Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Report: Ice-free Arctic summers possible by 2100
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostMon Oct 03, 2005 7:01 pm 
Huh? I'll let MG speak for himself, but last I saw he seemed to agree we are in a global warming trend.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn



Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 3144 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cleaning up the dogma.
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn
PostMon Oct 03, 2005 7:02 pm 
Tom wrote:
But with hundreds of respected scientific studies at least one might have addressed this issue, no?
Oh, I'm sure it's addressed. I'm sure different studies claim different degrees of influence. But folks like MtnGoat — and not to single him out, he's far from alone — would no doubt deny the validity of all such studies. Without getting by that unreasonable stance, no reasonable debate can occur.

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” — Harry S. Truman
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn



Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 3144 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cleaning up the dogma.
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn
PostMon Oct 03, 2005 7:06 pm 
Tom wrote:
Huh?
Blue Dome wrote:
MtnGoat... implies global warming is a myth — in and out of the lab.
I should have written "MtnGoat... implies fossil fuel consumption resulting in global warming is a myth — in and out of the lab."

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” — Harry S. Truman
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostMon Oct 03, 2005 7:10 pm 
Just doing a little surfing around, it looks like vehicle emissions and factory waste is considered to produce 25-77% of the greenhouse gases that lead to global warminng. 60% is the number I saw the most. I'd say that just from that mimimal research, even at the very lowerst number, we could significantly reduce human contrubution to greenhouse gases, BUT, we'd really have to WANT to.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
tofu on toast hiker
Santiago!



Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 477 | TRs | Pics
tofu on toast hiker
Santiago!
PostMon Oct 03, 2005 7:30 pm 
It may be discovered in the future that the hot air generated at NWhikers was a major component of global warming, say 70 to 80%. I think a parallel can be drawn between the ramping up of conversation regarding global warming and the shrinking of the glaciers. hmmm.gif Everyone stop talking for a second. Nobody move. Brrrr....it's getting cold. Hey stop that! Somebody do something! Some are blaming it i part on the sun or you can... Blame it on the rain that was fallin', fallin' Blame it on the stars that shine at night Whatever you do, don't put the blame on you blame it on the rain, yeah, yeah

T-O-F-U in the USA! T-O-F-U in the USA! Tofu in the USA!
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jeepasaurusrex
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 1079 | TRs | Pics
Location: Arlington, WA
Jeepasaurusrex
Member
PostMon Oct 03, 2005 10:56 pm 
I think its all these computers heating up the environment! biggrin.gif Since the earth heats and cools in cycles, there really isnt anything we can do about it, other than adapt. Now is a good time to get a deal on an AC system for your house. cool.gif

"I would like to see things from your point of view, but I cannot get my head that far up my butt"
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 04, 2005 9:22 am 
Quote:
MtnGoat wrote: we know no such thing. What? You’re contending fossil fuel consumption does not contribute to the greenhouse effect? What is your proof that refutes the hundreds of respected studies that prove otherwise?
I'm speaking of the linkage between what you consider your proof and that we "must" act to reduce C02. There is no such proof, and none is possible. Here we see where science moves from science into moral advocacy. Show me any number of papers, all the equations, data, and all the rest, and you will fail to find a "must reduce" equation in there not based on moral assumptions. YOU WILL NOT FIND ONE. The idea we "must" reduce because of what you consider proof is simply not objective. I amply detailed the other factors and you didn't pay attention to any of them, so give them a read if you like.
Quote:
MtnGoat wrote: we do not know that ending oil reliance is worth the cost of doing so. Has anybody but you said “ending” our reliance on oil? If you review my posts in this thread, I’ve written the phrase three times: “curb” our fossil fuel consumption.
Fine. Curb. Same outcome. We don't know if doing so costs more than it saves. Especially since we could spend all that money, and still wind up spending all the money dealing with a warmer climate since it sure looks to be warming on it's own anyway. Further, since folks like you claim a norm doesn't matter in the first place, any evidence of continued warming even given mitigation measures will be taken as evidence we haven't done enough, because of course it didn't stop. With no baseline and continued argument this issue doesn't matter, that's where you wind up. Of course, finding the baseline means establishing determining just what does drive the unforced climate, so you can apply those methods to figure out a baseline.
Quote:
Of course economic considerations must be put on the table, but in this instance, economic considerations go hand in hand with rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Ignore economics and wind up worse than when you started.
Quote:
MtnGoat wrote: there is no equation anywhere stating the result of this knowledge is we "must" end reliance on fossil fuels. that's a moral and political move, not a scientific one. You’re partially wrong here. Yes, moral and political decisions come into play, but the effects on the global ecosystem with respect to human, animal and plant disease, therefore food production and other ill effects, has long been proven.
Oh, I drastically differ with you on the "proven" here, in terms of details... but that doesn't matter. As I stated before, not one ounce, not one line, not one decimal of any of the findings of those effects produce one ounce of proof of what we "must" do. 2+2=4, but that doesn't mean I "must" go and subtract 2 to get back to 2.....even though if I *want* to get back to 2, some equivalent of that processs must take place. Nothing mandates 2 is more moral than 4, because that's not in the equation. Only the numbers are. There is far more involved than just stop and fix it here. Especially since, for example, you cannot even show we'd wind up saved from warmer temps because you cannot show how they'll actually be stable even if we do end our forcing mechanisms. We could do all you like and still wind up battling rises, in fact given the methodology you're presenting in which norms are ignored or discounted, i'd say it's a recipe for constant flailing away at this, since you have no actually defined end state to your efforts.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 04, 2005 9:27 am 
Quote:
MtnGoat’s repeated references to “baselines” and “norms,” with the suggestion that because such data is unknowable then global warming can’t be proven, implies global warming is a myth — in and out of the lab.
I don't know what in and out of the lab means, but I will state this... without understanding what the norm is, guessing the end results other than differentials is useless..... and if you don't have the norm, even the differential is useless for predicting end results. If the IPCC or whatever predicts a 4 C rise over 100 years, but the earth's unforced norm is -4 C, what is the end result?

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostTue Oct 04, 2005 10:03 am 
marylou wrote:
Why is it that conservatives and "libertarians" seem to think that fuel emissions/co2 do not contribute to GW and liberals think it does?
I'm more libertarian than anything else, and I think humans' greenhouse emissions are increasing the effect of what seems to be a natural warming trend.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Guiran
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 621 | TRs | Pics
Location: University of Washington
Guiran
Member
PostTue Oct 04, 2005 11:03 am 
Quote:
Especially since we could spend all that money, and still wind up spending all the money dealing with a warmer climate since it sure looks to be warming on it's own anyway.
We are going to be dealing with a warmer climate, whether through natural or human forcing. If you take the position that human forcing is worsening the problem, then the question is whether spending some money now is prudent to mitigate the warming effect. And, yes, I'm applying a moral judgement to say that we would be "worse" off in a warmer climate. Consider that a warmer climate would lead to more instances of extreme weather and what it would mean in economic terms for several Katrina type hurricanes to make landfall on the US coast each year. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, Methane, NOx and sulfates have all risen substantially since the advent of widespead fossil fuel use. I don't see how it's possible to argue that increased NOx and sulfate concentrations are part of a natural climate cycle.
Larger version: http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 04, 2005 11:18 am 
I don't see where anyone is arguing that pollution is part of a natural cycle, or that it hasn't increased. I'm not certain why not buying the whole enchilada ) OR pointing out that merely understanding a supposed cause does not innately mean any one way of dealing with it, somehow insinuates unbelief that pollution is and does occur. Which brings us to the mitigation issue...for me, even IF human driven warming is the cause, I'd prefer to see mitigation in the form of adaptation, since it innately handles what will most likely occur at some point anyway.. higher temps.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Guiran
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 621 | TRs | Pics
Location: University of Washington
Guiran
Member
PostTue Oct 04, 2005 11:19 am 
Quote:
I don't see where anyone is arguing that pollution is part of a natural cycle, or that it hasn't increased.
But you're arguing that the cost of doing anything about it would be economically crippling?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 04, 2005 11:21 am 
depending on how you go about it, yes. especially given the cost benefit of plans already proposed... such as Kyoto. Trillions in spending... a benefit down in the statistical noise... even according to proponents... who will admit Kyoto is more symbolism than effect. they claim that to really do something, carbon cuts must be on the order of 70% or more. that will have a very drastic, huge impact on economics.. and human lives. so far I think we've done pretty well on keeping the overt politics out of this thread, good work folks.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn



Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 3144 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cleaning up the dogma.
Blue Dome
Now with Retsyn
PostTue Oct 04, 2005 2:23 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
I don't know what in and out of the lab means
Well, “in a lab” means: in a physical lab, where they have beakers and terrariums and people standing around in white coats; and in a computer lab, where they have rows of servers and people standing around in t-shirts and Birkenstocks. In both environments, thousands of experiments have proven that fossil fuel consumption contributes to the greenhouse effect. Such conclusions have been extrapolated to the natural world. Norms and baselines and all of your other arguments are irrelevant. It’s been proven the greenhouse effect exists in a lab. That you don’t believe any of the data, that you don’t believe any of the studies, that you believe none of the conclusions can be extrapolated to the natural world, is fine. Your belief is simply unreasonable. The greenhouse effect exists. Nothing more.

“I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” — Harry S. Truman
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Oct 04, 2005 2:49 pm 
Quote:
In both environments, thousands of experiments have proven that fossil fuel consumption contributes to the greenhouse effect. Such conclusions have been extrapolated to the natural world.
Where objective reality combined with the earths massive and unknown complexity, takes over and will not allow ONE deviation, even the tiniest, from it's rules... regardless of the contentions of either of us, or all the scientists in the world. there was a story in the last few days that changes in the suns output had not been properly accounted for and that this may account for 10-30% of the recent warming attributed to human causes. it's probably too early to tell if this story actually has merit, but shows that reality can intrude upon what your most careful of calculations may think they reveal, showing them to actually be in error. We see precious little of that acknowledgement here in the many statements of fact you have been making.
Quote:
Norms and baselines and all of your other arguments are irrelevant. It’s been proven the greenhouse effect exists in a lab.
The idea that because it has application in a lab, proves it occurs on a larger, less controlled basis in a system with many many unknowns, is much more difficult to prove. The rest of my arguments remain relevant, especially concerning baselines for measurement, including unforced trends and norms and the requirement they must be accounted for in postulation of outcomes.....if you ignore them, it damages your argument, not mine.
Quote:
That you don’t believe any of the data, that you don’t believe any of the studies, that you believe none of the conclusions can be extrapolated to the natural world, is fine.
Data is data. It's the interpretation of some of it I have a problem with.
Quote:
Your belief is simply unreasonable. The greenhouse effect exists. Nothing more.
Oh, I believe it exists too. Not necessarily that man drives it, or has, or is, but I'm reasonably sure it exists. C02 can trap heat. yes, proven in a lab . It's only when you make statements that we "must" do things in one particular way in concert with your morals and politics, and that this is verified by science, that we get into disagreement. Science says, whatever it's flaws, what is and what isn't. It doesn't answer what is "good" or what "should" happen morally or politically.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Report: Ice-free Arctic summers possible by 2100
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum