Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

The Druids Grove combined Off Topic Forum. Politics, science, random oddities - discuss them all here. - Low Moderation
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr »

"I don't know what "photos" you're looking at, but any claim that there are more trees now is laughable."

Study any Ansel Adams photos or any of his contemporaries. Then compare the photos to those taken today. You will see the difference that 150 years of fire suppression and conservation have produced.

Or you can go to Yosemite right now, where a natural fire right outside the village was allowed to burn naturally. This is what forests would have looked more like, than what they look like today. Your aerial clear cutting photo if taken 500 years ago would look relatively reversed. Where the odd patches of dirt would be stands of trees and the verdant forest would be the dirt areas. Clear cutting is only bad because it is not aesthetically pleasing to our eyes.

And I wrote in North America. There may be less trees in Brazil for example or China.
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr »

"Funny, I thought it was sunlight, nutrient rich soil, and water that limited plant growth."

If you have those, then if you increase CO2, over natural atmospheric or aquatic amounts, you will increase size and rate of growth of plants.

You know this is be true, so what is the point of arguing this?. If you don't, then you have not enough information to form an opinion on the subject. Or rather a valid opinion.
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr »

What airplane did they use in 1620 to take that image in your first example?
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr »

WHY is climate change happening right now"
Climate change has been happening before humans have been humans.

If change happens in the absence of humans. Why is the first conclusion that change is human caused when humans are present?

And because humans do not know all of the reasons(yet) why change occurs does not invalidate that premise that change is not human caused. For 'not human' caused change is the default condition, because we know that change occured before humans.

In any study, or experiment, of value the variables must be eliminated to as few as possible of known variables. If those variables are not eliminated much less known they study or experiment has little value.
User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Tudamorf »

Fyyr wrote:And because humans do not know all of the reasons(yet) why change occurs does not invalidate that premise that change is not human caused.
When all of the known possibilities have been ruled out, then we adopt the only remaining explanation: human-influenced atmospheric changes. That doesn't mean that it's the only possible explanation we will ever come up with, just that it's currently the best one.

Do you know of a better explanation? Backed up with data, and experiments that can be repeated?

Requiring proof of the negative, as you're doing, is the religious zealot's tool, not the scientist's.
User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Tudamorf »

Fyyr wrote:Or you can go to Yosemite right now, where a natural fire right outside the village was allowed to burn naturally. This is what forests would have looked more like, than what they look like today. Your aerial clear cutting photo if taken 500 years ago would look relatively reversed. Where the odd patches of dirt would be stands of trees and the verdant forest would be the dirt areas. Clear cutting is only bad because it is not aesthetically pleasing to our eyes.
There are many trees in the old-growth Pacific Northwest forests -- giant ones -- that are over 500 years old. Some over 1,000 years old. The youngest forests are a couple of centuries old.

Odd, how they survived for millennia without meddling Europeans cutting them down. (Not that clear cutting actually prevents fires, if that's what you're claiming.)
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr »

"When all of the known possibilities have been ruled out, then we adopt the only remaining explanation: human-influenced atmospheric changes. That doesn't mean that it's the only possible explanation we will ever come up with, just that it's currently the best one."

So you're saying that we know all the reasons for climate change, and all of those variables have been eliminated?

If non human 'natural' change is the default, why is human caused the 'best one' as you say?
User avatar
Tudamorf
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Tudamorf »

Fyyr wrote:So you're saying that we know all the reasons for climate change, and all of those variables have been eliminated?
No, I said we've eliminated all of the other known reasons for climate change, such as changes in the Sun or in the Earth's orbit.

We can't eliminate reasons we don't know about.
Fyyr wrote:If non human 'natural' change is the default, why is human caused the 'best one' as you say?
"Natural" change? As opposed to supernatural change?

All climate change is "natural," unless you're a religious zealot and think "god" did it.
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr »

no. I just got tired of writing non human over and over and wanted to introduce a different word.
Fyyr
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:32 am

Re: Climate-Change-Denier-Gate?

Post by Fyyr »

"No, I said we've eliminated all of the other known reasons for climate change, such as changes in the Sun or in the Earth's orbit."

You have removed the Sun from its effects on the Earth's climate?

Really? Weather scientists can't predict if it will rain tomorrow or now, but they have removed all the Sun variables from their climate predictions and experiments. Really?


The Sun? Are you really serious?
Post Reply