Global Warming tough to prove.

[storm1977 0]

I will let the article speak for itself. I read many articles on the subject weekly, mainly because it is my job and I find it interesting. But any way.... Just another article discussing arctic shelf Ice.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/antarcticaiceshv.htm

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[nacmacfeegle 0]

At long last, a decent reference! You're getting the hang of this.
One might counter with
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Global+warming

Just for the sake of discussion, you understand......

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[turtlespeed 226]

Are you quoting any one particular site -or just taking pieces of many to support your beliefs?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Och Storm has asserted in a number of posts that global warming is nothing to do with us, you, or I.

Repeatedly, us tree huggers have asked him to substantiate his views, this is the first time he has come up with anything substantial.
Just having a little fun, no malice, not even to Storm.

Of course its difficult to prove, but its equally difficult to disprove. The majority of informed opinion I have seen says global warming is real, its present, and we MAY be compounding it.

Fuck me, Tony Blair says global warming is a bigger threat to world security than terrorism.....So lets invade the gas burners!

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[storm1977 0]

Hey play nice....

In the past I have made statements about global warming. I have never asserted that GW doesn't exist, however, I have asserted that humans are not the cause. The problem is primarily timetables.... GW and Global Cooling( GC) have been ocurring in a cyclical fashion for billions of years (1 billion anyway since the earth really began to cool down)

I am a climatologist/meteorologist who happens (as do many) to believe this is a cycle of nature, Earth's tilt wable as well as Solar Flux are major contributers to this cycle.

For the tree huggers though it is clear GW is because we americans drive SUV's

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

here is another interesting read....
Read the whole article

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Spring2004/global.html

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[markd_nscr986 0]

There are some thinking that we are entering an ice age in the next 300-1000 yrsso what is it the heat before the cold?Any thoughts on that?I mean we are overdue for one, after all......

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[turtlespeed 226]

Very, Very little in nature exists in a strait line.

Fluctuations ARE nature. Tree Huggers would LOVE to be able to control nature so that it didn't change.

In a perfect world, animals would neither go hungry or kill to eat.
You can't have that both ways.

Weather is weather - it changes - get over it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Of course its difficult to prove, but its equally difficult to disprove. The majority of informed opinion I have seen says global warming is real, its present, and we MAY be compounding it.

That is a complicated way of saying, "We cannot be sure of anything, we certainly cannot prove anything, but a whole lot of people think it is happeneing, and those people who do think we might have something to do with it."

I'll make a comparison:

"'Credible intelligence' suggests that the earth is warming. We have no proof that it is happeneing, but no proof has been supplied to prove that it has not been happening, and the majority of informed people in this world think that it is happening, and that we might have something to do with it."

Hmmm. What happened the last time a bunch of people thought, but couldn't prove, that something was happening and decided to act on it? (the rest of the world believed SH was workign on WMD's, too - prove he wasn't).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>I am a climatologist/meteorologist who happens (as do many) to believe
> this is a cycle of nature, Earth's tilt wable as well as Solar Flux are major
>contributers to this cycle.

Wable? As in to gyble and gimble in the wable?

Sorry. I just find the progression funny. Ten years ago, anti-climate-change types denied anything was happening. Five years ago, they were claiming it was a transient thing; you can't predict long term trends from short term data. Now they're saying that it's happening but we're not influencing it. I've heard a few people start with part four of this progression - that the climate is changing, that maybe we had something to do with it, but maybe it will be a good thing. I fear we will reach a part five - yes, the change was a disaster, and millions starved and were displaced, but who coulda known?

Claiming we have nothing to do with global warming has, I've discovered, has far more to do with a strong desire not to change than with science. It's become a central battle in enviromentalism because it's so simple. Use less and reduce our impact or use more and increase it. Industry has a very strong vested interest in not believing in global warming, because a continuous increase in oil burned means more oil company profits, more cars manufactured, more neon in Vegas, more Cheetos eaten etc. And who says you can't change the facts with enough money? Politicians practice this all the time.

It's like a developer who wants to sell homes in his development and thus gets a seismic report for the area (required for California.) The first one says there's a slight risk of earthquake. The second one says there's a 10% chance within the next 20 years. He doesn't like this and gets a third report, which says there is no risk. Suddenly the developer becomes an expert in seismology. "There's no earthquake risk at all! The third survey was obviously accurate, performed by the best in the field. The first two surveys were done by fools using outdated methods and inaccurate measurements." After a while, a lot of developers figure out this third guy is the guy to use, and he makes a lot of money. This has happened time and time again here. Some people mistake such advocacy for science.

But then the earthquake comes, as it always does. Science has a way of not listening to politics or economics.

Climate change is real, and it's linked to CO2 levels. This has been shown historically via ice cores. We have, singlehandedly, almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Them's the facts. Sure, if you pay enough, and want to believe badly enough, you could claim that somehow our CO2 emissions are NOT causing thermal forcing due to the double secret invisible-CO2 effect, and that climate change is actually caused by cosmic rays from the Milky Way (yes, someone has actually proposed this.) But if we want to stop change, or at least mitigate its effects, we have to be honest with ourselves about the processes involved.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Tree Huggers would LOVE to be able to control nature so that it didn't change.

That's been my thinking all along. They want to pigeonhole the earth's temperature into what they think is appropriate. The ice caps might melt? Has anywone bothered asking whether they are supposed to melt every now and then?

Why are they so damned worried about the rising sea levels? Because it might wash away their Malibu beachside properties and interfere with human activity. Basically, nature is fine so long as it doesn't bother us.

That's why those who go on nature tours don't experience nature first hand. They'll go on eco-tours of the rain forest, but before they do, they'll be sure to get shots in case they come down with one of nature's nasty illnesses. They'll cover themselves with bug spray, lest mother nature get a little too close for comfort. They'll have water purification methods, lest mother nature's water turn them into fertilizer. They have sunscreen, sunglasses, etc.

Why? Nature sucks, and will destroy you unless you take steps to prevent it. Nature may warm up the earth and may destroy you unless you stop it. Who cares whether it is a natural process? We must control the environment to our liking. At least, that's what the environmentalists think.

Thank you, turtle. You pointed out my thoughts exactly.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Thank you, turtle. You pointed out my thoughts exactly.

Although I agree with you - you put it in a much more eloquent form.
Damn lawyers and their vocabulary.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,132]

>Has anywone bothered asking whether they are supposed to melt every
>now and then?

They most surely are. But then again, we're supposed to die. No reason to die as quickly as we possibly can.

>Why are they so damned worried about the rising sea levels? Because it
>might wash away their Malibu beachside properties and interfere with
>human activity. Basically, nature is fine so long as it doesn't bother us.

I could care less about Malibu; they can move. The people who live on islands with elevations that average ten feet can't.

>Nature sucks, and will destroy you unless you take steps to prevent it.

You wouldn't last two minutes without it, without all that sea ooze making O2 for you. A lot of people have this idea that it's a battle against nature, that it's us or it. That's like going to war with your heart, or battling your kidneys. We need the ecosphere a lot more than it needs us. Given that, it makes sense to not destroy it as fast as humanly possible.

[lawrocket 3]

Bill, a great post. You are right, that the ideas about what is happening are changing on the anti-side. But my question is whether this is the result of science.

Quote

I just find the progression funny. Ten years ago, anti-climate-change types denied anything was happening. Five years ago, they were claiming it was a transient thing; you can't predict long term trends from short term data. Now they're saying that it's happening but we're not influencing it. I've heard a few people start with part four of this progression - that the climate is changing, that maybe we had something to do with it, but maybe it will be a good thing. I fear we will reach a part five - yes, the change was a disaster, and millions starved and were displaced, but who coulda known?

I, for one, support this. Hypothesis - nothing is happening. Data - something is happening. Conclusion - something is happening.

Hypothesis - transient thing and you cannot predict long term from short term data. Data - still uncertain. Conclusion - maybe you can.

I'm no scientist, bill. But, that was how I always thought it would happen. Maybe it's my profession that says, "Don't jump to conclusions." From my background, I hear the hypothesis "patient in surgery. Patient dies. Therefore, doctor did something wrong." No, it isn't that simple. Let's analyze this, see what's going on, and then reach conclusions.

Quote

Claiming we have nothing to do with global warming has, I've discovered, has far more to do with a strong desire not to change than with science.

True. But, as you've stated above, this is a process in the change. Eventually, we may all be shown that we have something to do with global warming.

Quote

Climate change is real, and it's linked to CO2 levels. This has been shown historically via ice cores. We have, singlehandedly, almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Them's the facts.

Point conceded.

Quote

But if we want to stop change, or at least mitigate its effects, we have to be honest with ourselves about the processes involved.

And that's what many of us advocate. Unfortunately, politics gets in the way of it, bill. Curbing CO2 emissions has as much to do with anti-oil as it has to do with environmentalism. It has more to do with social change than it does with environmentalism.

Want some bang for the buck with greenhouse gases? Remediate methane. That CAN be done (methane is number 2 on the greenhouse gas list) fairly efficiently. A few years ago, there was talk about managing ruminants, composts and other factors that cause methane to leach into the atmosphere?

Where has the talk gone, bill? Nowhere. Why? The science is there to remediate it. But the political will is not. Why go after farmers when there are oil companies to go after? Many suspect that to be the case - that this is more about killing the petro-chemical industry than it is about saving the earth.

We have to be honest with ourselves about the processes involved, bill. And we have to be honest in admitting the "greenhouse gases" and their relative importance. Water vapor is probably the single most important greenhouse gas. Why no mention of what we can do to cure that? The science may not be there to handle it.

But it's there for methane, and we can do more to clean that up, for far less money and societal strain, than we can for CO2.

Now, my question is whether it is reasonable to stop climate change. The earth's temperature should fluctuate. It seems to me that science proves that.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Why are they so damned worried about the rising sea levels? Because it
>might wash away their Malibu beachside properties and interfere with
>human activity. Basically, nature is fine so long as it doesn't bother us.

I could care less about Malibu; they can move. The people who live on islands with elevations that average ten feet can't.

Bill, you've somewhat enforced my argument here. Why stop global warming? To save lives.

There is true honesty in that statement. It is not about "preserving the ecosystem." IT is not about allowing the earth to continue its natural processes.

It is about doing our best to manage the earth in its current state to save lives. That is a position that I can support. But it means that we mold the earth's climate to fit human needs, desires, etc.

We couldn't last without our environment. And I would hope that natural processes are stopped if it means saving lives. For example, if a meteor is heading towards the earth, I would hope something could be done to stop it. Doing so would not be to protect the environment and nature, since it is directly interfering with nature. It would be for the purpose of saving lives.

in sum, it's not about protecting the earth so that the earth can continue its natural processes. It IS about maintaining the present equilibrium at what could very well be an artificial level decided by mankind.

If the sea level rises, and there are several inhabited atolls that will be flooded, I would hope that the world would help them. My ex-girlfriend's ancestors were likely living happily out on a land bridge a few thousand years ago. Then the water started rising, and they had to relocate. Her ancestors headed east and then south.

Therefore, throughout history, the fauna and flora have adapted via natural process. We have permanently altered the environment, bill. The environmental movement seeks to also alter the environment into something that is more fit for makind at it's present level.

From a strictly natural poitn of view, is there a problem with interfering with nature for the benefit of man?

Here's the question I want answered:

Should man adapt nature to meet the needs of man? Or should man adapt to fit in with nature's adaptations?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

That's cool. So the caps won't melt. Let's not curb pollution. Who cares that "The number of beach closings and advisories about excessive ocean pollution more than doubled in Florida last year"

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

There is true honesty in that statement. It is not about "preserving the ecosystem." IT is not about allowing the earth to continue its natural processes.

I think the biggest mistake environmentalists ever did was framing the discussion in "saving the world".

It's not about "saving the world". The world will live long and prosper long after humans are wiped out of existence.

The key, is that we need to save the ability of humanity to prosper on earth. The nutshell is that we don't need to save the planet, we need to save humanity.

Oddly, humans are the one species on earth that have the ability to severly impact its environment. I have no doubt that we'll continue to do that. I hope we do it before its too late.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

That's cool. So the caps won't melt. Let's not curb pollution. Who cares that "The number of beach closings and advisories about excessive ocean pollution more than doubled in Florida last year"

Two completely different topics.

CO2 has never closed a beach before - cloroflourocarbons never washed up on the beach.

Pollution - yes - I agree solid wastes should be attended to - but I don't think we are in any danger of the ice caps melting because of a floating tin can either.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

CO2 has never closed a beach before

Acid rain kills fish, decaying fish cause bacteria in the water leading to beach closings. Not to mention fishless lakes and streams.

[turtlespeed 226]

In that case - We should let them cut the brush back and fireproof EVERY forest -

Acid rain was here LONG before we were.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Kennedy 0]

Let's not forget that plagues and diseases are natural, too.

If the Earth is a garden, are humans
(A) flowers
(B) weeds
(C) the guy with the scissors

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,132]

>Curbing CO2 emissions has as much to do with anti-oil as it has to do
>with environmentalism. It has more to do with social change than it does
>with environmentalism.

Well, anti-coal. If we switched all our coal for natural gas and kept burning oil we'd cut our emission by almost 40% right there.

>Want some bang for the buck with greenhouse gases? Remediate
>methane. That CAN be done (methane is number 2 on the greenhouse
>gas list) fairly efficiently. A few years ago, there was talk about
>managing ruminants, composts and other factors that cause methane
>to leach into the atmosphere?

And that's also killing two birds with one stone. If you deal with methane from landfills by burning it, you've turned a strong greenhouse gas into a weak one AND displaced some of the CO2 producing coal with less CO2 producing methane.

>Where has the talk gone, bill?

Got Proxmired.

> Many suspect that to be the case - that this is more about killing the
>petro-chemical industry than it is about saving the earth.

BP/Shell would actually clean up with a serious effort to go to clean energy - they are one of the world's leaders in solar panel production. Others won't be able to change and will go the way of buggy whip manufacturers.

>We have to be honest with ourselves about the processes involved, bill.
>And we have to be honest in admitting the "greenhouse gases" and
>their relative importance. Water vapor is probably the single most
> important greenhouse gas. Why no mention of what we can do to cure
>that? The science may not be there to handle it.

That's like saying that blood causes heart attacks (which it does; clot formation is the #1 cause of ischemia.) But removing all the blood from someone to prevent heart attacks makes as much sense as removing water to reduce greenhouse warming. The ecosystem is made up of a million parts, each working with the other. Methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, dust, even nitrogen contributes to the greenhouse effect. If we had no greenhouse components in our atmosphere at all, the temperature would swing 50 degrees day to night. That would kill a lot of plants. If we have too much we will end up like Venus. In general the planet does a pretty good job of regulating itself; all we have to do is not screw it up too badly.

>Now, my question is whether it is reasonable to stop climate change.
>The earth's temperature should fluctuate. It seems to me that science
> proves that.

There's no argument that the climate will change with time. My desire is to not force it to change to a problem climate as fast as we possibly can.

>It is about doing our best to manage the earth in its current state to
>save lives. That is a position that I can support. But it means that we
>mold the earth's climate to fit human needs, desires, etc.

You got that backwards. We dump stuff into the environment because it makes us money, then try to deal with the consequences, consequences that directly conflict with human needs, later. If we were molding the earth's climate to fit our needs, we would design things that precipitate out particulate pollution, because that kills tens of thousands of americans every year. Instead we ADD thousands of tons of particulate pollution to the skies every year because it's cheaper to run old power plants than put new emissions controls on them. As a result, tens of thousands of people die.

>in sum, it's not about protecting the earth so that the earth can
> continue its natural processes. It IS about maintaining the present
> equilibrium at what could very well be an artificial level decided by
> mankind.

You don't even have to do that. All you need to do is maintain an ecosystem that can support us. We can adapt; if a barrier beach erodes away we can build our beach houses somewhere else. If it gets a little drier in New York, we can compensate with aqueducts. If rain drops by 50% over most of the US, that's going to be a lot harder.

>Therefore, throughout history, the fauna and flora have adapted via
> natural process.

Yes. And history has shown that slow (i.e. natural) changes are adapted to with no fuss at all. Sudden changes (meteor impacts) result in mass extinctions. If we wish to avoid mass extinctions, we should try to have less impact than, say, large meteors.

>Should man adapt nature to meet the needs of man? Or should man
>adapt to fit in with nature's adaptations?

Both. We adapt nature in small ways with dams, irrigation etc to meet our needs. We WILL adapt to nature's changes or we will all die. One thing he should NOT do is intentionally adapt nature in a way that is contrary to the needs of man. That's what we're doing now.

[PhillyKev 0]

D) Parasitic infestation

[billvon 3,132]

>Acid rain was here LONG before we were.

So was arsenic. So were nuclear reactors. So were oil spills. Doesn't make it OK to drink a lot of arsenic, or be careless with nuclear waste, or to spill lots of oil out of neglect.

There is lead in your body, but that's a poor reason to claim that being shot won't hurt you.

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

There is lead in your body, but that's a poor reason to claim that being shot won't hurt you.

If you take the percentage of lead it would take to hurt you if you were shot as opposed to the amount of polution vs mass of the earth and accelerate it the same - it wouldn't even scratch the surface of rice paper.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun