Socialists in a Panic

[Tonington]

Yup. Non-sequitur.

You're right of course. Even one species is too much.

 

[pgs]

Yup. Non-sequitur.

You're right of course. Even one species is too much.

Yup time to jump on the old diesal tractor and go shovel some snow.
Lol

 

[DichotoMe]

So, all those who care about cutting polluting emissions and the environment in general are labelled as socialists/communists/leftwing nut jobs...

You're completely absurd and a partisan hack.

 

[Extrafire]

I am paying attention. You just seem to be woefully ignorant about what significant means. At about 15 years, the signal is evident. The noise is no longer dwarfing the signal. That is when you can statistically derive a trend which is significant. You don't need a millennium to establish a trend, that is ridiculous. The existence of a human induced signal (which has been found) does not require that the signal exceeds that of previous interglacial or glaciations. That's nonsense. Though, the current signal does exceed some previous changes. It's approximately thirty times stronger than the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

I'm well aware of the meaning of significant. The reason any variation up to 150 years is insignificant is because such changes are frequently contained withing the larger trends. 150 years is a very small time when refering to climate trends. It's true that small trends can be detected, such as the 30 yr cooling from the early '40's to the early '70's and the subsequent 30 year warming., but they're small, largely irrelevant, just like the current cooling which has been detected. The human induced signal (which is smaller than the error margin and is thus assumed) is dwarfed by natural changes, caused primarily by solar variations which include all those small and large climate changes heretofore mentioned. Nowhere did I say that a human signal need exceed that of previous interglacial or glaciations. Strawman.

No it doesn't. Show me where the IPCC or any other published scientific investigations says that variability disappears. More nonsense.

AGW hypothesis requires that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, there will be a linear increase in global temperatures.

 

[Tonington]

I'm well aware of the meaning of significant.

No you aren't. You wouldn't say such things as needing a millennium to establish a significant trend if you did. You probably don't even know how significance is determined. If you do, why don't you explain it to us all, and show us why you need 1000 years.

AGW hypothesis requires that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, there will be a linear increase in global temperatures.

No it doesn't. First of all, due to the concentration already in the atmosphere, the forcing follows a logarithmic response. Second, the estimated forcing is not so large as to swamp internal variation. Nobody claims that the temperature will monotonically increase year after year.

Where do you even get this stuff? Do you just make it up? If not there must be some place where you got this from.

It's a linear trend plus noise. When the noise is strongly negative, such a s the past few years (solar minimum, La Nina), then the signal is dwarfed by the noise.

It's linear because the increase in greenhouse gases is progressing exponentially, and given that the radiative effects of carbon dioxide on the temperature is logarithmic, that means the signal should be forcing a linear response.

You just plainly don't know what you're talking about.

It's telling that you can't provide any kind of document to support what you assert the AGW hypothesis says will happen. Your words are empty, hollow, and not grounded in reality.

 

[Extrafire]

I tried. You seem to refuse any explanations I give.

What explanations? I said polar bears have survived previous warm periods. You asked for evidence. The evidence is that they're here. What more evidence could you want?

That's a silly question.

THe contention that we're killing off thousands of unknown species is what's silly.

Because we discover ones we haven't seen before and that would make them previously unknown, and I hardly think we've discovered every species on Earth.

THat's a logical reason to assume there are undiscovered species, and to assume that we may cause the extinction of one unknowingly, but that's about all we can say with any assurance.

An environmentalist to me is someone who cares for all the environments on the planet and acts to prevent harm to them.

I concur. However the "environmental movement" is more about politics and money than actual care for the environment.

Well, I don't care. IMO, ANY species we've caused to disappear is too much. It seems to be a habit of people to do stuff without thinking of the consequences; kind of like the goose sticking its head out. One day it gets chopped off.

Again, I concur to a point. I'm not at all dismayed by the extinction of smallpox. But we were comparing the human extinction influence to the natural, and we are far more benign in that regard than nature.

 

[Extrafire]

That wasn't the graph I posted. But, even that one shows a general increase in temperature because almost all the points are positive anomalies. That means they are an increase in temp above the baseline. Just because the anomaly drops a half a point doesn't mean the temperature dropped. It means the increase in temperature wasn't as much. In fact, there are only 8 points on there with negative anomalies and all the other points are positive (above the baseline). If you have a value of a point and then add another value to the graph later, and if the latter value is above the first one then the difference between them is the anomaly. If the anomaly is positive, then the increase was positive and whatever you were measuring increased.
Because the anomaly dropped from 0.6 to 0.24 , it was still an increase over the baseline, which means an overall increase in temperature.

You're still not seeing it. Look at the left side of the graph. THere you get the information of what is being measured. If, as you contend, the rate of change is being measured, you would see something like, "temperature variations in degrees C per century." THere needs to be a timeframe if you're measuring a rate of change. Instead, it states, "temperature variations in degrees C". So it's measuring the actual amount of temperature increase or decrease. THe baseline is merely a point of reference, in this case a point to correlate with the CO2 concentration of 366 ppm.

Got that now? There's no timeframe, therefore it cannot be measuring rate of change, but instead must measure actual change.

 

[Extrafire]

And that's the funny part.
You are saying that if a car starts at 30 MPH and then accelerates from 30 to 60 at a rate of 6 MP/S squared, then after a while it's acceleration drops to 2 M/S squared from 6 M/S squared then the car has slowed. You're wrong. The car is still accelerating only not as much as before.

:roll: No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

 

[Extrafire]

It's a common tactic of his. Nature has done worse than us before, so the claims of harm due to our actions must be trumped up, incorrect, etc.

This is a common tactic of yours. Create a false position, attribute it to me and then argue against it, claiming thereby to have defeated my position. You are the master of the strawman.

 

[Extrafire]

So, all those who care about cutting polluting emissions and the environment in general are labelled as socialists/communists/leftwing nut jobs...

Uhmmm....who said that?

You're completely absurd and a partisan hack.

Who is???

 

[Tonington]

Extra-This is a common tactic of yours. Create a false position, attribute it to me and then argue against it, claiming thereby to have defeated my position. You are the master of the strawman.

What I said:
It's a common tactic of his. Nature has done worse than us before, so the claims of harm due to our actions must be trumped up, incorrect, etc.

What Extra said:
But we were comparing the human extinction influence to the natural, and we are far more benign in that regard than nature.

That's what I was asserting that you often do. You're on record all over this forum arguing against man's contribution by comparing it to natures past. That's not a strawman.

 

[Extrafire]

As I said, you're the master of the Strawman.

What I said:
It's a common tactic of his. Nature has done worse than us before, so the claims of harm due to our actions must be trumped up, incorrect, etc.

Let's disect this statement.

"It's a common tactic of his." First you set the tone. The inferrence is that I use an illegitimate tactic that dodges any real addressing of the topic under discussion.

"Nature has done worse than us before". Correct in two ways: Yes I said that repeatedly, and yes, nature has.

"So the claims of harm due to our actions must be trumped up, incorrect etc." There's the spin, you convey a meaning that is not at all what my statements have conveyed. THis is designed to relate back to the first statement and suggest that what I say is actually nonsensical. For example, look at what Anna said in response (she fell for your tactic big time):

That notion occurred to me earlier. It's kind of like saying well, Soddam Insane was a decent sort because Stalin and Hitler were such a$$ cavities.

A complete misrepresentation of my "tactic", but exactly the type if impression you wanted to convey. You are indeed the master of the Strawman! I salute you!

Yes, the claims of harm due to our actions are (in some cases) trumped up, incorrect etc, but not because nature has done worse. When you claim catastrophe due to an increase in CO2, and CO2 has been much higher in the past without catastrophe, that is evidence that your claims are bogus. To suggest that lower levels of CO2 would cause havoc that former higher levels didn't is downright silly, and I point that out.

What Extra said:
But we were comparing the human extinction influence to the natural, and we are far more benign in that regard than nature.

ANd that statement is very true, and very appropriate to the discussion. Anna had seemingly tried to divert that discussion into a discussion of whether humans cause extinctions, which is a given. I was merely putting it back on track.

That's what I was asserting that you often do.

Comparing man's impact to nature's impact is a valid argument, and if all you were doing was pointing that out, it would be a complement to me and a warning to my opponents that I employ a very effective tool to support my position and they should be careful what they say because I'll nail them. If that indeed was your intent, then thank you for the complement, but the tone of your post was more one of derision, as though my "tactic" was bogus.

You're on record all over this forum arguing against man's contribution by comparing it to natures past. That's not a strawman.

See? Another strawman used as a defense against strawman!
Actually, no I'm not. I am on record on this forum (not all over because I severely limit my time here) comparing man's contribution to nature's. I argue against bogus claims of the effects of man's contribution by comparing it to the record of nature's effects. I don't argue against actual effects of man's contribution, I acknowledge them.

 

[darkbeaver]

Man is not responsible for any extinctions, not even it's own pending graduation. We merely acted as mother natures agents , entirely and permanently under her direction. Conservation, keeping in mind the great earth mothers designs, is of course blasphemy. In addition it is the apex of human conceit and arrogance to presume that man and not nature has dominion. Consequently it must be found that eating the whole thing is a perfectly natural and benevolent thing quite in accord with the law. If we don't. It will certainly be eating us.

 

[Tonington]

Let's disect this statement.

"It's a common tactic of his."

Which is true. You say so yourself below.

"Nature has done worse than us before".

Correct in two ways: Yes I said that repeatedly, and yes, nature has.

Like I said, a common tactic of yours.

"So the claims of harm due to our actions must be trumped up, incorrect etc."

There's the spin, you convey a meaning that is not at all what my statements have conveyed. THis is designed to relate back to the first statement and suggest that what I say is actually nonsensical.

You called us benign in comparison, right before you caught my comment to Anna. No strawman, it's from your own words, and the many other times you've said likewise.

Another such example is when we've discussed ocean acidification. You pointed out as you always do, that nature has done worse than us before, here's the quote:

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. Since the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is totally dependent on the temperature of the water, and since global warming includes the warming of the oceans, at which time it releases it into the atmosphere and during global cooling it absorbs it from the atmosphere, and since this has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years (just ask Al Gore) it would seem that natural levels are naturally fluctuating. And natural fluctuations have greatly exceeded what we're experiencing today (which appears to be the result of the warming of 800 years ago) and they survived just fine. Seems like a big concern over nothing.

First, you're wrong about how gases dissolve. It's not just related to temperature, it's also related to the partial pressure of the gas in the liquid, and the mole fraction of the gas in the liquid.

See that bolded part? You're saying that because something happened in the past, and we have life forms now, that it must be a big concern over nothing. This is a fallacy. You're not considering time, organism migrations, evolution, or the already perturbed state of the world's ecosystems at this time.

Strawman? I think not. You're on record, this is just another example of your fallacious reasoning.

 

[AnnaG]

What explanations? I said polar bears have survived previous warm periods. You asked for evidence. The evidence is that they're here. What more evidence could you want?

Actually you said everything flourishes in warming periods. You're wrong.

THe contention that we're killing off thousands of unknown species is what's silly.

Yup. We don't know how many species we've killed off.

THat's a logical reason to assume there are undiscovered species, and to assume that we may cause the extinction of one unknowingly, but that's about all we can say with any assurance.

Actually, we've killed off more than 1 species. I gave a list before. I thought if I gave some examples, you'd clue in, but you still seem to be of the opinion that a couple dozen or whatever is no big deal.

I concur. However the "environmental movement" is more about politics and money than actual care for the environment.

Yup. It's a fad.

Again, I concur to a point. I'm not at all dismayed by the extinction of smallpox. But we were comparing the human extinction influence to the natural, and we are far more benign in that regard than nature.

We're still a factor and that to me is what's important, because until we wise up and get along with the rest of the planet, we will suffer as a species.

 

[AnnaG]

You're still not seeing it. Look at the left side of the graph. THere you get the information of what is being measured. If, as you contend, the rate of change is being measured, you would see something like, "temperature variations in degrees C per century." THere needs to be a timeframe if you're measuring a rate of change. Instead, it states, "temperature variations in degrees C". So it's measuring the actual amount of temperature increase or decrease. THe baseline is merely a point of reference, in this case a point to correlate with the CO2 concentration of 366 ppm.

Got that now? There's no timeframe, therefore it cannot be measuring rate of change, but instead must measure actual change.

*shrugs* You can't seem to grasp grasp what the graph shows.

 

[AnnaG]

:roll: No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

:roll: It's a simile, a metaphor. I guess even those are beyond your comprehension.
Of course there is time involved. Otherwise there'd be 1 single straight line from the lowest point to the highest point and that is it.

 

[AnnaG]

Extra-This is a common tactic of yours. Create a false position, attribute it to me and then argue against it, claiming thereby to have defeated my position. You are the master of the strawman.

What I said:
It's a common tactic of his. Nature has done worse than us before, so the claims of harm due to our actions must be trumped up, incorrect, etc.

What Extra said:
But we were comparing the human extinction influence to the natural, and we are far more benign in that regard than nature.

That's what I was asserting that you often do. You're on record all over this forum arguing against man's contribution by comparing it to natures past. That's not a strawman.

Right, it's not. It's an observation. Apparently, Ex isn't exactly sure of what a strawman argument is either.

 

[AnnaG]

http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

If you scroll down you'll see a list of references to read about depletion of biodiversity.

I'll add a bit more:

http://archive.wri.org/newsroom/wrifeatures_text.cfm?ContentID=580

ECOLOGY: ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF EXTINCTION

Notes by ScienceWeek:

In this context, the term "food web" refers in general to a description of who eats whom in an ecosystem.

The following points are made by Peter Kareiva (Current Biology 2004 14:R627):

1) The "global extinction crisis" has become a focus of concern and activism for conservationists [1]. We are currently in the middle of the sixth major extinction event in geologic history --this one almost entirely human induced. Current extinction rates are estimated to be 100 to 1000 times higher than pre-human extinction rates [2]. This rapid loss of species has spurred researchers to examine what might be the consequences of losing such a large proportion of our biodiversity.

2) Although ecosystems clearly would not function if all species went extinct, no one can really say what might be the impact of losing 80% of the species as opposed to only 20% of the species. In fact, even though we have seen many conspicuous species go extinct before our eyes, we know precious little about the consequences of those extinctions [3]. Recently, community ecologists have manipulated experimental communities by either removing one or two species or assembling communities of differing species richness [4]. These experiments teach us about the role of biodiversity and predation or competition, but have not provided a compelling picture of the consequences of extinction. The limitation of these targeted removals is their small scale and short duration.

3) The weakness of our empirical insight regarding extinction has caused ecologists to rely heavily on metaphors and models. The purpose of these models is to anticipate what might happen if the predictions of massive species loss hold true [5]. Models that consider the consequences of extinction have tended to focus on either the reliability or the stability of ecosystems. Reliability models emphasize that the loss of species eliminates redundancy, so that at some point ecosystems may end up with only one or two species filling some critical function -- such as nitrogen sequestration or primary production -- leaving the ecosystems vulnerable to any catastrophe or stress that harms these now irreplaceable species. Stability models adopt a more traditional population dynamics framework, and ask how the loss of species alters either the ability to recover from disturbances, or the tendency towards fluctuations in the face of randomly varying environments. The general message of these many theoretical explorations of extinction is that species loss impairs both stability and reliability. But the theory is in no way complete: in particular, very few models consider food webs and highly structured trophic communities.

References (abridged):

etc. etc. etc.

 

[darkbeaver]

Gods will.