Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russell Trakhtenberg
"I remember I asked a climate scientists once why the global temperatures dropped for nearly a decade in the 50s when industry was on a huge upswing, the answer was far from clear."
There a a lot of factors influencing the climate especially over short time spans. A single large volcano can make several years of cooling. Even for longer periods of statistically more large volcanoes than normally (like from 1200-1850) can contribute to changes in temperature.
And then there's solar output, internal variation in the climate system (mostly ocean cycles like ENSO and PDO), albedo ... and there are other effect from industry than CO2 - aerosols from coal cool the planet since they block sunlight.
So... climate scientist look at THEM ALL and try to explain every individual phenomenon taking all factors into account. They put up hypothesis and test them. The main hypothesis for the mid 20th century cooling is exactly that: Dimming from aerosols from industry. (as you said there was a huge (but dirty) upswing).
That hypothesis is supported by evidence that it was only day-time temperatures which cooled. Night-time temperature rose - since at night only the green-house effect is at play.
"And you have to agree that science is used a polarizing tool by nearly everyone"
No. I don't have to agree with that.
More specifically, I know I hear that a lot from the self declared "skeptics" (which they are not)... who again and again complain how the issue is presented in "the media".
But the thing is: "The media" is not the authoritative source for what the science actually says!! I couldn't care less about what CNN, Fox, Huffington Post or Buzzfeed thinks about the science. I care about what THE SCIENTISTS think about the science. THAT's what matters and whether it's true or not is TOTALLY independent on whether or not the media - or Al Gore for the matter - is "polarizing" the issue.
Why would you think you should evaluate scientific results on what media or politicians thought about them????? It's backwards IMNSHO.
"But again he did talk about vaccinations and the like".
Because he doesn't have an ideological bias wrt. that theory.
There are creationists who fully accept climate science. ...who are just religious. There are climate deniers who fully accept evolution (like Matt Ridley) ... who are just ideologically and financially ties to fossil fuels and laisses-faire.
And then there are anti-vax'ers who accept both evolution and climate science, but just think big-Pharma is out to get them.
I'm a classical liberal. But I'm also totally on the same page wrt. science as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michael Shermer ... and I must say I've been appalled by the amount of science denial which have crawled out of the woodwork in libertarian circles when the issue of climate comes up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+kiz oku
You should try listen to some of the information form the actual scientists then. People like Kerry Emanuel and Katherine Hayho ... That's the way to get your questions answered without bumping into screeching leftists.
"So if California is getting dryer, somewhere else must be getting humider then, no?"
Short answer - yes. But it's a little more complicated since the warming affects the atmosphere capability to contain water.
And I can tell you, that I live in one of these areas where everything has just gotten more and more wet each year.
"Wild fires always happened in Cali, so why do people keep rebuilding there if it's so hostile to life?"
That it's "hostile to life" is something you just claimed. Maybe they like the weather, I don't know... ask a Californian.
"Besides, forest fires actually are helpful to the flora. After a forest fire, trees and plants grow stronger than they were before."
In limited quantities yes. The goodness/badness of ANYTHING (from poison to CO2 to fires) are not a boolean binary question. The effects depend on exactly which physical mechanism you look at AND the concentration. Nitroglycerin is dangerous. But it's also heart medicine. It's a mistake to boil everything down to one bit.
Science shows that the increas in forest fires in North American lately has actually deposited soot particles on the Greenland ice sheet, making it darker - and thus melt faster. So ... that's an input.
> "Also, how can we be sure that we're really 100% responsible for this"
There's a short answer here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc8mUI_cMKk
>"and that we could have even prevented it?"
Well ... we couldn't have "prevented it". But we could have acted MUCH earlier. The problem was already known in the 19th century and by the 1950's it was known to be potentially dangerous. In 1979 the science department of ExxonMobile reached essentially the same conclusion as the IPCC has today - and at the same time the National Research Council warned the president that waiting until we saw the explicit consequences might be waiting till it was too late. In 1988 scientist James Hansen of NASA warned congress and a few years later the IPCC was formed. But since then there's been a hugely successful misinformation campaign preventing any meaningful action. We have wasted at least 25 years entertaining the myths of this campaign.
"How can we be sure that, even if we're ACCELERATING global warming, it wouldn't still be happening naturally, just at a slower rate?"
What would be the scientific hypothesis for that? And why would that be a reason to not act?
It's almost like saying "How can I known that even if I quit smoking I wouldn't just get lung cancer for some other reason anyway"?
Difference being that we actually know of other plausible explanations for getting cancer... we don't do that for Global Warming.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2