Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Inconvenient Truth
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 119 (342398)
08-22-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
08-22-2006 11:41 AM


Re: the movie
I happen to be leaning more towards Holmes on this one.
Exactly what do you think his position is? I can't make heads or tails of it. Maybe you can explain it to me if you think it's so reasonable?
I had an unwaivering aversion towards Micahel Moore, but I still managed to watch Fahrenhype 911.
I don't understand why an aversion towards Moore would keep you from seeing a movie that was nothing but an attack piece against Moore. Wouldn't that make you want to see it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-22-2006 11:41 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 62 of 119 (342670)
08-23-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by crashfrog
08-22-2006 12:52 PM


setting the record straight
First let's clear up some confusion...
You're all over the map: "warming isn't happening." "it's happening but it won't have any results." "it'll have results, but it's not like the Earth will be destroyed, so who cares?"
I never said the first thing. I never said the second thing. The closest thing to what I have been saying is the third sentence, except for the part about "so who cares".
Your schizophrenic posts are all but unintelligible in terms of trying to percieve a coherent position in them. Or rather, there's one very, very obvious throughline in your posts so far - "whatever my opponent says is wrong." You're a relentless contrarian
I have a very specific position. It has remained the same. Much of it is in agreement with what RAZD has put forward, as well as the general sentiment we should be addressing the issue of climate change and man's influences on it.
I have only been challenging factual statements (or rather mis-statements) made by you and to a small degree RAZD regarding scientific data, as well as opinions on the immediacy and amount of danger GW (actually climate change in general) poses for us.
Unfortunately, because I challenged your statements and opinions, you apparently need to cast me as some cardboard conservative GW-denier archvillain. It is as if a person that disagrees with you cannot hold any other position. You proceed to tell me what I am saying, even when it conflicts with what I have written, and when I attempt to correct your misrepresentation of my position, you play this out as if I am changing my position, rather than admitting you were wrong.
Please, raise this discussion to a higher level. Try to understand what I am saying without shoving me into the archvillain role, and deal with the science as that was entirely what I was discussing with RAZD.
Can you point to any climatologist who has asserted... the only influence on the Earth's atmospheric temperature is the level of CO2?
No, and that is my point.
I am not mistaken. The consistent elevated temperatures are unlike anything in the paleoclimate data, and they're certainly higher than ever recorded. I don't consider brief spikes that disappear in the normalized data to be anything like the consistent elevated trend that we observe to this day.
You are certainly mistaken and if I could circle the areas on the graph for you I would. Those "brief spikes" as you call them lasted quite some time. It is an artifact of scale which makes them seem small. And it is not just the "tip" we need to consider but the whole time spent above current levels. Draw a line across from current levels and this should be made more clear.
This is what I mean that graphs can deceive the eye into drawing conclusions about data that are not there. It is a common error, and unfortunately employed by many who want to sell a cause, rather than understanding.
Show me in the data. I don't see it. I don't see anything at all like today's consistent elevated temperatures.
Your initial claim was that we never saw temps like this. In your last few posts you are shifting to consistent elevated temps. Both are still wrong and the data is within your own graphs. Look at them, following along with what I say...
From slightly before 10K and up until the present, temps climbed to about 0 C (anom). Can you agree that this major climb existed before industrialization and so the majority of man's influence? This is known to scientists as a major longterm warming trend coming off of the last large Ice Age. Eventually it reaches a top level at around 0 C.
Once at that "peak" we have been relatively stable to that temp anom. By stable I do not mean that we stayed at that temp, only that fluctuations up and down remain tightly centered on that temp anom. You can see that is true as it is not a straight thin line but rather almost a thick blue line formed by scale of the graph condensing fluctuations both above and below 0 C (anom). And rather than a small peak, this stable fluctuation around a temp creates a plateau. That plateau is higher than other plateaus seen in the past, but not higher than regions of the highest temp anoms in general.
We can then switch to more closed in graphs. If we choose one from 2K onward then the temp line appears relatively flat with perhaps a slight downward trend, before rising toward the end (the image of a "hockey stick"). Again this appearance is an artifact of the graph. From the larger scale graph we have already seen that temps have been going up and down around 0 for some time. This is what it looks like when stretched out.
If we look carefully at the 2K graph, or better yet switch to one at the 1K scale, we see that there is a recorded dip which ends around 1600 and then begins to rise. That is also a "longterm" warming trend, and one which begins before man's effects could possibly be effecting global climate.
At around 1900, we see an increase in that warming trend. It is not a reversal of the natural trend, but an increase. It is suggestive when coupled with other data, though one must admit not 100% conclusive, that human factors have generated this increase.
When I say not 100% conclusive I mean that we do not know that such an increase is NOT possible given totally natural causes. But it doesn't seem likely , especially at this point in time, and we should deal with the evidence we do have and what it suggests. Thus I am supportive of measures to reduce human factors which increase temps, and one important one being CO2 emissions/accumulation.
I hope this makes my position clearer to you, as well as why your interpretation of the graphs, or whoever stated them to you, were erroneous. The idea that GW is "in the face of" a long term cooling trend, is only possible by an arbitrary (one might say convenient) choice of scale. Closer or more distant scales show the trend is either one of warming or relative stability (fluctuation around a center) at the top of a much longer term warming.
If this is not the case, I ask that you explain these points with specific reference to time periods and what you are seeing there.
But it's certainly the only relevant cause, because it's both the largest cause and the cause that our actions are directly responsible for. All these other unknowns you think are so important are nothing but red herrings. Distractions from an important issue.
I can agree that CO2 appears to be one of the largest factors and that it is one that we can take a part in changing. However I disagree with the rest. I am sorry, but I do not believe science, and scientific conclusions, should be wagged by what the community feels are "important issues".
While evidence suggests, meaning the current state of scientific understanding holds, that the world average temp is increasing, that CO2 accumulation is a large factor, and humans are major factors in that accumulation, there is no logic based... science based... reason for the public hysteria regarding ANY of those conclusions.
The media is filled with unrealistic scenarios stemming from this understanding, and you clearly have glommed on to the negative energy, if not the exact messages being pumped out. This is not an imminent crisis, and well considered approaches should be taken.
Getting people concerned in an irrational way will only lead to more irrational action. Right?
Could you point out exactly where I've had "visions of the apocalypse"?
Among other commentary which is alarmist in tone, you have directly suggested that NY will be destroyed if we don't act.
If you do not see suggestions that NY will be eliminated, as well as references to widespread droughts and famines and floods, as apocalyptic in nature, then we must have quite different definitions of apocalytic visions.
I've never been to NY, but I certainly am concerned if it got wiped out. How realistic is that scenario? Explain the mechanism and the time frame. Explain the evidence you have for that possibility.
No more than Katrina flooding New Orleans was an inconvinience.
The Katrina disaster was almost wholly a result of human error, and quite complex. This was an issue known to scientists long beforehand, and was going to happen one day or another. The fact that GW hysterics have used this as a poster child for why we should worry about GW is kind of offensive to me on that score. GW is the totally WRONG thing to be pointing at (unless one is at least in part referring to GhWb).
Contrary to your scenario, it is unlikely coastal cities are suddenly going to be swamped in 10 years, and those communities that could would have been swamped anyway within the next 20-100 years. There is a very real problem of humans settling and developing within coastal and floodplain areas which are set to disappear NATURALLY, without appropriate concern for longterm protection against natural events.
IF GW is about to cause an increase in such issues, including within the next decade, then I suggest people build up coastal and floodplain defenses... or avoid such development activities entirely... rather than end up getting swamped.
If they adequately prepare themselves for natural events... which is NOT what happened in NO... then why would Katrina-size storms be any more than a large storm faced countless times over the centuries?
I currently live in a city that would not exist if left up to nature. In fact up to 1/3 of the Netherlands exists solely due to engineering against storms, subsidence, and natural elevations in water level. It has been this way for some time. Why am I to believe this is not possible for any other group of people choosing to live where conditions are set against them?
But in Holmes' view of history, nothing bad ever happens, so we're all safe, right? Cities can't flood. Famines never happen. Droughts are a myth.
My point on the matter of disasters is that they are a normal part of living. They will happen with or without GW. They are unlikely to all occur with greater frequency. And whether the potential for them increases, there are technologies available to deal with such issues.
At this point in time there is no reason for famine. Yet it exists because of poor organization to prevent it. That is all. If there are increases in droughts in the future the same will still be true.
Unless you are going to appeal to apocalyptic levels of droughts so that we actually cannot produce enough material to feed people, regardless of organization, then you are pointing your finger of blame in the wrong direction. If you believe mass droughts or deluges of that kind are likely, I would like your evidence for it.
Could you point out my specific statements where I said it was irreversable?
You are missing my point entirely. If you believe CO2 levels ARE reversible, then what sources of its reversal are you appealing to except the exact same ones I am, and which you have dismissed as "hoping for angels"?
Also, if those sources can deal with levels of CO2 as we see them today, then why are they incapable of dealing with higher levels? When will the back of these natural processes be broken?
I mean when you say we must do something, what is it we are supposed to do? Unless it is inventing some method of artificially scrubbing the atmosphere, you are logically supporting my position that natural process CAN deal with elevated levels of CO2.
I guess I see the flooding of cities and the failure of crops as a serious issue. Something to be avoided if possible. Something that, if we plan for it, we can save a lot of lives. You don't, I guess.
I do see them as serious issues and something we should be planning for. I think an overemphasis on GW issues removes our eye from proper planning for those issues. The promise seems to be if we deal with GW then we won't have to plan for them (or not as much). Regardless of GW we need better planning for such issues.
Katrina is a perfect example (of failure to do so). The Netherlands is a perfect example (of doing so).
I understood that to mean "restraint from doing anything different than we are now."... I ignored them because they contained nothing to pay attention to.
Let me make this more clear to you. I was addressing the personal and societal level. On the individual level people should become more active in cutting down CO2 emissions. For example using alternative transport beyond a Hummer. That is restraint. On the societal level we find policies that will encourage manufacturing which will reduce CO2 emissions, accumulation, as well as sources of heat waste. That is called progressive programs.
I do not believe we should engage in policies which sound good, and may reduce some emissions, but not effectively deal with the issue. Doing Anything is not synonymous with doing Something.
You said everyone must be concerned, apparently so does Gore. What are your or his suggestions on how to go about it? I have yet to see something that would work based on scientific theory and practical reality.
By the way in future replies I will refer to what we are discussing as CC rather than GW. Climate Change is more accurate, and encompasses the increase in Earth's average temp.
Edited by holmes, : re-editing.
Edited by holmes, : posting revised reply

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 08-22-2006 12:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 08-23-2006 7:40 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 64 by nator, posted 08-23-2006 8:14 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 119 (342849)
08-23-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
08-23-2006 6:26 AM


Re: setting the record straight
The closest thing to what I have been saying is the third sentence, except for the part about "so who cares".
Ok. "It's happening but it won't destroy the Earth."
I don't find that a contentious statement. Global warming with not destroy the Earth. What statements, specifically, have I or others made to the contrary?
I have only been challenging factual statements (or rather mis-statements) made by you and to a small degree RAZD regarding scientific data, as well as opinions on the immediacy and amount of danger GW (actually climate change in general) poses for us.
I don't recall making statements of immediacy. Could you quote the statements you believe that I made? Even the most pessemistic predictions, like Gore's simulations of flooded Manhattan, don't occur for 50-100 years.
It's just that the problem may cease to be reversable before then. It may even have past that point. I don't recall making predicitons that New York will flood tomorrow, but the issue is important now, simply because the problems haven't happened yet, and so they might be preventable.
Unfortunately, because I challenged your statements and opinions, you apparently need to cast me as some cardboard conservative GW-denier archvillain
Well, yes. When I thought you had challenged my entirely reasonable and well-supported conclusions, which mirror the conclusions of the scientific community, you appeared to be an unreasonable warming denier.
Now that I realize you're simply having a good whallop at enviro-strawmen, and not actually responding to any of my positions, I see that we actually agree on quite a bit.
You just won't admit it, I guess.
No, and that is my point.
Well, superb. You've successfully defended a point that was not in contention.
Your initial claim was that we never saw temps like this.
Well, we haven't. They haven't been this hot throughout the range of our "modern" civilization - that is, one highly dependant on agriculture.
Obviously, there have been even higher temperatures in Earth's distant past. Temperatures so high that the surface of the Earth was molten rock and sulphur at the beginning, for instance. But our civilization has never dealt with a situation like this, and so I don't see my statements as unsupported or unreasonable, but possibly a little unclear or unspecific. Certainly not as large a blunder as your assertion of higher CO2 in the past.
Once at that "peak" we have been relatively stable to that temp anom. By stable I do not mean that we stayed at that temp, only that fluctuations up and down remain tightly centered on that temp anom. You can see that is true as it is not a straight thin line but rather almost a thick blue line formed by scale of the graph condensing fluctuations both above and below 0 C (anom). And rather than a small peak, this stable fluctuation around a temp creates a plateau. That plateau is higher than other plateaus seen in the past, but not higher than regions of the highest temp anoms in general.
Right. The consistent elevated temperatures I'm talking about. I don't see anything else like this, that high on the graph. What am I missing? There's absolutely no plateau that high anywhere else on the graph.
If we look carefully at the 2K graph, or better yet switch to one at the 1K scale, we see that there is a recorded dip which ends around 1600 and then begins to rise.
Not every model shows that same rise. Many of them show a consistent decline in temperature between 1600 and the period where human industrialization begins to have an effect.
While evidence suggests, meaning the current state of scientific understanding holds, that the world average temp is increasing, that CO2 accumulation is a large factor, and humans are major factors in that accumulation, there is no logic based... science based... reason for the public hysteria regarding ANY of those conclusions.
Exactly what hysteria do you think is occuring? Shitty movies about New York freezing over? Color me not impressed. I've know what public hysteria looks like, Holmes, and what typefies the public reaction to global warming is apathy.
If you do not see suggestions that NY will be eliminated, as well as references to widespread droughts and famines and floods, as apocalyptic in nature, then we must have quite different definitions of apocalytic visions.
Explain to me how these are apocalyptic in the face of these exact things already having happened in the past? What's so apocalyptic about the idea of a flooding city in the face of New Orleans, a city that flooded?
Explain to me how it's reasonable to dismiss these scenarios simply because they sound serious? I mean, God forbid your mind be troubled, Holmes, but these are realistic consequences of unchecked warming. Hopefully, we'll check warming, and then they won't happen. Explain to me what's so apocalyptic about discussing the consequences of inaction?
Contrary to your scenario, it is unlikely coastal cities are suddenly going to be swamped in 10 years
Excuse me? My scenario? Once again you're arguing with someone, but it definately isn't me. I've never asserted this was going to happen in the next 10 years.
Holmes, discussion isn't going to be fruitful until you're actually addressing my points, not these "apocalyptic visions" that are nothing but your invented strawmen.
Why am I to believe this is not possible for any other group of people choosing to live where conditions are set against them?
I don't understand the relevance of the question. We're talking about the consequences of inaction. The fact that the consequences can be avoided with action does not prove that there will be no consequences at all.
If you believe CO2 levels ARE reversible, then what sources of its reversal are you appealing to except the exact same ones I am
Human action. You specifically denied the need for human action - you "urged restraint" in response to the suggestion that human action be taken.
Let me make this more clear to you. I was addressing the personal and societal level. On the individual level people should become more active in cutting down CO2 emissions. For example using alternative transport beyond a Hummer. That is restraint. On the societal level we find policies that will encourage manufacturing which will reduce CO2 emissions, accumulation, as well as sources of heat waste. That is called progressive programs.
Maybe you could have said all that in the first place? Because you succesfully communicated absolutely none of that before.
These are largely the same things that I support. I support, too, planning for the socioeconomic results of flooding cities and famines on a larger scale that before, and occuring in places that they haven't before. That's the danger, you see - not that a city like New Orleans, built on a floodplain, will flood again - but that places like New York, that don't flood, will be subsumed by rising ocean levels.
Honestly, you talk about flooding like it happens all the time. Well, it does, but the danger we're talking about is the flooding of places that don't flood - not flooding as a result of storm surge or flash runoff, but flooding as a result of the ocean's level finding a new, higher equilibrium.
I certainly favor planning ahead for those things - how could I not? Why do you think that I oppose the measures you support? Just because I didn't immediately agree with the confusing language you used to imply them?
By the way in future replies I will refer to what we are discussing as CC rather than GW. Climate Change is more accurate, and encompasses the increase in Earth's average temp.
I find either term unobjectionable, I guess. It's your choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 08-23-2006 6:26 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 6:54 AM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 64 of 119 (342853)
08-23-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Silent H
08-23-2006 6:26 AM


Re: setting the record straight
quote:
By the way in future replies I will refer to what we are discussing as CC rather than GW. Climate Change is more accurate, and encompasses the increase in Earth's average temp.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 08-23-2006 6:26 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 4:18 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 65 of 119 (342904)
08-24-2006 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
08-23-2006 8:14 PM


Re: setting the record straight
the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" originates with the Republican party and their hired ace spin doctor, Frank Luntz, don't you?
Actually I wasn't. Is there a reason I should care? It really is a more appropriate description, and what we have to prepare for.
In fact, I don't see how that helps them. If we agree that climate change is occuring and there are portions of that change we can control, isn't that reason enough to try to control it?
But I guess thanks for the info, if you have some link to how/when it was coined I'd be interested in reading about it.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 08-23-2006 8:14 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nator, posted 08-24-2006 9:03 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 119 (342914)
08-24-2006 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
08-23-2006 7:40 PM


Re: setting the record straight
As an advance warning, I am running out of free time, and so may have to drop out for a while. Not certain when, but hopefully I can bring this to a close very soon.
There was a lot to cover, and I did, but am editing it down as much as possible.
I don't recall making statements of immediacy... It's just that the problem may cease to be reversable before then...It may even have past that point. I don't recall making predicitons that New York will flood tomorrow, but the issue is important now...
After saying you don't recall such statements, you go on to suggest an immediacy of the problem which is not supported by facts.
When I thought you had challenged my entirely reasonable and well-supported conclusions, which mirror the conclusions of the scientific community.
Your statements regarding the state of scientific evidence on paleoclimatology, CC, and its potential results have been unreasonable and ill-supported and do NOT mirror the conclusions of the scientific community. This is something I've been trying to keep our eye on in the debate.
I might add you even managed to razz me for using the same tentative language scientific orgs in support of CC policy have used. Thus when I directly mirror professional scientific statements you still managed to blame me.
Again I ask you to shift your debate to the facts. Arguing you had a right to think I was denying them, is not going to convince me that you are dealing with them.
Well, we haven't. They haven't been this hot throughout the range of our "modern" civilization - that is, one highly dependant on agriculture.
Oh... Is that what you meant? To me it looks like you have shifted your goal posts twice now, but if this is what you are claiming you MEANT all along, then I'll accept your claim. Only give me credit that you NEVER said such a thing explicitly.
But lets look at this position. You claim that it is backed by scientific consensus? Really? That means you did not bother to follow the links I gave (to simple Wiki pages no less) or followed them to prof refs which would have dispelled your claim. Since you are discussing man's experience as related to agriculture, which is well before the birth of Christ (still not sure why 2K maps are used beyond that or their "convenient" imagery), let's look at this map going back 12K.
When you look at the map you will see several fluctuating temp estimates. A few of them clearly match and exceed the 2004 level as indicated on the graph. The different graphs are averaged to create the thick black line which clearly rises up from around 10 K and creates a plateau which oscillates around 0 but stays well below the 2004 level. Do YOU know what that means? I do because I know how to read paleoclimate data... read this from the description of the graph (actually read the whole thing, but these are the highlights):
At the far right of the main plot climate emerges from the last glacial period of the current ice age into the relative stability of the current interglacial. There is general scientific agreement that during the Holocene itself temperatures have been quite stable compared to the fluctuations during the preceding glacial period. The average curve above supports this belief. However, there is a slightly warmer period in the middle which might be identified with the proposed Holocene climatic optimum. The magnitude and nature of this warm event is disputed, and it may have been largely limited to high northern latitudes.
Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed... consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, an observation that might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year... It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the resolution available in this figure. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.
Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could signicantly alter the apparent long-term behavior
While any conclusions to be drawn... must be considered crude and potentially controversial, one can comment on a number of well established inferences... First, at many locations, there exist large temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions.
Now, what do you have to say?
Certainly not as large a blunder as your assertion of higher CO2 in the past.
I never asserted that, it was a editing/typo error which I immediately corrected in full when you asked. You repeatedly made claims that we have not seen temps like this, then changed to sustained temps like this. While perhaps mispoken, they were repeated and never made fully clear until now. And as I have shown you above your true position is still errant.
The consistent elevated temperatures I'm talking about. I don't see anything else like this, that high on the graph. What am I missing? There's absolutely no plateau that high anywhere else on the graph.
First of all that plateau occured well before man's influence. Right? I want you on record dealing with that fact. Man did NOT create the sustained temp situation you are pointing to. Second, what difference does it make that there are sustained temps higher than previous sustained temps? Why is that not simply a factual part of the record?
If we had had scientific data back during the previous sustained temps at lower levels should we have been worried about that? If not, why not? As far as I know, there is no scientific justification for any concern regarding longterm stability around a temp.
Not every model shows that same rise. Many of them show a consistent decline in temperature between 1600 and the period where human industrialization begins to have an effect.
The small ice age is under debate, and I am glad to see you can understand that there are different models which we have to work with. However that does NOT change the fact that the graph YOU used did not show such a decline. Also that does NOT change the overall point I was making that "longterm trends" are an arbitrary (convenient) construct of choosing the right scale. We are still at a fluctuating plateau "high" coming off the last major ice age (long term warming trend) from well before humans were effecting the environment.
Exactly what hysteria do you think is occuring? Shitty movies about New York freezing over?
In addition to suggestions that NY has to be saved in general, more problematic are mistatements about the state of scientific data, drawing connections to events which have nothing to do with CC, and using language which points to any trend seen in data as inherently meaning something must be wrong. Hysteria comes in all flavors, but its base ingredient is irrational thought meant to provoke emotional reaction as stimulus toward an uncertain goal. Witness...
What's so apocalyptic about the idea of a flooding city in the face of New Orleans, a city that flooded?
New Orleans flooded because of well known engineering and development issues, not CC. You have used this to "then imagine" MANY cities similarly being flooded but with CC as the reason. That is errant and the scale becomes apocalyptic, which makes sense otherwise the problem seems manageable. I mean really if we see that a city will likely be flooded in the next 10 years without construction efforts, why don't we build them?
The indonesian/thai flooding was worse than NO. It also had nothing to do with CC. CC is unlikely to make any future tidal waves that much worse. Solving CC will not end the threat.
Hopefully, we'll check warming, and then they won't happen.
See what I am talking about? Whoever buys that idea, has purchased a lemon. Its exactly like arguing if we reduce our sinful ways we'll see less retribution from God. You either have proper coastal defenses or you don't. You may have to build them for 1000 year storms rather than the assumption of 100 year storms, but the idea is the same thing.
If you are prepared then it really can't do that much to you. Hoping that being "green" will solve anything means you are leaving preparations up to the judgement of mother nature.
I've never asserted this was going to happen in the next 10 years.
I misread your comment about 10 cities getting swamped within a decade to mean within a decade from now, rather than within a space of 10 years 50-100 years down the line. If they are going to be swamped 50 years from now, why are they not capable of building proper coastal defenses now?
I don't understand the relevance of the question. We're talking about the consequences of inaction. The fact that the consequences can be avoided with action does not prove that there will be no consequences at all.
That is some serious pretzel logic... with cheese! If I can avoid a problem by doing X, then I have avoided a problem no matter how much its potential increased if I had not done X.
What you are arguing is that that problem will occur more frequently if people do not do Y, and will be faced with the problem less frequently if Y is done. But that is fallacious. Regardless of an increasing or decreasing potential (which is a contentious claim in and of itself) the people will still face that problem at some point and so SHOULD do X.
Now answer the question with a straight answer. If people can avoid the effects of increased coastal flooding with modern technology, why is there a concern, other than to use that technology?
NO would still have gone under sometime, even if we had stopped and reversed current global temp trends.
You specifically denied the need for human action - you "urged restraint" in response to the suggestion that human action be taken.
Action implies doing something or more of something. Restraint means doing less of something. On the individual level we should be curbing unnecessary CO2 emmission through NOT doing things we may have normally done. I also advocated progressive programs which is a form of action, but at the societal level, and still with regard to reducing activity.
The result is less CO2 emission/accumulation, which is then acted on by natural forces to create a reduction.
If you want human action to reduce CO2 levels, please tell me what that is and how it does not rely on the same natural mechanisms responsible for reduction as I am referring to.
That's the danger, you see - not that a city like New Orleans, built on a floodplain, will flood again - but that places like New York, that don't flood, will be subsumed by rising ocean levels.
Oh man there is so much wrong with the above statement that I am simply going to hit the highlights... New Orleans' problem is not just that it is built on a floodplain. NY floods, in fact sections just had record flooding. CC does not change the fact that people on coasts will always face an increased flooding risk, UNLESS it is a coastline which is moving out into the ocean. Seashores always move in and out, regardless of ocean levels moving up and down and the effect is essentially the same.
But putting aside those other flaws regarding your claim, defensive technologies remain the same. You don't even need brand spanking new technology. The dutch have had competent solutions for 100s of years. The concept is keeping water out that wants to come in.
Give me a scientifically sound explanation for how NY will be submerged, including mechanism and timeframe, and if not within the next 10 years, why technology will not be available to deal with that problem.
not flooding as a result of storm surge or flash runoff, but flooding as a result of the ocean's level finding a new, higher equilibrium.
Just to let you know, storm surge, tidal waves, and flash runoff are the most serious engineering concerns for any city, not higher equilibriums for the ocean's level.
I'm not sure how you could claim that it would be. Man has been dealing with sea incursion, or subsidence, for as long as there has been civilization.
One final note. Your position is currently that man has not faced as long of sustained high temps since the advent of civilization and use of agriculture. While I have already shown that that claim is NOT supported by the scientific community, let's assume that is true for sake of argument.
Man certainly did face this before civilization and use of agriculture and survived. That is actually an argument that the threat is NOT as urgent as being made out. Our technology with regard to flooding defense and agriculture means we will be MORE able to deal with the issues than our ancestors faced, not less so.
Edited by holmes, : hit the damn submit button, before editing, now I'm editing.
Edited by holmes, : putting reply into play

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 08-23-2006 7:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2006 8:58 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 119 (342928)
08-24-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Silent H
08-24-2006 6:54 AM


Re: setting the record straight
If they are going to be swamped 50 years from now, why are they not capable of building proper coastal defenses now?
If they're capable of building them now, why aren't they building them now?
Because they don't see that there's a problem, yet. That's the point! If we want those defenses built, we have to start by convincing people that there's a need for them.
After saying you don't recall such statements, you go on to suggest an immediacy of the problem which is not supported by facts.
How long do you think it would take us to build an earthworks capable of defending New York against rising ocean levels? Do you think that's something that it would be better to rush at the last minute, or to prepare well in advance?
Your statements regarding the state of scientific evidence on paleoclimatology, CC, and its potential results have been unreasonable and ill-supported and do NOT mirror the conclusions of the scientific community.
But the funny thing is - I keep asking you to point to these "apocalyptic statements that aren't supported by the facts" and you keep ignoring the question, and replying to statements that I haven't made.
When you look at the map you will see several fluctuating temp estimates.
No. When you look at the map, you see an obvious cooling trend beginning at about 8k years ago and continuing to the present period. There are almost no plateaus at all.
Now, what do you have to say?
That you don't seem to know how to read a graph, yet. You are aware that the graph extends present to past, left to right? Your analysis doesn't seem to indicate that you do.
First of all that plateau occured well before man's influence. Right?
RAZD has indicated that man's influence extends considerably into the past due to the immediate consequences of large-scale human agriculture, so I'm not sure this is the case at all.
However that does NOT change the fact that the graph YOU used did not show such a decline.
I've presented several graphs. To which one are you refering?
New Orleans flooded because of well known engineering and development issues, not CC.
I never said that it was! Jesus Christ, Holmes. Is it really so hard for you to keep track of the claims, here?
I mean really if we see that a city will likely be flooded in the next 10 years without construction efforts, why don't we build them?
I don't know. Why don't we? Why didn't we, in New Orleans?
If people can avoid the effects of increased coastal flooding with modern technology, why is there a concern, other than to use that technology?
Show me where I've argued there was any other concern? Quote the exact statement. The whole point of this is to get people to use the technology. You seem to think that it goes without saying that they will. What leads you to believe this to be the case? As you've repeatedly asserted, New Orleans flooded because they refused to plan for the situation and employ the technologies that would have saved the city.
What makes you think it's going to be any different in the future? Why is it that I keep asking you this and you keep ignoring the question?
If they are going to be swamped 50 years from now, why are they not capable of building proper coastal defenses now?
If they're capable, why aren't they doing it? Answer the question.
Give me a scientifically sound explanation for how NY will be submerged, including mechanism and timeframe, and if not within the next 10 years, why technology will not be available to deal with that problem.
I haven't said that it won't be, Holmes. By why will people use the technology unless they think there's a problem? And why would they think there's a problem with people like you saying there's no problem, and that discussions of the consequences of inaction are "apocalyptic visions" that can be safely ignored?
And, mechanism? What, you don't understand the mechanism that if you put more water into the ocean, the surface rises in its basin? Go fill a bathtub and you might see the mechanism in action, if you pay attention.
Man certainly did face this before civilization and use of agriculture and survived. That is actually an argument that the threat is NOT as urgent as being made out.
That's absolutely idiotic. There were a whole lot less human beings then, living in an entirely different way. We're a thousand times more dependant on the climate remaining within a certain range today. The fact that some primitive nomads were able to upstake their tents in the face of a creeping high tide is absolutely irrelevant, because it's not like we can uproot New York City and do the same thing.
Honestly, Holmes. If your time is so limited maybe you'd like to consider taking this debate a little more serious than you have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 6:54 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 12:29 PM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 68 of 119 (342929)
08-24-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Silent H
08-24-2006 4:18 AM


Re: setting the record straight
quote:
Is there a reason I should care?
Luntz is the guy who designed all of those completely fake, staged town hall meetings for the Bush campaign, renamed the estate tax the "death tax", changed privatized social security to "personalized" social security, etc.
He's a spin doctor, holmes. It's his job to shape the words that are used in order to manipulate how you feel about them.
He claims that "global warming" and "climate change" mean the same thing, but they do not.
quote:
In fact, I don't see how that helps them.
It helps them because "global warming" sounds scary and "climate change" sounds innocuous, and it isn't a lie even though it is less specific.
Perfect spin.
Here's his wiki page.
An excerpt:
Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea to discredit the idea of global warming science to keep the issue from influencing voters in the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections. Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the administration has done since that time. Though he now accepts the scientific consensus that there is man-made global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.
A particularly disturbing Frontline interview
And a completely hilarious and very pointed interview with Samantha Bee on The Daily Show.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
Edited by schrafinator, : fixed link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 4:18 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 10:48 AM nator has not replied
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 3:25 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 69 of 119 (342946)
08-24-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nator
08-24-2006 9:03 AM


Re: setting the record straight
Well you can almost never go wrong linking to a Daily Show clip. What an asshole. So yeah, I'm convinced the guy is an asshole and I don't like his intentions. That is separate from what comes next...
It helps them because "global warming" sounds scary and "climate change" sounds innocuous
Right, so because some other assholes decided to manipulate people using scary terminology to promote unclear agendas, I'm supposed to not use a term used to manipulate people by another asshole pushing unclear agendas?
I'm picking between the most accurate terms out there. I notice many scientists have gone on to accept that phrase as well. I don't think we should be choosing scary phrases to discuss scientific findings and social issues, so as to achieve solutions. I believe in rational discussion. And in this case I don't think the term climate change is completely innocuous... not like clear skies and healthy forests (which is pretty offensive as names for those programs).

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nator, posted 08-24-2006 9:03 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2006 11:45 AM Silent H has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 119 (342963)
08-24-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Silent H
08-24-2006 10:48 AM


Re: setting the record straight
I'm picking between the most accurate terms out there.
Well, if that's what you intend to do, I wish you'd stop using the term "man" to refer to all humanity. Even at the nadir of understanding about how gender assumptions load terms, the use of "man" never actually meant "all humanity". It would be much more accurate to say that the term "man" meant "men, who did everything important, plus the women that they owned."
For instance, most people would find it pretty weird - even in the past - to display this image:
and caption it "Java Man."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 10:48 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nator, posted 08-24-2006 7:37 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 78 by MangyTiger, posted 08-25-2006 12:05 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 119 (342981)
08-24-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
08-24-2006 8:58 AM


Re: setting the record straight
If they're capable of building them now, why aren't they building them now?
Because realistically they don't need to. That doesn't rule out that some probably should (regardless of CC), or that people may not do so despite seeing the sea level rise and know they should. NO happened despite warnings for a decade or more. More warnings weren't going to change that, especially if they were related to CC instead of proper engineering.
How long do you think it would take us to build an earthworks capable of defending New York against rising ocean levels?
I've asked you to produce a scientifically supported description of this event, including mechanism and timeframe. You supply that and I'll give you an estimate.
But the funny thing is - I keep asking you to point to these "apocalyptic statements that aren't supported by the facts" and you keep ignoring the question, and replying to statements that I haven't made.
You are either not reading my entire posts or you are lying. Neither impress me much. Let me try to put this bogus ad nauseum argument to rest. We just got done discussing your assertion NY faces the threat of submergence. That is one. You have made references to increased droughts, floods, and famines that are not capable of being addressed by proper organization. After all if they could be dealt with then CC would not be what we have to discuss, current plans for such contigencies REGARDLESS of climate would be. IF you do not consider the above suggestions by you (at the very least goodbye NY) as apocalyptic then we are using different definitions of that term. I can change it to alarmist or catastrophic if it makes you feel any better.
No. When you look at the map, you see an obvious cooling trend beginning at about 8k years ago and continuing to the present period. There are almost no plateaus at all.
Then you are not looking at the graph I linked to, nor the discussion I linked to, and you are NOT in accordance with scientific opinion on this subject. I will place it again for others to see how you decide to assert your opinion in place of science...From this map going back 12K....
At the far right of the main plot climate emerges from the last glacial period of the current ice age into the relative stability of the current interglacial. There is general scientific agreement that during the Holocene itself temperatures have been quite stable compared to the fluctuations during the preceding glacial period. The average curve above supports this belief. However, there is a slightly warmer period in the middle which might be identified with the proposed Holocene climatic optimum. The magnitude and nature of this warm event is disputed, and it may have been largely limited to high northern latitudes.
Because of the limitations of data sampling, each curve in the main plot was smoothed... consequently, this figure can not resolve temperature fluctuations faster than approximately 300 years. Further, while 2004 appears warmer than any other time in the long-term average, an observation that might be a sign of global warming, it should also be noted that the 2004 measurement is from a single year... It is impossible to know whether similarly large short-term temperature fluctuations may have occurred at other times, but are unresolved by the resolution available in this figure. The next 150 years will determine whether the long-term average centered on the present appears anomalous with respect to this plot.
Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene. In particular, higher resolution data and better spatial coverage could signicantly alter the apparent long-term behavior
While any conclusions to be drawn... must be considered crude and potentially controversial, one can comment on a number of well established inferences... First, at many locations, there exist large temperature fluctuations on multi-centennial scales. Hence, climate change lasting for centuries appears to be a common feature of many regions.
The very first paragraph deals directly with what you just said. The rest rejects every other point you tried to make in previous posts regarding temp, but I see you do not have the integrity to address that.
I will add that you are still trying to defend the concept of "longterm cooling trend" which I have addressed in other ways as well. We can pretend for sake of argument that all maps show a smooth decline in temp from 10K to the late 1800s if you want. The concept of a "cooling trend" as if that meant something would still be totally bogus and a product of arbitrary picking and choosing of timeframes.
DEAL WITH THIS FACT CRASH: If we start further back than 2K or 8K then we see that our current temps come directly after a major jump in temps before man's influence. The "cooling trend" as you call it is so minor compared to the previous jump in temps as to make that phrase meaningless. And even if there had been a trend... so what? Where on any graph besides irrational appeals to conveniently scaled 2K graphs do you find any support for an idea that there are "trends" in temperature such that it is unnatural for them to end, or that something is wrong if they end?
That you don't seem to know how to read a graph, yet. You are aware that the graph extends present to past, left to right? Your analysis doesn't seem to indicate that you do.
I am well aware of which direction time flows on the graph. I posted the analysis which supports mine. I notice you chose not to addres that, much less to admit that the right hand of the graph represents the end of a major jump in temps such that the rest of the line that follows is essentially linear compared to it. Heck, you don't even seem to understand it is an average of various fluctuating plots which show high temps, despite them being printed on the same graph.
It's pretty obvious to me you are uninterested in a factual discussion of the data, having spent only two assertive or insulting sentences on it. What a shame.
RAZD has indicated that man's influence extends considerably into the past due to the immediate consequences of large-scale human agriculture
It is unlikely humans had mass agricultural projects around the last ice age that would have effected the world's climate. I'm not sure what RAZD has to say on this point but if you have scientific evidence, cough it up. I will point out that this claim stands in stark contrast to your earlier claim that models only show an increase starting in the late 1800s.
I've presented several graphs. To which one are you refering?
You only had one 2K graph in the post I was referring to so I don't understand the confusion. It was the one with the 2K timeframe, like I said. The 1K timeframe graph i linked to later makes it more clear, but even in the 2K you can see temps begin to move up before 1900.
Why didn't we, in New Orleans?
Because of ignorant politicians and a populace more interested in getting excited, rather than serious, in solving problems. By the way I didn't say you said NO had to do with CC, my point was that it hadn't so using it as an example for discussions about CC (to scare people) is not useful.
The whole point of this is to get people to use the technology.
No it isn't. You said people needed to get concerned about CC, and CO2 levels, which have nothing to do with people getting concerned about proper coastal development and engineering regardless of CC.
If they're capable, why aren't they doing it? Answer the question.
Uh, I can't answer while you are writing your posts, so please stop playing frustrated like I am avoiding questions posed earlier in them. So yes, by this point I HAVE answered your question. It has nothing to do with a lack of concern for CC, and CC should not be the reason they get motivated to do so. Anyone waiting around for CC to concern themselves with the nature of dynamic environments (which all coastal and riverine terrains are) lack common sense.
why will people use the technology unless they think there's a problem? And why would they think there's a problem with people like you saying there's no problem...
So people are cows who only act when you scare them, regardless of the underlying reality? I guess I don't share your pessimism. I might add that you have yet to show me that there really is a problem NYers will be facing.
And, mechanism? What, you don't understand the mechanism that if you put more water into the ocean, the surface rises in its basin? Go fill a bathtub and you might see the mechanism in action, if you pay attention.
Wow, that's how the water cycle works? Water comes out of a faucet, down a drain and then back? That's amazing! Or are you claiming that if I turn on my garden hose it'll eventually flood the whole world? Hard to tell.
Okay now find me some science behind your claim. Where is this extra water coming from? How much will be trapped in the atmosphere or other forms elsewhere (not all water in the middle of a continent ends up in the ocean), and so how much will actual sea level rise compared to NY's present level, and over what time frame?
Sorry to spoil your fantasy with a request for realistic assessments.
We're a thousand times more dependant on the climate remaining within a certain range today. The fact that some primitive nomads were able to upstake their tents in the face of a creeping high tide is absolutely irrelevant, because it's not like we can uproot New York City and do the same thing.
Are you kidding me? You have to be kidding me. Modern agricultural methods have pulled us beyond Malthusian limits, which is what did box in our ancestors. We are less dependant on climate, including for food, than we have ever been in our history.
If this claim were true, why don't we just give up all of our technology right now and live safer lives?
And once again with NY. You are right that we cannot pull up large settled structures as easily as tents. So what? Building such structures is harder than building a tent. Doing so makes a commitment to staying in one place and so altering the surrounding landscape to keep it "safe", because it will always keep changing!
Anyone building next to a river or coastline has already commited themself to future engineering projects, but does not mean that they are "more vulnerable" than nomads to climactic change. If anything large scale cities are a testament to how much more independent we are from nature's ravages. That's not to say invulnerable of course, but certainly much more independent.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2006 8:58 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2006 1:10 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 119 (342991)
08-24-2006 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Silent H
08-24-2006 12:29 PM


Re: setting the record straight
Holmes, it's amazing to me that someone as smart as you obviously are can be ignorant and dishonest.
Here's what I'm going to do, because I don't have the time to reply to this latest smear until after work today, probably. My reply will consist of, probably, three posts:
1) A post where I detail your numerous distortions of my position and your strawmen, as they appear in your loaded questions and selective quoting;
2) A specific, credible scientific model of the submergence of coastal areas predicted to occur within whatever time frame is supported by the evidence, and predicated on the assumptions that anthropogenic CO2 production continues to grow at its current rate and no flood mitgation strategies not already in place are taken;
3) A specific credible scientific model of human agriculture and land fertility throughout the same time period, predicated on the same assumptions as above, and additionally that there will be no "quantum leaps" in agriscience during that period.
In regards to 2 and 3, none of your responses will be taken seriously until you've addressed your distortions as presented in 1. I'm simply not interested in a game where I support an assertion with evidence, and then you respond by presenting a different assertion than the evidence supports, and then pretending that was what I was asserting all along. Neither am I going to respond to similar charges in post 71 until you've addressed those distortions.
But I will point out that, as easy as it is to provide a link to an image in a post, you've consistently refused to do so. Obviously, because you understand that looking at the graph, as opposed to complicated, misleading descriptions of the graph, renders your position unsupportable and mine immediately obvious. Here's the graph you've been talking about:
The cooling trend is obvious, it begins 8k years ago. No part of your "rebuttal" is worth responding to. That there were other trends before the 8k cooling trend is an irrelevant distraction.
Anyway, stay tuned. These things may take an afternoon or two to gather together.
If this claim were true, why don't we just give up all of our technology right now and live safer lives?
Because a billion people would starve to death. You've never heard of Norman Borlaug?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 12:29 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 2:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 73 of 119 (343010)
08-24-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
08-24-2006 1:10 PM


Re: setting the record straight
Holmes, it's amazing to me that someone as smart as you obviously are can be ignorant and dishonest.
Right back at you, buddy. But I have confidence most will be able to tell who actually fills that role based on their consistency and adherence to the data.
Here's what I'm going to do,
Skip the first post. If you want to more carefully explain your position then go ahead, but let's stick to the data and conclusions from it, because that is all I care about.
The second and third would be greatly appreciated.
But I will point out that, as easy as it is to provide a link to an image in a post, you've consistently refused to do so.
Don't go to this level of Bullshit. I've been linking to images and descriptions of images the entire time. The only thing I haven't done is place them as visible within post itself. If you can't open a separate window for the link to view it, the surrounding discussion, and my discussion at the same time, that is your problem and is not synonymous with refusing to provide evidence.
In addition, I have referred back to your graphs which are viewable right in the post. So what's your problem?
Obviously, because you understand that looking at the graph, as opposed to complicated, misleading descriptions of the graph, renders your position unsupportable and mine immediately obvious.
Why would people, including you, be incapable of going to the graph I linked to, as well as the discussion of the data as seen in the graph? As far as being misleading in my descriptions I posted a textual description of the graph representing scientific consensus on the data within it. Are you incapable, or unwilling to read it? It backs my statements and rejects yours. Why are you attempting to mislead people by not only mischaracterizing what is seen in the graph, but what scientists themselves say about the data within it?
But let's take a look at your assertion...
The cooling trend is obvious, it begins 8k years ago. No part of your "rebuttal" is worth responding to. That there were other trends before the 8k cooling trend is an irrelevant distraction.
Here is the graph...
At the far right we see a rather large cliff, that represents the end of a climb in temps from the last Ice Age and has nothing to do with human influence. It then reaches a relative stable point. I already posted a link to a discussion and here it is again...
At the far right of the main plot climate emerges from the last glacial period of the current ice age into the relative stability of the current interglacial. There is general scientific agreement that during the Holocene itself temperatures have been quite stable compared to the fluctuations during the preceding glacial period. The average curve above supports this belief.
Unless you can't read yellow, the message from the scientific community to you is quite clear. Yet you are apparently pointing to the relatively higher level at 8K then the remaining portion to the left as an indication of a "cooling trend"? Yet I have already pointed to the discussion of the graph and what that higher level means to science...
However, there is a slightly warmer period in the middle which might be identified with the proposed Holocene climatic optimum. The magnitude and nature of this warm event is disputed, and it may have been largely limited to high northern latitudes.
Where is your confusion? This is not me merely asserting this.
Finally, toward the left end of this graph after 2K you see a dip around halfway, followed by a climb about a third of the way between 2K and present. That is a long time ago and you can see it in the smaller "recent proxies" graph as well... looking about 600 years ago. That means temps began a climbing trend which accelerates around 100 to 200 years ago.
To choose 2K or 8K as a starting point in order to determine a "trend" is totally arbitrary. The most recent "trend" on the level of centuries is warming. If looking on the small 1000s scale it is perhaps slightly cooling but actually pretty stable. If looking at the greater than 10K scale we are at a stable period at some point in a large warming trend. Hell, if we look at the larger scale...
... I suppose someone could suggest we are living through a truncated period of temps compared to previous steep climbs to higher peak temps.
Thus I fail to see the validity in your claim regarding any "trend". Much more I don't understand what that concept even is, except a description of past events. There is no such thing in paleoclimatology as an expectation of temps to follow some long term trend indefinitely, or a reason to be concerned because one changes or ends. We see a relative pattern in historical records but nothing exacting or consistent where we can claim a current pattern is an anomoly. Change seems to be about the only pattern we have.
You can keep insisting your "view" is the only valid read, but it is not valid.
looking at the graph, as opposed to complicated, misleading descriptions of the graph, renders your position unsupportable and mine immediately obvious.
I want to repeat that last statement of yours. It is the work of the complete shyster. Just LOOK at the graph and you will see my conclusions are right? See how obvious the conclusion is by how it LOOKS? I have repeatedly stated that the eye canbe deceptive when drawing conclusions about data from a graph. That is why politicians and advertisers love them.
You have to understand what you are looking at which means a discussion of what made it, what context to set it in, as well as what its details can tell you. I provided that to you. I said it and I gave you a discussion from someone else, and you have links at that page to other references on it.
I can look at that graph, and whats more I can understand what I am looking at and explain it, and show you what the state of consensus is on what it says. That is hardly being deceptive.
Before your 2nd and 3rd post, how about dealing with the data you've already been given?
Edited by holmes, : fixes

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2006 1:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 08-24-2006 7:23 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 119 (343015)
08-24-2006 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by nator
08-24-2006 9:03 AM


to schraf on CC
I should have known the idea that Luntz came up with CC was complete bullshit. I remembered it being used long before 2000 and 2004 within scientific circles. But still I fell for it... sheesh. Thankfully dealing with crash's bs made me turn extra skeptical and I double checked.
Here are the facts: The term was used in international documents related to manmade effects on the global climate as early as (if not earlier than) 1992. The predecessor to the Kyoto protocol was UNFCCC, the last two Cs being for climate change.
The FCCC was opened for signature on May 9, 1992. It entered into force on March 21, 1994. Its stated objective is "to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
Now maybe Luntz wanted to run with CC because it sounds nicer than global warming, but clearly it was being used by those who were unquestionably concerned about the climate. Why do I think that Luntz's contribution was more about promoting himself as a coiner, or possibly just explaining to Bush how to use it as spin, rather than being the inventor and prolificator of the term?
Really people, its this rhetoric that gets me so disappointed with the environmental movement. We need less demonization of individuals and worrying about how to scare people into caring with the right fear terminology, and more concentrating on the real problem.
What's funny is that I have to argue this on the defensive, like I don't care, when I'll bet I'm one of the few (RAZD sounds like he may have) who actually has an education in the very subjects we are discussing, and went to work in a professional capacity to try to understand/deal with environmental problems we are facing.
Okay I admit my greatest desire for a scientific career was in space exploration/research, but close second has been environmental concerns of Earth. And that's where I worked for many years. Next time you want to challenge the terminology I use, give me a reason that is not only apolitical in nature, but factually correct.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nator, posted 08-24-2006 9:03 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by nator, posted 08-24-2006 7:43 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 119 (343111)
08-24-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Silent H
08-24-2006 2:39 PM


Total Distortion
Skip the first post. If you want to more carefully explain your position then go ahead, but let's stick to the data and conclusions from it, because that is all I care about.
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. Until you have a meaningful response to this, we're not going to talk about the data or anything else. I'll present the two other posts I agreed to post, but until you're able to explain your infuriating and disingenuous distortions, there's nothing else for us to talk about. I'm deeply, deeply tired of presenting supported positions and then finding myself accused of failing to defend assertions that I didn't make. I'm fucking sick of it.
Let me make it absolutely clear. My position is in no way contentious:
1) Human industrial activity produces CO2 and other greenhouse gases in amounts far beyond any other natural process, and far beyond the environment's capacity to abate it. The result is an accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere. CO2 levels, at this point, are higher than has ever been observed in any relevant period of time (they are believed to have been higher in the Cretaceous period), and are continuing to rise. These elevated levels are almost entirely the result of human activity, either through direct emission in the case of CO2, or as an indirect effect, such as water vapor.
2) Greenhouse gases like CO2 are known to be a cause of elevated atmospheric temperature. This conclusion is simple physics, and is borne out by both observations of current climates and laboratory experiments involving these gases.
3) 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.)
True to form, Holmes begins the distortions in his very first reply:
As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating above what we see today, without man's interference.
Here's the graph he was referring to, along with it's caption:
quote:
This figure shows apparent correlations between historical CO2 and temperature records based on Antarctic ice cores, providing data for the last 750,000 years. The data has been normalised so as to be presented on a common scale. Current CO2 concentrations (380 ppmv) would be 5.48 (3 s.f.) on this scale.
Holmes has tried to explain this gaff by asserting that he only referred to temperatures being above what we see today, but of course his original statement contradicts that interpretation. Holmes plainly stated that both CO2 and temperatures have been higher in the past 750k years than what we see today, and that's clearly only true for temperatures.
If there is a problem with CO2, it is not going to be solved by "sky is burning" hyperbole.
Implication: Holmes' opponents have asserted that the sky is burning.
Fact: No such assertion by RAZD, Schrafinator, myself, or anyone else appears in this thread.
That is to say, while we may be in for problems related to warm climates, and we can thank our influence in part for what we face, we are not looking at an apocalypse.
Implication: Holmes' opponents have asserted that global warming will spell the end of humanity.
Fact: No such assertion by RAZD, Schrafinator, myself, or anyone else appears in this thread.
You have not shown any reason to believe that CO2 can drive temps indefinitely, that is to say that they will not face reductions or neutralizations based on natural mechanisms of energy distribution which have acted in the past.
Implication: Crashfrog believes that, once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's there to stay.
Fact: I have never asserted such a thing. Obviously, if I didn't believe that CO2 levels could abate once our enormous output was reduced, I'd be selling real estate on Mars, because there would be no hope for the Earth. But it is true that we have no historical evidence for any natural process that could overtake unchecked human industrial activity, which is what Holmes appeared to be referring to.
If true, what does this tell you we should do? What science do we have showing what to do? Given that we are beyond CO2 levels seen before, how can you argue stopping such production will help unless you are appealing to those exact same angels of mercy I was.
Holmes repeats the same distortion.
While a "nice" gesture, and something I would not have walked away from as Bush did, Kyoto was not a solution or really the start of one.
Implication: Crashfrog promotes the Kyoto treaty, and faults Bush for his failure to implement it.
Fact: Ignorant of the details of Kyoto as I am, it would be irresponsible for me to offer an opinion on it. I have neither supported nor opposed the implementation of the Kyoto treaty.
??? Look again, it clearly has CO2 levels on it. The name of the first graph I listed was "CO2-temperature-plot".
Implication: Crashfrog has asserted that the above graph does not have CO2 data on it.
Fact: Either Holmes's dishonestly has sunk to a new low or he's having memory issues. My comment was part of a context:
Crashfrog writes:
That's a pretty serious misrepresentation of the data of this graph. I'm going to assume that it was unintentional, although the caption of the graph should have made your error abundantly clear...
Holmes writes:
It was entirely unintentional and the product of trying to address two different issues in the same sentence, while writing and editing very quickly. My main point was to state that temps have fluctuated above what we see today. Unfortunately I merged that with a comment about CO2 fluctuations in general, which while not reaching levels we see today have had periods of great increase.
The sentence should have read something like: "As can be seen we have had CO2 and temp levels fluctuating greatly without man's interference, and the latter to levels above what we see today."
Crashfrog writes:
I don't see how that sentence is any better supported. The graph you presented omits the last century or so of data (which is why the CO2 levels weren't on it). Could you present the temperature data that leads you to make this statement?
Holmes writes:
??? Look again, it clearly has CO2 levels on it. The name of the first graph I listed was "CO2-temperature-plot".
As is obvious from context, when I said "the CO2 levels", I was referring to the CO2 levels we had just been discussing, the ones that aren't on the graph - the current ones. And the reason they're not on the graph is because the graph only has ice core data - not any temperature or CO2 data from the contemporary period. But Holmes omits that context with his selective quoting, opting instead to interpret my sentence in the most idiotic way possible.
What you see is that while Temp tends to vary with CO2 it is not a 1:1 correlation in change by any means.
Implication: Crashfrog has asserted a direct, 1:1 correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
Fact: No such statement appears in any of my posts. Obviously, climate is more complicated than simply the influence of one gas on the atmosphere. CO2 is only one of many greenhouse gases.
Don't confuse my lack of definitive, explosive rhetoric to pretend I am arguing that there is no connection and that there are no reasons to address the issue.
Implication: Crashfrog has used "definitive, explosive rhetoric".
Fact: Holmes has been unable to quote, specifically, exactly what language he felt fit that description.
Save New York? You think its going to be destroyed sometime soon?
Implication: Crashfrog has predicted the imminent destruction of New York.
Fact: No such statement appears in any of my posts.
If CO2 is related to temp change then current increase aren't abnormal, they should be expected.
More selective quoting. Here's the context:
Holmes writes:
You have not shown any reason to believe that CO2 can drive temps indefinitely, that is to say that they will not face reductions or neutralizations based on natural mechanisms of energy distribution which have acted in the past.
Crashfrog writes:
I'm hardly under an obligation to bend over backwards prove that something that has never been observed to occur in the past won't occur in the future. We know what the cause is; human industrialization. We know what the result is - abnormal warming. We're already seeing the effects - the warming is significantly different, much more prolonged, than the warming cycles experienced in the past.
Holmes writes:
If CO2 is related to temp change then current increase aren't abnormal, they should be expected.
Obviously, that response is a non-sequiter. "Abnormal" in my statement above was obviously meant to refer to anthropogenic, nonnatural warming, not unexpected or unexplainable warming. But once again Holmes immediately leaps to the most idiotic interpretation, so that he can appear to correcting his opponent.
And I repeat to you, if what you assert is true... that we have reached levels never seen before and there is a limit beyond which no processes do work, then why are we to believe anything can be achieved by stopping emitting all the CO2 we want?
Implication: Crashfrog believes that, once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's there to stay.
Fact: I have never asserted such a thing. Again, the same distortion from Holmes, repeated.
You point to a data point, or a trend in data and conclude disastrous effects are necessary and irreversible... indeed beyond natural processes.
Implication: Crashfrog has asserted that we're doomed, there's no abating the CO2 even if we stop producing it.
Fact: I have never made such a claim. I have only asserted that there's absolutely no evidence that some unknown natural process will overtake human CO2 production. That assertion is absolutely true.
Again, we have your apocalyptic vision of all sorts of catastrophes (some patently conflicting) visited upon man as some sort of divine retribution, in ways that we can't deal with?
Implication: Crashfrog has asserted that global warming is unstoppable and that it is God's divine punishment against the sinful human race.
Fact: No such statement by myself appears in this thread. As a known atheist, it's ludicrous that I would be accused of such a statement.
Yeah, I don't see that NY is going to disappear within my lifetime (though NO did without global warming as a significant factor), and you don't agree with my suggested route of dealing with the issue we face.
Implication: Crashfrog has asserted that Katrina was caused by global warming.
Fact: No such statement by myself appears in this thread.
Implication: Crashfrog rejects the idea of cutting CO2 emissions and other efforts to reduce atmospheric carbon and other greenhouse gases.
Fact: Until the next post, Holmes hasn't actually suggested that we do any of that. So what was avaliable for me to disagree with? I was merely disagreeing with the need for "restraint", which - as it was presented in the context of coming to conclusions that may or may not have sufficient data to justify them - I took to mean "restraint from coming to any conclusions." Obviously, I disagree with that, as well as the next reasonable implication - "restraint from any effort to change our policies or our emissions."
If Holmes had simply made it clearer that he meant "restraint from emitting so much greenhouse gas", obviously, I would have agreed with that.
Please, raise this discussion to a higher level.
Implication: Crashfrog is infantile.
Fact: It's Holmes' distortions that have led to the current state of the thread, as well as his own complete inability, apparently, to effectively say what he means. I'm willing to give him some credit for being careless with his language, but there's no excuse at all for the drastic misrepresentations he's been engaging in so far.
The media is filled with unrealistic scenarios stemming from this understanding, and you clearly have glommed on to the negative energy, if not the exact messages being pumped out. This is not an imminent crisis, and well considered approaches should be taken.
Implication: Crashfrog has advocated that we proceed immediately, absent any consideration of the issue.
Fact: No such statement by myself appears in this thread. Obviously, proceeding absent consideration is what got us in this mess in the first place. Why would I support more of the same?
Contrary to your scenario, it is unlikely coastal cities are suddenly going to be swamped in 10 years
Implication: Crashfrog has predicted the inundation of New York City within the next 10 years.
Fact: No such statement by myself appears anywhere in the thread.
If they adequately prepare themselves for natural events... which is NOT what happened in NO... then why would Katrina-size storms be any more than a large storm faced countless times over the centuries?
Implication: Crashfrog believes that no defense will be sufficient; New York is doomed.
Fact: No such statement by myself appears in this thread.
What you are arguing is that that problem will occur more frequently if people do not do Y, and will be faced with the problem less frequently if Y is done. But that is fallacious. Regardless of an increasing or decreasing potential (which is a contentious claim in and of itself) the people will still face that problem at some point and so SHOULD do X.
Specious reasoning to say the least. The conclusion of this argument doesn't support the contention that mine is false; Holmes is merely arguing against his own implication that reducing the frequency of bad outcome Y is as good as preventing it altogether.
I've never argued differently. In the long term, 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.
On the individual level we should be curbing unnecessary CO2 emmission through NOT doing things we may have normally done.
I don't know what personal definition of "restraint" Holmes is operating under, but it's not very effective at communicating his position on emissions. "Urging restraint", after all, is exactly what the petroleum companies and manufacturing lobby do - urge restraint from enacting tougher emissions standards. As a result, that's what we all assumed he meant.
Give me a scientifically sound explanation for how NY will be submerged, including mechanism and timeframe, and if not within the next 10 years, why technology will not be available to deal with that problem.
Implcation: Crashfrog believes no technology can save New York.
Fact: No such statement has been made by myself in this thread. I've never been to New York, but it seems like a great city, and I hope that actions are taken to preserve it. Obviously, I would not hope so if I thought no technology could save it.
You have made references to increased droughts, floods, and famines that are not capable of being addressed by proper organization.
The same repeated distortion that I believe that the consequences of global warming are beyond human response. Abundantly false, no such statement by myself appears in this thread.
By the way I didn't say you said NO had to do with CC, my point was that it hadn't so using it as an example for discussions about CC (to scare people) is not useful.
Implication: Holmes hasn't ever done exactly what I've shown him doing in this thread.
Wow, that's how the water cycle works? Water comes out of a faucet, down a drain and then back? That's amazing!
Obviously a distortion. I've never asserted that the water cycle is as simple as a facuet. Holmes is simply interpreting my remark - a sarcastic comeback about filling a bathtub to understand what it looks like when water levels rise - in the most idiotic way possible, again.
Don't go to this level of Bullshit. I've been linking to images and descriptions of images the entire time. The only thing I haven't done is place them as visible within post itself.
Which, of course, is exactly what I asserted he wasn't doing:
crashfrog writes:
But I will point out that, as easy as it is to provide a link to an image in a post, you've consistently refused to do so.
What's funny is that I have to argue this on the defensive
The funny thing is, Holmes - you don't have to. Any time you want to stop grappling with the strawmen and actually address your "opponents", you would find that we've already come to agreement with the vast majority of your points as you've clumsily put them forth. There's almost nothing that we disagree with. 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.
It's just a shame that you're not able to elucidate that position without resorting, time after time, to these blatant and dishonest distortions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Silent H, posted 08-24-2006 2:39 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 08-25-2006 8:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024