| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2007 03:06:26 PM · #76 |
The fact that the climate has changed in the past and continues today does not necessarily mean that we are not adding to the degree of change. Human activity is not an exclusive effect. It may be amplifying the natural trends.
I have definately seen the climate change in my lifetime where I grew up- in Colorado. The main reason? Changes in snowfall. When I was young, we used to always get a fair bit of snow and in January, normally a week when the high did not venture above zero degrees farenheit. Summers had maybe five days (give or take a few) where the high exceeded ninety.
Now the artic chill does not happen (it gets cold, but not that cold) and ninety degree days are consistantly in double didgets. The colder weather kept the winter snows from melting as soon and in the spring, there used to be more snow stored in the mountains. As temperatures began to increase in the summer, the snows would start to melt and evaprated- leading to clouds and afternoon showers in the summer (now rare events) which kept the air temperatures from getting as high as they are now. Things have definately changed.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 03:19:12 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
The fact that the climate has changed in the past and continues today does not necessarily mean that we are not adding to the degree of change. Human activity is not an exclusive effect. It may be amplifying the natural trends.
I have definately seen the climate change in my lifetime where I grew up- in Colorado. The main reason? Changes in snowfall. When I was young, we used to always get a fair bit of snow and in January, normally a week when the high did not venture above zero degrees farenheit. Summers had maybe five days (give or take a few) where the high exceeded ninety.
Now the artic chill does not happen (it gets cold, but not that cold) and ninety degree days are consistantly in double didgets. The colder weather kept the winter snows from melting as soon and in the spring, there used to be more snow stored in the mountains. As temperatures began to increase in the summer, the snows would start to melt and evaprated- leading to clouds and afternoon showers in the summer (now rare events) which kept the air temperatures from getting as high as they are now. Things have definately changed. |
I have been living in CO all my life and I don't see what you describe. I even remember something last year of basically 3 blizzards in a row and quite a few weeks in the negatives. Not to mention a -17 day I had to turn off water gushing outside.
I have worked outside my whole life, except the last 10 years, and never seen much of a change from year to year with when we started back to work and how cold it is.
Looks about right
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 15:31:33.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 03:43:43 PM · #78 |
Where are his facts. I think cows fly. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 05:09:11 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
74 Posts - citations of primary literature....1
Business as usual. I'm out. |
DrAchoo - why so much importance on the primary literature? We're not always going to access a primary document before we act, so why only on this subject? If the Bible is primary literature then there honestly should be no Christianity by now!
This rejection of the discussion is why the surface-level of response to climate change interests me, because people run their lives based around media influence, their friends & colleagues and emotive decision-making. I work in some media channels (even with a well known oil company) and I see much I dislike in my industry, including the kind of peer pressure I've referred to earlier.
The reason I mentioned men in particular is that they are so often full of bravado that they refuse to see sense in favour of fitting a media-led model of how men should be. You only have to look at men's mags to see what kind of junk the publishers deem is in our interest. Yet men have much power in the world and often seem to be its greatest enemy. I genuinely believe that it shows more strength to resist the stereotype and make a stand – something which others tend to knock as being unmannly(?).
I love karting, snowboarding and travelling for example, but it's all on hold unless I can do it a low environmental cost because I've gained a fuller understanding of the big picture – hindering though this may be for my personal gratification. Perhaps if I didn't have three children to be responsible for I might be less interested in what's left after my passing.
---
Originally posted by plmbob:
I love Imagineers take,(I am really open minded and a critical thinker but your ideas are stupid and mannish if you don't agree with me) these veiled attacks at opposing "thinkers" is exactly why we tend not to bother with giving the data we have to back the cyclical nature of climate, not just temperature, change...
... That said conservation of resources is always a smart choice, in econimic terms and in quality of life. When you over consume you never win in the long run, that should be the reason for the current "go green" push, but the movement insists on cramming it down our throats with the whole you're destroying the planet nag. |
plimbob - I am a man, so what are you trying to say? You're putting words in my mouth, but I take the view that the immense scientific evidence in support of our active influence on change is totally convincing and is just a matter of to what degree.
The reason you moan about being nagged is because the planet is shared, and despite some pretty healthy research you still stubbornly refuse to accept it. So on and on it goes. Some brave, tireless work is being done to help the information reservoir yet you refuse to drink from it and those who do want action taken have to drag the deadweight along with them, thus the nagging.
Your second paragraph started well but then descended into a scolded schoolboy routine.
---
I take Kirbic's view. No wonder scientists try to find funding to ascertain their hypothesis — they too have hunches driven by logic and observations, just like many of us who work instinctively in our own jobs.
To talk of bandwagons and hysteria is just daft. I'm not hysterical about anything, nor do I see a bandwagon to jump on since it would be far more convenient to carry on with my life just looking after number one. As far as I'm aware there aren't many drug companies queueing up to create a vaccine for Earth against mankind so I doubt that they are funding the research.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 07:06:10 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The paper is pretty technical, but it seems a world more "professional" than dude's blog with funny pictures. |
Make fun of the blog. I appreciate the effort. I don't see a damn thing funny about it. It shows a carelessness about data collection that is shameful. Sure, you get a group of statistical mathematicians together they'll come up with a bunch of conversion factors and whatever to account for all kinds of garbage. But it doesn't change the fact that proper data collection is essential to obtain valid results. Science is full of professional looking mistakes.
(and no I don't have a cite for that)
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 07:10:26 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
[As a doctor, would you make treatments based on flawed data that has a fudge factor applied? |
With administration of drugs I suspect this is a common procedure. You're comparing apples to oranges. Medicine is not always a precise art. Much of it is very much up to the doctors discretion.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 07:14:30 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What your buddy the blogger is presenting is anecdotal evidence. That is, single exposures of data. Sometimes anecdotal evidence can reveal truths (perhaps there really IS a problem with data collection sites), but it is the weakest form of evidence and easily succumbs to more robust data.
|
In what I read there and with associated links it appears a very large number of these data collection sites have been checked and found not to be in compliance. I think this is VERY ROBUST DATA. This is just as foolish as those who claim there is no problem at all.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 08:01:17 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
|
I have been living in CO all my life and I don't see what you describe. I even remember something last year of basically 3 blizzards in a row and quite a few weeks in the negatives. Not to mention a -17 day I had to turn off water gushing outside.
I have worked outside my whole life, except the last 10 years, and never seen much of a change from year to year with when we started back to work and how cold it is.
[/quote]As another native, I agree 100%. Ask the folks in se Colorado who had 6 feet of snow on the ground from late November into March. John Martin Reservoir had 16 inches of ice )probably a record depth). |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 08:57:01 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by Imagineer:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
74 Posts - citations of primary literature....1
Business as usual. I'm out. |
DrAchoo - why so much importance on the primary literature? We're not always going to access a primary document before we act, so why only on this subject? If the Bible is primary literature then there honestly should be no Christianity by now!
|
I'm likely pulling my medical training into the discussion. In medicine, primary literature is the bedrock of information. Even textbooks, which are compilations of primary literature are not as valuable as they are a) subject to an extra level of bias and b) tend to be out of date as soon as they are printed (taking two years to assemble).
I love to debate. I do it with my family all the time. However, I like to debate opponents who know what they are talking about because then I may actually learn something. To be able to quote primary literature would imply that at least discovery and thought went into my opponent's argument. Only quoting the media (who often have no more scientific education than high school science) or quasimedia (ie. blogs), means very little to me and often winds up as nothing but an exercise in frustration on the forensic front.
Believe me, I have plenty of debates on Christianity within Christian circles. If my opponent could only quote authors who had written ABOUT the Bible and not the Bible itself, I'd be rolling my eyes early and often.
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 20:58:30. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 09:01:52 PM · #85 |
I just want to say that I believe that all this "green lifestyle" crap is pushed just to cover the fact that big business and government will continue to rape the earth.
Changing light bulbs won't change a thing, if their energy continues to be produced by fossil fuels and transported by oil.
Without some MAJOR overhauls of national and global infrastructure and economics, it doesn't matter what the hell your car runs on.
Personally, I'm hoping gas hits $15-20/gallon SOON. Maybe then, consumers will quit just paying more and demand change, though somehow I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 09:06:39 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To be able to quote primary literature would imply that at least discovery and thought went into my opponent's argument. |
Well, heck Doc. Please pardon me for not putting any thought into my post. How thoughtless of me. The view from down your nose is frightening. I hope you don't sneeze! :)
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 09:08:01 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Personally, I'm hoping gas hits $15-20/gallon SOON. Maybe then, consumers will quit just paying more and demand change, though somehow I doubt it. |
It sure might get the shale oil ball rolling and even get a few new nuke plants permitted and construction started.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 09:50:38 PM · #88 |
The NASA Earth Observatory web site has been tracking the shrinking Artic Ice Cap. Regardless of your view on Global Warming, the photographs are stunning. This pic is from earlier this year when the NorthWest Passage opened up (a very rare occurrance).
//earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17782
Arctic, September 16, 2007 (1.3 MB JPG)
//earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/arctic_ams_2007259_lrg.jpg
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 09:57:26 PM · #89 |
This Wikipedia article, is quite thorough and seems quite fair-minded. It's worth a look.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 10:18:52 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eamurdock:
For instance, no one thought abrupt climate change was a realistic possibility until the discovery of paleoclimatic events such as the end of the upper Dryas period, where records show warming as much as 10 degrees in a decade. The presence of these events STRENGTHENS AGW science, it does not undermine it.
|
Recalling that I'm a "believer", can you provide some citation for this? A) when was the Dryas period and how do we have accuracy within 10 years for the climate change?
Also, I think you are hurting the overall argument here. By allowing evidence of local climate change you are letting the other side provide all sorts of contradictory evidence depending on where we look. The warming you speak of was a localized effect (as far as I understand). Those changes are far less important to the argument than global temperature changes (which are much harder to measure as we go back in time). |
The Younger Dryas was an ice age that ended ca 11,600 years BP. The best (most detailed) temperature record comes from Greenland ice cores, but it is corroborated as a global or near global event by measurements from around the world, such as lake sediments, coral rings and so forth. A good summary of the end of the YD and it's relationship to abrupt climate change can be found in "Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Suprises" (2002) published by the National Academies Press; it's available on line in full here.
The short answer to your question is that much of the detailed record there comes from ice cores, which show very accurate annual records and can provide extremely high temporal detail (on the order of years) so resolving a decade is no problem.
I disagree that I hurt the argument by allowing discussion of local climatic change because (a) it's true, and that's what matters, and (b) again, our understanding of global climate stems from our understanding of paleoclimate and local climatic effects; El Nino, for instance, is not a global phenomenon, but contributes greatly to our understanding of the non-linear effects that trigger climatic changes.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 10:24:05 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you make the scientific community out to be a bunch of morons? |
Yes |
This is a good point, and local microclimate is considered in choosing which temperature records to use. All serious long term tracking is done with rural sites these days.
The overall point though, is a good one, and is hammered home throughout schooling for anyone who uses long-term datasets - data is only as good as how it was collected, and seemingly small changes in methodology can have surprising effects on data. Any scientist worth his or her salt, when faced with an apparent step-function in a record, will look for a methodological cause before ascribing a phenomenological cause.
So yes, we make mistakes, but no, we're not morons, and the beauty of science is that there are thousands of other scientists waiting to pick your work to pieces.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 10:31:00 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To be able to quote primary literature would imply that at least discovery and thought went into my opponent's argument. |
Well, heck Doc. Please pardon me for not putting any thought into my post. How thoughtless of me. The view from down your nose is frightening. I hope you don't sneeze! :) |
Yes, that came out a little wrong. I'm sorry. Let's put it this way. If we were debating about photography, then I'd assume we were all "experts" and one person's word would be just as valid as another. However, we are debating an "off topic" subject (at least off topic for a photography site). Obviously different people are going to have different amounts of expertise when arguing this topic. If someone wants me to just accept what they are saying on argumentative grounds without presenting data, they are going to have to provide some credentials that make them an "expert" and worth listening to. This can also be circumvented by presenting data and the data comes from primary literature.
Right now I see a bunch of people arguing without proving they are experts or providing data. So to me it's simply a lot of talk and not important enough for me to possibly change my mind about.
(I'll take a half step back and say LoudDog did provide some data of sorts with the blog calling into question the data gathering techniques of US sites. At this point we can have a legitimate debate and now argue about the robustness of his claim. He feels it calls into question the whole data set, I feel that authors such as Brohan have taken such possible bias into account and found it to be too small to likely change the outcome. I also pointed out that the best data series also uses sea surface temperatures which obviously do not have the problems the land sites are faced with.) |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 10:37:20 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I'm a very real skeptic. Not enough data and what there is maybe being miss read for political reasons. The meterologist who started the Weather Channel in an interview last week said the data is being miss read and believes that this interpretation is way off.
Also, why is Mars ice caps melting too? CO2?
I am skeptical, and if we are having global warming, are we sure it is bad. Maybe warmer means more crops, more fresh water, the west coast of Colorado, etc..
Mars ice capsare melting too |
Mars is really neither here nor there, just as the fact that the climate has changed before on earth isn't significant. What's more is that the mechanisms for mars' warming are completely different than those going on on earth.
The fact is that our current way of life is possible because of our current climate, and that we are (almost unquestionably) changing that climate in ways we don't understand.
Trees fall down all the time; does that mean it doesn't matter if I cut one down and it lands on your house? |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 10:44:07 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
As an engineer of aircraft, I would not let you fly on a plane if I had to add a fudge factor to my data because I knew it was flawed. |
Gotta call BS on this one. Engineers know their data have uncertainty, and make an effort to quantify that uncertainty, and then add a "safey factor" (read fudge factor) just in case.
No data is perfect. Nor is perfect data necessary. What is necessary is to understand the errors in data, and to know what it can and can't say.
Speaking as an environmental scientist, I can assure you that a great deal of work goes into doing that, and that it takes pages to explain the analysis, and if you don't do that analysis you'll be shredded for not understanding your own data. And rightfully so. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 10:50:49 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Global warming is no longer a scientific issue but a political issue. Scientific funding for scientist supporting the global warming hypothesis is much greater than for scientists who don't support it. Media reports scientific findings that support global warming much more than they report studies that don't support it.
Global warming is just another tool that can shift wealth. (if you don't believe it, look at the proposed "solutions" to global warming)
For me, this is the real test to see if man made global warming is real. There is a simple solution to global warming. We could build a few thousand nuclear plants and be done with carbon based energy sources. This could be done in 5 years. As a side benefit, we wouldn't be giving billions of dollars to radical religious fundamentalists. I'm not saying nuclear energy is perfect, it has it risks. But the risks of nuclear energy don't include the so called risks of global warming (the end of life on earth). So why aren't all you true believers in global warming not screaming for us to go nuclear? I know why. It doesn't fit into your political agenda. I told you global warming was a political issue. |
Actually, a lot of environmentalists (myself included) are taking a long hard look at nuclear again. The plant engineering has (to my understanding) come a long way, meltdowns like Three Mile and Chernobyl are simply not possible in modern plants (passive stability inherent to the design). The big problems is that a single nuclear plant takes (a) more than five years to build, (b) a TON of cooling water (~1,000,000 gallons per minute) and (c) represents a capitolization of around 5 billion dollars.
So to suggest this could happen in 5 years is a joke. |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 10:59:16 PM · #96 |
I think the whole global warming think is a farce just as the whole coming of the next ice age was in the 70's. It's great if you're looking for grants from the government to study the next "doomsday" theory because they are always throwing money at this sort of thing.
Newsflash: climate change is the status quo...always has happened, always will. The earth heats and the earth cools. It's not rocket science.
Much as people who cannot stand critical questioning of points they cannot defend in a debate may result to calling his opponent names (racist, homophobe, etc.)the members of the scientific community who ask the critical questions and disagree are labeled as being shills for energy companies or dismissed out of hand because those who preach the global warming line have proclaimed that "the debate is over". By the way, if it's a theory the debate is not over. They call those laws (see gravity).
I've got no problem with being good stewards of the earth while we ever so briefly inhabit it, but things like the Kyoto Treaty do more harm than good.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:05:42 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by krafty1:
I think the whole global warming think is a farce just as the whole coming of the next ice age was in the 70's. It's great if you're looking for grants from the government to study the next "doomsday" theory because they are always throwing money at this sort of thing.
Newsflash: climate change is the status quo...always has happened, always will. The earth heats and the earth cools. It's not rocket science.
Much as people who cannot stand critical questioning of points they cannot defend in a debate may result to calling his opponent names (racist, homophobe, etc.)the members of the scientific community who ask the critical questions and disagree are labeled as being shills for energy companies or dismissed out of hand because those who preach the global warming line have proclaimed that "the debate is over". By the way, if it's a theory the debate is not over. They call those laws (see gravity).
I've got no problem with being good stewards of the earth while we ever so briefly inhabit it, but things like the Kyoto Treaty do more harm than good. |
Can I ask why you think this? The "ice age" thing of the 70's was a hypothesis that was raised, tested, and rejected by the scientific community. It is, if anything, evidence of how robust the scientific method is, not the reverse.
As to the theory/law thing:
In science (as opposed to in common parlance)
A "law" is a single fact (ie f = ma)
A "theory" is a collection of facts held together with a theoretical framework and supported by a large amount of diverse data.
In other words, a theory is more robust than a law.
There is, for your information a "theory of gravity," or I should say a number of them. There is quite a bit of debate about how gravity works. The debate is, as you say, not over. Should we avoid investing in technologies that rely on gravity until it is? |
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:10:55 PM · #98 |
Mother Earth will be just fine and life will go on. Humans, however, might not be so lucky.
Eventually, the carbon we've released will be stored again, even if she has to shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
Let's not pretend to be "good stewards" all the "green" stuff is purely self-serving.
A good read.
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 23:17:25.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:22:26 PM · #99 |
Of course I'm still a climate change/global warming skeptic. Except for all the hot air put out by Gore and the other nutcases like "Dr." Heidi Cullen of "We Occasionally Show You The" Weather Channel.
It's junk science full of faulty conclusions and guesses trying to extrapolate a very minimal amount of real data and apply it to longer, untracked and unrecorded periods of time. Junk, junk, junk. Just like flat-earth, geo-centric, and evolution.
The purpose of course is to control the masses. Feed them nonsense and then control their actions. Make dissenters look foolish... no matter how rational the arguments against the proposition are... and in the case of global warming the arguments against are far more rational and reasonable and scientific than the ones supporting the claims.
It used to be easier to pull off these hoaxes. People were not educated and believed what authorities told them. Now there is the internet and the world is smaller. People can question and research for themselves and find the real truth. There are more sources for information than 3 major networks (in the US)... So this propaganda is harder to get traction.
Sadly though, they still gain traction. Schools have stopped teaching kids how to think and just indoctrinate them in WHAT to think. So the lies are never questioned and everyone becomes, as the song goes "just another brick in the wall."
So yes, I'm still a climate change skeptic... because I prefer to believe in truth and facts and evidence.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2007 11:23:31 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by krafty1:
I think the whole global warming think is a farce just as the whole coming of the next ice age was in the 70's. It's great if you're looking for grants from the government to study the next "doomsday" theory because they are always throwing money at this sort of thing.
Newsflash: climate change is the status quo...always has happened, always will. The earth heats and the earth cools. It's not rocket science.
Much as people who cannot stand critical questioning of points they cannot defend in a debate may result to calling his opponent names (racist, homophobe, etc.)the members of the scientific community who ask the critical questions and disagree are labeled as being shills for energy companies or dismissed out of hand because those who preach the global warming line have proclaimed that "the debate is over". By the way, if it's a theory the debate is not over. They call those laws (see gravity).
I've got no problem with being good stewards of the earth while we ever so briefly inhabit it, but things like the Kyoto Treaty do more harm than good. |
I'm just going to have to point this post out to fir3bird as an example of exactly what I'm talking about. What does this post really say or add to the debate? It says "I disagree with global warming. Climate change has happened in the past. Scientists who agree with global warming have shut down the opposition through name calling. The kyoto treaty does harm (not specifying what)." No evidence or even argument is presented. I have very little patience for rhetoric like this.
Message edited by author 2007-11-18 23:23:46. |
|
