Thread: Catastrophic Failure of Earth Within the Lifetime of Someone Alive Today!?

I was left with an overall positive impression from Voldmer's posts in on-topic ld-related areas. Not sure why we couldn't have a two sided evidence based discussion here.

Anyways, in the least we have provided important information for consideration even to non-believers.

Nyx, I agree with everything you just said.

It is absolutely shocking to see how many regular members here oppose climate change!

A simple thought experiment can put your world into perspective within minutes, enough to warrant the potential danger that climate change does present.

We often consider, what are the odds that climate change is anthropogenic. Perhaps a more suitable question would be, what are the chances that climate change is non anthropogenic, IE non man-made.
Expand that question to, What is the probability that a slow and repeating natural climate change could occur severely amplified within a 200 year timeframe at the exact moment of Industrialization.

Now let's link up a few figures. The Milankovitch cycles are approximately 26000 years in length. It takes this whole time to complete a single precession of earths axis. In this period of time, the PPM of c02 in the atmosphere only fluctuates by 100 ppm at highest. This is a time in which ice ages occur, oceans deposit and attract huge volumes of CO2, plant life and volcanic activity fluctuates wilding and react diversely to the climate change. Yet, the atmospheric co2 content only fluctuates by 100 PPM!

All of a sudden an era of industrialization happens, and Co2 concentrations spike to 650 PPM. For 400000 years the earth has progressed through various natural cycles, not once has co2 concentration exceeded 300 PPM. 30 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide is added to the 780 gigatonnes already present within 200 years.

It seems to me some people would choose to be skeptical of climate change to justify their own actions.

As is clear from my other posts, I accept the scientific evidence for anthropic climate change.

But what you've just written isn't a valid argument for it.

It's a valid argument for the hypothesis that CO2 levels have risen to way above average as a result of industrialisation. But that's barely even a hypothesis, that's just a fact. It's patently clear from both the historical records, and the basic chemistry of burning fossil fuels. I think most climate change sceptics would happily concede to the truth of what you wrote.

But that's not what the anthropic climate change hypothesis is. The hypothesis is about the recent warming of the globe - namely that it's largely a result of the CO2 rise. This is what the sceptics tend to be sceptical about. There's good scientific evidence for it, but it's more complicated, and your post doesn't really provide any of the relevant evidence.

P.S. a relatively tangential niggle, but you got the data quite badly wrong. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is 400ppm, a significant difference from 650ppm.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Voldmer...you truly disappoint me. NyxCC is one of the great aspects of this site! I find your refusal to respond with sources disrespectful.

You are obviously free to see things whichever way you choose.

I am under no obligation to deliver sources in this debate, and certainly will not do so, since I have better uses for my time. And even if I did provide sources, you, and any "climate change"-minions who might see this, would not change position one bit. Therefore it would be as meaningless as it is, when your side provide sources.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

As is clear from my other posts, I accept the scientific evidence for anthropic climate change.

But what you've just written isn't a valid argument for it.

It's a valid argument for the hypothesis that CO2 levels have risen to way above average as a result of industrialisation. But that's barely even a hypothesis, that's just a fact. It's patently clear from both the historical records, and the basic chemistry of burning fossil fuels. I think most climate change sceptics would happily concede to the truth of what you wrote.

But that's not what the anthropic climate change hypothesis is. The hypothesis is about the recent warming of the globe - namely that it's largely a result of the CO2 rise. This is what the sceptics tend to be sceptical about. There's good scientific evidence for it, but it's more complicated, and your post doesn't really provide any of the relevant evidence.

P.S. a relatively tangential niggle, but you got the data quite badly wrong. The atmospheric CO2 concentration is 400ppm, a significant difference from 650ppm.

Sorry if I didn't make this clearer, it was meant to be a thought experiment to put into perspective the radical change that has been brought about. I meant to say 400 PPM, it managed to screw up somehow, thanks for letting me know.

I wrote hundreds of lines and decided to delete them because ultimately I'm not here to discuss the merits of climate change, it's been done already. I will say though that I find it absolutely absurd that in almost any other fragile system we will assume the worst, and strive to disprove it. Yet here skeptics think it's okay to assume the best until we formulate a perfect model. They attest to this when preliminary evidence shows that climate change has a very real possibility of being man made, and even more so catastrophic. They wish to think that thousands of systems are currently radically different then they were for thousands of years, yet that all has no bearing on the earth.

Thats sounds a lot like they're the ones with the hidden agenda.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

You are obviously free to see things whichever way you choose.

I am under no obligation to deliver sources in this debate, and certainly will not do so, since I have better uses for my time. And even if I did provide sources, you, and any "climate change"-minions who might see this, would not change position one bit. Therefore it would be as meaningless as it is, when your side provide sources.

First, on those last two lines, you are wrong again Voldmer. I am interested in the truth. I am open minded and I am sometimes faulted by family for considering other's points of view, especially when backed up by sources I can review. When I hear something that sounds possible, even if it sounds a little far fetched, I will research it if it is on a subject that I am interested in or is important. And you call myself and the rest "minions"...Are there two Voldmers? Before this thread I may have been thinking of a different DV member with a similar name. By the way, I don't mind admitting when I am wrong. I see it as a virtue, so I am often quick to admit when I am wrong. I am far from perfect.

I made sure to quote you entirely because that was a beauty Voldmer...your quote shows what truth is up against all the time!

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Sorry if I didn't make this clearer, it was meant to be a thought experiment to put into perspective the radical change that has been brought about.

Okay yeah, I was pretty sure you were just being unclear rather than trying to make a bad argument. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Okay yeah, I was pretty sure you were just being unclear rather than trying to make a bad argument. Thanks.

You are missing the point, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just commenting on what kind of a person you must be to choose to be a skeptic just because evidence is not absolutely solid, yet it's consequences could be huge. It's a complete negligent attitude that I disagree with.

There's a time and a place for utmost certainty. When it comes to the future of our planet, it's diverse and beautiful lifeforms, I won't accept to sit on my ass while I wait for a scientist to show me to 99.999% level of confidence that climate change is man made.

Even if I'm completely wrong, in almost every possible way. I have planted hundreds of trees, lived environmentally friendly and enjoyed it all. None of those things are bad.
Now if I chose to live an extravagant lifestyle because climate change may not be true. In 40 years when it becomes apparent just how bad things might be, I'm one of the primary reasons for it.

You are missing the point... I'm just saying that I now understand what you meant and doubted you were being ignorant or intellectually dishonest in the first place. Not sure how you've read that as a counterargument or criticism.

:T

Ahh woops, sorry again. Stress is quite high in my life right now, as you can imagine it leads embarrassing mistakes.

Not a problem... misunderstanding is the curse of the internet.

Originally Posted by Denziloe

Not a problem... misunderstanding is the curse of the internet.

Very true! I think someone else misunderstood what another person was saying in this very thread...wait that was me! Haha. That provides a good example for what I said in my last post...I admitted then and now, that I was wrong in interpreting a members quote a page or two back, and I apologized.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

First, on those last two lines, you are wrong again Voldmer. I am interested in the truth. I am open minded and I am sometimes faulted by family for considering other's points of view, especially when backed up by sources I can review. When I hear something that sounds possible, even if it sounds a little far fetched, I will research it if it is on a subject that I am interested in or is important. And you call myself and the rest "minions"...Are there two Voldmers? Before this thread I may have been thinking of a different DV member with a similar name. By the way, I don't mind admitting when I am wrong. I see it as a virtue, so I am often quick to admit when I am wrong. I am far from perfect.

I made sure to quote you entirely because that was a beauty Voldmer...your quote shows what truth is up against all the time!

Yes it does. But not for the reason you imagine!

And there is just one Voldmer. If you find a dichotomy there, then I strongly encourage you to contemplate the matter thoroughly. You might become enlightened.

I specifically refrained from calling you a minion, for the reason that I am not adequately acquainted with your approach to the CO2-issue in order to categorise you yet. But there certainly are minions.

If you are interested in truth, then I also encourage you to contemplate what plants are made of. You don't have to alert me, when you're done with it.

Your constant inference that all of the extra CO2 in the extra atmosphere will be absorbed into plant material is just plain wrong.

1. Where do you get this idea from in the first place? Why do you think that CO2 is the bottleneck in plant growth, and not, say, the amount of sunlight? Either you've done the calculations to prove that CO2 is the bottleneck, in which case show us, or you haven't, in which case your statements are baseless and idiotic.

2. If CO2 is the bottleneck and you're right in your inference that plants would indeed absorb any extra CO2 put into the atmosphere... why is there ever CO2 in the atmosphere?

3. If plants would indeed absorb any extra CO2 put into the atmosphere, why aren't they absorbing the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere?

I will interpret your flat-out ignoring of the question about your "university work" to mean that you were just bullshitting and have zero relevant experience in this field, probably serving some kind of janitorial or administrative role at a college.

Voldmer, although your last post sounded "cute" it added nothing to the debate...much like most of what you have said in this thread. You are doing a decent job of pushing the evidence and sources further up the thread where others are less likely to see them...perhaps that is your intention.

*Don't pretend that you do not see Denziloe's post just above mine either.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Voldmer, although your last post sounded "cute" it added nothing to the debate...much like most of what you have said in this thread. You are doing a decent job of pushing the evidence and sources further up the thread where others are less likely to see them...perhaps that is your intention.

*Don't pretend that you do not see Denziloe's post just above mine either.

I find your accusation about my motives appalling, and bordering on paranoia.

There is no evidence present in this thread concerning CO2; only quotes from lists of "papers to throw at thinking people, should they dare to speak up against the official CO2-story".

I ignore Denziloe on purpose, because of his uncivilised demeanor in this thread (even if his grotesque accusations are flame-bate, if ever such a thing existed).

Either that or you're stumped by my incredibly basic scientific questions. One or the other.

Given that you literally just called somebody a "borderline paranoid", I'm guessing it's not the "civilised demeanour" thing.

Come on now Voldmer. Plenty of evidence is sourced throughout the thread and what I said is in the same vein as asking someone if they are simply trolling. Any rational person who reads all of your posts in this thread will see someone sharing conspiracy theories and personal beliefs with no sources to back them up...end of story.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

It is absolutely shocking to see how many regular members here oppose climate change!

Do you mean climate change, or global warming? Do you mean it is entirely humanity's fault, or it's a mixture of both us and nature? I'm sorry but I find your post kind of confusing, you don't really seem to be agreeing with the people who are supporting global warming exactly. When I say global warming, I mean it the same way most people mean feminism. Not the true cause or issue, but what it has become; I'm talking about the political maneuver/scapegoat argument.

All I want is for people to be factual, logical, calm, non-fanatical, respectful, and understanding. I really do not care what the outcome of the debate is or the finding, because I think the debate itself is useless and a waste of time. However, since everyone insists on continuing, I would at least like that they make sense when they do and be as scientific as possible. Now, both sides have been guilty of low blows, taking shortcuts, logical fallacies, and using less than credible sources. Hence when the OP and others started providing links and backing up their claims, I liked their posts and became open to what they had to say.

Personally, I don't think global warming is as dangerous as people make it out to be. I believe it exists in the sense climate change exists, both naturally and because of humans. The implications of this is what I disagree most with, the doomsday scenario (at least for the earth) is nothing more than fear-mongering. It's like the Red Scare. If it's what it takes, we will be wiped out, whatever. The theories that many have come up with that would result of our part in the rising CO2 levels have more or less been scare tactics to push political agendas and to generate funds for various groups. Very little of it has been borne of true stewardship, and honestly most of the evidence presented is what people that want you to see this information (for unaltruistic reasons) want you to spread around. There is more to it, there is always more to it. The limited sharing of information has led to many prophecies that have never come to fruition because key pieces of the puzzle were left out when coming up with the theories, or they were flat out fabricated.

This is why I play devil's advocate when it comes to this stuff. Anybody that is too gung-ho about either side of this stuff is going to be too willing to believe whatever information is presented to them that supports their side of the argument. Being impartial and getting results is more important to me than winning a debate.

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Come on now Voldmer. Plenty of evidence is sourced throughout the thread and what I said is in the same vein as asking someone if they are simply trolling. Any rational person who reads all of your posts in this thread will see someone sharing conspiracy theories and personal beliefs with no sources to back them up...end of story.

I don't really suspect any formal conspiracy - at least not a major one. There is simply a lot of people pursuing their own agendas, but their various objectives can all be realised through joining the "Anti-CO2"-movement, which they then duly do.

Everything stated in this thread, by me and everyone else, is based on beliefs. You, for example, believe the sources which you have quoted.

Stop acting as if scientific sources are opinions. If you want to test whether the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is indeed 400ppm, you can go to the source, find out the methodology, and test it for yourself. Not being bothered is not an argument. You've also repeatedly ignored purely analytical counterarguments to your claims which require zero empirical work, so on top of being wrong, the whole premise of your defence is also a lie.

Originally Posted by snoop

This is why I play devil's advocate when it comes to this stuff. Anybody that is too gung-ho about either side of this stuff is going to be too willing to believe whatever information is presented to them that supports their side of the argument. Being impartial and getting results is more important to me than winning a debate.

Sitting in the middle and not taking sides doesn't equate to being impartial. If there was an argument over if the sun revolves around the earth or the earth resolves around the sun and you take the position, "I am undecided because the data of neither side convinces me." That isn't impartial, because any unbiased person would see the overwhelming evidence and be forced to side with the truth.

Originally Posted by Alric

Sitting in the middle and not taking sides doesn't equate to being impartial. If there was an argument over if the sun revolves around the earth or the earth resolves around the sun and you take the position, "I am undecided because the data of neither side convinces me." That isn't impartial, because any unbiased person would see the overwhelming evidence and be forced to side with the truth.

Did you even read the rest of my post, or did you just decide to stop there?

edit: By the way, why are you so obsessed with saying others are wrong and what you believe in is the truth? That kind of thinking has no place in science or really on the earth. What you are doing is the equivalent of theists claiming that their religion is the correct religion and not even giving the possibility that they are wrong a chance. That kind of thinking is what leads to crusades, animosity, and ultimately the persecution of skeptics, free thinkers, and being able to adapt. It's extremely close minded and unbecoming of all humans. Quite frankly it just makes you look ignorant and biased as fuck.