Forum Index > Stewardship > Disappearing Glaciers
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 4:11 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtn Dog wrote:
  I'm naturally skeptical about that and so much more because it seems the media will broadcast all kinds of crazy findings that turn out to be nothing more than junk science down the road.

If you are as skeptical as you say then I would suggest you get your scientific information from more peer reviewed sources than FOX News (which published the link you provide below).   FOX certainly has its editorial opinions, but junk science is separated from real science by the peer review of other scientists, not news editorial staffs.

BTW: I couldn't help but notice that the cosmic ray study you cited considers sulfuric acid as a major component of the lower atmosphere.  That may be true on Venus, but it seems to me that if that were true here, we'd all be dead.

Mtn Dog wrote:
On another note, your post supports the claim that GW is the cause of human action but you've provided no information whatsoever as to any solution to the problem. 

Why not just ask?  A two minute internet search produced these links:

What all of us can do personally:

http://www.climatecrisis.net/pdf/10things.pdf

A global plan for reducing carbon emissions:

http://fire.pppl.gov/energy_socolow_081304.pdf

This is a problem with a doable solution.  There are plenty of scientists, among others, who are doing a great deal to put these solutions into affect.  Hopefully, some research on your part will make you more aware of these efforts.  Ultimately, it's a question of public policy, and therefore a political question.   That puts the responsibility for solving it, or not, squarely on all of our shoulders.

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
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
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 4:44 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Are you certain this is the case? From what I understand, we are very close to having just as many trees as we started with.. in the US, anyway. The battles over trees are usually over old growth these days, not the total amount cut or planted... isn't this right?

Worldwide, and yes, I'm sure.  See for yourself on Google Earth.

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
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
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 5:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
Yes.  Really.  Glaciers are melting.  Is anyone questioning that?

Glaciers aren't the only thing that are dissappearing due to global warming.  Our forests are, too.

According to the state dept of agriculture, the pine beetle pandemic has exploded in range and intensity in the past two years due to warmer winters and drought.  Ten years ago this problem was pretty much confined to the Colville area.  Now its all over the state, including the Olympics.  Anyone who's seen the massive fires these past years or hiked through the half dead forests knows what I'm talking about.

If warming and drought continue, our forests will burn and they won't come back.  That, in turn, will cause desertification and, as a result, further warming and drying.

I think we can tackle this problem, but its going to take some serious global cooperation and commitment.  The sooner we get into that mindset, the better off we'll all be.

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
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
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 5:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar wrote:
Tom wrote:
Yes.  Really.  Glaciers are melting.  Is anyone questioning that?

Glaciers aren't the only thing that are dissappearing due to global warming.  Our forests are, too.

According to the state dept of agriculture, the pine beetle pandemic has exploded in range and intensity in the past two years due to warmer winters and drought.  Ten years ago this problem was pretty much confined to the Colville area.  Now its all over the state, including the Olympics.  Anyone who's seen the massive fires these past years or hiked through the half dead forests knows what I'm talking about.

If warming and drought continue, our forests will burn and they won't come back.  That, in turn, will cause desertification and, as a result, further warming and drying.

I think we can tackle this problem, but its going to take some serious global cooperation and commitment.  The sooner we get into that mindset, the better off we'll all be.

OK, global warming science is not at the point where you can make these predictions. Also, the globe has warmed what, 1 degree F? That's hardly enough to make a difference in the health of NW tree populations.

Also, the forests will burn, and they will come back, just like they always have. In fact, logic would reason that the forests would be healthier due to the increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Certainly two years worth of data is not enough to suggest that global warming is causing NW deforestation, which I do not have statistics on.

There will be ramifications to global warming, but these aren't it. As a sidenote, the word 'will' should never come up in a global warming discussion, or any 'guess the global warming scenario' game that you might play.
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
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 8:12 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar wrote:
If you are as skeptical as you say then I would suggest you get your scientific information from more peer reviewed sources than FOX News (which published the link you provide below).   FOX certainly has its editorial opinions, but junk science is separated from real science by the peer review of other scientists, not news editorial staffs.

Don't shoot the messenger.  Fox News is simply referencing the research of other scientists because they thought it was newsworthy, as did I.  Another bothersome thing about this whole debate is how quick some people are to pick and choose which scientists they think are legit and which are not.  My point is the results themself should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

--------------
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
Mtn Dog
Technohiker



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

Technohiker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 8:21 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
Yes.  Really.  Glaciers are melting.  Is anyone questioning that?

No, I'm not questioning that.  This is what sparked my curiosity.  I took this photo of Whitehorse Mtn in July 2004, when it should have more snow than October (granted, it's not a very good pic  embarassedlaugh.gif )  And I know I saw more snow than that on Tuesday though some of it could have been freshies.

Whitehorse Mtn from Darrington
Whitehorse Mtn from Darrington

--------------
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
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 10:04 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
scm007 wrote:

OK, global warming science is not at the point where you can make these predictions. Also, the globe has warmed what, 1 degree F? That's hardly enough to make a difference in the health of NW tree populations.

The state dept of agriculture, which tracks these statitistics, disagrees with you.  Google 'pine beetle washington' or something like that.  You'll find it in about a minute.

Also, a more careful reading of my previous statement reveals that I said the forests will not come back as before if the current warming/drought continues.  If they aren't surviving now under this climate caused pine beetle infestation, how could they possibly come back as before if these climatic changes continue?  Pretty simple logic, really.

However comforting such a statement might be, there is no more 'just like they always have' about today's world.  Welcome to the 21st century.

All the GW scenarios I've put forth are based on evidence from similar climate events in the past.  There is no speculation about whether they can happen...they have already happened.  What we don't know, of course, is which scenarios we'll be faced with and how soon.  Since none of them are good, however, that should guide our decision making today.

I don't know about you, but I'd kind of like to make sure my nieces and nephews can enjoy the same connection with nature that I have.  It's not about us, it's more about them.

scm007 wrote:

There will be ramifications to global warming, but these aren't it. As a sidenote, the word 'will' should never come up in a global warming discussion


That's one tight contradictory loop you just put out there, amigo!

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
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 13, 2006 10:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sheesh.  If you are skeptical, just find some glaciers on the USGS maps of the cascades (mostly surveyed or resurveyed in the 1960s, IIRC) and hike to them.  Many of them, like Hinman, are gone.  They went from what is indicated on the map to nothing in about 40 years!
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
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 10:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtn Dog wrote:
Tvashtar wrote:
If you are as skeptical as you say then I would suggest you get your scientific information from more peer reviewed sources than FOX News (which published the link you provide below).   FOX certainly has its editorial opinions, but junk science is separated from real science by the peer review of other scientists, not news editorial staffs.

Don't shoot the messenger.  Fox News is simply referencing the research of other scientists because they thought it was newsworthy, as did I.  Another bothersome thing about this whole debate is how quick some people are to pick and choose which scientists they think are legit and which are not.  My point is the results themself should be able to stand up to scrutiny.

I advised you to better pick and choose your publications, not your scientists.  Nature, Scientific American, Smithsonian...these are more reputable and impartial sources of science news than FOX, which, frankly, deserves to be shot for its well known and transparent political bias.  The question you have to ask yourself is this:  do I read what I want to hear, or do I read to inform myself?  If it's science your after, then go with reputable publications that specialize in reporting it.  If you do, you'll find that overwhelming scientific consensus we've been speaking about on this thread.  From there, it's your call.

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
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: 11058 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 10:30 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
And what you will almost never find, is the asterisk that should be by every claim of overwhelming consensus, noting it's track record for being wrong.

--------------
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
Mtn Dog
Technohiker



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

Technohiker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 11:01 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar wrote:
...peer reviewed sources...
...real science by the peer review of other scientists...
...reputable and impartial...
...reputable publications that specialize in reporting it...
...scientific consensus...

'If you've gotta say it, you ain't got it!'
Like I said before, the results and data should be self evident and hold up to scrutiny.  We are talking about measurable, knowable data in the form of ground temps, atmospheric temps, and gas concentrations.  But much of this arena seems short on facts and high on alarmism and an overwhelming majority is nothing more than an irrational appeal to popularity.  Besides, why are you trying to quell an opposing view, regardless of bias?  Is the same research somehow more valid because it's reported in Scientific American than in Fox News or on the Discovery Channel? (e.g.: Tom Brokaw's latest article on Global Warming a few weeks ago)

I agree that global warming is real.  I also recognize that earth's natural cycles have taken it through eras of cooling and warming throughout history (and yes, glaciers melted then too).  I don't fully subscribe to the "We must act now in order to avoid major catastrophe later" mentality however.

--------------
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
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 11:09 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mtn Dog wrote:


Fox News is simply referencing the research of other scientists because they thought it was newsworthy, as did I. 

BTW, the FOX article you cited also incorrectly claimed that the sun's magnetic field protects the earth from cosmic rays, and that fluctuations in this magnetic field somehow cause global warming by letting more cosmic rays in.  Not likely, as the sun, far from being the earth's protector,  IS the main source of cosmic rays that strike our atmosphere.  (after all, it is the closest star...by a long shot).  The earth's own magnetic field protects us.  This is gradeschool level science here.  I suppose I should give FOX credit where credit is due, because they did print the article under the appropriate heading of 'Junk Science'.

Cosmic ray influx does fluctuate over short timescales of about a millenium.  If they had much to do with global warming, we would have observed significant warming and cooling cycles with that short frequency over the past half million years.  We have not.  What we haved observed is a very high degree of statistical correlation between atmospheric greenhouse gas content and global temperature...no cosmic rays required.

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
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
whistlingmarmot
Sustainable Resource



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 1657 | TRs
Location: Tacoma, WA
whistlingmarmot
  Top

Sustainable Resource
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 12:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar wrote:
What we haved observed is a very high degree of statistical correlation between atmospheric greenhouse gas content and global temperature...no cosmic rays required.

A correlation?  I'm convinced.  Let's change the lives of 6 billion people, and quickly!
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
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14106 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 12:18 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doing nothing has a cost also. A recent study conducted by Tufts University places the cost of Global Warming at $20 trillion for a rise of 4 degrees C by 2100 if no action is taken.

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tvashtar
Tvashtalker



Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1226 | TRs
Location: The 11th Dimension
Tvashtar
  Top

Tvashtalker
PostFri Oct 13, 2006 12:29 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
whistlingmarmot wrote:
[A correlation?  I'm convinced.  Let's change the lives of 6 billion people, and quickly!

Yes, correlation.  Its a great big word that means one causes the other.   Causality...another great big word.  You've learned two in one day!

--------------
"We are, all of us, in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
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
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Disappearing Glaciers
  Happy Birthday Nancyann!
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