quote:1. Conservation, renewable energy: yes. Valuable things in their own right. It won't be enough to stop CO2 from increasing, though, until researchers find a magic bullet. Fortunately, these things are noncontroversial
What is that based on?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have any of you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? it's all about his thoughts on glbal warming and he did a good deal of research to support his story. a very good book, if anyone has the time to give it a read.
im still undecided on this whole global warming issue. instincts tell me to believe it, but im not sure. plus what Mr Crichton said about believing psuedo-sciences at the end of State of Fear has kept me from believing to ofirmly in one side or the other just yet.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Of course, there is a solution, let us build a EXTREMELY large warehouse just a few blocks from where you live, and the world can store this deadly poison there? What do you say?
I spent three of my four college years living directly on top of the world's first nuclear waste (created at the cyclotron on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis). The only effect it seems to have had is to make my hair-trigger reaction to bulls*** a tad more sensitive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by krynn: Have any of you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? it's all about his thoughts on glbal warming and he did a good deal of research to support his story.
quote:1. Conservation, renewable energy: yes. Valuable things in their own right. It won't be enough to stop CO2 from increasing, though, until researchers find a magic bullet. Fortunately, these things are noncontroversial
What is that based on?
Based on Rabbit's figure of 10% of our energy coming from alternatives; the limits on conservation (we can't make our tractor-trailers 10 times more fuel efficient -- if we could, we'd be doing it), and most of all, on the vast expansion of fossil fuel use in China and India.
These aren't hard numbers, but you can look those up as well as I.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: ...I think it would be better to look back and say, "Well, that was a lot of wasted effort for a disaster that never came" than to say, "I wish we had done something before it was too late."
Here, here.
I just want to add that I do believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence that global warming is taking place.
I also think that if we wait till we can prove one way or the other that we are actually causing it, it will be too late to reverse it.
The time to do something about it is now.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by krynn: Have any of you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? it's all about his thoughts on glbal warming and he did a good deal of research to support his story.
Woah ... that many eye rolls in close proximity to each other looks really neat. Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:he did a good deal of research to support his story
*sigh* Are you seriously suggesting that Crichton, a writer of speculative fiction, has done more research into environmental issues than environmental scientists?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
State of Fear might be based on some valid science -- much SF is -- but it's still fiction. Just as we wouldn't consult Star Trek to tell us anything solid about quantum mechanics, despite its "Heisenberg compensators" and "quantum torpedoes," we can't rely on fiction to tell us what's nonfictional.
Besides which, if anybody grants State of Fear as worthy in debate, next thing you know we'll have to consult The Day After Tomorrow.
I think that was more effective than a whole string of rolly-eyes.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Day By Day cartoon was a perfect example of what not to drag the discussion down to!
Sadly, the intent of the cartoon is to be a one-sided bash on liberals. If you read any criticism of the default conservative position into the cartoon, it's your own bias coming out. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Star Trek to tell us anything solid about quantum mechanics, despite its "Heisenberg compensators" and "quantum torpedoes," we can't rely on fiction to tell us what's nonfictional.
Hey, Star Trek has come a long way since quantum torpedoes. They're well into transphasic torpedoes now.
Get with the times Will.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i didnt say that he's done more research, im just saying he did enough to make me question the severity (that a word?) of global warming. i feel it might exist but i havent ever looked too far into it.
just really saying i like the book.
*quietly walks out of the thread*
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. We see them in Voyager. One transphasic torpedo can take out a Borg cube. They're literally weapons from the future, and like all things in Voyager, they suck.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well to be fair I remember them firing multiple torpedoes to take out the cube. And VOY had its moments.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Day By Day cartoon was a perfect example of what not to drag the discussion down to!
Sadly, the intent of the cartoon is to be a one-sided bash on liberals. If you read any criticism of the default conservative position into the cartoon, it's your own bias coming out.
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: ...I think it would be better to look back and say, "Well, that was a lot of wasted effort for a disaster that never came" than to say, "I wish we had done something before it was too late."
Here, here.
I just want to add that I do believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence that global warming is taking place.
I also think that if we wait till we can prove one way or the other that we are actually causing it, it will be too late to reverse it.
The time to do something about it is now.
I think that there are plenty of reasons other than global warming to begin taking significant steps that have been identified as part of a useful response to global warming. Renewable energy has both national security benefits and is a long-term necessity. In the shorter term, nonrenewable sources such as fission (assuming fissible material isn't renewable) and possibly fusion (I have no idea if hydrogen isotopes used to fuel fusion are renewable) have national security benefits and increase the amount of time before we must be getting all or most energy from renewable sources. Better transmission lines and electrical storage is needed if we ever hope to have an electric transportation infrastructure or to make use of renewable generation efficiently and predictably.
Reduced energy use can have immediate benefits with few side effects if achieved through attrition-based replacement of energy-using devices with more efficient models. It also helps to increase the time we have to make the changeover.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that still has nothing to do with whether or not it's true that human action is causing climate change, and it should not be permitted to affect your belief or disbelief.
The effect something will have on you does affect the level of proof required before taking action (which means before forming a conclusion with sufficient personal certainty on which to base that action). This is perfectly rational behavior.
I agree that this often happens; I do not agree that it is rational. Truth is truth, it doesn't change for being inconvenient. I would also note that, even if you do apply this standard to global warming, it's being applied inconsistently. Presumably, if you're only a little bit convinced, you should take only a little bit of action; but those who are a little bit doubtful use that as a reason to take zero action. Finally, the whole argument is a bit ironic coming from someone who believes in fairy tales on the authority of old books.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that this often happens; I do not agree that it is rational. Truth is truth, it doesn't change for being inconvenient.
But the level of proof needed before taking a specific action is a very, very different thing than truth. We don't wait to take action for something to be proven "true."
quote:Finally, the whole argument is a bit ironic coming from someone who believes in fairy tales on the authority of old books.
Just goes to show I should read the whole post before deciding if someone is worth an attempt to have a civil discussion with or should just be blown off as the rude, uncivil, and ignorant hack that they are.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by krynn: Have any of you read Michael Crichton's State of Fear? it's all about his thoughts on glbal warming and he did a good deal of research to support his story. a very good book, if anyone has the time to give it a read.
im still undecided on this whole global warming issue. instincts tell me to believe it, but im not sure. plus what Mr Crichton said about believing psuedo-sciences at the end of State of Fear has kept me from believing to ofirmly in one side or the other just yet.
posted
Everything KoM is colored by his obsession with his favorite subject. I had not decided his motivations before I discovered I don't actually care.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:he did a good deal of research to support his story
*sigh* Are you seriously suggesting that Crichton, a writer of speculative fiction, has done more research into environmental issues than environmental scientists?
And here we go with the speculative attacks on Crichton. Have you even read the book Tom? The appendices, footnotes and bibliography are quite extensive. Crichton even says he believes Global warming happens, and that humans are probably contributing to it, but much of the science being published on the topic state conclusions that are demonstratively false.
i.e icebergs are all melting. In several places the ice is actually thickening, but we don't hear about that at all, all we hear about are the ones that are thinning.
I honestly felt Crichton was merely suggesting that we not buy into pseudoscience, as human beings have quite frequently in the past.
This has been linked before on hatrack, and thats where I first read it, but I thought it made a very good point on human management of the environment,
Crichton also gave another excellent lecture on how pseudo science, "religion" as he calls it, has lead us from believing in extra terrestrial life to global warming.
His style is easy to read and to me he sounds very rational. I felt both documents are worth reading if only to cause people to slow down and not pick up the global warming baton and run with it so to speak.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ts a sad state of affairs when people trust the opinion of Science Fiction novelist over reports by the National Academy of Science, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Nobel Laureates, American Geophysical Union, , Over 1500 top scientists from around the world, , The American Chemical Society, , The American Meteorological Society and every other reputable scientific body on the planet that isn't being fund by an oil company.
Read the 2nd speech I linked, you will find that is usually the FIRST accusation the scientific community throws at skeptics who may or may not turn out to be right.
"He is not a REAL scientist!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quite so, and this makes it untrue in what way? After all, astrologists do precisely the same thing - "Oh, the scientific establishment calls us quacks, but then they always do. What do they know?"
Touching standards of proof, it does seem to me that theists do not apply anything even close to what is wanted for global warming, to their beliefs in the supernatural; yet they permit this hypothesis to dominate their lives. And remind me, just what is the difference between god-beliefs and fairy tales? (That is, apart from "I believe in this one.")
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Touching standards of proof, it does seem to me that theists do not apply anything even close to what is wanted for global warming, to their beliefs in the supernatural; yet they permit this hypothesis to dominate their lives. And remind me, just what is the difference between god-beliefs and fairy tales? (That is, apart from "I believe in this one.")
You do not know what you are talking about. You know nothing of how I scrutinize my own religion.
I seriously doubt that were you speaking to Isaac Newton you would say, "So Isaac, you expect me to listen to your theories of motion and your statements on physics when you believe in the Bible? In fact more of your writings and attention are placed in the religious realms then scientific, I don't consider you to be a *real* scientist."
Its incredulous to me that you expect me to be so completely doubtful of every religion (a HUGE COMPLEX system) and then suggest that I gobble down global warming wholesale and start pushing it on other people as "truth."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, We've been though this. Isaac Newton was not a real scientist by the modern definition of the term. He did not follow what we currently recognize as scientific epistemology. He would be more accurately described, in the aspects that you are talking about, as a natural philosopher.
You may not understand the differences in conotation between these terms, but let me assure that they are very important.
---
Also, how long are people going to waste their time rebutting KoM's anti-religious posts? What's the point?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:he did a good deal of research to support his story
*sigh* Are you seriously suggesting that Crichton, a writer of speculative fiction, has done more research into environmental issues than environmental scientists?
And here we go with the speculative attacks on Crichton. Have you even read the book Tom? The appendices, footnotes and bibliography are quite extensive. Crichton even says he believes Global warming happens, and that humans are probably contributing to it, but much of the science being published on the topic state conclusions that are demonstratively false.
i.e icebergs are all melting. In several places the ice is actually thickening, but we don't hear about that at all, all we hear about are the ones that are thinning.
I honestly felt Crichton was merely suggesting that we not buy into pseudoscience, as human beings have quite frequently in the past.
This has been linked before on hatrack, and thats where I first read it, but I thought it made a very good point on human management of the environment,
Crichton also gave another excellent lecture on how pseudo science, "religion" as he calls it, has lead us from believing in extra terrestrial life to global warming.
His style is easy to read and to me he sounds very rational. I felt both documents are worth reading if only to cause people to slow down and not pick up the global warming baton and run with it so to speak.
As far as rising sea levels go, the thing to worry about is ice sheets currently residing on land, like those in Greenland and Antarctica. Evidence shows they are melting at an alarming rate, much faster than what we had anticipated before. That's a fact.
Some glaciers might be thickening, but many, many more are breaking away, collapsing and melting. Those are the ones that might screw up the flow of warm water in the world's oceans.
It's happening as we speak, it's serious.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr S: I am not sure what your point is, so what if Newton was not a *real* scientist as the term exists today. When it came to physics he knew what he was talking about to some extent, look at his works without using the fact he believes in God as a reason to doubt his observations and hypothesis.
Lyrhawn: I understand that ice sheets are melting at an alarming rate, what I object to is the fact that global warming is presented so one sidedly. Only the evidence that supports it is promoted and THEN people say, "There is so much evidence for it, and not counter evidence, how can we doubt it?" There IS evidence that requires us to question some aspects of global warming, but it is often down played and proponents are called "quacks" by the scientific community.
While there are idiots who claim to be scientists, we should not just accept that, "scientists have shrugged off the weaknesses of humanity and are completely objective in their observation of the universe."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Touching standards of proof, it does seem to me that theists do not apply anything even close to what is wanted for global warming, to their beliefs in the supernatural; yet they permit this hypothesis to dominate their lives. And remind me, just what is the difference between god-beliefs and fairy tales? (That is, apart from "I believe in this one.")
You do not know what you are talking about. You know nothing of how I scrutinize my own religion.
I certainly do, having had this discussion with you before. But if you've been holding back on me, by all means do tell me now, what is the difference?
quote:I seriously doubt that were you speaking to Isaac Newton you would say, "So Isaac, you expect me to listen to your theories of motion and your statements on physics when you believe in the Bible? In fact more of your writings and attention are placed in the religious realms then scientific, I don't consider you to be a *real* scientist."
As a matter of fact, I would. The guy believed in alchemy. But I've done the experiments myself, and I understand the math; which is why I believe Newtonian physics works. Newton himself has nothing to do with it.
quote:Its incredulous to me that you expect me to be so completely doubtful of every religion (a HUGE COMPLEX system) and then suggest that I gobble down global warming wholesale and start pushing it on other people as "truth."
I don't see where being a huge, complex system is an argument in favour of believing in something. If anything it should be an argument against. Global warming, on the other hand, has a mechanism any child can understand, and measurements done over several decades supporting it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, My point was that you were repeating an earlier mistake by claiming that Isaac Newton was a scientist. One of the major problems in conversations like these is that people don't understand what it actually means for someone to be a scientist or for something to be scientific. Often, the anti-scientist crowd uses their ignorance of these things as an attack on "science", as you did the last time you brought up Newton in this context.
I think it is important to note when people include innacurate information as a side issue in their posts, as Geoff did with the "vast majority of physicists pursue string theory" and you did with Newton here. Should I not correct inaccuracies like this?
I think the discussion, as it pertains to what we as humanity do in response, is a moot point anyway. As I've said before in this thread, there are a half dozen beneficial reasons to combat the common believed human contributive causes that have nothing to do with global climate change itself.
Dag mentioned one thing I forgot, which was upgrading the infrastructure for energy transfer across the nation, but that's something we need to do anyway, if the blackout in the northeast in 2003 (I think?) is any indication (which it is).
This is a fun debate we can argue about until we're all blue in the fact, and it really doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong (well that might be a little strong), because we're already making the first steps, and we should be accelerating the process so we can make some money and live healthier lives, to say nothing of the national defense benefits, etc. etc.
People who keep trying to say "Ah ha!" whenever contradictory evidence comes up against GCC I think don't understand the benefits of changing the way we live our lives, and I don't mean the intrinsic "feel good about ourselves for saving the earth" type stuff. I mean tangible, money in your hands benefits.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sure it'll be expensive, but the technology is there. With the right incentives it can be done.
As for nuclear power, it is ultimately a non-renewable energy source, so if we rely too much on it, it will put our descendants into a situation similar to ours currently.
posted
Lyrhawn: I can agree with you there, I am all in favor of getting off the carbon energy infrastructure and moving on to cleaner, better, more efficient energy sources.
KOM: Very well I accept your interpretation of how I scrutinize my own religion based on our conversations to be illformed, and unfortunate, and though it means little to you, your belittling attitude does more a disservice for your atheistic message.
quote:As a matter of fact, I would. The guy believed in alchemy. But I've done the experiments myself, and I understand the math; which is why I believe Newtonian physics works. Newton himself has nothing to do with it.
But you still had to do the math, which means you looked passed your disagreements and tested his theories on their own merits. Even if the guy was a foolish theistic believer in alchemy.
Were I to flip this, since you are a foolish atheist I should disregard anything you have to say about physics, despite your PHD as any belief you might have that I perceive as incorrect, and foolishly so dictates I ignore anything else you might present as true.
Surely you can concede that "consensus science" or "popular opinion" do nothing to dictate truth? Or that controversial figures can piss off the scientific community and still be right.
edit: Mr. S, point taken on discussing things while operating on flawed fundamentals. But my point still stands that Newton, though he might not be considered a "real scientist" still got it right when it came to physics.
Today, we should be able to be skeptical without being called "fools" when it comes to any theory science presents to us. Science is just as capable of "scaring us with false demons" as any religion, and in the past it HAS been known to let politics and basic human behavior corrupt its mission of truth.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Surely you can concede that "consensus science" or "popular opinion" do nothing to dictate truth? Or that controversial figures can piss off the scientific community and still be right.
Popular opinion I'll give you, but then again nobody has suggested that as evidence. Consensus science is only invoked when the critics, in desperation, go "Look! I found a scientist who disagrees with you! He's not funded by the oil industry in any way, shape, or form, disregarding some minor stock options that aren't at all important!" And as for controversial figures, well, I defy you to find one from outside the scientific community who managed to be right despite opposing a consensus. But even if you do find such a man, there would be any number of counterexamples, starting with the TimeCube guy and going up from there. The outsider is not the way to bet; and you are betting a very considerable amount, here.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And here we go with the speculative attacks on Crichton. Have you even read the book Tom? The appendices, footnotes and bibliography are quite extensive. Crichton even says he believes Global warming happens, and that humans are probably contributing to it, but much of the science being published on the topic state conclusions that are demonstratively false.
i.e icebergs are all melting. In several places the ice is actually thickening, but we don't hear about that at all, all we hear about are the ones that are thinning.
It is this kind of comment that makes Crichton so offensive to anyone involved in the actually scientific research.
Yes, in several places icebergs are thickening. This isn't a secret in the scientific community. Not at all. If you don't here about it, its not because scientists are covering it up its because you don't read the scientific literature. If you think that this is a serious criticism of Global Climate Change research, its evidence that you do not understand the underlying theory.
There are always parts of the sea ice that are getting thinner and parts that are getting thicker. The point is that far more parts are getting thinner than are getting thicker so that the total amount of sea ice is decreasing at an alarming rate. In fact that rate has increased since Crichton did his research.
Yes, Crichton did a lot of research for his book. But even though Crichton is a birght guy and did a lot of research, he does not have the expertise of the least qualified member of the IPCC.
If you would like to see experts response to Crichton's book, here are several good links.
The bottom line is the like most skeptics of Global Climate Change science, Crichton is cherry picking the data to give an inaccurate impression of the state of Global Climate research. He pulls out pieces of information that appear to raise significant doubt about the theory but fails to mention that these same pieces of information have been thoroughly discussed in the same scientific literature he dismisses. This same pieces of information are consistent with the picture supported by virtually every expert in the field.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Surely you can concede that "consensus science" or "popular opinion" do nothing to dictate truth? Or that controversial figures can piss off the scientific community and still be right.
Popular opinion I'll give you, but then again nobody has suggested that as evidence. Consensus science is only invoked when the critics, in desperation, go "Look! I found a scientist who disagrees with you! He's not funded by the oil industry in any way, shape, or form, disregarding some minor stock options that aren't at all important!" And as for controversial figures, well, I defy you to find one from outside the scientific community who managed to be right despite opposing a consensus. But even if you do find such a man, there would be any number of counterexamples, starting with the TimeCube guy and going up from there. The outsider is not the way to bet; and you are betting a very considerable amount, here.
I would agree the "outsider" concept is indeed not a rule, but there are numerous examples of scientists being alienated by the scientific community because their theories were far removed from the popular opinion. Crichton's 2nd speech I linked is all about that.
So yes, I agree we shouldn't assume the majority of scientists are wrong, thats even more silly then blindly believing them.
But the scientific community does not live in the Star Trek universe yet, they live in reality.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would agree the "outsider" concept is indeed not a rule, but there are numerous examples of scientists being alienated by the scientific community because their theories were far removed from the popular opinion. Crichton's 2nd speech I linked is all about that.
Exactly my point, though you didn't seem to notice. There are numerous examples of this happening to scientists. Crichton is no such thing. When he comes up with original data, carefully peer-reviewed and with a model supporting it, which shows no human effect on climate change, then he'll be listened to. Until then, not. That's how science works, and how it should work, and the only reason it's being even partially disrupted in the forum of public discussion (not in the forum of scientific discussion, you should note) is because people have a money interest in convincing the public there's no global warming.
quote:But you still had to do the math, which means you looked passed your disagreements and tested his theories on their own merits.
Yes. With Newton, that's possible. With Einstein, it's not possible. At some point you're going to have to take the word of real scientists; you can't check every experiment for yourself. And the reason you take the word of scientists and not fiction writers is that one group has a consistent record of success over the past three hundred years, and the other doesn't.
And no, reading a book and thinking about the arguments is not "testing the theory on its merits". You need to not only understand the math, but be able to run the models, operate the measuring equipment, understand the weaknesses of the equipment and grad students so you understand what data should be trusted and what needs to be re-run, understand statistical significance and the systematic error in your noise filters... In short, you need to be a full-time working scientist in the field. No fiction writers, much less fiction reader, need apply. Come back when you're qualified; then we'll listen to your doubts. At the moment, you have the right to shut up.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: I read all three of your links and this is how I felt about them.
First: I was totally unsatisfied with their responses to Crichton's words. Their arguments lacking in substance, and served only to reinforce what Crichton says all along, in effect, "Be careful in how you interpret a data set, don't jump to conclusions."
quote: In general, climate trends are often difficult to detect in data from individual stations because each station is subject to local effects. These variations can be reduced by averaging together the data from many stations, which is why climate scientists rely on such averages in detecting the first signs of the effect of CO2 increases on temperature. So far, the initial effect is still relatively small for two reasons: (i) part of that effect has been canceled temporarily by increases in sulfate aerosol, and (ii) the warming has been delayed because it takes a long time for the vast mass of the ocean to heat up.
Well OK, if you can't really rely on the data to show that its not warming, then you can't rely on it show its warming.
quote: The answer is that CO2 is only one of several factors that influence temperature, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sulfur dioxide emissions (see Figure 1), and small changes in the earth’s orbit. The combined impact of all effects was cooling for those middle decades of the 20th century. When climate scientists look at the entire last century, however, they are unable to explain the significant temperature increases solely from natural causes. Only when the trends for human-induced heat-trapping gases, sulfur dioxide emissions, soot, ozone, and land use changes are also included do the hindcast model results (Figure 3) and the recorded reality match up. This is particularly true of the pronounced warming that has occurred since 1970.
OK, makes sense. So CO2 is not a huge factor in the overall temperature of the planet, its just one of many. And they cannot account through natural means the increase in temperature, fine. So then why is CO2 paraded about as if its overpowering all these other factors. That last sentence is just my perception, but it was hammered into me at school, and in the periodicals I have read.
quote: The precise mechanism responsible for these massive events is a matter of lively inquiry in the scientific literature, but the fact that they are all happening now that human activities have increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to a level not seen over the past 400,000 years, after having survived millennia, is powerful circumstantial evidence that should not be lightly dismissed.
Well OK, but its still circumstantial isn't it? Hardly cause enough to convict and take action. The fact that its the subject of "lively debate" makes me less inclined to swallow it without thinking twice.
quote: By way of analogy, the occurrence of large earthquakes is also very difficult to predict. Just because we can’t predict when the next big earthquake in California will occur, should we stop building earthquake-resistant buildings?
Holy Crap do they really expect that analogy to fly? That comparison only works if the question of earthquakes was still a matter of discussion, which they are not. Whether or not global warming is actually taking place is precisely what we are arguing about!
Second:
quote:Michael Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.
He clearly has not read the book, I am not bothering with anything else he might say, suffice to say I read it and didn't agree.
Third: The writer getting upset over the incident is justified, but Crichton got the data from another source and it was THAT source that he alleges modified his data. The fact remains his scenario A data was still 300% off the mark.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: No fiction writers, much less fiction reader, need apply. Come back when you're qualified; then we'll listen to your doubts. At the moment, you have the right to shut up.
Oh ho ho...thanks for those rights KOM. Clearly YOU have not registered that Crichton did NOT say global warming is not happening, he is honest enough to say from what he has seen and read it does. His only point is that Global Warming is being paraded before society in much the same way global cooling and eugenics were. But very well, now I'll invite you to shut up when it comes to religious discussion as you have yet to become a bishop and so are not qualified enough to know what you are talking about.
If you wish to discuss Buddhism you must meditate several hours daily, as well as believe in Karma.
Taoism you need to have idols setup, and believe all things are predetermined.
You can discuss Islam when you have read the Koran, totally abstained from alcohol, pray 5 times a day, and made a pilgrimage to Mecca.
And thank you so much for belittling my intelligence rather then trying to point out errors in my thinking. I know science does not discuss the principle of "empathy" or even "civility" but you would benefit from both, even if they can't be quantified, measured, or otherwise.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blackblade, This is why I hate arguing science with people with insufficient background but I will do my best to explain why your arguments are flawed.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: In general, climate trends are often difficult to detect in data from individual stations because each station is subject to local effects. These variations can be reduced by averaging together the data from many stations, which is why climate scientists rely on such averages in detecting the first signs of the effect of CO2 increases on temperature. So far, the initial effect is still relatively small for two reasons: (i) part of that effect has been canceled temporarily by increases in sulfate aerosol, and (ii) the warming has been delayed because it takes a long time for the vast mass of the ocean to heat up.
Well OK, if you can't really rely on the data to show that its not warming, then you can't rely on it show its warming.
The point isn't that you can't rely on the data to show that it is not warming. The point is that you can't rely on data at any individual location to tell you what is going on globally. CO2 in the atmosphere affects the entire planet but it doesn't affect every place equally. In fact, all of the climate change models show that global warming will cause some places on the planet to get colder while others get hotter. So the fact that some places are getting colder or show no change at all is irrelevant. The question is what is happening to the global average. In order to understand what's happening to the global average you have to look at the average over the entire planet.
When you look at the global average data from either ground based measurements or satellite based measurements you find that the global average is increasing.
quote: The answer is that CO2 is only one of several factors that influence temperature, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sulfur dioxide emissions (see Figure 1), and small changes in the earth’s orbit. The combined impact of all effects was cooling for those middle decades of the 20th century. When climate scientists look at the entire last century, however, they are unable to explain the significant temperature increases solely from natural causes. Only when the trends for human-induced heat-trapping gases, sulfur dioxide emissions, soot, ozone, and land use changes are also included do the hindcast model results (Figure 3) and the recorded reality match up. This is particularly true of the pronounced warming that has occurred since 1970.
OK, makes sense. So CO2 is not a huge factor in the overall temperature of the planet, its just one of many. And they cannot account through natural means the increase in temperature, fine. So then why is CO2 paraded about as if its overpowering all these other factors. That last sentence is just my perception, but it was hammered into me at school, and in the periodicals I have read.
Let give you a relevant analogy. Suppose you get a notice from your bank saying you have over drawn you account. You look at the checks you've written for groceries and they are lower than what you spent last month when you didn't over draw your account. Does this mean the bank is in error? Of course not. In order to determine if the bank is in error you need to look at the sum total of all the deposits and withdrawals from your account and not just the grocery bills. What the scientists are saying here is that it doesn't matter that the temperature decreased in several regions of the globe, if we look at all the regions we see that the average is increasing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I understood the point you are making in the first paragraph of your above post. I know they are arguing the "average" is what is increasing, and it seems the average indicates warmth that is unusal and beyond natural. But again the picture I was painted in school and in newspapers was CO2 CO2!!! There was no mention of other factors. Obviously now that I am in college and individually decided to pursue the subject of my own accord I see there is more to it. What I have seen makes me skeptical, but even I agree that I am inclined to believe that CO2 a greenhouse gas is causing our mean temperatures to increase. All I am saying is that I am not absolutely certain that CO2 plays as big a role as many people are saying it does, in the face of other natural effects, it could be close to negligible.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
