drumbo

On 6/16/2020 at 2:55 AM, FishandChips said:

Is Climate change such a big issue we need to step back and reexamine the whole issue ?. One website says its a critical issue another site tells me its a hoax. I am really confused now one guy was telling me its a hoax fabricated by socialists and feminists. What are your thoughts ?

The IPCC certainly believes that climate change is a big issue, but the IPCC is a political institution not really a scientific one. It uses the science for its own ends which is why, for example, we've had cases of governments, Belgium, Germany, putting pressure on the IPCC to make their reports sound scarier than the scientific reality justifies. The much quoted 95% certainty that man influences climate figure is a classic example of this, it's a bit like getting people to say there is a 95% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. Well yes the sun will rise tomorrow, but that's not really the subject that's being debated is it? It's what the temperatures will be in the future. It's a slight of hand, they're saying there is 95% certainty that man influences climate. Well I'm surprised they couldn't get 100% of scientists to agree on that one, because it's a given. The question is the degree to which man influences the climate, and whether if it is anything we should worry about, and whether we should bombing the global economy into the dark ages to try and stop it. All the computer models that the IPCC has used in its 25 years of existence, all of them have predicted/forecast global warming much greater than has actually been observed, and this represents a problem because what it means is that all these insistent claims that we need to take urgent measures now to deal with this unprecedented problem seem to be based on junk science. The IPCC at the moment stands and falls on its computer models. There's no other evidence out there that global warming is any kind of problem, it exists only in the imaginations of the people who program those computer models and the scientists who contribute to the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is a problem. What we see in the latest reports is that the evidence suggests that the models aren't working, which means that the entirety of AGW theory is flawed.

It is an important issue. Carbon dioxide is important for life to flourish. Right now we have too little carbon dioxide. Watch the video below by the scientist William Happer. William Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of the George H.W. Bush administration. In 2018, Happer joined the National Security Council of the Trump Administration.

https://youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs

Chapter 2 in the IPCC special report of global warming of 1.5 °C https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-2/ outlines a goal to to bring net carbon emissions down to 0. There is no technology that currently exists which would allow us to maintain our current level of energy consumption in this scenario. Not only are fossil fuels much more efficient than any other alternatives (in terms of cost and time to produce), they are more portable as well (in terms of the ease of transporting the fuel and the ease of storing it).

It is likely that many people would suffer if we slashed energy consumption prematurely. In the article "Shifts to renewable energy can drive up energy poverty, study finds" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190712151926.htm. their findings, published recently in the journal Energy Research & Social Science, support previous claims by researchers who argue that renewable energy consumption may be indirectly driving energy poverty. Energy poverty is when a household has no or inadequate access to energy services such as heating, cooling, lighting, and use of appliances due to a combination of factors: low income, increasing utility rates, and inefficient buildings and appliances.

In addition, according to a World Bank report, “poor and middle-income countries already account for just over half of total carbon emissions.” And this percentage will only rise as developing countries grow. Achieving a global society in which all citizens earn a living wage and climate catastrophe is averted requires breaking the link between economic growth and increasing carbon emissions in developing countries.

Today, most developing countries that decrease their poverty rates also have increased rates of carbon emissions. In East Asia and the Pacific, the number of people living in extreme poverty declined from 1.1 billion to 161 million between 1981 and 2011—an 85% decrease. In this same time period, the amount of carbon dioxide per capita rose from 2.1 tons per capita to 5.9 tons per capita—a 185% increase.

South Asia saw similar changes during this time frame. As the number of people living in extreme poverty decreased by 30%, the amount of carbon dioxide increased by 204%.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people living in poverty increased by 98% in this thirty-year span, while carbon dioxide per capita decreased by 17%. Given the current energy situation, if sub-Saharan Africans are to escape extreme poverty, they will have to increase their carbon use—unless developed countries step in to offer clean alternatives.

14 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

For climate scientists, finding the inescapable conclusions of their studies that global warming and the changes that will bring will be global, damaging, costly and effectively irreversible, to fail to raise alarms would be unprofessional and unethical. Whether commissioned by Conservative or by Progressive leaning governments the conclusions have not changed - not even the studies called for because they didn't like what the other studies said. This is evidence to my mind that science is not blindly following pre-determined conclusions or the bidding of political masters or involved in global conspiracies.

Drumbo, your casually tossed out allegations that they are incompetent or driven by nefarious motives -

are profoundly insulting and slanderous besides being wrong. But not unusual amongst the climate science deniers of my experience. No point in further discussion. Goodbye Drumbo.

I see that I struck so telling a blow, that not only are you running away with your tail between your legs, you also went back through this thread to downvote 5 of my replies. Many of which, ostensibly, you left untouched earlier. Did their contents change? I will reply later with a thorough explanation of why most of the major climate models in use today are practically useless.

12 hours ago, swansont said:

as we have already observed that humans die when it gets hotter

And how many humans will die when we slash energy consumption by prematurely moving away from fossil fuels before suitable replacements exist? Where do you think the energy to create the civilization around you comes from?

12 hours ago, swansont said:

If they conclude that the temperature will go up by XºC over some span of time, under some set of conditions, that is neither an affirmative nor pessimistic bias. And, as scientists have discussed positive impacts, your argument to the contrary is moot.

It is not moot if those scientists display their bias by unnecessarily stoking fear and focusing on potential negative outcomes. I am not sure if we should call them scientists either. Scientists are supposed to test if the hypotheses they have developed actually work. Have you seen some of the mathematical/statistical models these researchers use? Convoluted, ridiculous and utterly useless. Most of the models that climate scientists develop are so useless that they make Neil Ferguson's epidemiological models look good in comparison. Make no mistake, the goal with these convoluted models is to intimidate people into submission; "We've done the math. You're just too dumb to understand it. Shut up and trust the experts, us." Luckily I have a masters in applied math so I can tell when math is used in a BS fashion. Descartes said it best when he said: "Then as to the Analysis of the ancients and the Algebra of the moderns, besides that they embrace only matters highly abstract, and, to appearance, of no use, the former is so restricted to the consideration of figures, that it can exercise the Understanding only on condition of greatly fatiguing the Imagination; and, in the latter, there is so complete a subjection to certain rules and formulas, that there results an art full of confusion and obscurity calculated to embarrass."

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

  

Dunno. Why are you? 

You brought up elk. I am addressing what you said. It's OK to be wrong.

13 hours ago, joigus said:

+1.

They "look similar" (to me) ergo they "can adapt" (in unspecified amount of time.)

If you drop an elephant from an airplane, maybe it can evolve flight by becoming Dumbo.

The latter was an hyperbole, meant only to illustrate the blatant flaw in an argument. Don't misinterpret my words again, please.

The evidence that elk could live a warm climate is overwhelming. In 1913, 83 elk from Yellowstone were transplanted in Arizona near Chevelon Lake in the Arizona White Mountains region. Even with harvesting via licensed hunting, today the Arizona elk population has grown to about 35,000. See the picture below of the western hemisphere range for elk.

11 minutes ago, joigus said:

"Elk look like impalas, so I don't see why they couldn't adapt to live in a warm climate."

Is that an idea? Is that an argument? What the hell is that? How old are you?

Look at the attached pictures.Their body structures are so similar that they could take up each other's habitats without issue. The elk has a little bit more insulation, but there is probably enough genetic variance for fur growth in the elk species that shorter furred elk could be selected for quickly in order to adapt to a hot climate.

21 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm located at 43.16 N latitude.
Last week we had frost warnings at night, so I hadn't taken my lemon tree outdoors yet.
This week, after bringing it outside, we've had three days of 35 deg C temperatures so far ( I remember when we had a Spring and fall ).
The delicate new growth ( after pruning in March ) is having a tough time adapting to the sudden heat.

No doubt there will be considerable adaptation involved with dealing with AGW, but it won't be easy.
And losses will vastly outweigh the benefits.

Anecdotal, and no proof of relation to AGW. Can we stick to facts please?

16 hours ago, joigus said:

No. It's called irony. I automatically shift to irony when I see the rational discussion is hopeless. Read other members that came later. They haven't given up on giving you information yet.

That's not irony, and I think you meant to say "I automatically pretend I was kidding around when I get called out for saying something ridiculous". If you don't have the energy to engage in a rational discussion then why don't you just comfort yourself with some platitude like "never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" and exit the conversation? At least then you can feel like you "won".

16 hours ago, Strange said:

we know that the current changes are happening faster than at at any time in the past.

Patently false. The event which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs is hypothesized to have been cataclysmic. Perhaps a massive meteor impact or volcanic eruption. These events would have caused far more rapid and dramatic changes than AGW ever could.

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

yet here are, on page 3, with no sign of a single example

I already mentioned a possible increase in arable land, and in the long term the benefits of colonizing Antarctica. Who knows how many natural resources Antarctica holds? For all we know unlocking it from it's icy grip could be they key to increasing human wealth and development.

9 minutes ago, joigus said:

No, no, no. Don't get me wrong. Elks, as they stand, are not threatened. It's you who's threatening them with your "plans."

This is such an absurd point of view. Any change necessarily threatens some organisms and creates new opportunities for others. Should we freeze in place and try to prevent all change lest it leave some slow to adapt organisms behind in the dust? That would be unnatural since terrestrial life has always experienced great change and stress. I find it ironic that those who tend to fear climate change the most also tend to align with political ideologies which claim to embrace change, but lately they seem to be the most fearful. How can anyone have faith in the liberal elite and all of their academic "expertise" after this lockdown fiasco? Can you not see that you are excessively fearful? You're right, I don't have  PhD, but the world wasn't built by people with PhDs. It was built by foolish men who mixed chemicals together just to see what would happen, worked with dangerous electrical equipment to discover its properties (Michael Faraday didn't have a PhD and he made a far greater contribution to the world than a million useless 21st century PhDs that get churned out like toilet paper) , climbed into primitive airplanes, combustion engines powered by mini explosions, crossing seas and oceans in leaky wooden vessels, and all of the other stupid things people did which advanced humanity. And all the while there were always people tut-tuting in disapproval, "don't do that it's dangerous!!!" "you could get hurt!!!" If you're afraid then stay inside your house, we're going to keep doing dangerous stuff with or without you.

7 minutes ago, joigus said:

You do sound to inordinately unconcerned. Carry on. This is kinda fun.

I'm not sure what this means. Elk are categorized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) so that they do not qualify as threatened, near threatened, or (before 2001) conservation dependent.

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

You do know there's no point further North of the North Pole, don't you?

Why are you concerned with Elk? They are classified as a least-concern species by the IUCN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least-concern_species

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

Ok. I was reading up to this point.

What do we do with the penguins and the elk? Any plans?

Elk should be able to shift their habitat north, but they can probably adapt to warmer temperatures anyway. Elk look kind of like impalas, so I don't see why they couldn't adapt to live in a warm climate. We can put the penguins in a zoo.

10 hours ago, joigus said:

What do you mean "survive"? As in we're at each other's throats for decades and there is a good 20 % of humanity that are last ones standing? Never mind inhabitants of Florida and many other coastal areas living underwater, etc? I'm not looking forward to that, really.

If the planet warms then for every plot of land that becomes infertile due to excessive heat there should be another plot of land that was once infertile due to excessive cold which becomes arable after it warms. The total amount of arable land could increase. Look at Canada and Russia, don't you think much of that frozen land would become arable if the planet warmed? Antarctica will probably become arable after a few hundred years too, a whole new continent to settle! Africans are used to the heat it won't bother them, and we can send them more food if they need it. That way the population of Africa can continue growing and natural resources can be continue being extracted and shipped here cheaply. As for coastal regions getting flooded, it will be a good opportunity to revitalize the infrastructure around our coasts and renovate while moving stuff away from the coast if necessary. I don't see a problem, it will all work out.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Since you're attacking a claim you say I claimed when I haven't claimed it, I'd say strawman is pretty darned spot on.

Playing obtuse only makes you look dishonest. If you think I do not have the energy to point it out you are mistaken. The advantage of a conversation on a forum is that you can't rely upon our poor memories to get away with your attempt at deception. Here, let's recap. You said:

On 5/24/2020 at 9:46 AM, dimreepr said:

That seems diametrically apposed to your OP; can we take it that you have learned from your mistake?

In response to:

On 5/24/2020 at 9:00 AM, drumbo said:

she should use words accurately and carefully in order to avoid confusion.

Which is clearly a claim that I did not use my words carefully and accurately. Prior to that you said:

On 5/6/2020 at 9:22 AM, dimreepr said:

I'm guessing they're alarmed, because we're not dinosaurs; and like the dinosaurs, life will continue after the planet chooses to no longer sustain us.

Indicating that you had an issue with my use of the word alarmist. What conclusion can I make other than you do not think I used the word alarmist carefully and accurately? If that's not true, please feel free to clarify your statement. You clearly did mean that though, so stop lying.

We know that climate scientists are alarmed. We know why climate scientists are alarmed. Those are not the questions I asked, and dimreepr's claim that I used the word alarmist inaccurately is plainly wrong. I don't expect him to admit that his claim was wrong, since instead he twists language yet again misusing the word strawman. There is no strawman here dimreepr. You claimed that my use of the word alarmist was inaccurate, and I addressed that claim.

It is ridiculous to believe that human beings could not survive in an environment where dinosaurs could, and any arguments built on that premise can be immediately rejected. Human beings are incredibly intelligent, resourceful, and resilient. Even the dumbest humans can understand language and basic arithmetic, and that is no small feat. Our caloric requirements are far lower than that of a dinosaur. Any environment that could sustain dinosaurs could sustain humans as well. Will there be challenges? Of course, but there have always been challenges. If you believe that climate change is a threat solely because it introduces change then that is an alarmist position, since you have only considered the downsides of possible changes and not the benefits.

How much research is done on the possible benefits of climate change? If the answer is none, then climate scientists must admit that they begin their research with a pessimistic bias. Focusing on all of the possible downsides of change, proclaiming doom and gloom, and completely ignoring possible benefits of that change is alarmist.

On 5/6/2020 at 9:22 AM, dimreepr said:

I'm guessing they're alarmed, because we're not dinosaurs; and like the dinosaurs, life will continue after the planet chooses to no longer sustain us.

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That seems diametrically apposed to your OP; can we take it that you have learned from your mistake?

But it is not diametrically opposed. Perhaps a more precise way to title my OP would have been "Are climate scientists only speaking about the bad and dangerous things related to climate change, and so unnecessarily worrying people?", or "Are climate scientists making people worried by telling them about bad or dangerous things related to climate change when it is not necessary or helpful?", or "Are climate scientists unnecessarily communicating anxiety and fear?" Lo and behold from https://dictionary.cambridge.org:

alarmist

adjective

intentionally showing only the bad and dangerous things in a situation, and so worrying people

alarmist

noun

someone who makes people worried by telling them about bad or dangerous things when it is not necessary or helpful

alarmist

noun

a person who communicates anxiety and fear, esp. unnecessarily

Now you may not agree that climate scientists are unnecessarily communicating fear, but that is the question I put forth. Those definitions are completely consistent with my question, and intended meaning. Interestingly enough your clever, I admit, quip "I'm guessing they're alarmed, because we're not dinosaurs; and like the dinosaurs, life will continue after the planet chooses to no longer sustain us." has missed the point by twisting language, since the definition of alarmed does not imply that the state of being alarmed is unnecessary. Do you see how you have twisted language, but I have used it accurately?

This discussion reminds me of a funny conversation I had with a girl at a coffee shop once. Out of the blue she asked me "Do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy?" It was so unrelated to our conversation thus far that I just laughed off the question, but she insisted and asked again. I thought for a second, and realizing the ambiguity in the common usage definition of the word conspiracy I said "Yeah". She started laughing and said "You think 9/11 was a conspiracy?" I said again:

Me: Yeah.

Her: Why do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy?

Me: Well that's the official story.

Her: That's the official story? How is that the official story?

Me: Well who do you think was responsible for 9/11?

Her: Terrorists from the Middle East.

Me: Yeah, exactly.

Her: Then why do you think 9/11 was a conspiracy?

Me: Terrorists from the Middle East conspired together to fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Her: That's why you think it's a conspiracy? That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Me: Terrorists conspired together to fly planes into the World Trade Center, therefore it's a conspiracy.

Her: No, just because they conspired together doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Me: Well yeah, it does. Because that's what words mean?

Her: Stuttering and babbling...

Me: Here let me help you out. I think the phrase you're looking for is inside job not conspiracy.

Then we a little conversation about government PSYOPS designed to discredit the word conspiracy so that people won't understand what the word really means, and how she should use words accurately and carefully in order to avoid confusion.

14 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As mentioned there are only few reports, mostly on cases with positive outcomes.  One by Ding et al. (2020) J Med Vir has not found any more severe clinical indicators.

The numbers of co-infection are based on small sample sizes and depending on how the cohorts are built (e.g. severity of symptoms) the outcome may be biased.

I would like to see more data related to covid-19 and influenza virus co-infection in the US. Can anyone find anything? If it is true that co-infection does not result in more severe symptoms then co-infection numbers cannot be biased due building cohorts by selecting patients with pneumonia symptoms. And vice-versa, if the cohorts are biased due building cohorts by selecting patients with pneumonia symptoms then co-infection does result in more severe symptoms.

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Within hospitals the cases detected with co-infections were fairly low (but rarely quantified in detail).

Thanks for the reply. I've found this article https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext that reports in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital (Jan 1-20, 2020) out of 78 covid-19 patients with pneumonia 0 of them were co-infected with the other viruses that were tested for. They tested for nine respiratory pathogens and influenza A and B.

But take a look at this article from the Qingdao Women and Children’s Hospital https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3550013 . Among covid-19 patients in Qingdao, 24 (80.00%) of them had IgM antibodies against at least one respiratory pathogen, whereas only one (2.60%) of the patients in Wuhan had positive results for serum IgM antibody detection ( P <0.0001). The most common respiratory pathogens detected in Qingdao covid-19 patients were influenza virus A (60.00%) and influenza virus B (53.30%), followed by mycoplasma pneumoniae (23.30%) and legionella pneumophila (20.00%).

And take a look at this article out of Iran https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202003.0291/v1. They selected 4 patients who presented with pneumonia symptoms and were suspicious for covid-19 and referred them to the intended centers for covid-19 diagnosis and management of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in the south of Iran. All 4 of them were diagnosed with co-infection of covid-19 and influenza virus.

It seems like the patients in Wuhan had much lower rates of co-infection than patients outside of Wuhan, and that co-infection is very common outside of Wuhan. How can we explain this?

Most climate scientists claim that elevated CO2 levels will be devastating to Earth's ecosystems. However when CO2 levels were highest some of the largest terrestrial organisms were alive, such as dinosaurs, giant turtles, etc. There must have been an abundance of caloric resources in order for such large organisms to sustain themselves. How can we claim that elevated CO2 levels and higher temperatures will lead to the collapse of ecosystems, when under those very conditions the most demanding organisms in terms of caloric requirements were able to thrive? Based on historical evidence it seems like ecosystems would be more vibrant when CO2 levels and temperatures are higher.