an extremist.

I am an apolitical, impartial observer.
You're a big black hole of wasted energy.
:lol:

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3269
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:29 am

Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:27 am
Lacewing wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:24 am
Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:14 am
I am definitely not an extremist.

I am an apolitical, impartial observer.
You're a big black hole of wasted energy.
:lol:
I know! Right?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Walker
Posts: 6716
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:33 am

The laughter is a reaction to your childish, shallow, immature comments.

That should be apparent to any intelligent adult.

As an adult, you should quit trying to derail the thread.

You're stinking up the Philosophy Forum.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4815
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"I have voiced this about Trump on this forum."

Post by henry quirk » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:49 am

Again: 'not to me or anyone else in-forum (not that I'm aware of, and certainly not recently).'

#

"Why don't you acknowledge his mistakes? Can you do so even now?"

As I've said over & over & over: I don't care how much of a corrupt jackass he may be. I hired him to wreck the status quo (which he's doin'). He continues doin' what I hired him to do and he can go to town, line his pockets, and be the debbil.

#

"I want to know why Trump supporters are so one-sided? "

Hell if I know: my reasons for hirin' him aren't their reasons.

#

"I had a feeling you would miss me."

Nope. Regrettin' takin' you out of the penalty box, actually.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3269
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:50 am

Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:33 am
The laughter is a reaction to your childish, shallow, immature comments.
I'm glad you enjoyed it even though you couldn't grasp how fitting the keen description was of you.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3269
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: "I have voiced this about Trump on this forum."

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:53 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:49 am
Regrettin' takin' you out of the penalty box, actually.
Then by all means, put me back on your ignore list again. It was a relief for me too.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4815
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"put me back on your ignore list again"

Post by henry quirk » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:55 am

As you like.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3269
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: "put me back on your ignore list again"

Post by Lacewing » Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:37 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:55 am
As you like.
Thanks!

Yes, I know you've said you don't care how much of a corrupt jackass Trump may be, but that's not the same as acknowledging that you actually see/recognize the crazy crap he says and does. That's the piece of reality that Trump supporters continually avoid. It would just be enlightening to have a truthful discussion of pros and cons, as realized by both sides. (Not lame, snakey answers such as Walker's.) Ah well... see ya later Henry.

Walker
Posts: 6716
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: "put me back on your ignore list again"

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:03 am

Lacewing wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:37 am
henry quirk wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:55 am
As you like.
Thanks!

Yes, I know you've said you don't care how much of a corrupt jackass Trump may be, but that's not the same as acknowledging that you actually see/recognize the crazy crap he says and does. That's the piece of reality that Trump supporters continually avoid. It would just be enlightening to have a truthful discussion of pros and cons, as realized by both sides. (Not lame, snakey answers such as Walker's.) Ah well... see ya later Henry.
Without factual examples of Trump's words, in context, then your perceptions of Trump are your own malicious fantasies.

With the entire establishment and herd-minded sheep attacking him every moment of every day, words are one of his tools in shifting attention away from the incessant lies and conspiracies, and in defusing the agenda-driven propaganda of those who hate the country. One of his few tools, in fact.

Call him names and he will turn it right back on you in spades, which should ring a bell in even a dim belfry.

Walker
Posts: 6716
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Walker » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:01 am

Skepdick wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:52 am
Walker wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:35 am
Opposites only exist in words, not in nature, not in reality.
Opposites do exist in Mathematics/numbers, though. Do you know that?

And so if we can measure progress on a number line we can also measure regress...
Walker wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:35 am
Progressives are not progressive.

They're morons.
Oh look! We have some pretty pictures. They are called charts, and they have axes. On a number line, no less.
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of ... n-5-charts

So I can only assume your anti-progressive stance is PRO less literate people, PRO higher rates of child mortality, PRO lower rates of freedom, PRO higher rates of poverty.

It's very difficult to tell you are supporting the wrong team, isn't it?
Both words and mathematics are languages, and language is of the mind. Opposites, like contradictions, exist only in the mind.

Once again, Progressives are not progressive, and your misplaced assignation of Progressive characteristics is a reflection of values associated with the word progressive, and not reality. Simply look at the social conditions in cities run by Progressives for verification, pretty picture person.

Skepdick
Posts: 1307
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Skepdick » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:12 am

Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:01 am
Both words and mathematics are languages, and language is of the mind. Opposites, like contradictions, exist only in the mind.
I see!

I guess then progressive and regressive are not opposite either.
And I suppose support and opposition are not opposites either.
And neither are moron and genius.
What about encouragement and dissuasion?

So you have been supporting and encouraging the genius of the Progressive agenda all along?

You could've just said so.
Walker wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:01 am
Simply look at the social conditions in cities run by Progressives for verification, pretty picture person.
Ever heard of cherry-picking and small sample-size fallacy?

It seems to me that the world, which is structured around stupid Progressive ideas like democracy, liberty, equality, justice etc.
Yeah... those are all terrible! I am sure Chairman Walker has better things in mind for all of us!
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

Belinda
Posts: 2869
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Belinda » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:21 am

Walker wrote:
How is it a man with your experience, education, and resourcefulness is a climate change denier? Do you tell the lie for a political purpose? Did you stop taking in useful information after you retired? I am not being unpleasant I don't understand. In your professional life you must have taken advantage of the experience and knowledge of carefully selected others.
How do you define, "climate change denier?"
No, I truly am interested in how an educated experienced man denies the climate emergency is now an urgent problem which can be addressed by practical measures.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4815
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

gonna keep reposting this till the alarmists comment on it

Post by henry quirk » Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:39 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:21 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:32 pm
https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin ... 92de686945
   
Global warming and post apocalyptic future. Climate change and melting of glaciers. Statue of Liberty collapses under water and new New York city skyline on an artificial island. Perhaps the catastrophic predictions are overblown.

The U.S. auto industry and regulators in California and Washington appear deadlocked over stiff Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards that automakers oppose and the Trump administration have vowed to roll back – an initiative that has environmental activists up in arms.

California and four automakers favor compromise, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the president’s position that the federal standards are too strict. The EPA argues that forcing automakers to build more fuel efficient cars will make them less affordable, causing consumers to delay trading older, less efficient vehicles. Complicating matters is California’s authority to create its own air quality standards, which the White House vows to end.

However the impasse is resolved, the moment looks ripe to revisit the root of this multifactorial dustup: namely, the scientific “consensus” that CO2 emissions from vehicles and other sources are pushing the earth to the brink of climate catastrophe.

In a modest office on the campus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, an Israeli astrophysicist patiently explains why he is convinced that the near-unanimous judgments of climatologists are misguided.  Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.

“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”

Shaviv, 47, fully comprehends that his scientific conclusions constitute a glaring rebuttal to the widely-quoted surveys showing that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity – the combustion of fossil fuels – constitutes the principle reason for climate change.

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded.  In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

History is replete with lone voices toppling scientific orthodoxies. Astronomers deemed Pluto the ninth planet – until they changed their minds. Geologists once regarded tectonic plate theory, the movement of continents, as nonsense. Medicine were 100% certain that stomach (ulcers) resulted from stress and spicy food, until an Australian researcher proved bacteria the culprit and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

Lest anyone dismiss Shaviv on the basis of his scientific credentials or supposed political agenda, consider the following: He enrolled at Israel’s Technion University – the country’s equivalent of MIT – at the age of 13 and earned an MA while serving in the Israel Defense Force’s celebrated 8200 Intelligence unit. He returned to Technion, where he earned his doctorate, afterward completing post-doctoral work at California Institute of Technology and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. He also has been an Einstein Fellow at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

In other words, he knows tons more about science than Donald Trump or Al Gore.

As for politics “in American terms, I would describe myself as liberal on most domestic issues, somewhat hawkish on security,” he said. Nonetheless, the Trump administration’s position on global climate change, he said, is correct insofar as it rejects the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s findings and conclusions are updated every six years; the latest report, released this week, noted that deforestation and agribusiness are contributing to CO2 emissions and aggravating climate change.

In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled.  Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors.

“Since then, literally billions have been spent on climate research,” he said. Yet “the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”

He explained: “Solar activity varies over time. A major variation is roughly eleven years or more, which clearly affects climate. This principle has been generally known – but in 2008 I was able to quantify it by using sea level data.  When the sun is more active, there is a rise in sea level here on earth. Higher temperature makes water expand.  When the sun is less active, temperature goes down and the sea level falls – the correlation is as clear as day.

“Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change,” he said. “That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles.”

The link between solar activity and the heating and cooling of the earth is indirect, he explained. Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds.  When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth.

“Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.

"All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees.  A freshman physics student can see this.”

Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC.  “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels.  A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often.  In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned.  In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century.  This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”

Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said.  “It has repercussions for society.  It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person.  Who wants to be a sinner?”

Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said.

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban the use of fossil fuels isn’t just misguided “it comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources, for example, will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make, he said. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating.  The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

For Shaviv, the rejection and closed-mindedness his minority view provoke may contain a silver lining.  Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research -- and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy -- one day proves persuasive.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests