Message Boards » General Topics » News and Views

Thread: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.


Reply to this Thread Reply to this Thread Search Forum Search Forum Back to Thread List Back to Thread List

Permlink Replies: 79 - Last Post: Jul 31, 2012 6:06 PM Last Post By: TheHawg
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 30, 2012 2:13 PM
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
4Annie

Posts: 882
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 30, 2012 3:17 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Very good article.

Following Hurricane Irene, my township experienced a 500-year level of flooding; there are at least 16,000 homes whose owners would most certainly agree with the points in the article, and most are also Republicans.

For two years in a row, my back yard has hosted a conclave of huge wild turkeys. The feral cats are gone, so the birds have returned, but the woodchucks, skunks, and possums remain, joining the raccoons, hares, squirrels, field mice, and chipmunks. I do hope he is incorrect that I can expect more and different critters!

Have you discovered TED.com? There are many thoughtful presentations by some very committed, enthusiastic, basically young, thinkers/entrepreneurs.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 30, 2012 5:13 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
You know, such articles would be very compelling would it not be for a stickly little thing like the facts:

Here's the global temperature anomaly for March. Yep, the U.S. is quite warm--experiencing record warmth that is. But, take a gander at the rest of the world. See much heat?

http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom.png

And even the discredited IPCC has acknowledged that they have no idea if there is any trend in extreme weather:

FAQ 3.1 Is the Climate Becoming More Extreme? http://...None of the above instruments has yet been developed sufficiently as to allow us to confidently answer the question posed here. Thus we are restricted to questions about whether specific extremes are becoming more or less common, and our confidence in the answers to such questions, including the direction and magnitude of changes in specific extremes, depends on the type of extreme, as well as on the region and season, linked with the level of understanding of the underlying processes and the reliability of their simulation in models.¿IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events and Disasters

There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change¿ The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados¿ The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses. ¿IPCC Special Report on Extremes, Chapter 4

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

The "other side" as you wonderfully put it, is winning this battle because facts are on its side.

Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 30, 2012 9:17 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
And, then again, maybe not (at least in Texas).

How long has your drought been, Hawg?

Meanwhile we are having the wettest March ever recorded.

If you think your side is winning you are seriously deluded.
4Annie

Posts: 882
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 30, 2012 9:50 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Verrrry interesting. When I referenced Texas in a prior post regarding rewriting history, I see was being facetious; evidently not.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 30, 2012 10:07 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Gramps,

Your seeming inability to realize several things severely limits you in this debate:

1. You never realize that climate always changes.

2. In that change, there are some cycles we have come to expect including 30 year cycles of the oceans warming and cooling.

3. The reason for the current Texas drought was a very strong La Nina which brings warmer, drier weather to our state.

4. With a very weak La Nina, actually a near neutral Pacific, Texas has received much better rainfall in the past several months. The part of the state in which I live has had one of the wettest December to February's on record--all because of the weather patterns of the Pacific.

5. You continue to confuse weather with climate pointing to weather events to bolster your claim of man made climate change. That's a no-no on any account; however both sides tend to do such a thing.

6. Polling has indicated just how well your "side" is doing in convincing people of the "catastrophe" humankind faces--not so well. People have access to all sorts of information now-a-days and with revelations that the IPCC is corrupt and nearly 1/3 of it's papers cited to bolster its claims were not peer reviewed; it's attempted cover ups of its blatant mistakes, Climategate I and II (give every excuse you like, but folks who've read up on it know what they saw, and that turned out badly for the warmists), Gleick's blatant disregard for ethics while sitting on an ethics pannel to further "the cause", etc. has caused the public to sour greatly on those promoting the issue.

I'm not deluded in these things, Wayne. On the contrary, I'm very well read. I don't swallow what is given to me, I go and check the data. I see the manipulation, the updates, etc. It's ****. I mean, if you can seriously believe GISS's adjustments (Oh, look, 1934 was the warmest year--a year later after adjustment--1998 and 1934 were the warmest years---a year later after another adjustment---oh, look, 1998 was the warmest year, and 2010 is right up there with it.) Please. That's about as blatantly dishonest as one gets with manipulation of temperatures--something that is measured; yet, your "side" buys it.
opto86

Posts: 760
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 30, 2012 11:14 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply

During the Medieval Warm Period, A.D. 950 to 1260, Europe and Antarctica experienced a warming trend that is now believed to be global.


Global warming has occurred in the past not caused by man or fossil fuels. Earth's temperatures have fluctuated as evidenced by the continuous advance and retreat of polar glaciers over the Northern Hemisphere.

The global warming theorists use antidotal evidence like specific storms or local temperature changes to bolster their claims. However, they do not point to causation.

The manipulation of data and the lack of causality makes man made global warming a "convenient delusion".

Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 31, 2012 11:41 AM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I am not confusing weather patterns with climate change. I have said climate change is causing weather wierding, as even the article I posted says. But if you can see a gradual warming trend over the past 100 years and a gradual increase in CO2 over the same period of time, you have to wonder if there is some collation especially if CO2 is known to cause warming.

If you want to argue it is part of a 30 year cycle, then we should actually be in a cooling trend, yet eight of the highest temperature averages in the past century has been in the past decade.

When has scientific evidence depended on national opinion polls. Shoot, if we had national opinion polls when Gallileo was around, the earth would still be considered the center of the Universe--at least in Europe and even America.

No, friend, you have bought the Koch brothers' line hook and sinker.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 31, 2012 3:19 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I have said climate change is causing weather wierding, as even the article I posted says.

Prove it. There is no measurable accounting of "weather wierding." IPCC even admits it, or did you read the link?

But if you can see a gradual warming trend over the past 100 years and a gradual increase in CO2 over the same period of time, you have to wonder if there is some collation especially if CO2 is known to cause warming.

A couple of easy points, my friend. #1. An old philosophical, scientific axiom: correlation does not mean causation. #2. Lab experiments show that an increase of CO2 does indeed cause an increase of temperature. The increase is logarithmic. There's no dispute about that. 97% of Climatologists agree. But the disagreement comes from the next set of conclusions: one set believes there will be catastrophic warming due to massive positive feedbacks. The other doesn't know what will happen exactly but expects some warming, not catastrophic stuff, that might even be a net positive for the world.

If you want to argue it is part of a 30 year cycle, then we should actually be in a cooling trend, yet eight of the highest temperature averages in the past century has been in the past decade.

Because the PDO started its shift to the negative phase in 2007, genius. Outside of the 2010 Super El Nino, temps have been declining since then.

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

The anomaly has even gone negative.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Feb_2011.gif

Now, you might counter with GISS's measurements, but since they have now since become the outlier amongst global temperature anomalies, I'd argue their stuff to be slightly suspect.

When has scientific evidence depended on national opinion polls.

Since when has scientific evidence depend upon consensus?

Shoot, if we had national opinion polls when Gallileo was around, the earth would still be considered the center of the Universe--at least in Europe and even America.

And if you would have taken a poll of the scientific community at the time, they would have told you the same thing. Polling only indicates the believability of a side's argument not whether or not the side is right. So, let's look at the evidence on that score--your "side" spends billions of dollars trying to get its message across. Don't give me the fossil fuel industry argument about outspending environmentalists. That's a load of garbage. The Heartland scandal showed that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Koch brothers didn't even fund any climate change stuff from them. It seems you and quite a few others have been persuaded by the old axiom, if you tell a lie enough times people believe it as the truth. Yet, despite outspending your opposition, having most of the major news and media networks in your pocket, and national governments being on the bandwagon, public opinion has gone from strong support of believing in man made catastrophic climate change, to slightly favorable to neutral. You've lost a lot of ground to a minority of folks who refuse to kowtow to arguments of consensus.

No, friend, you have bought the Koch brothers' line hook and sinker.

This is the most laughable line in your post, gramps. Again, I refer you to Heartland's funding. Want to reiterate how much the Koch brothers gave them to spew forth climate change propaganda? Here's a little hint: it's between -1 and 1. Try again, sir, but first remove your head from the sand.
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 31, 2012 5:22 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
How much have the Koch brothers funded climate change denial? Try over $25,000,000 up until 2008--and this doesn't count the money they put into congressional campaigns for people who fight against environmental law.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/03/koch-brothers-funding-climate-change-denial-machine/

Where do I begin to prove weather weirding? I can cite several articles, but it you will probably reject them. However, I will post at least this one:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vMyaQ_DWu2wC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=weather+weirding&ots=b6FBL4nT1v&sig=GIENL9OlkirYPekRMDuXqr40QP8#v=onepage&q=weather%20weirding&f=false

Just the other day I read that back in 1976 conservatives trusted scientists more than liberals. That trust has gone down since. No one knows for sure what are the causes of the mistrust, but back in the mid seventies there was a general questioning of all those in authority (mostly by liberals), then came Watergate and it has been down hill since (especially by conservatives). Telecommunications has a lot to do with it too, I think. We are constantly bombarded with information to the point of overload. Back in the seventies we had a number of filters in the media which could sort out fact from fiction. For better or worse they are gone now.

So we are left with having to select information we can trust on our own. While I prefer to look for proofs of human caused climate change, you prefer to look for disproofs of human caused climate change. Reminds me of the lyrics: "You say tom-(short a)--to; I say tom-(long a)-to. Let's call the whole thing off."
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 31, 2012 6:02 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Gramps,

Do you actually read the links you put together?

The second link deals with Climate Change and Agriculture. Now, if you read the darn book, you will see that it doesn't make any sort of link between "weirding weather" and climate change. It takes the assumption that climate change will lead to a 3-12 degree C increase in temperatures. From that assumption it extrapolates how agriculture might be affected.

Oh, but don't quote me. Here's the Introduction's main statement:

This book focuses on the impact of climate change on agriculture and how agriculture is able to adapt to such change.

Try again. Try something that actually tries to categorize the number of weather events and whether or not those events have increased, decreased, or gotten more extreme. Take your time. I'm sure you will find, as did the IPCC that there is no connection.

Now, the other article deals with a report by Greenpeace. Aside from the conflict of interest and how Greenpeace got caught submitting all sorts of non-peer reviewed literature to the IPCC, if the report is correct that Koch has spent that much, it still pales in comparison to the $300 million campaign Mr. Al Gore jumped into to convince us of catastrophic Global Warming. How is it that I've somehow bought into Koch's propaganda, but you haven't been bought yourself by the likes of Gore, Soros, et. al.?

(Oh, I guess conservatives are just the non-scientific type.)

((BTW, when you decide to do some actual science and approach things from a scientific method--i.e. citing and making appeals to actual data instead of appeals to consensus and ad hominem attacks, then perhaps I will take you seriously in such a debate. I only engage to put the truth out there.))
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Mar 31, 2012 11:02 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Hawg, where do you get the information that Al Gore put $300 million into the climate debate? Do you mean the Movie? Consider: http://planetsave.com/2012/02/09/al-gore-didnt-polarize-climate-change/
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 1, 2012 7:01 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 1, 2012 10:06 AM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Not necessarily denying anything, just asking for information. But, hey, if Gore can afford to do it, more power to him. It takes money to answer money.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 1, 2012 5:20 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Gore and the warmists can more than afford to do such a thing. They are rolling in dough. If they'd spend half as much on something like supplying clean water to the poor and needy as they do on trying to convince everyone they are right, they'd be doing a greater service to humanity. But I'm not going to hold my breath. I personally don't believe they have the good of humankind in their sights.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 1, 2012 7:42 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
While I prefer to look for proofs of human caused climate change, you prefer to look for disproofs of human caused climate change.

A skeptical scientists looks for the truth. He/she tests whatever hypothesis is out there based upon the data. Proof comes if a theory stands the rigors of scientific inquiry--if measurement confirms thought. Sadly, such things are oftentimes missing as bias and confirmation bias takes over. This is why your "side" misses the boat. Instead of welcoming any debate or dissident thought, it has tried to exclude it, banish it, alienate it, and even make it a heresy to call the assumptions into question. A true scientist is always a skeptic, always a denier until the measurement backs things up. There is no "I say tomato, you say tomato, let's call the whole thing off" in science.
4Annie

Posts: 882
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 1, 2012 7:35 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I am so surprised!

I would have thought you knew more about the scientific method and hypotheses. A hypothesis is an assertion about how things are or how things work and hypothesis testing is decision making--by assuming their opposite is true and comparing our assumptions to the data; support for the hypothesis comes from rejecting its opposite and attaching a probability of error to the decision.

A hypothesis does not prove anything; consider the null hypothesis and the substantive (alternative) hypothesis. You may also want to take a look at statistics, i.e., reliability, significance, Type I and Type II errors.

Further, a hypothesis does not a theory make. A theory is nothing more than the linkage of observations to generalizations (a set of concepts, definitions, and propositions which are interrelated) through deductive and inductive logic. A hypothesis is a tentative proposition in testable form; this test provides information that there are no significant differences or there are in fact significant differences requiring further investigation.

I want to take this opportunity to call into question your assertion that "we might have some fun"...(3.28 post). I'm not waiting for a boat and I'll pronounce t-o-m-a-t-o any way i wish, thank you.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 1, 2012 8:38 PM   in response to: 4Annie in response to: 4Annie
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Perhaps I should have taken the time to articulate things a bit better. My bad. Shall I try again?

If you don't want me to, then perhaps you would actually engage in the topic at hand which is the hypothesis that adding CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming? Perhaps you will be willing to debate the use of computer modeling of complex systems? The margin of error and extreme difficulty of measuring the global temperature? Whether or not we have been able to measure any positive or negavite feedbacks--instead of relying upon built in assumptions in computer models? How bias and confirmation bias enters the picture and how to prevent it? The nature and rigor of true scientific debate?


I'd really love to visit with someone who can dialogue about such things, but if history proves anything, you'd rather run from such an endeavor.

Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,234
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 1, 2012 10:04 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
A long time ago, A Pastor friend of mine was talking about his son.
He said, "he's the kind of person who likes to argue a lot.".
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 2, 2012 6:28 AM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Must be a neat kid. Bet he never swallows anything hook, line, and sinker and is willing to question nearly every authority in search of the truth. Honestly, I'd like to meet such a guy.
opto86

Posts: 760
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 2, 2012 6:48 PM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
We -young and old -do need to question our cultural attitudes on secularism, relativism, promiscuity, abortion, enviromentalism, pornography, homosexual activism, and gambling.

As Americans we can agree on human rights, equality, limited government, and economic freedom.

We can and should be involved in and influence our culture.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 10, 2012 3:44 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 10, 2012 5:23 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I think it is very telling that science has gone in one direction and public opinion has gone in the opposite direction. I have said scientific evidence is not subject to debate.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 10, 2012 6:47 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Knew you'd pick up on Hansen's comment there. Unfortunately, while the guy gets it that his side is losing the PR battle, he's also pretty ignorant of the science battle as well--but that's what happens when you only associate with those who agree with you.

Hansen also tried the same ol' same ol' "well funded deniers" routine--again leaving out just how well funded and overly zealous his own side is.

I'm looking for further verification on this, but it seems as though some very important folks associated with NASA are calling Hansen and Schmidt on their antics. If this proves to be a hoax, then I apologize in advance for posting the link:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 10, 2012 9:37 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Looking through the list of contributors to wattsupwiththat, I would not consider them an objective group.

I also find his list of his Moderation Team suspicious, since he only lists first name and initial of last name.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 6:32 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Not the issue. The issue is whether the letter is true. Haven't gotten verification on that at all. If that letter is real, I think Hansen and Schmidt are in trouble.

WUWT is a skeptically site without a doubt, but they have always welcomed debate and those who disagree with their pov, unlike a certain blog run by "true believers " who would not allow any dissenting comments --that is until they were exposed for squashing debate.
Sean


Posts: 6,512
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 8:39 AM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
TheHawg wrote:If that letter is real, I think Hansen and Schmidt are in trouble.

Why would the opinion of astronauts imperil the work status of climate scientists? That would be like suggesting that Dr. Hansen should pick the astronauts.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 11:31 AM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Astronauts, rocket scientists, engineers who made NASA the reputable institution it is. These aren't garden variety, amateur scientists. These are folks who went through strenuous scientific training to get where they got. They see NASA's reputation being damaged by quasi-science.
Sean


Posts: 6,512
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 12:47 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
TheHawg wrote:Astronauts, rocket scientists, engineers who made NASA the reputable institution it is. These aren't garden variety, amateur scientists. These are folks who went through strenuous scientific training to get where they got. They see NASA's reputation being damaged by quasi-science.

Being an expert in one area of science doesn't make you an expert in another area of science. And, what evidence is there that NASA's reputation has been damaged?
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 12:59 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The beauty of science, Sean, is that the experts are wrong--a lot. All one need do is look at the history of science to see absolute proof of this. Theories are overturned over and over and over again and not necessarily by experts in any one field. Since AGW involves: weather, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy and even biology, so-called experts from these fields can and should be involved in the process making sure climatologists are getting things correct. Such is the checks and balances involved in the scientific process.

Furthermore, the methodology of science allows anyone who undertakes the challenge to test a given hypothesis. For instance, an expert in horticulture might tell me because of the overuse of pesticides and herbicides in the area in which I live, according to his calculations and computer models earthworms have vanished from the soil. However, if I go outside and dig in the dirt and discover earthworms, well, then the expert is wrong. Experimentation and observation trump the hypothetical every time.

And, what evidence is there that NASA's reputation has been damaged?

That will depend upon whom you talk to. Obviously those who signed the letter are concerned about such a thing happening. Ask them.
Sean


Posts: 6,512
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 1:49 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
TheHawg wrote:The beauty of science, Sean, is that the experts are wrong--a lot. All one need do is look at the history of science to see absolute proof of this. Theories are overturned over and over and over again and not necessarily by experts in any one field. Since AGW involves: weather, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy and even biology, so-called experts from these fields can and should be involved in the process making sure climatologists are getting things correct. Such is the checks and balances involved in the scientific process.

I don't disagree with you there. And this is where the notion that it science which shuts down the "deniers" seems totally bogus to me. Every year, we find out scientific findings that contradict what we've heard before -- whether it's that a certain food that was thought to be good for you is now bad for you, or a drug that gets taken off the market, etc. It's only in climatology, apparently, where good science goes to die?
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 3:29 PM   in response to: Sean in response to: Sean
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
It's only in climatology, apparently, where good science goes to die?

I actually found this comment pretty funny.

The answer, of course, is no. There are some very good scientists who do climatology. I really like Judith Curry as one example. She's open, forthright with her measurements and methodology and engaging those who are skeptic. Such openness would have gone a long way from the get-go in my estimation instead of trying to shut down any debate with the God-awful claim that "the science is settled." That was the one thing more than any other that caused me to become very skeptical of the argument of AGW.

Climatology is a pretty young science, and as it improves it will give us some better answers. It will show us whether or not there are positive or negative feedbacks driven by CO2. Hopefully, it will give us a gauge as to what the optimal levels of CO2 concentrations are in the atmosphere which are beneficial to life--after all, plants need that CO2 to grow, and we need the plants' waste to live. Hopefully, it will help give us a range of beneficial temperatures as to where life will thrive. And, ultimately, I hope it will give us advanced warning before the next ice age--that, in my estimation would be far more devastating to life as we know it on this planet than warming.

As it becomes better equipped to measure these things (not just theorize them on computers), it will give us a better idea of how to respond to such things and whether or not they have more positive or negative effects on our life on this planet. If there is one thing that I've learned by studying the history of science--our use of the scientific method to produce technology has had both a positive and negative effect on things. One wonders what would have happened to our energy use if the world wasn't exposed to nuclear technology through the use of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One wonders if our obesity rate would be so high if technology hadn't made us more sedentary. One wonders if our population wouldn't have exploded without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. One wonders what health care would look like if it hadn't prolonged our lives by decades over the past 200 years.

Fun to think about at times.
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 11:25 AM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Empirical evidence? Like shrinking polar caps? Earlier Springs? The northward migration of animals and plants normally found in the South? Raising sea levels? CO2 concentrations in glacial ice?

Aren't weather models based on Empirical Evidence, just projecting the trends out into the near future. Climate models do it on the longer term.

Meanwhile the East Coast is seeing a very unusual dry session. Something like 20 states are already in the Red Zone for fire danger (this usually does not happen until the end of July.)

Astronauts are basically flyboys/girls who may be trained in some particular experiment, but hardly experts in climate change.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 11:48 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Empirical evidence? Like shrinking polar caps? Earlier Springs? The northward migration of animals and plants normally found in the South? Raising sea levels? CO2 concentrations in glacial ice?

Just about everything you posted shows the earth is warming. No one argues that point. Well, take that back 3% argues that point, and they are wrong. Nearly everyone also agrees that CO2 will cause some warming. Lab results show about 1 degree C. The lab and the planet are two very different things. What there is an absolute failure to show is there will be catastrophic warming caused by CO2. No evidence exists for that what-so-ever. Except for computer models, but there is a problem with those.

Aren't weather models based on Empirical Evidence, just projecting the trends out into the near future. Climate models do it on the longer term.

Yes, weather models are based upon empirical evidence and also on the tendency of weather systems to act in a particular fashion. However, you know as well as I do such forecasts are only accurate within a few days. It is because of the complexity of weather that computer models cannot generate anything further out. Which is why to suggest that climate models are somehow immune from this truth is quite the leap of faith. I point you to the Met Office who had a dickens of a time recently even predicting what sort of winter the UK would have in the past several years. (Here's a hint: they missed and badly. This is one of the reasons the Brits have come to distrust climate scientists so much. Their predictions have been horribly inaccurate.) Similarly, in Texas, the climatologists missed on this being a dry winter. They gauged it would be warmer than normal--La Nina had a lot to do with that; however, the season was very wet in many places. Again, missed badly.

Climate models are also have many assumptions built into them--mainly that CO2 will cause a massive positive feedback which will cause run-away warming. First off, there is no empiricle evidence of this. Recently, NASA's own stuff showed more heat escaping the atmosphere than previously thought. Second, such assumptions can only be verified by direct observation over the long term. Only in hind-sight can they be proven right. They do not forecast the future.

Meanwhile the East Coast is seeing a very unusual dry session.

Weather, not climate. Pull that one, and I'll unload that Alaska has had one of the coldest winters on record and has had the most snowfall ever. Shouldn't be happening according to AGW.

Astronauts are basically flyboys/girls who may be trained in some particular experiment, but hardly experts in climate change.

That last part may be true, but that first line is a load of utter BULL, and you know it. You and I wouldn't be able to touch the amount of science and math astronauts have to be trained in to do what they do. But don't take my word for it, take NASA's. Minimum of bachelors, but recommended (with the competition, see demanded) even more:

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html

(Do you honestly have any credibility with this stuff, Wayne, especially dissing our astronauts that way?)
perelandra


Posts: 3,191
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 6:30 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Hawg, although I'm actually pretty neutral on the subject of whether humans are causing the present round of GCC with their CO 2 emissions, one thing I haven't heard you discuss on this thread is the effect of methane, which is also part of our emissions problem (it's not just a cow thing anymore, lol!). As had been pointed out before on other threads, there is a limit to the amount of heat that can be retained by atmospheric CO 2 . However, methane can hold 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide, and with the earth in a warming trend, more and more methane is being released from melting permafrost (as well as decomposing landfills). That sounds pretty serious to me, since it means that once both methane and CO 2 reach their maximum atmospheric concentration, they would be holding a total of 21 times more warmth than without excesses of those gases. Now, it's true that plant life absorbs carbon dioxide to live; but it would be just like feeding a person an entire restaurant's worth of food at a single meal...he simply could not eat it all. And have you noticed that the green spaces of the world are shrinking? My state has a horrible problem with urban sprawl, and believe me, a strip mall with a postage-stamp lawn and a few ornamental trees do not make up for the acre of meadow and woodlands lost, at least in terms of CO 2 absorption.

Now, please take note of this: I favor the reduction of emissions, but it's because I favor the reduction of pollution in general. It's already known that certain atmospheric emissions (like ozone and sulfur dioxide) cause health problems, and these cannot be reduced without reducing methane and yes, CO 2 . (Most of this stuff comes from factory output and the burning of bituminous coal.) If we concentrated our efforts on reduction of emissions to improve health, rather than argue about "who's causing GCC," I bet we'd find we're better off all around.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 7:14 PM   in response to: perelandra in response to: perelandra
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
perelandra,

By all means, let's talk about methane, if you like. However, it hasn't been the focus of the AGW crowd. CO2 has. And do we hear anything about a methane tax? No. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Regulation of methane emissions? Again, nope.

One can worry about methane, but it's rise has plateaued over the past few years. There's not much of a spike anymore, and so it's not being pushed. Onto other matters.

Now, it's true that plant life absorbs carbon dioxide to live; but it would be just like feeding a person an entire restaurant's worth of food at a single meal...he simply could not eat it all.

Have you researched optimal levels of CO2 for plant growth? Do a quick google, and you might be surprised that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 aren't even close to what experiments have shown to be optimal levels.

Here's one I came across that the AGW folks don't want you to see:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

From the paper:

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth.

According to this paper, our atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are like eating noodle soup...nourishing to eat, but not exactly optimal for muscle growth.

And have you noticed that the green spaces of the world are shrinking?

Your source please.

Here's mine showing the biosphere is actually doing quite well--in fact blooming nicely:

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=49949

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003451/index.html
perelandra


Posts: 3,191
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 2, 2012 6:02 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The article refers to artificial conditions produced in greenhouses...and in a fashion, it proves my point.
Consider some more of the article:

+Do not allow excessive CO2 levels in greenhouses. Levels of 5,000 ppm can cause dizziness or lack of co-ordination to humans. Higher than recommended levels can cause necrosis of old tomato and cucumber leaves. African violet leaves become very hard and brittle, show a very dark greenish-grey colour and often malformed flower petals, which do not fully expand. A similar symptom with freesia flowers has been observed where the CO2 burner was used to provide the majority of the heat requirements of the greenhouse, and thereby generating excessive amounts of CO2. Except in emergencies, do not use CO2 burners as the prime heating system.

Since sulphur dioxide can cause acute necrosis (0.2 ppm in the air), the sulphur content of the fuels should be less than 0.02%. Heating fuels such as No. 2 oil and bunker C (# 6 Oil) are not suitable for CO2 supplementation.

Ethylene at 0.05 ppm and propylene at higher levels can cause premature senescence on tomato and cucumber plants, induce sleepiness in carnations, create flower shatter of geraniums, promote excessive side shoot development, prevent normal flower initiation, and flower bud abortion in chrysanthemums and poinsettia. Ethylene is often produced as a result of incomplete combustion, while propylene is usually associated with the use of propane. Leaky propane supply lines have created serious financial damage to growers in the past. Carbon monoxide (CO), which usually does not create any problems by itself, is often used as the indicator for incomplete combustion. Levels exceeding 50 ppm CO in the flue gases are an indication of the presence of ethylene at levels capable of causing crop damage.

Burners with a high flame temperature can cause the formation of nitrous oxides (NOx and NO2). Excessive amounts of nitrous oxide can cause diminished growth or even necrosis. Boilers equipped with low NOx burners must be used for flue gas utilisation as a CO2 source.

A low level of both SO2 and NOx in combination can cause greater phytotoxicity damage or be more detrimental to the plants than a high level of either. Excessive and prolonged use of CO2 (especially in tomatoes) results in the plants not responding well to the supplemental CO2. Interruption of the CO2 application for a few days results in an improved response.+

Please note the effects of the by-products of the burning of fuels used to increase the greenhouse CO 2. The care advised in the use of these fuels is definitely not used in the outside world by factories!
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 4, 2012 6:42 AM   in response to: perelandra in response to: perelandra
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
The nice thing about science is that it is based in measurement, observation, and mathematics--not hocus pocus.

Indeed, too much CO2 isn't good, but it has to reach such a level, and in the paper cited, it's 5000 ppm for humans.

Let's do the math.

Currently, the measured atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm--way beneath this 5000 ppm level. It has been increasing around 2-4 ppm per year. Let's do the math.

5000-400= 4600

4600/4= 1150.

It would take 1150 years at the current rate of increase to reach a level of CO2 that is dangerous to humankind.

We will probably run out of oil, coal, etc in 200-250 years.

Is it reasonable to panic over CO2 given these numbers?
perelandra


Posts: 3,191
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 3, 2012 6:49 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
And as for a source about disappearing green spaces...perhaps I should have been clearer. I was talking about deforestation--in particular, humans mowing down rainforests and woodlands and replacing them with pasture and crop land. While this may seem like six of one, half-a-dozen of the other to you, it concerns me that all those trees are going away. They absorb more CO 2 than grasses and crops, and often they are the natural habitats for animals and other plants you can't find anywhere else. (Example: a number of species of birds right here in the USA are now endangered due to deforestation, because they nest in the depths of forests rather than the edges. A few such species can be persuaded to live in manmade birdhouses, but many won't go for it.)
Anyway, here's the source:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Deforestation/

And I'm sorry, I was unable to view the video links you provided; but keep in mind that just because a world is full of life, it doesn't follow that this life is in balance. I mean, you can scan me and tell that I'm very much alive, but if my beneficial intestinal symbionts have been depleted by my last bout with the flu, I'm out of balance...and also very uncomfortable. If that balance is not restored, I will soon be headed for some major health problems! And really, it's not too different with our lovely homeworld. God created it as a closed system, and we're supposed to help care for it. That includes not "soiling the nest"...a.k.a. polluting!
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,234
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 3, 2012 6:52 PM   in response to: perelandra in response to: perelandra
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Beautifully explained. Thanks
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 4, 2012 6:58 AM   in response to: perelandra in response to: perelandra
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
And I'm sorry, I was unable to view the video links you provided; but keep in mind that just because a world is full of life, it doesn't follow that this life is in balance.

It never has been and never will be. The idea that somehow life is balanced rests upon the false assumption of homeostasis. Such a thing does not occur in nature or anywhere. Things are constantly in motion--even within your body. Your body temperature never remains the same. Your blood sugar dips and increases. Now, granted, when it steps outside of certain parameters, there is an issue, but the body is every changing within those parameters. It's never, ever in balance.

God created it as a closed system, and we're supposed to help care for it.

By every definition on Dictionary.com, that statement is unequivocally false.

noun Thermodynamics . a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it.

We know by satellite measurement that radiation enters the system from the sun and exits back into space. Our atmosphere isn't closed.

a complete and seemingly unchangeable set of doctrines, ideas, or things; a self-contained system that is unaffected by outside influences

A cursory read of quantum mechanics (the best description we have of how the universe works) dispells this notion immediately.

A physical system that does not interact with other systems. A closed system obeys the conservation laws in its physical description. Also called isolated system .

Perhaps the universe is a closed system, but our planet interacts with the entirety of the universe. One only need to see the craters caused by meteoric impact to understand this.

Our planet is far from a closed system. It is open and interacts with thousands perhaps millions of variables throughout this universe.
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,234
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 4, 2012 8:13 AM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Years ago heard a fellow from some Institution closely aligned with The Lutheran Church, speak on this being a closed system. My husband had a lot of trouble with it. His name might have been Morris.
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,234
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 4, 2012 8:20 AM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Ha, I found something about him in Wiki. Don't have time to read now but this interests me now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 4, 2012 8:28 AM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Interesting read. I think the guy is completely wrong.

It is unfortunate that more people of faith don't take the time to try and understand quantum mechanics because if they did, I am convinced they'd be amazed at how it walks hand in hand with faith--including cosmology.
perelandra


Posts: 3,191
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 9, 2012 5:06 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
It never has been and never will be. The idea that somehow life is balanced rests upon the false assumption of homeostasis. Such a thing does not occur in nature or anywhere. Things are constantly in motion--even within your body. Your body temperature never remains the same. Your blood sugar dips and increases. Now, granted, when it steps outside of certain parameters, there is an issue, but the body is every changing within those parameters. It's never, ever in balance.

But you admit that there are certain parameters which are considered normal. Maybe my temp isn't always 98.6, but for it to be 102.3 means something is wrong. People know this by having studied humans for a long time. Just so with the Earth. For example, people have been fishing out of the Gulf of Mexico for centuries, but in the last century, dead spots have been appearing due to fertilizer runoff coming down the Mississippi. Now, all that runoff has been great for the methane-eating bacteria that have always been there, nibbling the volcanic residue; but it's terrible for phytoplankton, the shrimp and fish that eat the phytoplankton, and eventually for the humans who face a shortage of the once-plentiful free-range fish. Not to mention the heightened levels of mercury in those fish, which is why pregnant women and kids are now told to eat such things with caution. So things have in fact become out of balance in the Gulf, and we (humans) played a part in that. It is true that such a change could have happened without us...a new undersea volcano would have that effect. But since we did it, and we have free will, it follows that we have the ability to at least stop doing it! How long it would take for things to return to normal (those parameters within which fish and humans can live well) is anyone's guess. But could we not at least try???

God created it as a closed system, and we're supposed to help care for it.

Okay, wong word. Not "closed," but "interdependent." True, the Earth is an open system; but as you say, the universe itself is closed. But as far as we are concerned, the Earth is closed in that it is our natural habitat. We weren't created to live in space, or on Mars or Mercury or Jupiter, but on Earth. Is it really such a stretch to conclude that we need to be careful to take care of our habitat so that it is fit for us to live on, at least until the return of Christ?
And by the way, with all this debate, you never have answered my point about reducing pollution just to have a cleaner planet (I've made the point three times in this thread, counting this post). Are you trying to get me to admit again that I can't win the argument without using faith? Okay, concedo. Now: your reply?
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 10, 2012 7:09 PM   in response to: perelandra in response to: perelandra
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
But you admit that there are certain parameters which are considered normal.

Now, here is the billions of dollars question when it comes to global warming: what exactly are those parameters for the earth? What is the best average global temperature for life to flourish? What is the optimum level of CO2?

Is it really such a stretch to conclude that we need to be careful to take care of our habitat so that it is fit for us to live on, at least until the return of Christ?

Not at all.

And by the way, with all this debate, you never have answered my point about reducing pollution just to have a cleaner planet (I've made the point three times in this thread, counting this post). Are you trying to get me to admit again that I can't win the argument without using faith?

That's because this thread is about anthropogenic global warming. I do not assume CO2 is a pollutant but a necessary component for life as we know it to exist on this planet. I know at times in the history of our planet, CO2 levels have been much higher, and they have been lower. I do not know what the best level is for CO2 (no one really does). I know most of CO2's effect on warming has already taken place (Beer's law). I am not alarmed by the increase at CO2 at this point because we are so very far away from levels that could affect humans and it is not likely we will ever reach them because we will run out of fossil fuels long before it becomes a threat.
perelandra


Posts: 3,191
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 16, 2012 4:38 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply

That's because this thread is about anthropogenic global warming. I do not assume CO2 is a pollutant but a necessary component for life as we know it to exist on this planet. I know at times in the history of our planet, CO2 levels have been much higher, and they have been lower. I do not know what the best level is for CO2 (no one really does). I know most of CO2's effect on warming has already taken place (Beer's law). I am not alarmed by the increase at CO2 at this point because we are so very far away from levels that could affect humans and it is not likely we will ever reach them because we will run out of fossil fuels long before it becomes a threat.

Yes, I know this thread was supposed to be about climate change with a (possible) human component. The reason I keep harping on the need to do something about garbage, pollution, etc., is that there is a real danger that if people think there is no human-caused climate change, then they think nothing needs to be done about pollution at all. What I propose is an experiment...reduce air pollution, the dumping of waste into the waters of the Earth, and the accumulation of garbage and waste, and start trying to clean up some of the mess we've made (like the "plastic Sargasso" in the Pacific), and then see what happens. If the ice keeps melting and the weather patterns keep changing, we'll know that this heating/cooling phase was none of our doing...but, the air will be more breathable and the water will be safer to drink, and we'll have built up an excellent habit of learning to reduce, re-use and recycle instead of simply throwing stuff away.
But, if the mean temperatures start to stabilize over time as we work, and the glaciers stop calving right and left, and the extreme weather we've all seen of late starts calming down...then, we'll say, "OK, it was us, after all. Thank God we started doing something about it."
Honestly, that's the only way we're ever going to know. And if we start now, it's win-win no matter who's right!
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 16, 2012 6:17 PM   in response to: perelandra in response to: perelandra
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
There's always a pesky little thing in science called the facts.

For instance, did you know that the plastic sargasso sea in the Pacific (and in the Atlantic, BTW) is made up of particulate matter almost too small to be seen by the naked eye? It isn't made up of plastic bottles and like debris. That little snippet tends to get left out of most reports.

Here's a little bit more:

if the mean temperatures start to stabilize over time

According to the satellite record, and even Dr. Jones from CRU fame, it has. There is no statistical warming trend since 1998.

and the glaciers stop calving right and left,

Um, glaciers don't stop calving. They always have and always will--unless they melt. This is where ice bergs come from, pere. They've been around since humans started sailing the seas.

and the extreme weather we've all seen of late starts calming down...

You might even want to check with the IPCC and other studies. There is no statistical increase in extreme weather. There is an increase in weather coverage since we can pull stuff in from all over the planet now, but they've done studies, and they show no increasing trend.

None of this means we shouldn't care for the environment, but the major fact of the matter is, our part in causing pollution is far smaller today than it was in the past. The west has done marvels in cleaning up the air, water, etc.

Just take a read about the Peppered Moth and evolution.
wanderer


Posts: 5,054
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 16, 2012 6:30 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
For instance, did you know that the plastic sargasso sea in the Pacific (and in the Atlantic, BTW) is made up of particulate matter almost too small to be seen by the naked eye? It isn't made up of plastic bottles and like debris. That little snippet tends to get left out of most reports.

http://www.plasticreef.com/?p=271

Within an hour we collect a garbage bag full of debris ranging from lighters to bottle caps, toothbrushes, pieces of crates, lids, safelty helmets, ropes, nets and tubes. Anything you can imagine which is made of floating plastic can be found here. However, only 30% of all plastics is floating, the rest lays at the bottom of the ocean.

http://www.plasticoceans.net/bermuda-triangle/

Trawl after trawl brought up more and more plastic particles, much of it trapped in the floating sargassum weed that gives the sea its name. I don¿t think I will ever get used to the reality of finding so much plastic so far from the shore.

http://www.globalgarbage.org/blog/index.php/2010/02/28/researchers-find-plastic-ocean-trash-in-sargasso-sea/

Skirting a hurricane that caused monster waves three stories tall, Marcus Eriksen and Anna Cummins of the 5 Gyres Project found confetti-like plastic fragments as well as toothbrushes, bottle caps, and cigarette lighters on their 3,000-mile sail through the Sargasso Sea¿a region of the North Atlantic whose eastern half had never been investigated for plastic pollution. The couple¿s voyage launched the first global study of marine plastic pollution, which has only been widely known as prevalent in the North Pacific ¿Great Pacific Garbage Patch.¿

There's always a pesky little thing in science called the facts.

TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 17, 2012 7:02 AM   in response to: wanderer in response to: wanderer
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Your only saving grace in these citations was my lack of one word in my post. I should have stated "the debris is MOSTLY particulate matter too small for the eye to see." Obviously, there are still larger pieces of plastic in the ocean, but it's a relatively very small amount.

I mean, use just a little bit of thinking in your post, wanderer. How long did it take to fill a garbage bag full of debris? An hour? Are you kidding me? I can fill a garbage bag full of debris in 15 minutes just by walking down the side of the road. That's not a thick island of plastic by any stretch of the imagination. If these were indeed floating islands of plastic, they should have been able to fill several garbage bags within minutes.

Do me a favor. Instead of citing these websites, why don't you link to some actual studies by scientists.

Like this one:

http://www.alguita.com/gyre.pdf

which says the density of the plastic is 5.1 kilograms per square kilometer. (Do the math on that one and see just how tiny that is.)

Here's a little science article that confirms what I said even further:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2893/why-dont-we-ever-see-pictures-of-the-floating-island-of-garbage

Get some real facts about this stuff and not this hyped up garbage.
wanderer


Posts: 5,054
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 17, 2012 8:10 AM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Do me a favor. Instead of citing these websites, why don't you link to some actual studies by scientists.

1) my life is so overflowing right now that i do not have time to pursue this subject. even if i was interested.
2) you are the one who made the comment about not being able to see the items - MOSTLY would have changed it. Words do wonders.
3) these people say you can see the plastic.
4) you leave out facts too.
5) the scientists i might quote might disagree with yours.
6) if texas, you are in texas right, had a bottle bill - might not be so much trash on the road. been there saw the trash.
7) you sure get riled up when you are proven wrong.

have a good day.

TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 17, 2012 10:44 AM   in response to: wanderer in response to: wanderer
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Actually, I get riled up because of a lot of stuff going on in my congregation right now, and I've partially taken it out on your post. I apologize.

Yet, the facts are still that most of the plastic in the "plastic island" are particles that can barely been seen by the eye. Sure, you can find some larger pieces, but in the examples cited, the folks trawled around for an hour before they could fill up a plastic garbage bag. Any mention of how much fuel they used to do this? Or how many pollutants their motor spilled into the ocean while they were trawling for plastic?

4) you leave out facts too.

I'm sure I do. Kindly put them in and fill in the blanks, and we will get closer to the truth. I've expressed them as best as I can regarding this topic with citations when challenged. The excuse you made about not having time is quite ridiculous as you found time to find three websites which talk about seeing pieces of plastic. Sure. No issue with that. The question is how much and how densly packed. There just aren't floating islands of plastic jugs, bottles, etc. out there in the ocean.

5) the scientists i might quote might disagree with yours.

They might. No issue with that. But a failure to even post them is a problem, and then there is always the ability to verify. For instance, bring forth a scientist who says such islands composed of vast amounts of plastic exist. We can find proof by photographs, using Google Earth, etc. The fact is, no such photographs of giant islands of plastic exist. Neither can they be found on Google Earth. Why? Because most of the plastic cannot be seen by the naked eye.
perelandra


Posts: 3,191
Oooookay...
Posted: May 30, 2012 5:50 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Hawg, maybe we need a "Perese" Rosetta Stone series, because you seem unable to understand me.
Re: the plastic mess in the Pacific being mostly small particles...what do you think that's doing to the fish? Small enough particles could be breathed in through the gills, just as we end up breathing small particles of smoke from a bonfire. And remember that smoke inhalation can kill you. Anyway, the area still needs to be cleaned up, because the bacteria and larger animals can't do it on their own. I don't even think the sharks could do it, and they'll swallow practically anything!
The glaciers...I said, "calving right and left," meaning "at an increased rate." Believe it or not, I did know that glacier calving is normal. However, warmer temps in the polar regions have caused not only increased frequency of calving, but also glacier shrinkage. Maybe I should have talked about that instead.
Mean temps...No increase since 1998. So what about before '98? Did it suddenly level out after then, or did the stats folks begin using a different sample? This is why I don't trust the "numbers" on anything that uses, perforce, a sample that is less than the entire population or geographical area.
Extreme weather...No statistical increase? Tell that to the people of Greenburg, Kansas. Or everyone in Joplin. Statistics? They can be manipulated. In this area, I am relying on anecdotal evidence, in particular my own lifelong residence in my state and the observation of weather patterns. And believe me, I am terrified of severe weather, so I definitely notice when there is more of it!
And finally, the peppered moth. I learned about this one in grade school, as an example of the effects of pollution. Please note that there were always both dark and light colors, and the lighter ones were merely eaten more when the tree bark darkened. There's no evolution involved...even after the pollution came, the moths still came in both colors, and in areas away from the factories, the light ones continued to thrive.
Be aware, Hawg, that I do respect you a great deal. But it's obvious that you think I don't know much. Just because I only have a half hour at a time, once a week, to frame answers to your posts, does not mean I am stupid.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Oooookay...
Posted: Jul 9, 2012 9:01 AM   in response to: perelandra in response to: perelandra
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
But it's obvious that you think I don't know much. Just because I only have a half hour at a time, once a week, to frame answers to your posts, does not mean I am stupid.

Actually, pere, I can only go by what you put into your posts. I use them as a basis for what you know or don't know. It doesn't mean I believe you are "stupid", but there are significant facts missing from your posts. I can assume you either know them or not. I tend to assume the second and try to fill in the blanks. I know very well I too don't put all the information in my posts--although I try to get as much in as possible given limited space and attention spans. :-) I assume folks will gladly fill in the blanks and cover what I'm missing. I apologize if I made you feel stupid. It was not and is not my intent.

So what about before '98? Did it suddenly level out after then, or did the stats folks begin using a different sample?

The temp record generally shows 30 year intervals of increasing temps then stable to slightly declining temps, then back to increasing and so on. We've hit one of those plateau to declining times. Yet, this is just the modern temperature record and we only have roughly 150 or so years of it. We only have roughly 30 years of satellite temperature data, so the actual, measured temps we have that are not reconstructions are very tiny in comparison to the entire span of the life of the globe. We know temps have been higher. We know they've been much lower. The burden of proof is to show that the current warming is somehow different than the natural variation of things. That's pretty difficult.

No statistical increase? Tell that to the people of Greenburg, Kansas. Or everyone in Joplin. Statistics? They can be manipulated. In this area, I am relying on anecdotal evidence, in particular my own lifelong residence in my state and the observation of weather patterns. And believe me, I am terrified of severe weather, so I definitely notice when there is more of it!

My sympathies definitely reside with the people of Greenburg, Kansas and Joplin, MO. My cousin actually lost his house in Joplin, but as you said, this is anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat in regards to actual measurement. Why? Well, say I don't watch television, listen to the radio, or get on the internet. I base all my understanding of the weather on my personal observations I make at my home. Say I have noticed temperatures at my home declining over a few years. Then someone tells me the earth is warming. Based upon my anecdotal evidence, I'd say the person is wrong; yet, we know by virtue of looking at all the evidence across the globe, the planet is indeed warming. Anecdotal evidence is pretty myopic. Add to this fact, that the media only records extreme events, and it seems like such events are increasing when they aren't.

And finally, the peppered moth. I learned about this one in grade school, as an example of the effects of pollution. Please note that there were always both dark and light colors, and the lighter ones were merely eaten more when the tree bark darkened. There's no evolution involved

That's an interesting explanation, one I hadn't heard before. Flies in the face of what I've been taught, so I guess it boils down to which experts you trust.
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 11, 2012 9:52 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
No evidence of positive feedback of CO2 on climate change?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=positive+feedback+co2+climate+change&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C48&as_sdtp=on

Alaska had an unusual weather pattern, but it was not the coldest or even the snowiest.. I think it was the ninth coldest and the third wettest. It was because high pressure systems kept the jet steam much further north than usual. (I have a friend in Anchorage who would love to trade pastorates with you, though)
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 12, 2012 6:56 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Gramps,

Did you simply do a google scholar search and then paste the results? Did you actually take the time to read the abstracts on all those wonderful studies that the engine returned?

Methinks you didn't because of a couple of things:

1. All of the papers are dated and do not use the latest measurements including the AQUA satellite which has been giving us measurements of humidity (relative (slightly higher) and static (lower) and radiation leaving the atmosphere (more than the models predicted).

2. All of the papers on the page use computer models to predict a positive feedback. THERE IS NO MEASURED FEEDBACK in those papers!

Lest I remind you, in science, measurement and observation trump computer models EVERY TIME!

And as to Alaska: I knew I had seen stuff about the record snowfall, and it is Anchorage which experienced record snowfall. And you are correct in that you attribute it to a weather phenomena just as the warm winter/early spring is due to weather patterns. I showed you a graphic earlier in this thread showing that most of the northern hemisphere was actually below normal when it comes to temps. Stop cherry-picking your weather events to try to prove your point.
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 12, 2012 4:07 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I am on a website that will move certain threads over to the dead horse file. This is certainly one of them. Sorry I even started it.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Apr 13, 2012 6:32 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Translation: Hawg is stubborn, obstinate, and refuses to see the facts of this issue. From now on we'll stick to topics where he cannot show his ignorance.
4Annie

Posts: 882
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 23, 2012 6:09 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Is anyone out there aware of the blog Country Preacher's Corner?
wanderer


Posts: 5,054
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 23, 2012 7:01 AM   in response to: 4Annie in response to: 4Annie
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
thanks for the info.

ran through it way to fast - will spend more time there when the day isn't quite so busy.
4Annie

Posts: 882
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 23, 2012 8:41 AM   in response to: wanderer in response to: wanderer
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
It offers some interesting - and familiar - read, especially the blog for April 17 entitled "An Interesting Exercise". Gotta wonder why "the devil's advocate role" and pious stance were deemed necessary. What ever happened to honesty, sincerity, and God-loving behavior? Although, I do understand now the lapse in knowledge base.

(I was cleaning up my bookmarks and for some reason years ago had saved Lutherans.com. Opened it up to "Can Confessionalism be Revived". Must admit, I am uninformed about "confessionalism" outside of the Catholic church, so I peeked - there I found the blog!).

Learned a long time ago to trust my inner voice - boy was I on target here!

Yes, yes, people tell you who they are, all you need to do is listen...in this case read.

TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 23, 2012 5:16 PM   in response to: 4Annie in response to: 4Annie
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Might as well put the link, Annie:

http://countrypreacherscorner.blogspot.com/2012/04/interesting-exercise.html

And to be absolutely clear, I said (if I remember correctly) I will not use the discussion for any sermon or book that I was writing. My blog is a personal blog where I talk about all sorts of things, including things I say and do online and is quite different from a sermon or book. Also, if you took the time to note the date of the blog post, you would see that I posted that approximately six days before you actually posted something other than $$$$$$.
4Annie

Posts: 882
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 6, 2012 7:01 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Could be that I knew from the beginning that something wasn't quite right. It appears to have had it's intended meaning, wouldn't you say?
Evelyn203


Posts: 125
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: May 30, 2012 6:39 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
If the weather is way out of whack for your location for the 2nd season in a row, something is wrong with the climate. Simple.
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 6, 2012 6:17 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
In a break from the editorial position of the Orange County Registrar (which has been very dismissive of global warming science) the lead scientific reporter for the paper has come out with an article wondering if there is a connection between the excessive heat and the devastating fires and human caused global warming.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/climate-362060-change-global.html

Slowly but surely the skeptics are coming over.
4Annie

Posts: 882
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 6, 2012 7:03 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Do you think maybe the writer's inspiration was caused by a bolt of lightening? Some times in life it takes a great deal of patience for the resistors to accept change.
wanderer


Posts: 5,054
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 6, 2012 8:16 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
guess this might be a side note to the weather -

we had no lilacs this year. the buds started to open and then froze. most of the day lilies got 4 or 5 inches tall - bloomed for a day and were done. Stellas are doing ok.

i buy fresh fruit - Michigan Fruit - at the local orchard.

we had maybe a weeks worth of strawberries -
the blueberries have been in season maybe 10 days now - we have had a lot.
today was the first day for Traverse City black sweet cherries. Was told tomorrow will probably be the last day for Traverse City black sweet cherries.
we are getting peaches - from North Carolina. owner says we might not have any michigan peaches.
and we might not have any pears.
apples are dicey.

nope - there is nothing strange about our weather. three days this week hit 100. this probably isn't accurate - but the last time i recall 100 degrees - i had a 1971 buick lesabre. big ole hunk of iron - and two little boys who were just big enough to walk to the "drinking thing" all by themselves, when we camped at Higgins Lake. They wore Bert and Ernie and Cookie Monster swim suits.

news said heat records were broken over most of the US - we have electric - but #1 kid does not tonight. he has been out for 36 hours now - my physical torture was cancelled yesterday because the gym did not have electricity - some of the traffic lights were not even working this afternoon. mighty hot for no electricity -
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 6, 2012 10:39 PM   in response to: wanderer in response to: wanderer
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Supposed to break records here for the next four days. Problem is we actually had a very wet spring (unlike the rest of the country) and all the undergrowth in the forests will dry very quickly, setting our area up for extreme fire danger too.

Last week number two son and I went to Stanley Basin where I grew up. Now that forest has been devastated by the bark beetle and combined with extra dry conditions, it is ripe for a fire the likes of which my area has not seen for 100 years.

I can only imagine what it is like to be in an area with 100+ temperatures, in 80+ humidity and having no power for as long as some parts of the country has been.
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,234
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 7, 2012 9:32 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I moan and groan here in Fl. but I feel for them, I really do.
I remember in Chicago one year people were found dead because they did not know how to handle the heat.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 7, 2012 8:15 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
To quote: A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr/cfsr_t2m_2012070700.png

Yeah, the heat in the mid-west and east is really "global" warming.
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 8, 2012 1:03 AM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
As is the heat in Europe, Western Asia, and Mongolia/China/Korea

This is only for one day. Would love to see an animation of the last six months. Better, the last 25 years.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 8, 2012 7:54 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Those hot spots cover very little of the map. It is well established that the current temps in the U.S. are caused by a blocking high pressure much like the one which kept Texas hot and dry last year and Russia in the same capacity a few years ago. It isn't caused by global warming at all.

BTW, such anomaly maps are readily available. They even show where most of the warming has occurred. Want to guess where?
Turtletoes2


Posts: 4,234
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 8, 2012 8:16 AM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I can't guess so tell us please.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 8, 2012 11:01 AM   in response to: Turtletoes2 in response to: Turtletoes2
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Do your own research if you really want to know. It's not hard to find.
4Annie

Posts: 882
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 8, 2012 10:23 AM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Whatever you argue, do you consider that the concentrations of CO2 already in the atmosphere are a contributing factor?

This appears, to me, to be a moral hazzard issue you are bring up; specifically climate science and energy policy. There will always be winners and losers. Which side are you on?

And, no, I will get into a debate with you, for fun or anyother reason.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 8, 2012 11:00 AM   in response to: 4Annie in response to: 4Annie
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
CO2 is a contributing factor in the recent warming of our planet. There's really no dispute about that.

The dispute is about whether or not the addition of CO2 will contribute to catastrophic warming by positive feedbacks in the atmosphere. The jury is very much out on this one.

Lab experiments show CO2's contribution to warming is logrithmic, and without any positive feedback mechanism, we've already seen the bulk of the warming adding CO2 will cause. If there is a positive feedback loop, then we might be in trouble. As of now, we have mixed observations when it comes to such a feedback. Some papers show a feedback (although it's much smaller than the computer models predicted) while others show no feedback to a negative feedback.

As to which side I am on: I am on the side of the truth. I've seen enough garbage science out of the "deniers" and the "true believers" to gag on, so I try to wade through as much stuff as I can to figure out what's really going on. I don't put much stock at all in computer modeling, but put a great deal of stock in measured observation.
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 29, 2012 1:58 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 31, 2012 10:15 AM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Mueller was never a skeptic. Do you guys honestly believe all the stuff you read without doing some vetting?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1072419

His own words in the article, "It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic -- only a scientific skeptic," he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. "Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller 'Physics for Future Presidents' I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth.' But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic."

Oh, and if that's not good enough for you, here's something he wrote himself:

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/2/

This guy never converted. He's got a flair for the dramatic and a desire for headlines which folks who buy the AGW narrative gleefully gave him without checking out his background. Sheesh!
Gramps


Posts: 14,432
Re: Maybe the other side is starting to get it.
Posted: Jul 31, 2012 5:05 PM   in response to: TheHawg in response to: TheHawg
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
Hawg, I know what a scientific skeptic is. Fact is, scientists are trained to be skeptics. They have to question the data. In this case, he did and he ended up with basically the same conclusions other climatologists have reached. He is just a little slower to the party.
TheHawg

Posts: 1,614
Pointing out the obvious
Posted: Jul 31, 2012 6:06 PM   in response to: Gramps in response to: Gramps
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
You really are slow on the uptake on this issue, aren't you Wayne. Did you happen to check the dates of the two articles I linked?

Repeat: Mueller was not a skeptic regarding AGW. He's been in that camp for a long time (one article was dated 2003!). He is at this for showmanship, not science, and you (and a host of others) bought it hook, line, and sinker.