Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam."
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 124 (434982)
11-18-2007 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Legend
11-18-2007 1:13 PM


Re: Question
That's what I'm trying to ascertain. Do we know how much of the current warming is because of the things we do? Is this warming even abnormal or is it something that would have happened regardless of our activities?
That is irrelevant. See Message 3.
Like you'll often find me saying in the Bibical threads, predictions must be specific, measurable and time-bound. I'm sorry but "global warming will cause some extreme weather" doesn't quite cut it for me. Are there any specific predictions that have been verified so far?
Yes, the permafrost is disappearing, glaciers receding, sea level rising, weather patterns changing, animal ranges moving; the list goes on and on.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:13 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:30 PM jar has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 77 of 124 (434983)
11-18-2007 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Legend
11-18-2007 1:13 PM


Re: Question
Legend writes:
Are there any specific predictions that have been verified so far?
Like the loss of some of the world's largest and oldest glaciers? How about the fact that our air is filled with more pollens than ever before, causing a lot of misery for people like me who have seasonal allergies? You do realize that the northwest passage is about to become a reality, right?
I'm not a global warming facts buff, but even I could think of these off the top of my head. If you have such strong objection to global warming being a reality, shouldn't you at least know a few things about it first?
Added by edit.
Even now as we speak, Denmark, Canada, U.S., Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland, and Russia are having political battles over who owns the Arctic because once the northwest passage is completely open giving the closest route between Europe and Asia, whoever owns the Arctic can tax the hell out of all the ships that go through. Canada is treating this issue so seriously that last year they sent 2 warships to the opening of the northwest passage as a declaration of "this is all ours so get hands off our northwest passage". Denmark had previously put a flag on the Hans Island where the northwest passage will be with a note saying "Welcome to the Danish Island." Canada last year responded by stationing some 2,000 Canadian marines on that island.
But ignoring all the politics, convoys after convoys are reaffirming again and again that the northwest passage is opening up rapidly. If the Bush administration really believes global warming is a scam, how come they are laying claim to the Arctic now?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:13 PM Legend has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 78 of 124 (434987)
11-18-2007 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
11-18-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Question
quote:
Like you'll often find me saying in the Bibical threads, predictions must be specific, measurable and time-bound. I'm sorry but "global warming will cause some extreme weather" doesn't quite cut it for me. Are there any specific predictions that have been verified so far?
Taz writes:
Like the loss of some of the world's largest and oldest glaciers? How about the fact that our air is filled with more pollens than ever before, causing a lot of misery for people like me who have seasonal allergies?
jar writes:
Yes, the permafrost is disappearing, glaciers receding, sea level rising, weather patterns changing, animal ranges moving; the list goes on and on.

But permafrost, glaciers, allergens and animal ranges have been regularly fluctuating for hundreds of thousands of years.
I don't think you read the question. Are there any *specific* predictions that have been verified so far ?
Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 11-18-2007 1:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 11-18-2007 1:32 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 80 by Taz, posted 11-18-2007 1:37 PM Legend has replied
 Message 87 by Rrhain, posted 11-19-2007 10:38 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 93 by fgarb, posted 11-20-2007 1:00 AM Legend has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 124 (434988)
11-18-2007 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Legend
11-18-2007 1:30 PM


Re: Question
I don't think you read the answers.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:30 PM Legend has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 80 of 124 (434990)
11-18-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Legend
11-18-2007 1:30 PM


Re: Question
You: What's 2+2?
Us: 4
You: You're not answering my question. What's 2+2?
Us: ???

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:30 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:53 PM Taz has replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 81 of 124 (434995)
11-18-2007 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Taz
11-18-2007 1:37 PM


Re: Question
Legend writes:
Are there any *specific* predictions that have been verified so far ?
Taz & jar instead present regularly occurring phenomena that have been happening even long before mankind appeared on earth.
Guys, maybe we should take this to the Biblical Prophecy thread. It seems to me that's where this is heading.
"...there will be wars and rumours of war..". Yeah, right.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Taz, posted 11-18-2007 1:37 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Taz, posted 11-18-2007 2:04 PM Legend has not replied
 Message 83 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2007 3:53 PM Legend has replied
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 11-19-2007 10:40 PM Legend has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 82 of 124 (435000)
11-18-2007 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Legend
11-18-2007 1:53 PM


Re: Question
Legend writes:
"...there will be wars and rumours of war..".
Wars happen every goddamn day of the year somewhere around the world.
Disappearing of the glaciers and melting of the arctic icesheet only happen once in hundreds of thousands of years. You're telling me that the scientists who made the predictions god lucky that out of all the hundreds of thousands of years since the last climate fluctuation it should happen within a few years of the predictions?

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:53 PM Legend has not replied

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


Message 83 of 124 (435021)
11-18-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Legend
11-18-2007 1:53 PM


Re: Question
I think I understand what you're getting at. Unfortunately due to the nature of weather, and most other mass natural phenomena, we don't have any ability to make "specific" predictions.
That is to say, no one would be able (at this time anyway) to predict that next year you will see X number of cyclones, or these animals will move over here. The nature of the predictions of what will happen have to be general.
Then again, predicting the outcome of climate change is not the same as proving climate change is happening, or what its major causes might be, or what its likely length and intensity might be.
The science has been in tracking global temps and other factors which are believed to contribute to such temperatures. While a perfect model of the atmosphere has not been created, their accuracy has been getting better and better, particularly over the last 10-15 years.
It is from that, models of the atmosphere, matched with measured factors, and compared to actual global temps, that a decision about climate change is made. In this case it is increasingly clear that:
1) global temps are increasing.
2) man made contributing factors are playing a significant role.
Now sure it is possible that natural factors do play a part, and indeed we could remove manmade factors only to have natural ones put the whammy on us. But that goes back to Jar's point. It makes no difference what NATURE is going to do. If we can see that we are able to control a factor, why not do so?
As far as predictions go, that flows from the determination, and stand regardless of prime contributing factor. You accurately noted that such phenomena have occurred throughout history. Yeah, because temps went up and down. So we see temps going up and people can start making predictions of what will happen as they rise. Not pinpoint, just general. But its not those predictions which prove climate change.
All they need to do is predict temps go up. They are.
Edited by Silent H, : prediction

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:53 PM Legend has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 6:14 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Legend
Member (Idle past 5005 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 84 of 124 (435048)
11-18-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Silent H
11-18-2007 3:53 PM


Re: Question
Ok H, thanks, that was certainly useful.

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2007 3:53 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 85 of 124 (435193)
11-19-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Legend
11-18-2007 12:56 PM


Re: Question
That depends on the cause of the warming. If it's outside our control then we can't do anything about it. Why doesn't this follow ?
What doesn't follow is where you start at "we're not responsible for this" and then leap to the conclusion that, therefore, it's out of our control.
How does that follow? I'm not seeing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 12:56 PM Legend has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 86 of 124 (435217)
11-19-2007 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Legend
11-18-2007 12:56 PM


Re: Question
That depends on the cause of the warming. If it's outside our control then we can't do anything about it. Why doesn't this follow ?
Simple. Bioengineering can reduce the Earth's temperature, regardless of the cause.
Should you wish to have it firsthand from an expert:
David Keith: A critical look at geoengineering against climate change | TED Talk

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 12:56 PM Legend has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 87 of 124 (435227)
11-19-2007 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Legend
11-18-2007 1:30 PM


Re: Question
Legend writes:
quote:
But permafrost, glaciers, allergens and animal ranges have been regularly fluctuating for hundreds of thousands of years.
No, not "fluctuating."
GONE.
Do you really not understand this? You're behaving as if this were nothing more than getting eleven inches of rain in a year rather than ten.
The glaciers are GONE. The permafrost is GONE. The animal ranges are GONE. This is not a question of variations. This is a fact of obliteration.
quote:
Are there any *specific* predictions that have been verified so far ?
What part of "loss of glaciers, permafrost, and animal ranges" are you missing? They were predicted to disappear.
They have disappeared.
What more is required?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:30 PM Legend has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 88 of 124 (435228)
11-19-2007 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Legend
11-18-2007 1:53 PM


Re: Question
Legend writes:
quote:
Taz & jar instead present regularly occurring phenomena
Incorrect.
You are confusing variation with absence. Variation is that the rainfall of the area tends to be between 8 and 11 inches per year.
Instead, we're seeing no rainfall at all.
The glaciers are [I][B]GONE[/i][/b]. The permafrost is [I][B]GONE[/i][/b].
Just as predicted.
What more is required?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Legend, posted 11-18-2007 1:53 PM Legend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 11:09 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 89 of 124 (435232)
11-19-2007 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Rrhain
11-19-2007 10:40 PM


I think I already cleared up Legend's issues. But I'd like to correct something you said...
You are confusing variation with absence.
Variation of mass surface features can include absence. I'm not sure why that would not be thought so. With a return of adequate rain/snow/animals all things can come back.
For example that glaciers have all disappeared from the state of Illinois, does not mean they are gone forever. In the geologic view this is our state of variation right now. Absence.
Does that make sense?
The question would be if the temp changes we are seeing are a natural variation, that is from largely non-natural sources. The mass results are most definitely natural variations brought on by the temp changes no matter the source.
You can't point to an unusual/extreme variant, and from that inherently deduce an unnatural cause.
I hope this is clear.
Edited by Silent H, : clarity

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Rrhain, posted 11-19-2007 10:40 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-19-2007 11:54 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 91 by Rrhain, posted 11-19-2007 11:56 PM Silent H has replied

  
EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 124 (435239)
11-19-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
11-19-2007 11:09 PM


For example that glaciers have all disappeared from the state of Illinois, does not mean they are gone forever. In the geologic view this is our state of variation right now. Absence.
The problem with this thinking is, this is a global event, not the glaciers that were covering Illinois, leading to global extinctions of a vast number of animals. Extinct animals don't come back. Extinct is forever. Natural variation would not be as extreme as current models are showing this current swing of global conditions to be. Global changes of 2 degrees over a millenia is fairly extreme under natural conditions, 2 degrees in less than a century is concerning.
-x

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2007 11:09 PM Silent H 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