Global Warming is Opinion

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, scherado said:

If you mean anthropogenic global warming, then there are myriad tons of opinion in support of it and near to no persuasive evidence in support of it.

Define “persuasive.” Essentially ALL evidence points to human activity being the primary driver of current climate trends. 

[scherado]

Just now, iNow said:

Define “persuasive.” Essentially ALL evidence points to human activity being the primary driver of current climate trends. 

My understanding is that almost none of the putative evidence points to human activity. Persuasive evidence would be information adduced in support of the anthropegenic explanation such that I don't assert what I did in my first sentence of this post. No? Yes.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, scherado said:

My understanding is that almost none of the putative evidence points to human activity.

Your understanding is wrong. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Scientific_literature_and_opinion

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate-intermediate.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WdWCfXpOmhA

[scherado]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

Your understanding is wrong. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Scientific_literature_and_opinion

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate-intermediate.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WdWCfXpOmhA

I will look at the ones below the wiki-pee-D-uh as I reject out of hand those from the first link: I have been boycotting that site for more, probably, 10 years and won't reverse that decision.

[iNow]

Your ignorance is impressive, but fails to impress

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, scherado said:

My understanding is that almost none of the putative evidence points to human activity. Persuasive evidence would be information adduced in support of the anthropegenic explanation such that I don't assert what I did in my first sentence of this post. No? Yes.

What part carbon dioxide mixing with seawater creating carbonic acid do you not understand?

Are you suggesting only background CO₂ causes this and man-made CO₂ is inert and as such has no effect on ocean acidification?

Just so you know, I'm in my 60s and I've worked with wild and cultured shellfish my entire lifetime. Will this be the part where you tell me that I have nothing better to do than fudge science so I can suck the government teat?

[iNow]

No, he’ll just neg rep you then handwave a bit like he did to me

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, he’ll just neg rep you then handwave a bit like he did to me

Judging by his/her demeanor today I'm speculating their neg quota has been filled.

[scherado]

46 minutes ago, rangerx said:

What part carbon dioxide mixing with seawater creating carbonic acid do you not understand?

What part of the "rising global sea-levels" topic do you support (agree with) and attribute to anthropogenic cause?

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, scherado said:

What part of the "rising global sea-levels" topic do you support (agree with) and attribute to anthropogenic cause?

It's not my field of expertise. I asked you a specific question from the field that is. Why can't you reply with a straight answer?

[scherado]

None of my posts in this thread allude to or hint at anything to do with the subject of carbonic acid as an effect of the cause "carbon dioxide mixing with seawater", which is most definitely not my field of expertise. Given this fact, the "straight" answer to your first question is that I will need to search and read about this cause, effect and putative relationship to anthropegenic global warming and return with my conclusion.

After that eventuality, I will tackle the second question.

While I do those, do you have an answer to:

33 minutes ago, scherado said:

What part of the "rising global sea-levels" topic do you support (agree with) and attribute to anthropogenic cause?

 

[Arete]

3 hours ago, scherado said:

My understanding is that almost none of the putative evidence points to human activity. 

There are literally thousands of empirical studies demonstrating that at the majority of observed contemporary climate change is caused by human activity. 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

[scherado]

3 minutes ago, Arete said:

There are literally thousands of empirical studies demonstrating that at the majority of observed contemporary climate change is caused by human activity. 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

 

Having just now read your post and, hence, not yet evaluated it's truth-value, that kind of information, if actually true plus the number--thousands--being actually true, would constitute the persuasive evidence to which I alluded in a previous post.

[Arete]

14 minutes ago, scherado said:

Having just now read your post and, hence, not yet evaluated it's truth-value, that kind of information, if actually true plus the number--thousands--being actually true, would constitute the persuasive evidence to which I alluded in a previous post.

It does, and such studies have been amassing for at least the past two decades. 

Here's a study quantifying the natural and anthropogenic components of climate change from 1999: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6721/abs/397688a0.html?foxtrotcallback=true and another from 1992: https://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/6970221

A Google scholar search reveals about 560,000 hits for the search term "natural vs anthropogenic climate change factors". 

 

 

[rangerx]

57 minutes ago, scherado said:

None of my posts in this thread allude to or hint at anything to do with the subject of carbonic acid as an effect of the cause "carbon dioxide mixing with seawater", which is most definitely not my field of expertise. Given this fact, the "straight" answer to your first question is that I will need to search and read about this cause, effect and putative relationship to anthropegenic global warming and return with my conclusion.

After that eventuality, I will tackle the second question.

While I do those, do you have an answer to:

What part of the "rising global sea-levels" topic do you support (agree with) and attribute to anthropogenic cause?

That sounds like an admission you have no idea about what it is you're denying, but I'm delighted by your effort to qualify yourself by googling around for something that scarcely rises to the level of Chemistry 101 no less how it applies to biology.

It's infinitely more educational to skeptically trust the authority of an erudite than blindly accept the indoctrination of an ideologue.

And I already answered your question, which seems to have fallen on blind eyes, so I'll repeat it in a manner that might.


It's not my field of expertise.
 

.




 

Edited October 5, 2017 by rangerx

[scherado]

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It's infinitely more educational to skeptically trust the authority of an erudite than blindly accept the indoctrination of an ideologue

Do you want to reconsider that statement?

 

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

By the way, I asked a second question,

 

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Given this fact, the "straight" answer to your first question is that I will need to search and read about this cause, effect and putative relationship to anthropegenic global warming and return with my conclusion.

48 minutes ago, scherado said:

After that eventuality, I will tackle the second question.

 

1 hour ago, scherado said:

What part of the "rising global sea-levels" topic do you support (agree with) and attribute to anthropogenic cause?

 

8 minutes ago, rangerx said:

And I already answered your question, which seems to have fallen on blind eyes, so I'll repeat it in a manner that might.


It's not my field of expertise.

On what basis would I be required to answer your question when "it is not my field of expertise", but you are not required to answer mine for the same reason?

Did I lose you?

[rangerx]

 

7 minutes ago, scherado said:

Do you want to reconsider that statement?

On what basis would I be required to answer your question when "it is not my field of expertise", but you are not required to answer mine for the same reason?

I edited the post to remove the redundancy just moments before you posted your response.

However as to the second question, I'm pretty sure a ten year old with reasonably average intelligence could answer the question, unequivocally.

[scherado]

33 minutes ago, rangerx said:

 

I edited the post to remove the redundancy just moments before you posted your response.

However as to the second question, I'm pretty sure a ten year old with reasonably average intelligence could answer the question, unequivocally.

Alrighty then, it's settled.

[Area54]

6 hours ago, scherado said:

I will look at the ones below the wiki-pee-D-uh as I reject out of hand those from the first link: I have been boycotting that site for more, probably, 10 years and won't reverse that decision.

I applaud your consistency of approach. It is honest and direct.

The essence of science involves a readiness to abandon old ideas in the face of new evidence and a readiness to seek out that evidence. Those who are against science, such as yourself, insist upon immovable, immutable dogma. It is therefore a veritable delight to see you stick to your guns and refuse to entertain wikipedia under any circumstances. Well done. You may feel justifiably proud.

[Strange]

11 hours ago, scherado said:

I will look at the ones below the wiki-pee-D-uh as I reject out of hand those from the first link: I have been boycotting that site for more, probably, 10 years and won't reverse that decision.

Presumably it said something that disagreed with you, so you put it on ignore. Bravo.

[rangerx]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

The essence of science involves a readiness to abandon old ideas in the face of new evidence and a readiness to seek out that evidence.

I agree on this point and only somewhat on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very good for referencing most common knowledge facts, but it's not without errors. Hence ought to be cross-referenced for accuracy rather than outright dismissed by mere virtue of it's presence. The suggestion it's entirely wrong across the board is just another example of denial.

The same goes for conspiracy theorists and climate deniers that science itself is a conspiracy of compliance and nefarious indoctrination. Deniers endlessly suggest data is fudged to further agendas and students are fed talking points by their handlers.

Bare with me for a few moments and I'll get to where this is critical to climate change toward the end, because if I can figure it out... anyone should be able to understand.

My entire career is based upon challenging the status quo. I'm a pearl farmer. For more than a hundred years, there's been a myriad of myths, supposedly irrefutable science and secrecy surrounding the industry.

When I was just a child of eight (early 1960s), while at a family reunion at a resort lake in central Canada, I discovered freshwater mussels and was mesmerized by the rainbow iridescence of their shells . My mom wore pearls, her mom wore pearls and her mom wore pearls, but all of them and my father told that pearls only came from Japan and was a closely guarded secret. To that end I said hah! and promised myself I would endeavor to unlock those secrets. Historically, most natural pearl beds were long diminished, if not decimated. Nobody left to interview, next to no publications available. Just biology text books explaining basic shell structures. By the late 1970s, black  and south-sea pearls were being cultivated in Australia and Pacific Islands. Most of my inquiries were ignored. The few I had gotten were met with "too cold up there" or "no pearl bearing species" exist in my area. I didn't accept that. I was certain, if it can grow a shell, it can grow a pearl, even though I'd yet to understand why, or how.

Soon after I graduated, I moved to the Pacific side to get a job as a deep sea diver, harvesting geoducks. Being a seasonal thing, I branched into collection of other species for labs. Paralytic shellfish poisoning (red tides) and fecal coli-form counts. Acorn barnacles for spinal cord research, mussels for underwater adhesive glue, octopus growth rates and the list goes on and on. I found my first pearl eating a plate of fried mussels. While cooking destroyed it's surface quality, I gained a clue to where they formed in the animal. Doing random surveys on reefs, I discovered other pearls. Over the years, I discovered thousands of pearls. From those discoveries, patterns emerged. Using this data, I could now begin target areas of high incidence. It soon became apparent that a simple grain of sand causing a pearl was not as simple we were led to believe. I started pushing grains of sand into every and any part of the mussel, but almost always failed. By almost, I discovered, that getting an object between the mantle and shell resulted in a pearl like formation, but were stuck to the shell.

Mollusks seem like simple creatures, but in reality are quite complex. While a clam is a clam is a clam in how they grow, they have markedly different traits in their behavior, habitat and appearance. However, the function of the mantle is pretty much the same across the board without expanding on the difference between pterioda and pteriomorphia (namely pearl oysters and mussels).

One fine day, I got a tiny bit of leaked information from Japan. My source ended up being charged and convicted (even shunned) for divulging it, because the then standing Diamond Standard prohibited any Japanese citizen to reveal any aspect of pearl culture technology to non-nationals, without strict conditions and permission. It was a patent by a supposed author of the Mise-Nishigawa procedure of a tool called a cell needle. I asked myself, why would pearl culture use a cell needle? By going back to the drawing board, I would strive to find the cells in question. The mantle was where pearls and shells formed, hence deduced epithelial cells might be implicated, after all, the natural pearls I had found were surrounded by them. A pearl sac, if you will, but still at a loss as to onset. I became more proficient with microscopy and instruments over time, then began placing grains of sand and shell into the epithelium, but no longer at random. Instead in recorded positions for later reference. Low and behold, I got a few pearls to grow, but no great numbers. Examining the scruffy successes, I concluded that pearls grow in the epithelium if it's perforated in a manner similar of preventing scarring in human skin when getting stitches. The cells needed to multiply and divide, bridging the gaps created by the incision. It happens in nature when shells get damaged and break. New shell material bridges the gaps. I solved one problem, but had another greater problem. My pearls were tiny, misshapen and had no value as gems. I knew I was still missing something important.

Then another fine day a few years later, I caught an octopus for dinner. It was missing one and a half tentacles from what seemed like a predator attack. While I was cutting it in the sink, my knife contacted a hard object and out popped a near perfectly round 7mm pearl. Now I'm really confused. How does an animal that does not have a shell create a pearl? Microscopy reveal the pearl was nearly identical in structure to a Butter Clam (Saxidomus gigantea). It was then, I had my eureka moment.

An octopus is a mollusk. All mollusks have green blood (copper based as opposed to iron in most animals), hence most mollusks have compatible tissue types. Octopus eat clams. The pearl was found less than a centimeter from the beak. During his meal, a tiny piece of the clam's mantle tissue lodged itself in the healing scar of the octopus and formed a pearl. The cat was out of the bag and the secret of pearl culture was revealed. Today's cultured  pearls are the result of an epithelial trans-graft from a donor to a recipient. Color and structure is determined by the donor, not the recipient. The recipient is merely a surrogate.

Almost the entire premise that a pearl is formed by an "irritant" is nonsense. Irritation causes inflammation. Inflammation causes disease and other stresses. Disease and stress causes mortality. The only example where it may be the case, I have already described as my first result. A grain of sand in the extrapallial space. But that's not a pearl as we know them. Most pearls are cause by parasites, physical damage or auto-immune disease. Only a tiny fraction of one percent are the result of grains of sand. Today's cultured pearls are grown by placing a small piece of mantle tissue from the donor over top of a shell bead nucleus them placed within connective tissues and the bloodstream of the host mollusk's gonads. This allowed the cells to keep living, multiplying and dividing to form a pearl sac and subsequently higher success in productivity.

Now, what does this have to do with climate change you ask?

Well, it's very simple really. In my area, I do free range pearling for both natural and cultural pearls. I have had tenure for twenty four designated marine stations since 1983. Over the years, I've noticed changes in the mussels, especially at the perimeter of the beds. What were once thick, vibrant shells are now thin egg-like shells. Most I can crush by hand, opposed to the top of the reefs where doing so is not possible, unless with excessive force which can cause lacerations... even amputations.

All living things need calcium. Mollusks uptake calcium and carbonate ions from water. In times of quiescence, low salinity, freezing temperatures mollusks do not eat and if they do, only ingest small cell organisms. As their soft tissues need calcium, they are able to "revert" from building shells to dissolving them with naturally formed acids then re-metabolizing the solution. It leaves distinctive signatures on the inner lining of the shells. and can be measured for thickness, rate and duration. Like the rings of a tree, a mollusk has growth periods. In my area, they grow actively for ten months then go into a two month semi hibernation-like period. This gives the distinct signature of nine visible layers per year. 10 -1=9 After all, the last layer is reabsorbed.

But that's not what's happening on the lower fringes of the biomass of the intertidal zone. The lower in levels, the longer the submersion. The longer the submersion in a gradually lowering ph is measurable against those on the top of the reef. The evidence is clear, because the reefs are dying, slowly. The radius is shrinking, even though the greater number of animals present do not appear affected. They are, but to a lesser degree. California mussels have no commercial or recreational value in my area. Some by sewage some by natural toxins. They are full of sand, tiny pearls etc. and break teeth. Other than a few sea stars, they have no predators. Even in the past few years, sea stars had mass mortality by a densovirus, but are slowly recovering. Yet reef decline is still accelerating.

I have one marine station that adds valuable data to my research. An island of shells, created by winds and tides from the reef below. Archaeological surveys present data of shell size and thickness. The deeper I go, the shells get thicker, even though they've degraded slightly. I don't need a lab, I don't need elaborate measuring tools other than a caliper to observe and record the evidence. Even a layperson I take there for the first time can clearly see the difference with their own eyes and no tools. It's that obvious.

So in closing, Japan has experienced a catastrophic decline in their biwas (lakes) because of this problem. Rising temperatures, lower ph and every consequence that results such as disease, parasites and lack of oxygen. Pollution is also a factor, but not singularly underlying. Not one Japanese pearl farmer denies climate change and human involvement in their destruction. Only one lake remains in production out of dozens in the past. After nearly a century of protectionism and productivity, does anyone in their right mind think that Japan would needlessly end one of it's greatest industries to tout a liberal conspiracy?

Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, no matter how it's created. Man made carbon dioxide is not inert, no matter how many times or how loudly a person denies it's effect on the marine environment. The more you create, the the greater it's dissolved in water creating carbonic acid, hence the lower the ph our oceans become, preventing carbonate from be utilized in animal recruitment. It's that simple. A child can figure that out.

The assholes that claim that climate change is a hoax to deprive working people of their jobs, are the very people who are depriving people of their jobs by their ignorance and ideology. Period.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, scherado said:

My understanding is that almost none of the putative evidence points to human activity. Persuasive evidence would be information adduced in support of the anthropegenic explanation such that I don't assert what I did in my first sentence of this post. No? Yes.

Then your understanding is deficient. There's plenty of evidence that adding CO2 will warm the planet. Where has the extra CO2 come from, if not from humans? There's evidence that other human activity affects the climate, as well. Do you really need to be persuaded that we are e.g. deforesting the planet?

9 hours ago, scherado said:

 On what basis would I be required to answer your question when "it is not my field of expertise", but you are not required to answer mine for the same reason?

You've offered an opinion on global warming. Is any of it in your field of expertise? What would that field be?

[Area54]

4 hours ago, rangerx said:

I agree on this point and only somewhat on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very good for referencing most common knowledge facts, but it's not without errors. Hence ought to be cross-referenced for accuracy rather than outright dismissed by mere virtue of it's presence.

I agree with your caution, but surely one would cross-reference any declared fact, whether in Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, a textbook, or a research paper. I have found Wikipedia to be as reliable as the others in those fields I have knowledge of and therefore, tentatively, extend that expectation to other fields. I find the references associated with each article typically provide the depth if and when required.

[iNow]

Wikipedia is especially relevant/accurate on topics like climate change... just like evolution, vaccines, relativity, and related topics... precisely because so many people are idiots and try to change things on these hot button issues.

While the lower traffic articles are higher risk for being inaccurate, I challenge anyone to find something inaccurate in the link I've shared (or related Wikipedia links about climate change). 

Instead, what we have here is a lazy troll dismissing the entire source instead of engaging with any of the content it actually presents. He's demonstrated repeatedly that he's not worth the time or effort.

Edited October 5, 2017 by iNow

[scherado]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Instead, what we have here is a lazy troll dismissing the entire source instead of engaging with any of the content it actually presents. He's demonstrated repeatedly that he's not worth the time or effort.

Let's see what happens when I type your name in the entry field on the ignore page....there we go.

16 hours ago, rangerx said:

agree on this point and only somewhat on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is very good for referencing most common knowledge facts,

I began to boycott that site when I read ludicrous political content. I decided that I wouldn't waste any time attempting to determine what was true or false; zero.

Edited October 6, 2017 by scherado