Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

XM5ER

5,087 posts

247 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
There's no such thing as "the natural cycle of things".
And models are evidence.

You've excelled yourself there.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
PRTVR said:
And then due to a limited food source the numbers will reduce, it's the natural cycle of things, things go up then go down, remind you of anything ? hehe
Before responding further I need to take the temperature of this theme...

smile
Is that an average temperature, seems to be the flavour of the month at the moment.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
robinessex said:
turbobloke said:
PRTVR said:
And then due to a limited food source the numbers will reduce, it's the natural cycle of things, things go up then go down, remind you of anything ? hehe
Before responding further I need to take the temperature of this theme...

smile
Is that an average temperature...
Yes indeed, following my own adjustments of course.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
And then due to a limited food source the numbers will reduce, it's the natural cycle of things, things go up then go down, remind you of anything ? hehe
There's no such thing as "the natural cycle of things".
Every day's a school day, may I ask how the increased number of animals survive with a reduced food source, thanks.
They don't, they just die.

My point is, nature as a whole doesn't have a state that it will naturally swing between as you (I think) are implying, and a small change can destroy an "eco-system". If there was a natural cycle as you're suggesting, wouldn't extinction events would eventually plateau? Yet we know species have been going extinct for as long as they've existed.

Some reading:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-01-16/news/1...

Article said:
The mathematics of the models scientists used in the 1960s demanded both the assumption that ecosystems tend toward equilibrium when left undisturbed and the assumption that greater diversity leads to greater stability. Over the past 25 years, however, most ecologists in the United States have largely rejected the notion of nature's being stable or tending toward balance.
New Zealand didn't evolve the process you're talking about, and disastrous examples like Cane Toads in Australia show how it's possible to send a system wildly out of control with one seemingly inconsequential change.

turbobloke said:
no such thing as "the natural cycle of things"

rofl

When were the seasons cancelled?

When were planetary axial and orbital cycles cancelled?

Holy Milankovitch batman!

I missed those memos.
What does this have to do with what I said?

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:

They don't, they just die.
Or move to where there is more food.
durbster said:


My point is, nature as a whole doesn't have a state that it will naturally swing between as you (I think) are implying, and a small change can destroy an "eco-system". If there was a natural cycle as you're suggesting, wouldn't extinction events would eventually plateau? Yet we know species have been going extinct for as long as they've existed.
Strange attractors and chaos theory (looks like a natural cycle from a distance). May I suggest you read up on the work of Dr. Lorenz.

durbster said:
New Zealand didn't evolve the process you're talking about, and disastrous examples like Cane Toads in Australia show how it's possible to send a system wildly out of control with one seemingly inconsequential change.
Foreign invasion by an alien species with a lack of natural predators will cause a problem in any system. Not sure how this applies?
durbster said:
What does this have to do with what I said?
Everything is natural - even humans.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
laugh

"Leonardo DiCaprio flew eyebrow artist 7,500 miles to do his brows for the Oscars

The move is particularly surprising given the fact that DiCaprio is an active environment campaigner"

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/le...

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
And then due to a limited food source the numbers will reduce, it's the natural cycle of things, things go up then go down, remind you of anything ? hehe
There's no such thing as "the natural cycle of things".
Every day's a school day, may I ask how the increased number of animals survive with a reduced food source, thanks.
They don't, they just die.

My point is, nature as a whole doesn't have a state that it will naturally swing between as you (I think) are implying, and a small change can destroy an "eco-system". If there was a natural cycle as you're suggesting, wouldn't extinction events would eventually plateau? Yet we know species have been going extinct for as long as they've existed.

Some reading:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-01-16/news/1...

Article said:
The mathematics of the models scientists used in the 1960s demanded both the assumption that ecosystems tend toward equilibrium when left undisturbed and the assumption that greater diversity leads to greater stability. Over the past 25 years, however, most ecologists in the United States have largely rejected the notion of nature's being stable or tending toward balance.
New Zealand didn't evolve the process you're talking about, and disastrous examples like Cane Toads in Australia show how it's possible to send a system wildly out of control with one seemingly inconsequential change.

turbobloke said:
no such thing as "the natural cycle of things"

rofl

When were the seasons cancelled?

When were planetary axial and orbital cycles cancelled?

Holy Milankovitch batman!

I missed those memos.
What does this have to do with what I said?
I know it's the Political debate, but :-

What is Chaos Theory?
Chaos Theory is a mathematical sub-discipline that studies complex systems. Examples of these complex systems that Chaos Theory helped fathom are earth's weather system, the behaviour of water boiling on a stove, migratory patterns of birds, or the spread of vegetation across a continent. Chaos is everywhere, from nature's most intimate considerations to art of any kind. Chaos-based graphics show up all the time, wherever flocks of little space ships sweep across the movie screen in highly complex ways, or awesome landscapes adorn the theatre of some dramatic Oscar scene. Complex systems are systems that contain so much motion (so many elements that move) that computers are required to calculate all the various possibilities. That is why Chaos Theory could not have emerged before the second half of the 20th century. But there is another reason that Chaos Theory was born so recently, and that is the Quantum Mechanical Revolution and how it ended the deterministic era! Up to the Quantum Mechanical Revolution people believed that things were directly caused by other things, that what went up had to come down, and that if only we could catch and tag every particle in the universe we could predict events from then on. Entire governments and systems of belief were (and, sadly, are still) founded on these beliefs, and when Sigmund Freud invented psychoanalysis, he headed out from the idea that malfunctions in the mind are the results of traumas suffered in the past. Regression would allow the patient to stroll down memory lane, pinpoint the sore spot and rub it away with Freud's healing techniques that were again based on linear cause and effect. Chaos Theory however taught us that nature most often works in patterns, which are caused by the sum of many tiny pulses.

That's put a spanner in the CC models, hasn't it?

dickymint

24,096 posts

257 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
Some reading:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-01-16/news/1...

Article said:
The mathematics of the models scientists used in the 1960s demanded both the assumption that ecosystems tend toward equilibrium when left undisturbed and the assumption that greater diversity leads to greater stability. Over the past 25 years, however, most ecologists in the United States have largely rejected the notion of nature's being stable or tending toward balance.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/alston-chase-makes-same-kinds-of-mistakes/article_3c35d1f3-d8f3-5136-b959-c46c07b044d9.html
Odd that you've linked to a Philosopher by the name of Alston Chase? But thanks for the heads up (and by the way note that contrary to your assumptions DO actually research things).

Alstom Chase also wrote this.................

"The Precautionary Principle and global warming
In sum, the Precautionary Principle is not prudential at all. Rather, it is a rhetorical device
for promoting a biocentric agenda. By encouraging us to leap before we look, its
application often proves disastrous for both nature and society. Again and again, it has encouraged us to jump to conclusions, concerning scares over radiation, pesticides,
fungicides, herbicides, asbestos and ozone depletion and many other things. Each of these
hasty responses has inspired prohibitions that limited the options available to us for coping
with more genuine dangers, and some might have done more harm to public health than
good.
[b] Similar consequences could result if this maxim is used to guide policy decisions on global
warming. For it enjoins us to ignore all the scientific questions, all the uncertainty, all the
failed, global circulation model predictions of calamity, all the evidence that waiting poses
little risk, all the possible beneficial effects, on plant life and growing seasons, of increased
atmospheric carbon dioxide, all the economic dislocations, all the social injustices of
carbon rationing, all the losses of liberty, all the bloating of bureaucracies, all the increased
poverty and all the diversions of funds from other environmental-protection efforts — to
ignore all this, just to ensure that we don’t continue to interfere with nature. [/b]
Given the potential dangers of using the Precautionary Principle in this instance, therefore,
I suggest we apply this precept to itself. Such a meta-rule would be: ‘If there is a probability,
however small, that invoking the Precautionary Principle to combat global warming might
produce more ecologic or social harm than good, then lack of scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing the decision not to use it.’

Rather than invoking the Precautionary Principle, I suggest we slog along as we have,
continuing research and debate, weighing carefully what we know and what we don’t
know, keeping in mind that living systems are far more robust than civilisations, and that
societies are more likely to collapse as a consequence of unwise social policies than as a
result of ecological mismanagement.
Just as the theorems of game theory imply, this is a debate between optimists and pessimists,
in which no one holds the logical, moral or epistemic high ground. The values of biocentrism
are no more sacrosanct than those of liberty or economic prosperity. And it is the people
and their elected representatives, not scientists or NGO careerists who must decide."

My bold.

Yes he seems to know his stuff clap




mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
yes

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
Somebody said 'there is no such thing as the natural cycle of things'.

Is the argument now that it didn't say "cycles" (plural) keeping open the option to pick and choose which cycle of which thing in nature was being referred to?

From the latest offering, how do the assumptions of modellers impact on the real world? Modelling assumptions have no impact on reality at all.

This (natural cycles) is what the discussion was about, until the latest statement about assumptions made by modellers and something about a new consensus of ecologists.

Any real or imaginary consensus of ecologists also has no impact on reality whatsoever and it's an irrelevant appeal to consensus anyway.

So much bunk in so little time.

Of vastly greater importance and relevance, has somebody unambiguously identified causality to humans in a visible human signal in any global climate data? Thought not.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
dickymint said:
Odd that you've linked to a Philosopher by the name of Alston Chase? But thanks for the heads up (and by the way note that contrary to your assumptions DO actually research things).
Meh. It was just the first link I found.

I first heard the fallacy of the ecosystem explained in Adam Curtis' All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, but couldn't link to that. Here's a better article about that specfic piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/2...

dickymint said:
Yes he seems to know his stuff clap
mybrainhurts said:
yes
Are saying you agree with my comment?

turbobloke said:
Somebody said 'there is no such thing as the natural cycle of things'.

Is the argument now that it didn't say "cycles" (plural) keeping open the option to pick and choose which cycle of which thing in nature was being referred to?
What are you on about?

The phrase, "the natural cycle of things," suggests nature is an organised, balanced entity that will regress to a certain state if left alone. I'm saying there's no evidence to support that.

To be honest, I've read your waffling reply a few times and can't make head nor tail of it, so frankly have no idea whther you agree with that notion or not.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
The phrase, "the natural cycle of things," suggests nature is an organised, balanced entity that will regress to a certain state if left alone. I'm saying there's no evidence to support that.
Agreed with the section in bold.

Now, what is the "normal" average temperature of the Planet to which point of balance the current temperature would fall if humanity stops producing any CO2 output?

Corollary to that: What is the "normal" level of CO2 at a stabilized point that is the correct balance for life on Earth. (Please indicate whether your proposed number includes or excludes the presence of humans.)

By the way - I think you have misunderstood the use of the phrase in the first place. Or something.

dickymint

24,096 posts

257 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
dickymint said:
Odd that you've linked to a Philosopher by the name of Alston Chase? But thanks for the heads up (and by the way note that contrary to your assumptions DO actually research things).
Meh. It was just the first link I found.
Exactly what I thought - you did a quick google and found something that you accuse everybody else of doing.... CONFIRMATION BIAS rolleyes You even picked on an "expert in his field" - shame that expert totally blew apart your totally one sided, biased and blinded view/s!! But keep reading His stuff as you may learn something but somehow I doubt it.

You are a troll and a hypocrite of the first order


mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
The phrase, "the natural cycle of things," suggests nature is an organised, balanced entity that will regress to a certain state if left alone. I'm saying there's no evidence to support that.
oooh are tides well organised then? and sun-spots? And 3.5 billion women?

A cycle does not suggest regression to a norm at all, the opposite in fact. Thought better of you Durbs.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
Beebs desperate CC story

Bread's environmental costs are counted

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3910...

""The environmental impact of producing a loaf of bread has been analysed in depth from the farm to the shop shelf.
The biggest single factor is the use of fertiliser to grow wheat, which accounts for 43% of greenhouse gas emissions, say experts.
Emissions arise from energy needed to make ammonium nitrate fertiliser and from nitrous oxide released when it is broken down in the soil.
Around 12 million loaves are sold each day in the UK.
Consumers need to be more aware of the environmental costs of their food, say researchers at the University of Sheffield.
There are growing concerns about pollution from plastic packaging around food, as well as wider environmental issues.
Lead researcher Dr Liam Goucher said that in every loaf there is embodied global warming resulting from the fertiliser farmers use to increase their wheat harvest.
"That one key raw material accounts for - in terms of global warming potential - 43% of a loaf of bread," he told BBC News."

Er, so what. I guess anything that is 'made' can be found to be a contributor to the so called CC. Even bovines farting are polluting the planet apparently. Quite pointless observation really.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Beebs desperate CC story

Bread's environmental costs are counted

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3910...
So does this imply that people who do not consume wheat based products are in the clear but those who do need to be re-trained?

Or would a suitable reduction in whatever outputs are worrying the poor man be most easily achieved by simply removing the source of the demand? Presumably getting rid of wheat product eaters would eliminate demand and therefore solve the problem?

No point in stopping there though. May as well fix things completely and eliminate all CO2 producers.

Kawasicki

13,041 posts

234 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
[quote=durbster]

The phrase, "the natural cycle of things," suggests nature is an organised, balanced entity that will regress to a certain state if left alone. I'm saying there's no evidence to support that.
/quote]

It gets darker in the evening and lighter in the morning.

The survival of the fittest.

Evidence? Really?

XM5ER

5,087 posts

247 months

Monday 27th February 2017
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Beebs desperate CC story

Bread's environmental costs are counted

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3910...

""The environmental impact of producing a loaf of bread has been analysed in depth from the farm to the shop shelf.
The biggest single factor is the use of fertiliser to grow wheat, which accounts for 43% of greenhouse gas emissions, say experts.
Emissions arise from energy needed to make ammonium nitrate fertiliser and from nitrous oxide released when it is broken down in the soil.
Around 12 million loaves are sold each day in the UK.
Consumers need to be more aware of the environmental costs of their food, say researchers at the University of Sheffield.
There are growing concerns about pollution from plastic packaging around food, as well as wider environmental issues.
Lead researcher Dr Liam Goucher said that in every loaf there is embodied global warming resulting from the fertiliser farmers use to increase their wheat harvest.
"That one key raw material accounts for - in terms of global warming potential - 43% of a loaf of bread," he told BBC News."

Er, so what. I guess anything that is 'made' can be found to be a contributor to the so called CC. Even bovines farting are polluting the planet apparently. Quite pointless observation really.
It's a perfect example of what us sceptics have been saying for a long time. Carbon tax is a tax on everything and is utterly regressive with the poor hit hardest and all to no end unless you make a policy decision to say that if you can't afford the taxed food, you starve to death you useless eater.

And breathe..,

powerstroke

10,283 posts

159 months

Tuesday 28th February 2017
quotequote all
XM5ER said:
It's a perfect example of what us sceptics have been saying for a long time. Carbon tax is a tax on everything and is utterly regressive with the poor hit hardest and all to no end unless you make a policy decision to say that if you can't afford the taxed food, you starve to death you useless eater.

And breathe..,
Let them eat cake ..

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Tuesday 28th February 2017
quotequote all
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
Odd that you've linked to a Philosopher by the name of Alston Chase? But thanks for the heads up (and by the way note that contrary to your assumptions DO actually research things).
Meh. It was just the first link I found.
Exactly what I thought - you did a quick google and found something that you accuse everybody else of doing.... CONFIRMATION BIAS rolleyes You even picked on an "expert in his field" - shame that expert totally blew apart your totally one sided, biased and blinded view/s!! But keep reading His stuff as you may learn something but somehow I doubt it.

You are a troll and a hypocrite of the first order
i have to say among all the alarmist interludes of the past few years durbs has been the most stoic . unfortunately when arguing from the alarmist position there is no alternative but regression to the mean ,but fair play to durbs ,he resisted for a very long time.
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED