VincentRJ

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

You've played this card before, and now you're playing it again: you seem to think that since solar irradiance was the primary driver of past periods of climate change, that it must be the only thing that can be a driver of climate change.  That's simply not true.

 

You seem to have misunderstood everything I've written. As I've mentioned before, the subject is enormously complex and chaotic. There are so many, many influences on climate that it is currently impossible to quantify the role of any one contributing factor, such as mankind's emissions of CO2.

I have no problem with the concept that mankind's activities in general are one of those contributing factors, but separating and accurately quantifying the contribution of each of the many factors, whether natural or manmade, is currently beyond the scope of science.

If you insist that the rise in average global temperature is natural, what's the driver?

Who knows! However, here's one study that suggests submarine volcanoes might be a major cause of the current warming.

"A new study shows that undersea volcanoes flare up on strikingly regular cycles, ranging from two weeks to 100,000 years -- and, that they erupt almost exclusively during the first six months of each year. The pulses -- apparently tied to short- and long-term changes in earth's orbit, and to sea levels -- may help trigger natural climate swings."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150205142921.htm

And here's a more recent study.

"The most productive volcanic systems on Earth are hidden under an average of 8,500 feet (2,600 m) of water. Beneath the oceans a global system of mid-ocean ridges produces an estimated 75% of the annual output of magma. An estimated 0.7 cubic miles (3 cubic kilometers) of lava is erupted. The magma and lava create the edges of new oceanic plates and supply heat and chemicals to some of the Earth's most unusual and rare ecosystems.
If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans then there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes." 

http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138

Can you imagine the difficulty, and perhaps impossibility, of monitoring a million volcanoes on the sea floors?
 

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

Then you are a denier....the point about climate change is it is this time man made.

 

Do you mean that the natural processes of climate change have mysteriously stopped because mankind has now become in charge of the climate?

The last Little Ice Age began about 750 years ago. Do you believe we should still be in the Little Ice Age when the Thames in London sometimes completely froze during winter, and homeless people died en masse?

4 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

Hi Vincent.

 

The behavior might be correct, but the reason perhaps not.

 

My understanding was that the path required full time practice.

Anything less would not achieve Awakening for most.

 

This is why the Buddha asked the community to support Monks.

 

Hi Rocky,
That's fine if one excludes the concept that killing worms, insects, ants and so on, creates bad or negative karma.

The significant questions here are, "Do the Buddhist rules which forbid the killing of all living, or sentient creatures, include primitive creatures such as ants, cockroaches, spiders, worms, rats, and so many types of insects and microbes that live in the soil?"

"Is there some cut-off point where the killing of a dog results in a significant degree of bad karma, the killing of a snake results in a less significant degree of bad karma, the killing of a mouse or rat results in perhaps the minimum amount of bad karma, and the killing of a cockroach results in no bad karma at all?"

"Or, is there always a gradual diminution of the degree of bad karma, so the more primitive the creature, the less significant the bad karma, all the way down to bacteria, which would presumably be the cut-off point?"

"If the unintentional killing of an ant results is a very tiny amount of bad karma, does the unintentional killing of 5,000 ants and other insects during the normal course of farming, for a period of say one year, result in the same degree of bad karma which results from the killing of one dog?"

I have no objection to anyone spending most of his time meditating, or studying philosophy, or pure mathematics, or theoretical physics, and so on, if some organization or system is prepared to support him.
What I object to is the immorality and irrationality of someone's progress in developing good karma, being dependent upon other people's accumulation of bad karma, as they continue to kill thousand of insects during farming practices, whilst producing food which is essential for the life of everyone.
 

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, it's obvious to me that we all share the karma of killing smaller beings just because we eat food.

I think that the reason because the monks don't produce their own food is to dedicate their time to study and meditation, still i'd guess that growing vegetables is not a forbidden activity for a monk.

 

There's a slightly heretical Buddhist movement in Thailand called Santi Asoke, which has attempted to address some of these puzzling issues in the established Buddhist culture, which seem at odds with the fundamental, egalitarian principles of Buddhism found in the scriptures.

One of the issues relates to the ordination of women. Another major issue is the eating of meat, and another major issue is the massive amount of money spent on glittering, gold temples, and the promotion of the idea one can effectively 'buy good karma', or 'gain merit', by donating lots of money to a particular temple organization.

The Santi Asoke communities refuse to accept donations. They ordain women. They grow their own food organically. They raise funds by selling their produce at a very low price in the local market. They are strict vegans, eating no products of animals, neither fish nor eggs nor milk. The monks and nuns are allowed to work, and are encouraged to meditate through a process of concentration and mindfulness whilst they are working, rather than sitting down for long periods of time doing nothing.

I visited one of their communities a few years ago, and was looking forward to seeing monks and nuns working together in the fields, growing vegetables.

Alas! One of the monks who spoke reasonable English explained to me that they were not allowed to work in the fields because they might kill worms and insects. They did other work, like attending to the printer or the equipment used to process the crops grown. The farm workers in the community, who grew the produce that supported the whole community, could not be ordained whilst continuing their work on the farms.

This appears to me to be like a hierarchy which is similar to the caste system in India, which the Buddha tried to oppose, but I think was not completely successful in his opposition to it.

54 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

 

2 hours ago, Moonlover said:

I completely agree with you. Personally I've no time for these lazy, conniving layabouts nor the religion they profess to follow.

 

The only 'work' they ever do is walk around the village scrounging food from the poorest and most naive of society and sweep leaves. (unless they can con someone else into doing that for them as well)

 

The example they set has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of the Buddha.

 

I wouldn't go that far. Some monks do behave badly, in relation to the Buddhist rules, but not all of them. They don't actually 'scrounge' food, but offer an opportunity to the common folk to be generous and compassionate in terms of giving. The people who drop food in the monks' alms bowls actually feel good about it, I suspect. The practice also creates a sense of communication between the monks and the Buddhist population.

What I object to is this concept that a monk should not attempt to grow his own food because he would almost certainly kill some worms and insects, inadvertently, with the consequences of bad karma, but he is quite willing for other people to kill worms and insects on his behalf, in order to feed him, the monk. The killing of sentient creatures presumably results in bad karma for anyone and everyone who does it.

On 11/17/2018 at 5:57 PM, Moonlover said:

Personally I would question the moral fibre of the man. If karma is a real concept, what he's doing is offloading his karmic responsibly onto you. That's like conning some else into paying a speeding ticket you have acquired.

 

I would be tempted to say to him: 'If the dog bothers you so much, grow some balls and kill it yourself'.

That appears logical, and assuming karma is real, I think most people would agree with your statement.

However, if one considers the general practices of the religion of Buddhism, with thousands of ordained monks accepting food donations from the general population, and who are not allowed to grow their own food because they would inevitably kill worms and insects when tilling the fields, which would result in bad karma, are those monks not in the same moral position as the guy who asks his neighbour to kill the dog?

Isn't the monk effectively saying, or implicitly saying to the working population when he receives food in his bowl, "Please kill the worms and insects for me, because I will receive bad karma if I grow my own food and kill worms and insects. But it's okay for you to receive bad karma because you are at a lower level."

5 hours ago, honu said:

The U.S. Global Change Research Program just released a full report about what the impacts of global climate change will be:

 

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

 

But this should mean nothing to those of you who think climate change isn't real. 

Absolutely true, with reference to your statement I've highlighted in bold. Those who think climate change is not real are total ignoramuses, regarding climate. The first thing that anyone who is interested in climate needs to know, is that climate is always changing, regardless of human activity. The historical record shows this clearly and definitely, without doubt.

The degree to which human activity is contributing to the current change in climate is not certain. However, the fact that climate is always changing, is certain.

Considering the frequent damage to property and infrastructure, caused by extreme weather events throughout the world, during the present time and during the past when CO2 levels were much lower, it's clear that protecting ourselves from such extreme events is not a priority.

Creating an alarm about CO2, and pretending that reductions in CO2 will solve the problems due to extreme weather events, is a political con, not supported by the science.

Where's the evidence for such a statement, you might ask? Refer to the Working Group 1 summary in the AR5 IPCC report, issued in 2013, which stated there is 'low confidence' that hurricanes, floods and droughts had been increasing on a global scale during the previous 50 years. The 'low confidence' is due to a lack of evidence. The Working Group 1 involves the physical sciences, and its summary is different to the political summaries of the IPCC, which are largely based on computer models and projections, designed with an exaggerated risk to encourage political action.

Refer to page 50 of the attached pdf.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

10 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Ah, it's the 'science has been wrong in the past' chestnut that is so often misused to reject scientific consensus out of hand, without having to get your hands dirty doing any actual work.

 

Really? I've never come across any serious person who is genuinely interested in a subject, rejecting a consensus 'out of hand', without applying reason and logic to the available evidence. I certainly don't.
As I mentioned before, I used to accept the alarm about rising CO2 levels and the potential harm it will cause with ocean acidification, rising sea levels and an increase in extreme weather events. Why wouldn't I? I had not investigated the matter for myself (at that time, many years ago) and knew very little about climate and its history and was relying upon news items and interviews of scientists on the media, as most people probably still do.

However, because of my general interest in science and my respect for the scientific methodology, I began later searching for the answers to questions that had arisen in my mind whilst listening to some of those interviews of scientists about the dangers of CO2 levels.

After checking various sources on the internet, including IPCC reports, data from various Bureaus of Meteorology, NASA satellite data, as well as qualified climatologists who have contrarian views, it became very apparent that the narrative about the dangers of rising CO2 levels was very biased and was presented in the media in a manner to produce the maximum alarm.

Any information which might cause the listener to question the justification for the alarm, was usually not provided.
For example, consider the alarm about ocean acidification. Most people with even a basic understanding of general science will understand the concept that CO2 dissolves in water to form a weak acid (Carbonic Acid), and most people will appreciate that acid can be harmful.

However, do most people know what the pH of the oceans currently is, and how much it has changed during the past couple of hundred years? There are many people interested in gardening and who are probably aware that changes in the soil pH can affect the growth of their roses, or fruit trees.
Why do the scientists who talk about the dangers of ocean acidification, during interviews on the media, never mention the current pH of the oceans, and how much it has changed during the past century or two, leaving the listener perhaps wondering if the oceans are already acidic, that is, have a pH of less than 7?

The answer, presumably, is because such information would not be alarming, and could actually undermine the alarm. The purpose of the interview was to cause alarm, not to educate the public. That's the problem.

And of course, another glaring example is the comparison of the conditions on Venus with the future conditions on the Earth if we don't reduce CO2 levels. When I fist heard this comparison during an interview with James Hansen on the radio, I thought, 'that's interesting', but why has no-one mentioned during the interview what the actual CO2 levels are on Venus? I had to search the internet to find out. 96.5%. Wow! What a comparison!

The logic behind this argument is fallacious because it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science.  Discarded theories often aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or adjustments.

I agree. In the interests of brevity I wrote, 'so often wrong', when I should have written, 'sometimes completely wrong, and so often, almost without exception, partially wrong, requiring modification of the theory.

Exception: evidence is nearly always objective and not in need of "interpretation".  Evidence that's open to interpretation isn't evidence of anything, it's a clue that leads us to the objective evidence.

You seem confused on this point. Everything is open to interpretation. To determine that the evidence is sound, requires an interpretation. To determine that the evidence confirms, or conforms with a particular theory, requires an interpretation. All data has to be interpreted.

Objectivity, subjectivity, biases, and so on, are conditions of the human observer. All the evidence we have about anything and everything is observed, experienced, and thought about, in the human mind.
Here's the etymology of the noun 'evidence', from Old French: "appearance from which inferences may be drawn".

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Care to comment about the very high albedo of Venus?  According to your hypothesis, Venus should be a snow ball.  Venus has an albedo of .75 which is why it appears so bright in the sky - it reflect most of the sunlight that hits it.  Yes its surface temperature is around 460°C.  I think your "alternative" hypothesis needs a little work before you embark on the experiments and research required to test it.

 

Another excellent example of why I'm an CAGW skeptic. The alarmists so often attempt to make ridiculous comparisons to support their non-scientific alarm, as in your example above.

Most skeptics do not dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and I certainly don't. CO2 levels on Earth have risen from about 0.028 % of the atmosphere to about 0.041 % during the past 150 years or so.
However, the percentage of CO2 in the Venus atmosphere is 96.5 %. Fancy comparing a situation of 96.5 % of CO2 on another planet, which has many different characteristics to the Earth, with a situation of 0.04 % or possibly 0.05 % in the future, on Earth. How ridiculous! How alarmist!

The opaque clouds surrounding Venus do have a strong albedo effect. The albedo effect is so strong we can't see the surface of Venus. Those clouds consist of Sulphur Dioxide and droplets of sulphuric acid. There's no water on Venus.

Furthermore, the atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is 90 times greater than Earth. Being down at the bottom of that column of atmosphere is the same as being beneath a kilometer of ocean on Earth. 
Also, Venus rotates so slowly that one day is equivalent to 243 Earth days. It's a very different situation to Earth, although it's true that the mass of the planet is similar to the Earth.
 

Quote

Incorrect.  Science doesn't consider arguments.  It considers the observable evidence and reaches a conclusion that is in agreement with that evidence.

Those conclusions in agreement with the evidence are so often proved to be wrong in the future, as more evidence becomes available, and/or different interpretations are applied to the same evidence. Have you not read any history of science?

You seem to have missed the point that an argument is not just an angry exchange of views, but also a reason, or set of reasons, in support of an idea or theory. All observable evidence has to be interpreted, without exception. If the subject is complex and uncertain, such as climate change, interpretations can, and do, vary wildly.
 

PS: For information on the changing albedo of the Earth, check out the following NASA site.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo

"In the early 2000s, after the first few years of Terra-CERES measurements, it appeared that Earth’s albedo was declining, a phenomenon that was widely reported in scientific journals and on NASA Earth Observatory. But as more years of data accumulated, and as scientists began to better understand the data, they found that albedo was neither increasing nor declining over time. It was fluctuating a lot by year, though.

“What the results show is that even at global scales, Earth’s albedo fluctuates markedly over short time periods due to natural variations in the climate system,” said Norman Loeb, CERES principal investigator at NASA’s Langley Research Center. Ice cover, cloud cover, and the amount of airborne particles—aerosols from pollution, volcanoes, and dust storms—can change reflectivity on scales from days to years. “We should not get fooled by short-term fluctuations in the data, as a longer record may reverse any short-term trend.”

13 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

It doesn't matter how I define it, it's how science defines it.  

 

Runaway effects are the results of positive feedback loops, which exist in many different areas of basic science.  In physics, a runaway effect is caused by the response of some system reacting to a stimulus, and the response of the system is such that it increases the stimulus further, provoking additional response, and so on until the system collapses or fails in some way.

 

The positive feedback loop in climate science goes like this:
 

1. Earth begins to warm due to solar forcing, water vapor, volcanic activity or some other reason.
2. A warming Earth releases more CO₂, methane hydrates and other greenhouse gasses, and decreases Earth's albedo (reflectivity) due to melting ice sheets, which are highly reflective.
3. A less reflective Earth absorbs more of the sun's energy instead of reflecting it back into space, increasing Earth's energy budget and making it warmer.
4. More greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere blanket the planet, trapping even more heat and causing Earth to warm even further.
5. Go back to step 2.

Excellent example of the reason I'm an AGW skeptic, Attrayant. After investigating the issue of climate change for myself, I soon realized that the alarmists were presenting only one side of the argument. They would conveniently ignore any evidence that might imply that the causes for their alarm might be very uncertain.

The runaway effect, as you've described it, will only happen when there is a lack of a counteracting 'negative' feedback.
Surely you must know that 'mother nature' is rather good at restoring a balance. However, I do wonder if the fundamental reason why so many people seem to unquestioningly accept the 'Catastrophic' AGW mantra, is because most people seem to be generally isolated from the processes of 'mother nature'. They live in concrete jungles, sit in air-conditioned offices in front of a computer for most of the day, and generally lead a lifestyle where everything is controlled by numerous regulations, such as the time they eat their meals, the time they report for work, the speed with which they drive their car, the appointments they make for medical check-ups, and so on.

The concept that we can use CO2 levels as a 'control knob' to restrain the climate from changing, fits in very well within the very controlled environment that most people live in. However, it seems clear to me that mother nature is far too complex for such simplistic controls to have much effect.

Here's an example of the 'negative' feedback effects which counteract your alarmist, positive feedback loop. Genuine, true science, always considers both sides of the argument.

1. As the planet warms, for whatever reason, more water evaporates.
2. The evaporation of water produces a cooling effect. The heat is transferred and carried away by the water vapor, into the lower atmosphere.
3. The more water vapor is in the atmosphere, the greater the chance of clouds and rain.
4. As clouds form, due to the saturation of the atmosphere with water vapor, and the seeding effect from dust, and particles emitted from forests, the latent heat is released. Warm air rises and winds carry that warmth in all directions.
4. The albedo effect from the presence of more clouds, counteracts the loss of albedo due to melting ice and glaciers.

Surely everyone has noticed that it's much cooler on a cloudy day. ????

On 11/16/2018 at 11:15 PM, attrayant said:

Using Chernobyl as justification to worry about the safety of modern nuclear reactors is like using the Hindenburg disaster to worry about the safety of modern air travel.  Nothing is 100% safe; we need to weigh the cost, risk and benefit.  Considering how bad designs were in the past, and that they're only getting better, I feel comfortable with nuclear reactors and other renewable energy point solutions wherever they work best.

 

I didn't use only Chernobyl as a justification for concern, but also Fukushima. Whilst the Fukushima disaster was probably not caused by old technology and under-trained staff, both incidents highlight the problems of poor decisions being made with regard to human safety, as a result of the pressures of economic development.

Consider the absurdity of the situation at Fukushima. Along the coastline there are a number of monuments erected a hundred years ago and more, marking the levels of previous tsunamis. Some of them, or at least one of them, even have an inscription, 'Do not build your house below this level'. Yet the construction of the Fukushima nuclear reactor, way below the level of those warning monuments, close to sea level, was approved. Why?

It's not as though those warning monuments were a hidden secret, buried in the earth.
It seems that the Japanese court is also in agreement.
http://www.atimes.com/article/japan-court-shocks-nuclear-industry-liability-ruling/

"Japan’s atomic power establishment is in shock following the court ruling on Friday that found the state and the operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant liable for failing to take preventive measures against the tsunami that crippled the facility.

The reason for the shock is the ruling has wide-ranging implications for Japan’s entire nuclear power industry and the efforts to restart reactors throughout the country.
 

Judges in the Maebashi District Court in Gunma prefecture ruled that Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco) and the government were aware of the earthquake and tsunami risks to the Fukushima Daiichi plant prior to the 2011 triple reactor meltdown, but failed to take preventative measures."

I did a search for historical records of previous tsunamis along that east coast of Japan, and came across the following information which also shows the number of people killed during past tsunamis. Prior to the construction of the nuclear power plant at Fukushima, there had been 4 tsunamis during the previous 100 years.

15.06.1896- Sanriku, a wave generated by the Riku-Ugo earthquake killed 20,000-26,000 people
02.03.1933- Sanriku 3,000-6,000 
07.12.1944- To-Nankai 1,223
20.12.1946- To-Nankai 1,330 

Unfortunately, this type of situation is prevalent throughout the world, as a result of the political emphasis on economic development. Authorities allow the inadequate construction of homes and infrastructure in areas that are at risk of extreme weather events. The historical record of such extreme events tends to be ignored, and the causes of the disaster are often blamed on Anthropogenic Global Warming, if not directly, then indirectly.

At least there are some sensible climate scientists who are prepared to concede that one cannot attribute the cause of any specific extreme weather event to AGW, but the false 'meme' that extreme weather events are on the increase is perpetuated by the news media.

Nuclear power is too risky. Those who are alarmed about the 'scientifically very uncertain' effects of rising CO2 levels, should be at least equally alarmed about the possible, occasional, disastrous effects of mismanaged nuclear power plants.

The two major nuclear power disasters, at Chernobyl and Fukushima, occurred mainly as a result of human incompetence. The Chernobyl reactor was a flawed design operated by untrained staff. The reactor at Fukushima was built below the known historical flood levels of previous tsunamis. That was taking a big risk in order to save the increased construction cost of building the reactor at a level above the 100 year old stone tablets that indicated the height of previous tsunamis along that eastern coast of Japan.

There's so much corruption and mismanagement in the world. It would be very alarming if nuclear reactors became the norm in countries all over the planet, including developing countries.

We know what has happened in China and India in the interest of economic development. Low cost and high emission coal-fired power plants causing lots of haze and smog with significant health problems. The technology to significantly reduce harmful emissions existed, but it was expensive and rarely used. Now that China is wealthier and more developed, they are using the latest coal plant technology, Ultra-Supercritical, which almost eliminates all toxic emissions and particulate carbon, except CO2 of course, which we all know is a clean, clear and odourless gas. ????

Welcome back to the forum, Rocky. How is life?

I'm surprised this forum has become so quiet recently. It seems we have exhausted the intellectual discussions and all that remains to be done now is to sit down quietly and meditate. ????

Your comment on the situation of Arahants reminds me of Gautama's initial predicament after his enlightenment. Here's one interpretation of that story.

"At first, the Buddha was reluctant to teach because what he had realized could not be communicated in words. Only through discipline and clarity of mind would delusions fall away and could one experience the Great Reality. Listeners without that direct experience would be stuck in conceptualizations and would surely misunderstand everything he said. Still, compassion persuaded him to make the attempt to transmit what he had realized."
 

1 hour ago, honu said:

Climate scientists believe that carbon dioxide moderates climate, particularly global temperatures, and that carefully observed trends in both rising are tightly linked. 

 

More people than ever before had their homes destroyed by hurricanes related to climate change, or in wildfires related to droughts related to climate change.  It's well summarized in this quote from that article, tied to reference sources cited there:

 

Extreme weather events — like wildfires and hurricanes — are also becoming more extreme. These changes are consistent with a warming world, scientists say. That sort of makes sense: though the Gallup poll found that while only 64 percent of Americans think that global warming is caused by human activities, 97 percent of climate scientists believe that.

The only belief that is related to science is the belief in the validity of the scientific methodology of repeated experimentation and consistent observations, in real time, which can confirm a theory with reasonable confidence.

As I've mentioned before, at least twice, the Working Group 1 summary in the AR5 IPCC report, released in 2013, states quite clearly that there is 'low confidence' that extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, have increased since 1950. The evidence simply isn't there, despite the increases in the number and sophistication of measuring devices during the 20th century.

I recently mentioned this to a retired Microbiologist I met at a talk about Confucius. His immediate reaction was, 'That doesn't mean that extreme weather events are not increasing.' I immediately realized the guy was a climate-change alarmist with a 'belief' that CO2 emissions were bad.

If one were to say to a devout Christian that there is no sound scientific evidence that God exists, he would likely also reply, 'That does not mean that God does not exist.' Do you see why climate-change alarmism is often described as a religion?

I admit there is always the possibility that some intelligent creator of the first forms of life on our planet, exists. Perhaps they were very advanced aliens in another galaxy who seeded our planet with micro-bacteria. But that's pure speculation, and not at all scientific.

Usually, whenever more people have their homes destroyed by a recent hurricane or flood, or bush fire, than in the past, it is because more homes have been built in those precarious areas, not because the extreme weather events were stronger.

But sometimes of course, past records of the severity of a particular type of storm in a particular region can occasionally be broken. That's to be expected. It's unreasonable to presume that all extreme weather events in the past, in all regions, were worse.

18 hours ago, honu said:

It's not a trivial, insignificant amount of carbon dioxide that has been added to the atmosphere; the amount has went from around 280 ppm (parts per million) before the industrial revolution, not long ago, to over 400 ppm now.

If carbon dioxide were a poison like Arsenic, for example, then an increase from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million, which represents an increase of 0.012% of the total volume of the atmosphere, would not be trivial or insignificant, regarding human health.

However, CO2 is the opposite of a poison. It's essential for all life. Using Vitamin C as an analogy might be more relevant. A minimum amount of Vitamin C is essential to prevent scurvy, but taking more than the minimum recommended dosage has additional health benefits. 

Likewise, a minimum amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is essential for plant survival, but adding more than the minimum amount allows plants, and therefore animal life, to flourish.

The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak cold conditions about 21,000 to 18,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were very low, around 180 ppm. The warming became significant about 11,700 years ago, which is around the time of the first signs of human civilizations that archaeology has discovered.

One of the very first civilizations, that we know of, was Göbekli Tepe, situated in what is currently Turkey. A while later, around 10,000 years ago, the Indus Valley civilization began, situated around the borders of Pakistan and India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe

It used to be assumed that the Neanderthals became extinct as a result of the superior fighting skills of Homo Sapiens Sapiens who wiped them out. However it is now believed that they became extinct because they were unable to adapt to the extreme cold weather at the peak of the last Ice Age.

Adaption is the key. Spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce the levels of a gas which is essential for all life, doesn't seem very sensible to me. That money would be better spent building flood mitigation dams, long water pipes to transport water from where it is plentiful to where it is scarce, strengthening the homes of people who live in areas subject to hurricanes, and cleaning up the environment (that is, reducing emissions of toxic chemicals, particulate carbon in the atmosphere, plastic bags, and so on.)

Try reading the following. It's an alternative point of view based on quantum mechanics. When people are genuinely interested in the subject, and do there own research, my advice is to consider all points of view.

Don't ignore a site because it's considered by some to be anti-AGW. I'm skeptical, but I examine both sides of the argument and form my own opinion based upon rationality and common sense.

https://principia-scientific.org/quantum-mechanics-and-raman-spectroscopy-refute-greenhouse-theory/

So far, protests have been the loudest from the higher-educational sector.  
Education Minister Teera-kiat Jareonset-tasin said his ministry would raise the concerns with the NACC because many university council members came from the private sector.  
“They don’t want to file asset declarations. If the new rule is enforced, they will leave,” he said.  
According to Teerakiat, his ministry cannot ignore the private sector because it is a key contributor to the country’s education.  
“Nearly half of the council members at my place have tendered their resignations,” president of Rajamangala University of Technology Isan, Viroj Limkaisang, complained. “This will disrupt our management. Without a quorum, we won’t be able to make decisions on several issues. And it will take time to fill positions at the council.”

The solution is clear. No-one should be allowed to avoid declaring their assets by resigning. If there's any hint or suspicion that a council member, or the holder of an important public position, has resigned in order to avoid the declaration of his/her assets, then that person's assets should be thoroughly investigated. Why would anyone resign because of this new law, if he has nothing to hide?

In order to allow this to happen, the new law needs to be retrospective, at least to the point when the proposed introduction of the law was made public in the news media.

22 hours ago, Catoni said:

>

 

>First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Yes... I have also been to college and university and have a good education.  Guess what... even now in my retirement years... I continue to learn and study....    My education only makes me smart and intelligent.. it does not confer wisdom and honesty on me...  I work on that on my own.... 

 

To begin with.... all those fancy degree letters from university behind ones name is no gaurantee of honesty, truthfulness and high moral standards.  Your education makes you smart and intelligent....  

    It does not make you wise and honest...  

     All those degree letters do is get you your first job. 

 

      Good for you and today's scientists.  The 97% number of scientists that always gets thrown around is for the question..

   1. Do you believe the Earth has warmed in the last 100 or 150 years... and

   2. Do you think man has had something to do with it.. 

 

  Answer to question 1...   yes...

  Answer to question 2.... It depends....

        No.... Not for the initial warming pre-1950 or so... We had not put enough CO2 in the atmosphere previously to have caused that warming from approx 1880 to 1949. We dont really know what caused that. But it was a good thing.  The L.I.A. was not a good time.... 

        Yes... for the warming from the 1970s up to now....  about 40% - 50% of the warming in that time. Not all of it. 

 

    97% of scientists do NOT say the warming is bad.  And present CO2 levels are still extremely low if taking a look at the past 500 - 600 million years.

    But Warming Alarmist activists and scientists with a vested interest in keeping a problem going really like to concentrate on data sets that start low.. and end high...  especially after they adjust the data....  

 

   Climate Scientists Computer Models vs. Reality

 

  

Excellent post, Catoni. I agree with every point.????

13 hours ago, Bangkok Herps said:

There are two reasons why I strongly dispute your hypothetical interpretation of events.

First of all, I have a degree in science from a highly respected (and quite apolitical) science and engineering school in the United States,and have continued to do work in science off-and-on since then. I know literally hundreds of scientists and have met thousands. An extremely minuscule percentage of them have the slightest doubt that man's activity is a major driver of climate change or that said climate change will have devastating global effects in the next century, especially for the environment and for poor people across the warmer regions of the globe.

Secondly, among those relationships include personal friends of mine who work for fossil fuel producers, and they report that even the scientists who work with the fossil fuel companies believe the party line on AGW is basically accurate. So workplace incentives cannot be driving the acceptance of the theories when even those who have the most to lose have admitted there is an issue here.

If what you say is true, specifically the part I've highlighted in bold, then we have an even more serious problem than climate change; the poor quality of most of our scientists.

Now, don't misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm stating 'if what you say is true' (with the emphasis on if) then it follows logically that many scientists are of poor quality.

I think I must have mentioned before in this long thread that the scientific methodology of repeated experimentation under controlled conditions is required before certainty on any issue can be achieved.
If you claim to be a scientist but don't understand this, then I'm sorry, but you need go back to school, or at least read about the history and the philosophy of science.

Some very obvious examples of the uncertainty of the effects of a single ingredient, such as CO2, in a very complex system, such as the Earth's climate, can be seen in the medical profession with regard to drugs and health supplements.

For example, often the experimentation when testing a new drug, begins in a petri dish, perhaps containing the new drug and the bacteria it's supposed to kill. This would be similar to conducting an experiment in a laboratory to confirm that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs certain frequencies at the lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum, associated with heat.

The next stage of the development of a new drug will often involve the use of mice or rats in a cage. Mice and rats share a significant degree of the human genome; their life-span is very short, so results can be observed relatively quickly; and their lifestyle and diet can be controlled during the period of the experiment. The control, which eliminates the effects of other variables, is absolutely essential.

If the experiments with mice or rats shows the drug is effective, without harmful side effects during the very short period of their life, the next stage is to experiment with humans (or sometimes our closest relative, the Chimpanzee).
However, this is where the uncertainty begins. It's difficult to completely control human behaviour over a significant period of time. There are so many other influences in the human diet and lifestyle which can affect the results, and because the human lifespan is relatively long, the long-term side effects of a particular drug can often not be determined until much later, sometimes resulting in litigation against the drug companies when their drugs have disastrous, long term consequences.

Drugs tend to have a relatively quick effect, in just a few days or weeks, and sometimes in just a few hours.
However, many health foods or health supplements often take many months or even many years before the benefits become just moderately certain. Let's consider a couple of examples.

The humble aspirin has been around for over a lifetime. It's main purpose is a pain-killer. However, during recent decades there have been many reports that taking regular, small doses of aspirin every day, can protect the heart and reduce the risk of cancer. But how certain is this?

If one takes the trouble to search for the evidence, it's not certain at all. There are aspects that are certain, such as the fact that aspirins tend to thin the blood and prevent it from clotting. However, the negative aspects of this effect is that internal bleeding might take place. Some medical specialists claim that the benefits outweigh the risks. Other medical specialists disagree.

Interestingly, a very recent study has found that daily, small doses of aspirin have no benefit at all.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180916152706.htm

Another example, dear to heart, is the benefit of drinking moderate amounts of red wine, say a couple of glasses a day. Do the advantages of the polyphenols and resveratrol in red wine outweigh the negative effects of the alcohol. It appears that no-one really knows. The issue is too complex. It might be beneficial for certain people, in relation to their genetic make-up and their lifestyle and diet, but of no benefit to others with a different lifestyle.

In summary, it really amazes me that any scientist could truly and honestly believe with certainty that increases in one, minuscule ingredient in the atmosphere, called CO2, could have a disastrous effect on our climate.

However, I can think of two explanations. Either they are wearing a 'political hat' and expressing a non-scientific view based on their emotional concerns about the 'real' pollution associated with burning fossil fuels and the consequent environmental degradation, or they are second-rate scientists who should go back to school.

I think many people get the impression that ThaiVisa offers a platform for severe and often insulting criticism of Thai cultural and political behaviour..... excluding criticism of the monarchy of course.

Having lived in Thailand for about 14 months many years ago, and having visited the country many times more recently, I have my own view on Thai cultural behaviour, and it's generally very positive.

However, my main gripe is the congestion caused by the increasing  number of tourists. If the criticisms by members of ThaiVisa can slow down this escalating tourism, as a result of negative advertising, then I think that is also positive, from my perspective. ????

People who criticize others are often just projecting their own faults and deficiencies onto others.

8 hours ago, Catoni said:

What do they mean by “ ...second, or third worse ...” etc.?

   How do they define “...worse...”? 

And how far back do accurate measurements go?

The media is often imprecise and confusing on this. The various Bureaus of Meteorology will rate hurricanes in terms of wind speed at landfall, and floods in terms of flood heights in a specific area.

The city of Brisbane in Australia experiences a major flood every few decades. That means that quite often there is no major flood in a 30 or 40 year period, which is long enough for most people to forget there is a risk, and allows newcomers in particular to be completely unaware there is a risk.

When the next flood arrives, it's considered to be an unusual event and is immediately associated with climate change and often described as the worst flood ever, or the worst in a century. 

In terms of damage to property, that might be the case because of extensive urbanization, but in terms of flood height it's never been the case, in Brisbane at least, during the past 125 years. The worst flood in terms of height, in the city centre, occurred in 1893. It was even documented photographically. Refer attached image.

12 hours ago, BritManToo said:

False argument,

It's much easier to predict your personal future 10 seconds later, than mans future 1000 years later.

(In 10 seconds I will have an 89% chance of still sitting on the sofa, with a 10% chance of getting up for a cup of tea)

By quoting my statement out of context you have misrepresented my argument. My argument is that whilst absolutely nothing is 100% certain about predictions of the future, there are varying degrees of probability that some future event will occur, depending on the complexity of the situation and of course the time period involved, and that we should take such probabilities into consideration when organizing our affairs.

My example that someone who throws himself off a high building will most probably die, represents a very high degree of probability. There's an even higher degree of probability that the sun will rise again tomorrow morning, as it has done for the past 4 billion years or so, and also an extremely high degree of probability that the sun will continue to rise as usual in 100 years time.

When we have observed patterns of events occurring regularly in the past, it's quite rational to assume that at least similar patterns will continue to occur into the future. For example, it would be very silly if someone in the UK, during a cold and snowy winter, were to start worrying that the snowy conditions might continue for the following 9 months because we cannot foresee the future. The occurrence of summer is a regular pattern.

Likewise, it would be very foolish for someone in Florida to make a decision to build a standard home near the beach on the basis that the risk of a future hurricane might be very low because we cannot foresee the future.
However, if such a person is wealthy enough to afford the very high insurance costs that will completely cover the damage from a hurricane, or is so wealthy that the complete loss of a house is of little concern, then that's a different matter.
 

8 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

 

How does one go about investigating the issue of climate change themselves? If reading records, is that not dependent on what others are recording/saying?
 

 

 

Of course. Everyone is in the position of having to interpret everything they read or observe, including all scientists, and such interpretations depend on the person's nous, intelligence, background experiences, education, and so on.

Those who have an understanding of the 'methodology of science' should be able to understand that the chaotic characteristics of climate change, the numerous influences involved, and the long time periods involved before a consistent trend can be observed, make the application of the scientific methodology in its most rigorous form, too difficult to apply in order to reach any high degree of certainty about the influences of those minuscule levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Most people, including most politicians, don't seem to have a clue about the rigorous requirements of the true methodology of science. They are gullible fodder for scientists with a political agenda, such as Michael Mann.