Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Eco-Guilt
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 16 of 67 (512779)
06-20-2009 9:59 PM


What a relief!
I just wanted to say what a relief it is to read about others' skepticism regarding AGW. These days, I've learned to keep my mouth shut on this issue because I'm tired of being labeled a "crackpot anti-science denier." lol
It's not that I don't think it's possible, I simply require more substantive proof that all these current phenomena (e.g., melting glaciers, animal extinctions, rising sea levels, etc.) are the result of AGW. Although to be honest, that may in fact be very difficult since as a geologist who is trained to think in terms of multi thousands to millions to billions of years, it's very hard for me to understand how scientists today can separate the effects of 20,000 years worth of natural warming from 200 years worth of human-caused warming.
Global warming IS happening. It has been happening for something like 20,000 years. Animals have been going extinct since the last ice age, the glaciers have all been melting since the last ice age, oceans have been rising since the last ice age. Have these sorts of events been accelerating? Perhaps, but without hard or direct data/evidence in support of this, there's a lot of room to manipulate the indirect data in your favor.
I suppose what really has been grating on my nerves is that the AGW crowd is demanding I accept their interpretation of the data. I don't like that. That sort of bullying results in me digging in my heels and asking, "why?"

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2009 10:48 PM roxrkool has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 67 (512783)
06-20-2009 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by roxrkool
06-20-2009 9:59 PM


Re: What a relief!
I just wanted to say what a relief it is to read about others' skepticism regarding AGW. These days, I've learned to keep my mouth shut on this issue because I'm tired of being labeled a "crackpot anti-science denier."
It's not that I don't think it's possible, I simply require more substantive proof that all these current phenomena (e.g., melting glaciers, animal extinctions, rising sea levels, etc.) are the result of AGW.
I concur. I share the same sentiments you do on the subject. If it is anthropogenically caused, then, yes, we should be doing something. I also agree with some people that even if it isn't, we should still do something until it is completely verified. We know things like pollution is a problem. Go to Salt Lake City, Utah sometime. Absolutely disgusting. It makes Los Angeles look like some remote part of New Zealand. China and India are just absurdly ridiculous with the amount of smog in the atmosphere. For this reason and other similar ones, pollution should be controlled. I agree with reduction of emissions, energy conservation plans, responsible waste management, etc, but what I don't agree with is the hysteria, the fear mongering, the embellishments, and the outright fallacies expressed to exploit the agenda.
I also agree that there is terrific evidence that the earth is warming. But as someone else stated, correlation does not necessarily equal causation. It may be purely incidental. It also may be completely natural, as there are a myriad of natural explanations for the phenomenon.
As you shared, the geologic evidence alone shows that climatological patterns have been studied showing a wave of cold and hot climates throughout earth's history. The debate is not over, unlike the Governator stated. Let us simply proceed with caution and open-mindedness on the subject.

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by roxrkool, posted 06-20-2009 9:59 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 06-20-2009 11:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 18 of 67 (512784)
06-20-2009 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
06-19-2009 8:17 PM


Correlation causes retardation apparently
Correlation does not prove causation.
I've seen some scientists suggest that increased temperature is causing the increase in CO2, rather than the other way around. What evidence is there that the causation goes the direction you believe, beyond the correlation?
Sounds like these scientists are profoundly retarded.
To suggest that temperature increases are CAUSING people to burn fossil fuels and drive H2s is just stupid.
Global warming is NOT causing the coal to come to the surface. It's not digging the oil wells. It's not loading up the super tankers.
The fact that you would ask for evidence of AGW while simulateously spouting this sort of contrived BS is pretty offensive.
Either HOLD YOURSELF to the same standard or just up and admit you are simply being contrarian.
CO2 _IS_ a green house gas. So is methane. Both of these things have been increasing in our atmosphere as a result of human behavior.
Those facts are INDISPUTABLE.
Ditto the fact that the Earth is heating up. Ditto the fact that it's heating up during a time of reduced solar activity.
So, we are getting LESS heat from the Sun and still increasing in temp. We are doing this while simulateously increasing gas levels which we KNOW trap heat.
And yet that's not evidence enough for you.
Let's add that to the fact that the WORST case scenario for your side of the argument is this:
"A few people get rich."
And what do we get as a side effect of that?
- Energy independence from terrorist states
- Less pollution in our air and water
Those are, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, sufficient reason to pursue these technologies.
Meanwhile, if you are wrong in your assessment that 99.99% of the climatologists are making sh1t up - then it's game over for humanity.
Let's chart that out:
Subbie is right and we do nothing: Terrorists get richer, People get mercury poisoning at increasing rates
Subbie is wrong and we do nothing: The global temp increases, massive drought, loss of coastal waters, abandonment of cities, mass exinctions
Subbie is right and we do something: Someone gets rich, we stop funding the terrorists who hate us, cleaner air and water, but global catastrophy never happens.
Subbie is wrong and we do something: Someone gets rich, we stop funding the terrorists who hate us, cleaner air and water, we avert global catastrophy.
Why exactly would you be fighting for the "do nothings"?
I mean, I guess you might be a Conservative. Their goal, according to their overlord, is apparently nothing short than the destruction of America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 06-19-2009 8:17 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by roxrkool, posted 06-21-2009 2:20 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 19 of 67 (512785)
06-20-2009 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Hyroglyphx
06-20-2009 10:48 PM


Re: What a relief!
As you shared, the geologic evidence alone shows that climatological patterns have been studied showing a wave of cold and hot climates throughout earth's history. The debate is not over, unlike the Governator stated. Let us simply proceed with caution and open-mindedness on the subject.
I think it's profoundly unfair for your side of the debate to suggest things like "open-mindedness" while simulateously denying facts simply because you find them inconvienent.
Yes, the Earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles. They happen at rates.
Do you understand that the rate at which something happens is an important factor in determining if it's unusual or not?
For example, all the cars in NASCAR go around the same big loop. But, if one of them completely the race in just under 6 minutes - it's no big deal, right? I mean after all, the cars have gone around the loops in the past. We have records of millions of cars competing in these races.
Let's just ignore the fact that all the other NASCAR racers take hours to accomplish what this one car did in 6 minutes. Totally unimportant.
Global Temps are increasing at a FASTER RATE than they have in the past. THAT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2009 10:48 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by roxrkool, posted 06-21-2009 2:52 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 20 of 67 (512790)
06-21-2009 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Nuggin
06-20-2009 11:07 PM


Re: Correlation causes retardation apparently
Ditto the fact that the Earth is heating up. Ditto the fact that it's heating up during a time of reduced solar activity.
So, we are getting LESS heat from the Sun and still increasing in temp. We are doing this while simulateously increasing gas levels which we KNOW trap heat.
And yet that's not evidence enough for you.
See, this is the stuff that gets me confused. Based on the graphs below (using proxy data), I would think your above statements are in error. It appears to me that solar radiation has in fact been fairly high for the last 300 years or so. Am I reading the graphs incorrectly, perhaps? Or maybe I'm missing some important fact?
Either way, I have no argument against cleaning up our atmosphere and pursuing greener technologies. It certainly would be healthier for the planet in general, and humans in particular.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Make graphs into thumbnails (thumb=600).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Nuggin, posted 06-20-2009 11:07 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by fgarb, posted 06-21-2009 6:10 AM roxrkool has replied
 Message 30 by Nuggin, posted 06-21-2009 10:47 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 21 of 67 (512791)
06-21-2009 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Nuggin
06-20-2009 11:13 PM


Re: What a relief!
Global Temps are increasing at a FASTER RATE than they have in the past. THAT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION.
I completely agree. Changes in rates are extremely noteworthy. But what is the time-scale you are considering?
Temps are increasing at a faster rate since when? In the last ten years? Fifty years? Three hundred years? A million years? Ever?? That would be a pretty bold statement considering the age of the earth.
Just stating that temps are increasing at a faster rate is meaningless without providing a context. Especially since we're not even 100% sure we understand the cause of all the other temp spikes during Earth's long history.
It also bothers me to compare real-time data, that we have collected using modern (or fairly modern) instrumentation, to proxy data. Much of the proxy CO2/Temp data came from where? Rocks, ice cores, etc., correct? How do we know at what detail those data (i.e., conditions) were preserved? Isn't it possible that we are looking at 'smoothed' data or snapshots of the actual conditions of the time? Maybe what's preserved are all the highs... or all the lows... or suffered the effects of... equilibrium(?).
(I'm getting out of my league here. lol)
To me, it's a bit like examining precipitation data. Looking at one day's worth or even one month's worth of precipitation data is not necessarily representative of the year in which the data occur and most certainly not representative of years before or after. Hell, you can't even use these data to predict what it's going to do in varying topographical regions of the same valley from year to year.
If I am viewing this wrongly, please explain. I would really like to know what I'm missing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 06-20-2009 11:13 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Legend, posted 06-21-2009 4:54 AM roxrkool has not replied
 Message 26 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-21-2009 6:22 AM roxrkool has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 22 of 67 (512795)
06-21-2009 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by roxrkool
06-21-2009 2:52 AM


Re: What a relief!
Just stating that temps are increasing at a faster rate is meaningless without providing a context. Especially since we're not even 100% sure we understand the cause of all the other temp spikes during Earth's long history.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. This is the equivalent of someone concluding they have a brain tumour just because they've had a headache for the last 2 seconds!

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by roxrkool, posted 06-21-2009 2:52 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 23 of 67 (512802)
06-21-2009 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Legend
06-20-2009 3:24 PM


Re: All hail the prophet!
No, but as most of the organisations you mention rely on funding by governments and organisations with vested interests in the acceptance of the MMGW theory, that's hardly a surprise at all.
So you seem to believe in grand conspiracies by liberal interests to suppress (financially) dissenting opinions in many of the world's largest science organizations. I'm afraid that I would find that surprising than the possibility, just as I don't believe that petroleum and car companies have the power to radically bias findings in the other direction.
Fortunately scientific truth isn't decided by majority vote. The MMGW theory is used to make predictions of dubious relevance and specificity. The persistence of bodies such as the IPCC to have it accepted as scientific 'fact', of equal standing to the theories of relativity, evolution, etc. badly stinks of ulterior motives.
What science organizations are saying such things? The IPCC gives a probability range, based on their studies (I think it was something like 90 or 95%) that global warming is a real phenomenon that is being caused largely by humans.
If you're somehow suggesting that scientists like John Christy, Richard Lindzen and Christopher Landsea are not 'mainstream' because they disagree with the agenda pushed upon them
I am sure that it is easy to find the names of smart scientists who disagree with the main scientific consensus on global warming. It is even possible to find some who disagree with evolution, though that is considerably more difficult. Since I am not an expert in this field, I tend to trust large, well respected organizations like APS are giving me credible information when they make their statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Legend, posted 06-20-2009 3:24 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Legend, posted 06-21-2009 6:52 AM fgarb has not replied
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2009 8:37 AM fgarb has replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 24 of 67 (512803)
06-21-2009 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Michamus
06-20-2009 11:51 AM


Re: All hail the prophet!
One of the main reasons so many scientists are skeptical of human cause to Global Warming as well is the very fact that we are still emerging from a very recent Ice Age.
Perhaps you are right that the same process that is bringing us out of an ice age is also somehow causing a sudden temperature fluctuation upwards in the last century (since our oceans have not boiled off I can't believe that our current rate of warming has been sustained since the previous ice age). That would be quite coincidental for it to just happen to coincide with the time when we are producing enormous quantities of heat trapping gases.
My main hang up is the CO2 dips that directly preced the temperature increase spikes, which are then followed by CO2 spikes. Also, the fairly recent data time line provides insufficient trending to determine whether CO2 causes increase temp. or if the opposite is true.
Clearly both are true. CO2 reflects infrared radiation back to the earth's surface and produces a warming effect. Simple physics. Similarly, warming the earth causes CO2 to be released from the oceans. Such feedback effects have to be taken into account (within their uncertainties) in realistic computer models. Obviously the CO2 rises in the past have followed the temperature rises for exactly this reason, which are thought to have slightly increased the amount of temperature rise. The difference is that this time around we are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than the ocean has released in any of the recent warming spells.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Michamus, posted 06-20-2009 11:51 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Michamus, posted 06-22-2009 11:15 AM fgarb has replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 25 of 67 (512804)
06-21-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by roxrkool
06-21-2009 2:20 AM


Re: Correlation causes retardation apparently
I don't see why you care about sunspots: the only things those effect is how many cosmic rays hit our atmosphere, which have been shown to have minimal/no correlation to our atmosphere's cloud formation. A more sensible thing to show is the solar irradiance, which is a much more direct measurement of the energy that is reaching the earth's surface.
It is true that the solar irradiance is very slightly higher now than it was 300 years ago, however I am skeptical that this explains the rising temperatures. a) The IPCC would have to have really screwed the pooch on this one if they were off by 10 sigmas or so in their uncertainties on the relevance of this effect, and b) you can directly see that in the last 30 years temperatures have continued to rise while the solar output has remained constant. There would have to be some very slow feedback effect in place for ancient solar variations to be causing modern temperature rises. See these plots for comparison.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by roxrkool, posted 06-21-2009 2:20 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by roxrkool, posted 06-21-2009 12:39 PM fgarb has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 67 (512805)
06-21-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by roxrkool
06-21-2009 2:52 AM


Paleothermometry
I suspect the main climate change paleothermometry is done via 18O:16O ratio studies.
quote:
In paleosciences, 18O:16O data from foraminifera and ice core are used as a proxy for temperature.
and
quote:
Foraminifera shells of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), having oxygen in them, and being found in many common geological features, are most commonly tested. The ratio of 18O:16O to 16O is used to tell the temperature of the surrounding water of the time solidified, indirectly. The ratio varies slightly depending on the temperature of the surrounding water, as well as other factors such as the water's salinity, and the volume of water locked up in ice sheets.
δ18O:16O also reflects local evaporation and freshwater input, as rainwater is 16O enriched - a result of 16O's preferential evaporation from seawater. Consequently, the surface ocean contains greater amounts of 18O:16O around the subtropics and tropics where there is more evaporation, and lesser amounts of 18O:16O in the mid-latitudes where it rains more.
Similarly, when water vapor condenses, heavier water molecules holding 18O:16O atoms tend to condense and precipitate first. The water vapor gradient heading from the tropics to the poles gradually becomes more and more depleted of 18O:16O. Snow falling in Canada has much less H218O:16O than rain in Florida; similarly, snow falling in the center of ice sheets has a lighter δ18O:16O signature than that at its margins, since heavier 18O:16O precipitates first.
Changes in climate alter global patterns of evaporation and precipitation therefore change the background δ18O:16O ratio.
A little more info available at the cite, including some time/temperature graphs.
It sounds like quite a few complications have to be considered to get proper conclusions.
Boy, doing all those superscripts is a pain. I hope I didn't screw any up.
Added by edit: Thought I better explain that the 18O and 16O's refer to different isotopes of Oxygen.
Moose
Edited by Minnemooseus, : Screwed 1 up.
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See ABE above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by roxrkool, posted 06-21-2009 2:52 AM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by roxrkool, posted 06-21-2009 12:47 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5006 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 27 of 67 (512808)
06-21-2009 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by fgarb
06-21-2009 5:44 AM


Re: All hail the prophet!
So you seem to believe in grand conspiracies by liberal interests to suppress (financially) dissenting opinions.....
A typical method of marginalising dissenting voices is to dismiss them as nutty, conspiracy theorists. However, I don't think there's a grand conspiracy here, just the ruthless pushing of a political and ideological agenda on the scientific community coupled with peer pressure. To quote Dr John Christy:
quote:
The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know" (from the Latin sciere, to know).
You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows".
This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by fgarb, posted 06-21-2009 5:44 AM fgarb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Nuggin, posted 06-21-2009 10:53 AM Legend has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 67 (512812)
06-21-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by fgarb
06-21-2009 5:44 AM


Re: All hail the prophet!
So you seem to believe in grand conspiracies by liberal interests to suppress (financially) dissenting opinions in many of the world's largest science organizations.
Actually that has been known to happen, now that you mention it. I find it appalling that scientists be asked to find out what's going on with the climate, then when they give them an answer, it isn't what the powers-that-be want to hear, so they get run out of a job because of it. If that is not the spirit of this thread, the shilling, the scams, the schemes, the manipulation, then I don't know what is.

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by fgarb, posted 06-21-2009 5:44 AM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by fgarb, posted 06-21-2009 9:10 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 29 of 67 (512817)
06-21-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Hyroglyphx
06-21-2009 8:37 AM


Re: All hail the prophet!
I certainly am not surprised that that sometimes happens. When you are working for politicians, they may require you to conform to their views. But remember that conservatives and oil industry lobbyists sometimes apply this pressure too.
But none of these are examples of people in mainstream science. People employed at universities and laboratories will have more independence. Maybe you're right and the world's leading science societies are all being bullied into obeying political correctness on this issue. That would be a very strong allegation to make. Do you have any significant evidence of this (more than just isolated examples/anecdotes)? If it's true then that would go a long way towards undermining my faith in modern science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-21-2009 8:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 06-21-2009 10:55 AM fgarb has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 30 of 67 (512824)
06-21-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by roxrkool
06-21-2009 2:20 AM


Re: Correlation causes retardation apparently
I'm unclear as to how sunspot activity is supposed to correlate/cause heating or cooling.
I understand that sunspots are activity on the sun, but I've seen nothing to suggest that more or less sunspots have anything to do with temp.
Wouldn't a sunspot have to be "aimed" at the Earth to have any effect on us anyway?
Here's an even more complicated chart that shows total output from the sun going up and down regularly.
Notice it stops as 2005, but if you look at 2000-2005, you'll see a steep decline in output.
As of 2005 the hottest years on record were:
Rank Year
1 2005
1 1998
3 2002
4 2003
5 2004
6 2001
7 1997
8 1990
9 1995
10 1999
11 2000
12 1991
13 1987
14 1988
15 1994
16 1983
17 1996
18 1944
19 1989
20 1993
Since then, had to pop in 3 more years, but since the chart is 2005, this is helpful.
If solar output was the primary cause of global warming, then we'd expect that numbers to reflect that. The peeks would be the numbers on the chart and the valleys would not be there at all.
Instead we see that the 2000-2005 are right up there at the top.
Now, you _can_ argue that a high placement for 2008 would reflect that sun activity ramped back up giving it a slight boost. However, since they are ALL hot even when activity is down - we've got a problem.
To simplify:
Sun's output is up, Earth is hotter.
Sun's output is down, Earth is hotter.
Sun's output goes up again, Earth is hotter.
Clearly, something else is playing a MUCH bigger role in keeping us toasty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by roxrkool, posted 06-21-2009 2:20 AM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by fgarb, posted 06-21-2009 12:47 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024