Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming/Strange Weather Patterns
custard
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 77 (187979)
02-24-2005 12:21 AM


more IPCC data
I have to thank Crashfrog for the wikipedia link, it has a lot of information there.
I encourage anyone interested in this debate to read the pros and cons of the IPCC and their reports and make your own conclusions. Most authors of the IPCC reports are in agreement, but some authors of previous versions have been very vocal in their dissent.
For example:
quote:
In January of 2005 Christopher Landsea resigned from work on the IPCC AR4, saying: "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
and
quote:
Ecologist and professor Philip Stott, condemns the IPCC reports for being modelling not reality
Stott has also been quoted in a BBC interview, talking about a fundamental "contradiction" of the Kyoto Protocol: "that climate is one of the most complex systems known, yet that we can manage it by trying to control a small set of factors, namely greenhouse gas emissions. Scientifically, this is not mere uncertainty: it is a lie."
Not I disagree, not I strongly disagree, but IT IS A LIE.
This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 00:22 AM
This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 00:23 AM

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 77 (187983)
02-24-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by custard
02-24-2005 12:09 AM


Re: caps?
Of course its only a tiny portion of the polar cap, what do you expect? The whole thing to melt all at once? That much ice at any temperature would take a long time to melt, and much of Antarctica is still more than cold enough to be frozen.
We know that glaciers are melting, and we know the sea level is rising slowly, and the climate has gotten slightly warmer and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising. We also know that internal combustion, deforestation, and other processes produce greenhouse gases, and that these have been going on for over a hundred years, during which time, all these other things have occured. It seems reasonable to me to take precautions to ensure that we are not damaging the Earth's climate in ways that may negatively influence us.
I admit that I don't know everything and no one does. But when a large amount of evidence accumulates, pointing to climate change, it is worth looking into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 12:09 AM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 1:06 AM Gary has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 77 (187993)
02-24-2005 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Gary
02-24-2005 12:34 AM


Re: caps?
gary writes:
Of course its only a tiny portion of the polar cap, what do you expect? The whole thing to melt all at once?
What global warming theory tells me NOT to expect is for the largest ice cap in Antarctica to be accumulating more ice, yet it is.
Strike one for global warming theory.
We know that glaciers are melting,
And we know that glaciers are also growing. It depends on the glacier. There are over 20,000 glaciers in the world. Have scientists investigated every one of them? I doubt it.
and we know the sea level is rising slowly,
Which it has been since the last ice age. In fact the rate at which it is rising seems to have been steady since the last ice age. Global warming theory predicts that sea levels should be rising more rapidly than in the past. They aren't.
Strike two.
and the climate has gotten slightly warmer and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising. We also know that internal combustion, deforestation, and other processes produce greenhouse gases,
Yes, yes, and yes. No one is arguing very strongly that the surface temperature of the earth isn't increasing, they are arguing as to the significance of this phenomenon. Is it natural or manmade? Is it detrimental or benign? How long will it last?
The answer to all these questions is WE DON'T KNOW. We don't understand global climatology well enough to predict whether a .6 degree increase is good, bad, or negligble.
Heck we don't even know if greenhouse gasses, specifically CO2 will INCREASE cloud cover or DECREASE cloud cover. One would have completely different results than the other.
It seems reasonable to me to take precautions to ensure that we are not damaging the Earth's climate in ways that may negatively influence us.
But that's the point, WE DON'T KNOW if decreasing CO2 emissions will have any effect on our climate, but we do know it will affect the industrialization efforts and economies of many countries, potentially affecting billions of people.
Overreacting to a non-threat can have just as detrimental effects as failing to react to a real one.
The data doesn't support IPCC's position. Keep studying and observing yes, but we need to stick to hard facts and scientific method and not politics and polemic.
This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 01:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Gary, posted 02-24-2005 12:34 AM Gary has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2005 1:43 AM custard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 77 (188001)
02-24-2005 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by custard
02-23-2005 11:59 PM


If anything, your graph demonstrates that the world has been experiencing a warming trend seven centuries BEFORE industrialization.
I'm sorry? You must be looking at it with different eyes than I am, but I see a clear cooling trend from the start of the graph right up to 1900, when it skyrockets.
Either way, the 1000 year graph, even if it could be trusted, does not support the argument that global warming is occuring due to the actions of mankind.
Somebody stop those goalposts! I'm simply trying to substantiate a recent warming trend. I've made no particular argument about anthropogenic warming - yet.
Whoop de do. 0.6 degrees. I'm terrified.
Ah, substituting ridicule for scientific analysis. Which side was "scientifically irresponsible", again?
Are you a climatologist? No? Then I'm not inclined to give your casual dismissal of a .6 degree warming trend much credence. But ponder, if you will, how much more water the atmosphere might hold if it's generally .6 degrees warmer. Do the math. Personally, I prefer to have water on the ground, where we can use it to grow food.
Although they don't say what these are.
What what are? What are the ways greenhouse gases and aerosols alter our atmosphere, you mean? Not too familiar with the science, are you?
As I said, we can't predict the weather TEN DAYS in advance, let alone ten years.
Weather isn't climate, as I've said before. You keep tossing this statement off like it proves something besides your reliance on superficial reasoning and appeals to incredulity.
Read that last line again.Sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases may be over-estimated or under-estimated estimated because of some flaws in the models and because the importance o some external factors may be misestimated.
They agree that they may be. That's scientific tenantivity, after all. It's incumbent on you to prove that they are.
This is conjecture.
Naturally. What's your evidence that their conjecture is off-base? Is it your assertion that we'll completely abandon a fossil-fuel energy economy within the next, say, 50 years?
Scrutinizing the data and questioning the conclusions drawn by global warming proponents is not putting one's head in the sand and hiding from the inevitable, there is no compelling data to support global warming theory.
You mean, there's no evidence that isn't qualified by scientific tenativity. Well, duh. Your objections continue to consist of "we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing", an attitude which I'm sure will get you far with the scientific community.
At least none presented in the Kyoto Protocol and none that I can find.
Again with the Kyoto Protocol. Why should I give a damn what the Kyoto Protocol says? Was it peer-reviewed?
Oh, right. Because I'm saying that there's enough evidence not to dismiss climate warming offhand, I must be a pro-Kyoto environmentalist hippie wackjob.
Try and stick with the argument at hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by custard, posted 02-23-2005 11:59 PM custard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 2:48 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 77 (188005)
02-24-2005 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by custard
02-24-2005 1:06 AM


What global warming theory tells me NOT to expect is for the largest ice cap in Antarctica to be accumulating more ice, yet it is.
Well, to be precise, you don't know that it's accumulating more ice; only that it's getting thicker.
On the other hand, Nature. 2002 Oct 3;419(6906):465-7. suggests that, in fact, the thickening might actually be a result of global climate warming:
quote:
Switch of flow direction in an Antarctic ice stream.
Conway H, Catania G, Raymond CF, Gades AM, Scambos TA, Engelhardt H.
Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA. conway@ess.washington.edu
Fast-flowing ice streams transport ice from the interior of West Antarctica to the ocean, and fluctuations in their activity control the mass balance of the ice sheet. The mass balance of the Ross Sea sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet is now positive--that is, it is growing--mainly because one of the ice streams (ice stream C) slowed down about 150 years ago. Here we present evidence from both surface measurements and remote sensing that demonstrates the highly dynamic nature of the Ross drainage system. We show that the flow in an area that once discharged into ice stream C has changed direction, now draining into the Whillans ice stream (formerly ice stream B). This switch in flow direction is a result of continuing thinning of the Whillans ice stream and recent thickening of ice stream C. Further abrupt reorganization of the activity and configuration of the ice streams over short timescales is to be expected in the future as the surface topography of the ice sheet responds to the combined effects of internal dynamics and long-term climate change. We suggest that caution is needed when using observations of short-term mass changes to draw conclusions about the large-scale mass balance of the ice sheet.
The Ross ice shelf isn't just an ice cube, it's a balanced system of ice inflow and outflow. At any rate, the thickening of one ice sheet is hardly evidence against a global climate trend.
Keep studying and observing yes, but we need to stick to hard facts and scientific method and not politics and polemic.
The only one talking politics here seems to be you. Also I love how you've pretty much employed all the standard creationist tactics in your posts - repeating the use of the word "theory", as if to say "this isn't fact"; repeated use of the argument from incredulity; claims that your opponents are motivated by ideology while your motives are pure science. That - the failure of the "no global warming" crowd to engage in any argument besides the most superficial - is pretty much all the evidence I need to see who's most likely on the side of real science, and who is letting their economic ideology carry them away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 1:06 AM custard has not replied

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


Message 21 of 77 (188009)
02-24-2005 1:53 AM


The "Toasty Earth" wager
OK, I'll bring up a parallel to "Pascal's wager".
Just in case that human action produced "greenhouse gases" might be contributing to nasty global warming, wouldn't it be prudent to try to counter this possible adverse process?
The keyboard's been drinking, not me,
Moose
(a nod to Tom Waits)

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 2:58 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 27 by custard, posted 02-26-2005 5:23 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 77 (188015)
02-24-2005 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
02-24-2005 1:31 AM


clear as mud
frog writes:
I see a clear cooling trend from the start of the graph right up to 1900, when it skyrockets.
Yeah? Which colored line were you referring to? There is nothing 'clear' about that graph; it resembles a kindergartner's art project.
Somebody stop those goalposts! I'm simply trying to substantiate a recent warming trend. I've made no particular argument about anthropogenic warming - yet.
Spare me the histrionics. I never contested the recent warming trend, in fact the data I presented already established that. YOU were the one who thought 120 years was inadequate for your purposes so you went and dug up a graph with the last ten centuries on it. yet now you claim you really only care about the last 100 years. Which is it frog? The last century, or the last millenium?
Are you a climatologist? No? Then I'm not inclined to give your casual dismissal of a .6 degree warming trend much credence.
Argument from authority fallacy? Please.
But ponder, if you will, how much more water the atmosphere might hold if it's generally .6 degrees warmer.
I would if we had any evidence of the ATMOSPHERE getting warmer. Both your graph and my graph show a SURFACE temperature increase. As I previously stated, satellite readings since 1979 have shown ZERO increase in atmospheric temperature.
Ah, substituting ridicule for scientific analysis.
Your hypocrisy is indeed amusing.
You do EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing here:
Are you a climatologist?
here:
Not too familiar with the science, are you?
here:
Well, duh. Your objections continue to consist of "we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing", an attitude which I'm sure will get you far with the scientific community.
and here:
Try and stick with the argument at hand.
I commend you on your glibness, but you are too ignorant about this subject to argue it meaningfully; you demonstrate this admirably with this gem:
Why should I give a damn what the Kyoto Protocol says? Was it peer-reviewed?
Should I really have expected more from someone who criticizes books he has never read? Probably not, but since you have shown glimmers of insight and intelligence from time to time in other posts, I was hoping for a meaningful discussion. Unfortunately this does not appear to be forthcoming, and I find sophmoric contrarianism isn't as challenging for me as it once was.
If anyone (Gary, etc), wants to particpate in an actual exchange of ideas and information I'm up for it.
This message has been edited by custard to change 'book' to 'books', 02-24-2005 04:25 AM
This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 04:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2005 1:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by contracycle, posted 02-24-2005 8:01 AM custard has not replied
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 02-24-2005 10:36 AM custard has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 77 (188017)
02-24-2005 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2005 1:53 AM


Re: The "Toasty Earth" wager
minn writes:
Just in case that human action produced "greenhouse gases" might be contributing to nasty global warming, wouldn't it be prudent to try to counter this possible adverse process?
That argument certainly has merit. I would counter by saying "yes, only if the cure (in this case the reduction of increased CO2 emissions) had no other deleterious effects."
If you could show that inhibiting the number of allowable emissions per country would not have a negative affect on the US economy or industry, then I would wholeheartedly agree.
What I do object to, however, is that the current environmental dogma being served up is based on a paucity of data. From what I have read, the threat of global warming seems much less imminent or detrimental than we are lead to believe.
I'm told the earth is warming at a such a rate that it could cause cataclysmic changes in our environment such as melting ice caps and rising sea levels.
Well an increase of 0.6, and depending on your source the range could be as low as 0.3, degrees over 120 years on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old seems to be very little to get worked up about. Add to that the fact the seas ARE NOT rising faster than ever before and that the ice caps are NOT both melting, but one, the largest by far, is in fact growing, and I have to question the conclusions drawn by global warming theorists.
This message has been edited by custard, 02-24-2005 03:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2005 1:53 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by contracycle, posted 02-24-2005 8:08 AM custard has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 77 (188055)
02-24-2005 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by custard
02-24-2005 2:48 AM


Re: clear as mud
quote:
Yeah? Which colored line were you referring to? There is nothing 'clear' about that graph; it resembles a kindergartner's art project.
Wow, look at this incisive methdological criticism, we're all shaken to our boots.
quote:
Argument from authority fallacy? Please.
Nonsense; do you go to an auto-mechanic for heart surgery? There is no appeal to AUTHORITY here, only disciplinary competence.
quote:
If anyone (Gary, etc), wants to particpate in an actual exchange of ideas and information I'm up for it.
Bullshit.
PS: Crash, yes, the Kyoto protocol is based on serious, peer reviewed science and - let us recall - is an OPTIMISTIC assesment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 2:48 AM custard has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 77 (188057)
02-24-2005 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by custard
02-24-2005 2:58 AM


Re: The "Toasty Earth" wager
quote:
If you could show that inhibiting the number of allowable emissions per country would not have a negative affect on the US economy or industry, then I would wholeheartedly agree.
So in other words, you would rather die than give up a luxury today.
OK, I can take that on board. But why should I be held to ransom by your selfish stupidity?
And, the expectation that the greatest polluter should go first, and do the most, is hardly bizarre. All you are being asked to do is clean up your own mess.
quote:
What I do object to, however, is that the current environmental dogma being served up is based on a paucity of data. From what I have read, the threat of global warming seems much less imminent or detrimental than we are lead to believe.
Look this is complete nonsense. The fact that the US republicans choose to harp this nonsense does not improve its quality. Are you reading the reserach itself? No, you only appear to red "debunkings" of the reaearch. The ill-informed opinions of a handful of political agitators are as nothing in the face of the mountain of consensus across the globe that this is a real problem. In fact, THE MOST important problem we face.
quote:
Well an increase of 0.6, and depending on your source the range could be as low as 0.3, degrees over 120 years on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old seems to be very little to get worked up about.
Thats... I struggle for an appropriate term. The current thinking I have read is that a 2 degree rise will be disastrous, and that we are well on course for that 2 degree rise. So the 0.6 you cavalierly and ignorantly dismiss is nearly a third of that margin. Thats significant; extremely significant.
quote:
and I have to question the conclusions drawn by global warming theorists.
Why don;t you question their models instead of their conclusions. You are just rejecting the conclusions out of hand; you are seeing no evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 2:58 AM custard has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 77 (188094)
02-24-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by custard
02-24-2005 2:48 AM


Yeah? Which colored line were you referring to?
All of them. Every single one. That's what's so dramatically obvious about the graph; 9 different reconstructions of historical climate agree on a recent, anomolous warming trend.
YOU were the one who thought 120 years was inadequate for your purposes so you went and dug up a graph with the last ten centuries on it. yet now you claim you really only care about the last 100 years. Which is it frog? The last century, or the last millenium?
What I was substantiating was that the trend is anomolous and not cyclical; the data of the last millenium shows clearly that what we're experiencing is not cyclical. Like I said, try to stick with the argument at hand.
Argument from authority fallacy? Please.
I have not committed the argument from authority; I've only cut the legs out from your argument from incredulity. Why should your incredulity be given credence?
As I previously stated, satellite readings since 1979 have shown ZERO increase in atmospheric temperature.
An absolute falsehood.
quote:
Currently (end Dec. 2004) the trend in satellite data from the Mears et al version is +0.129 C/decade, from the Spencer and Christy version 5.1 +0.078 C/decade, from Fu et al 0.2 C/decade (May 04) and from Vinnikov and Grody, +0.22C to 0.26C per decade (Oct. 03). This can be compared to the increase from the surface record of approximately 0.06 C/decade over the past century and 0.15 C/decade since 1979.
Satellite temperature measurements - Wikipedia
You do EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing here:
Not so. I've employed ridicule in addition to argumentation.
Should I really have expected more from someone who criticizes books he has never read? Probably not, but since you have shown glimmers of insight and intelligence from time to time in other posts, I was hoping for a meaningful discussion. Unfortunately this does not appear to be forthcoming, and I find sophmoric contrarianism isn't as challenging for me as it once was.
Hi, remember the forum guidelines? You're required to support your position with evidence, not name-calling. Thanks!
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-24-2005 10:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by custard, posted 02-24-2005 2:48 AM custard has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 77 (188753)
02-26-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Minnemooseus
02-24-2005 1:53 AM


The "Toasty Earth" wager revisited
minnemoose writes:
OK, I'll bring up a parallel to "Pascal's wager".
Just in case that human action produced "greenhouse gases" might be contributing to nasty global warming, wouldn't it be prudent to try to counter this possible adverse process?
Let me try to answer this better by comparing the choices of the Toasty Earth Wager to Pascal's Wager. (some sources from wikipedia)
Pascal's Wager:
It is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief.
Toasty Earth Wager:
It is always a better "bet" to believe in global warming theory as currently presented, because the expected value to be gained from believing in it is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief.
OK. Let's work with that. Pascal's possible outcomes were:
1-You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.
2-You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
3-You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
4-You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.
Analagous Toasty Earth possibilities would be:
1-You may believe that current global warming is a result of man and will ultimately have a catastrophic impact on the environment- make earth uninhabitable for humans, and if true, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will prevent this catastrophe.
2- You may believe that current global warming is a result of man and will ultimately have a catastrophic impact on the environment- make earth uninhabitable for humans, and it is NOT true, in whichcase reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not prevent this catastrophe.
3-You may believe that current global warming is a NOT the result of man and will ultimately have a catastrophic impact on the environment- make earth uninhabitable for humans, and it is NOT true, in which case reducing greenhouse gas emissions is unnecessary as there is not catastophe to be prevented.
4-You may believe that current global warming is NOT the result of man and will ultimately have a catastrophic impact on the environment- make earth uninhabitable for humans, and it IS true, in which case reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not prevent this catastrophe and the earth will become uninhabitable.
A major difference between Pascal and the Toasty Earth wagers is outcome 2.
You may believe that current global warming is a result of man and will ultimately have a catastrophic impact on the environment- make earth uninhabitable for humans, and it is NOT true, in which case reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not prevent this catastrophe.
The steps proposed by the Kyoto Protocol and other scientists to reduce or prevent global warming will have an enormous negative impact on every industrial country in the world and would affect the majority of the population economically (higher costs for production, reduced production, etc).
Also there are two key assumptions being made in the TE wager which make it more complex than Pascal's:
1- Global warming will continue to occur until earth is uninhabitable.
2- Mankind can actually impact the global climate to such a degree as to CAUSE OR PREVENT global warming
Where is the compelling data for number 1? What if global warming reaches a critical level that is far below the dire estimates bandied about - say it levels off after a three or five degree overall increase? Is that actually a BAD thing for the entire world? [joke tag]Obviously it sucks if your primary residence is an atoll, but Greenland might become a new vacation spot.[/joke]
And what about 2? Say we're wrong about man's contribution to global warming and it continues despite our efforts to reduce industrialization, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. Wouldn't all those misallocated resources we've spent to prevent global warming have been better used somewhere else? Like finding the true cause?
This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 17:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-24-2005 1:53 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 02-26-2005 6:05 PM custard has not replied
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 02-27-2005 3:15 AM custard has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 77 (188769)
02-26-2005 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by custard
02-26-2005 5:23 PM


Re: The "Toasty Earth" wager revisited
First, we have no control yet over forces of the magnitude of Natural Processes. If Global warming is solely a Natural Process then anything we are capable of doing is simply too little. That sems to imply that any discussion related to Natural Process is useless and unproductive.
We do have the capability to reduce man made effects that might lead to Global Warming.
Looking at data of climate change, primarily those from ice cores seems to show that the last 10,000 years or so have been abnormal. During that period (which happens to coincide with one of the more remarkable events in history, the appearance of modern man and civilization), the temperature has remained unusually stable. Before that the norm seemed to be rapid changes between hot and cold, dry and wet with very rapid onset of the change, often a period of decades.
Rapid cycling systems are usually characterized by being fairly balanced systems where small changes trigger far greater results. If the weather pattern as seen in the data from ice cores is indicative, one of the reasons that mankind existed for so long before developing agriculture and civilization could well be that the weather simply varied too much to make such progress possible.
We have never been able to adequately explain why humans exited in pretty much a modern form for hundreds of thousands of years, yet in the short span of only 10,000 years went from hunter gathers to space explorers. I would hazard a guess that weather played a big part.
Above everything else, a return to the weather pattern as shown in the records would mean that agriculture would become nearly impossible. When it is impossible to predict conditions or locations for growing foodstuff fairly precisely, then the whole system we've built will collapse.
We cannot do anything about the Natural Processes. If that is what is driving things then we need to be making other plans to deal with those results.
We can do something about man made causes. Since that is the only part we can address, then we should do so.
In either case, our political leaders are failing miserably, almost criminally.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by custard, posted 02-26-2005 5:23 PM custard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 02-27-2005 6:32 PM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 77 (188850)
02-27-2005 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by custard
02-26-2005 5:23 PM


Re: The "Toasty Earth" wager revisited
The steps proposed by the Kyoto Protocol and other scientists to reduce or prevent global warming will have an enormous negative impact on every industrial country in the world and would affect the majority of the population economically (higher costs for production, reduced production, etc).
This is hardly undisputed.
Say we're wrong about man's contribution to global warming and it continues despite our efforts to reduce industrialization, greenhouse gas emissions, etc. Wouldn't all those misallocated resources we've spent to prevent global warming have been better used somewhere else? Like finding the true cause?
Say we're wrong that cancer can be treated medically. Wouldn't all those misallocated funds for hospitals be better spent finding the true cause? We'd better stop training doctors right away.
It's fine that you've stopped replying to me. But the least you could do would be to refrain from employing arguments that I've already demolished. Scientific tenativity provides you no place to hide from the legitimacy of the global warming models; it provides you no toehold for an argument from incredulity. If you're going to argue like a creationist, it's better to argue creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by custard, posted 02-26-2005 5:23 PM custard has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 77 (188996)
02-27-2005 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
02-26-2005 6:05 PM


Some simple facts
First, we have no control yet over forces of the magnitude of Natural Processes. If Global warming is solely a Natural Process then anything we are capable of doing is simply too little. That sems to imply that any discussion related to Natural Process is useless and unproductive.
This is simply wrong.
There are some things we know even if there is much we don't know.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is, higher levels of it trap more heat.
2) We are adding to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
From the above to we know we are warming the earth. Now the question is "How much?". Then the next question is "So what?"
Is anyone disagreeing with the idea that we are responsible for almost all (or all) of the increase in CO2 levels over the last century and a half? If so we need to see why someone would disagree.
Then we can move to what the effects of that might be and if we should worry about them or not.
Here is one statement that I would make:
If we add enough CO2 to the atmosphere then we will eventually flood almost all of Florida.
Now how much is "enough" and when is "eventually"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 02-26-2005 6:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 02-27-2005 6:47 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 32 by custard, posted 02-27-2005 7:17 PM NosyNed has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024