If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Permafrost in Arctic regions becoming neither permanent nor frost   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 996
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

21340 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2004 at 4:53 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



996 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-29 04:03:51 PM
Brockway

And calculate for 110F, as YOU suggest. 110F is 43.3, which, with a first-order coefficient of 0.0055, we can expect to attain, if the last 150 years, normalized to the 1961-1990 normalized average, are any indicator, in the year AD 7,337.


That's not what I asked. I didn't ask you to make a linear projection when the earth would reach 110F! I asked YOU to identify a threshold in temperate change that warrants concern.
 
2004-12-29 04:04:08 PM
pontechango

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, all of the moderate voices here get trampled on by the fringe (on both sides) where as it is always a righ/left issue. I would be sure that if you studies how much CO2 the average person produces in his/her lifetime, and extrapolated their political beliefs as well, you'd find that both "tree-huggers" and "eco-nazis" produce about the same amount as the "SUV driving, Right-wing bible kissers"... but of course it has to be all one sides fault or the other, in order to make the opposite side feel better.

Oh, and for the record, I am a Christian, but I'm not a Fundie. there should be respect for G-d's earth as well as utilization of it. See, that's simple, middle ground.

Notice to all: there is a middle ground here.
 
2004-12-29 04:04:15 PM
BojanglesPaladin
Or that Antarctica used to be unfrozen and in now under miles of ice?
Don't forget the part about massive hunts by superior alien species resulting in the architecture of numerous ancient civilizations.

/movie sucked, read the comics/novels
 
2004-12-29 04:04:15 PM
pontechango :
So you believe that science never changes, the truths of today are the truths of tomorrow and there is no need to further research what we currently believe today?

If science depended upon people like you we would still believe the world was flat.

Like I said if you want to expand your mind and horizons you can do the research...
 
2004-12-29 04:04:41 PM
Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk:

Not one scientist has proven what you are saying. They'll be the first to admit it. They have unproven theories and opinions. Only those who have political reasons or are happy to take unproven assertions as fact, state that global warming is caused by man.

I'm part of the better safe than sorry crowd, but I'm also part of the crowd that doesn't like for people to state theories as fact, because that can become a very bad habit.

The "This thread sure is interesting, like watching ditchdiggers fight over the best shovel" statement wasn't directed at you personally. I should have done a better job of dividing my opinions, possibly into two different posts. Sorry about that.



Ok. Ok. I must concede. But I saw it on the history channel last night! ;) So maybe nobody has proven that the human species has made changes in the environment. But isn't it kind of obvious? How can you have you know, so many billions of people, consuming so much finite resources, producing so much CO2 which we can't breathe... I don't know. It seems a little obvious to me. I just think we should recylce, and have low impact housing, and transfer our energy consumption to renewable resources. It can't hurt, right?
 
2004-12-29 04:06:33 PM
Brockway

I am sure the guys at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science will be relieved to note that their climatological model is not valid, and has no significant predictive value.

You want to criticize the model of GISTEMP? Knock yourself out, buddy.


Yawn.. no model can predict changes in global temperature accurately. Does the model take into account the rate constant for the reaction of carbonic acid with calcium carbonate rock. Or the change surface area of the worlds mountain ranges with erosion. Or the growth rate of diatoms under different environmental conditions. Or any number of millions of unknown variables.

It would be like mathematically predicting what useless crap you are gonna spout next.
 
2004-12-29 04:06:40 PM
BojanglesPaladin:

Really? Did you know that Egypt was once a lush tropical paradise a few thousand years ago? Now it is mostly arid desert.

Or that most of North America was covered in glaciers and is now a temperate zone?

Or that Antarctica used to be unfrozen and in now under miles of ice?

Or that even a thousand years ago New England could support grapevines?

Seems to me that the earth adjusts it's balance all the time with or without cars and smokestacks.

You may be just a kid, but you should check your facts before blindly repeating rhetoric.



I'm not blindly repeating. I consider everything you just said to be balanced. Those are all natural occurances. Our man made pollution is not natural. However, perhaps this entire thread has made me think a bit more. Perhaps us killing ourselves off is natural.
 
2004-12-29 04:07:23 PM
pontechango:

That's not what I asked. I didn't ask you to make a linear projection when the earth would reach 110F! I asked YOU to identify a threshold in temperate change that warrants concern.


Whatever is statistically significant.
 
2004-12-29 04:07:28 PM
Here's a link to NASA'S graphs of GIStemp data.
Note that they are all in Celsius and they all deal with change in temperature:

NASA graphs of GIStemp data (pops)
 
2004-12-29 04:07:33 PM
Pleisa

Yeah, But I get confused. I know that all evil in the world comes from Christianity, but it seems that Bush is supposed to be the root of all evil too. I'm not sure if they have a percentage ownership arrangement, or like a time share or split custody of evil or what. Also, I'm not sure WHICh evils are more a Christian thing and which are a Bush thing, like if they call dibs or something, or just sort of take turns spreading the evil. And there's definately some arrangement with Clinton and the U.N. where they pick up a lot of the evil duties.

It's all just so confusing.
 
2004-12-29 04:08:49 PM
Brockway

How many times, pontechango? Relevance to existence of life on earth would be an arbitrary reference datum calculation, and would not be operationally valid. There is only ONE valid choice, and that is the ONLY one that is NOT arbitrary, and that is ZERO K.


Dude, you're like the protagonist in Umberto's Pendulum. Absolute zero is a theoretical construct. It is useful for calculating total thermal energy but it is impertinent when discussing ecological range shifts.
 
2004-12-29 04:08:51 PM
I don't consider covering the planet in concrete and killing off old growth forests to be "not a whole lot" of change.

But hey! It's for the humans, so who gives a damn about anyone else? ;P
 
2004-12-29 04:10:03 PM
Brockway

Whatever is statistically significant.


Which is?
 
2004-12-29 04:10:09 PM
sheikah:

I just think we should recylce, and have low impact housing, and transfer our energy consumption to renewable resources. It can't hurt, right?


Right!
 
2004-12-29 04:10:13 PM
BojanglesPaladin:

Yeah, But I get confused. I know that all evil in the world comes from Christianity, but it seems that Bush is supposed to be the root of all evil too. I'm not sure if they have a percentage ownership arrangement, or like a time share or split custody of evil or what. Also, I'm not sure WHICh evils are more a Christian thing and which are a Bush thing, like if they call dibs or something, or just sort of take turns spreading the evil. And there's definately some arrangement with Clinton and the U.N. where they pick up a lot of the evil duties.

It's all just so confusing.



Hey dude, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not placing blame. I'm saying we all have a part. Some people refuse to aknowledge their part, which is why I don't trust them. Or respect them.
 
2004-12-29 04:10:51 PM
whatshisname

Here's a link to NASA'S graphs of GIStemp data.
Note that they are all in Celsius and they all deal with change in temperature:

NASA graphs of GIStemp data (pops)


You doofus. Those aren't temperatures, those are temperature ANOMALYs. Sheesh. If you are going to post the link, at least look at it long enough to figure out what is represented.
 
2004-12-29 04:11:03 PM
I see a bit of irony here, sheikah... You argue one one hand (IIRC) that humans are a part of the earth. The extension of this is that we are thus natural beings, and our exercise of brainpan capacity is no more or less natural than say a wolf pack taking down a caribou. Yet you also argue that our (natural) man made pollution is not natural.
 
2004-12-29 04:11:27 PM
Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk: Right!


Well then why does everyone fight about wether or not we are making a change, and just make sure we don't make a change?!?!
 
2004-12-29 04:13:26 PM
BojanglesPaladin
That post made me truly chuckle, few and far between on this thread. Actually, we do run a secret organization for distributing evil throughout the world. But don't tell my fundie friends I said that, or I might end up missing. Shh! ;)
 
2004-12-29 04:14:05 PM
Well then why does everyone fight about wether or not we are making a change, and just make sure we don't make a change?!?!

Because we make a change simply by existing.
 
2004-12-29 04:14:45 PM
Pleisa:

I see a bit of irony here, sheikah... You argue one one hand (IIRC) that humans are a part of the earth. The extension of this is that we are thus natural beings, and our exercise of brainpan capacity is no more or less natural than say a wolf pack taking down a caribou. Yet you also argue that our (natural) man made pollution is not natural.


Yes and thank you for pointing that out. (And please tell me what IIRC means..)

Hmm you've caught me there. I'm going to have to think about that one. It's just one of the weird things my brain considers simultaniously. Perhaps I'm going to have to change my opinion. *GASP* and admit I might be wrong!

But I do think that our pollution is wrong. I think perhaps that we have excercised our brainpan capacity in the wrong way. Can't argue with that, eh? Perhaps next time earth will be more careful about the kinds of beings she allows to evolve into intelligent beings.
 
2004-12-29 04:14:54 PM
Brockway:

This is NOT TRUE for climatological calculations. The result of climatological calculations made in C or F are NOT OPERATIONALLY VALID. The ONLY valid operations are done in units K.

Untrue, especially when you consider that units C are units K. Same unit, different reference point. Now, which reference point is more useful to discussing human-habitable climate ranges, absolute cold or the freezing point of water?

You have proved that you don't understand the fundamental point. The choice of 15,000,000K would be an arbitrarily chosen reference datum, which I have tried to make clear is not mathematically operationally valid for this system. The ONLY temperature you can choose for the calculations is the ONLY temperature which IS NOT an arbitrarily chosen reference datum, which is to say, specifically, 0K.

That sure is a fancy way of saying nothing. On a side note, I love this phrase: "not mathematically operationally valid for this system". Umm, dude, you're not doing any mathematical operations, you're plotting observed data points. No math involved, just graphing. Furthermore, the absolute temperature is not the data that interests us - it's the delta-temp. For this purpose, including a vertical axis which extends for 280 units past the boundary of the data range is dishonest. Not misleading, not confusing, dishonest. Bounding the graph on the human-habitable range would at least have been intellectually honest. Bounding it on absolute zero is not.

The whole point of the altitude analogy is to show that surface is an arbitrary reference datum. Why can't you understand that some calculation, like rotational moment, for example, are ALWAYS done with respect to reference datum, whereas others (gravitation or year-over-year temperature calculations) can NEVER be done using reference datum?

Again, you haven't done any calculations. Had you done the useful calculation (delta-temp), the center-point of your graph would have been fixed at either the mean or median of the data plotted, and the upper and lower bounds one standard deviation from the min and max data points, with absolute zero still not figuring in any meaningful manner into your graph. There is no useful analysis of this data that requires you to bound the data at absolute zero, something you should know since you properly set the upper bound just far enough beyond the maximum data point for clarity.

The plotting is a completely different issue.

The plotting is what we are discussing, have been discussing, and will continue to discuss until you admit that your graph is intellectually dishonest. Nobody gives a shiat about mathematical operations that aren't involved in this graph, we are only interested in the dishonest manner in which you have chosen to plot this data.

If you'll scroll up, you'll see that I am most definitely *not* one of those people who believes global warming is an immediately credible threat, which puts me closer to supporting your view than most on here, but your graphing methodology disgusts me. Make your point honestly or not at all.
 
2004-12-29 04:15:23 PM
pontechango


Whatever is statistically significant.

Which is?


Three sigma units is standard, but I would settle for ONE.
 
2004-12-29 04:16:03 PM
Sheika
"So maybe nobody has proven that the human species has made changes in the environment. But isn't it kind of obvious?"
"producing so much CO2 which we can't breathe... "
"humans have created themselves out of balance. The earth was balanced before"
"Perhaps us killing ourselves off is natural."
"Maybe the earth is creating the solution already: kill us all."

You are the very definition of 'My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts.' Almost every observation you made was completely wrong, but you insist on holding to your belief that we are singlehandedly destroying the world and us with it.

Pleisa

Huh? Movie Books? What are you talking about?
 
2004-12-29 04:16:43 PM
good lord...i go away for a few hours and crawdaddy was still spouting his holier than thou i know more than every scientist in the world even though im only a chemistry student bs....talk about addiction to self importance.....geeeeeeez
 
2004-12-29 04:16:50 PM
Brockway: You doofus. Those aren't temperatures, those are temperature ANOMALYs.

So your argument is really just one of semantics?
 
2004-12-29 04:17:25 PM
Hawkwind

So you believe that science never changes, the truths of today are the truths of tomorrow and there is no need to further research what we currently believe today?


LOL. Nice straw man argument there. Judging by what you've said so far, nothing in that Popular Science article is new. In case you didn't know this, Popular Science is not exactly known for breaking research.
 
2004-12-29 04:18:51 PM
Pleisa: Because we make a change simply by existing


Perhaps I should have said positive change.

damnit Plesia you're making me think and question myself!!!
 
2004-12-29 04:20:30 PM
Brockway

Three sigma units is standard, but I would settle for ONE.


Why do you insist on using sophomoric jargon? Are you talking about a one standard deviation change in temperature? Over what sampling time period? And why aren't you being more forthcoming with this value?

You're a coward when it comes to committing to a real hypothesis.
 
2004-12-29 04:20:33 PM
sheikah:

Well then why does everyone fight about wether or not we are making a change, and just make sure we don't make a change?!?!

It is a question of the economic extent that people are willing to go to in order to insure that we aren't the problem, even if it has not been proven. It is also a fairness issue, when it comes to treaties like Kyoto, that sets no limits on China, but reserves the biggest limiting factors for the US (and I believe a few other countries). Even when Clinton agreed to Kyoto, he knew Congress would vote it down. Bush came to office, and preempted their vote by shooting it down. (Pun intended)

The sooner that they prove or disprove the theory, the stronger the arguments for or against those limits are. Even then, it wouldn't ever address the issue of fairness, because that is based on opinion.
 
2004-12-29 04:21:31 PM
BojanglesPaladin:

ou are the very definition of 'My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts.' Almost every observation you made was completely wrong, but you insist on holding to your belief that we are singlehandedly destroying the world and us with it.


That's because that's what I see when I look out the window.

Haven't we had this conversation before, dude? This seems really familiar.

So if we're not destroying the world... we're making it better? I find that even harder to believe.
 
2004-12-29 04:22:03 PM
I'm still very dubious about scientists claiming anything resembling certainty in regards to the climate. We have a VERY VERY small data set, incomplete at best and not going reliably back more than about 75 years or so for anything beyond temprature, rainfall and maybe barometric pressure. Even with that our global records even today are not complete.

We are unable to say for certain what tommorow's weather will be. But there sure seems to be a lot of guys out there (and in this thread) who are absolutely CERTAIN what the next few hundred years hold for us.

It seems a bit like watching the tide come in for 8 minutes and then extrapolating that the Earth will be underwater in 500 years at that rate the water is rising.
 
2004-12-29 04:22:26 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalwarming/graphic/0,7367,397048,00.html

^looky looky. United States, circa 2050: bread-basket of the planet. Looks like the American West is one of the few places where crops will be unaffected.

/ "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." - Otto von Bismarck
 
2004-12-29 04:23:36 PM
Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk:

It is a question of the economic extent that people are willing to go to in order to insure that we aren't the problem, even if it has not been proven. It is also a fairness issue, when it comes to treaties like Kyoto, that sets no limits on China, but reserves the biggest limiting factors for the US (and I believe a few other countries). Even when Clinton agreed to Kyoto, he knew Congress would vote it down. Bush came to office, and preempted their vote by shooting it down. (Pun intended)

The sooner that they prove or disprove the theory, the stronger the arguments for or against those limits are. Even then, it wouldn't ever address the issue of fairness, because that is based on opinion.



In other words, the more blame we can put on other countries because of proved and disproved theories, the more money our country can save, because industry rules all. (Yes I know that's not exactly what you meant, but that's sort of how I see things.)
 
2004-12-29 04:24:14 PM
pontechango, crawdaddy:

Check these out. These are a few links I had saved and should answer any questions you may have.

http://www.eeb.princeton.edu/~dpurves/voc_ozone.htm

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/ecosys/tree-aq/tree-aq.htm

http://www.fraqmd.org/Biogenics.htm

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,1010803,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3700565.stm

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/environment_sciences/report-108 61.html

http://www.chennaionline.com/science/Environment/environment24.asp
 
2004-12-29 04:25:27 PM
BojanglesPaladin
My bad. You recall the Aliens vs Predator movie last summer? Sucked. It was based on a series of comic books and novels, which were actually pretty good. The makers of the movie had a great opportunity to expand on the print series, and blew it.

sheikah
If we are going to argue strict semantics, evolution isn't allowed or encouraged or directed. Natural selection simply works on those individuals who are most fit for their current environment. On the flip side, glad you're thinking about it. Thinking's good for ya :)
 
2004-12-29 04:26:57 PM
Brockway

Ack my model failed to predict what the next stupid thing out of your mouth would be!

Even though I derived it from first principles using the initial condition of ABSOLUTE stupidity.

I must be missing something.
 
2004-12-29 04:27:12 PM
Hawkwind

You didn't even read that Popular Science article. Ronald Reagan wasn't "right", he was being manipulative and lying by ommission. Reagan could have just as easily blamed water for atmospheric pollution but that would have revealed his statements for the complete poppycock that they were.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,20967,1010803,00.html

The short-lived isoprene leaked from leaves packs a chemical wallop in the lower atmosphere. It reacts with man-made nitrous oxide (NOx), emitted mainly by cars and factories, to create ground-level ozone, otherwise known as smog. While there's thus some truth to Reagan's assertion, scientists say fossil-fuel burning humans are really to blame. "In the eastern U.S., we have enough NOx around that the VOCs end up forming ozone", says Drew Purves, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University and the lead author of the study. "We control every aspect of U.S. forests."
 
2004-12-29 04:28:19 PM
Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk:

So, people who don't think past their pocketbooks and generations(?) have caused the world to get warmer.

No actually, I'd say it made the world colder.
 
2004-12-29 04:29:23 PM
Hawkwind

Your ideology is showing. Why don't you admit that water is to blame for releasing hydroxyl radicals? Reagan just wanted to use isoprenes as an excuse to give forestry concessions. Nevermind that the deforestation had ZERO impact on reducing ozone concentrations.
 
2004-12-29 04:30:24 PM
LOL crawdaddy
 
2004-12-29 04:31:38 PM
sheikah
So if we're not destroying the world... we're making it better? I find that even harder to believe.

Hey, did you get Polio? Which of your parents died from smallpox? How many siblings died of scarlet fever? How is your horse-drawn buggy working out? Out of curiosity, how much time do you spend each day harvesting the crops and milking the cows for your breakfast cereal? Did you have any childhood friends who died from an infection from a broken bone they got while chopping firewood?

Are you literate? Are you able to talk directly with people on the other side of the world?

I'm guessing you're a half-empty kind of person.
 
2004-12-29 04:31:50 PM
Sloth_DC:

I plotted ALL the data, and arbitrarily cut off NONE of it. If you don't like that, then you can cry about it.

The whole point is that the plot of temperature differential is BIASED. My plot is the result of deliberately plotting the MINIMUM BIAS plot of ACTUAL TEMPERATURE year-over-year.

And you are just wrong about mathematical operational validity. It is REQUIRED for year-over-year calculations which WERE done here, since the GISTEMP values are all relative to anomaly.

But you can continue to scream "just divide by zero" if you really want to do so. I am happy these archives will be preserved forever so you can get to live with your words for eternity.
 
2004-12-29 04:32:44 PM
sheikah:

In other words, the more blame we can put on other countries because of proved and disproved theories, the more money our country can save, because industry rules all. (Yes I know that's not exactly what you meant, but that's sort of how I see things.)

I have no problem with your interpretation. We all balance things according to our different philosophies. If the majority of Americans are willing to take an economic hit for something that is only a theory at this point, because they fear that by the time the theory is proven we will be too far gone already, then we'll be moving in that direction. Many political decisions are based on prevailing opinion.

As a libertarian, I would hope that individuals would make decisions on what companies they patronize based on their records as companies, environmental friendliness being one of those factors, instead the federal government doing it for us. This is especially when those decisions are based on a set of theories. Then, people like myself can make the decisions, even if they are based on a hunch, rather than an elected official's hunch trumping mine.
 
2004-12-29 04:34:09 PM
crawdaddy:

Ack my model failed to predict what the next stupid thing out of your mouth would be!

Even though I derived it from first principles using the initial condition of ABSOLUTE stupidity.

I must be missing something.


I think what you were missing was a point. Your post contained nothing but that which is tantamount to name-calling.
 
2004-12-29 04:34:33 PM
So, people who don't think past their pocketbooks and generations(?) have caused the world to get warmer.

whidbey: No actually, I'd say it made the world colder.

Isn't that the truth.
 
2004-12-29 04:34:40 PM
Pleisa

Ah. I would acknowledge my fondness for the early Dark Horse runs of Alien as well as Predator, and offhandedly mention by enormous comic book collection (almost big enough for me to open a store with) or my almost encyclopedic knowledge of the Marvel Universe thru the early 90s but...


I don't want anyone to think I'm a dork :)
 
2004-12-29 04:35:40 PM
Brockway

You are a craven, spineless, detestable coward who is too chickenshiat to put forward an arguable hypothesis about acceptible global temperature change. You can put all the data in Kelvin that you like, you STILL haven't specified any threshold values or "first order coefficients" as you like to say. "Statistically significant" is a f*cking cop out and YOU KNOW IT!
 
2004-12-29 04:35:45 PM
Don't worry, there's nothing wrong with being a dork. At least we're not geeks ;)
 
2004-12-29 04:36:05 PM
2004-12-29 04:31:38 PM BojanglesPaladin

Believe me, there's still plenty of room to biatch.

For each of the scenarios you rattled off, we've got even bigger problems.
 
Displayed 50 of 996 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report