The 2018 UN Climate Report

[babe]

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Goes back 22,000 years.

Nice try.

I didn't see the point where ideology is invented and Man becomes determined to lie to conform to societal fashions.

I did see how the comic site made a hail-Mary shot at political correctness in the twentieth century.

not real sure those are all facts, exactly. According to the Goshute Indians (part of the widely spread Shoshone people) who related verbally the reason for the large woolly Mammoth skulls on the desert 55 miles west of Salt Lake City was an unusually hard Great Basin winter circa 1797 (I attribute the exact year to what the Goshutes said they experienced only in their lifetimes, in 1840, to the John Fremont exploration band of US surveyors.

Paleface scientists asked the little brown men about a big pile of skulls. Little brown men said big snow, ten feet deep, trapped the Mammoths there, and "Injun eat'em all up". That's why there wasn't also a little pile of human bones that winter.

 

[Red]

You would be still cheering for the fake political scientists who are gratuitously "Proving" the "truth" desired by our political class. You would never give up your dream, or the hope that science will ultimately prove the political cause you love to be the right one, even after 50,000 years into the next ice age.

I have mentioned to you in the past, examples where scientific consensus was in error. The notion of Clovis First, where the peopling of the Americas are concerned, and the belief that "stones cannot fall from the sky", a belief holding sway prior to modern meteoritics, are two such examples. So I know, as well as anyone, having studied the history of science, how consensus and dominant paradigms can be overturned. Science advances one funeral at a time. See Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

But, as is often the case, your observation above is typical of you, but will ever be puzzling to me. I am not cheering for rampant global warming or actually hoping for such a thing. I would absolutely hope we will do something to address it, to mitigate it, to avoid all the problems that will ensue should we not address it. I do believe, at present, that the consensus represented by both the UN Climate Report, and this most recent US consensus and assessment, is correct. If, for instance, you are suggesting that 300 American scientists in 13 government agencies created a political document, and fudged all the data to satisfy a political agenda, then you are likely very, very mistaken.

Time will tell, babe. I am not sure I will live to the point where all doubt will be removed. It's possible, no man knows the time or place, and I could live into the 2040's I suppose.

In the meantime, your statement above is absolutely absurd. I don't understand why you are so inclined to make such foolish statements. It truly reflects very poorly on you. Very stupid thing to say.

 

[One Brow]

I didn't see the point where ideology is invented and Man becomes determined to lie to conform to societal fashions.

That happens before humans separate from chimpanzees/bonobos, most likely, possibly before primates separate from rodents.

I did see how the comic site made a hail-Mary shot at political correctness in the twentieth century.

You have confused "political" with "historical".

Little brown men said big snow, ten feet deep, trapped the Mammoths there, and "Injun eat'em all up". That's why there wasn't also a little pile of human bones that winter.

Yeah, because Native Americans never lied to impress strangers (assuming any part of your story is true).

 

[Red]

@babe, it's as if you were saying I want humanity to suffer, I want the 6th great extinction of life event to proceed apace. Just to prove something!! Truly, @babe, you can be a total jerk when you want to be. Try doing better just once, why don't you.

 

[babe]

Red, that you think my comment is absurd or stupid is not surprising to me.... it proves the point, in fact.

A lot of people believe what they want to believe. Even the USGS. That was an absurd and patently false report about drilling emmissions being such a large contributor. Of course there are gas emissions from drilling. Lots of gas trapped under pressure in certain rock formations. Likely more natural emissions than caused by drilling. Lots of ocean outgassing. Lots of marsh and wetlands outgassing. Thousands of years of gases trapped under ice sheets too. Every one of these, including natural surface fires and volcanic gas emissions, could be more than all human activities. But we don't measure them, yet. Just wild guesses. I suppose we could know how much oil is burned, or how much coal, because we have some production stats. That's about all we do know.

Some people are quite noticeably determined to push some "causes" they believe in. It is not absurd to note that such people often persist in the face of facts.

I find the extinction event pretty far-fetched. You are willing to stake your credibility on it's imminent reality, and do some really bizarre political stuff because of what you fear. Again, people of the cause have been calling disbelievers practically criminal for over a decade already, alleging they don't care about being responsible humans. Because of unfounded beliefs. Or beliefs that just don't really make sense.

That kind of confirmation bias and demand for compliance is on about the same level as burning witches at the stake or drowning them for being, really, nothing but different somehow.

My comments are not really meant to be so particularly personal to you, except so far as they might apply to the little crowd of believers who share those characteristics. I would never imagine you personally don't care about actual people somehow, regardless of the implications of stuff you otherwise believe.

I might not say that about Al Gore or whoever Brit Royals are pushing the cause.
you're just a camp follower, with probably better human concerns. However, you are the one posting stuff in here from their literature.

 

[babe]

That happens before humans separate from chimpanzees/bonobos, most likely, possibly before primates separate from rodents.



You have confused "political" with "historical".



Yeah, because Native Americans never lied to impress strangers (assuming any part of your story is true).

well, you don't know if it was a lie. The bones are still there, but nobody has dated them scientifically. yah, people tell stories. Listeners take what they want outta them too. now, are scientists people, too? Sometimes, when there's money in it, will they smile, say what's wanted, and take the money?

however, there was no pay in the tale for the Indians or the Fremont crew. I'm sure there was an attempt to say, however the translation went, "You sure about that?"

 

[One Brow]

Listeners take what they want outta them too. now, are scientists people, too? Sometimes, when there's money in it, will they smile, say what's wanted, and take the money?

Especially when they work for profit-making enterprises like the coal, oil, and gas industries, and the think-tanks funded by these groups? As opposed to boards controlled by other scientists who have no stake in the outcome?

however, there was no pay in the tale for the Indians or the Fremont crew. I'm sure there was an attempt to say, however the translation went, "You sure about that?"

Depends upon how much the questioners knew about the skulls, eh?

 

[babe]

So the discussion about, specifically oceanic content of CO2 and outgassing that would come from a warming of the seas, is pretty old, really, even on the Webz. The equilibrium of CO2 vapor and surface water/rain water is a fact of life. The current estimates of atmospheric CO2 worldwide having values as low as 280ppm and as high as 390ppm are fairly recent. When I was in high school, the handbook value for CO2 in the air was 400ppm. Can't say where that figure came from, maybe Oxford downwind from some industry who knows. Most of our old data consists of isolated measurements we should NOT mistake for actual worldwide facts. Lots of local variance, likely.

The subject is hotly contested as to whether outgassing is relevant, with the anthropocentric argument being that burning is the only thing that causes declines in 02 to match. Idiots, really, ignoring natural decay and atmospheric oxidation and other natural oxidation issues, with unreliable date on atmospheric changes in 02 levels.....

We should not doubt "greenhouse gas" thermodynamics..... well-known and reliably-proven data for thermodynamic values for heat storage in molecules. At whatever temp. molecular modes of vibrations around chemical bonds store energy. Nor should we doubt absorption of radiation, or re-emission of radiation or the directional nature of solar inputs, surface emissions, and atmospheric dissipation in all directions.

I simply observe that the earth has experienced a very large range of atmospheric content of many things over geologic time. We have seen large climate changes as well. Whatever is going on, we have the capacity to deal with and survive the changes, more than some other niche creatures. But I don't expect a highly-buffered system like our atmosphere to do all the tricks people fear, and I don't think we know enough to even be certain what is happening. or what to do about it. I simply believe we can deal with it. On a personal level, mainly. If we start taxing and spending, in a frantic push to prove a political agenda, I'm sure we're just doing nonsense.

WE SHOULD FUND data collection and a variety of research proposals addressing both sides of this controversy.

 

[babe]

Especially when they work for profit-making enterprises like the coal, oil, and gas industries, and the think-tanks funded by these groups? As opposed to boards controlled by other scientists who have no stake in the outcome?



Depends upon how much the questioners knew about the skulls, eh?

If you imagine "scientists who have no stake in the outcome" you clearly are ignorant of public grant-seeking research realities. Or government agencies and how their culture affects behaviors and findings..... and research allocations.

The privately funded studies face more scrutiny and clearly understand that there will be no Press to push their cause.... in my mind while that does not really overcome the funding bias, it might mean they are less inclined to falsify their results. Being in second place means, generally, you have to try harder to be credible.

Not a lot of real scientific expertise on skulls in a survey party, but they would've known buffalo skulls. Fairly common mammoth remains around the old Lake Bonneville, none from that epoch likely out in the middle of the old lake. I know what the favored view is. I have heard of many accounts of Smithsonian bias in just chucking stuff into the basement that doesn't fit the narrative. A lot of "Scientists" do that. Not much market for stuff that bucks the accepted narrative. You gotta be willing to stake your reputation on an off-odds bet you can change what is believed.

 

[DutchJazzer]

again 100 years 0.3% temperature difference hahahahahaha

and ya'll want to hand more power to governments!

when i fart in a room, the room warms up more than 10%.

 

[One Brow]

If you imagine "scientists who have no stake in the outcome" you clearly are ignorant of public grant-seeking research realities. Or government agencies and how their culture affects behaviors and findings..... and research allocations.

I was referring to the scientists who award the grants, not those that seek them. The US government turns over the award allocation process to scientists with no professional stake in the issue.

The privately funded studies face more scrutiny and clearly understand that there will be no Press to push their cause.... in my mind while that does not really overcome the funding bias, it might mean they are less inclined to falsify their results. Being in second place means, generally, you have to try harder to be credible.

Except for the part about much of the private funding under discussion is supposed to support the position the industry wants. I mean, it's like you are saying the research by tobacco companies into the link between cancer and tobacco use was more reliable than the government studies.

Not much market for stuff that bucks the accepted narrative.

Just the occasional Nobel prize or two.

 

[One Brow]

again 100 years 0.3% temperature difference

Are you using the Kelvin scale or something?