Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 4 of 21
Rue - you got one thing wrong. We DON'T understand the dynamics of global climate change. We've barely scratched the surface. Carl Sagan, whom I respect and admire greatly, was none the less wrong a time or two. He and others , using computer models, predicted the impact of the over 700 Kuwait oil well fires from the Gulf War. They emphatically stated that this enviro disaster would lower the average temperatures globally. However, the effects were far LESS disasterous than they predicted. They were wrong. That doesn't discredit ALL that he did, not by a long shot. But it did show that when it comes to weather patterns and global climate predictions, we really don't know what we're doing - yet.
So yes, I am still waiting. Waiting till mankind gets a better understanding of the world he lives in and the 'verse from which we all come.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Right now, global warming IS the better understanding. To fail to come to grips with that indicates you are clinging to dogma rather than following the data.
But say you're unbiased. What is your basis to determine that the science is 'good enough'? Does it have to come into common wisdom? Does it have to have an irretrievable impact on your life? Or do you propose to analyze the data on your own?
As scientists do more to understand more, that future understanding will then be the 'better understanding', b/c that's where the data will have led. And you won't see me clinging to the old model either.
Neither should you be clinging to the old model now.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Right now, global warming IS the better understanding. To fail to come to grips with that indicates you are clinging to dogma rather than following the data.
But say you're unbiased. What is your basis to determine that the science is 'good enough'? Does it have to come into common wisdom? Does it have to have an irretrievable impact on your life? Or do you propose to analyze the data on your own?
As scientists do more to understand more, that future understanding will then be the 'better understanding', b/c that's where the data will have led. And you won't see me clinging to the old model either.
Neither should you be clinging to the old model now.
Rue - what will it take ? It'll take time. Not years or decades, but possibly 100 - 500 yrs. Who can say for sure ? But one thing I'm not ready to do is take a swan dive into the lastest "Cause of the Month" Club when it comes to trendy fads.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me approach this from another perspective. You feel the science is not good enough. Therefore, you are, indisputably, placing yourself in judgement of the science. If it is not good enough now, what will it have to be to be good enough? That's all I'm asking you to consider with this post.
What is your criteria for YOU to accept global climate science as 'good science'?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
what will it have to be to be good enough? That's all I'm asking you to consider with this post.
What is your criteria for YOU to accept global climate science as 'good science'?
Looked out my window. More snow. Opened the door. Cold. That's 'good enough' for me.
I'm never gonna take your science serious if you keep telling me about global warming in the middle of December. The sky aint falling, thats snow, same snow as last year, two years before that, the century before that, the millenium before that and, God willing, the millenium century, and years to come. Its cold in the winter, warm in the summer, sometimes not so cold, sometimes not so warm, sometimes it rains too much, sometimes not enough, every now and then a big storm comes, once in a while the Earth moves. The only thing that is really constant is the people shouting "the end is near" everytime any of the above happens. It was funny the first thousand years, since then ya'll are just sad.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero,
I already know what you think, you posted it earlier.
AURaptor,
I'm still wondering what criteria you are using to judge the science as good enough or not yet up to snuff. Since you are saying it isn't good enough yet, you are waiting for something. What is that something?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let me approach this from another perspective. You feel the science is not good enough. Therefore, you are, indisputably, placing yourself in judgement of the science. If it is not good enough now, what will it have to be to be good enough? That's all I'm asking you to consider with this post.
What is your criteria for YOU to accept global climate science as 'good science'?
I told you. Time. Once we see the Statue of Liberty wading knee deep in NY Harbor because the oceans have risen, THEN I'll be satisfied. ( sarcasm off ) How about some good, hard evidence, recorded over a vast amount of time? So as to make sure that we're not misidentifying the cause/effect scenario for something that it ISN'T ? Oh, call me crazy.
Q for you, rue: How do you explain the receeding polar caps....on OTHER PLANETS ? eg: Mars? Tell me Mars is somehow being effected by the planes, trains and automoblies down here on Earth. This i gotta hear.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HERO
Here Here! .. for good old common sense. Seems that stuff is in short supply these days. Glad to know it still can be found.
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You edited your post. This answer reflects your original post which did not single out Mars:
http://eaa.iop.org/index.cfm?action=summary&doc=eaa%2F4430%40eaa-xml
Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics
"In the solar system, the Earth, Mars and Neptune's major satellite Triton are known to possess polar caps."
http://www.plutoportal.net/aboutplutocharon.htm
"the (Pluto) maps reveal polar caps and other high-contrast surface units. Perihelion was reached in 1989; the system is now receding from the Sun."
That both of Earth's polar caps and its glaciers are receding is not in doubt.
Mars' southern polar cap may be retreating, but that conclusion is not certain because it was only a one year observation.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html
There is no evidence the north polar cap is shrinking year to year.
There is a site that indirectly indicates Triton's southern polar cap is growing. http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/ v30n3/dps98/247.htm
As for Pluto/Charon, one site indicated the polar caps grow and shrink with the seasons. However, since the Pluto is receding from the sun, I don't think the polar caps will be shrinking soon.
There is no generalized 'melting' of polar caps, whether ice, CO2, methane or nitrogen going on for the solar system. However, there IS a generalized melting of ice on Earth.
Quote:Some problems with your answer. One: length of observation doesn't address cause/effect. Only close study will do that. So, to put it in your terms: even if Earth's ice were completely melted and the Statue of Liberty was drowning, you couldn't tell from that fact alone what was cause and what was effect. You need additional information. Two: the earth is indisputably warmer. I don't know why you need for ALL the ice to melt to figure that out.
How about some good, hard evidence, recorded over a vast amount of time? So as to make sure that we're not misidentifying the cause/effect scenario for something that it ISN'T ?
So your 'common sense' (or Hero's) is what you depend on to condemn science. At least we've clarified things a bit. You've gone from feigning scientific discernment to saying you're just agin' it 'cause it doesn't square with your notions.
Finally, I noticed you didn't answer my question about severe global climate change on Earth over 2 bn years. You may be reluctant to look it up, thinking it's a red herring. So, let me give you this hint: it's a real question with a real answer. In fact, here's another hint: the reasons do not apply to earth today.
Now, impress me with your knowledge. The clock is ticking.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Having just read an article today on msnbc about the current affects of global warming, I thought I would post a link to it and recap the highlights for those who are saying that global warming is not affecting the environment because it is still snowing in December. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6720088/
- 2004 was the 4th warmest year on record.
- The 10 warmest years, since records have been kept have all been recorded since 1990.
- Over the last ten years there has been an increase in severe weather activity, including in 2004, the 4 hurricanes in the carribean, typhons in Asia, and heat waves in Europe.
Now, severe weather and hurricanes have always been around, but it does seem to be getting worse. And while the earth's weather patterns are constantly changing, for both economic and humanitarian reasons we want those changes to happen at a slow enough pace for us to adapt, or get the hell out of the way. The concern for me is that due to all of the crap we are pumping into the environment, we are forcing these changes at an ever increasing pace, which may change our environment quicker then we can adapt to it.
On a sidenote, not only does the scientific community seem to want emissions control and reductions, the international community does as well, and how can we expect the international community to do what we want on issues important to us when we refuse to even negotiate or discuss issues important to them?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME