|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Legend 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? You do realize that the northwest passage is about to become a reality, right? Are there any specific predictions that have been verified so far? 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5005 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
quote: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I don't think you read the answers.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5005 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Legend writes:
Wars happen every goddamn day of the year somewhere around the world. "...there will be wars and rumours of war..". 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5005 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend writes:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Legend writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EighteenDelta Inactive Member |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024