How Now Brown Cloud

Quote :

Prove a negative? The burden of proof is not on me.

Ah, yeah, I've really failed obiously to state my view. The burden is absolutely on you to prove that the data you interpret leads to a theory of cyclical warming as opposed to your belief that you think I should have to prove that global warming is strictly a man-made phenomenon.

Hope your turkey comes out good! I'll give ya a more complete reesponse later, but had too much to drink at my neighbourhood poker game.
Had to lend my lame duck neighbour $20 so accounting for that probably an even kind of night.
Cheers!

Quote :

I'm not sure of the relevance to global warming, but it is an interesting comment.

The relevance of Katrina to GW is as an example of scientists predicting an almost certain unfortunate outcome of the clash between human culture and natural cycles. They were dismissed by some as Chicken Littles spreading doom and gloom. Apparently, the politicians and bureaucrats didn't have faith in the engineer's prophetic abilities. But their computer models and statistical projections turned-out to be right on the money. The irony is that the money saved by not taking reasonable steps to avoid disaster, have now been spent---many times over---cleaning up after the hurricane. The primary difference from GW is the time-frame of the forecast. More time means less accuracy.

It's easy to be dismissive of statistical projections, because the success rate of Scientific forecasting is probably only a little better than Psychic predictions. Psychics, using their intuitive methods, generally have a record close to chance. But 50/50 sounds pretty good to a layman, if they remember the hits and ignore the misses. Scientists, using empirical and statistical methods---supplemented with intuitive hunches and estimated data, may average a success rate of 60/40. But "hard" science is usually held to a higher standard than "soft" psych-ience. So the misses seem to outweigh the hits.

By the way, I don't always take the side of science versus common sense. It's just that, in this case, the common sense seems to fall on the side of science. Ecology is like housekeeping : if you don't clean-up after yourself, you'll soon be deep in dirt. If you don't prepare for the inevitiable unknown, it may sneak up on you and bite you in the rear. I'm not really a tree-hugger. Well . . . I did hug a tree once back in college---but I was just experimenting.

Quote :

I fail to follow your logic here, which is perhaps my fault. I am suggesting that any current climate change is minor and cyclical, i.e. status quo. Fluctuations? Yes, just like it has been for a long, long time. Gloom and doom with drastic changes? End of the world? Coastal cities flooded? I don't see the proof for that at all. You want me to prove a negative? That the climate will not change dramatically? I am not the one suggesting that the world is about to go through a cataclysmic change. I don't think I need to accept the burden of proof. I am not suggesting a huge change is going to devastate the Earth.

I don't want this dialog to become a personal duel, but I am enjoying the exchange of opinions and ideas on a controversial subject. Differences of opinion on probabilistic forecasts are to be expected. We don't have enough hard data form the past to be confident that the computer models of the future are accurate. I don't know how precise the long-range GW predictions are, but my perception is that they are aiming in the right direction. So I'm willing to make a few sacrifices based on the possibility that they may help future generations to survive the repercussions of the clash between Natural and Cultural Evolution.

When I was in college, back in the 70s, a man spoke to our Ecology Club about the impending disaster in water resources. The most memorable thing he said was, "Within ten years, Floridians will be drinking raw sewage. The bad news is, there won't be enough to go around." Obviously, that statement was hyperbole---an exaggeration to get an unpalatable point across. As far as I know, 30 years later, Floridians are not drinking raw sewage. But in a tepid response to the doomsday warnings of fanatics, they did make some significant changes in how they use and conserve water. So the day of reckoning has been postponed, at least in part by taking evasive action.

But there's no reason to get all bent out of shape about GW. If you want to see an unwarranted faith in prophesy. look at the people who sell all their belongings and gather in the desert on the appointed day, to await the return of Jesus or the Mothership. As long as the scientific predictions of Climate Change are debatable, reasonable people will calmly disagree on the severity of the risks. Meanwhile, I have bought some swampland 100 miles from the coast, which I plan to sell as beachfront property to the true-believers and survivalists.


PS---I suspect that another reason for differences of opinion on GW may be which version of Evolutionary Theory you hold. The gradualists, such as Richard Dawkins, believe the process unfolds in smooth cycles, while others, such a SJ Gould, view evolution as "punctuated equilibrium". The latter are more like to accept predictions of long "status quo" periods abruptly interrupted by disasters. I think even Dawkins has come to accept a milder form of PE.

For those interested in a skeptical opinion on the Global Warming debate, here's an article from the eSKEPTIC Newsletter. It doesn't prove anything, except how contentious the issue has become, even among scientists. It seems similar to the escalating debate between Theist and Atheist scientists. As a Deist I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with both sides.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12.html

I think it's stupid to debate Climate Change, and it's just as stupid to debate the negative effects humanity has on the environment due to our short-sighted, exploitation of nature.

It is a certainty that the Climate is a variable system, and it is also certain that humanity can destroy natural ecological balance.

What more really needs to be proven in order for us all to start pushing for change in our treatment of the environment, and changes in how we live so that our civilization is more sustainable, less ecologically damaging, and less interested in commodifying finite natural resources?

No offense to anyone in particular, but the "Global Warming: Man-Made or Not" debate is pointless, and I just keep thinking we'll be engaged in it nonetheless as Gaia slowly, and inexorably, takes measures to remove the harmful parasite.

Quote :

I think it's stupid to debate Climate Change, and it's just as stupid to debate the negative effects humanity has on the environment due to our short-sighted, exploitation of nature.

Well, ya make a good point. But it is kind of a 'cup half empty and becoming emptier each passing day' kind of view.

Whereas I'm, so far I guess, a diehard optimist,
cup half full and if we can get some rain, it'll soon be overflowing.

Optimism without a plan, and action, is simply foolish hope.

Quote :

Optimism without a plan, and action, is simply foolish hope.

Nah, can't help it, I was born with it. Ya know, never one tit gone, but one more to go.

Cclendan I might as well let Gnomon speak for me on this one.

Helium wrote:

Ya know, never one tit gone, but one more to go.

I just came across this...

Quote :

The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program to evaluate the risk of anthropogenic climate change. The evaluation is based primarily on peer-reviewed publications. The IPCC has produced reports on their findings in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 (as well as a supplemental report in 1992). Climate Change 2007 is the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The Fourth report will be issued in four parts:
1. Working Group I Report: The Physical Science Basis
2. Working Group II Report: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
3. Working Group III Report: Mitigation of Climate Change
4. The Synthesis Report

The Working Group I report was produced by about 600 scientists and government representatives from 40 countries, including the United States. More than 620 experts and government representatives reviewed the report. Before issuing the report, line-by-line review and agreement was carried out by representatives from 113 countries.

Some of the more important conclusions and observations from the report include:
• Warming of the climate is unequivocal
• Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (more than 90% confidence) due to observed increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases
• Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
• The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) by far exceeds the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm)
• The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppm) by far exceeds the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppm)
• The primary source of increase in carbon dioxide is fossil fuel use, but land use changes also make a contribution
• The primary source of increase in methane is very likely to be a combination of human agricultural activities and fossil fuel use
• Eleven of the last 12 years in this period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years in the instrumented record (since 1850)
• Warming in the last 100 years has caused about a 0.74 °C (1.33 °F) increase in the global average temperature
• Oceans have been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, and ocean temperatures have increased to depths of at least 3000 m (9800 ft)
• It is likely that greenhouse gases would have caused more warming than observed if not for the cooling effects of volcanic and human-caused aerosols
• Average North American temperatures during the last 50-year period were very likely (>90% confidence) higher than during any other period in the last 500 years and likely (>66% confidence) the highest in at least the last 1300 years
• Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres.
• Losses from the land-based ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely (>90%) contributed to sea level rise between 1993 and 2003.
• Ocean warming causes seawater to expand, which contributes to sea level rising.
• Sea level rose at an average rate of about 1.8 mm/year during the years 1961-2003. The rise in sea level during 1993-2003 was at an average rate of 3.1mm/year. It is not clear whether this is a long-term trend or just variability.
• Antarctic sea ice shows no significant overall trend, consistent with a lack of warming in that region.
• There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970s, and that increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature.
• The observed increase in hurricane intensity is larger than climate models predict for the sea surface temperature changes we have experienced.
• There is no clear trend in the number of hurricanes.
• It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.
• It is likely (>66%) that we will see increases in hurricane intensity during the 21st century.

The full 18 page summary is here.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

FYI... The following organizations have issued statements or positions that support the IPCC position on anthropogenic GCC:

1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 InterAcademy Council
1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.9 Network of African Science Academies
1.10 National Research Council (US)
1.11 European Science Foundation
1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.13 Federation of American Scientists
1.14 World Meteorological Organization
1.15 American Meteorological Society
1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
1.21 American Quaternary Association
1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.25 European Geosciences Union
1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
1.27 Geological Society of America
1.28 American Geophysical Union
1.29 American Astronomical Society
1.30 American Institute of Physics
1.31 American Physical Society
1.32 American Chemical Society
1.33 American Society for Microbiology
1.34 Institute of Biology (UK)
1.35 World Federation of Public Health Associations
1.36 American College of Preventive Medicine
1.37 American Public Health Association
1.38 American Medical Association
1.39 American Statistical Association
1.40 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.41 Water Environment Federation
1.42 Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
1.43 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

And the following paper also makes the case for scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

Quote :

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
by, Naomi Oreskes
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then–EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change”

(1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science

(2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case...

Read on...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf

Interesting!

Aaron wrote:

FYI... The following organizations have issued statements or positions that support the IPCC position on anthropogenic GCC:
...

And more than 650 scientists support the opposing view.

We can play "dueling data" for weeks. Pointless really.

I apologize for abandoning the thread for a while. I had to prepare for a short-notice business trip to beautiful British Columbia last week. I got stuck in Vancouver for hours due to snow. Then I spent the next two days in the Canadian Rockies in sub-zero weather. It did wonders for my cold. I just couldn't work up the energy to continue the back-and-forth on global warming.

This is not really a passion for me, and as someone noted, we may not even be having the same conversation. My own heart is really not into it right now.

I actually believe we should be environmentally aware and frugal. Wasting any resources is unreasonable.

But I am a strong opponent of government control and a strong supporter of individual freedom. I see no reason for the level of hysteria that has been whipped up on this topic.

I have a couple of weeks of vacation to burn here, and I plan to expend it on other endeavors!

Thanks to all for the conversation on this topic. Perhaps I will pick it up again at some later date.

I think the discussion of the existence of anthropogenic climate change should be a separate issue from the government intervention issue.

In other words, one shouldn't let their ideology get in the way of science. If the scientists say that we as a society are behaving in a manner that's causing a negative externality and that we need to do something to rectify it, then I think for the sake of later generations we should. Doing things at an individual level is great but there is only so much that an atomized populace can do.

Anyway, I hope that you're feeling better and keep up the good work on the deistic stuff.

The following study was published in the journal 'Environmental Politics'.

Quote :

“The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism”

Environmental Politics, Volume 17, Issue 3, June 2008 , pages 349 – 385 (by subscription)

Authors: Peter J. Jacques (a); Riley E. Dunlap (b); Mark Freeman (a)

(a) Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA
(b) Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA

Abstract
Environmental skepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘skeptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analysis 141 English-language environmentally skeptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyze CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental skepticism. We conclude that skepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

A longer excerpt can be found here...
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/organizing_denial/

Just when you thought the environmental-alarmism couldn't get any worse, a few geophysicists have now upgraded the rising-sea-level warnings from Catastrophe to Cataclysm.

Melting ice from global warming may raise sea levels even more than had been expected, an analysis suggests. Long-term melting of ice in Antarctica and other areas could raise sea levels by 16 feet to 17 feet, previous studies have indicated. But a report in Friday's edition of the journal Science warns that factors not previously considered could boost that increase to up to 21 feet* in some areas.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090205/498a8060_3ca6_1552620090205629083265

* Hey, once New Orleans is 17 feet below mean sea level, what difference will another 4 feet make?

PS---Hmmm. Each additional foot or meter of water will square the lateral pressure of the previous foot on the dikes holding back Noah's lake.

I think those are estimates based on the possibility of all the ice on Antarctica and Greenland melting.

Right now no one that I know of is predicting that that's going to happen within the next 100 years.

Yeah, interesting article.

As deists interested in truth it's very frustrating to have idealogical fundies at both ends accusing each other of conspiracy theories. It really does muddle up the middle and make it hard for the truth to come through. I mean I really have no stake in either of the arguments, it's not personal. It boils down to the following.
Either ...

*we're causing drastic change, but should do nothing as earth is quite used to drastic change and will adapt quite nicely with, without or inspite of us

*W're causing drastic change, but should do something in order to be a steward to the present fauna, including ourselves.

*Or, we're not causing a drastic change, so just chill and breathe in the smog.


It should be a simple matter. I mean no one gets upset when weather forecasts veer off and are incorrect and we know that global warming is a more inexact science than weather forecasting. Listen to the facts, check where the facts came from and come to a conclusion.

What we need to do is somehow filter out the idealogical noise from the two extremes so we can get some decent info.