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.

(NCAR)   Up to 90 percent of world's permafrost soil will thaw by 2100, releasing vast amounts of carbon into atmosphere, and many, many frozen caveman lawyers   (ucar.edu) divider line 301
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

9002 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2005 at 12:51 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



301 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-12-20 11:53:47 AM
Sloth_DC:
And Vinland?

Not fair. You said Vinland or the UK.
 
2005-12-20 11:54:05 AM
I_C_Weener: But, you seem fervent about this. Please explain the Yougner Dryas cooling (15 Degress celsius in less than 100 years) and warming ( 7 Degress in 40 - 50 years) for me.
But keep in mind that over the last 130 years, our global temperature has risen a total of .8 degrees celsius.


What is your point - that global climate change can happen without human influences?? Well, of course it can. In the words of my daughter - D'UH.

The issue here is that humans are causing this warming in what is meant to be a cooling period. Quit parrotting the talking points.
 
2005-12-20 11:55:16 AM
The good news is that economics will eventually halt the downward spiral into envirnomental meltdown. When fuels become far too expensive to use freely, in less than 100 years, the atmosphere and oceans will start to rebound.

However, the economic stresses on our culture caused by expensive petroleum might prove disastrous to the environment. Radiologically speaking, that is. Of course, not many people would be left to care if it came to that.

/glass parking lots?
 
2005-12-20 11:56:11 AM
as to why the general consensus is false

Science should not be about consensus. It should be about facts and logical analysis.

I don't disbelieve the facts. I question the analysis. Especially since the analysis blames 1 factor only. It probably is a factor, but if so, how much? And what can be done to counter it? And if its just a small factor, that doesn't really matter, then what can we do to counter the other factors?
 
2005-12-20 11:57:56 AM
I_C_Weener: You need help.

Could I get said "help" from reading Crichton's entire oeuvre, since he seems to have teh answers to all the world's problems? Gosh, since I've demonstrated such emotional reliance on your previous utterances, I'm sure I'll just take your latest unsupported opinion to heart, won't I?

/is that all you've got? Good grief.
 
2005-12-20 11:58:16 AM
namatad: which is MORE likely to be true?
the SUNS higher output causes global warming or
CO2 released by apes???



Solar warming is one of the fun misdirections from the fossil fuel funded sceptics. The carbon that was stored in fossil fuels over the course of millions of years is being released in 200 years and you expect no change to the climate?

PS. Your post was really confusing so I am not sure what other points you were trying to make.
 
2005-12-20 11:58:34 AM
Zamboro Call me crazy, but I think we should err on the side of caution, and listen to those who are smarter than us.

chakalakasp Basically, the only people who deny that global climate change is occuring are people with political and financial agendas. Unfortunately, geophysical and climatalogical processes and feedbacks really doesn't give a flip what we think about what is going on.


I might be a little late on this flame war, but what no one ever points out is that those who are smarter than us also have political and financial agendas. The idea that scientists are in this for the good of all humanity is laughable. I am not saying that I do not believe that global warming is happening. I am not saying that the permafrost is not disappearing. What I am saying is that you should not fool yourself into thinking that scientist do not create scare campaigns to get more money for their research projects.
 
2005-12-20 12:00:58 PM
I_C_Weener:
I don't disbelieve the facts. I question the analysis. Especially since the analysis blames 1 factor only.

I don't know what analysis you have been reading. It can't be a scientific one.

You really don't think professional climatologists and geophysicists are aware of the stuff you keep pointing out?
 
2005-12-20 12:02:12 PM
I_C_Weener: Especially since the analysis blames 1 factor only.

Which analysis blames only one factor? It seems to me that you have no familiarity at all with the actual science, only with the opposing side's spin factory.

Yet you wonder why the "intellectual weight" of your canned arguments fails to convince.

Please, do link the "analysis" to which you refer, so that the rest of us can enjoy poking holes in it.
 
2005-12-20 12:03:14 PM
FarkmeBlind:
Heya Dansker, still fighting the good fight, kudos.

More like wasting my time. But that's ok, I've got time to waste. You too, it seems;)
 
2005-12-20 12:04:20 PM
I_C_Weener: Science should not be about consensus.


Of course its about consensus. Scientists and researchers do apply the gut check to published papers (something that the sceptics do not do much of). If all the research indicate a probably cause then the consensus starts to move in that direction. So as more papers agree with the consensus so the consensus strengthens. The consensus will eventually solidify into a formal theory.

What you are seeing is the beginnings of a theory. This does not mean that it cannot be refuted. It just means that the evidence is exceptionally strong.

PS. What papers have you read/written that indicates that the consensus is wrong?
 
2005-12-20 12:04:30 PM
triphopping_man The issue here is that humans are causing this warming in what is meant to be a cooling period.

Prove it. Correlation is not causation. So, show me more than a correlation between CO2 and current warming temps. Then, explain why your theory explains the current warming but not the past warming trends. To be proper scientific analysis it must eliminate, or account for, all factors involved. Saying man's CO2 production is the cause, without exploring the effect of other factors, fails that analysis.

Just denying it, does the same. I think the correlation is scary. I also think that the natural cycle will probably be more powerful than any manmade influence, right now. I can't prove my belief, but if you were thinking critically, you would have to accept that there is more to climatological science than 1 factor.
 
2005-12-20 12:06:05 PM
DaSwankOne: scare campaigns to get more money for their research projects


Maybe 1% but most of them? Hah - I call bullshiat on this "theory".
 
2005-12-20 12:06:26 PM
Dansker and FarkMeBlind Why is the earth warming right now?
 
2005-12-20 12:08:54 PM
Weaver95
Meh - I don't believe the fundies when THEY try peddling this crap. Why should I believe this?


So if a doctor told you that you had cancer, you'd respond with "I dont believe fundies when they try peddling this crap, so why should i believe you!"
 
2005-12-20 12:12:19 PM
I_C_Weener: Why is the earth warming right now?

In the Bay Area, it's warming because the sun is coming out from behind the morning fog.

How about you post that "analysis" I asked for, rather than trying to divert attention?
 
2005-12-20 12:15:26 PM
I_C_Weener:
Dansker and FarkMeBlind Why is the earth warming right now?

Funnily enough, earlier today I was watching a programme on Danish television about the geophysicists and climatologists analysing the ice cores from the North Greenland Ice core project.

They said that because of the Milankovitch cycles we're not due for another ice age for another 3-4000 years.
Meanwhile, because of current high CO2 levels the temperature will continue to rise to the level of the last inter ice age period, which was approx. 2 degrees celcius warmer than today.

At that time, sea levels were 1-2 meters higher than today.


So the short answer would be: Because of the Milankovitch cycles and the high level of athmospheric CO2.
 
2005-12-20 12:16:25 PM
triphopping_man Maybe 1% but most of them? Hah - I call bullshiat on this "theory".

Are you serious? This is not theory. Scientists definitely have a stake in getting more money for their research projects. I worked in a research department while in school and I spent more time helping the professor prepare for speeches to find grants than I did doing research.

No panic or promising cure = No money = No research.
 
2005-12-20 12:17:22 PM
Google it. Wikipedia it. Use the "other referncese section". Even use Crichtons bibliography. Read all the articles you can. Check the temperature records. Then, ask questions, like I do.

Then, think about the answers. Think about what is not answered.

If you are that interested in it, check it out yourself. The sources are there.

But, clearly, its more fun to accept the idea that the last 130 years has a warming trend (not a consistent one if you count 1940-1970s), instead of trying to look at a bigger record. None of what I have read, pretty much Science article sin magazines, and internet articles, explains why CO2 now is more important than it was in earlier climate changes.

The theories and ideas are pretty widely known. You don't need me linking for you. Google the keywords. Solar maximum, globalw warming, CO2, Younger Dryas, Historic temperature record, etc...

I am not a scientist. I am interested in this area. I read the dumbed down summaries, but they do a godo job of putting the ideas on the table. I have relied on the propaganda as well. Its not all wrong, just one-sided.
 
2005-12-20 12:19:19 PM
Dansker: that's ok, I've got time to waste. You too, it seems;)

Absotively. Besides, after reading the previous eco-flamewar, talking with you is not a waste of time.
 
2005-12-20 12:20:31 PM
FarkmeBlind
I_C_Weener: Why is the earth warming right now?

In the Bay Area, it's warming because the sun is coming out from behind the morning fog.

How about you post that "analysis" I asked for, rather than trying to divert attention?


Thats what I thought. Talking out your ass. What is wrong with putting down your talking points and looking at it critically? Scared?

Really, start with Wiki. Start with geological temperature records.

Or, just accept its CO2 and live in bliss.
 
2005-12-20 12:22:35 PM
I_C_Weener: Google it. Wikipedia it. Use the "other referncese section". Even use Crichtons bibliography. Read all the articles you can. Check the temperature records. Then, ask questions, like I do.

Ahhh, the old trick of "You have to confirm my opinion." Nope, sorry, kiddo, you want to propose that science is wrong, then the burden of proof is on you. Get with the proof, boy, or you are simply full of sh|t.
 
2005-12-20 12:23:27 PM
Dansker The problem with the Milankovitch cycles is that they only correlate with 2 of every 3 drastic climate changes. The trouble with the CO2 is that the last time it had a true effect was the Jurrasic timeframe. Better yet, no correlation exists for many of the 100000 and 41000 year cycles over the past 1mln years. And before that, those cycles were even closer. Add to that the thermocycline thingee in the Atlantic, and you get lots of factors, but not much correlation between them.
 
2005-12-20 12:24:27 PM
FarkmeBlind:
Absotively. Besides, after reading the previous eco-flamewar, talking with you is not a waste of time.

You're too kind.
Here, have a beer.
 
2005-12-20 12:25:37 PM
Actually, I have to go to lunch. I'll check back. Trust me, my mind is not made up on this. I enjoy the back and forth. But the ignorance of FarkMeBlind is only paralleled by Weaver95's.
 
2005-12-20 12:25:50 PM
Loki-dyke

Are you really a lesbian? That idea fascinates me.

Anyway,
If there is one constant is that things change.
I don't see why the earth's temperature is different.
Therefore, the earth's temperature changes.
Therefore, it is either getting hotter or getting colder.
Right now it is getting hotter.
Therefore, we should sign the Kyoto treaty.
Becuase it doen's matter if ignore the terms like the countries that have already signed it because signing that document will make the Earth cooler again.

(I wonder if I missed any steps)
 
2005-12-20 12:28:03 PM
I_C_Weener: Really, start with Wiki.

Wiki is not a scientific source. Perhaps you should find out what a scientific source would be and start your education, rather than telling me (who knows what a scientific source is) to dumb myself down to your level. Weren't you the guy promoting Crichton for pete's sake?

/eyes cannot roll enough
 
2005-12-20 12:32:09 PM
sloeride: That idea fascinates me.

Then you must be a hetero male.

/hehehehhehhehe
//hint, real lesbians do not generally wear 8 inch acrylic nails
 
2005-12-20 12:33:02 PM
I_C_Weener:
Dansker The problem with the Milankovitch cycles is that they only correlate with 2 of every 3 drastic climate changes. The trouble with the CO2 is that the last time it had a true effect was the Jurrasic timeframe. Better yet, no correlation exists for many of the 100000 and 41000 year cycles over the past 1mln years. And before that, those cycles were even closer. Add to that the thermocycline thingee in the Atlantic, and you get lots of factors, but not much correlation between them.

Sorry, but I'm gonna take the word of a geophysicist with decades of experience, who is currently studying the subject and who is responsible for some of those historic temperature record, you keep mentioning, over yours.

I know, the fallacy of appealing to authority. But at least my authority isn't a third-rate novelist with no training in the relevant scientific disciplines.

You do realise, that the scientists who provided the information you find in magazines and on the Intrawebs are the same scientists who say that most of the current warming is attributable to human activity?
 
2005-12-20 12:33:49 PM
triphopping_man

um the suns output is correlated to the global temperature

which do you think has a larger impact
the SUN or CO2 ???
want to bet ??
 
2005-12-20 12:39:44 PM
ok, let's try a different game
we will give you that co2 is causing global warming
so what?

why is that a good or bad thing?
why is a moral value applied to this?

bad because people die in floods?
well people die in floods every year

bad because poor will suffer?
well that has nothing to do with science

bad because some species is on the brink and will be pushed over?
that is sad, but not bad

certainly 100 years from now we can safely predict a couple of things

there will be more people alive than there are today
they will be living in better conditions than they are today
there will almost exactly as much biomass as there is today
the percentages will change but ....

so I still dont see the "BAD"

/tired of people wanting to live in utopia
//moving to the real world
 
2005-12-20 12:48:11 PM
namatad: why is that a good or bad thing?

It's not good or bad in and of itself.

Are all the coastal cities worldwide prepared for even a 5 inch rise in sea level? No, I don't think so. In the U.S. our underlying sewer infrastructure (to pick just one) is aging and vulnerable to changes unforeseen by the builders in the 1800's-1940's. NYC is already having some problems with subway flooding, the Big Dig likewise. Hell, I live 40 feet above sea level, which is actually "safe" however whenever it rains here, many freeway ramps are flooded past the point of utility.

Just because you don't care that entire archipelagoes could be made uninhabitable, doesn't mean that people on, say, Vanuatu share your sentiment.

Is it a moral issue? Only if you believe that preserving human life is a moral issue. I'm not so sure I do, therefore I don't tag the issue with "morality" baggage. Why do you?

The rest of your post is merely logical fallacio.

/spelling intended
 
2005-12-20 12:49:07 PM
DaSwankOne:
Are you serious? This is not theory. Scientists definitely have a stake in getting more money for their research projects. I worked in a research department while in school and I spent more time helping the professor prepare for speeches to find grants than I did doing research.

No panic or promising cure = No money = No research.


Maybe in America.

The Danish scientists working on the NGIP and doing other climatological research get their monthly salary nomatter what conlusions they reach, as long as they work scientifically.
Socialized science. Gotta love it.
 
2005-12-20 12:53:21 PM
namatad: um the suns output is correlated to the global temperature

Um - Do you think that maybe someone smarter than us tried this out? (hint - they have and it doesn't fit the observations)
 
2005-12-20 12:59:08 PM
DaSwankOne: No panic or promising cure = No money = No research.

That is a failing of society expecting the free market to support everything. See "Flu Vaccine Debacle". Sometimes, we have to invest in things like prevention even though it doesn't make Merck et.al a brazillion dollars.

Oh dear, that's a socialist thought in today's context, isn't it?

/the horror
 
2005-12-20 01:04:33 PM
I work for the Earth.

So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.

Cuz some farkers beleive anything they hear.
 
2005-12-20 01:18:50 PM
machoprogrammer: I work for the Earth.

You can just cite the first sentence and end it with ellipses. We can all fill in the rest.

kthx
 
2005-12-20 01:32:32 PM
Dansker Maybe in America. The Danish scientists working on the NGIP and doing other climatological research get their monthly salary nomatter what conlusions they reach, as long as they work scientifically.
Socialized science. Gotta love it.


This system is just as flawed. It is still in the best interest of the scientist to find conclusions that maintain a need for their jobs. Also the government must pay a salary big enough to bring the "best and brightest" scientist (giving them more incentive to keep this job). If not they will come to America and make more money working in a university program with a big grant. Socialism does not take into account greed.

Socialism = No added incentive = Less results
 
2005-12-20 01:40:31 PM
DaSwankOne: Socialism = No added incentive = Less results

So, you decry the time it takes to acquire money being used as an incentive, and then decry socialism for not offering incentive?

So, what do you want to use as incentive that would offer more results than the current system we're using, or the current system the majority of the successful governments worldwide are using?

/this should be good
 
2005-12-20 01:45:23 PM
DaSwankOne:

It is still in the best interest of the scientist to find conclusions that maintain a need for their jobs.


You've got a flawed view of science. If you support basic research, the only thing a scientist needs to do to keep their jobs is to produce new reliable knowledge. The ones reviewing them are usually peers, not people who have succumbed to anyone's fearmongering.

Also the government must pay a salary big enough to bring the "best and brightest" scientist (giving them more incentive to keep this job). If not they will come to America and make more money working in a university program with a big grant.

Believe it or not, money doesn't strongly motivate scientists, and plenty of Europeans don't want to move to America. In most parts of Europe, they have a cushy setup and don't have to work as hard or be as aggressive as their American counterparts.
 
2005-12-20 01:46:35 PM
DaSwankOne:
This system is just as flawed. It is still in the best interest of the scientist to find conclusions that maintain a need for their jobs. Also the government must pay a salary big enough to bring the "best and brightest" scientist (giving them more incentive to keep this job). If not they will come to America and make more money working in a university program with a big grant. Socialism does not take into account greed.

You're exagerating the implications of my flippant comment. It's not really about socialism. But we do have this quaint little tradition, where research projects are inititated based on scientific merit, not profit potential.

And what you're saying here in no way supports your argument that these scientists would be biased towards one side of this argument or the other. The current Danish government definetely wouldn't prefer doomsayers over skeptics.

Have you heard about a guy called Bjorn Lomborg, the Skeptical Environmentalist? Danish scientist. Asshat, but Dane.
Was appointed by the government to chair the Institute for Environmental Evaluation (Institut for Miljovurdering).
He left the post pretty quickly, but the government loved him. And they would love to find another one like him (except maybe next time, they would prefer a guy who was actually trained in a relevant scientific discipline, not just statistics).


Socialism = No added incentive = Less results

Recognition in the scientific community is plenty incentive for many scientists. You know, the ones who are into it for the science.
 
2005-12-20 01:46:57 PM
mbrother: If you support basic research...

P.S. Most governments do, at some level. Even for all kinds of "boring" stuff without profit potential or looming danger to mankind.
 
2005-12-20 01:52:36 PM
Dansker:

Have you heard about a guy called Bjorn Lomborg, the Skeptical Environmentalist? Danish scientist. Asshat, but Dane.


Economist/statistician, not scientist.

He makes some good points, misses some others very badly. Two examples come to mind. The first is a half empty/half full deal where he tries to argue seriously that the extinction rate isn't as high as some claim, so things are okay, when I find the rate that he provides still too high to be acceptable.

A more serious error that points out the weakness of his sort of analysis is in the failing ocean fisheries. He claimed in his book, based on UN data, that the fisheries overall were stable or increasing, despite some well known problems in some areas (catches way down, fish size down, etc.). Places like the China Sea were having compensating increases, so he claimed things were okay. That's dumb even on the face of it if you're devestating fisheries on a longterm basis already, but he was completely wrong. You see, Chinese officials, to save face, had been reporting increases despite similar failures. The data was unreliable. A real scientist takes their own data, or understands the data well enough to catch this sort of thing. A non-scientist like Lomborg doesn't.
 
2005-12-20 01:59:23 PM
I know mbrother, that's why I called him an asshat.
 
2005-12-20 02:07:19 PM
mbrother: If you support basic research, the only thing a scientist needs to do to keep their jobs is to produce new reliable knowledge.

Dansker: Recognition in the scientific community is plenty incentive for many scientists.

SShhhhhhh dammit. Something really stupid was going to come out of his keyboard. Of course doing science is its own reward. It's also why curiosity killed the cat, BTW. However people who don't understand that are fun to toy with. Mostly because there's nothing else can be done with them.
 
2005-12-20 02:12:48 PM
Oops, sorry FarkmeBlind, didn't mean to spoil the fun.
Oh well, I think DaSwankOne has left the building anyway.
 
2005-12-20 02:21:13 PM
Dansker: Oops, sorry FarkmeBlind, didn't mean to spoil the fun.
Oh well, I think DaSwankOne has left the building anyway.


*sigh*. Oh well. Feel like coming into the antidepressant thread?
 
2005-12-20 02:32:38 PM
I love how everyone ties all their premises into one big package and tries to sell it as a lump. So far, I've seen the following distinct propositions:

1. The earth is in a warming trend.

2. This warming trend is anthropogenic.

3. CO2 is the primary anthropogenic factor.

4. This warming trend will cost more than it benefits.

5. The Kyoto treaty will benefit more than it costs.

And the arguments move in circles. Someone will supply evidence that supports or denies one of these points, then suggest that this therefore implicates some subset of the other points, then someone else will supply counter evidence that denies or supports a *different* point from the first one, and imply that this indicates the original poster is full of BS. Then the two posters can, with full comfort of knowing they're both right, accuse each other of ignoring the evidence.

I didn't like Crichton's novel. Despite all the references to data, it still amounted to little more than a single extended ad hominem attack. However, his appendix had a very different tone than the novel. While eco-freaks are falling over themselves to disprove specific points from the novel, Crichton himself, in his appendix, seems far more upset about the scientific community's unwillingness to admit to the actual degree of uncertainty on each of the proposed theses individually. Both sides of the issue are premised around elaborate bait-and-switch arguments.

The one thing I absolutely stand behind is Crichton's call for cost-benefit analysis to be included in every recommendation for environmental management. If hyperbolic allusions to increased farm yields due to El Nino outweighing the costs of storm and flood damage are what it takes to get people thinking along these lines, so be it.
 
2005-12-20 02:35:39 PM
mbrother: It'd be nice if people only ranted about stuff they understood, but then all the pundits and politicians would be out of a job.

BTW, the above was beautifully done and deserved a repeat.
 
2005-12-20 02:55:43 PM
Tubercular Ox
The one thing I absolutely stand behind is Crichton's call for cost-benefit analysis to be included in every recommendation for environmental management.

He must have been reading Lomborg.

One problem with that idea is that not every possible consequense can be calculated that way.
Polar bears disappearing from the face of the earth or traditional Inuits loosing their hunting grounds wouldn't have a lot of economic impact, but it should still be part of the conciderations.
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report