|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Inconvenient Truth | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Talk to jar and Faith. They both think that it did, and does still. I don't get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: My mistake, I should have been more specific. I wrote: You are aware that the widespread use of the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" originates with the Republican party and their hired ace spin doctor, Frank Luntz, don't you? I should have written: You are aware that the widespread use among politicians and major media outlets of the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" originates with the Republican party and their hired ace spin doctor, Frank Luntz, don't you? I never meant to claim nor imply that Luntz originated the term.
quote: I think the second is correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Off topic aside.
Even at the nadir of understanding about how gender assumptions load terms, the use of "man" never actually meant "all humanity". So those aliens in To Serve Man never chowed down on any women? If you live by the motto "Help your fellow man" it's ok to walk by a woman lying hurt in the gutter? From dictionary.com: man
-Usage Note The use of man to mean “human being,” both alone and in compounds such as MANKIND, has met with objection in recent years, and the use is declining. (Bolding mine) Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And that woman I posted the picture of? You think she would be appropriately described as "Java Man"? (Technically, I guess, the most appropriate description is "Homo sapiens made up as Homo erectus.)
I realize that people told you, told the dictionary people, that "Man" meant "humans." But looking back in the literature of the time, it's pretty clear that women didn't especially find themselves included in such terminology, and that when you said "Man" people overwhelmingly thought of men. As I said, the term was understood - perhaps unconsciously by most - in the context of other gender loaded, antifeminist assumptions about society; most specifically that the role of significant actor was understood to be a predominantly male one, and that any women who fell under the heading of "Man" when the term was used were predominantly included only because they were adjunct to whatever men were being referred to. Obviously men thought they were talking about everybody, not just men, when they said "Man." That's a function of male privilege, of course, like all privilege - the luxury to overlook the privilege.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
As far as I can tell your reply has a lot of assertions but none of them have anything to back them up beyond your say so.
But looking back in the literature of the time, Errrr - what time? Nowhere in your Message 70 or my Message 78 was a time period specified. In fact you specifically said (my bolding):
the use of "man" never actually meant "all humanity". So you're talking basically all of human history surely? Sorry - I'll stop calling you surely We are actually way off topic here. If you want to continue discussing it start a thread and I'll be happy to join in. Edited by MangyTiger, : Changed italics to bolding - D'oh! Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
among politicians and major media outlets
Okay, miscommunications happen. That makes more sense. Since I generally dislike politicians and stick with science I was unaware of this trend, or this Luntz fellow (despite the fact that I do like the Daily Show). I think the important point would be not to chastise those who use CC, but rather chastise anyone in politics or the media that represent it as meaning anything something people shouldn't be interested in. Apparently now we can show them that the spin doctor that got them to use it recognizes what it actually means. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
We're not even going to talk about the data until you're able to offer an explanation for the behavior I'm about to detail.
Why? Though most of your post is itself ridiculous mischaracterization to my mind, I find no reason to get into a debate with you about it. People reading along can (or have already since we discussed much of it previously) come to their own conclusion about who is saying what about whom. I want to focus on analysis of the data and that seems wholly irrelevant to these other points. In fact that is all I will address, as I'm sure more people are interested in that anyway.
Once I was able to penetrate the deep conflusion most of your posts create, I see that the position you've elucidated is actually quite reasonable.
My initial post to RAZD was pretty clear in what I was addressing and what you have yet to admit is true... Contrary to your statements... The scientific community: 1) Has not had convincing evidence for 40 years that CC was occuring.2) That temps have never been higher. You have corrected my understanding of your position to be "sustained temps of this height (which are not the highest ever) since we have had agricultural based civilizations". I have gone on to show that is NOT a correct understanding of data from the Holocene period. 3) That the data is "unimpeachable". That is not a correct understanding of science, much less what the scientific community maintains at this point in time. CO2 being able to increase temps in general is pretty well substantiated. That human production of CO2 (in conjunction with other activities) has resulted in an increase in temps is strongly suggested by the data. However, other factors (including natural ones) play some role in the overall increases we have seen, and may play a syncretic role. Further we do not have strong evidence of how much CO2 increases can drive temps in a longterm way, what effects might occur from them, and that larger scale natural forces which have previously driven down temps might not do so again. More issues have been added, like the concept of "longterm cooling trends", but the above were the starting issues which RAZD seemed in part to be accepting (or at least letting slip by) and I was challenging. I also called into question the use of graphs to make points about paleoclimatology as they are deceptive. What you "see" is not necessarily a correct conclusion to make about the data.
Let me make it absolutely clear. My position is in no way contentious:
Points one and two are not in contention. I agree with them. The third is possible but not without some contention, even within scientific circles. Let us look at it...
Elevated atmospheric temperatures can be expected to have certain effects which can be expected to have serious economic consequences for human civilizations. Two that I have mentioned would be the inundation of several low-lying coastal cities as ocean levels rise above their historic maximums, and famines as crucial agricultural land experiences a drastic decline in precipitation. Perhaps defenses against these threats will be erected in time; I sincerely hope that they do. But if nothing is done the consequences will, most likely, be severe indeed - much as the consequences of other inaction have been severe in the past (Katrina.)
Expected to have? Based on what evidence? We do not have models that are specific/accurate enough to make such a claim. Famines already occur despite enough food and there is no indication there would be a realistic drop in food producation such that more famines would necessarily occur than they do today for those same reasons. In fact if glacial retreat, and regional warming occurs, it is possible that we will have more land on which to farm which we could not previously. It also does not consider increased use of aquaculture for both vegetable and meat products. Regarding inundation of coastal areas. As explained already ALL coastal or flooplain cities must deal with the problems of water incursion. Current models show a possible 1m rise within 100 years. Even if true that is more than enough time for those that would be effected to deal with those effects. If people choose not to do something, that is irrelevant to this discussion. That means they'd be facing the same problems at some other point just the same (just like we saw happen with NO or Indonesia). Obviously I agree that if we can avoid having to build stronger defenses, or postpone such enterprises, why not? It makes sense to me. But there is no evidence to support terms of "severity". As an aside, commentary in the 3rd point contains what I refer to as "apocalyptic visions". Historic maximums (as if that means something?). Drastic decline. Perhaps defenses will be erected, and I hope they do. If you dislike the term "apocalyptic", then substitute "alarmist", "catastrophic", "disastrous". The point is that it is loaded terminology to suggest a level of effect or consequence for immediate emotional rather than carefully considered rational response. This is not sober discussion, and seriously distorts the nature of science and scientific evidence on the subject. This is similar to using the disaster in NO, when discussing possible effects of CC. To my mind that is inaccurate and unhelpful. It is essentially abusing the victims of a wholly separate tragedy to scare people, rather than educate them about what they might actually face. The problems of rising sea level (even the most dire predictions) does not suggest cities will face what NO did, which was a breach in an existing water defense that was not properly maintained and strengthened given known conditions about NO at the time. You don't have to address this "aside", and especially not in the context of blaming you for using it. If you want to deal with it, then address what utility such references have in the discussion of CC before the public, particularly in the media.
I'm not away of any danger of New York sinking beneath the sea, except in regards to the rise in ocean levels predicted by global warming. If there's a future scenario where New York sinks beneath the sea even without global warming, I've never heard it, so it wasn't something I was previously concerned about. Of course, Holmes gives no reason at all to believe this will ever be the case.
1) You have yet to present any evidence on that "NY sinks beneath the sea" model.2) All coastal environments experience erosion and therefore sea incursion. It is a "falling into" rather than "sinking under" but the results and defenses will be similar. The only exception are environments where the coasts are growing outward because of accumulation of material. I believe I HAVE mentioned this before. You let me know what littoral environment NY and especially manhattan is. as easy as it is to provide a link to an image in a post, you've consistently refused to do so.
This is a personal issue, but one I feel compelled to address. I HAVE provided a link to an image in a post. The only thing I had not done, up until that point, is provide a link such that a viewer would see the image directly in the post, rather than going to it or opening up a separate window to view it. You have yet to explain why that is something others would be incapable of doing, and so some nefarious device I was resorting to rather than hotlinking. I have yet to understand why you used that as a criticism of how I approached supporting my arguments. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
The largest experiment in human history is being being carried out right now. The basic question is: "Can human activity change the planet's climate?" The observations so far in the experiment seem to be showing that "yes we can." The evidence is mounting that the injection of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is causing enhanced greenhouse warming and many scientists are saying "Whoa, maybe this is not such a great idea!"
What can we do to stop the experiment? It would take a major global change in our way of life, but do we have any alternative? The September 2006 issue of Scientific American is devoted to this problem.
quoted from the cover writes:
It is worth a read. "How to Power the Economy and Still Fight Global Warming, Energy's Future Beyond Carbon" Enjoy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
for those of us unfortunate to not have scientific american, can you give a link to this article?
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
That was from the cover not an article
Scientific American: Science News, Expert Analysis, Health Research - Scientific American The articles I found are: September 2006 issue, INTRODUCTION -- A Climate Repair Manual
The debate on global warming is over. Present levels of carbon dioxide--nearing 400 parts per million (ppm) in the earth's atmosphere--are higher than they have been at any time in the past 650,000 years and could easily surpass 500 ppm by the year 2050 without radical intervention. and August 25, 2006 -- Ice Age gives clues to global warming: study
OSLO (Reuters) - Ice Age evidence confirms that a doubling of greenhouse gases could drive up world temperatures by about 3 Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit), causing havoc with the climate, a study showed on Friday. The researchers made a novel check of computer climate forecasts about the modern impact of heat-trapping gases, widely blamed on use of fossil fuels, against ice cores and marine sediments from the last Ice Age which ended 10,000 years ago. The findings broadly back up other Potsdam forecasts about the effects of a build-up of carbon dioxide emitted by power plants, cars and factories. Some skeptics dismiss such models as exaggerations. Temperatures have already risen by 0.6 Celsius since before the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. Many scientists project that higher temperatures will cause more heatwaves, droughts, floods and rising sea levels. Greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to double from pre-Industrial levels this century unless the world drastically cuts energy use and shifts to clean wind or solar power. The Potsdam scientists worked out 1,000 climate model versions, each with different assumptions of the behavior of clouds, ocean currents and other factors. They then checked the likelihood of the scenarios against climate shifts at the end of the Ice Age -- carbon dioxide trapped in air bubbles in ice and the chemical makeup of marine sediments which gives clues to temperatures. Schneider said the study, published in the journal Climate Dynamics, indicated that the outer ranges of likely temperature rises were 1.2-4.3 Celsius if carbon dioxide levels doubled. The question is fast becoming what can be done - or do we accept the resulting changes? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
thanks, I'll try to enjoy--looking down the barrel of a gun normally isn't pleasant.
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... looking down the barrel of a gun normally isn't pleasant. You could always invest in future waterfront ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
yeah, in Arizona. what's that song called.
Of course, where I currently live is in no danger from rising water--just lack of and increased heat. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
SEPTEMBER 2006 CONTENTS
Unfortunatly I think these are just previews of the articles, so you might try the library. We're Sorry - Scientific American
FEATURES ROLE FOR FISSIONThe Nuclear Option By John M. Deutch and Ernest J. Moniz Nuclear power could stave off more than a billion tons of carbon emissions annually INTRODUCTIONA Climate Repair Manual By Gary Stix Coping with global warming will take innovations in both energy technology and policy ENERGY EFFICIENCYAn Efficient Solution By Eberhard K. Jochem In buildings and in industrial processes, using power more judiciously is the quickest, cheapest solution FUEL CELLS AND MOREHigh Hopes for Hydrogen By Joan Ogden Hydrogen-fueled cars could slash carbon emissions, but it won't happen soon CLEAN POWERThe Rise of Renewable Energy By Daniel M. Kammen Solar cells, wind turbines and biofuels are poised to become major energy sources CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGEWhat to Do about Coal By David G. Hawkins, Daniel A. Lashof and Robert H. Williams Coal is plentiful, but we must manage its environmental dark side STRATEGYA Plan to Keep Carbon in Check By Robert H. Socolow and Stephen W. Pacala Multiple technologies, each taking a slice out of carbon dioxide emissions, could slow warming Web-only sidebar: U.S. Stabilization Wedges SPECULATIVE TECHNOLOGYPlan B for Energy By W. Wayt Gibbs Eventually, even more radical energy sources will be needed. Here are some possibilities under consideration AUTOMOTIVE ANSWERSFueling Our Transportation Future By John B. Heywood New technologies, lighter vehicles and alternative fuels can lower greenhouse gas releases from cars and trucks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
what's that song called.
see Message 39 Of course a 20 foot rise in sea level will make rebuilding New Orleans moot -- unless they go with the venice model ... turn the roads into canals and dam off the lower floors (or fill them) and build up as the base continues to sink into the muck. The bigger problem in my opinion will be changing weather patterns. Places that were moist becoming dry and vice versa. Looks like I'll have to get to the library for the sept SciAm ... or pick one up in the airport if I fly to texas next week ... Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024