Forum Index > Stewardship > Disappearing Glaciers
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16141 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Oct 06, 2006 11:14 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
jbsimm2 wrote:
Global warming doesn't exsist no matter how much some people want it to!

I don't think there's any question Global Warming exists.  The earth is currently in a warming cycle.  The question is what's causing it, and whether it's a natural or unnatural cycle.  As MtnGoat has pointed out, there's no way to prove or disprove this despite what some might claim.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 12304 | TRs
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
  Top

Feckless Swooner
PostFri Oct 06, 2006 11:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Damn straight....

and the moon is made of green cheese, by the way.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14149 | TRs

Quark
  Top

Niece of Alvy Moore
PostFri Oct 06, 2006 11:39 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
marylou wrote:
Damn straight....

and the moon is made of green cheese, by the way.

Melted green cheese.

I think it's a combination of both.  Of course the globe goes through cycles.  Extracting it's natural cooling resources (trees), and emitting hot gasses into the air (Art Not) and polluting are pushing the cycle along faster.

--------------
"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate."

Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
liembo
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Posts: 126 | TRs

liembo
  Top

Member
PostFri Oct 06, 2006 2:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Backpacker Joe wrote:
When Krakatoa went up it put more crap into the atmosphere than all the cars have/will forever!  And that was just one volcano. "Some" people are to damn certain of themselves that humans are the cause for this.  Cooling and warming trends have and do happen all the time on this rock.  We haven't had the technology to study this place long enough to be sure of any of this theory.  There are as many scientists who disagree in global warming as who agree with it.  Oh, and that hole in the ozone layer, it's repairing itself and shrinking.

This is stamped on the back of GOP membership cards, no?

Re: ozone hole: Its bigger than ever

Where's this list of scientests who either support or do not support this? Was this ALL scientests? Just who was polled? What were the qualifications? Who managed the results?


I figure, true or not, would it be so bad to err on the side of caution? Would it be that BAD to cut emissions?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Dante
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 2775 | TRs

Dante
  Top

Member
PostFri Oct 06, 2006 3:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:

I don't think there's any question Global Warming exists.  The earth is currently in a warming cycle.  The question is what's causing it, and whether it's a natural or unnatural cycle.  As MtnGoat has pointed out, there's no way to prove or disprove this despite what some might claim.

This is pretty much where I land based on what I've heard and read.  BUT

scm007 wrote:
...considering the physics, dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere is going to have some effect, and it's not going to be cooling.

I'm a CPA, not a scientist, but I just can't see how dumping millions of tons of CO2 per day can help matters.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Oct 06, 2006 10:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Hi scm, i'm having a go...

scm007 wrote:
"there was also a consensus the earth was flat, that continents don't move, and that floods never scoured E Wa. Given the extremely and obviously checkered past of 'consensus' in declaring fact, declaring consensus = proof for the objective physical world isn't exactly the smartest thing to hang your hat on."

Neither is the contrapositive to that statement, that since scientific consensus has been wrong in the past, it must be wrong now. Or should at least be considered dubious at best..

The thing is, I'm not presenting it as proof that the theory is false, only that consensus has been notorious for being wrong....but the idea that there is consensus sure appears to be presented as proof it is correct.


Quote:
The global warming deniers out there introduce unwarranted amounts of skepticism in what is fairly sound data. You realize that science is not exact don't you? No data set in the real world is going to be perfect, but that doesn't mean that it has no relevance or information in it.

I realize science is not always exact. Many have perfectly justifiable questions about the data itself, sometimes answered well, other times not... but the constant here I don't trust is the widespread impression that data showing a warming climate proves humans are the cause. Every report of some new study showing warming is treated as further proof of human causation.. when all it actually shows is what few dispute, that the climate has been warming, regardless of cause.

Further, there is empirical data... and then there is modeling.. which is *not* the same thing. Models are iterated time and again with the goal of matching the data, each time to match empirical data.. however from a purely empirical standpoint, all this shows is they can manipulate models, code, and theory to match the data...not that these results have empirical predictive value.

Quote:
So I ask you this, what is the most logical conclusion to be drawn from the data? A.) The measurement techniques used are not accurate enough. B.) There is some natural cause to the global warming (which no one can quantify). C.) That the rise in CO2 concentrations through the burning of fossil fuels is increasing global temperatures via the greenhouse effect.

It's B or C in my estimation, as accuracy is constantly improving in measurement.

Quote:
As for B, one could say that for ANY conculsion drawn from ANY experiment EVER. Now in the case of global climate, yes it is a very complicated mechanism in which not all of the variables are/can be understood but we can still measure the output of global temperature and input of human CO2 emission. They may not be causual, but what isn't it logical that they are?

I don't agree with your assessment of B. There are many experiments which are falsifiable, and in which there is an empirical path to showing a negative result. Warming theory lacks many elements which have a total lack of empirical testability, including the most basic one of all... the temperature the climate is 'supposed' to be, absent human forcing.

Quote:
Just so you know, we will NEVER be able to prove a relation between human CO2 burning and global temperature rise, as there are unknown variables which 'could' cause the temperature increase.

I already know that.  this is an elemental problem with warming theory, due to it's scope and the size of the system, and the lack of an empirically testable baseline 'normal' temperature, warming theory inherently lacks any way to disprove it... which makes it untestable.

There is widespread misunderstanding and outright lies being told by warming proponents, in that human caused warming has been proven...when it is inherently unprovable because it lacks a basis for an empirically shown negative result. Many warming proponents play this down, or ignore it, for purely political reasons because they do not wish it to appear as if there can be doubt because this complicates their case politically.

Quote:
I suggest you look at the data, and not some spindoctor's analysis of it and decide for yourself what is the most logical conclusion.

I would respectfully suggest you not assume people who don't agree with you or others on this, haven't done just that... and simply disagree.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11328 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Oct 06, 2006 11:02 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
liembo wrote:
I figure, true or not, would it be so bad to err on the side of caution? Would it be that BAD to cut emissions?

At the cost of billions or trillions, paid for by every person on earth, a massive increase in political control over the lives of every person on earth in nearly every area of their lives, erring on the side of caution is not riskless or costless.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 257 | TRs

scm007
  Top

Member
PostSat Oct 07, 2006 6:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:

I would respectfully suggest you not assume people who don't agree with you or others on this, haven't done just that... and simply disagree.

Sorry my post was sort of a hodgepodge of statements directed at a variety of members. Your posts are always thoughtful and well argued, that line was not addressed at you.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
jenjen
Moderatrix



Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 7620 | TRs
Location: Sierra stylin
jenjen
  Top

Moderatrix
PostSat Oct 07, 2006 7:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
liembo wrote:

This is stamped on the back of GOP membership cards, no?

Let's keep the partisan jabs out of this otherwise good discussion, please.

--------------
If life gives you melons - you might be dyslexic
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 257 | TRs

scm007
  Top

Member
PostSat Oct 07, 2006 8:57 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:


Quote:
As for B, one could say that for ANY conculsion drawn from ANY experiment EVER. Now in the case of global climate, yes it is a very complicated mechanism in which not all of the variables are/can be understood but we can still measure the output of global temperature and input of human CO2 emission. They may not be causual, but what isn't it logical that they are?

I don't agree with your assessment of B. There are many experiments which are falsifiable, and in which there is an empirical path to showing a negative result. Warming theory lacks many elements which have a total lack of empirical testability, including the most basic one of all... the temperature the climate is 'supposed' to be, absent human forcing.

I'm talking about the people who introduce outrageous amounts of skepticism by saying 'the warming could be caused by anything', yet they give no substantial evidence for that 'anything' might be. People who won't accept clear empirical data (not to say that global warming has enough) because there might be other variables regardless of their significance.

For any experiment I could say another phenomena caused it. Why does an apple fall towards the ground? You would say the gravitational attraction between the apple and the Earth. But I say that there are many forces out in the world which could contribute to it's falling. Electromagnetic repulsion from the leaves, electromagnetic attraction to the ground. Perhaps there is a pressure drop below the the apple and it is sucked towards the ground? Someone stomped their foot on the other side of the world and sent a vibration through the Earth and up through the tree which made it fall downwards (equal and opposite right?). Plus there might be phenomena we haven't even accounted for yet!

You can't test this phenomena in the lab because your not accounting for all the variables in the real world. And if you try and test it in the real world, well then perhaps your measurement techniques are flawed, you don't have enough data, your techniques aren't accurate enough, or it is just some phenomena for which you cannot account. Chaos theory right? Ahh well it's too complicated to know so lets just give it up.

Obviously that is a very extreme example, and could be disproven if one gives scientific inquiry merit. But many of the people I've talked with and are against global warming don't even know what the basis for the antiglobal warming argument is, other then, "It's just too complicated". Many of these people also believe that intelligent design is a 'scientifically credible' alternative to evolution theory, not knowing what is scientifically credible. Clearly my anecdotes aren't the end-all for this discussion, but the the antiglobal warming argument, let me rephrase, propaganda hinges on the same argument. See, what you are giving is the antiglobal warming ARGUMENT-- that we do not have enough data to be statistically sound in our conclusion that global warming is being caused by human CO2 burning. Basically, there is a tremendous amount of confusion out there about what is the problem. This uncertainty is created through by the rightwing bloggers and newsources, and the people who propagate, perhaps unknowingly, what they say.
Back to topic... 1, 2, 3, GO!

Coming at scientific problems with the mindset 'we cannot know', one cannot 'disprove' their claims unless he/she accepts that science works and has error in it. Many people do not understand what science is, or what is requisite for scientific inquiry. Nor do they understand that there is inherent error in all measurements.

But don't think I'm saying you are any of the above, I was just trying to make a point. However, your treading down a slippery slope by saying that the 'World is too complicated to know' as your throwing out the fundamental basis of science. Yes you cannot prove causality, but you can be certain within a certain error range, that's why science has only theories, never truths.

Let me just say a couple more things, YES WE NEED MORE DATA in order to be statistically sound within a reasonable amount of error. But even when we get that data, I fear that it will be a.) too late or b.) people will still say 'more data' 'too complicated', etc. There are SO many steps that we could take today that would not cost trillions of dollars, but would at least put us on the right track.

Just because a problem is undetermined does not mean that the best course of action is inaction. Rather the best course of action is to hedge your bets and take a dynamic middle ground. Start by putting some taxes on carbon emissions to bring them down to meet some sort of conservative projection. Take this money to fund alternative energies/carbon reduction agents and methods. As technology advances to help us with this problem, then you can ease off the taxes. But the best approach is certainly not to do nothing, and it certainly isn't to do everything.

I mean what bugs me most about the GOP, let me rephrase, antiglobal warming proponents, is that their belief that if humans aren't causing the global warming then there is no problem. It's still warming! Don't you think they would at least be researching ways to cool it down? I.E. reduce the greenhouse effect? Which brings me back to the most logical conclusion to be drawn from the data we have. That the greenhouse effect, increased by human burning of CO2, is causing the significant warming we are seeing. Occum's Razor (sic) anyone?

BTW, why hasn't the GOP come up with a clever name to their antiglobal warming campaign? I like 'Operation Antarctic Freedom'. Has a nice ring to it.

The above is a joke, and should be treated as such, as

1. something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act: He tells very funny jokes. She played a joke on him.
2. something that is amusing or ridiculous, esp. because of being ludicrously inadequate or a sham; a thing, situation, or person laughed at rather than taken seriously; farce: Their pretense of generosity is a joke. An officer with no ability to command is a joke.
3. a matter that need not be taken very seriously; trifling matter: The loss was no joke.
4. something that does not present the expected challenge; something very easy: The test was a joke for the whole class.

Whew too much political heat on this forum... had to cover my bases. Know mang?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
philfort
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 76 | TRs
Location: seattle
philfort
  Top

Member
PostSat Oct 07, 2006 7:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
For the "anti-global-warming"ists:

What evidence would be required before you would be certain that this is a problem and immediate steps must be taken?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtn Dog
Technohiker



Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 3332 | TRs
Location: Bellevue, WA
Mtn Dog
  Top

Technohiker
PostSat Oct 07, 2006 8:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I have a suggestion...
Why don't all those who believe sincerely that global warming is a human caused problem go out tomorrow and trade in their vehicles for SULEV's - Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles.  Actions speak louder than words.  I own two hybrids, I drive my 4X4 Escape to trailheads getting 30 MPG, and I'm still on the fence about global warming being anything more than part of a dynamic equilibrium that's existed through the centuries.  Afterall, we somehow managed to survive the "Coming Ice Age" of the 70s that many 'reputable' scientists also foretold.

--------------
Footprints on the sands of time will never be made sitting down.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 257 | TRs

scm007
  Top

Member
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 5:18 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Perhaps because we can't afford new cars? Also today's data is quite a bit different than what they had in the 70's. If people had scrutinized their data they would have found it was bunk.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Skinem
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 293 | TRs
Location: Washington ex-pat
Skinem
  Top

Member
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 11:43 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007 wrote:
Also today's data is quite a bit different than what they had in the 70's. If people had scrutinized their data they would have found it was bunk.

...which is exactly what both sides are saying about the other on the global warming issue.  It apparantly isn't clear enough on either side to for one or the other to be absolutely persuasive.

--------------
Earth First!  We'll strip mine the rest of the galaxy later.
They call me the thread killer...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 257 | TRs

scm007
  Top

Member
PostSun Oct 08, 2006 12:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Please read my above posts... it will never be clear enough.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Disappearing Glaciers
  Happy Birthday Flash Gordon, raz2sea!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy