Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
jonessed
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Glad to see that somebody else besides me is willing to call out Strikes2k and his ridiculous semantic arguments, which he does all the time. Even on those rare instances when I agree with Strike, his insistence on attacking opposition based on exact language rather than obvious intent is really absurd. The most hilarious part, though, is when he insisted that he's not an ideologue. 
timschochet
Footballguy
Back to the subject matter:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515090934.htm
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which holds enough water to raise global seas by several feet, is thinning. Scientists have been warning of its collapse, based on theories, but with few firm predictions or timelines.
University of Washington researchers used detailed topography maps and computer modeling to show that the collapse appears to have already begun. The fast-moving Thwaites Glacier will likely disappear in a matter of centuries, researchers say, raising sea level by nearly 2 feet. That glacier also acts as a linchpin on the rest of the ice sheet, which contains enough ice to cause another 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 meters) of global sea level rise. The study is published May 16 in Science.
"There's been a lot of speculation about the stability of marine ice sheets, and many scientists suspected that this kind of behavior is under way," said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. "This study provides a more quantitative idea of the rates at which the collapse could take place."
The good news is that while the word "collapse" implies a sudden change, the fastest scenario is 200 years, and the longest is more than 1,000 years. The bad news is that such a collapse may be inevitable.
"Previously, when we saw thinning we didn't necessarily know whether the glacier could slow down later, spontaneously or through some feedback," Joughin said. "In our model simulations it looks like all the feedbacks tend to point toward it actually accelerating over time; there's no real stabilizing mechanism we can see."
Earlier warnings of collapse had been based on a simplified model of ice sitting in an inward-sloping basin. The topography around Antarctica, however, is complex. The new study used airborne radar, developed at the University of Kansas with funding from the National Science Foundation, to image through the thick ice and map the topography of the underlying bedrock, whose shape controls the ice sheet's long-term stability. The mapping was done as part of NASA's Operation IceBridge, and included other instruments to measure the height of the ice sheet's rapidly thinning surface. In some places Thwaites Glacier has been losing tens of feet, or several meters, of elevation per year.
UW researchers combined that data with their own satellite measurements of ice surface speeds. Their computer model was able to reproduce the glacier's ice loss during the past 18 years, and they ran the model forward under different amounts of ocean-driven melting. The place where the glacier meets land, the grounding line, now sits on a shallower ridge with a depth of about 2,000 feet (600 meters). Results show that as the ice edge retreats into the deeper part of the bay, the ice face will become steeper and, like a towering pile of sand, the fluid glacier will become less stable and collapse out toward the sea.
"Once it really gets past this shallow part, it's going to start to lose ice very rapidly," Joughin said.
The study considered future scenarios using faster or slower melt rates depending on the amount of future warming. The fastest melt rate led to the early stages lasting 200 years, after which the rapid-stage collapse began. The slowest melt rate kept most of the ice for more than a millennium before the onset of rapid collapse. The most likely scenarios may be between 200 and 500 years, Joughin said.
"All of our simulations show it will retreat at less than a millimeter of sea level rise per year for a couple of hundred years, and then, boom, it just starts to really go," Joughin said.
Researchers did not model the more chaotic rapid collapse, but the remaining ice is expected to disappear within a few decades.
The thinning of the ice in recent decades is most likely related to climate change, Joughin said. More emissions would lead to more melting and faster collapse, but other factors make it hard to predict how much time we could buy under different scenarios.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515090934.htm
The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which holds enough water to raise global seas by several feet, is thinning. Scientists have been warning of its collapse, based on theories, but with few firm predictions or timelines.
University of Washington researchers used detailed topography maps and computer modeling to show that the collapse appears to have already begun. The fast-moving Thwaites Glacier will likely disappear in a matter of centuries, researchers say, raising sea level by nearly 2 feet. That glacier also acts as a linchpin on the rest of the ice sheet, which contains enough ice to cause another 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 meters) of global sea level rise. The study is published May 16 in Science.
"There's been a lot of speculation about the stability of marine ice sheets, and many scientists suspected that this kind of behavior is under way," said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the UW's Applied Physics Laboratory. "This study provides a more quantitative idea of the rates at which the collapse could take place."
The good news is that while the word "collapse" implies a sudden change, the fastest scenario is 200 years, and the longest is more than 1,000 years. The bad news is that such a collapse may be inevitable.
"Previously, when we saw thinning we didn't necessarily know whether the glacier could slow down later, spontaneously or through some feedback," Joughin said. "In our model simulations it looks like all the feedbacks tend to point toward it actually accelerating over time; there's no real stabilizing mechanism we can see."
Earlier warnings of collapse had been based on a simplified model of ice sitting in an inward-sloping basin. The topography around Antarctica, however, is complex. The new study used airborne radar, developed at the University of Kansas with funding from the National Science Foundation, to image through the thick ice and map the topography of the underlying bedrock, whose shape controls the ice sheet's long-term stability. The mapping was done as part of NASA's Operation IceBridge, and included other instruments to measure the height of the ice sheet's rapidly thinning surface. In some places Thwaites Glacier has been losing tens of feet, or several meters, of elevation per year.
UW researchers combined that data with their own satellite measurements of ice surface speeds. Their computer model was able to reproduce the glacier's ice loss during the past 18 years, and they ran the model forward under different amounts of ocean-driven melting. The place where the glacier meets land, the grounding line, now sits on a shallower ridge with a depth of about 2,000 feet (600 meters). Results show that as the ice edge retreats into the deeper part of the bay, the ice face will become steeper and, like a towering pile of sand, the fluid glacier will become less stable and collapse out toward the sea.
"Once it really gets past this shallow part, it's going to start to lose ice very rapidly," Joughin said.
The study considered future scenarios using faster or slower melt rates depending on the amount of future warming. The fastest melt rate led to the early stages lasting 200 years, after which the rapid-stage collapse began. The slowest melt rate kept most of the ice for more than a millennium before the onset of rapid collapse. The most likely scenarios may be between 200 and 500 years, Joughin said.
"All of our simulations show it will retreat at less than a millimeter of sea level rise per year for a couple of hundred years, and then, boom, it just starts to really go," Joughin said.
Researchers did not model the more chaotic rapid collapse, but the remaining ice is expected to disappear within a few decades.
The thinning of the ice in recent decades is most likely related to climate change, Joughin said. More emissions would lead to more melting and faster collapse, but other factors make it hard to predict how much time we could buy under different scenarios.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Some pretty scary stuff here:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117799/climate-change-will-force-us-abandon-cities-if-we-dont-prepare-now
On Monday, the New York Times reported on two new climate change studies that came to the same, terrifying conclusion: “The heat-trapping gases could destabilize other parts of Antarctica as well as the Greenland ice sheet, potentially causing enough sea-level rise that many of the world’s coastal cities would eventually have to be abandoned.”
Abandoned.
While actual abandonment would not happen for many years (we’re talking centuries), the studies warned that our actions now are irrevocable and will lock in these future sea level rises. In other words, our descendants will be dealing with irreversible damage that we are committing today.
So, fast forward a few centuries from now, what will the world look like? What will the United States look like? Will people still live in Miami? Boston? New York? We don’t know what technology we will have then and we aren’t able to predict the pattern of storms. We do know that sea levels are rising and will threaten cities along the coasts of the United States.
“Barring some extraordinary advances in technology that we currently do not foresee,” Robert Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute, said, “you are left with the options of retreating from coastal areas not only in the United States, but around the world, or building fortifications against rising sea levels that would make the projects that we now see in places like the Netherlands look like child’s play.”
The Dutch government has set aside one billion euros a year through 2100 to strengthen dunes and dams throughout the country. Due to its low-lying position, the Netherlands is one of the most at-risk countries and has already crafted a long-term strategy to ensure the country’s survival. But in the United States, where one of our two main political parties remains skeptical about man-made climate change, such planning is unlikely to happen.
“If you have a plan and vision to stay there it is more likely to occur,” Robert Nicholls, a professor of coastal engineering at the University of Southampton, wrote in an email. “But USA does not have a planning culture.”
Planning will not come cheap. The mitigation techniques needed to fortify a city like Miami will cost billions of dollars, if not more. State and local governments will undoubtedly turn to the federal government for help, but that will be a political nightmare. Americans from non-coastal regions will likely object to paying for the restoration and fortification of coastal cities that are no longer naturally fit for habitation.
“Ultimately, reality will set in in the United States too, despite it being a relatively wealthy country,” Hartwig said. “Some areas will necessarily be abandoned or potentially become, in effect, islands. That’s another possibility. You say to yourself, do I abandon Miami or do I simply wall in a certain number of square miles of what is currently Miami and in effect create an island?
“Resources are always scarce and there are going to be many in the United States who think spending every available dime of every available tax dollar to save people from rising sea levels on the coast is a complete waste of money,” Hartwig added. “And they will have a point, because they’re paying tax dollars in Missouri or in North Dakota and they will not directly see a return on this investment.”
Global warming poses risks besides rising sea level. Severe storms may increase in frequency, although it’s difficult to predict how they will play out. Saltwater intrusion could imperil farm land up the Mississippi River. Droughts may become more common. Already now, scientists are wondering whether we’ve reached Peak Phosphorus—the point at which we reach the maximum global production rate of phosphorus, an essential fertilizer for crops.
Colin Green, a professor of water economics at Middlesex University, wrote in an email that he tells his students three things: “(1) they will not be able to retire until they are 75; (b) they will need to become vegetarians because we don't have enough water to support a high meat based diet; and © that when they go to the supermarket, they will need to take their urine with them which will be analysed and then they will be able to buy food with the same phosphorus content as the urine they bought in.”
The consequences of our inaction today will not be fixable down the road, no matter how much money the government spends. Instead, we will focus on containing the damage, whether through mitigation or abandonment. Insurance will be an important tool to allow the government to spread around some of that risk. But that assumes insurers don’t deem certain areas uninsurable—and that in turn depends on what we do today.
“I would say that if you look at the gradual sea level rise predicted over the next century, provided appropriate mitigation on the structures and in the communities in the higher cities are undertaken, then insurance is possible in these areas albeit at higher costs,” Hartwig said.
In some cases, the federal government may sell the insurance. For instance, right now, the feds offer subsidized flood insurance to homeowners in at-risk areas. When Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Act in 2012 to allow those rates to rise to their market level, they faced a swift backlash from homeowners who were going to see their insurance rates skyrocket. Led by congressmen from Gulf states, Congress gutted the bill in March. If that is any sign of what is to come, then policymakers are not prepared for the infinitely higher costs and tough choices they will face down the road.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117799/climate-change-will-force-us-abandon-cities-if-we-dont-prepare-now
On Monday, the New York Times reported on two new climate change studies that came to the same, terrifying conclusion: “The heat-trapping gases could destabilize other parts of Antarctica as well as the Greenland ice sheet, potentially causing enough sea-level rise that many of the world’s coastal cities would eventually have to be abandoned.”
Abandoned.
While actual abandonment would not happen for many years (we’re talking centuries), the studies warned that our actions now are irrevocable and will lock in these future sea level rises. In other words, our descendants will be dealing with irreversible damage that we are committing today.
So, fast forward a few centuries from now, what will the world look like? What will the United States look like? Will people still live in Miami? Boston? New York? We don’t know what technology we will have then and we aren’t able to predict the pattern of storms. We do know that sea levels are rising and will threaten cities along the coasts of the United States.
“Barring some extraordinary advances in technology that we currently do not foresee,” Robert Hartwig, the president of the Insurance Information Institute, said, “you are left with the options of retreating from coastal areas not only in the United States, but around the world, or building fortifications against rising sea levels that would make the projects that we now see in places like the Netherlands look like child’s play.”
The Dutch government has set aside one billion euros a year through 2100 to strengthen dunes and dams throughout the country. Due to its low-lying position, the Netherlands is one of the most at-risk countries and has already crafted a long-term strategy to ensure the country’s survival. But in the United States, where one of our two main political parties remains skeptical about man-made climate change, such planning is unlikely to happen.
“If you have a plan and vision to stay there it is more likely to occur,” Robert Nicholls, a professor of coastal engineering at the University of Southampton, wrote in an email. “But USA does not have a planning culture.”
Planning will not come cheap. The mitigation techniques needed to fortify a city like Miami will cost billions of dollars, if not more. State and local governments will undoubtedly turn to the federal government for help, but that will be a political nightmare. Americans from non-coastal regions will likely object to paying for the restoration and fortification of coastal cities that are no longer naturally fit for habitation.
“Ultimately, reality will set in in the United States too, despite it being a relatively wealthy country,” Hartwig said. “Some areas will necessarily be abandoned or potentially become, in effect, islands. That’s another possibility. You say to yourself, do I abandon Miami or do I simply wall in a certain number of square miles of what is currently Miami and in effect create an island?
“Resources are always scarce and there are going to be many in the United States who think spending every available dime of every available tax dollar to save people from rising sea levels on the coast is a complete waste of money,” Hartwig added. “And they will have a point, because they’re paying tax dollars in Missouri or in North Dakota and they will not directly see a return on this investment.”
Global warming poses risks besides rising sea level. Severe storms may increase in frequency, although it’s difficult to predict how they will play out. Saltwater intrusion could imperil farm land up the Mississippi River. Droughts may become more common. Already now, scientists are wondering whether we’ve reached Peak Phosphorus—the point at which we reach the maximum global production rate of phosphorus, an essential fertilizer for crops.
Colin Green, a professor of water economics at Middlesex University, wrote in an email that he tells his students three things: “(1) they will not be able to retire until they are 75; (b) they will need to become vegetarians because we don't have enough water to support a high meat based diet; and © that when they go to the supermarket, they will need to take their urine with them which will be analysed and then they will be able to buy food with the same phosphorus content as the urine they bought in.”
The consequences of our inaction today will not be fixable down the road, no matter how much money the government spends. Instead, we will focus on containing the damage, whether through mitigation or abandonment. Insurance will be an important tool to allow the government to spread around some of that risk. But that assumes insurers don’t deem certain areas uninsurable—and that in turn depends on what we do today.
“I would say that if you look at the gradual sea level rise predicted over the next century, provided appropriate mitigation on the structures and in the communities in the higher cities are undertaken, then insurance is possible in these areas albeit at higher costs,” Hartwig said.
In some cases, the federal government may sell the insurance. For instance, right now, the feds offer subsidized flood insurance to homeowners in at-risk areas. When Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Act in 2012 to allow those rates to rise to their market level, they faced a swift backlash from homeowners who were going to see their insurance rates skyrocket. Led by congressmen from Gulf states, Congress gutted the bill in March. If that is any sign of what is to come, then policymakers are not prepared for the infinitely higher costs and tough choices they will face down the road.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
It made zero sense to rebuild New Orleans. We are creatures without much sense. Sentimentality rules our minds.
timschochet
Footballguy
Can you afford to wait about 2-300 years?
The_Man
Footballguy
In this month's NOAA monthly climate report, April 2014 tied 2010 as the warmest April ever recorded.
It was the 350th consecutive month and 38th consecutive April with global temperatures above the 20th Century average. The last cooler than average April occurred 38 years ago, in 1976. NASA’s independent analysis of April temperatures ranked it as the second warmest on record, slightly differing from NOAA.
As we know, the U.S. was not particularly warm in April, ranking as just the 46th warmest on record. But it turns out there on other places on the globe than the U.S. and a number of them had record-setting warmth last month.
It was the 350th consecutive month and 38th consecutive April with global temperatures above the 20th Century average. The last cooler than average April occurred 38 years ago, in 1976. NASA’s independent analysis of April temperatures ranked it as the second warmest on record, slightly differing from NOAA.
As we know, the U.S. was not particularly warm in April, ranking as just the 46th warmest on record. But it turns out there on other places on the globe than the U.S. and a number of them had record-setting warmth last month.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
I love when people say "It's the hottest day ever recorded..." or the such. We're talking about 100 years here. In the grand scheme, that's a absurdly ridiculous small sample size.
Even better is when people say, "It was the second hottest day here only behind the record, set in 1956" or whatever year. What was the issue back then in 1956?
Even better is when people say, "It was the second hottest day here only behind the record, set in 1956" or whatever year. What was the issue back then in 1956?
Same thing as today - the industrial revolution was well underway and already elevating CO2 levels.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
You guys are great.
Fennis
Footballguy
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Yep. I think there's still a contract out on my head with a few people around here after I said as much post-Katrina. It has nothing to do with leaving people to suffer or not caring about our fellow human beings. It has everything to do with the fact that we simply cannot afford it as a nation/society over the long term.Ditkaless Wonders said:
What is a (the?) Achilles Heel to the issue of climate change is that most people can't seem to think past the past few years, the past few decades, MAYBE the past couple hundred years. If data shows trends which would seem to indicate the planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in observed/recorded history? "How the heck does anyone know? We've only been collecting data for 100-200 years." Never you mind that geologists and other scientists can take samples and observe and record data for thousands upon thousands of years (i.e. there are living trees on the planet that were alive long before even Jesus was walking the Earth).
People tend to be selfish, self-centered, and dislike change. So if you're asking people to make sacrifices and/or change the way they've grown accustomed to doing things? You'll get Goober and Gomer building bunkers filled with assault weapons in the back yard, behind their trailer.
Just like with religion, skeptics want that smoking gun that removes any doubt. Only there is probably mountains more evidence for climate change than there is for a Creator/God, and many of the climate change skeptics would self-identify as believing in a God/Creator.Said as a person who has little/no doubt that humans are negatively impacting the health/climate of our air, seas, and land. And said as a person who believes in a Creator/God.
timschochet
Footballguy
One of the books I read on this subject claims that this is no coincidence- statistically, religious people tend to be more skeptical of global warming than secularists. This being the case despite the fact that every one of the world's religions is filled with "end of civilization" catastrophes that God apparently seems to think is appropriate for the human race.Yep. I think there's still a contract out on my head with a few people around here after I said as much post-Katrina. It has nothing to do with leaving people to suffer or not caring about our fellow human beings. It has everything to do with the fact that we simply cannot afford it as a nation/society over the long term.Ditkaless Wonders said:
What is a (the?) Achilles Heel to the issue of climate change is that most people can't seem to think past the past few years, the past few decades, MAYBE the past couple hundred years. If data shows trends which would seem to indicate the planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in observed/recorded history? "How the heck does anyone know? We've only been collecting data for 100-200 years." Never you mind that geologists and other scientists can take samples and observe and record data for thousands upon thousands of years (i.e. there are living trees on the planet that were alive long before even Jesus was walking the Earth).
People tend to be selfish, self-centered, and dislike change. So if you're asking people to make sacrifices and/or change the way they've grown accustomed to doing things? You'll get Goober and Gomer building bunkers filled with assault weapons in the back yard, behind their trailer.
Said as a person who has little/no doubt that humans are negatively impacting the health/climate of our air, seas, and land. And said as a person who believes in a Creator/God.
Josie Maran
Footballguy
Ok, do you guys realize there are lots of ways to measure past temperatures before we started using thermometers?
Just off the top of my non-scientific head, we've got historical writings (which confirm the medieval warm period and the little ice age), corals, tree rings, ocean sediments, and ice cores. Obviously, that doesn't mean we know what April 4th was like 3700 years ago, but we know what that year was like overall.
It's baffling to me how you can keep consistently mocking people that are 10x smarter than us when it comes to this ####.
I generally just shrug off the dooshy snark, but now I'm really asking what the #### makes you more knowledgable about this than people that dedicate their lives to it? I'm not talking about the guys at the IPCC or Al f###ing Gore, I'm talking about the guys digging ice cores in Greenland and the grad students studying frogs in Costa Rican jungles and the people that have been basically colonizing Antarctica for the last twenty years. Do you think these people (yes PEOPLE, in case you're unsure about who is living in these horrendous conditions to do their work) are just flat out lying about everything just to destroy our economy? Do you think it's for self-interest? If that were the case, wouldn't the geologists be working for BP by now? Wouldn't the biologists be knocking down Big Pharma's door? Do you think they're living high on the hog from friggin university grants?
I'm genuinely dying to know why you think they're all lying.
Just off the top of my non-scientific head, we've got historical writings (which confirm the medieval warm period and the little ice age), corals, tree rings, ocean sediments, and ice cores. Obviously, that doesn't mean we know what April 4th was like 3700 years ago, but we know what that year was like overall.
It's baffling to me how you can keep consistently mocking people that are 10x smarter than us when it comes to this ####.
I generally just shrug off the dooshy snark, but now I'm really asking what the #### makes you more knowledgable about this than people that dedicate their lives to it? I'm not talking about the guys at the IPCC or Al f###ing Gore, I'm talking about the guys digging ice cores in Greenland and the grad students studying frogs in Costa Rican jungles and the people that have been basically colonizing Antarctica for the last twenty years. Do you think these people (yes PEOPLE, in case you're unsure about who is living in these horrendous conditions to do their work) are just flat out lying about everything just to destroy our economy? Do you think it's for self-interest? If that were the case, wouldn't the geologists be working for BP by now? Wouldn't the biologists be knocking down Big Pharma's door? Do you think they're living high on the hog from friggin university grants?
I'm genuinely dying to know why you think they're all lying.
It is not what they know that bothers people most, it is what they don't know and a large part of what they 'know' is based on these models which by all accounts are not very good and many important variables are not known. For instance, the number 1 green house gas is water vapor, and there is not any where near consensus on how cloud cover is going to subtract from or add to global warming. Many tout these computer models as definitive predictions and create horror stories which tend to be worst case exaggerations and then politicians try to sell us solutions which have nothing to do with solving the problem. So it is not all people who 'deny' (terrible propaganda term, used to equate people to holocaust deniers) global warming, but people who are fed up with the exaggerations and the proposed solutions which mostly involve taxing the hell out of Americans and American businesses..
Last edited by a moderator:
Josie Maran
Footballguy
OK so if I were to send this reply to an actual climate scientist, how do you think he would respond?
proteus126
Footballguy
I am a research engineer of 20+ years experience and am the head computer modeler in my organization. Models are useful tools, but must be validated first. In my opinion, (a) the climate models are not validated and (b) even if they were, the users appear to be trying to attach meaning to predictions that are too near-term. I will concede that there are other tools, such as empirical measurements, or even plain old common sense, that have a place in the climate science debate.
I would not be particularly interested in even a good model's prediction for, say, 5 years from now. There appears to be too much noise in the very complicated global temperature system to make that kind of prediction meaningful. Kind of like trying to predict the # of hurricanes in a given season. Give me a 100 year prediction, and I'd take it seriously, assuming the model had been validated. None have.
Given the unwise use of the models (as "settled science", forsooth!) and the obviously politicized nature of the debate I have a hard time trusting the climate science community as a whole. There is a degree of bad faith there. Many are good honest people, I am sure of course.
Also, other unquantified (to my satisfaction) unknowns such as our ability to remediate, the amount of beneficial impact per unit cost of remediation, the breakdown of what is man-made and what is cyclical, etc, create a situation in which I have a hard time coming up with the cost-benefit analysis that should be required as the basis for recommending specific actions. Those who do are arrogant, politicized, or both. Those who say "well, we have to do something" are either not thinking clearly, have an agenda, or are a heck of a lot smarter than me.
timschochet
Footballguy
Why listen to the scientists? Far better to listen to Pat Sajak, who says that climate change "alarmists" are "unpatriotic racists":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/05/20/pat-sajak-global-warming-alarmists-are-unpatriotic-racists/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/05/20/pat-sajak-global-warming-alarmists-are-unpatriotic-racists/
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
The_Man
Footballguy
This is not a model. But if I could show you the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over the past 400,000 years, would that be something you might be interested in?
I actually think it does have to do with not letting people suffer, etc.- another Katrina (or worse) is pretty much inevitable in the area.Yep. I think there's still a contract out on my head with a few people around here after I said as much post-Katrina. It has nothing to do with leaving people to suffer or not caring about our fellow human beings. It has everything to do with the fact that we simply cannot afford it as a nation/society over the long term.Ditkaless Wonders said:
What is a (the?) Achilles Heel to the issue of climate change is that most people can't seem to think past the past few years, the past few decades, MAYBE the past couple hundred years. If data shows trends which would seem to indicate the planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in observed/recorded history? "How the heck does anyone know? We've only been collecting data for 100-200 years." Never you mind that geologists and other scientists can take samples and observe and record data for thousands upon thousands of years (i.e. there are living trees on the planet that were alive long before even Jesus was walking the Earth).
People tend to be selfish, self-centered, and dislike change. So if you're asking people to make sacrifices and/or change the way they've grown accustomed to doing things? You'll get Goober and Gomer building bunkers filled with assault weapons in the back yard, behind their trailer.
Said as a person who has little/no doubt that humans are negatively impacting the health/climate of our air, seas, and land. And said as a person who believes in a Creator/God.
IMO it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the "deniers"- there really aren't that many of them. There are far more people who believe that there is change, and that man is contributing to that change, but aren't sure how much is due to man/what to do about it/what impact any proposals would have on things.
mattdaddy
Footballguy
Are any good computer models open-source at least in the sense where anyone can download the code compile it and run it themselves?
Nothing I said he could really take issue with, but would probably suggest we should error on the side of caution.
Fair enough. For what it's worth though, at least where I live (rural "Bible Belt"), I'd wager that I might just be in the minority when it comes to believing that humans are doing irreparable harm to our planet and atmosphere. I'll get dozens of people around town praying for me (seriously!) ...because I've been blinded by Satan/science for not believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And if/when scientists (aka Satan, lol) are telling you that they've got climate data going back tens/hundreds of thousands of years from rock/tree/ice samples? Of COURSE it's all a load of #### to folks, since they all OBVIOUSLY know the Earth is only 6,000 years old.I actually think it does have to do with not letting people suffer, etc.- another Katrina (or worse) is pretty much inevitable in the area.Yep. I think there's still a contract out on my head with a few people around here after I said as much post-Katrina. It has nothing to do with leaving people to suffer or not caring about our fellow human beings. It has everything to do with the fact that we simply cannot afford it as a nation/society over the long term.Ditkaless Wonders said:
What is a (the?) Achilles Heel to the issue of climate change is that most people can't seem to think past the past few years, the past few decades, MAYBE the past couple hundred years. If data shows trends which would seem to indicate the planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in observed/recorded history? "How the heck does anyone know? We've only been collecting data for 100-200 years." Never you mind that geologists and other scientists can take samples and observe and record data for thousands upon thousands of years (i.e. there are living trees on the planet that were alive long before even Jesus was walking the Earth).
People tend to be selfish, self-centered, and dislike change. So if you're asking people to make sacrifices and/or change the way they've grown accustomed to doing things? You'll get Goober and Gomer building bunkers filled with assault weapons in the back yard, behind their trailer.
Said as a person who has little/no doubt that humans are negatively impacting the health/climate of our air, seas, and land. And said as a person who believes in a Creator/God.
IMO it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the "deniers"- there really aren't that many of them. There are far more people who believe that there is change, and that man is contributing to that change, but aren't sure how much is due to man/what to do about it/what impact any proposals would have on things.
It'd be funny/sad if:
1. Other people on the Right wouldn't sell their conscious/soul and tolerate these intellectual giants...just because they happen to agree on "smaller taxes" and gun "control."
2. Decisions weren't being made that will make things progressively worse in the future.
3. Kids weren't being taught these same lies at home/church.
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
If you are referring to me, when the weather guy says "We broke an all time record", he is not taking into account any other way other than a thermometer.
I've seen some of your posts- I'm assuming it's something in the water.Fair enough. For what it's worth though, at least where I live (rural "Bible Belt"), I'd wager that I might just be in the minority when it comes to believing that humans are doing irreparable harm to our planet and atmosphere. I'll get dozens of people around town praying for me (seriously!) ...because I've been blinded by Satan/science for not believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And if/when scientists (aka Satan, lol) are telling you that they've got climate data going back tens/hundreds of thousands of years from rock/tree/ice samples? Of COURSE it's all a load of #### to folks, since they all OBVIOUSLY know the Earth is only 6,000 years old.I actually think it does have to do with not letting people suffer, etc.- another Katrina (or worse) is pretty much inevitable in the area.Yep. I think there's still a contract out on my head with a few people around here after I said as much post-Katrina. It has nothing to do with leaving people to suffer or not caring about our fellow human beings. It has everything to do with the fact that we simply cannot afford it as a nation/society over the long term.
What is a (the?) Achilles Heel to the issue of climate change is that most people can't seem to think past the past few years, the past few decades, MAYBE the past couple hundred years. If data shows trends which would seem to indicate the planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in observed/recorded history? "How the heck does anyone know? We've only been collecting data for 100-200 years." Never you mind that geologists and other scientists can take samples and observe and record data for thousands upon thousands of years (i.e. there are living trees on the planet that were alive long before even Jesus was walking the Earth).
People tend to be selfish, self-centered, and dislike change. So if you're asking people to make sacrifices and/or change the way they've grown accustomed to doing things? You'll get Goober and Gomer building bunkers filled with assault weapons in the back yard, behind their trailer.
Said as a person who has little/no doubt that humans are negatively impacting the health/climate of our air, seas, and land. And said as a person who believes in a Creator/God.
IMO it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the "deniers"- there really aren't that many of them. There are far more people who believe that there is change, and that man is contributing to that change, but aren't sure how much is due to man/what to do about it/what impact any proposals would have on things.
It'd be funny/sad if:
1. Other people on the Right wouldn't sell their conscious/soul and tolerate these intellectual giants...just because they happen to agree on "smaller taxes" and gun "control."
2. Decisions weren't being made that will make things progressively worse in the future.
3. Kids weren't being taught these same lies at home/church.
There will always be fringe groups on both sides. In just about every case, it's best to ignore them and focus on the more reasonable. When you start ranting and raving (even if it's in response to them), you lose any chance at having a productive conversation.
I do...but then the Republicans won't tell the Tea Party lunatics to go away, sell all their possessions, move to Guyana, and mix-up gallons of Kool-aid.I've seen some of your posts- I'm assuming it's something in the water.Fair enough. For what it's worth though, at least where I live (rural "Bible Belt"), I'd wager that I might just be in the minority when it comes to believing that humans are doing irreparable harm to our planet and atmosphere. I'll get dozens of people around town praying for me (seriously!) ...because I've been blinded by Satan/science for not believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And if/when scientists (aka Satan, lol) are telling you that they've got climate data going back tens/hundreds of thousands of years from rock/tree/ice samples? Of COURSE it's all a load of #### to folks, since they all OBVIOUSLY know the Earth is only 6,000 years old.I actually think it does have to do with not letting people suffer, etc.- another Katrina (or worse) is pretty much inevitable in the area.Yep. I think there's still a contract out on my head with a few people around here after I said as much post-Katrina. It has nothing to do with leaving people to suffer or not caring about our fellow human beings. It has everything to do with the fact that we simply cannot afford it as a nation/society over the long term.
What is a (the?) Achilles Heel to the issue of climate change is that most people can't seem to think past the past few years, the past few decades, MAYBE the past couple hundred years. If data shows trends which would seem to indicate the planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in observed/recorded history? "How the heck does anyone know? We've only been collecting data for 100-200 years." Never you mind that geologists and other scientists can take samples and observe and record data for thousands upon thousands of years (i.e. there are living trees on the planet that were alive long before even Jesus was walking the Earth).
People tend to be selfish, self-centered, and dislike change. So if you're asking people to make sacrifices and/or change the way they've grown accustomed to doing things? You'll get Goober and Gomer building bunkers filled with assault weapons in the back yard, behind their trailer.
Said as a person who has little/no doubt that humans are negatively impacting the health/climate of our air, seas, and land. And said as a person who believes in a Creator/God.
IMO it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the "deniers"- there really aren't that many of them. There are far more people who believe that there is change, and that man is contributing to that change, but aren't sure how much is due to man/what to do about it/what impact any proposals would have on things.
It'd be funny/sad if:
1. Other people on the Right wouldn't sell their conscious/soul and tolerate these intellectual giants...just because they happen to agree on "smaller taxes" and gun "control."
2. Decisions weren't being made that will make things progressively worse in the future.
3. Kids weren't being taught these same lies at home/church.
There will always be fringe groups on both sides. In just about every case, it's best to ignore them and focus on the more reasonable. When you start ranting and raving (even if it's in response to them), you lose any chance at having a productive conversation.
Wow, it's like Tim has a brother. Oh wait. He does but his brother isn't an exact clone........I do...but then the Republicans won't tell the Tea Party lunatics to go away, sell all their possessions, move to Guyana, and mix-up gallons of Kool-aid.I've seen some of your posts- I'm assuming it's something in the water.Fair enough. For what it's worth though, at least where I live (rural "Bible Belt"), I'd wager that I might just be in the minority when it comes to believing that humans are doing irreparable harm to our planet and atmosphere. I'll get dozens of people around town praying for me (seriously!) ...because I've been blinded by Satan/science for not believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And if/when scientists (aka Satan, lol) are telling you that they've got climate data going back tens/hundreds of thousands of years from rock/tree/ice samples? Of COURSE it's all a load of #### to folks, since they all OBVIOUSLY know the Earth is only 6,000 years old.I actually think it does have to do with not letting people suffer, etc.- another Katrina (or worse) is pretty much inevitable in the area.Yep. I think there's still a contract out on my head with a few people around here after I said as much post-Katrina. It has nothing to do with leaving people to suffer or not caring about our fellow human beings. It has everything to do with the fact that we simply cannot afford it as a nation/society over the long term.
What is a (the?) Achilles Heel to the issue of climate change is that most people can't seem to think past the past few years, the past few decades, MAYBE the past couple hundred years. If data shows trends which would seem to indicate the planet is warming more rapidly than at any time in observed/recorded history? "How the heck does anyone know? We've only been collecting data for 100-200 years." Never you mind that geologists and other scientists can take samples and observe and record data for thousands upon thousands of years (i.e. there are living trees on the planet that were alive long before even Jesus was walking the Earth).
People tend to be selfish, self-centered, and dislike change. So if you're asking people to make sacrifices and/or change the way they've grown accustomed to doing things? You'll get Goober and Gomer building bunkers filled with assault weapons in the back yard, behind their trailer.
Said as a person who has little/no doubt that humans are negatively impacting the health/climate of our air, seas, and land. And said as a person who believes in a Creator/God.
IMO it's a bit of a red herring to focus on the "deniers"- there really aren't that many of them. There are far more people who believe that there is change, and that man is contributing to that change, but aren't sure how much is due to man/what to do about it/what impact any proposals would have on things.
It'd be funny/sad if:
1. Other people on the Right wouldn't sell their conscious/soul and tolerate these intellectual giants...just because they happen to agree on "smaller taxes" and gun "control."
2. Decisions weren't being made that will make things progressively worse in the future.
3. Kids weren't being taught these same lies at home/church.
There will always be fringe groups on both sides. In just about every case, it's best to ignore them and focus on the more reasonable. When you start ranting and raving (even if it's in response to them), you lose any chance at having a productive conversation.
Yes.....the warmest year on record or unprecedented means at most the last 160 years out of 4,000,000,000. Tree ring data is not all that accurate. Hell, even with the thousands of thermometers being meticulously tracked and recorded, they still go back and revise previous years calculations based on some new formula on which stations are included and how to weigh them. How can the accuracy of data extracted from trees come anywhere close to that accuracy. The answer is it can't. Tree ring data is a better representative of how good the growing season was than of temperature. It is an educated guess really to extract temperature.
To be fair to Mr Sajak, he's just imitating the tactics that these unpatriotic racists tend to employ when arguing their point.
proteus126
Footballguy
For your convenience, I have bolded the text in my original post that should answer your question. Short answer - yes, I am aware of and concerned about what the core samples show.
Again, what % is man made (define the problem), what will be the result if not remediated (cost of problem), what can we do to remediate (can we be effectual), what is the cost per unit of remediation (can we afford it). Sounds simple, doesn't it? ;]
TheIronSheik
SUPER ELITE UPPER TIER
It's a little more veiled and you have to read between the lines a little. Tim, Koya, datonn have all made statements attempting to lump all of these people together as religious zealots or "science rejectors" to put a Bushian term against it. These happen to be the same people that they will label as hateful racists or bigots in other discussions. Sajak is connecting some dots.By calling people racists?
I may be out of the loop, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone called racist for not believing in MMCC.
Last edited by a moderator:
lod01
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
the break out graph here shows last 1000 years ending in 2000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
In 2013 levels hit 400 parts per million for what is believed to be the first time in
Last edited by a moderator:
It was supposedly 10 times higher during the End-Triassic extinction. And baseline levels before that event were orders of magnitude higher than today.
Last edited by a moderator:
