Are you allowed to shout 'FIRE' in a burning auditorium?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, June 25, 2005 00:15
VIEWED: 6268
PAGE 1 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 11, 2005 4:38 PM

Why do some resist the reality of Global Warming? Is it that it's not dramatic enough? I mean it's not going to kill us all next year, or the year after that...
Is it that in the long term it's too scary to admit to?
The changes are evident to anyone who's been around a few decades, in the past these kind of changes couldn't be noticed unless your life span was centuries.
Ice core samples, sea temperatures, water levels- all tell us something is happening.
Deforestation in the Amazon, the largest concentration of plant life on the planet, is like removing most of the liver in a human body...why is this acceptable?
And why do some keep playing the 'volcano emissions' card? Are we plagued with more erupting volcanoes in the past century than in the past 1000 years combined or something?
Holland is constructing houses with the ability to float, permanently if necessary, what does that tell us? (no Waterworld jokes, please )

Scientific data + common sense = awareness of a problem
Big buisness + no restrictions = cause of a problem

Seems simple to me.
President Bush has talked about us living on Mars. First step toward Earth That Was?

Doin' the math Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, June 11, 2005 11:36 PM

I resist the idea because the empirical evidence I've seen does not support the hypothesis. From what I've read, most of the "scientific" data that supports GW come from faulty computer modeling that omits convection variables, for example. Other "scientific" data is hyped beyond warranted conclusions. Another example. So the temperature has risen 1 degree celsius in the last 100 years. What the heck does that mean? Is that a lot, is that just normal fluctuation? I asked on another FFF GW thread what the standard deviation is on that 1 degree celsius. I mean, did the data range from 0-2 degrees, with the average of 1, or did the data range from -10 to 10 degrees, with the average of 1. Simple but critical question, yet no one could tell me the answer. Without understanding the data that this average comes from, how can anyone conclude that 1 degree is significant?

I think GW is an intriguing hypothesis and should continue to be researched and explored. But there isn't enough evidence yet to proclaim it as a true scientific consensus, let alone base public policy and legislation on it. Now, lack of evidence does not necessarily mean it isn't true. It just means it has yet to be proven. Science, good science, is slow. And with GW, we actually have some time to do it right--without the politics, funding biases, and hyperbole. I believe there is no need to jump to premature conclusions, and yet that is exactly what has happened. There is still a debate about GW, and that debate should be allowed to continue honestly without both camps claiming it already knows the absolute truth.

Just so you know, I am not politically invested in resisting GW. I don't have a problem restricting fossil fuel emissions for other environmental reasons (such as toxins and air quality) that have a lot more hard evidence than GW, and is a lot more immediately threatening to the public.

So make sure there is a fire and not just someone who lit up a cigarette, before you go shouting "fire." And if you really want to shout "fire!" then go ahead. Just allow me to disagree.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, June 12, 2005 1:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Seems simple to me.

Preconceived conclusions based on alarmist rhetoric generally are. When it gets complicated is when you want to know to truth.

For brevity I’m going with what canttakesky said. Sounds like she’s got a reasonably position on the issue. Smart cookie, that one.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

RUE

Sunday, June 12, 2005 2:48 AM

Quote:
From what I've read, most of the "scientific" data that supports GW comes from faulty computer modeling that omits convection variables, for example.

Let me just nitpick for a while. Do you mean to say 'data'? Or 'analysis'?

The 'data' - rising ocean temperatures, rising air temperatures, rising ground temperatures, melting glaciers, early start of spring and late end of fall, early bird and butterfly migration, early break of hibernation, warm-weather tree stress across conifer biomes (which were established over millennia), rising ocean levels, isotopic ratios, etc - ALL either directly measure rising temperatures across the globe, or otherwise indicate overall rising temperature. That is the data. The 'data' doesn't come from computer modeling. Are you trying to say the 'data' is faulty?

Or do you mean the 'analysis' is faulty? So, which part of the analysis is faulty? Is an analysis that says that temperatures are rising somehow incorrect? I don't think that's what you mean. THAT temperatures are rising compared to historical temperatures (or millennial surrogate temperatures from ice core isotopes, biomes etc) is not in doubt.

Or do you mean to say that it doesn't exceed natural variation? Now that might be a question, but you'd have to decide on a time-frame. For the 1-100 millennium time-frame, the answer is yes, it DOES exceed natural historical variation. (recent ice core isotopic studies establish that.)

Going back further presents some problems. While there is some evidence that local weather change can be rapid (frozen woolly mammoths), no deep historical analysis has good resolution. The best I've read is 10,000 years. There is no way to say if the climate shifts of millions of years ago took place over 1 year, 100 years, 1,000 years, or 10,000 years. So there is no way of knowing if this climate shift is a-historical.

Another issue is that on a global, long-term (hundreds of millions of years) scale, many of the extreme climates of the past have been assigned actual causes: eccentricity of the Earths' orbit was a major driver, along with the variation in solar output. These (and other) regular variations, each on their own cycle, combined to create a (complicated but) predictable climate pattern that can be tracked geologically. But these factors are no longer in play. To look at those past climates for comparison would be in error.

And then there is the question of what to do about this warming of our Earth. Have you considered that by the time anthropogenic global warming is 'proven' it will be too late to actually do anything about it? (And I'm going to reiterate that science can never prove anything, it can only disprove the null hypothesis. If you are waiting for proof, you will be waiting forever.)

To draw an analogy to medicine, sometimes the only way to diagnose an illness is to see if it responds to treatment.

ROCKETJOCK

Sunday, June 12, 2005 5:59 AM

Quote:

The 'data' - rising ocean temperatures, rising air temperatures, rising ground temperatures, melting glaciers, early start of spring and late end of fall, early bird and butterfly migration, early break of hibernation, warm-weather tree stress across conifer biomes (which were established over millennia), rising ocean levels, isotopic ratios, etc - ALL either directly measure rising temperatures across the globe, or otherwise indicate overall rising temperature. That is the data. The 'data' doesn't come from computer modeling. Are you trying to say the 'data' is faulty?

I'm not in a position to address each of these concerns individually, but as a single example of how honestly-collected data can lead to false conclusions, consider the following anecdote:

U.S. Naval records as to ocean temperature in the north Pacific over a hundred-year period showed that the temperatures were fairly stable between 1890 and 1915; the average temperature then dropped suddenly by nearly two degrees from 1916 to 1947; in 1948 they raised suddenly to more than a degree higher than the earliest readings, a condition that remained stable until the hundred-year mark in 1990.

Does this mean that global warming somehow hit a speed bump for thirty years, before resuming with a nearly three-degree quantum leap?

No, it means that the earliest readings were taken by dropping a wooden bucket into the water, hauling it up to the ship's deck with a rope, and then dropping a thermometer into it. The drop in temperature occured when the Navy switched to galvanized tin buckets -- which lost more temperature to wind chill during the hauling process than the old wooden buckets did. (Wood is a good insulator, metal a poor one.) In 1948 the Navy stopped using buckets altogether, and started dropping temperature sensors directly into the water, and getting the temperatures electronically through wires. (Once you adjusted for the changes in temperature-gathering techniques, the temperatures were fairly stable -- a slight gain in temperature, but nothing that didn't fall within probable error.)

No conclusions here -- just a cautionary note. Not all datums are created equal.

"Do you know what the definition of a hero is? It's somebody who gets somebody else killed." -- Zoë Warren

RUE

Sunday, June 12, 2005 6:30 AM

I definitely agree.

But regarding ocean temperatures, the data I was referring to came from trade vessels sailing all over the globe, and recently laboriously gleaned from ships logs. This is one of those times where having a lot of data, tens of millions of data points over centuries, is an advantage - any one local factor will be minimized on the average.

"Do you know what the definition of a hero is? It's somebody who gets somebody else killed." So a valiant person who gets themselves killed is - a martyr?

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 12, 2005 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There is still a debate about GW, and that debate should be allowed to continue honestly without both camps claiming it already knows the absolute truth.

I embrace concept because the empirical evidence I've examined supports the GW hypothesis.
There. I used big words. Now you know that I know what I'm talkin' about.
Utilizing particular 'interpretations' of accumulated data, and possibly faulty computer predictions does not negate that this is happening.
Ask an Eskimo.
Is it part of a naturally occuring cycle? Maybe. Is man affecting the climate himself? Definitely. Could it be some combination? Possibly. The only real question is the end result.
Will the water level go up a few feet by the late 21st century, forcing people in lower Manhattan to walk to work in waterproof hip-boots, or will the Earth be covered by tidal waves and blizzards?
Personally, I see the hip-boot thing happening- but that's just me.(actually, they'll probably just build sea walls...)

My friends, you know me to be neither rash, nor impulsive. I'm not given to wild, unsupported statements. And I tell you that we must evaccuate this planet immediatly!

Okay, we're not Krypton, but to say 'nothing' is happening in the face of the evidence is plain silly. Debate should focus on fine-tuning our idea of what is happening, not if it's happening.
The effects may be rather small, in the end.
Then again, they might not.

Ice core sample maniac Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 12, 2005 3:07 PM

One thing, Finn, are you with the idea that nothing's really happening, and that other than a few noxious gasses bein' produced we might choke ouselves on a little, we're having no bad effects on the planet as a whole?

Cough- choke Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 12, 2005 3:35 PM

Don't have a lot of time right now, but I MUST respond to Chrisisall briefly. Rue, I'll get to your questions later.

First Chris, I resent your accusation that I am "hiding." We disagree on what evidence exists and the interpretation of that evidence. From what I have seen on these boards, I am neither more cowardly nor less intelligent than you are. I am less witty and funny by far, but well, what can one do? :)

Secondly, the pollution produced by our consumption of all types of energy is, in my opinion, not so easily dismissed as a tickle in the throat. We are poisoning ourselves in all manner of ways. Worrying about GW in this context is like worrying about high blood pressure while you're popping cyanide pills. Well, do it if you want, but please don't cast aspersions on my character if I choose to have different priorities.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 12, 2005 4:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
First Chris, I resent your accusation that I am "hiding." Well, do it if you want, but please don't cast aspersions on my character if I choose to have different priorities.

Totally sorry for the POOR choice of words!!! Really! It was just an easy phrase to use (abuse), and your priorities are well understood, even agreed with.
It's the whole 'not a problem' thing I have a problem with when it comes to GW.
I respect your position, and Finn, too. Bein' witty ain't always a good thing when it gets taken personal and hurts someone's feelings.
Please forgive me

.

Chrisisall, who thinks he's smart then chooses his words like a stupid space monkey
Edit: I edited the dumb words out of the post.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE