Author Topic: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...  (Read 46749 times)

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
Double standard?
« Reply #125 on: December 29, 2008, 05:16:29 PM »
Responding to my use of the term "horses**t", RocketMan wrote:

That did it for me.  What was an interesting discussion turned disheartenly personal in an instant.  Too bad.


My use of the term was to reflect back Headless HG's use of the term in my direction in the third post from the bottom of page 4.
Quote from: Headless_Thompson_Gunner
If what you say is correct, then this whole AGW proposition is utter horse *expletive deleted*it.

Right or wrong, I tend to reflect back what's thrown at me, especially when it involves excrement.

Still, I'll do what I can to keep the discussion out of the sewer. We are, after all, still an element of the high road.
Levers, wheels & blades

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #126 on: December 29, 2008, 05:21:40 PM »
Around here, describing an argument as horse s*** and giving reasons why is one thing, but just calling someone horse s*** and moving on is something else entirely. 

;)

Although I do apologize for using profanity.  That was a mistake and it has been edited.

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
Distinction between complex & complicated
« Reply #127 on: December 29, 2008, 05:24:35 PM »
Powder and crust are both types of snow, but they have significant differences, meanings and consequences for skiers.

Likewise, even though the words are similar in meaning,
the meanings of "complex" and "complicated" are subtly and importantly different.

Still, since it's relatively tangential to the main discussion, and Headless doesn't want to discuss that, I'll not belabor the difference.
I'll just be on record as noting that "complex" is not equivalent to "complicated".

« Last Edit: December 30, 2008, 03:58:28 AM by Nematocyst »
Levers, wheels & blades

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #128 on: December 29, 2008, 05:29:28 PM »
Around here, describing an argument as horse s*** and giving reasons why is one thing, but just calling someone horse s*** and moving on is something else entirely. 

Right.

Let's examine the post to which I was responded:

Quote
AGW conclusions (dire predictions of calamity) do not follow logically from the premises.  The premises (the purported science behind it all) isn't sound or scientific, it relies upon speculation that is not tested to verify or refute.

It's late and I'm tired.  I'll pick this up again tomorrow if you want.

You made the assertion without explanation, no examples given. You made the statement,  then, in your words, moved on. You offered no justification of that assertion until a later post.
__________

Now, let's see if we can move on.
Levers, wheels & blades

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
More on the NW passage
« Reply #129 on: December 29, 2008, 05:45:45 PM »
From Wikipedia, which offers a reasonable summary.

Quote
The Northwest Passage was not conquered by sea until 1906, when the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, who had sailed just in time to escape creditors seeking to stop the expedition, completed a three-year voyage in the converted 47-ton herring boat Gjøa. At the end of this trip, he walked into the city of Eagle, Alaska, and sent a telegram announcing his success. Although his chosen east–west route, via the Rae Strait, contained young ice and thus was navigable, some of the waterways were extremely shallow making the route commercially impractical.

Then,

Quote
Effects of climate change
Arctic shrinkage as of 2007 compared to previous years

Around the time of the Viking sagas and for at least two more centuries (a conservative interval from AD 1000 to 1200 that also happens to include the dates allotted to some of the larger Norse ships), prior to the Little Ice Age some limited regions of the Arctic may have been somewhat warmer than they were in the early 20th century, and were certainly warmer than they were in the depths of the Little Ice Age (see Medieval Warm Period). Also, the sea level in the Arctic was different from that of the present day.[45] Because of glacial rebound land levels of the land masses about the Northwest Passage have risen upwards of 20 m (66 ft) in the centuries after the Viking times.

In the summer of 2000, several ships took advantage of thinning summer ice cover on the Arctic Ocean to make the crossing.[citation needed] It is thought that global warming is likely to open the passage for increasing periods of time, making it attractive as a major shipping route. However the passage through the Arctic Ocean would require significant investment in escort vessels and staging ports. Therefore the Canadian commercial marine transport industry does not anticipate the route as a viable alternative to the Panama Canal even within the next 10 to 20 years.[46]
Sister project    Wikinews has related news: Arctic ice levels at record low opening Northwest Passage

On September 14, 2007, the European Space Agency stated that, based on satellite images, ice loss had opened up the passage "for the first time since records began in 1978". According to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the latter part of the 20th century and the start of the 21st had seen marked shrinkage of ice cover. The extreme loss in 2007 rendered the passage "fully navigable".[47][48] However, the ESA study was based only on analysis of satellite images and could in practice not confirm anything about the actual navigation of the waters of the passage. The ESA suggested the passage would be navigable "during reduced ice cover by multi-year ice pack" (namely sea ice surviving one or more summers) where previously any traverse of the route had to be undertaken during favourable seasonable climatic conditions or by specialist vessels or expeditions. The agency's report speculated that the conditions prevalent in 2007 had shown the passage may "open" sooner than expected.[49] An expedition in May 2008 reported that the passage was not yet continuously navigable even by an icebreaker and not yet ice-free.[50]

Scientists at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 13, 2007, revealed that NASA satellites observing the western Arctic.[clarification needed] showed a 16% decrease in cloud coverage during the summer of 2007 compared to 2006. This would have the effect of allowing more sunlight to penetrate Earth's atmosphere and warm the Arctic Ocean waters, thus melting sea ice and contributing to the opening the Northwest Passage.[51]

[edit] 2008 sealift

On November 28, 2008, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that the Canadian Coast Guard confirmed the first commercial ship sailed through the Northwest Passage. In September 2008, the MV Camilla Desgagnés, owned by Desgagnés Transarctik Inc. and, along with the Arctic Cooperative, is part of Nunavut Sealift and Supply Incorporated (NSSI),[52] transported cargo from Montreal to the hamlets of Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Gjoa Haven and Taloyoak. A member of the crew is reported to have claimed that "there was no ice whatsoever". Shipping from the east is to resume in the fall of 2009.[53] Although sealift is an annual feature of the Canadian Arctic this is the first time that the western communities have been serviced from the east. The western portion of the Canadian Arctic is normally supplied by Northern Transportation Company Limited (NTCL) from Hay River. The eastern portion by NNSI and NTCL from Churchill and Montreal.

This image is relevant to the discussion.
Levers, wheels & blades

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
On the science behind the theory: testing the hypothesis
« Reply #130 on: December 29, 2008, 06:30:15 PM »
Quote
Global warming hypotheses mostly cannot be tested.  If I remember correctly, the overarching IPCC hypothesis is that the planet will experience 4 to 8 *C of warming and X feet of seal level rise over the next century.  How do you propose that you or I test that hypothesis? 

We do the same thing we do to test tomorrow's weather forecast of rain: we see what tomorrow brings.

Likewise, GW theory is testable. We have been testing it for decades. Each year, we collect more and better data from real time measurements of temperature, precipitation, sea levels, ocean pH and other data.

Each year, the data supports the theory: Earth - both atmosphere and oceans - is heating, climate is changing, ocean pH is decreasing.

Even the relatively conservative (scientifically speaking, meaning not previously prone to making radical claims) World Meteorological Organization (WMO) admits that weather is changing in ways that cannot be explained without invoking the heating theory.

We will continue to test the theory during this century.

We also retrodict: that is, we look at patterns of change in the past and attempt to explain them using science. Patterns of change reflected in ice cores, tree rings, pollen studies, deep sea floor cores and other sources are analyzed statistically. In particular, researchers seek relationships between carbon gases and temperatures. That evidence is extremely strong, and as close to "proof" as one can get that the temperature and carbon gases CO2 and CH4 are tightly coupled: when one increases, so do the others. And I'll say again: it does not matter which increases first.

We build sophisticated super computer models based on the best real world data we have, then start those models with conditions from decades, centuries and millennia past (into the last ice age) to see if they reproduce today's conditions. That is hypothesis testing: they test whether the explanatory model accurately represents reality. If they do, it's viewed as support for the hypothesis or (now) theory.

Neither the models nor the data are perfect. That will always be the case. Data collection can never capture every aspect of the picture, and a model is always necessarily simplified. But they've come a long way, and our confidence in them is strong.

The three biggest problems in modeling now are: 1) insufficient data on the role of clouds (especially high v low clouds, which have different effects on heating, and clouds are notoriously difficult to model because they are so dynamic); 2) ocean currents (still poorly mapped); and most importantly, the models still do not adequately represent positive feedbacks, the ones that amplify and accelerate changes. That's why the IPCC models under estimate the predictions consistently. Within a couple of years after every IPCC report, scientists are already saying, "We didn't expect change in {insert variable here} would be so fast. It is changing much faster than predicted." This is now an almost cliche refrain.

Obviously, the people involved in this discussion have glaring differences in their interpretation of the data that continues to amaze me. It's hard for me to understand how anyone that really looks at the supporting data as presented by Weart, Pearce, and RealClimate can fail to understand that this is a serious problem. But that's the state of things.

In some cases, there is undoubtedly an element of denial based in psychology (not wanting to believe that Earth is changing in ways that we cannot control) or politics (which is why I just don't deal with the political component).

Quote
The problem is that these hypotheses are nothing more than speculation, supported by other speculation, supported by yet more speculation, all of it untested and probably untestable.  Such a mess is NOT a sound basis for acquiring knowledge.

Speculation is fundamentally different from hypothesis. Speculations are guesses based on no data, and usually with no model.

Hypotheses are based on data and models.

Spencer Weart, Fred Pearce & RealClimate discuss tons of real data and models about this issue. You choose to ignore them.

Quote
Now, science can be proven.  We have ample proof of scientific laws, and we have a myriad of theories (theories in the context of the scientific method) that we know to be true as far as they go. 

My comments about "proof" and "disproof" in science have a basis in probability theory. In my science classes, I counsel my students that in science, we can never say that something is "proven" or "disproven", only "supported" or "rejected". It's a technicality, but an important one, based on the asymptotic nature of probability distribution functions that never reach a point of probability 0 or 1.

We can only make probability statements about natural phenomena, not absolute statements about "proof" and "disproof".

Quote
Until then, I'll oppose anyone who claims that AGW is fact. 

Patterns in global heating and climate change are being observed and are consistent with predictions except that both are consistently occurring faster than predicted.

Quote
I'll especially oppose anyone who claims that we need to give up our standard of living and our liberties in order to fight AGW. 

I make no claims at all about what people should or should not do about this. I make no assertion that you should, let alone must, change your life style, let alone give up your liberty. Do what you want. It's your decision, and I have no intention of trying to force you to do anything about it. I own an F-250 diesel. I'm not planning to sell it. I don't drive it much these days because fuel is so expensive, but I'm not selling it over this issue.

As for me, I'm planning contingencies, because it's clear to me - based on sound evidence (see Weart, Pearce & RealClimate) that the problem is real, accelerating and will get much worse very quickly.

And that is a testable hypothesis.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2008, 06:43:10 PM by Nematocyst »
Levers, wheels & blades

fallingblock

  • New Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #131 on: December 29, 2008, 07:15:09 PM »
Hi Nemo!

Quote
Good to see you, FB.  Here we are arguing about climate ... again.  smiley

Not arguing, Nemo. Discussing! =D

"Go to the high country" is not just a plan for alpine plant-seeking botanists!

It's been the plants themselves solution to warming/drying since there have been
terrestrial plants. Like all life, they either adapt or go extinct.

Why the panic?

My quarrel with the AGW doom-saying extremists is twofold:

First:
Even if the globe is warming as precipitously as claimed, there is ample evidence
in the geological record of similar events in the past. Why panic?

Second:
The "solutions" proposed to deal with AGW invariably involve dramatically
increased control of all aspects of human endeavor by 'authority'.
 
Historically, this approach never seems to end well for human liberty and dignity.

You mentioned the PETM awhile back -
Now there's a nice close (to geologists!) example of non-anthropogenic global warming.

The ice core data you mention is such a TINY slice of geologic time.
It is insufficient to extrapolate so much effect from.

PETM from (portion) Wikipedia:
Quote
Climate

Average global temperatures increased by ~6 °C in the space of 20,000 years. This is based on Mg/Ca and δ18O values of forams. δ18O is a more useful proxy for palæotemperature during the Eocene, as the lack of ice makes it safe to assume that the oceans' δ18O signature is constant.[12] Due to the positive feedback effect of melting ice reducing albedo, temperature increases would have been greatest at the poles, which reached an average annual temperature of 10-20 °C;[13] the surface waters of the northernmost[14] Arctic ocean warmed, seasonally at least, enough to support tropical lifeforms[15] requiring surface temperatures of over 22°C.[16]

The climate would also have become much wetter, with the increase in evaporation rates peaking in the tropics. Deuterium isotopes reveal that much more of this moisture was transported polewards than normal.[17] This would have resulted in the largely isolated Arctic ocean taking a more freshwater character as northern hemisphere rainfall was channelled towards it.[17]

So, why the panic?

I believe it is primarily political in nature, in order to establish the "one world" government socialists
have been dreaming of but up to now have not been able to achieve. They have found a 'product'. ;/

Fantastic display of alpines on at the moment in Kosciusko National Park!

Around 80% endemism at specific level - which suggests local adaptation
to the emerging alpine environment as well as migration from afar.

Dang it Nemo!

These plant critters have "been there done that" for so long now
I suspect if they could read the AGW hype they'd
do the plant equivalent of a yawn and turn the page. =)

They adapt or disappear. Why the panic?








Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
No panic, just very concerned
« Reply #132 on: December 29, 2008, 07:27:15 PM »
Quote
First:Even if the globe is warming as precipitously as claimed, there is ample evidence
in the geological record of similar events in the past. Why panic?

FB, I'm not in panic mode. I don't panic very easily. Let's call it concern.

Yes, Earth has been here before with respect to a large-scale heating event: PETM (55 mya), KT boundary (65 mya) and end of Permian (180 mya, I think). All were associated with mass extinctions. Earth recovered each time, and will probably do so this time (even if recovery will require 100,000 years or more).

My concern is that humans have never experienced anything like this in the history of our species. It's not something we've ever dealt with before. We have little in our toolkit ready to pull off the shelf, so to speak, to adapt to a change this  large that so severely affect freshwater availability, food production, fish stocks, etc.

The planet is already in turmoil because there are so many mouths to feed, oil is not getting cheaper, and we're in a global financial meltdown. Add this to the mix (which trumps  all the others in severity) and you've got the makings for catastrophe.

My biggest concern is not climate change itself. My biggest concern is living in a society that gets blindsided because it hit fast, we didn't see it coming and have no plan B.

As for the conspiracy theory about this all being politically motivated, I find that so unbelievable (I'm trying to be respectful here) that I can't even discuss it.
Levers, wheels & blades

fallingblock

  • New Member
  • Posts: 7
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #133 on: December 29, 2008, 07:54:15 PM »
Fair enough Nem!

I am not trying to invoke conspiracy (perhaps others are?) so much as trying to
attribute the degree of panic attending this likely natural climate cycle to those
who wish to consolidate authoritarian control over society.

Mass extinctions create opportunity for new life, do they not?

Where would we mammals be if the KT event hadn't happened?
I appreciate all the diversity we have now - it's INCREASED
from the KT event.

Maybe that's just how life is on this planet-
tied to a cyclical climate and dealing with it?

Quote
The planet is already in turmoil because there are so many mouths to feed, oil is not getting cheaper, and we're in a global financial meltdown. Add this to the mix (which trumps all the others in severity) and you've got the makings for catastrophe.

Nem, I think it's time for you to go visit some of your local wild places again. =)

All those plants and critters - their ancestors lived through catastrophes as bad or worse.
Life can handle it.

Those political authoritarians who stand to gain from the panic over "AGW'......

Now there's something to be concerned about! :O

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
It's the humans that worry me, not the critter safety
« Reply #134 on: December 29, 2008, 08:44:19 PM »
Quote
I am not trying to invoke conspiracy (perhaps others are?) so much as trying to
attribute the degree of panic attending this likely natural climate cycle to those
who wish to consolidate authoritarian control over society.

FB, other than "likely natural climate cycle" (which you probably understand by now that I don't buy  :rolleyes:  ), I hear you.

Assume for the moment that I'm right. (Sure, sure, suspend disbelief for a minute, as in strategy and tactic development exercises. You can go back to your belief in a minute, even if it is wrong. :D)

For me, the most worrisome threats are: 1) Those folks just up the road that aren't prepared for it, are very short of what they need and decide they're just going to come and try to take mine (which is the biggest reason I've got more guns in my safe now than I did a few years ago before I began studying this so closely); and 2) governments that decide that Marshall law or other draconian measures are the best way to deal with it.

The pentagon (and probably other agencies) has commissioned studies on this. They've thought through the potential national security issues involved, just in case it turns out to be right.
_____________

We really can do without the phrase "AGW" as far as I'm concerned. I've never liked the term. It oversimplifies the issue. Did humans have a role in it? Yes, IMO. (Obviously others disagree.) But are humans wholely responsible? No. Not even close. It's like blaming an economic crash on the failure of some specific corporation or industry. Does the crash of the latter effect or even trigger the larger crash? Sure. Does it cause it in the same way that a cue ball moves the 3 ball into the corner pocket? Nope.
______________

And you know what probably sucks the most, IMO.

This issue has such a negative effect on our community.

I'll bet if we were discussing rifles or 2A, we'd get along just fine, probably even amicably.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2008, 08:49:41 PM by Nematocyst »
Levers, wheels & blades

WhiteTiger

  • New Member
  • Posts: 22
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #135 on: December 29, 2008, 10:12:04 PM »
Bit tardy getting back to this thread, but in the second link Nematocyst offered in response to my post concerning possible solar system as opposed to planetary warming, the following irrationality sorta jumped out at me:

Quote
This last point is key. The causal link between the Earth’s warming and the alleged warming of other planets would have to be solar activity. But a recent study has shown that solar activity, including cosmic rays, are not responsible for recent planetary warming. The study (subs. no longer req’d) concluded:

Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

My original point in making my first post was to illustrate just how iffy the entire global warming hooraw is. "Science", in the quote above demonstrates my point quite nicely... "would have to be solar activity"... how charmingly naive ;) An honest statement would be "that's the only possibility that comes to mind and fits our current articles of faith, so that would have to be what it is".



Tiger

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #136 on: December 29, 2008, 10:48:19 PM »
Tiger, I don't follow your logic there.

The problem is that you extracted your quote out of context. When you read the context, it becomes clear that you are missing the point that the authors are making:

Quote
One of the scientists involved in the research explained, Pluto’s warming was “likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in sunlight. But the solar constant–the amount of sunlight received each second–is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun’s output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto.” And it is too steady to be changing the temperature of the Earth, for that matter: “The sunspot record and neutron monitor data,” as Realclimate.org explains, “show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

This last point is key. The causal link between the Earth’s warming and the alleged warming of other planets would have to be solar activity. But a recent study has shown that solar activity, including cosmic rays, are not responsible for recent planetary warming.

Their point is in the first paragraph, especially that last sentence in the first paragraph, regardless of how poor their wording is in the second. They're point is that with Pluto, it is the extreme elliptical orbit of Pluto and it's tilt that are entirely responsible for its warming (not changes in solar activity). That is not true of Earth. The changes in our trajectory are known to trigger climate changes here (those Millankovitch effects), but it's equally well known that the amount of heating difference caused by them is insufficient to explain the entire temperature difference between ice ages, interglacials or now.

Again, the sun explanation is just another in a long string of "myths" (sensu incorrect) that "skeptics" just won't let die regardless of how sound the data is.

Here's a news story about one of the latest studies to put a nail in the coffin of that idea that the temperature trend is solely due to solar changes.

Weart addresses other work and concludes there's more to it than merely sun changes. So does RealClimate, who provide nine different sources explaining why it's not "just the sun"

Does sun activity play a role in climate? Of course. How could it not?

But the real naivety is coming from those who are trying unsuccessfully (in the face of evidence) that's the only factor involved.

You can't ignore the fact that such a small proportion of other solar system bodies are experiencing warming, and more importantly that Earth's climate system is operating according to more complex rules than those others due to the nature of this system. (Back to that life component again.)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2008, 11:00:00 PM by Nematocyst »
Levers, wheels & blades

GigaBuist

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,345
    • http://www.justinbuist.org/blog/
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #137 on: December 29, 2008, 11:18:31 PM »
I'm enjoying this.  Even learning some stuff.  Keep it up guys!

fallingblock

  • New Member
  • Posts: 7
It's not the critters...they (or their descendents) will be fine
« Reply #138 on: December 30, 2008, 02:14:34 AM »
Quote
FB, other than "likely natural climate cycle" (which you probably understand by now that I don't buy  rolleyes  ), I hear you.

Ha-ha, couldn't slip that one by you. :angel:

Quote
You can go back to your belief in a minute, even if it is wrong. Cheesy)

Naughty! "Wrong" is not a good word for science discussions. =)

)
Quote
governments that decide that Marshall law or other draconian measures are the best way to deal with it.

See?! We are on the same track here!

The thing to worry about, IMHO is the people using the AGW panic to centralize power.

Quote
We really can do without the phrase "AGW" as far as I'm concerned. I've never liked the term. It oversimplifies the issue. Did humans have a role in it? Yes, IMO. (Obviously others disagree.)

The "usurpers" (for want of a better term) need the fundamental concept of AGW.
They need the voters and minions to genuinely BELIEVE that salvation lies in the transfer of power to those who can 'save' us. :O


Quote
But are humans wholely responsible? No. Not even close.



This is why professional bloviators such as Gore disgust me.
If one has to lie (and knows they are doing so) to promote a position, isn't it
time for some introspection as to motive? Yet Al continues with the dog & pony show. :rolleyes:


Quote
I'll bet if we were discussing rifles or 2A, we'd get along just fine, probably even amicably.

Shucks Nem, I'm already getting along amicably. =)

I respect your position and diligent scholarship on the issue.

And you like leverguns! =D

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #139 on: December 30, 2008, 02:32:24 AM »
Quote
And you like leverguns!  =D

Ah, yes.

Common ground is good, no?  =D

Thanks for the kind words, FB.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2008, 02:37:01 AM by Nematocyst »
Levers, wheels & blades

WhiteTiger

  • New Member
  • Posts: 22
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #140 on: December 30, 2008, 02:38:54 AM »
Nematocyst,

Quote
it is the extreme elliptical orbit of Pluto and it's tilt that are entirely responsible for its warming
Quote
changes in our trajectory are known to trigger climate changes here
Quote
equally well known that the amount of heating difference caused by them is insufficient to explain the entire temperature difference

Nice examples of those articles of faith I was mentioning. The distinction between "know" and "believe" is an important one, imo. Science is a fine tool, in it's proper place, but (imo again) it is as terrible a faith as any other and leads to the same sort of exclusivist dogma as any other.

Theories and models, regardless how extensively supported remain just theories and models. When the step is taken that places them into the "known" classification, they become, in my book, indistinguishable from the primitive naturist beliefs science was supposed to supplant and supercede. The prevalent tendency to equate the map/model with the territory is functionally identical to the sympathetic magic of earlier ages.



Tiger

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #141 on: December 30, 2008, 02:51:56 AM »
Sorry, Tiger. You're not making sense.
Levers, wheels & blades

WhiteTiger

  • New Member
  • Posts: 22
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #142 on: December 30, 2008, 02:56:09 AM »
That's ok. I'm entirely accustomed to that reaction, being the semi-pro gadfly sort  =D



Tiger

fallingblock

  • New Member
  • Posts: 7
Common ground...
« Reply #143 on: December 30, 2008, 07:27:45 PM »
Quote
Common ground is good, no?  grin
Quote
Thanks for the kind words, FB.

Thanks for your persistent civility Nem.

And then there's that other timeless classic - the 642..... :laugh:

gunsmith

  • I forgot to get vaccinated!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,187
  • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #144 on: December 30, 2008, 09:28:31 PM »
Quote
Where would we mammals be if the KT event hadn't happened?

We would be on the menu! :lol: =D

Nem, the gov't wouldn't invoke "Marshall Law"

 "martial law" is the term, a Marshall is a law enforcement officer.
;-)
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".
Rocket Man: "The need for booster shots for the immunized has always been based on the science.  Political science, not medical science."

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #145 on: December 30, 2008, 10:08:45 PM »
Quote
"martial law" is the term, a Marshall is a law enforcement officer.

Hahaha... yeah, thanks, Gunsmith.
Levers, wheels & blades

ArfinGreebly

  • Level Three Geek
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,236
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #146 on: January 01, 2009, 01:51:25 AM »
Reading . . .

Listening . . .

Still not convinced . . .

Intensely suspicious of "solutions" that involve more government meddling.  Consequently suspicious of arguments that permit government to assert "savior" status to curtail liberty.  And following from that, suspicious of any "science" that enables a political agenda.

That's not to say that said science (add salt as needed) is entirely and unredeemably wrong-headed, but it's not helping that its biggest supporters are the biggest enemies of self determinism and liberty.

Still . . .

I watch.

I listen.
"Look at it this way. If America frightens you, feel free to live somewhere else. There are plenty of other countries that don't suffer from excessive liberty. America is where the Liberty is. Liberty is not certified safe."

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #147 on: January 01, 2009, 02:08:54 AM »
Good  to see you here, Arf.

I don't blame you for your distrust of "solutions". It's why I continuously avoid them when writing about the science.

IMO, it's crucial for us to separate our understanding of the issue from the "solutions". When they get tangled up, as they seem to be for you and so many others, it can lead to distrust of the diagnosis which is not necessarily justified. (Not at all in this case, I assert.)

Think of it this way. I'm betting that if multiple physicians diagnosed an illness in you or a loved one using multiple tools (perhaps chemical tests, MRI's, biopsy, ultrasound, etc), but all recommended different treatments, none of which you liked or approved of, you wouldn't discount the diagnosis just because you disliked their prescribed remedies. Instead, you'd seek alternative remedies.

That's what I recommend that you do with the issue at hand. Learn as much as you can about heating and climate change, and for the moment, ignore the solutions proposed by the Gores and others. Just focus on the science. (Oh, yes you can do it. I know because I do it.)

Then, at a time of your choosing (or not) you can deal with "solutions".

PS: I rarely if ever discuss "mitigation" any longer. Such discussions just lead to arguments, and most are impractical anyway, either politically, economically, technologically, ecologically or otherwise. I'm pretty convinced that even if everyone agreed on the science - and clearly everyone does not (current thread offered as evidence) - we probably would not have the  political and economic will to do anything substantive to "stop it".

So, increasingly, I focus on what individuals, families, neighborhoods and communities can do to prepare for adaptation to large scale change, just in case the science is right.

It falls back on my boy scout training that carried right through to my mountaineering experiences: be prepared. One would be a fool to go on an expedition above the treeline or into a desert without the proper tools, skills and knowledge. Likewise with a journey into the future where the home planet will change in ways that are similar to a desert expedition at times and above the treeline expeditions at others - meaning far more challenging than what we've been used to.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 02:20:59 AM by Nematocyst »
Levers, wheels & blades

Bogie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,280
  • Hunkered in South St. Louis, right by Route 66
    • Third Rate Pundit
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #148 on: January 01, 2009, 02:30:45 AM »
So... If Yellowstone pops, how do we figure the resulting data next to the adjacent data?
 
If I understand the theory, the added pollution causes the climate to become warmer - then why did we have the "year without a summer" when Krakatoa (or whatever it was...) popped?
 
I'm guessing that we're more likely to see "environmental change" from an external (big-ass comet) or an internal (big-ass volcano) event than we are from burning a bit of fossil fuel... There've been fires like you wouldn't believe in places where man had never stepped foot... And the developed world is considerably less "polluted" than it was 50-150 years ago...
 
I'm leery of the folks claiming knowledge of cement clouds - for the simple reason that there's grant money in them there clouds... And there's darn little gain to be found in saying "Hey folks, nothing to be seen here - that sky isn't falling..."
 
Blog under construction

Nematocyst

  • New Member
  • Posts: 82
Re: 'cooling trend illustrates how fast the world is warming'...
« Reply #149 on: January 01, 2009, 02:42:18 AM »
Quote
So... If Yellowstone pops, how do we figure the resulting data next to the adjacent data?

If Yellowstone pops in a big way, then all bets are off for the time being, at least for the Pacific NW.  ;/
 
Quote
If I understand the theory, the added pollution causes the climate to become warmer - then why did we have the "year without a summer" when Krakatoa (or whatever it was...) popped?

Simple one here. Volcanoes put up massive amounts of CO2. Before humans came along, they were the only real source of CO2. In fact, the climate system has evolved to actively pump down CO2 (mainly those marine phytoplankton) because the more passive processes that rely on rock weathering can require tens to hundreds of thousands of years to lower CO2 levels.

However, volcanoes also expel large quantities of ash (and big ones like Krakatoa put it up in the stratosphere) and sulfur dioxides, both of which cause temporary cooling and "years without summers". Same thing happened when Pinatubo blew. Those aerosols wash out in a year or two, though, where as the CO2 requires MUCH longer to scrub out (at least decades, but up to hundreds of years if the carbon load is significant).

This is why past global heating events have been largely volcanic in origin: massive volcanic eruptions (either terrestrial or submarine or both) have been behind the Permian extinction, the Cretaceous Tertiary event (when dinosaurs bit it; ultimate cause there was an asteroid, but the proximate cause was vulcanism triggered by the asteroid) and the PETM event (triggered by submarine volcanism that destabilized methane hydrates on the ocean floor).
Levers, wheels & blades