Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 113 (243064)
09-13-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
09-13-2005 3:42 PM


Re: My view of global warming
But why are all or most impacts viewed as some objective "wrong"?
Well, generally, a lot of these impacts are going to be negative to humans. If there's no appeal to objective eco-morality that you'll accept - which is fine with me, because I wasn't about to advance one - then perhaps selfish human interest is sufficient?
Many human-caused climate effects are going to have long-term, negative consequences for humans. To my mind that's what makes them "wrong." I don't think that humans should refrain from any impact whatsoever; we do have to live on this planet and should the global climate naturally change in ways that are not beneficial to us I think it's entirely appropriate for us to attempt to counteract that change. Similarly, I wouldn't really give a damn about anthropogenic climate change except for the fact that the long-term consequences for humans, our food sources, and the ecologies they rely on are not likely to be positive.
If we do not have a clear picture as to how our earth functions, and so what effects we are having, does it make sense to say we MUST make changes and especially that we must do so NOW?
I think the picture is clear enough, quite frankly. Anthropogenic climate change is pretty well-supported; so much so that the burden of evidence is now on those who deny anthropogenic climate change, and I have yet to see any of those people put forth any reasonable conjecture. We know what the climate is doing and we know what's causing it; that our knowledge is imperfect is not an excuse for inaction.
If someone came up to you and said global warming is going to create a new ice age, wouldn't that seem just a little bit problematic?
No more problematic then when I notice that plugging in my refrigerator heats up the kitchen. Global warming doesn't mean, of course, that every point on Earth gets hotter. It means that there's more heat energy in the atmosphere. The more energy, the greater freedom the atmosphere has to explore different energy states.
Good thread, Holmes. Great posts from you so far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 3:42 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 6:20 AM crashfrog has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 17 of 113 (243090)
09-13-2005 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Silent H
09-13-2005 3:42 PM


Re: My view of global warming
People seem to have gotten into the habit of, and perhaps desire to, view everything human civilization does as bad, and nature on its own as somehow beneficial.
If you think that is what I am saying, then you have misunderstood me.
One should note straight off the bat that there have been mass extinctions throughout earth's history, big and small, well before man ever got here. The earth is not necessarily a safe place even when left to its own devices.
Sure. I laugh at the antics PETA too. And if crab grass should go extinct, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over that. But I do think we should be concerned at the possibility that the next round of mass extinctions will include home sapiens among its victims.
But why are all or most impacts viewed as some objective "wrong"? Change has been the history of the planet, and there is no logical imperative that change due to man is inherently "unnatural" or "incorrect".
I don't think I have used the terms "wrong" or "incorrect" here. The fact is, that nature is a complex system of delicate balances. If we push too hard, we risk some major systems going out of balance. And the results could turn out to be disadvantageous to our own species.
f we do not have a clear picture as to how our earth functions, and so what effects we are having, does it make sense to say we MUST make changes and especially that we must do so NOW? How can we start to change what we are doing now, if we don't actually know what changes need to be made?
That's like saying that we shouldn't have done anything about hurricane Katrina because we didn't know exactly how it would work out.
The fact is, that we do see troubling changes. Global warming is one of them. The decline of fisheries is another.
I started with some of the basic feelings you seem to have, and indeed would prefer as little impact from humans as possible. But I have been impacted by the lack of evidence for any specific problems, or that humans are culpable for some specific problems, not to mention any good theoretical solutions, and so my initial position has been shaken.
We are talking about stable systems going out of balance. It is very difficult to predict the consequences. We might have to wait until it happens before we can have a clear idea as to what those consequences will be. By the time we can document specific problems, it may be far too late to do anything, except perhaps distribute cyanide pills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 3:42 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 6:47 AM nwr has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 18 of 113 (243240)
09-14-2005 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
09-11-2005 2:13 PM


I recently read the book as well. What I found most interesting about it was Crichton's rant at the end against the way the peer review system works and how it influences the entire discussion of GW. It in effect maintains the status quo since your peers have an interest in maintaining that status quo. People like myself in molecular biology have been making the same complaints for years.
The point with GW that did not come up is that those who study historical climate change i.e. end Pleistocene and earlier show even more dramatic swings in temperature than what we see today..and there was no industry. GW is worthy of intense investigation...but not if the entire field assumes its conclusion....that is what creationists do.
I would have preferred that Kyoto had focused more on toxins released by industry or the effects of runoff from agriculture on the environment. Those are much easier to establish cause and effect and also easier to remedy in the short term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2005 2:13 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 6:26 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 19 of 113 (243246)
09-14-2005 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
09-13-2005 5:13 PM


It's likely that the term Global Warming is as bad a moniker as Big Bang. The condition that is more likely is a return to what appears to be normal which a violent shifts between climate stages with short periods and great variability.
Well this is where we are being realistic, right? Take a look at actual statements by proponents of GW, and the original models (some still clung to) espoused.
Remember Venus is one of prime examples used. It was practically the genesis of modern GW theory and often our explorations there are now extolled as being the way we first understood the possibilities of GW.
Crichton also addressed the shift now taking place in environmental circles. It started with "ICE AGE! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!" to "GLOBAL WARMING! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!" to more recently "DRAMATIC (or ABRUPT) CLIMATE CHANGE! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!"
If it GW isn't really the issue any more then let's be honest and chuck it and say it is the possibility of more shifting and variability. Is that good or bad? Let's work on the science.
Global warming melts the Arctic Ice. It's possible the extra fresh water melt could turn off the Gulf Stream, block warming, moderating effect. The result could well be Ice Ages, sheets of Ice covering much of Northern Europe that would be frozen today were it not for the Gulf Stream.
Okay here's the problem. Cold water sinks while warm water stays on top. It is true that salinity has its say, but there is no definitive concept that fresh water will not mix and so stay around to block incoming gulf currents.
Added to this is the fact that winds help drive those currents. It is not simply sinking cold water somewhere, popping up warm somewhere else. The sun heats the air and the water and the effects of earth's rotation drive the results winds in a specific direction which drives the currents in a specific direction.
That creates both the upwelling and the sinking cycles, as well as the gulf stream.
Furthermore, if Ice is growing (that would be an ice age) that suggests a shift in where the ice is, but not necessarily a difference in total ice like a typical ice age.
I am of course open to more evidence on this point.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 5:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 09-14-2005 9:33 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 110 by bkelly, posted 10-12-2005 6:03 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 113 (243248)
09-14-2005 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
09-13-2005 5:41 PM


Re: My view of global warming
Many human-caused climate effects are going to have long-term, negative consequences for humans. To my mind that's what makes them "wrong." I don't think that humans should refrain from any impact whatsoever; we do have to live on this planet and should the global climate naturally change in ways that are not beneficial to us I think it's entirely appropriate for us to attempt to counteract that change.
Agreed in part. I don't think its useful or accurate to say many "are" going to have longterm negative effects. That is to set into motion a bias which will effect research.
What is more useful, and I think you'd agree with this alteration is that everything humans do has the "potential" to have both short and longterm negative consequences for humans. Thus it is important for us to be able to accurately model what impacts we may have, and minimize the negatives.
I think the picture is clear enough, quite frankly. Anthropogenic climate change is pretty well-supported; so much so that the burden of evidence is now on those who deny anthropogenic climate change, and I have yet to see any of those people put forth any reasonable conjecture. We know what the climate is doing and we know what's causing it
The point Crichton makes, and I am raising here, is that the picture is not clear. It is not well supported at all. At least it sure wasn't when I was specifically learning climate research under a paleoclimatologist who was also baffled at the strong statements being made.
If it is clear and well supported, then it shouldn't be hard to show that support. I am not blaming you for feeling the way you do because I know the messages are everywhere. But ask yourself if you actually reached your conclusion by looking at actual studies which stated they had reached any realistic models?
Now perhaps the state of knowledge has changed since I was working in that area. I totally grant that possibility. But I have not seen anything definitive, and Crichton had some interesting counters.
We can already see much of the original GW concept shifting to drastic change in weather, because much of the original model doesn't seem to be panning out. More than likely because we are discovering that the atmosphere is much more complex and so simple concepts like GW are not accurate.
Global warming doesn't mean, of course, that every point on Earth gets hotter.
Not all at once, but the effect is inconsistent with vast new ice ages. Venus was the projected model.
Good thread, Holmes. Great posts from you so far.
Thanks, and don't take my replies to harshly. In a way I am playing devil's advocate here. I am basically and environmental friendly guy. Its just that I went into that field and went through orgs focused on environmental issues, and came away pretty stunned.
If there is evidence I want to see it brought out and I will be a bit harsher having been "bitten" the first time around. But that is of course a reaction to my own feelings of gullibility.
Not sure if you like Crichton, but it might be an interesting read for you. Definitely could get some of the juices flowing.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2005 5:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 7:43 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 21 of 113 (243249)
09-14-2005 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mammuthus
09-14-2005 5:32 AM


I agree with everything you said (especially the last two paragraphs).
In a way I am trying to advance Crichton's challenge to GW in this thread, and perhaps take on the character (or spirit) of his antiGW guys. I think it is a way of challenging scientific method itself, or rather sloppy methodology, using a specific context.
It is essentially the same thing I tried to generate with my Rind Study, but without the sex stuff which seemed to get in the way.
I'm assuming you have more up to date paleo and modern climate info than I do since you are still in the field. Were C's refs pretty accurate, or did you spot some errors?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mammuthus, posted 09-14-2005 5:32 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Mammuthus, posted 09-14-2005 8:02 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 113 (243251)
09-14-2005 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by nwr
09-13-2005 7:16 PM


Re: My view of global warming
If you think that is what I am saying, then you have misunderstood me.
I wasn't trying to say that is what you were saying, but I have to admit some of your comments seemed aligned with such notions.
There was a negativity and immediacy which felt less evidence supported than emotionally supported.
The fact is, that nature is a complex system of delicate balances. If we push too hard, we risk some major systems going out of balance. And the results could turn out to be disadvantageous to our own species.
Nature certainly is a complex system, and within it are many balances. Some are more delicate than others. And one thing I was trying to point out is that some parts of our system are not balanced at all. To call our climate "balanced" sounds almost wholly contradictory to my understanding of the evidence.
I think humans should be cautious in making big environmental changes. But I also think it is important to not assume everything we do is a big environmental change.
GW or climate change due to rising levels of industrial gases is a Possibility. But I have yet to see solid evidence that it is a Reality, much less that it will have longterm consequences of the magnitude being discussed. Extinction? I just don't know.
That's like saying that we shouldn't have done anything about hurricane Katrina because we didn't know exactly how it would work out.
No, that is a wildly inaccurate assessment. We know what hurricanes are. We know what they can do. And we have known for a very long time what flooding issues we had in the LA region, specifically in conjunction with hurricanes of great magnitude.
We can model hurricane effects and make predictions on the scales we were facing. GW is simply not in that same category.
The fact is, that we do see troubling changes. Global warming is one of them. The decline of fisheries is another.
No offense, but this sounds like pat mantras, and not evidence. Trust me, I am on your side with wanting to protect things. I'd even like to see the reduction in emissions for many other reasons.
But I cannot accept simply stated changes as signs of apocalyptic changes, or even "troubling" changes, without reason.
We are talking about stable systems going out of balance. It is very difficult to predict the consequences. We might have to wait until it happens before we can have a clear idea as to what those consequences will be. By the time we can document specific problems, it may be far too late to do anything, except perhaps distribute cyanide pills.
This is patent hysteria. Even the most atrocious models of GW effects are unlikely to see anyone taking CN pills in your lifetime or the next generation.
Climate has never been in balance, or at the very least I'd like you to present me with any evidence it has been in balance. As far as I have seen its been chaotic and changeable throughout history. Hell, we've been through three major atmospheres!
To live life with the rule that one must not do until we can be sure no effects will be had, because waiting for signs means it may already be too late, is a recipe for needless inaction and antiscience. If we are going to be this excited we might as well hand out the pills right now.
A more realistic approach is to be interested in the possibility and improve our scientific knowledge as well as model making abilities.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nwr, posted 09-13-2005 7:16 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nwr, posted 09-14-2005 11:46 AM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 23 of 113 (243253)
09-14-2005 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
09-14-2005 6:20 AM


Re: My view of global warming
But I have not seen anything definitive, and Crichton had some interesting counters.
Crichton is a novelist. Not trying to be elitist here but none of his work underwent peer review, and I've heard some pretty strong rebuttals to the so-called "science" of his novel.
Now, I've never read it. But the reviews I have read have not been positive, so I doubt I will. (I used to be a big Crichton fan but when I sat down with "Timeline" I was like "how did I used to like this guy? He sucks.") Most damning to me is the criticism that, while his novel functions as a sort of socratic dialogue with global warming's proponents, Crichton stacks the deck - his protagonist never seems to argue with anybody with any real data:
quote:
Crichton's central smart guy is Richard John Kenner, a scientist who heads the fictional MIT Center for Risk Analysis while doubling as a secret agent who likes to bring lawyers and hot babes along on his adventures. Kenner seems a composite of Richard Lindzen, the famed MIT prof and global warming "skeptic," John Graham, who headed the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis before joining the Bush administration (see here for a previous column about what Graham has been up to), and Vin Diesel...
...Kenner excels at getting equally fictitious lawyers and Hollywood celebrities to see the error of their ways. But for some reason, Crichton never has his mouthpiece argue against another scientist who reads the evidence on climate change differently and can cite literature to back his or her view as well. In our world--the real world--you can find a small army of these. I have interviewed many of them, heard others lecture, and met still more at conferences. In Crichton's universe, however, they seem not to exist.
If it is clear and well supported, then it shouldn't be hard to show that support.
Everything I know about global climate change comes from the wiki article "global warming:"
Climate change - Wikipedia
I'm not saying that the wiki is gospel. If you see inaccuracies perhaps you'd be kind enough to edit the article, or suggest edits. In all honesty I'm not familiar enough with the field to know what the relevant works are. What I know is that, like evolution, anthropogenic climate change is the position of the mainstream scientific community, even if they hold their own, usual, internal debates about the extent of the climate change, or the degree to which human industrialization is responsible. But the idea that there is no trend of global warming beyond the usual annual temperature variation, or that its coincidence with human industrial activity is simply chance, gathers almost as little support among the scientific community as creationism does.
More than likely because we are discovering that the atmosphere is much more complex and so simple concepts like GW are not accurate.
I don't think that global warming has ever been a simple concept. If you ever held the idea that global warming simply meant that it was going to get hotter everywhere, then I believe you held that position in error.
Not all at once, but the effect is inconsistent with vast new ice ages.
I disagree. I find it highly consistent, or at least not inconsistent. Anthropogenic climate change doesn't mean that the warming trend persist forever. The warming trend itself has consequences, which may include stimulating a period of global cooling. For instance the rise in the temperature of the atmosphere allows it to contain more moisture; more moisture means more cloud albedo and thus less solar energy at the Earth's surface.
The question is then, is the new cooling trend limited by the same feedback effect? If it cools too fast, probably not. An expansion of glaciers and record snowfalls increase surface albedo, which prevents warming. Because of its reflectivity, a snowball Earth doesn't heat very quickly.
Those are just my speculations, of course. I'm even less a climatologist than I am a biologist. But I see nothing inconsistent about the idea that global warming could trigger some kind of massive cool period, any more than I find it inconsistent that my refrigerator makes my kitchen hotter, or that Harrison Ford can build an icemaker powered by heat in "The Mosquito Coast".
Not sure if you like Crichton, but it might be an interesting read for you. Definitely could get some of the juices flowing.
Well, I really can't stand his writing style. Drives me up the wall. The guy writes about as poorly as Clive Cussler, in my opinion.
And the thing is - it's just a novel. Just because he pads the end with a bunch of footnotes doesn't mean that he's presented the whole story, or even a balanced look. It doesn't mean that he's done his research and presented all the relevant info instead of just cherry-picking from the avaliable data.
I appreciate the work you've done in this thread but I think you're going to regret making his novel the centerpiece, rather than his data. It's fine, of course, to use it as a springboard, but I think it's a mistake to wield his novel like any sort of authority, especially since it's been roundly criticised by the scientific community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 6:20 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 9:06 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 38 by gene90, posted 09-15-2005 10:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 24 of 113 (243257)
09-14-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Silent H
09-14-2005 6:26 AM


quote:
In a way I am trying to advance Crichton's challenge to GW in this thread, and perhaps take on the character (or spirit) of his antiGW guys. I think it is a way of challenging scientific method itself, or rather sloppy methodology, using a specific context.
I don't know that he challenges scientific methodology. His characters (and his comments in the end of the book) implore people to use the scientific method i.e. he claims that the science has become politics, not that the scientific method is inadequate.
quote:
I'm assuming you have more up to date paleo and modern climate info than I do since you are still in the field. Were C's refs pretty accurate, or did you spot some errors?
Actually, I do pure genetics work. My colleagues do some work on these issues as they pertain to the end Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions. But I mostly just grunt and nod when they go into detail...sort of what they do when I try to explain nucleotide diversity estimates in extinct muskox populations to them.
I have to agree with crashfrog on Crichtons writing. While I enjoyed the book, I was heavily biased by the end where he slams the state of the peer review system. But the story itself and the character development was really really lame. Kenner's monologues were entertaining but the rest of the cast had as much substance as extras on the A-Team...though his books are great for learning foreign languages....I read part of Jurassic Park in German..(only part because I knew what happens and got bored half way through).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 6:26 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 9:12 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 113 (243268)
09-14-2005 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
09-14-2005 7:43 AM


Re: My view of global warming
Crichton is a novelist. Not trying to be elitist here but none of his work underwent peer review, and I've heard some pretty strong rebuttals to the so-called "science" of his novel.
I'm not trying to claim this was a fantastic book, or one of his best. Nor was I trying to champion that he was anything other than a novelist. I am well aware that he is into speculative fiction, which is fiction.
His book Timeline was extremely speculative to the point of absurdity, and Prey was not a whole lot better.
I happen to like his writing in any case, but then again there is no accounting for taste.
The interesting part, and this is what makes State of Fear different than his other novels, is that he actually has real data within the book. He quotes actual science literature (and I do mean he gives complete citations), and the last 41 pages are nonfiction. Some of it is an explanation of what his personal views are, followed by 28 pages of reference material (an actual bibliography).
I was not at all refering to the fictional portions, I was talking about the nonfiction data and analyses. I might also note that he cites some of the research which is for GW, and mentions some of those with contrarian data are supportive of GW theory.
Crichton stacks the deck - his protagonist never seems to argue with anybody with any real data:
And so here I sit waiting for some real data from somebody. I was in the field at one time and saw nothing. Since then I have seen nothing (but admittedly have not been watching closely). Then I saw a novel filled with purely nonfictional real life science data which supported what I had been seeing in the past, and so I am raising the question.
The fact is he DID support his position with real data, it is inconclusive (as the last person who cited NOAA's own info proved) to potentially contrary.
Crichton never has his mouthpiece argue against another scientist who reads the evidence on climate change differently and can cite literature to back his or her view as well. In our world--the real world--you can find a small army of these. I have interviewed many of them, heard others lecture, and met still more at conferences. In Crichton's universe, however, they seem not to exist.
That's an interesting stance for a critic to take, as it appears the person failed to read the last 41 pages which dealt with data. It is true that in this book Kenner does not confront any scientist with an opposing view. The gist of the book was that science was allowing public political movements to shape science and message coming out of science... thus he was dealing with environmental activists who were supposed to be like most people, well meaning but not actually scientists.
And what the critic also failed to mention is that while he did not run into these small armies that the critic talks to, the character was using actual assessments from real scientists... it appears the small army of scientists the critic does not speak to.
I'm not saying that the wiki is gospel. If you see inaccuracies perhaps you'd be kind enough to edit the article, or suggest edits.
I will take a look, but I was actually hoping for responses from people within the science community to produce real evidence. I don't hold it against you that you are not in that field, and must rely on what the primary message appears to be. What I am hoping to generate is some skepticism or real evidence.
internal debates about the extent of the climate change, or the degree to which human industrialization is responsible.
Unfortunately this is critical when we move to discuss GW as an environmental concern, as well as ways to affect it. This is quite unlike evolution in that we are trying to manufacture change in response to a theoretical process. Without understanding the above, environmentalist efforts are almost directly analogous to those who hear about evolution and suggest eugenics is the only hope for mankind.
But the idea that there is no trend of global warming beyond the usual annual temperature variation, or that its coincidence with human industrial activity is simply chance, gathers almost as little support among the scientific community as creationism does.
This is simply false. You have already seen at least two others here, one involved with paleoclimatologists who said there is no sense of any trend beyond the usual temp variation. If anything we seem to have been within a period of uncommon stability.
Unless I see a mechanism I am loathe to suggest that greenhouse gases are to blame for anything. That is not like creationism nor treated like creationism among scientists in that field. That is asking for evidence for a mechanism's existence.
You just saw in cplmini's post that NOAA (a rather definitive agency on climate data for the US) does not support the above stance. It clearly discusses the dearth of info we have on climate, much less the connection between manmade gases and climate change.
I will read the wiki entry.
If you ever held the idea that global warming simply meant that it was going to get hotter everywhere, then I believe you held that position in error.
I will ask that you please not talk down to me on this one. I could be in error, but it is quite unlikely. GW is a specific theory. It is (simply enough put) that greenhouse gases, will create an envelope or seal which traps energy within the environment. Its described mechanism was very simple and analogous to what we see on Venus.
The problem was that it was so simple, gases will stay and trap. Hence "greenhouse". Now it is recognized that it won't or can't be so simple, and as Jar has already noted perhaps the terms GW and I will now add "greenhouse" are not so accurate.
It is true that the theory started simple but the attempt to find mechanisms has produced complications so the model becomes more complex. My slam is on retaining the simple idea then. Why keep it? Why discuss it at all as a real thing?
Anthropogenic climate change doesn't mean that the warming trend persist forever. The warming trend itself has consequences, which may include stimulating a period of global cooling.
I agree, that is why GW is not the correct term or model is it? Note that my thread title includes "a little of both". What we are discussing then is simply the possibility of manmade sources of climate change. And rising temps or lowering temps are all part of this mix, and neither actually a sign of anything in specific until we have a model which takes into account the past and can make some valid predictions.
But I see nothing inconsistent about the idea that global warming could trigger some kind of massive cool period, any more than I find it inconsistent that my refrigerator makes my kitchen hotter, or that Harrison Ford can build an icemaker powered by heat in "The Mosquito Coast".
There are changes which we should and should not expect to see. While temporary localized changes could produce some cooling, the trap effect would mean there is a limit to this and so negate full "ice ages" as we commonly refer to them.
Ford's fridge is a great analogy. The ice produced had to be very localized. Now imagine that same fridge within an oven of ever increasing temp. Less and less ice or at least within shrinking borders could be produced/maintained.
Well, I really can't stand his writing style. Drives me up the wall. The guy writes about as poorly as Clive Cussler, in my opinion
By all means then, do not read it. I really like his writing, even when its not his best. Taste is completely subjective and I don't think less of anyone for not liking him.
Just because he pads the end with a bunch of footnotes doesn't mean that he's presented the whole story, or even a balanced look. It doesn't mean that he's done his research and presented all the relevant info instead of just cherry-picking from the avaliable data.
This is a valid point and part of why I started this thread. From my own look at the real data years ago, it was the GW theorists that were cherry picking. And I have yet to see anything beyond cherry picking. Thus it roused my interest in challenging my own ideas, which had already been shaken earlier.
I've gone from Ice Age believer, to GW believer, to (after finally looking at evidence) a GW doubter, then stayed in stasis. This book reminded me of that journey, and held what I thought was a valid assessment of the sloppiness of modern science, the fadism which has crept back into it, and I really want to expose some of that while trying to get back up to speed.
but I think you're going to regret making his novel the centerpiece, rather than his data. It's fine, of course, to use it as a springboard, but I think it's a mistake to wield his novel like any sort of authority, especially since it's been roundly criticised by the scientific community.
I only mean it as a springboard. I do not hold it as an authority. I mean I didn't mean to. If it came off that way then I have made an error in writing about it.
I was trying to generate some factual responses on the state of knowledge regarding climate. I figured some of his points (which I don't think I've even mentioned) could fall flat, while others would be supported.
In any case it would benefit all by looking at some real data and questioning how we come to conclusions in science, especially those that deal with hot button items which many assume to be true regardless of the state of data.
I was not aware that the data in Crichton's book had been roundly criticized by the scientific community. I'd be interested in knowing where to find some of that. It seems a little strange since he supplied info to writings that are both for and against it. Anyone who states he only supplied within the nonfiction section, refs for antiGW is simply making things up.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 7:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 6:35 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 113 (243271)
09-14-2005 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Mammuthus
09-14-2005 8:02 AM


I don't know that he challenges scientific methodology. His characters (and his comments in the end of the book) implore people to use the scientific method i.e. he claims that the science has become politics, not that the scientific method is inadequate
Agreed, I meant to say the "state" of scientific method, which he seems to feel has been getting shoved aside for rhetoric. That's why I added "sloppy methodology" to try and get a more accurate meaning to what I wanted to express.
Yeah, I'd say he pretty well defended the scientific method. In fact if I remember right he included a little boost for it somewhere.
But the story itself and the character development was really really lame. Kenner's monologues were entertaining but the rest of the cast had as much substance as extras on the A-Team...
Snif snif. I really like Crichton's writing. But yeah it has formula, and some books are not so hot. I agree that some of the characters here were so paper thin as to be nearly transparent. In fact his actor characters might as well have come from Team America!

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Mammuthus, posted 09-14-2005 8:02 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 27 of 113 (243276)
09-14-2005 9:19 AM


Regrouping...
Okay everyone, taking Crash's advice, let me remove Crichton's book as a source of topic material. It really was supposed to set the stage for the discussion.
That said. Let me say that so far I am disappointed. If I came on asking for evidence that evolution was a good scientific model my guess is I'd have gotten a lot more than one post with unencouraging statements from one science org, and one link to Wiki.
Perhaps to stir the pot, let me be so bold as to suggest this has so far looked much like a creationist position. I have seen many exhortations that it must be and that people do bad things which will destroy us if we don't trust in that paradigm and so alter our behavior, but the actual facts are not quite so forthcoming... and I did lay out some specific points.
In fact one poster has actually invoked the precautionary principle which is essentially a scientific sounding version of Pascal's wager.
Heheheh... okay people come on and hit me with facts.
(meanwhile I'll take a look at wiki for myself)

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 09-14-2005 2:32 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2005 6:43 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 28 of 113 (243281)
09-14-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Silent H
09-14-2005 6:02 AM


Holmes, I get the feeling you've moved into one of your strident phases. If so, fine but just tell us so we can ignore you.
Well this is where we are being realistic, right? Take a look at actual statements by proponents of GW, and the original models (some still clung to) espoused.
What does that have to do with anything I said?
Remember Venus is one of prime examples used. It was practically the genesis of modern GW theory and often our explorations there are now extolled as being the way we first understood the possibilities of GW.
Please point to where I brought Venus up.
Crichton also addressed the shift now taking place in environmental circles. It started with "ICE AGE! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!" to "GLOBAL WARMING! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!" to more recently "DRAMATIC (or ABRUPT) CLIMATE CHANGE! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!"
Please point to where I said PEOPLE BAD!
If it GW isn't really the issue any more then let's be honest and chuck it and say it is the possibility of more shifting and variability. Is that good or bad? Let's work on the science.
Let's work to minimize the harmful effects.
Furthermore, if Ice is growing (that would be an ice age) that suggests a shift in where the ice is, but not necessarily a difference in total ice like a typical ice age.
Again, I have the feeling that you just plain missed the point. If ice covers where you are it's an Ice Age.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 6:02 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 10:04 AM jar has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 29 of 113 (243291)
09-14-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
09-14-2005 9:33 AM


Holmes, I get the feeling you've moved into one of your strident phases. If so, fine but just tell us so we can ignore you.
No, this is the beginning of miscommunication. Lets try to end that quickly. For the most part I agree with your position...
What does that have to do with anything I said?
I started by saying this is where we are being realistic. Maybe I should have capitalized the WE, so that you understood I was suggesting that you and I agree and was talking about us.
I then went on to say (guess I should have made a paragraph break) Take a look at actual statements by proponents of GW. Thus I was trying to suggest that while we may agree on what concerns there might be regarding the climate, other people who are proponents of GW have other things to say.
The point is that you cannot defend the entire GW movement, using your own position as it is not the entirety of the movement.
The rest flows from that initial misunderstanding. You did not mention venus, but that was an initial model for GW theory by its proponents. You did not say people were bad, but some environmentalists on the GW bandwagon do. I am curious how you made that last error when I specifically mentioned environmental circles.
Let's work to minimize the harmful effects.
I agree. The point is which harmful effects? I'd rather throw effort into solving actual problems than any problem someone comes up with.
Bush created a similar argument for the invasion of Iraq with the suggestion that if we wait for evidence it might come in the form of a mushroom cloud. That attitude toward problems and problem solving was shown to be errant.
Okay there is a possibility that industrial emissions can cause climatic effects. Fine. So lets find ought what they could be. Is there good evidence for change related to that already, models for future impact, and ways to deal with those effects?
I don't see my request as being hyperbolic or extreme in nature.
Again, I have the feeling that you just plain missed the point. If ice covers where you are it's an Ice Age.
The idea that ice = ice age is patently absurd. Ice will almost always exist someplace. Does that mean we are always in an ice age? Or are you saying that Ice Ages are always relative concepts specific to each location on earth?
From my own education, Ice Ages were more than the fact that ice covered singular areas. Here is an entry on Ice Ages at Wiki. Here is an excerpt...
An ice age is a period of long-term downturn in the temperature of Earth's climate, resulting in an expansion of the continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers ("glaciation"). Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist). More colloquially, when speaking of the last few million years, ice age is used to refer to colder periods with extensive ice sheets over the North American and European continents: in this sense, the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. This article will use the term ice age in the former, glaciological, sense; and use the term 'glacial periods' for colder periods during ice ages and 'interglacial' for the warmer periods.
I spot three different defs for ice age and none of them would be consistent with any model of GW I have ever seen, nor how you appear to have just used the term. If I am wrong, please let me know why.
You let me know when you hit your strident phase. The fact that you used "us" and "we" earlier makes me wonder. Hopefully clearing up the miscommunication helped.
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-14-2005 10:07 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 09-14-2005 9:33 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by gene90, posted 09-14-2005 1:57 PM Silent H has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 30 of 113 (243313)
09-14-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
09-14-2005 6:47 AM


Re: My view of global warming
And one thing I was trying to point out is that some parts of our system are not balanced at all.
One part that is not balanced is the human population. It is still growing without control.
To call our climate "balanced" sounds almost wholly contradictory to my understanding of the evidence.
I don't think I called our climate balanced.
I think humans should be cautious in making big environmental changes. But I also think it is important to not assume everything we do is a big environmental change.
Sure, I agree with that.
That's like saying that we shouldn't have done anything about hurricane Katrina because we didn't know exactly how it would work out.
No, that is a wildly inaccurate assessment. We know what hurricanes are. We know what they can do. And we have known for a very long time what flooding issues we had in the LA region, specifically in conjunction with hurricanes of great magnitude.
I wasn't intending that as a comment on the bungling by FEMA. Rather, it was a comment that, in order to protect New Orleans, the construction of better levees and flood walls should have begun 30 years ago.
The fact is, that we do see troubling changes. Global warming is one of them. The decline of fisheries is another.
No offense, but this sounds like pat mantras, and not evidence. Trust me, I am on your side with wanting to protect things. I'd even like to see the reduction in emissions for many other reasons.
You are misreading me. I am not saying that we should panic. I am saying that we see changes that should give us concern.
But I cannot accept simply stated changes as signs of apocalyptic changes, or even "troubling" changes, without reason.
I did not say that these were signs of apocalyptic changes. I regret that you don't find them troubling. The fisheries have been part of our food supply, and for some nations they are an important part of the food supply. What is happening in the fisheries should be of considerable concern.
We are talking about stable systems going out of balance. It is very difficult to predict the consequences. We might have to wait until it happens before we can have a clear idea as to what those consequences will be. By the time we can document specific problems, it may be far too late to do anything, except perhaps distribute cyanide pills.
This is patent hysteria. Even the most atrocious models of GW effects are unlikely to see anyone taking CN pills in your lifetime or the next generation.
You are being irrational on this. There was no hysteria on my part. My comment on cyanide pills was obviously being used as a rhetorical device. That you took it otherwise is a reflection on your own state of mind.
A more realistic approach is to be interested in the possibility and improve our scientific knowledge as well as model making abilities.
And one presumes that the more realistic approach, 30 years ago, was to not start building better levees and flood walls, but to investigate the likelihood of cat 4 and cat 5 hurricanes threatening New Orleans.
I'm not one of the crazy people who says we should rush out and change everything overnight. What I am saying, is that we must make a start. We should be doing far more than we are in the way of research into renewable energy sources.
If I had been emperor (or whatever), then several years ago I would have imposed a 25c per gallon tax on oil products. And the tax would go up by 25c per year. The income from the tax would be used to reduce the payroll tax (social security tax), to minimize the effects of the gasoline price impact on the poorer workers. The purpose of this would have been to create a clear system of incentives that would encourage private industries to do research into renewable energy.
I am not emperor (and wouldn't want to be). But I really do think we would have been better off if some such plan had been followed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 09-14-2005 6:47 AM Silent H 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