|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
 Posted - 12/13/2007 : 17:36:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Where we seem to disagree is on the cause of the observed warming. At this point I tend to lean towards natural occurrence for the rise and you lean towards man as the source of the change. |
CauseS. SourceS. The most important part of all of this discussion that you need to understand, Bill, is that there is no choice to make over which (nature or man) is causing warming. The choice is which is causing more warming.
|
With data from ice core air bubbles it's predictable where temperatures ought to be based on where we are in the glacial/interglacial cycle. (Assuming there's no massive influence on the climate) By comparison the Earth should be quite a bit cooler (something like 5 degrees C) than it is and getting progressively cooler rather than warmer; to the point where the beginnings of ice sheets should be creeping across North Eastern Canada.
In order for nature to be the source of the current warming something extraordinary that hasn't happened in at least the last half million years is taking place right now. If it's not the obvious - human activity - then what is it? It's not the sun, that theory's been thoroughly debunked. It's not vulcanism - human activity produces many times the CO2 as all the world's volcanos combined. So what is it? |
-Chaloobi
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2007 : 19:20:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Where we seem to disagree is on the cause of the observed warming. At this point I tend to lean towards natural occurrence for the rise and you lean towards man as the source of the change. |
CauseS. SourceS. The most important part of all of this discussion that you need to understand, Bill, is that there is no choice to make over which (nature or man) is causing warming. The choice is which is causing more warming.
|
With data from ice core air bubbles it's predictable where temperatures ought to be based on where we are in the glacial/interglacial cycle. (Assuming there's no massive influence on the climate) By comparison the Earth should be quite a bit cooler (something like 5 degrees C) than it is and getting progressively cooler rather than warmer; to the point where the beginnings of ice sheets should be creeping across North Eastern Canada.
In order for nature to be the source of the current warming something extraordinary that hasn't happened in at least the last half million years is taking place right now. If it's not the obvious - human activity - then what is it? It's not the sun, that theory's been thoroughly debunked. It's not vulcanism - human activity produces many times the CO2 as all the world's volcanos combined. So what is it?
|
Rush Limbaugh? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 03:47:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by chaloobi
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Where we seem to disagree is on the cause of the observed warming. At this point I tend to lean towards natural occurrence for the rise and you lean towards man as the source of the change. |
CauseS. SourceS. The most important part of all of this discussion that you need to understand, Bill, is that there is no choice to make over which (nature or man) is causing warming. The choice is which is causing more warming.
|
With data from ice core air bubbles it's predictable where temperatures ought to be based on where we are in the glacial/interglacial cycle. (Assuming there's no massive influence on the climate) By comparison the Earth should be quite a bit cooler (something like 5 degrees C) than it is and getting progressively cooler rather than warmer; to the point where the beginnings of ice sheets should be creeping across North Eastern Canada.
In order for nature to be the source of the current warming something extraordinary that hasn't happened in at least the last half million years is taking place right now. If it's not the obvious - human activity - then what is it? It's not the sun, that theory's been thoroughly debunked. It's not vulcanism - human activity produces many times the CO2 as all the world's volcanos combined. So what is it?
|
Rush Limbaugh?
|
Nah; he mostly produces methane.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 07:36:31 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| CauseS. SourceS. The most important part of all of this discussion that you need to understand, Bill, is that there is no choice to make over which (nature or man) is causing warming. The choice is which is causing more warming. |
I agree, but this is where we seem to split. I am skeptical to this point, but not closed minded, on man being a greater contributor to the temperature fluctuation or even if he is a contributor to temp change at all. So maybe here, in layman's terms, you can give me some background on why you tend to believe man is out contributing mother nature in the warming process. I will be glad to objectively take a look at the information with an open mind.
As I said, as a skeptic my fear is that if this AGW is being sensationalized and overhyped that taxes and legislation will be levied or over levied by the UN and governments in a knee-jerk reaction that will have a negative impact on standards of living, economy's, progression for underdeveloped nations etc... etc... for no good reason.
I would then assume that your fear is that we (man) are contributing to the warming at an unnatural rate which will result in all kinds climate changes, mostly for the negative.
And there in lies our conflict, no? |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 07:44:05 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by chaloobi |
With data from ice core air bubbles it's predictable where temperatures ought to be based on where we are in the glacial/interglacial cycle. (Assuming there's no massive influence on the climate) By comparison the Earth should be quite a bit cooler (something like 5 degrees C) than it is and getting progressively cooler rather than warmer; to the point where the beginnings of ice sheets should be creeping across North Eastern Canada.
In order for nature to be the source of the current warming something extraordinary that hasn't happened in at least the last half million years is taking place right now. If it's not the obvious - human activity - then what is it? It's not the sun, that theory's been thoroughly debunked. It's not vulcanism - human activity produces many times the CO2 as all the world's volcanos combined. So what is it? |
Interesting. Can you give me a link(s) where I could learn more about this? As is your response only leaves me with more questions. How do they confirm the calibration of the data found in ice bubbles? How did they determine that the temps should be 5 C colder? How does something unknown or extraordinary get ruled out as the cause by looking at a .5 million year window when we have a back drop of a 4.5 billion year window?
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 07:50:06 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dude |
Still enjoy misrepresenting what other people say I see. Well, at least you don't limit yourself to just telling lies about Gore.
My links to previous wind energy resources DID include what % of power China derives from them, and the comparative growth rate of coal vs wind/solar/etc. China is the biggest emitter of CO2 now, and their planned growth of coal fired energy is (to put it mildly) extensive. |
Sorry. I must have missed the %. It wasn't very much was it? I think you posted on the wind farms when I posted the data showing China bringing a new coal fired powerplant on line every 7-10 days with this rate projected to continue for years.
| The point I was making, which you seemed to have missed, is that we need to work closely with China and India (and several other developing nations) and provide them the resources to avoid our mistakes, while we clean up our own act. |
I thought we were talking about CFL light bulbs and in response to my statement that this was a cosmetic Band-Aid when China is building a new coal plant every 7-10 days you then posted on the Chinese wind farms.
| Wind energy alone can provide all the power every human on the planet needs, evidence for this was provided for this claim a couple of years ago. The problem is one of infrastructure. We even have the capability of harnessing high altitude winds for power via tethered wind turbines. |
Is it affordable though? All the technology in the world can't add up to a hill of beans if it is feasible impossible form a cost standpoint.
| When the US government offers wind energy companies the same subsidies they offer our oil companies (60-100 billion a year) then we'll see these technologies begin to replace coal. |
You might be on to something there.
| To bad that coal/oil special interests own congress. |
I am hip. I was hoping with the dems in charge that maybe big oil would be challenged. Not seeing it yet.
| I am also an advocate of nuclear power. It is clean, efficient, and the newest reactors are incapable of melting down when the cooling systems are completely disabled. There is the problem of spent fuel, yes, but that is something we can contain for the moment and hopefully be able to recycle (or something) in the future. The US ban on new nuclear power plants is one of the most absurd things our government has ever done. |
I am right there with you on this one.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 08:29:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I am hip. I was hoping with the dems in charge that maybe big oil would be challenged. Not seeing it yet. |
Part of the problem in this (and this is just a small aside) is that the Dems don't have a large enough majority to override vetoes, and, in the Senate, they often can't get the 60-vote majority to override the Republican's almost constant filibustering.
Here's more on the problem. It's not just Republican filibustering, though--| What's the problem? Complex energy issues cut across party, regional and leadership lines. But for Democrats, there's an added difficulty because the energy debate pits some of their key constituency groups against each other. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 08:51:40 [Permalink]
|
More later, but a quick reply to this:Originally posted by Bill scott
How does something unknown or extraordinary get ruled out as the cause... |
Science doesn't work in miracles, Bill. Unknown things have to become known and then ruled in. Otherwise, everything about science would stagnate in huge piles of "well, we don't know if something else might be going on of which we're unaware, sometime, maybe." Science works on best evidence, not on unknown possibilities. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 08:52:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by chaloobi |
With data from ice core air bubbles it's predictable where temperatures ought to be based on where we are in the glacial/interglacial cycle. (Assuming there's no massive influence on the climate) By comparison the Earth should be quite a bit cooler (something like 5 degrees C) than it is and getting progressively cooler rather than warmer; to the point where the beginnings of ice sheets should be creeping across North Eastern Canada.
In order for nature to be the source of the current warming something extraordinary that hasn't happened in at least the last half million years is taking place right now. If it's not the obvious - human activity - then what is it? It's not the sun, that theory's been thoroughly debunked. It's not vulcanism - human activity produces many times the CO2 as all the world's volcanos combined. So what is it? |
Interesting. Can you give me a link(s) where I could learn more about this? As is your response only leaves me with more questions. How do they confirm the calibration of the data found in ice bubbles? How did they determine that the temps should be 5 C colder? How does something unknown or extraordinary get ruled out as the cause by looking at a .5 million year window when we have a back drop of a 4.5 billion year window?
|
Here's a synopsis of the agricultural revolution theory of climate warming. I originally read about it in Scientific American and then heard a blurb about it on NPR.
http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2003/climate-dec-9-2003.html
HUMANS BEGAN ALTERING GLOBAL CLIMATE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, STUDY SHOWS
December 9, 2003 -- A new hypothesis suggests that humans began altering greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate thousands of years ago, long before the 1800s date widely assumed. In a paper to be presented at the December American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco and published in the December issue of Climatic Change, climate scientist Bill Ruddiman, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, concludes that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) since 8,000 years ago, and methane (CH4) since 5,000 years ago have combined to prevent a significant natural cooling of Earth's climate.
Cyclic changes in these two greenhouse gases and in the size of ice sheets have occurred over hundreds of thousands of years for natural reasons. These natural cycles are driven by small variations in Earth's orbit that cause rhythmic changes in the amount of solar radiation received at every location on the planet. The changes in solar radiation in turn cause predictable changes in climate that drive the greenhouse-gas cycles. But within the last several thousand years, these natural cycles were over-ridden by human activities that resulted from the early spread of agriculture in Eurasia, Ruddiman said.
Highlights of the new study include:
Beginning 8,000 years ago, humans reversed an expected decrease in CO2 by clearing forests in Europe, China, and India for croplands and pasture (page 2).
Beginning 5,000 years ago, humans reversed an expected decrease in methane by diverting water to irrigate rice and by tending large herds of livestock (page 3).
In the last few thousand years, the size of the climatic warming caused by these early greenhouse emissions may have grown large enough to prevent a glaciation that climate models predict should have begun in northeast Canada (page 4).
Abr |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 08:56:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by Bill scott
I am hip. I was hoping with the dems in charge that maybe big oil would be challenged. Not seeing it yet. |
Part of the problem in this (and this is just a small aside) is that the Dems don't have a large enough majority to override vetoes, and, in the Senate, they often can't get the 60-vote majority to override the Republican's almost constant filibustering.
Here's more on the problem. It's not just Republican filibustering, though--| What's the problem? Complex energy issues cut across party, regional and leadership lines. But for Democrats, there's an added difficulty because the energy debate pits some of their key constituency groups against each other. |
|
How ironic, it appears that pork barrel spending was running rampant from 1999 on with the repubs in the majority. However, it was down in 2007, not because the dems lacked any porky projects, but because only 2 of their 11 appropriations bills have passed. So the pubs clamp down on pork when they have the minority, but it runs rampant with them in the majority. And the dems promise an end to pork but this has only been achieved because of the filibusters. These people are astounding, all of them.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007 |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2007 : 09:03:20 [Permalink]
|
Interesting. Can you give me a link(s) where I could learn more about this? As is your response only leaves me with more questions. How do they confirm the calibration of the data found in ice bubbles? How did they determine that the temps should be 5 C colder? How does something unknown or extraordinary get ruled out as the cause by looking at a .5 million year window when we have a back drop of a 4.5 billion year window?
|
The bubbles in ice cores can tell us a great deal about the makeup of the atmosphere of past ages. Ice core
Ice Core sample taken from drill. Photo by Lonnie Thompson, Byrd Polar Research Center.An ice core is a core sample from the accumulation of snow and ice over many years that have re-crystallized and have trapped air bubbles from previous time periods. The composition of these ice cores, especially the presence of hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, provides a picture of the climate at the time.
Because water molecules containing heavier isotopes exhibit a lower vapor pressure, when the temperature falls, the heavier water molecules will condense faster than the normal water molecules. The relative concentrations of the heavier isotopes in the condensate indicate the temperature of condensation at the time, allowing for ice cores to be used in local temperature reconstruction after certain assumptions. In addition to the isotope concentration, the air bubbles trapped in the ice cores allow for measurement of the atmospheric concentrations of trace gases, including greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
|
Ice core dating is done by counting the annual layers, as well as three other methods. One of these is uncertain. I. Methods of Dating Ice Cores
Of the four distinct methods for determining the ages of ice cores, the first three are direct experimental tests and the fourth rests on somewhat uncertain theories.
Counting of Annual Layers
The basis of this method lies with looking for items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner. Of these are items that depend on the temperature (colder in the winter and warmer in the summer) and solar irradience (less irradience in winter and more in summer). Once such markers of seasonal variations are found, they can be used to find the number of years that the ice-core accumulated over. This process is analagous to the counting of tree rings. A major disadvantage of these types of dating is that they are extremely time consuming.
|
Hope this helps.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 09:32:20 [Permalink]
|
Yep an amazing amount of data can be gained from ice cores, like atmosphere, precipitation levels, temperature, major volcanic activity, it even traps pollens and microbes, some of which only arise when certain conditions are met.
Thats only ice cores, there is also tree core data that spans 7k years and sedidiment cores which are similar to ice cores in formation, but provide even more data on temps. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 09:43:40 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Science doesn't work in miracles, Bill. |
So anything that is unknown or extraordinary is a miracle?
| Unknown things have to become known and then ruled in. |
Regardless, you are assuming that there are no unknown(s), correct? Also, the more complex the phenomena we are studying the greater chance for there to be an unknown(s).
| Otherwise, everything about science would stagnate in huge piles of "well, we don't know if something else might be going on of which we're unaware, sometime, maybe." |
So you believe that science should just assume that there are no unknowns on global climate change and state "AGW as a documented fact" rather then state that "because of the complexities of global climate change we believe AGW to be occurring, but, because we have to assume we know all there is to know on the phenomena we can only make this claim in theory rather then in fact."?
| Science works on best evidence, not on unknown possibilities. |
Yes, science does work best on evidence, however, reality can work just fine on unknowns. And as you know science and reality can be mutually exclusive, at least with humans doing the science that is.
|
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2007 : 09:47:25 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by chaloobi |
| As far as ruling out something unknown / estraordinary, I don't think anyone's ruled such things out - they are just becoming extremely unlikely as the evidence mounts. From the perspective of the history of the world, humanity is pretty unprecedented / extraordinary. But when scientists look for causes of phenomena, they go with what's observed, what can be established as a causal link, what can be verified with experimentation and observational evidence |
That's fine but your looking at .5 million year window while making all these observations and gathering evidence/data while there is a 4.5 billion year backdrop that is largely unobserved. That leaves a lot of room for unknowns and extraordinary phenomena to go undiscovered, no?
|
"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.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/14/2007 09:55:54 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2007 : 10:01:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Science doesn't work in miracles, Bill. |
So anything that is unknown or extraordinary is a miracle?
| Unknown things have to become known and then ruled in. |
Regardless, you are assuming that there are no unknown(s), correct? Also, the more complex the phenomena we are studying the greater chance for there to be an unknown(s).
| Otherwise, everything about science would stagnate in huge piles of "well, we don't know if something else might be going on of which we're unaware, sometime, maybe." |
So you believe that science should just assume that there are no unknowns on global climate change and state "AGW as a documented fact" rather then state that "because of the complexities of global climate change we believe AGW to be occurring, but, because we have to assume we know all there is to know on the phenomena we can only make this claim in theory rather then in fact."?
| Science works on best evidence, not on unknown possibilities. |
Yes, science does work best on evidence, however, reality can work just fine on unknowns. And as you know science and reality can be mutually exclusive, at least with humans doing the science that is.
|
Huh? Did you really mean that, or are you joking again?
Science has a great many unknowns and does not deny it. Learning about unknowns is what science is all about. As there is exactly zero empirical evidence in support of miracles, one reaches the conclusion that such do not exist beyond the imaginations of the faithful. Science could change that if such evidence should come to light. Until then, science doesn't deal with them (except for the "creation" sort of scientist, of course. Maybe they'll come up with something, but I ain't holdin' my breath).
Bill, it is the business of science to study reality. They are in no way mutually exclusive.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
An international team of MMGW deniers (scientists)
