|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2007 : 22:10:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
There's a lot of green-house gas locked up in the permafrost of Siberia...
And in Northern Canada - The release of greenhouse gasses from melting permafrost is one of the positive feedback "tipping points" like the melting of the ice caps that could make the difference a manageable change for the worse and a major disaster.
Bill keeps saying "the science could be wrong" - but he never considers the possibility that the current models may underestimate the dangers of global warming.
One possible outcome of the polar ice cap melting would be shutting down the Gulf stream - this would give Northern Europe the climate of Canada.
|
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 23:14:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I don't think any action is going to be taken until a lot more people are scared. I suspect that might be too late, though. The bottom line is, better to risk looking like idiots, than looking like corpses.
I say, be afraid. Be very afraid. Then take action to drastically reduce greenhouse gasses!
This is the part where I get off the train. I think people have reason to be scared, but I also know that fear and rationality are not brothers or even cousins. I think the fear train is more dangerous than the ignore it train in some ways.
I'd generally agree with you on that principle. But the Ignore Train in this case is heading for a wreck. Ignoring GW is the worst thing we can do, in my opinion. And fear may be the only real alternative. It's not as though pointing out real frightening dangers is fear-mongering.
And here's something else to fear: If enough people don't fear GW now, there may be enormous pressures later to do something drastic (like the dumping of iron in the oceans) to reverse it once it's too late to stop man-made CO2 emissions. Such engineering solutions may turn out to have dangerous unforeseen effects. (Like some of the horrible, ham-handed attempts to solve problems of exotic pests in the past by introducing exotic predators.) We could possibly start an Ice Age if we panic and try crazy solutions down the road. Better to stop the gasses now, and hope for the best.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2007 : 23:26:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I don't think any action is going to be taken until a lot more people are scared. I suspect that might be too late, though. The bottom line is, better to risk looking like idiots, than looking like corpses.
I say, be afraid. Be very afraid. Then take action to drastically reduce greenhouse gasses!
This is the part where I get off the train. I think people have reason to be scared, but I also know that fear and rationality are not brothers or even cousins. I think the fear train is more dangerous than the ignore it train in some ways.
We need to get people to move their butts. Too many of them, like Bill's, will be firmly rooted. Scare tactics may be the only way to get the wagon rolling. Once it is, then we can start navigating away from global disaster. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 01:55:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I'd generally agree with you on that principle. But the Ignore Train in this case is heading for a wreck. Ignoring GW is the worst thing we can do, in my opinion. And fear may be the only real alternative. It's not as though pointing out real frightening dangers is fear-mongering.
And here's something else to fear: If enough people don't fear GW now, there may be enormous pressures later to do something drastic (like the dumping of iron in the oceans) to reverse it once it's too late to stop man-made CO2 emissions. Such engineering solutions may turn out to have dangerous unforeseen effects. (Like some of the horrible, ham-handed attempts to solve problems of exotic pests in the past by introducing exotic predators.) We could possibly start an Ice Age if we panic and try crazy solutions down the road. Better to stop the gasses now, and hope for the best.
Yes, people have reason to fear. Yes, the dangers could be beyond catastrophic. Therefore, I seriously want the GW scientists to make all efforts to get the most information. I also very seriously want people to take measures to prevent (if/where possible) the catastrophe. However, the regular people, living regular life seem to have two speeds, dead still and break neck. I just want to see people becoming mindful of the problem, understanding the issue and their responsibility, realizing their ability, and taking the issue seriously without panicking. Fear mongering is not the problem, it is the irrational response sqaud I want to bypass. This is the main reason I am glad that there is more than one reason to support energy reform. I honestly do not believe that people would be moved by the fate of the planet alone. When people get scared (truly scared) they get stupid, when people get apathetically aware (most common state of modern day people) they get lazy. I would like to see a medium between the two that begets action and avoids hysteria. That's all I was saying. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 02/08/2007 02:05:56 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 02:04:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I don't think any action is going to be taken until a lot more people are scared. I suspect that might be too late, though. The bottom line is, better to risk looking like idiots, than looking like corpses.
I say, be afraid. Be very afraid. Then take action to drastically reduce greenhouse gasses!
This is the part where I get off the train. I think people have reason to be scared, but I also know that fear and rationality are not brothers or even cousins. I think the fear train is more dangerous than the ignore it train in some ways.
We need to get people to move their butts. Too many of them, like Bill's, will be firmly rooted. Scare tactics may be the only way to get the wagon rolling. Once it is, then we can start navigating away from global disaster.
Agree. But scare tactice have one of two outcomes, neither is edifying. Either they become desensitized and call it a bluff or they get crazy and associate the green movement with hippy communism and create a negative stereotype. I think that assuring the public that 1) The evidence is stacking up 2) The issue is serious and 3) There are several incentives to going green (none of which wrecks our economy or any of the other fallicious arguments of the oil sympathizers). We can explain the severity of the issue without scaring the hell out of people, and in that state (alarm not fear) we can expect the wheels to move with several driving shafts not just blind fear of the consequences. The way I see it, there will always be Bill's out there who need a different reason to go green and no amount of fear will change it. In fact, such tactics play into the hands of the deniers, just like a hot-head atheist plays into the hands of the fundys. That is my take. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 09:48:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Actually Tom, global warming will not just dump more water into the oceans, but cold water. Cold water that will disrupt the current ocean current and, most likely, drastically effect weather phenomenon. That will totally effect human health.
But how much? Yes, it will effect human health, I never denied that. But will it to the extent that it will be the worst disaster ever to be witnessed and imagined by mankind (as environmental scare mongerers like to portray it)? I don't see the evidence for that. The research that is being done in this area now shows quite consistently that humans have a high level of adaptability to these weather phenomena. Look at some of the assessments published in the environmenal health perspectives (http://www.ehponline.org/). As I said, quite a few effects may be seen in the coastal areas, due to hurricanes and/or flooding. But on the whole it seems that people have an extreme ability to adapt, either on the physiological level or by the use of proper clothing, heating and cooling.
quote:
We must not forget Le Chatelier's Principle. Whatever is done to a system, it will seek the opposite conditions to relieve that stress. Meaning pendulem temperature effects and considering the unpredictability of the weather (even with our current meteorology technology) it could be disasterous. We still must use could of course. It may not be worse than some of the prior global climate disasters but those were pretty bad by my standards.
But as of yet we have very little (if any) evidence that those pendulum swings will affect human health. Surely, we may see some rise in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly. But I have yet to see any evidence that shows that this increased variability in weather will also affect human health globally. Again, locally it may, especially in coastal areas and those prone to hurricanes. But other then that? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 09:56:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Well, I'm scared, Tom. Just from an agricultural viewpoint, there may be huge problems. Imagine the pressure for migrations. (My Canada invasion story wasn't all in jest.) The changes may have already begun, as with the drying of the Horn of Africa. Goodbye Mississippi delta. Goodbye Venice, and many coastal cities. (I suspect you Dutch will engineer your own survival once again, but that it will be a tough battle.) Goodbye much of Bangladesh. Hello, increasing hurricanes. And the danger is, nature may take over the acceleration process, with its own vicious cycle of CO2 and methane releases.
I don't think any action is going to be taken until a lot more people are scared. I suspect that might be too late, though. The bottom line is, better to risk looking like idiots, than looking like corpses.
I say, be afraid. Be very afraid. Then take action to drastically reduce greenhouse gasses!
I agree that we need to take action. But as of yet, I haven't seen any positive outcomes from the scare language. If anything, I see that it desensitizes the general population from listening to the message. The credibility of the environmental movement has drastically reduced after a lot of the 'scare'-predictions done by them failed to pan out. And I do not think we can afford that, regardless of how big the effects are going to be. And especially if those effects are still for a large part highly speculative. Perhaps this is just my perception, because I do realize that people are more likely to act if they actually see something as an immediate danger to them. But I haven't seen previous scare-messages of the environmental movement do lots of good. A bit of a catch-22 perhaps? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 16:14:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
But how much? Yes, it will effect human health, I never denied that. But will it to the extent that it will be the worst disaster ever to be witnessed and imagined by mankind (as environmental scare mongerers like to portray it)? I don't see the evidence for that.
Well you have no doubt read my comments on scare mongering. My point was that the effects will be highly impactful on human life because even the changing seasons impact human life.
quote:
The research that is being done in this area now shows quite consistently that humans have a high level of adaptability to these weather phenomena. Look at some of the assessments published in the environmenal health perspectives (http://www.ehponline.org/). As I said, quite a few effects may be seen in the coastal areas, due to hurricanes and/or flooding. But on the whole it seems that people have an extreme ability to adapt, either on the physiological level or by the use of proper clothing, heating and cooling.
Heating with? Cooling with? I totally doubt that Global Warming will wipeout human kind. But I am sure that it would not be a picnic. The effects of climate change would have impacts on everything from the economy to diplomacy.
quote:
quote:
We must not forget Le Chatelier's Principle. Whatever is done to a system, it will seek the opposite conditions to relieve that stress. Meaning pendulem temperature effects and considering the unpredictability of the weather (even with our current meteorology technology) it could be disasterous. We still must use could of course. It may not be worse than some of the prior global climate disasters but those were pretty bad by my standards.
But as of yet we have very little (if any) evidence that those pendulum swings will affect human health. Surely, we may see some rise in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly. But I have yet to see any evidence that shows that this increased variability in weather will also affect human health globally.
The seasons change and it impacts the weaker individuals, the young and old. The weather controls the types of flora and fauna that can flourish in one area or another of our globe. Storms have huge effects on the areas that are hit. Rising sea levels would be catastophic for coastal areas. I think that hurricane season, winter, blizzards, summer heat waves, and current geo-politics are good evidence of just how reactive we are to mother nature when it comes to our day to day decisions and our long reaching policies.
quote:
Again, locally it may, especially in coastal areas and those prone to hurricanes. But other then that?
Other than that? Well, ignoring temperatures direct effect on the ecosystem and human realtions with that ecosystem, maybe nothing. I don't know. But I do think that is enough. Again I think fear mongering is a bad strategy, but I also think that down playing it is a bad strategy also. The truth is that we know that GW will have an impact on the climate and we know that the climate is largly out of our control and frankly unpredictable. Meaning, it could be a mild enough change that we spring back or the worst set of geological and climatological changes ever. We must realize that humans can survive, but our system of society is far less pliable. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 08:17:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Well you have no doubt read my comments on scare mongering. My point was that the effects will be highly impactful on human life because even the changing seasons impact human life.
I don't disagree on that. But I also disagree that this might be the worst disaster ever imagined by our ancestors.
quote:
Heating with? Cooling with? I totally doubt that Global Warming will wipeout human kind. But I am sure that it would not be a picnic. The effects of climate change would have impacts on everything from the economy to diplomacy.
Heating with central heating and clothing. Cooling with fans, air conditioning and wearing appropriate clothing. Yes, global warming will have a lot of impact. But I think you might be underestimating the automatic adaptive response strategies that people have. I am much more worried about ecological effects then the effects on human society when it comes to global warming.
quote:
The seasons change and it impacts the weaker individuals, the young and old. The weather controls the types of flora and fauna that can flourish in one area or another of our globe. Storms have huge effects on the areas that are hit. Rising sea levels would be catastophic for coastal areas. I think that hurricane season, winter, blizzards, summer heat waves, and current geo-politics are good evidence of just how reactive we are to mother nature when it comes to our day to day decisions and our long reaching policies.
But purely looking at human health, who are affected by these blizzards and heat waves? In Western societies, it is mainly the older people who probably would be dying in a few days to months anyway. Without wanting to be harsh, what we see in these mortality trends in Western society is a harvesting effect, where the people that die in these events are people that would die in the upcoming period anyway. We don't even see much of a rise in deaths of young children anymore. The picture is different in underdeveloped lands where children are more affected, but shouldn't we then raise our efforts much more in increasing the development of these countries?
I don't think day-to-day human health will be the real issue in global warming. I don't think societal structure comes under pressure very much. I do worry about the effects of global warming on coastal and hurricane areas.
quote:
Other than that? Well, ignoring temperatures direct effect on the ecosystem and human realtions with that ecosystem, maybe nothing. I don't know. But I do think that is enough. Again I think fear mongering is a bad strategy, but I also think that down playing it is a bad strategy also. The truth is that we know that GW will have an impact on the climate and we know that the climate is largly out of our control and frankly unpredictable. Meaning, it could be a mild enough change that we spring back or the worst set of geological and climatological changes ever. We must realize that humans can survive, but our system of society is far less pliable.
I do not think I am downplaying anything. Maybe it seemed so from earlier posts, but I think I've said quite a few times that I think action is necessary and that the effects on specific regions may be severe. But we need to make accurate assessments of the risks to make good policy and I don't think that stating that human health will be hugely effected on all fronts and global catastrophy is waiting that will unravel the ties of society is an accurate assessment of the risks. I think the risks are primarily for coastal areas and hurricane areas that will have increases in floodings and intensity of hurricanes. I think there are some major consequences on agriculture, but I have yet to see evidence that suggests that our agricultural position will become worse compared to how it is at this point. I think that with agriculture, we need to tackle a lot of problems there on their own account already, regardless of global warming and that tackling those will also take away a lot of the threat of global warming on agriculture.
I have two main concerns in the effects of global warming. The aforementioned areas of hurricanes and coasts and ecology. With ecology, I think it is virtually impossible to predict how that is going to affect human health. I do think that those form reason enough for action. My problem is just that this message might be a lot harder to sell. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 09:34:24 [Permalink]
|
| Well, looks like Bill has jumped ship again... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 10:44:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Well, looks like Bill has jumped ship again...
Since you guys were royally kicking his ass, that would be his wisest move. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 10:46:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
Heating with central heating and clothing. Cooling with fans, air conditioning and wearing appropriate clothing. Yes, global warming will have a lot of impact. But I think you might be underestimating the automatic adaptive response strategies that people have. I am much more worried about ecological effects then the effects on human society when it comes to global warming.
Exactly, by using energy. So, we will use more energy, and isn't that the problem in the first place? I am not talking about the survivability of individual humans; I am talking about the impact on our economy and society at large. Humans adapt, usually, with the best, cheapest, and easiest methods. All of these characteristics at once. I certainly don't expect us to suddenly become more mindful in our adaptive strategies.
quote:
But purely looking at human health,
I am not. I already conceded health impact as controllable. Hell, even in a global destruction scenario (like The Day After Tomorrow style) we could burn the building material to survive cold and dig tunnels under ground for heat waves or something along those lines.
quote:
who are affected by these blizzards and heat waves? In Western societies, it is mainly the older people who probably would be dying in a few days to months anyway.
Not when it comes to everyday activities and long reaching strategies (the things I have previously outlined as my position). A snow storm burying your car is a problem even if your 25. Also, heatwaves cost people hundreds more per month in cooling costs.
quote:
Without wanting to be harsh, what we see in these mortality trends in Western society is a harvesting effect, where the people that die in these events are people that would die in the upcoming period anyway. We don't even see much of a rise in deaths of young children anymore.
Excluding the outlyers. Also, the very young are suseptible, the difference being the parents' care. But this is not what I am arguing because human health is only the concern over drastic climate change.
quote:
The picture is different in underdeveloped lands where children are more affected, but shouldn't we then raise our efforts much more in increasing the development of these countries?
Is that a moral question? Maybe, but I am not really talking moral, I am talking statistical, not to try and guess numbers on something so unpredictable as weather changes, but I am suggesting that costs for maintaining climate control will be higher and the climate changes will alter economies globally if only for the simple fact of changing weather patterns change plant ecosystems, ie agriculture. I am also considering the deadly storms and the ability to live in areas highly effected, ie a Tsunami or Hurricane Katrina like event every few years.
quote:
I don't think day-to-day human health will be the real issue in global warming.
Me either. I already said so. I am talking about the day to day interactions of humans (and perhaps the health of the less developed poulations) being effected and therefore, the long term interactions must be impacted.
quote:
I don't think societal structure comes under pressure very much. I do worry about the effects of global warming on coastal and hurricane areas.
Did you miss the political impact of Katrina? I think that societal structure would be greatly impacted with significant climate change. I already outlined why.
quote:
I do not think I am downplaying anything. Maybe it seemed so from earlier posts, but I think I've said quite a few times that I think action is necessary and that the effects on specific regions may be severe.
And I think that any impact on those regions will by default impact the political climates in all regions. If any evacuations were needed, or supplies to avoid heat stroke (in extremely hot areas for long periods of time) it would be a global outcry.
quote:
But we need to make accurate assessments of the risks to make good policy and I don't think that stating that human health will be hugely effected on all fronts
Agree. I did not mean to imply otherwise.
quote:
and global catastrophy is waiting that will unravel the ties of society is an accurate assessment of the risks.
Again, that is not what I am saying. You are fitting me into the mold of fear monger. Saying that the impact will be deep reaching societally, economically, and politically is not like saying the world is doomed. The world is getting smaller and unless it suddenly gets bigger again, everything happening in one region could impact another region, of course climate wise but also politically and societally (people who organize to aid or hinder the other region). Then these things will impact the economy of the regions. The chain could go on or be short just like it currently can.
quote:
I think the risks are primarily for coastal areas and hurricane areas that will have increases in floodings and intensity of hurricanes.
And I think that you are ignoring the climate changes that can come with higher mean temperatures and the dumping of cold water into a heat pump. You are ignoring that deserts and rainforests are built on weather patterns. Like say the Sahara, the dust bowl of America, or the current effects on the horn of Africa. Climate regions are not independent.
quote:
I think there are some major consequences on agriculture, but I have yet to see evidence that suggests that our agricultural position will become worse compared to how it is at this point.
The status may remain the same, but the areas where the food grows may be drastically (politically) rearranged. This is the type of impact I am concerned with. I don't care so much about health impacts, people die everyday, in some regions, of starvation when we have more food than people could eat.
quote:
I think that with agriculture, we need to tackle a lot of problems there on their own account already, regardless of global warming and that tackling those will also take away a lot of the threat of global warming on agriculture.
Sure.
quote:
I have two main concerns in the effects of global warming. The aforementioned areas of hurricanes and coasts and ecology. With ecology, I think it is virtually impossible to predict how that is going to affect human health. I do think that those form reason enough for action. My problem is just that this message might be a lot harder to sell.
Here is what I read from you. Humans adapt and can handle climate changes (true), the major effects will be contained regionally (maybe?) and society at large will not be effected (Doubt it). To someone who doesn't think that the environment is a concern anyway, this is not going to get attention. You have basically said, 'It will all be fine excluding a few changes.', but we don't know that and I think, we have good evidence to suggest otherwise. People will not become more altruistic as the climate gets worse and so costs of containing the potential problems are very real. I am of the position that we should prepare for a serious impact and actively work to ensure our climate is manageable for our current societies. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 16:16:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Well, looks like Bill has jumped ship again...
Since you guys were royally kicking his ass, that would be his wisest move.
I think his wisest move would have been to reconsider his position. That's what I do when I'm shown a ton of evidence that points to my being wrong about something. Unfortunately, Bill can't go there. To bad. He had a chance to show some character rather than just be one.  |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2007 : 07:09:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
quote:
You have never even entertained the remote possibility that the models, and all the thousands of calculations and assumptions that would go into them, could ever be wrong have you?
Yes, I have entertained that possibility. But that is a useless way of thinking.
So then, by default, you just declare the "scientific" models to be the end all be all of truth. (sigh) At least until someone comes along with some over riding truth.
quote:
That what we know now may not be correct is something that is inherent in all human activities.
Right, and another way of saying that we are not correct is that we are wrong.
quote:
We must go with the data we have now,
Even though it might be wrong.
quote:
not with the data we might have in the future. And with the data we have now, the consensus is that global warming is happening and has a strong human component. That is the data we have to work with. If you have other data, feel free to present it.
That is the data you choose to accept as plenty of competing data is out there...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there.
It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available - there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.
"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.
"Farther south, the impact would be modest, or even non-existent."
"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
