the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions
Chipsthe1 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,828
Re: Whoa, cool...

Dominic Groß wrote:

yeah and all these american neocons have such good arguments to
support their view, like name calling... whats next, lowering
temperature by switching to Celsius?

It is such a pleasure to read a post that does not indulge in name calling. Oh wait, "american neocons." Guess I missed that on first reading.

Shoot lots of pictures, always fill the frame

Art Caputi Regular Member • Posts: 161
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

As I said, I don't dispute global warming, I just think there is still some question as to to the contribution of mankind's activities. As far as a "growing consensus" I don't think, by definition, you can have a consensus if anyone in the group disagrees. Of course, if you exclude from the group anyone who does disagree, it's a lot easier to achieve a consensus.

I would quote Michael Crichton in "Next."

"The ultimate lesson is that science isn't special - at least not anymore. Maybe back when Einstein talked to Niels Bohr, and their were only a dozen important workers in every field. But there are now three million researchers in America. It's no longer a calling, it's a career. Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other. It's practitioners aren't saints, they're human beings, and they do what human beings do - lie, cheat, steal from one another, sue, hide data, fake data, overstate their own importance, and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That's human nature. It isn't going to change."

BTW, my wife drives a hybrid, my car gets well over 30 mpg, and my house is very energy efficient, so it certainly isn't that I don't think it is important to reduce fossil fuel consumption. I suspect I practice it far more than most politicians and celebrities who have jumped on this bandwagon.

Art Caputi

Dominic Groß Veteran Member • Posts: 7,181
Re: The Answer Is

Tom Rowland wrote:

Most of what is called global warming is really a discussion about
how much infra red blocking atoms and molecules slow down the rate
of global cooling. The infra red blocking stuff is composed of
about 95% water vapor and 5% CO2 (but some guys say it is closer to
97% water and 3% CO2).

Actually the numbers are a bit different, depending on the source greenhouse gases are responsible for maybe 15-40% of the blocking, if I recall correctly exact numbers can't be given because they vary a lot depending on latitude and the mixture of the gases.

And probably 90% or so of the CO2 is from
natural sources, not man made sources.

hm the concentration of CO2 has varied been between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for thousands of years, we pushed it to 375 ppm. So our contribution certainly seems significant to me.

Of course all this only leads to questions of climate sensitivity (how much a doubling of the CO2 concentration would affect temperature), while there are different numbers here again just about every serious research points to a considerable warming effect...

-- hide signature --
 Dominic Groß's gear list:Dominic Groß's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP1x Sigma SD9 Sigma SD10 +9 more
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Ahh, but his point is

dipics wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

So how did all the hysteria start, and why are they doing it? The
simplest explanation is that there are environmental organizations
that depend for their funding on “sky is falling” scenarios that
they can save the world from. The scientists are pulled into it
because their funding is controlled by politicians, who will pull
their funding or grants unless they are coming up with the “right”
answers so the politicians can save the world. This leads to a
groupthink effect in which dissenters are discredited, misquoted,
or fired.

Dr Singer has been for sale for quite some time now. Singer is
also "skeptical" about the connection between CFCs and ozone
depletion, between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer and
between second hand smoke and lung cancer.

Pretty much any actual science that makes someone look bad, Dr.
Singer is there to call it "junk" science, for a price.

DIPics

that the overwhelming majority of scientists are for sale and will do everything they can do promote this "hysteria" in order to gain grant monies or "be fired."

This must explain why the present administration is buisily engaged in censoring the reports coming out of NASA; must explain why they actively censor their OWN reports from their OWN EPA departments.

But I know what he would reply to both of my above statements.

"These scientists are looking ahead to when they wont be working for the government, so they lie now in order to get future grants."

Sorry for this phony quote, but I am sick and tired of labeling the entire field of scieince as for sale, and THIS while Exxon Moble publicly offers money to people to "refute" global warming.

Dave

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

Art Caputi wrote:

As I said, I don't dispute global warming, I just think there is
still some question as to to the contribution of mankind's
activities. As far as a "growing consensus" I don't think, by
definition, you can have a consensus if anyone in the group
disagrees. Of course, if you exclude from the group anyone who
does disagree, it's a lot easier to achieve a consensus.

Consensus - majority of opinion:

A consensus does not require a position to be unanimous.

Thanks to dictionary.com

DIPics

Dominic Groß Veteran Member • Posts: 7,181
Re: Whoa, cool...

Chipsthe1 wrote:

Dominic Groß wrote:

yeah and all these american neocons have such good arguments to
support their view, like name calling... whats next, lowering
temperature by switching to Celsius?

It is such a pleasure to read a post that does not indulge in name
calling. Oh wait, "american neocons." Guess I missed that on first
reading.

actually I consider this to be a pretty accurate description of the political view that leads to the comments we see here and I think this rather mild compared to calling people "eco whackos" and so on.

-- hide signature --
 Dominic Groß's gear list:Dominic Groß's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP1x Sigma SD9 Sigma SD10 +9 more
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Human nature?

Art Caputi wrote:

As I said, I don't dispute global warming, I just think there is
still some question as to to the contribution of mankind's
activities. As far as a "growing consensus" I don't think, by
definition, you can have a consensus if anyone in the group
disagrees. Of course, if you exclude from the group anyone who
does disagree, it's a lot easier to achieve a consensus.

I would quote Michael Crichton in "Next."

"The ultimate lesson is that science isn't special - at least not
anymore. Maybe back when Einstein talked to Niels Bohr, and their
were only a dozen important workers in every field. But there are
now three million researchers in America. It's no longer a
calling, it's a career. Science is as corruptible a human activity
as any other. It's practitioners aren't saints, they're human
beings, and they do what human beings do - lie, cheat, steal from
one another, sue, hide data, fake data, overstate their own
importance, and denigrate opposing views unfairly. That's human
nature. It isn't going to change."

No it wont. And the majority in every field of human endeavor do NOT do the above. The fraud of "Piltdown Man," is not a product of modern times. Nor were any of the disputes before the Royal Society in the 1860's.

Dr. Creighton, has become the leading scieintic spokes person. In fact he's a star in this profession, being hailed in front of Congress to pontificate on the subject.

Scientists mocked the idea of global warming thirty years ago. Did they all become corrupt in the intervening time? They also mocked the germ theory of medicine. Were they bought off as new data became available?

Dr. Crietons arguement, as are the rest of his arguments, are disingenious at best.

And he is no more credentials for judging this aspect of reality than I do.

Dave

BTW, my wife drives a hybrid, my car gets well over 30 mpg, and my
house is very energy efficient, so it certainly isn't that I don't
think it is important to reduce fossil fuel consumption. I suspect
I practice it far more than most politicians and celebrities who
have jumped on this bandwagon.

Art Caputi

Marty4650
Marty4650 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,127
Re: Whoa, cool...

Dominic,

If you're going to do this, at least get it right.

You folks are called "enviro-whackos" not "eco-whackos"

Hope that tip is helpful.

-- hide signature --

Marty
Panasonic FZ20, Panasonic FZ7, Olympus C7000

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +11 more
Art Caputi Regular Member • Posts: 161
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

I guess this is the definition I was thinking of:

-- hide signature --

con·sen·sus(kn-snss)
n.

1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" Wendy Kaminer. See Usage Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

I know Edwin Newman in his book "A Civil Tongue" thought that any other usage was incorrect. But that was 30 years ago and I guess I haven't caught up with current usage.

Art Caputi

Tom Rowland Veteran Member • Posts: 5,891
Re: The Answer Is

Dominic Groß wrote:

Tom Rowland wrote:

Most of what is called global warming is really a discussion about
how much infra red blocking atoms and molecules slow down the rate
of global cooling. The infra red blocking stuff is composed of
about 95% water vapor and 5% CO2 (but some guys say it is closer to
97% water and 3% CO2).

Actually the numbers are a bit different, depending on the source
greenhouse gases are responsible for maybe 15-40% of the blocking,
if I recall correctly exact numbers can't be given because they
vary a lot depending on latitude and the mixture of the gases.

What I posted was IR blocking molecules were 95%+ water and 5%- other molecules.

What you posted (if I read it correctly) was greenhouse gasses are responsible for 15-40 % of the blocking. You did not say what was responsible for the other 60%+ of the blocking (I assume you are saying this 60%+ is due to H2O, but dont want to comment till you confirm this). There is an agreement of sorts that H2O is a GH gas, but you dont have to agree with this, but again until you make your position clear I will not comment.

Can you also state if you think the H2O mix in GH gas (or you can use the term IR blocking gas instead) is the 95/5% mix I claimed.

And probably 90% or so of the CO2 is from
natural sources, not man made sources.

hm the concentration of CO2 has varied been between 180 ppm and 300
ppm for thousands of years, we pushed it to 375 ppm. So our
contribution certainly seems significant to me.

Of course all this only leads to questions of climate sensitivity
(how much a doubling of the CO2 concentration would affect
temperature), while there are different numbers here again just
about every serious research points to a considerable warming
effect...

Posting ppm of CO2 is increasing does not address the issue of natural and manmade contributions to that increase. There also seems to be an agreement that man made CO2 sources are smaller (by an order of magnititude) than natural ones.

dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

Art Caputi wrote:

I guess this is the definition I was thinking of:

-- hide signature --

con·sen·sus(kn-snss)
n.
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among
political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems
women candidates have traditionally faced" Wendy Kaminer. See Usage
Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

I know Edwin Newman in his book "A Civil Tongue" thought that any
other usage was incorrect. But that was 30 years ago and I guess I
haven't caught up with current usage.

Even by the definitions you cited above, it doesn't require unanimity. The use of the qualifier "clear" makes this plain. If a consensus required unanimous agreement, the qualifier would be useless. It would be like "very" in front of "unique".

DIPics

Art Caputi Regular Member • Posts: 161
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

OK. You win. Ed Newman and I lose.
--
Art Caputi

Dominic Groß Veteran Member • Posts: 7,181
Re: Whoa, cool...

Marty4650 wrote:

Dominic,

If you're going to do this, at least get it right.

I just quoted it from one of the neocons.

-- hide signature --
 Dominic Groß's gear list:Dominic Groß's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP1x Sigma SD9 Sigma SD10 +9 more
Dominic Groß Veteran Member • Posts: 7,181
Re: The Answer Is

Tom Rowland wrote:

You did not say what was
responsible for the other 60%+ of the blocking

well you guessed right, water. I have seen numbers from 40% to 70% for water vapor.

Can you also state if you think the H2O mix in GH gas (or you can
use the term IR blocking gas instead) is the 95/5% mix I claimed.

not without checking, imho these numbers don't say much, or at least how much they are blocking is more relevant.

Posting ppm of CO2 is increasing does not address the issue of
natural and manmade contributions to that increase. There also
seems to be an agreement that man made CO2 sources are smaller (by
an order of magnititude) than natural ones.

I don't think so, these numbers match pretty well with the estimations of anthropogenic CO2 emission.

-- hide signature --
 Dominic Groß's gear list:Dominic Groß's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP1x Sigma SD9 Sigma SD10 +9 more
dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: You would think that there are those who welcome global warming

Art Caputi wrote:

OK. You win. Ed Newman and I lose.
--
Art Caputi

I remember reading his book "Strictly Speaking" but don't think I ever read "A Civil Tongue". I admit that I remember little about Strictly Speaking other than the impression that Mr. Newman seemed to me to be against the idea of a language evolving at all. But, I have to add, I cannot find any evidence that the term "consensus" ever meant more than "the majority opinion" or perhaps "the official opinion of a group".

DIPics

Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 46,027
Let's put things into perspective

Tom Rowland wrote:

Posting ppm of CO2 is increasing does not address the issue of
natural and manmade contributions to that increase. There also
seems to be an agreement that man made CO2 sources are smaller (by
an order of magnititude) than natural ones.

Is human activity the ultimate deciding factor in climate?

A glance at the Sun reveals that primary fallacy. We are clearly not living on a world whose temperature hovers around absolute zero.

Life has been evolving on our planet for billions of years, and this has resulted in a balance. It is this balance that we are talking about.

The reason climatologists mocked environmentalists is that the simple truth is, that we CAN have an ice age, or we CAN have global warming, and it would have nothing to do with human acvtivity - Any more than some giant meteor crashing down in Yucatan is under our control.

Nonetheless this balance exists. Present life itself is a product of this balance.

Balances are very easy to tip. Humans ARE and have been responsible for climate change. Even on the macro level this has long been true. You eliminate all the forests over a wide enough area and the local climate changes. This has been established science long before the question of global warming came up.

We create these macro changes all the time. It's one of the reasons that Urban areas are warmer than the surrounding countryside.

Now we've been pumping huge amounts of heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere. Does it matter if they are a small percent of the total amount? They have altered the balance, and once that balance is altered, change in unexpected directions will ensue.

So the science of climatology went from scepticism to agreement with the more rational of the environmental critics. They have gone along reluctantly, but the data has mounted and denial has become harder and harder to support.

There are no longer ANY scientists who deny that we are witnessing global warming, and only a tiny handful who deny that this PRESENT global warming is human made. Moreover, unlike other periods of glaciation or warming, in geological terms, this is occuring over a second of time.

NB.

We are NOT Gods who have the power to destroy the earth and destroy all life on our planet. But we do have the power to destroy our civilisation, as humans have done in the past.

Easter Island was once a semi-tropical paradise. It is now a dry, almost desert like island.

What was it like to witness the cutting down of the last remaining trees on Easter Island?

Were they too in denial? Did they say that sparing those last trees was too much of a sacrifice to a culture based on using wood?

Easter Island had a population at one time of over 40,000 people. When it was "discovered" it had a population of 2,000.

Yes indeed, we are NOT Gods, but that doesn't mean we have to be fools.

Dave

Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: Ahh, but his point is

Chato wrote:

dipics wrote:

Dr Singer has been for sale for quite some time now. Singer is
also "skeptical" about the connection between CFCs and ozone
depletion, between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer and
between second hand smoke and lung cancer.

Pretty much any actual science that makes someone look bad, Dr.
Singer is there to call it "junk" science, for a price.

DIPics

that the overwhelming majority of scientists are for sale and will
do everything they can do promote this "hysteria" in order to gain
grant monies or "be fired."

This must explain why the present administration is buisily engaged
in censoring the reports coming out of NASA; must explain why they
actively censor their OWN reports from their OWN EPA departments.

But I know what he would reply to both of my above statements.

"These scientists are looking ahead to when they wont be working
for the government, so they lie now in order to get future grants."

Sorry for this phony quote, but I am sick and tired of labeling the
entire field of scieince as for sale, and THIS while Exxon Moble
publicly offers money to people to "refute" global warming.

Both of you are missing the entire point of my post, which is to look at the science itself, not the personalities behind the hysteria. If I have gotten any facts wrong, point them out. If not, the numbers speak for themselves, and no amount of blather can change those numbers. Human activity can contribute to no more than 0.117% of the greenhouse effect.

Do you understand that?

Gary Eickmeier

TomFid Senior Member • Posts: 2,383
Re: The Answer Is

Counting molecules is silly when they have different horizontal and vertical distributions and different IR properties. The radiative effects of water vapor and other GHGs are more or less as Dominic reports; 95% 5% is a red herring.

Natural CO2 fluxes between the atmosphere and ocean and biosphere are indeed an order of magnitude larger than human emissions from fossil fuels and land use change. However, those fluxes were near equilibrium (i.e. uptake by ocean = release from ocean) for centuries before the industrial revolution. The increase (from emissions > uptake) since the 1700s is entirely attributable to human activity. This should be intuitively obvious because the ocean and biosphere are currently taking up carbon, not releasing it, and thus partially compensating for emissions. It's confirmed by isotope ratio changes. There is no mystery source of CO2 (volcanoes are sometimes raised as such, but they are actually a very small source).

Tom

 TomFid's gear list:TomFid's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +3 more
TomFid Senior Member • Posts: 2,383
Re: You didn't look very hard...try again. (NT)

And after that, Benny Peiser (a staunch climate skeptic) looked and trumpeted that he'd found 34. That would be 3% - except that Peiser has since publicly retracted his claim.

Tom

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1777013.htm

dipics wrote:

Ryan McDaniel wrote:

Nothing else to say to that claim.

Ok, please cite a few for us. Something in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. After all, I'm not the only person who
couldn't find any. After all, Naomi Oreskes did a similar search.
She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003 and found just as many as I did that
took the position that the current climate change is natural. Zero.

DIPics

 TomFid's gear list:TomFid's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Olympus E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +3 more
Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: Something for you to read

TomFid wrote:

The complexity of the problem is beside the point. Climate is just
the statistics of weather. Weather is chaotic, which means that in
principle you can't forecast it very far ahead. However, it doesn't
necessarily follow that you can't predict climate, because the
envelope within which weather moves is - as far as we know - not
chaotic over the time scale we're interested in (a century or so).
That's why you can be sure it will be colder in February than in
June, even though you can't say what the weather will be next
February 12th.

One of the more comical elements of the Global Warming hoax is trying to prove it is happening by showing melting ice caps and stranded polar bears. I don't think those effects would be observable because of an increase of a half a degree in a century. Is that what they are trying to tell us?

Gary Eickmeier

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads