Science & Technology News

[Exile]

Allen's not new to these threads, and as I recall a more sober voice who's firm in his positions but also effective at getting them across with more civility than most. Also better, imo, than many others at articulating the science in his own words in more understandable layman terms, as opposed to the pseudo-science copy & paste crowd. I don't doubt I've disagreed with him as have others, but so what?

Anything's better than the Righteous ones constantly equating healthy skepticism with wanting to continue spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Or whatever the latest shaming quip is that comes to mind.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You mean reposted . That article was originally posted several years ago and summarily retracted .
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...-warming-study

You should check your facts. I suspect you’re wrong [again].
“Novel and disappearing climates in the global surface ocean from 1800 to 2100" ~ by Katie E. Lotterhos et al
Was published on August 26, 2021.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-94872-4

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You mean reposted . That article was originally posted several years ago and summarily retracted .
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...-warming-study

As per usual, you are wrong -- again. This recent study is by Lotterhos, Láruson & Jiang. The retracted study you linked to is by Resplandy, Keeling, and others.

Furthermore, you are wrong -- again -- in that the topics of the two studies only obliquely overlap.

Finally, you are wrong -- again -- in that the authors of the retracted study acknowledged the error that they had made in their study, thanked the mathematician who caught their error, corrected the error, and reissued a corrected study. It's a habit you might consider adopting.

Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”

Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

A correction has been submitted to the journal Nature.

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have posted peer reviewed studies that are in direct opposition to any ocean " acidification " lies.
The ocean is a strong base and will not ever be acidic. Try again

The ocean's pH is roughly 8, which is a weak base. The term "ocean acidification" refers to the direction that the pH of the oceans is headed due to increased levels of atmospheric CO2. The pH of ocean water is very important to creatures that extract calcium from water to build their homes, such as clams, copepods, and corals. If the pH drops too low many species will no longer be able to extract and construct with the calcium. The pH of the oceans has changed significantly through geologic time, and acidification has been associated with some of the mass die outs.

How do we know ocean carbon dioxide levels are rising and pH is decreasing? By taking measurements of seawater over many years. This graph shows rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, rising CO2 levels in the ocean, and decreasing pH in the water off the coast of Hawaii. As carbon dioxide rises in the atmosphere, some of it dissolves into seawater, increasing the CO2 concentration there as well. As CO2 dissolves in the ocean, it reacts with water to form hydrogen ions, which drive the pH down. In combination, this process is known as ocean acidification.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/H...de+Time-Series

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually Jim you are the newest to these discussions.
( calling it a troll fest is just admiting you are)

Can't keep even your accusations true. Why am I not surprised.

According to a cursory search using 'AGW' as the keyword, your first post related to AGW was in a thread started in May of 2016 titled 'Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 years'.

My first post using the same keyword was in a thread started in May of 2015, titled 'Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways'.


Na na nah na na...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Allen's not new to these threads, and as I recall a more sober voice who's firm in his positions but also effective at getting them across with more civility than most. Also better, imo, than many others at articulating the science in his own words in more understandable layman terms, as opposed to the pseudo-science copy & paste crowd. I don't doubt I've disagreed with him as have others, but so what?

Anything's better than the Righteous ones constantly equating healthy skepticism with wanting to continue spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Or whatever the latest shaming quip is that comes to mind.

It's the Science & Technology News thread; you don't have to engage with the perennial bickering if you don't want to, you can bring more new subjects in (as you did recently), or engage with somebody else's new topic. Ignore the troll wars. It's curious that they are mostly what you respond to.

But on the subject of climate change- there's skepticism, and there's spewing partisan propaganda: (eg: there's no consensus, scientific careerism or corruption, grant-wh0ring, socialist agenda, that Malthusian crap from the NR article, AlGoraphobia, etc etc). And in today's polarized environment, if you're engaging in the latter, you are in effect saying you're ok with spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere. If you are blocking action, how can it be otherwise? Shame is definitely warranted.

(tl;dr: there's not very much healthy skepticism on CF, or in the public. It's mostly partisanship.)

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

What your consensus based science ( which is not science but politics)

I prefer to look at the actual science and use of un altered historical records.

You shall see in a few years .
I know you are decidedly hooked by the consensus science and not reality so off to the lake I go .

I don’t believe in “consensus” science, just science. The basic understanding of CO2s role in the atmosphere has been known for more than 100 years. The physics are described in every college physics text book. Not sure what “actual science” you believe in.

Most skeptics love to quote Roy Spencer, but even he doesn’t deny the science behind CO2 role in warming the planet.

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01...limate-denier/

What scientist is aligned with your theories of the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's the Science & Technology News thread; you don't have to engage with the perennial bickering if you don't want to, you can bring more new subjects in (as you did recently), or engage with somebody else's new topic. Ignore the troll wars. It's curious that they are mostly what you respond to.

But on the subject of climate change- there's skepticism, and there's spewing partisan propaganda: (eg: there's no consensus, scientific careerism or corruption, grant-wh0ring, socialist agenda, that Malthusian crap from the NR article, AlGoraphobia, etc etc). And in today's polarized environment, if you're engaging in the latter, you are in effect saying you're ok with spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere. If you are blocking action, how can it be otherwise? Shame is definitely warranted.

(tl;dr: there's not very much healthy skepticism on CF, or in the public. It's mostly partisanship.)

Oh please. This isn't even bickering, just more made up nonsense to justify an insatiable need to make yourself feel morally superior at the expense of others. Even diehard skeptics understand the inevitably of moving beyond fossil fuels for a variety of very good reasons, but most level-headed people also understand that we will all have to continue to "spew more CO2 into the atmosphere" until more viable and realistic alternatives become available. Seems like we're moving in that direction, so perhaps one day you'll have to find someone else to direct your disapproval towards. Until then, save it for Sunday church and the schoolyard.

But that was an interesting article from the Guardian on Elon Musk. I have mixed views of him myself, but obviously a genius far too smart to confine himself to partisan allegiances. Instead he probably recognizes how foolish and self-serving blind partisanship on both sides really is, and so wisely makes campaign contributions to both in order to hedge his bets. Not sure what his position is, if any, on CC, but I get the sense he probably thinks we're all pretty much screwed and so is looking at Mars as a future human settlement. Eventually we'll probably screw up that environment too.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Oh please. This isn't even bickering, just more made up nonsense to justify an insatiable need to make yourself feel morally superior at the expense of others.

Funny, that's exactly what I think when you drop in to wag your finger at someone about not being 'civil'. And it's almost invariably someone to the left of your viewpoint, never at someone on the right, no matter how ludicrous, false, unhelpful, or uncivil their comments were.

But that was an interesting article from the Guardian on Elon Musk. I have mixed views of him myself, but obviously a genius far too smart to confine himself to partisan allegiances. Instead he probably recognizes how foolish and self-serving blind partisanship on both sides really is, and so wisely makes campaign contributions to both in order to hedge his bets. Not sure what his position is, if any, on CC, but I get the sense he probably thinks we're all pretty much screwed and so is looking at Mars as a future human settlement. Eventually we'll probably screw up that environment too.

Well, whether he thinks they will help, or just saw an opportunity that no-one else did, he has helped push EV technology off the drawing-board and into the mainstream.

[newhaul]

Rhetorical question
What is your boat made from ? What powers the lights? What gets the power to all of your electrical devices? What gets you in and out of your marina? It's likely all oil based
Use of petroleum will not stop . humans as a species are a very use it all on every resource that we can find a use for . Technology just makes it easier .
You can't fight human nature .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Funny, that's exactly what I think when you drop in to wag your finger at someone about not being 'civil'. And it's almost invariably someone to the left of your viewpoint, never at someone on the right, no matter how ludicrous, false, unhelpful, or uncivil their comments were.

Civility is politically neutral, and also necessary for informed, productive debate regardless of the topic. Whether from the Left or Right, ludicrous, false, or unhelpful posts are usually countered quite quickly and thoroughly (esp. with CC topics) or ignored, allowing readers to then evaluate on their own. But what qualifies as such is often in the (prejudiced) eye of the beholder, especially when partisanship or just personal ego precludes any semblance of objectivity.

What I find ironic is Newhaul probably being one of the most consistently civil (if not polite) posters throughout these threads, and yet he seems to be subject to the most intense lack of civility. So this means he's being personally attacked solely based on his opinions about CC science, a topic that none of us admittedly has any real expertise with. His opinions are, of course, outside the "mainstream" science, and they are vigorously challenged. Fair enough. I'm often skeptical about some of his positions as well, but I think he's sincere in his beliefs, so why not leave it at that and let readers judge their merit/demerit on their own? Besides, even if you vehemently disagree with him, there is still value in him posting if, for no other reason, that the retorts he gets often help explain why.

My finger-wagging (as you call it) has nothing to do with anybody's position on the science itself. I could care less in fact, and have said so many times. My opinion is really confined to the state of the science, namely that it's level of certainty is exaggerated and misstated, often for personal/political reasons, but I don't feel qualified to judge the intricacies of the science itself. We've debated these points ad nauseum, and don't need to again now. My point is that peoples' ability to voice their opinions should be respected, and stand or fall in the face of legitimate scrutiny, not the sort of incivility which runs the risk of deterring them from voicing their opinions at all.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Rhetorical question
What is your boat made from ? What powers the lights? What gets the power to all of your electrical devices? What gets you in and out of your marina? It's likely all oil based
Use of petroleum will not stop . humans as a species are a very use it all on every resource that we can find a use for . Technology just makes it easier .
You can't fight human nature .

Or put another way (slightly less polite ), nobody likes a hypocrite. Most especially a sanctimonious one.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Or put another way (slightly less polite ), nobody likes a hypocrite. Most especially a sanctimonious one.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Civility is politically neutral, and also necessary for informed, productive debate regardless of the topic. Whether from the Left or Right, ludicrous, false, or unhelpful posts are usually countered quite quickly and thoroughly (esp. with CC topics) or ignored, allowing readers to then evaluate on their own. But what qualifies as such is often in the (prejudiced) eye of the beholder, especially when partisanship or just personal ego precludes any semblance of objectivity.

What I find ironic is Newhaul probably being one of the most consistently civil (if not polite) posters throughout these threads, and yet he seems to be subject to the most intense lack of civility. So this means he's being personally attacked solely based on his opinions about CC science, a topic that none of us admittedly has any real expertise with. His opinions are, of course, outside the "mainstream" science, and they are vigorously challenged. Fair enough. I'm often skeptical about some of his positions as well, but I think he's sincere in his beliefs, so why not leave it at that and let readers judge their merit/demerit on their own? Besides, even if you vehemently disagree with him, there is still value in him posting if, for no other reason, that the retorts he gets often help explain why.

My finger-wagging (as you call it) has nothing to do with anybody's position on the science itself. I could care less in fact, and have said so many times. My opinion is really confined to the state of the science, namely that it's level of certainty is exaggerated and misstated, often for personal/political reasons, but I don't feel qualified to judge the intricacies of the science itself. We've debated these points ad nauseum, and don't need to again now. My point is that peoples' ability to voice their opinions should be respected, and stand or fall in the face of legitimate scrutiny, not the sort of incivility which runs the risk of deterring them from voicing their opinions at all.

You should read what I dont post .

[garyfdl]

Originally Posted by Exile

Or put another way (slightly less polite ), nobody likes a hypocrite. Most especially a sanctimonious one.

Now that's funny.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

You should read what I dont post .

Funny. I promise not to tell your mother.