The Future - is almost here

[Brendon Pywell]

Here's a sneak peek me talking a little about the code I've been working on and a lot about climate change and implicatory denial.

More videos on the fun stuff to follow this week! UPDATE - see below.

I'll stop going on about climate change as soon as serious action to reduce emissions starts. If Bram proves me wrong about anything I have said I will not only apologise but I will thank him for increasing my knowledge and reducing my ignorance.

I think it's shameful that you can't allow the developer of BTB to express deep concern for the way we are treating this planet in his own forum. If I were to go on about pitgirls I suspect we'd be having a different conversation. I have no hesitation to use BTB as a platform for creating greater awareness of the need for action if the result means a cleaner planet and more prosperous future.

The energy (or aggression as you name it) I have for making others contemplating climate change is, ironically, partly a result of BTB being pirated some years ago. Having given so much of myself to BTB, it made me rethink what was really important in life. It took me a while but I started to shed things that were unimportant; to instead be positive and think about the distant future rather than my own selfish needs. I channel that energy into making myself a better person as well as creating an awareness to others of how we can improve our experience on this planet. I obviously have still more to learn on what is the best approach.

I take this new energy into everything I do and make the most of whatever time I have on this planet. That energy is what drove me to create Race Track Builder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbXY5w2hJF8

The great thing about not being dependent upon BTB for a living (sales are next to nothing) is that I do not fear retribution - I half expected these forums to be closed already after witnessing Bram's response. That fearlessness is something that extends beyond these forums. I don't fear criticism. I don't fear death.

So I will continue to challenge people to challenge themselves be it in these forums, or be it somewhere else. If you dislike my request for a better planet then perhaps you should take some time to examine your own motivations.

Whilst I enjoy making track building tools, making the world a better place is more satisfying.

---------------------------

@Bram, if you were correct you would support your claim with evidence. That you can't, even after multiple requests, and instead resort to debating tactics such as "bait and switch" suggests that you are in climate denial. For anyone else that debates climate denialists, the best way to "win" (although they are unlikely to change their mind - and there's even a study on that) is to persist with the first statement they make. I've studied climate science since 2008 and have heard pretty much all of their popular false claims - hence I knew from the start that Bram was incorrect on water vapour. I therefore persist with this and simply DO NOT ENGAGE ay further until the first point is settled, otherwise they will endlessly start new arguments rather than accepting they were wrong about anything.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

There are some "facts" in your video that aren't 100% correct @Brendon Pywell . Sure a warmer atmosphere can hold more water as the density increases.

However the environmental naysayers will call this a bad thing, however there is a significant group of scientists (me included as geography is my field) that state the exact opposite for a few reasons:

• More evaporation results in more water in the atmosphere. However this will result also in more clouds. Clouds will increase the albedo-effect which means that sunlight can't reach the surface as easy and will bounce back into space. Over time this will result in the earth actually becoming cooler.
• Secondly more rain also means more snow. In the coming decades you'll see (100% sure) that both the North and Southpoles will get more snow which will be compressed to ice. The icesheets will accumulate heavier (again more albedo etc, see above). More snow and ice on the poles means that the oceans will have less water so the overall waterlevel and changes of flooding will decrease.

In short. I am getting tired of all the scientists and environmental mafia that are scaring the world with their horror stories as the same prophesies can show a perfectly fine rebounding mother earth in the near future. I strongly believe that our planet honestly doesn't give a damn about what we do as our whole ecosystem has rebounded so many times during the last millions of years from climate situations that were far more severe and worse as we are facing today.

The real problem imo is over-population. Too bad that because of all the sensitive religions in the world a solution to that problem is still taboo.

 

[Brendon Pywell]

I'm sure Vanuatu will be glad to hear of your opinion Bram.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

Honestly the moment I posted my reply I expected such a response from somebody.

Let me ask you the same question: how is your video going to help Vanuatu? Even if you can convince the entire world that we are all doing it wrong do you honestly think that you can make significant changes to the climate on short term by creating awareness based on fear? Impossible.

Floodings, tsunamis etc are as old as the world. The only big change is that currently 75% of the world population, or even more as I don't have the stats here to back it up, live in coastal areas, including islands so automatically with each catastrophic event you'll have a significant amount of human casualties. That number will only grow as long as we don't control the world population from increasing further.

 

[Brendon Pywell]

Sorry Bram, I don't respond to Gish Gallops - it wastes too much time arguing with people who value their own opinion over that of evidence based science.

So let's just look at your very first point.

However the environmental naysayers will call this a bad thing, however there is a significant group of scientists

Are they publishing climate scientists or are they some random scientist that has an opinion?

Here's the latest on cloud albedo feedback from the IPCC.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

So please be VERY specific when you reply with citation of the published science that counters the consensus view of 97% of climate scientists?

Or are you letting your feelings cloud your scientific judgement?

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

You can't seriously quote the IPCC as a trustworthy source to discuss climate changes after Climategate in 2009. Politics and Science don't blend very well.

Let me guess, that 97% of the scientists agrees comes from that epic speech of John Kerry?

Btw, just to clarify. I am not denying climate changes at all. But you can't reverse this process over night. Thats a call earth makes for herself, not us or your political views.

 

[Brendon Pywell]

Nothing to back up your "feelings" hey? So you move on to another common climate denier myth.

One-Nil to Me!

Peer-reviewed science from hundreds of climate scientists vs "someone on the internet"'s opinion. I'll go with the 97% of climate scientists.

I've spent years debating climate deniers and so far you're simply repeating stuff I've heard countless times before. When you actually present evidence for your claims then I'll start responding.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

I've spent years debating climate deniers

So because you have spent years in debating deniers makes that you hold the truth? In your video you are just repeating the IPCC report.

I am not denying climate changes as global warming is a natural phenomena. The climate has changed as long as the earth exists (see a tiny part of it in the graph above) even way before humans arrived.

So are humans the main cause of global warming? That depends which time scale you are using. Looking at the earths history the biggest changes in global temperature comes from changes in the earth rotation, volcanoes, and stuff from outer space crashing into the earth surface. All these changes had a major impact on the climate and after lots of time earth bounced back.
Looking on a micro-scale (last 100 years) yes indeed the influence of humans have speed global warming up on average. Still there are too many uncertainties as during the last incline of the global temperature we've also witnessed mini ice ages.

 

[Brendon Pywell]

I've spent years debating climate deniers and so far you're simply repeating stuff I've heard countless times before. When you actually present evidence for your claims then I'll start responding.

You couldn't even back up your very first statement. I'm not about to waste anymore time replying to you until you either admit you were wrong, or provide scientific evidence to support your opinion.

My experience with climate denialists makes me well versed with your debating techniques. Rather than admit you were wrong, you simply find a new argument to make.

 

[Erwin Greven]

I strongly believe that our planet honestly doesn't give a damn about what we do as our whole ecosystem has rebounded so many times during the last millions of years from climate situations that were far more severe and worse as we are facing today.

The real problem imo is over-population. Too bad that because of all the sensitive religions in the world a solution to that problem is still taboo.

It takes a long time to rebound then Bram... This rebounding is not going to take place in a few decades. It will take centuries for that and we can not wait for that.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

@Brendon Pywell

Again, I am not denying climate changes, not sure how many times I need to post that. Its a natural phenomena with an increased influence of human behavior.

The only thing we don't agree on is that you follow a political influenced IPCC report with a doom scenario and I base my conclusions on how the earth has behaved for millions of years even before the arrival of mankind.

It takes a long time to rebound then Bram... This rebounding is not going to take place in a few decades. It will take centuries for that and we can not wait for that.

Indeed it will not rebound in a few decades, regardless of what we do at present day. See my graph above once more to see the trend of the last 500,000 years.

On the other hand 500,000 years is actually a relative short term so it depends with perspective of time you take to draw conclusions.

 

[Brendon Pywell]

The IPCC report is a summary of hundreds of peer-reviewed published scientific articles.

You have failed to provide even ONE published paper to support your argument. Your "feelings" and "opinions" mean nothing if you can't back it up with evidence.

The reason you are having trouble finding evidence is that the data shows glaciers and polar areas are shrinking, not expanding. You are in denial.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

Again you aren't reading what I wrote and missed the important part: over time. Of course glaciers are shrinking rapidly, nobody is questioning that. However over time they will grow back and eventually cover large parts of the globe again as this is nothing more than the natural cycle repeating itself. Tried explaining how that can possibly go much faster when you take the albedo negative feedback into account.)

Ant-arctic icesheets are actually growing again during the last couple of years but mainly at sea. Unfortunately not enough to compensate the loss of arctic ice though.

We disagree on one fundamental thing: you are a believer of a doom scenario that is painted by the IPCC (the same 97% of the scientists (?) that said that all glaciers in the Himalaya would be gone in 2035 remember ) and I am not.

 

[Brendon Pywell]

Of course glaciers are shrinking rapidly

So there goes your "feelings" about albedo increasing due to water vapour.

It must be tough when you're own arguments defeat you but little wonder you can't cite a peer-reviewed paper to support your claim.

If you accept that you were wrong about increasing water vapour then we can move on.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

So there goes your "feelings" about albedo increasing due to water vapour.

no that still stands. The "scientists" have no consensus yet over what will happen if the evaporation continues to grow. Will this result in high clouds (positive albedo feedback, that will increase global warming) or low clouds (negative albedo feedback, that will decrease the effects of global warming)?

 

[Brendon Pywell]

I am happy to deal with clouds in a moment AND your lack of citing evidence. You've yet to support your claim...

The icesheets will accumulate heavier (again more albedo etc

This directly contradicts your statement that the glaciers are decreasing.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

This directly contradicts your statement that the glaciers are decreasing.

Glaciers have been decreasing in size since the last mini ice age even before mankind starting to pollute the atmosphere with CO2 which is a direct result of our natural greenhouse effects and correspondings shifts in temperature.

Human influence during the last century have only added to the accelerated decline of glaciers. (note: they would have decreased in size even if there were no humans on earth). As you can see in the interglacials graph this is almost a constant repeating process.

And here comes the controversy we are having: you believe that a continous increase of evaporation will result in an ongoing process of the earth becoming warmer (most likely because of high clouds) and I think it will decline again (as it has always done in the past) supporting low clouds theory and a negative albedo feedback.

If you want "scientific" proof of both theories, google is your friend as we are talking about possible theories/scenarios for the future here, both you and me.

Btw: if your debate style is too belittle people by editing your first post and keep portraying me as being in denial then congrats to you

 

[Brendon Pywell]

My style is to persist with your first statement rather than let you switch the debate.

You still haven't provided a link to the science showing that water vapour is causing an increase in albedo.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

The result of more water vapor however is more precipitation, more vapor = more clouds. Depending on the type of clouds (low or high) this can have a positive or a negative albedo effect with other results on the global temperature.

 

[Brendon Pywell]

You still haven't provided a link to the science showing that water vapour is causing an increase in albedo.

You know, something like this ...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

Unfortunately these disagree with your "feelings" but you get the idea.

I guess I am in the fortunate position of agreeing with 97% of climate scientists so finding evidenced based science to support the consensus view is rather easy for me. You seem to struggle.