Why do climate alarmists ignore Darwin?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 87
Topic's author
#31
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
Walking talking brain dead
When we land on Mars, [hasn't happened, yet, so don't get all huffy about my making "false narratives'] we will discover the ancient ruins of a once intelligent civilization that became obsessed with a concept they called climate change. We will witness the vast wasteland resulting from their solution: net zero emissions. To accomplish it, they eliminated all sources of GHG emissions, meaning they eliminated all lifeforms that lived, died, and decomposed to an organic petroleum crude. Thus, the achievement of net zero. However, as we learned from Jurassic Park, life finds a way, and the cycle begins again. Net, plus. Congratulations.

Topic's author
#32
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
Never made any such comment.
No, you didn't. Have a care to understand what I wrote: "You can claim..." not that you did. A future potential, because we do not yet, and may never bottle cow farts. It's not a present fact. Get it?
Topic's author
#33
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
Duhh, you apparrently missed the late 80's and 90's
Did you miss the 50s, when King Hubbard proclaimed "peak oil," and that the decline from the "peak" [of production of oil due to a depleting raw material supply in the earth] would occur in the 70s. We have reserves, still, of monumental increase over what Hubbard predicted.

Did you miss the 60s when it was declared we were over-populated in earth's human population, and the crowd proclaiming it was encouraging people to stop populating, or even existing. I note, however, that none of them were wiling to join the extinction line.

Did you miss the 70s, when, as predicted, oil production declined; not because of any natural condition of raw crude depletion [it was still there, and increasing, and still does], but because the government forced lower production, and the whole was later proven to be a hoax.

Did you miss the 80s, when Al Gore produced an inconvenient documentary that a climate disaster was coming in the guise of sea level rises to inundate NYC in 20 years, and a scorched earth from petroleum use, etc? Well, now, tell me how many of your green energy turbines in the world [hydro, tidal, geo-thermal, wind and even nuclear] that do not use petroleum for lubrication, and to manufacture plastic parts. Same for solar panels and electric cars.

Did you miss the 90s, when "global warming" decided that was not a proper term [mainly because "warming" was not the effect the global temperature monitors were reporting]?
Topic's author
#34
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
We clues and facts to 7.5 billions impact on Earth
And you accuse that I'm brain dead???

"And this above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man." - Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, iii
Topic's author
#35
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
I conclude: You have wandered so far afield in your accusations that you have forgotten the original proposal of this string: that you ignore and have defrocked Saint Darwin because you ignore that he gave the answer to your problem in the principles of his tome, On the Origin of Species. 

Adaptation.

But you'd rather ignore it, ridicule it in a song:

Seasonomy
Climatio
Temperasus
Meterolasty
Father, why do these words sound so nasty
Adaptation
Can't be fun
Join the greenie orgy
Clima Sutra
Everyone!

48 days later

#36
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Darwinian adaptation, aka evolution, takes a ton of time. The climate has never before changed this much in only 100 years. Any darwinian mechanism will fail to keep up, at least as far as most large animals go. I dont understand the connection.

As to your previous question regarding why x change is always seen as bad...
Our systems were built with a three current situation in mind. Any system change will disrupt the system, up or down. Much like the body requiring a delicate homeostasis. All sudden changes are bad.
Topic's author
#37
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
Darwinian adaptation, aka evolution, takes a ton of time.
Sure, that's what Darwin proposed, and is as flawed as is Holdane's Dilemma insisings that Darwin's  model of evolution cannot possibly be accurate because of the excessive variety of speciation we observe to have occurred over the hstory of time on earth; the which we have little idea of its scope. They were both wrong. See https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/rapid-evolution-changes-species-in-real-time wherein biologist David Reznick observed significant changes in the evolution of guppies in Trinidad. Depending on environment, predation, survivability, in just four years. one cannot say with any confidence, yet, that we fully understand just how variable evolution can be, and is.

The climate has never before changed this much in only 100 years. 
That is pure conjecture. No, it is pure bunk. Numerous examples exist contrary to your claim. I'll give you just one: The immense Chicxulub crater in the Yucatàn, the asteroid event that changed the history of dinosaurs, and who knows what else, animal and plant, to extinct. In a day. Well the change actually took longer, but the initial event likely took millions of animals and plants in the singular event, not to include the aftermath over days, months, years. Well nside 100 years. Come on, stop listening to your voices insisting we are in a crisis. You are ignoring a singular advantage we have: intelligence and adaptation. Wasn't the latter, let alone the first, features if Darwin's theory? Believe him, or don't, but you cannot have it both ways. Think for yourself, because everyone else will try to think for you.

 I dont understand the connection.
Yes, you do not. But is that any reason to believe nonsense? No. Understand it. That will take research, but you've been given a remarkably evolved brain. Use it.

All sudden changes are bad.
Absolutes are bad, like this one. Well, now, we had been losing people left and right to heart disease until Dr. Chrisian Barnard performed the world's first successful heart transplant in which the patient recovered consciousness for 18 days before succumbing to pneumonia. Was that a bad thing? Today, it is routine procedure, saving thousands of lives every year. Yeah, I'm suree that's a bad thing. 
#38
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Re: evolution and time
We have seen evolution happen quickly.... in quickly reproducing species like bacteria, fruitflies, and apparently guppies. The factor is how fast and how often they breed. He also affected their environment by removing or introducing their natural predator. There was nothing natural about this, it was almost a controlled experiment. Certainly i am not arguing evolution is a complete theory, but neither is our germ theory or theory of gravity. Your argument in this segment still seems in support of evolution.

Re: climate has never changed like this.
Craters and meteors.... i will conceed, an external natural disaster like an apocalyptic meteor that causes mass extinctions have happened before, and i seem to agree with you that modern global warming is close to that scale. However, no natural, non apocalyptic historic climate change, from the warming of the middle ages to the iceball earth of prehistory, none of them moved as fast as modern warming due to human activity. We are causing another disaster that most macro life will fail to adjust to. I believe by using such disasters you indeed supported my argument that the modern change is not normal.


Re: the connection
I said that as a nice way of saying there is no connectiom between darwin and climate change and your argument makes no sense. Please elaborate or rescind it.


Re: sudden change
Absolutes are not always wrong. If either of your homeostatic mechanisms goes out of whack in either direction you will die. The heart transplant was done to correct an already existing imbalance. Its a calculated procedure to fix something that was already broken. To restore the balance, not to change it. Your analogy is very wrong.

If we take some technological action to fix the loss or gain of ocean x inches (as per your original question), that action will not be a sudden change, but a sudden FIX. the change is the rising waters, not our calculated action to mitigrate the change.
Topic's author
#39
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
I said that as a nice way of saying there is no connectiom between darwin and climate change and your argument makes no sense. Please elaborate or rescind it.
You mention going back to my first question. Well, let's go back to my first question, post #1:

140M years ago, before man, placental mammals, having identical physiological systems to ours, evolved and thrived under climate conditions far more severe and variable than we experience today. So, what, exactly, is the crisis we face in 10 years, let alone now? It is an unproven issue. What, exactly, is our ideal climate condition, seeing as how the earth does not share a singular climate? One answer to our "crisis" is an evolutionary detail everyone forgets exists to potentially prevent extinction: adaptation. It is what our early ancestors [pre-human] did. Are we dumber than they were? It is either that, or we have defrocked Saint Darwin. Which is it, progressives?
The connection of Darwin to climate change is right there in our 140M-year-old placental ancestors. Do you deny that their climate was any less volatile [less scope of change] than ours? Better be certain of your footing. https://www.livescience.com/29231-cretaceous-period.html, https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/pastClimatesExamples.html

The latter is particularly interesting in calling the Cretaceous period [from 140M years ago] as having "a greenhouse climate."

Why should I claim that we have defrocked Darwin in our urgency to claim catastrophic climate change? Because, like our ancestors of the Cretaceous, we can ADAPT. We can certainly adapt to changes in ocean level measured in fractions of a cm over 40 years or more. Hell, in Canada, the  Bay of Fundy, between the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, has tidal shifts at the greatest rate in the world, up to 50 feet every 6 hours. They deal with it. They adapt. And you're worried about sub-cm changes? Give me a bloody break.

Your "climate science" is, at best 200 years old, yet y'all claim the science is "in." Really? Astronomy, physics, geology are thousands of years old, and none claim that. When was the thermometer invented? In the 17th century. And we started collecting temperatures, but it was not yet "climate science," it was just raw data. How accurate was the data 500 years ago? Hell, how accurate was it 100 years ago? 30 years ago? Right now, do we use the same gages, calibrated the same, on the same schedule, worldwide? No, not even now. Again, how accurate is the data? If you cannot even normalize your measurement instruments, what exactly are you doing? Creating variant data, that's what. And you're worried about fractions of degrees of change? God help us. The lunatics have overtaken the climate section of the asylum.



#40
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Pretty sure placental mammals did not exist 140 myo. Your articles show dinosaurs, and my search showed placental mammals came around about 65 myo. Regardless, these technicalities dont really change your argument.

The animals that existed in those extreme climates did not find their climates extreme. They would likely find our climate extreme. They evolved to survive in that climate and probably found it quite comfortable.

As for weather volatility, short of a catastrophic meteor, their climate was quite stable with changes taking tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, not a single century.


According to darwin, creatures evolve to match their environment, thus their home environment can never be extreme for them. It is extreme for creatures from different environments. A penguine is quite comfortable in the artic, and will die in a jungle. A monkey is comfortable in the jungle but will die in the artic. See how that works. Your 2 points are unrelated.
Topic's author
#41
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
Pretty sure placental mammals did not exist 140 myo.
"Pretty sure" is verified by your research. Don't make me do it for you:
"More than 90% of living mammals nourish their young in the womb. Thus, unraveling the story of the so-called placental mammals is central to understanding mammalian evolution. But pinning down their origin has been rough going. DNA evidence places the first placental mammals anywhere from 140 million to 80 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period." https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/06/placental-mammals-climb-new-tree

As for weather volatility, short of a catastrophic meteor, their climate was quite stable with changes taking tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, not a single century.
"A composite Tethyan Late Jurassic–Early Cretaceous carbon and oxygen isotope curve is presented. C-isotope data provide information on the evolution and perturbation of the global carbon cycle. O-isotope data are used as a palaeotemperature proxy in combination with palaeontological information. The resulting trends in climate and in palaeoceanography are compared with biocalcification trends and oceanographic conditions favouring or inhibiting biocalcification. Positive C-isotope anomalies in the Valanginian and Aptian correlate with episodes of increased volcanic activity regarded as a source of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide. A major warming pulse accompanies the Aptian but not the Valanginian C-isotope event. The observed change in Early Aptian temperatures could have triggered the destabilization of sedimentary gas hydrates and the sudden release of methane to the biosphere as recorded as a distinct negative carbon isotope pulse preceding the positive excursion. "https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/jgs/article-abstract/161/4/695/94340/Volcanism-CO2-and-palaeoclimate-a-Late-Jurassic?redirectedFrom=fulltext

According to darwin, creatures evolve to match their environment,
Excessively simplistic. Rather, "according to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation." https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/definitions This implies that in Darwin's theory, he allows for and witnessed non-specific evolution which tends to go extinct.

Curious that you do not cite sources for your claims. Why is that? Are you so certain of your credibility? I'm not ceerrtai of yours, but of mine? Well, isn't it obvious?
#42
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
What good is citiation if you dont actually read it? 80 - 140 mil years is a massive range, i dont know how you translate that into a flat 140... however the article was giving a history lesson on data. Farther down you see this quote:

But the new data have forced the team to redraw the tree. According to the new tree, the first placental mammals appeared around 65 million years ago, not 100 million years ago or more, as some molecular data have suggested. 
This is from your own link.

Re: jargon wall

Are you implying this event happened within a century? What are the time scales involved, can you give some numbers? Do you understand what you quoted?


Re darwin:
Its not overly simplistic.
You cited the cause. The mechanism.
I cited the effect. The outcome.
Completely different.
"creatures evolve to match their environment"


Re the point I was trying to make
It doesnt matter if some mammal thrived in a different environment millions of years ago. We have mammals living today that would not survive in each others environment. Camel and hippo for another example.


I use citation to prove a point, not to make it. I am more then happy to provide citation for anything on request. I also havent said anything that required citation. Except for my 65 myo figure, which was simply a challenge to your uncited 140 myo figure. Likewise, if you challenge something i claim, i shall cite it. 
Topic's author
#43
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
What good is citiation if you dont actually read it? 
That cuts both ways, my friend. Climate science now says that as of 2016, we have 12 years to minimize a tipping point, such as sea level, which, according to the EPA, will rise 12 to 15 ft in 100 years. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level

Business Insider predicts 8 US cities are in danger  of flooding in those 100 years, but half of them perhaps never should have been built where they are. New Orleans [+ 1.5 ft], Miami [+6 ft], Atlantic City [+7 ft], and Virginia Beach [+ 10 ft] are all currently above sea level by the noted amounts. Of the other four, Houston [+105 ft], NYC [+ 33 ft], and Boston [+141 ft] are not in danger of flooding by sea level rise. Charleston [+17 ft] is on the rough edge.

From EPA, as well [same source as above] from 1880 to 2013, sea level rise was a global average of 1.5mm per year. From 1993 to 23016, however, that increased to 3.2mm per year. At that latter rate, in 100 years, sea level will rise 2,100mm [8.1 ft], which would endanger 3 of the top 4 cities noted above, all of which were poorly located in the first place. That's not a function of climate change; that's pure idiocy. But then I live at 7,500 ft. My choice, which could be that of many others, but I can barely see my neighbor's house, and his is the only one I can see. My choice; could be others. Why not? No one reads?

"creatures evolve to match their environment"
2nd repetition of that phrase. You must like it, even though it does not reflect Darwin's true thinking, as I demonstrated by citation. There is more involved that "natural selection, alone.  See, it works; or should. I repeat [let's see if it sticks, this time]: "evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species [same species, mind you] will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation." https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/definitions 

It doesnt matter if some mammal thrived in a different environment millions of years ago. We have mammals living today that would not survive in each others environment. Camel and hippo for another example.
Which just proveas my point: there is not one, single, ideal climate on earth, hence, the phenomenon of the Bay of Fundy in Canada mentioned in my #39, which is nothing like what New Orleans sees, and yet it is New Orleans that is in danger. Go figure. The hippos and camels don't need to, do they?

I expect that anyone making a claim that is not their original thinking should cite the source without being asked. It is a courtesy to the source, not just to demonstrate a point. That's the professional way to handle your claims. my friend, not just to satisfy me. 
#44
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Re the citation
It does not cut both ways as i have not misrepresented a citation. 

Then your argument shifts from no climate change to its no big deal? What is your position on climate change anyway?
Your essentially making the same flawed argument most make about 1/2 degree temp rise to the seemingly small water rise. Sure the tiny town has some extreme tides, much as weather can fluctuate many degrees in a few hours. But we are talking about shifting global averages. Even that tiny town, the low tide will not be as low, and the high tide will be that much higher. It will have massive global effects. Confusing Sea level rise vs tides is like confusing climate vs weather.

Re: creatures evolve to match their environment

You cite the process, i cited the result. You did not address this argument. So i maintain my position. One does not need to quote the entire germ theory in its entirety in order to proclaim that "germs get you sick". It is simpler, but just as accurate. Do you believe organisms do not evolve in order to match their environment? Why not? My statement is the outcome of your statement. 

Furthermore, saying darwin is the sole source on evolution is like saying freud is the sole source on psychoanalysis. He may be the father, but the field has evolved since him. Others have said this, but you seem extremely resistant to any evolution in your beliefs. 

Re: ideal climate 
Agreed, ive been saying the same thing. There is no absolute best climate for all creatures, but there is an absolute (or near absolute best) climate for a specific creature. For example, us. Global warming is not endangering life in general, but it will hurt most large creatures currently alive. Just like with the dinosaurs, life continued, the dinosaurs did not. At least not without massive species changes and massively reduced numbers. Life will not be in danger. Our lives, or livelyhoods, will be. That sounds rather concerning to me.

When i make a claim that requires a specific source i will cite it. Do you want me to cite the changes in dino populations post meteor? Im certain there is no disagreement there.
Topic's author
#45
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
What is your position on climate change anyway?
Climates change. That is obvious. I question the extent to which anthropogenic cause has as much effect as IPCC claims there is, considering the variation in measurement of key parameters that exists just by measurement equipment variation and calibration, let alone the variation in computer models, as I've already discussed and about which you've offered nothing by rebuttal. If one cannot measure accurately, what's the point? The whole house of cards collapses, as it does on any science. Show me accurate, repeatable, and reliable measurements from all over the earth, then you have something. Until then; pfftt.

Confusing Sea level rise vs tides is like confusing climate vs weather.
Tidal change is climate; not weather. Just in the usually narrow strip of seashore that is submerged at high tide and exposed at low tide, called the intertidal zone, is an important ecological product of ocean tides. To wit, a climate change of a micro-climate which changes multiple times daily, rain or shine.

creatures evolve to match their environment... You did not address this argument. 
I did. Twice, citing Charles Darwin's modification of your allegation, specifically that creatures of the same species differentiate in their adaptation to changing climate, and either survive, or die as a result of inter-species variation. If a single species an so differentiate, this totally invalidates your claim that "creatures evolve to match their environment." Clearly, not all species do, and that is extinction, but also clearly, within one species, some survive and some don't by the latter's lack of evolving to match their environment. Get it?

I don't want you to do a bloody thing. You should want to. I've said why. I will not repeat.
#46
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Re climate change. 

How are temperature measurements unreliable? What is their margin of error? And are their unreliable readings not still steadily increasing? 


Climates change. That is obvious. I question the extent to which anthropogenic cause has as much effect as IPCC claims there is, 

Yes, it does. However I was referring to the current climate change event caused by sudden global warming. If not man made, what is the alternative explanation for climate change at an unprecedented rate (considering no meteors, super volcanoes, or any major event)?


May i ask you 2 questions?

1. Do you agree co2 is a greenhouse gas?

2. Do you agree man releases substantial amounts of co2 in industry, transportation, etc?

I f the answer to both is yes, man' contribution to climate change is undeniable.


Tidal change is climate; not weather. 

Daily tidal shifts are analogous to weather. Longer term changes in tidal averages is analogous to climate. You were referring to daily tidal shifts in post 39, which have nothing to do with long term changes. Thus your analogy does not work. "Microclimate" is weather.


I did. Twice, citing Charles Darwin's modification of your allegation

Darwin didnt modify my allegation, he never even heard it. You are quoting the mechanism of natural selection, i am describing the outcome. Im not sure what the difficulty is. Do you disagree with what i claim is the outcome?


"creatures evolve to match their environment." Clearly, not all species do, and that is extinction

No, they don't. There has never been a jungle animal adapting for a polar or desert climate. That's silly. They can only adapt to their climate. Something might adapt better, or the climate might suddenly change. And *that* is extinction.
Topic's author
#47
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
Why you cannot research your own answers to your questions is beyond me. Do you know what it is? Research? If so, why don’t you do it, yourself?
 
The climate’s margin of error relative to global temperature fluctuation is answered by https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
Which gives you the background, according to NOAA, on global surface temperature anomalies factored by monitoring references [measurement methods with shifts in use of equipment ands their calibration; exactly what I’ve been talking about. You think I’m just talking off the top of my head? This is YOUR data. Note the various versions of measurement datasets, for example, the latest being less than a year old. However, since 1981, we’ve been using the arbitrary period of 1981 – 2020 as the 30-year-period with which to establish a baseline climate model of temperature, greenhouse gasses, sea level, etc. Why that particular 30-year period? I’ll let you guess, but a clue will be revealed by further following these links from the reference above: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php
and  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/global-historical-climatology-network-monthly-version-4
 
The latter has a graph at the bottom of the page [click to show], which indicates the global temperature variation from 1880 to 2020. From 1981 to 2020, the rise is most dramatic, but the variation remains about the same; roughly 1˚C, with a variation of ±0.25˚C, or a total swing of 0.5˚C. That means the margin of error is ±25% - a fantastically excessive moe. In statistics, if your margin of error exceeds ±3%, you’re into unreliable territory by Six Sigma standards.
 
As for tidal shifts, as I said, the intertidal zone is a sensitive ecology driven by the tidal shifts, which have naught to do with weather. Tidal shifts are functions of the sun and moon’s respective magnetic fields, not weather.
 
I disagree with your outcome of speciation changes because “There has never been a jungle animal adapting for a polar or desert climate.”I just knew you’d go there, and the effect is, you completely ignore the most obvious animal to adapt to just such wide extremes as desert to polar environments: man. Density is a cerebral concern.
 
#48
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Nemiroff
Some might argue that the human animal has adapted to just about all climatic conditions.


#49
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Why you cannot research your own answers to your questions is beyond me. Do you know what it is? Research? If so, why don’t you do it, yourself?
You made a claim, and i am questioning it. Are you not responsible for defending your own assertions or am i supposed to do the work for you? Are we going to discuss the topic or simply take jabs at each other?

This is YOUR data.
No, it isnt. I did not compile the data, nor did i link it. So far ive been mostly unquestioning YOUR data....
Btw, do i need to provide citations for questions as well? Please defend YOUR own claims. Are you always this aggressive in your debates?

However, since 1981, we’ve been using the arbitrary period of 1981 – 2020 as the 30-year-period with which to establish a baseline climate model of temperature, greenhouse gasses, sea level, etc. Why that particular 30-year period?
Probably cause its the most recent 30 years? What 30 year period do you prefer? Are you saying there is no data showing warming before 1980? From your 3rd link, 1st paragraph:

"The Global Historical Climatology Network–monthly (GHCNm) dataset is a set of monthly climate summaries from thousands of weather stations around the world. The monthly data have periods of record that vary by station with the earliest observations dating to the *18th century*."

Im sure you will question the data from the 18th century, i would too, but i dont think anyone is only looking at the last 30 years.


Re: margin of error
Yes that is a huge margin of error, although its about as big as your 140 mil claim which was actually 80-140mil, aka 110 +/- 30, a margin of error of slightly over 25%.
Either way, the uncertainty does not negate the trend. The lowest possible value in the 2010s is higher than the highest value at any time before 1990. The trend is undeniably and consistently warmer. What could have caused this?

Also, you dodged by specific questions:
"1. Do you agree co2 is a greenhouse gas?

2. Do you agree man releases substantial amounts of co2 in industry, transportation, etc?

If the answer to both is yes, man' contribution to climate change is undeniable."

Please answer. 

you completely ignore the most obvious animal to adapt to just such wide extremes as desert to polar environments: man.
Lol. Drop a man without tools, or clothes in a desert or arctic and 99% will die. We did not adapt to those climate via evolution, we adapted to them using technology. I thought you were comparing climate to darwin, not ford. Man evolved in the savanagh, that is where we naturally thrive. We did not evolve for any other environment. We lost the ability to effectively climb and swing through jungle trees. We do not retain water well enough for the desert. We do not maintain heat well enough for the arctic. And as for the urban jungle, we adapted that to us, not the other way around. What we were adapted for is long distance running in a savanagh, the climate of a savanagh, and the pack hunting that is most effective in an open savanagh. We didnt adapt white skin for the european sun while still in africa, we adapted to the European environment after we moved into the european environment. What you are saying makes absolutely zero sense.
#50
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Biologically or technologically?

Drop an average naked fit adult human in the arctic or sahara, what are the odds of survival?
#51
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Nemiroff
That's not evolutionary adaptation. 

Inuit's have adapted to successfully survive within the arctic circle, whereas Bedouin's have successfully adapted to survive within the Arabian Desert.

Yes, technically and therefore biologically they would be able to swap places, but that's not the point.

The rate of adaptation is also obviously relative to the rate of climatic and environmental change....  What you propose is simply, immediate over exposure to hostile conditions.
#52
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
The rate of adaptation is also obviously relative to the rate of climatic and environmental change....  What you propose is simply, immediate over exposure to hostile conditions.
Native species do not find the conditions hostile. The necessity for gradual adaptation only proves my point that we are not already adapted to those conditions biologically.
#53
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Nemiroff
What is a native species?

Homo Sapiens is the only species in question and Homo Sapiens has adapted to live in most regions of the earth.

Though Homo Sapiens doesn't adapt biologically, it uses it's brain to adapt and utilise environment and resources.

No doubt it will continue to do so, for as long as environmental conditions remain tolerable and there are still sufficient resources available for it to adapt and utilise.
Topic's author
#54
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Nemiroff
It's really pretty simple. You like to use ranges of data to explain rapid climate change, but I cannot use the same principle to explain placental mammals? You 80 to 140M years is a range. You used it. That's your data. I'm saying the range includes 140M years, meaning that evolution of placental mammals cold have begun as early as that. You do not get to truncate that range and say it only occurred 80M years ago. Just like your ilk want to claim a 30-year span as an example of rapid climate change. You ask why 1981 to 2020, which is actually 40 years, but that's beside the point. Because they first established 1950 to 1980, and decided to change it it to 1981 to 2020, that's why. When one model doesn't fit their data, they change the model. That's how climate science works, which is why it is not "in."

i dont think anyone is only looking at the last 30 years.
Yeah, no one. Just NOAA, and IPCC. Nobodies. I'll accept that.

So, where;'s your citation that the earth has never seen temperatures and sea levels like we see today? You keep claiming it. Show me.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas. Of course it is. Does man contribute to it. Of course. But, is it at the highest levels ever seen on earth? Show me.

How often is man dropped, or takes himself, to a dessert or the arctic without clothes and without his tech? That's a straw man argument if ever there was one. Try an argument of some practicality. Savanna banana. Yeah, that's a pretty good climate, but it's obvious man has adapted to more severe climates in both directions, and survives with clothes and other tech. Take it away, sure, many will die. So, that's how we explain a threshold of climate today to justify the Green New Deal, for example? Take everything away? Well, that is the proposal of the GND: net-zero. Sure, great argument. So take your net zero out of every green energy turbine in existence on earth. What to you have? No energy, that's what. No petroleum to lubricate the turbine; no energy. No petroleum to make your plastics parts in electric cars and solar panels, none of them, either. Al Gore has not yet invented his green gooey juice, yet. Why not?



#55
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
Things have become as things have become, so consequently things are as they are.

Do you think that things could have been done differently?...…. Or is that really just the futile question that it is?


Similarly, things will become as they will become and the duration of events will render what will have occurred, irreversible.

Does this not suggest that things were always going to occur in the way that  they did?

And therefore things will continue to occur in the way that they will?


Maybe everything is inevitable.....The god principle, without all the singing and dancing as it were.

 
#56
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@fauxlaw
It's really pretty simple. You like to use ranges of data to explain rapid climate change, but I cannot use the same principle to explain placental mammals? You 80 to 140M years is a range. You used it. That's your data. I'm saying the range includes 140M years, meaning that evolution of placental mammals cold have begun as early as that.
I wasnt criticizing your use of ranges, but your misinterpreting your own citation as the article later pointed out the 80 to 140 mil was an old estimate and updated data agreed with my 65 mil statement. 

You do not get to truncate that range and say it only occurred 80M years ago. 
Again, i never said 80mil. It was you who truncated the range to only and exactly 140 myo. From post 39

140M years ago, before man, placental mammals, having identical physiological systems to ours, evolved and thrived under climate conditions far more severe and variable than we experience today. 
The exact number of millions of years is mmorather irrelevant to the argument at hand, so let's move on.

i dont think anyone is only looking at the last 30 years.
Yeah, no one. Just NOAA, and IPCC. Nobodies. I'll accept that.

So, where;'s your citation that the earth has never seen temperatures and sea levels like we see today? You keep claiming it. Show me.
I never said it was never hotter, i think it was during dinosaur eras. Definitely in early earth. I said the temperature *hasnt shifted this much this fast* since the time large animals came out of the water, except for some cataclysmic event (that resulted in mass extinctions, like a meteor).

I cant demonstrate something never happened, thats impossible. I can cite sources saying it hasnt happened since the cataclysmic meteor:


If the Earth stays on its current course without reversing greenhouse gas emissions, and global temperatures rise 5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is possible, the pace of change will be at least 50 times and possibly 100 times swifter than what's occurred in the past, Field said. The numbers are imprecise because the comparison is to an era 55 million years ago, he said.
"The planet has not experienced changes this rapid in 65 million years," Field said. "Humans have never seen anything like this."
I would assume noaa and ipcc updated their time frame to give a more accurate representation of current events. Also because things got worse. What is wrong with updating a model and showing more recent dates? 

How often is man dropped, or takes himself, to a dessert or the arctic without clothes and without his tech? That's a straw man argument if ever there was one. 
You are talking darwin, and evolution. Biology and genetics. Do you know how to aquire materials for and make all of these techs? Is it in your dna?

Things learned from experience are not evolution my friend. When asking how we evolved, we are naked, although not alone. 

We did not evolve school, e=mc2, or gun powder. We discovered/invented them.

to justify the Green New Deal, for example? Take everything away? Well, that is the proposal of the GND: net-zero

Gnd is not a proposal. It was orignally a brainstorm meant to start a conversation. There was no mandate or timeline to "eliminate all airtravel" or whatever, but that would reduce carbon and maybe we should consider alternatives, like superfast mag trains to reduce airtravel... sounds sensible to me. Yall twist everything. 
#57
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Though Homo Sapiens doesn't adapt biologically, it uses it's brain to adapt and utilise environment and resources.
Evolution uses the two biological mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. Since our non biological adaptation has nothing to do with either mutations or natural selection, it has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution, which is the association being made by fauxlaw
#58
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
In other words. Yes we adapted, but it was not through evolution. 
#59
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Nemiroff
In other words we adapt but not within a Darwinian context.

The question is, would we adapt quickly enough to keep pace with a potentially increased rate the rate of environmental change. 

And  yes, climate alarmists will probably ignore Darwin, because Darwinian evolution is contextually irrelevant.
#60
Nemiroff
Nemiroff's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 232
1
3
9
Nemiroff's avatar
Nemiroff
1
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
As a species, most likely. Short  of any run off feedback loop.
But species survival is a very low bar for acceptable outcome.