Kyoto FLAMEWAR!

[Joe DeFuria]

You forgot my instructions at the end:

No, I didn't. I read your entire posts, I just don't repeat the whole thing in it's entirety, and I don't think it's good use of bandwidth to quote more than is necessary for you to know which context each of my responses is in reference to.

 

[Mariner]

I was reading recently that the climate in the UK was considerably warmer in the 'dark ages' than it has been in recent centuries. Vineyards were quite common back then in the South of England, but they have to work damn hard nowadays to get much in the way of wine here.

As Natoma says, change is always occuring in the climate all the way around the world. We'll all be in trouble if much of the Antarctic Ice Cap melts, though - it consists of 7 million cubic miles of ice which comprises about 90 percent of all ice existing in the world, and 68 percent of the world's fresh water!

Maybe I should take up Scuba diving...

 

[Natoma]

That's actually already happened. This past spring, the Jet Stream was far more south than it should have been at this time of year, which caused us here in the states to get blasts of arctic air and snowfall in March and April!

Like that hasn't happened before? And won't again?

The point is that we should try and limit how much *we* change the environment. There are natural climate changes which occur on a geologic scale, i.e. thousands to millions of years, and then there are climate changes that occur on a human scale, i.e. months, years, and decades.

The changes that have been recorded in the past 10-20 years are most certainly occurring on a human scale, thus it is safe to conclude that these changes are not natural.

Scientists should probably change the term "Global Warming" to something more like "Global Climate Change."

I agree, though I'd wager that the "global warming" label was applied more by junk scientists, politicians and alarmists, than true scientists.

People just don't get "alarmed" by something like "climate change"? Why? Because they don't know what it means. Change for the better or worse? Even worse, when people ask the questions, the only honest answer that one can give is "uh, we don't really know how it's changing, or why, or what we can do...all we know is it's changing."

"Your region might get warmer...it might get cooler"
"You might have more precipitation...you might get less"
"You might get more gypsy moths...you might get more."

Say something more definitive like "It's getting WARMER!" (Or "It's getting COOLER for that matter"), and people can dream up their own dooms-day scenarios of coastal floods due to melting ice caps or the next ice age....

You took my quote out of context Joe.

Scientists should probably change the term "Global Warming" to something more like "Global Climate Change." Not because "Global Warming" isn't an accurate assessment of what's happening, but because those that don't understand thermodynamics and atmospheric differentials will automatically assume that global warming means we should be having 60 degree weather in december (that is of course, if you're in the northern hemisphere, well above the equator. ).

It is a little misleading to those that don't understand.

I stated that they should change the term from "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change," not because "Global Warming" is not an accurate assessment of what is going on in the atmosphere, but because people that don't understand thermodynamics will automatically assume we're supposed to have balmy weather in the winter.

The intent of my *entire* thought was not to state that the term "Global Warming" is in any way alarmist or administered by junk science. To the contrary, it is a completely accurate assessment of the true nature of the climatological changes caused by man.

Temperature swings such as the ones we have experienced over the past decade or two are, historically, pretty severe.

Really? And how much half-way accurate "statistical history" do we actually have before we start measuring tree rings for you to make such a statement?

The statistical data is there for anyone to read. You can google it for yourself if you wish. And I should change historically to geologically to be more accurate. It is on the geological time scale that the temperature swings in the past few decades, and even moreso in the past century, are occurring far more rapidly than the natural course of warming and cooling that this planet has endured over the past 5 billion years.

As for the second post you made in response to my response to MrsSkywalker, the only thing I can say is that the Earth can only sustain a certain amount of removal.

The National Academy of Sciences released a study in June of 2002 which stated that the rate of resource removal from the Earth exceeds its natural ability to regenerate. Currently, we remove 1.2 years worth of resources from the Earth for every year of regeneration, and that rate is climbing.

The point of all this is that we must curtail our activities to bring it back in line with what the Earth can sustain us on. If we can curtail our polluting, our environmental destruction, etc etc etc, to a point where the Earth can replenish and regenerate itself on an even keel basis, then we'll be in harmony with the environment. That is what I and many other people espouse.

That is why we need to watch how we affect our environment. I don't believe that human influence is bad. I believe that *too* much influence is bad. We can't remove from the earth indiscriminately and expect everything to come back.

Farmers have to turn over their soil every other year or so, to make sure that the soil is not depleted. That's an instance of letting the earth regenerate. It's something that needs to be implemented on a planetary scale.

 

[Silent_One]

As Natoma says, change is always occuring in the climate all the way around the world. We'll all be in trouble if much of the Antarctic Ice Cap melts, though - it consists of 7 million cubic miles of ice which comprises about 90 percent of all ice existing in the world, and 68 percent of the world's fresh water!

Well, looking a little north of the Antarctic.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1058353.stm
Arctic sea ice 'thins by almost half'

Two UK scientists say they have found evidence to show that sea ice is thinning across the Arctic........
They say their work shows that the ice in the Fram Strait, between Svalbard and Greenland, thinned by nearly half in two decades.......
Dr Wadhams told BBC News Online: "Between summer 1976 and summer 1996 there was a 43% thinning of sea ice over a large area of the Arctic Ocean between Fram Strait and the North Pole.

And then another article!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/523065.stm
Arctic sea ice gets thinner

There has been a "striking" decline in the thickness of Arctic sea ice according to scientists who have studied data gathered by US Navy submarines.

And then even another article!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/552327.stm
Humanity blamed for ice loss

A new study says there is now very little doubt that human-induced warming is behind the rapid thinning of Arctic sea ice seen in recent years.

Finally the latest article!!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1311007.stm
Arctic's big melt challenged
New data suggest the North Pole got a little thicker in the 90s

......The evidence for major thinning is supported by submarine data. Upward-looking sonar readings, studied by both US and British scientists, have produced broadly similar results: about a 40% reduction in draught between the 1960s and 1990s - by draught, researchers mean the difference between the surface of the ocean and the bottom of the ice pack.

But the submarine data are not exactly comprehensive: the cruises were not continuous and the data sets only cover certain areas in the Arctic. And this is partly what got Dr Holloway into thinking the ice may simply have been "mislaid".......... He wondered if multi-decadal wind patterns known to operate in the Arctic could have shifted the ice into areas not surveyed by the submarines, giving the illusion that the ice was losing volume over a period of time. And when he matched the timing of the submarine visits with what he knew about wind cycles, his suspicions were confirmed.

Finally, it's worth mentioning that variability in sea ice thickness has no implications for sea levels. Since ice sea displaces its own weight in sea water, thickening or thinning of sea ice has a zero effect on sea level.

 

[covermye]

Of course we can't have a global warming argument without one of these contributions:

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/agriculture/factsheets/fs_beef.html

A teaser:

Livestock produce methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Both are very potent greenhouse gasses, methane having a global warming potential 21 times that of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide 310 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide

 

[RussSchultz]

nitrous oxide 310 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide

Damn, I better stop huffing.

 

[Natoma]

Silent_One: Thanks for the articles. They were a good read.

However, you are mistaken when it comes to sea levels and ice. Most of the ice in antarctica is on the actual continent. Antarctica is a continent of solid land, covered with mile thick ice, while the arctic circle is a 'continent' of ice. Antarctica's ice sheets melting into the ocean would most certainly affect the sea levels around the globe catastrophically. Even greenland's ice melting would cause issues, because, as you stated correctly, ice does displace it's weight in water.

But if the ice isn't in the water to begin with, you've got problems.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The point is that we should try and limit how much *we* change the environment.

Because *WE* are bad, and some concept of "nature" is "OK", no matter how much or how fast / slow nature changes things?

The changes that have been recorded in the past 10-20 years are most certainly occurring on a human scale, thus it is safe to conclude that these changes are not natural.

Sorry, but your repeating it "most certainly" doesn't make it true. We have no accuate statistical record any further in history than a few generations. There is no way you can make any "safe conclusion" that any observed changes are natural or not. We simply don't have any data (other than "best guess averages") to make such a judgement.

You took my quote out of context Joe.

No, I didn't take it out of context. I agreed that it shold be changed. I don't agree with WHY it should be changed. You took MY quote out of context, despite the fact that you quoted the whole thing. Imagine that.

The intent of my *entire* thought was not to state that the term "Global Warming" is in any way alarmist or administered by junk science.

No, that's the intent of MY thought.

To the contrary, it is a completely accurate assessment of the true nature of the climatological changes caused by man.

No, it is not a completely accurate assesment. It is one theory. I would say that MOST believe that there is indeed "Global Warming" occurring. Whether it's caused by man or not to any extent is the debate.

The statistical data is there for anyone to read. You can google it for yourself if you wish.

I tried briefly, and couldn't find any. You talk contradictorally about "geolocical" timescales, and "human" timescales, etc. All of the theories about GEOLOGICAL climate changes are being based on extremely recent human time scale data.

For example, show me some daily, weekly, or monthly weather statistics for say, North Dakota in 1805, or 1500 B.C.

And I should change historically to geologically to be more accurate. It is on the geological time scale that the temperature swings in the past few decades, and even moreso in the past century, are occurring far more rapidly than the natural course of warming and cooling that this planet has endured over the past 5 billion years.

Really.

So you are telling me, that during such a "geological time scale" (tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years?) for example, where the earth may have for example, warmed say 20 degrees on average, there was no period of a decade or a hundred years where the average temperature was constant or fell by a degree or two, or even more?

Do you understand the fallacy of your analysis?

If we can curtail our polluting, our environmental destruction, etc etc etc, to a point where the Earth can replenish and regenerate itself on an even keel basis, then we'll be in harmony with the environment. That is what I and many other people espouse.

Everyone esposes that.

Where there is disagreement is what defines "harmony." There are different levels of equilibrium, both on micro and macro levels.

That is why we need to watch how we affect our environment.

Yes, we do need to watch and study how we affect our environment. No arguyments there.

I don't believe that human influence is bad. I believe that *too* much influence is bad. We can't remove from the earth indiscriminately and expect everything to come back.

Agreed. Says nothing about global warming, which this topic is about.

Farmers have to turn over their soil every other year or so, to make sure that the soil is not depleted. That's an instance of letting the earth regenerate. It's something that needs to be implemented on a planetary scale.

Wrong.

Farmers have to turn their soil every other year or so to make sure the soil is not depleted for the particular crop they want to grow. If they don't turn the soil, they may not be able to grow their crop of choice. But given time, SOMETHING will grow back there.

Is what the farmer wanted to grow "right" or what nature allows to grow there without human intervention of (grow and harvast cycles) right?

Is it wrong to "artificially" replenish soil with nutrients?

 

[Silent_One]

However, you are mistaken when it comes to sea levels and ice....

No...Im not wrong. Read what I wrote. Sea ice is ....in the sea! Land ice is different.

 

[Natoma]

However, you are mistaken when it comes to sea levels and ice....

No...Im not wrong. Read what I wrote. Sea ice is ....in the sea! Land ice is different.

Doh! misread your statement. okily I retract.

 

[Silent_One]

Now here's somethng interesting....

Nenana Ice Classic
The `Nenana Ice Classic' is a betting lottery to predict the correct time and date of ice breakup and has been an annual event since 1917. This year, there are 19 winners to share the $301,000 jackpot.

The median date of breakup is 5th May. The earliest breakups were on 20th April in 1941 and 1998, both of which were strong El Niño years. 2003 is also an El Niño year, but has clearly not had the same impact as on the previous occasions.

Where to get tickets http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/

 

[RussSchultz]

But all those fresh water icebergs have a different density than sea water!

 

[Gubbi]

Which is why they float.

The breakup is from an iceshelf that is already boyant, so these don't add to sealevel. However when the iceshelf breaks up, pressure is decreased and you get an increase flow of ice form the interior of Anarctica.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[Natoma]

Joe, we can't possibly hope to have a coherant discussion when you quote+paste in the manner you do. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about by quoting your prior post, quite obviously out of the original context.

---------------------------------------

some concept of "nature" is "OK"

I agree. Nature is always good.

We simply don't have any data

I agree completely. People with your stance generally don't know what they're talking about.

Really.

Yes really.

I would say that MOST believe that there is indeed "Global Warming" occurring.

I'm glad we agree that global warming is occurring because of Man's negative influence.
---------------------------------------

You generally do so on a far grander scale than I can possibly hope to do, but the fact still remains that you take the points of someone's post and chop it up to the point where the original context is lost. Sometimes to the point where you'll make it sound like someone is agreeing with you when in fact they completely disagree. I've seen it quite a few times, and not with just my posts.

Context is all we've got when discussing things on these boards. The internet is a difficult place to have a discourse sometimes because the natural inflections in one's voice, or one's body language are not conveyed to increase the understanding of what is being said. If you chop up the context, it can turn the meaning of a sentence into something completely different. It turns a meaningful discussion into an argument over semantics and what was said, why this was said, what the meaning of this was, etc etc etc.

All it does is detract from the discussion. But then again, I'm detracting from the discussion by making this post, so I'll refrain from this and keep it on track in the future as best I can.

 

[Silent_One]

Related to Sea levels......
Pacific atolls can't find out whether they will sink
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/020825041235.1kc48u02.html

Tuvalu has become Greenpeace's poster-victim for the dangers of global warming and one of its main weapons for criticising Australia's conservative government, which refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions.......Tuvalu's 10,500 Polynesians live on just 26 square kilometres (10 square miles) over nine islands, none more than five metres (16 feet) above sea-level -- and if the water rises they are doomed.....
Since 1977 the University of Hawaii Sea Level Centre has had a tide gauge on Funafuti but it is infamous for producing erratic data, suggesting it is sinking or getting knocked about by the wind.

The 14-nation Australian-funded South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project installed a more accurate gauge there in 1993, which is operated by Australia's National Tidal Facility (NTF).

In March NTF caused controversy by declaring: "The historical record shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in sea level trends."

Coastline degradation and sinking islets in Funafuti, it suggested, were the result of entirely local conditions.........

But at the Pacific Forum summit John Hunter of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre in Tasmania, Australia, criticised the NTF's operation.

"I do believe that the way in which the NTF have released figures has been unhelpful to climate scientists but very helpful to greenhouse sceptics," he told AFP.

Applying various statistical techniques, Hunter has come up with his own forecasts which are also inconclusive.

However Hunter concedes that the data is of "little value" at the moment because NTF hasn't been operating long enough and the effects of the El Nino weather phenomenon are hard to gauge.

Hunter said a useful estimate of sea level rise may be possible only in 40 years time.

"As with much climate data, we do not have as much as we would like and the uncertainty is undesirably high," he said. "However, we have to use what we have got."

So, not enough information, data is of "little value", not operational long enough, and it will take 40 years time.....

or

 

[pascal]

IMHO we cant have a definitive or conclusive evaluation of the effects of human intervention then we should control/minimize this level of intervention just as a precaution.

OT and advertisement Looks like you people have a lot energy and CPU cycles available. What about join the Beyond3D Folding Team ? http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5668&start=0

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, we can't possibly hope to have a coherant discussion when you quote+paste in the manner you do.

Oddly, no one else has had this complaint. Your problem is that you appear to assume the general context is lost because

1) I don't repeat every last sentence of yours that relates in some way to my response. and/or
2) I don't agree with you.

In other words, just because I don't agree with you, or don't see how certain aspects of your position fit in with your context, doesn't mean I don't understand the entire context itself.

For a change, assume that I do understand the entire context of whatever quote I pull from your posts. That's what I do when people pull quotes from my posts. And if you disagree with the statements I make around that, do what everone else does: say why you disagree, or why you think I misunderstood your context, and explain more precisely.

I do it all the time to folks who don't seem to get MY points. If their response indicates to me that they didn't "get my point" I just tell them they misunderstood (or that I wasn't clear enough...same thing), and I explain more fully.

Otherwise, we just end up cutting and pasting entire posts, which is quite pointless, tedious, and wasting bandwidth.

You generally do so on a far grander scale than I can possibly hope to do, but the fact still remains that you take the points of someone's post and chop it up to the point where the original context is lost.

Again, no one else has offered this complaint to me. You are making the erroneous assumption that I have "lost" the original context. Rather than assuming it is one of the following:

1) understand the context, but challenge you to explain how some statements are consistent with that context.

or

2) Actually don't understand the context, and you need to clarify.

In short, REST ASSURED, I do not purposely take any quotes out of context. If you BELIEVE that has happened, then you need to explain your position better.

Sometimes to the point where you'll make it sound like someone is agreeing with you when in fact they completely disagree. I've seen it quite a few times, and not with just my posts.

And sometimes you make contradictions or overgeneralizations to the point where the context is about as clear as mud. And not answering questions about specific points does little to clarify your stance.

Context is all we've got when discussing things on these boards.

Agreed. Which is why it is important to address either

1) any apparent contraditions, or
2) any points raised that highlight the consequence of an overgeneralized statement.

All it does is detract from the discussion. But then again, I'm detracting from the discussion by making this post, so I'll refrain from this and keep it on track in the future as best I can.

I agree this is not an ideal medium to debate / discuss. However, as long as you continue to believe that you are purposely being quoted out of context, rather than its just your position being challenged due to either contradictory statements you have made, or over-generalized statements you have made, then perhaps you shouldn't communicate using this forum.

It is precisely becuase this medium is not ideal, that you must be willing to explain yourself better when challenged.

 

[Nappe1]

anyone lived at 1950's London?

my commiserations to those who had... I have seen documentary about the 50-60's smog at london and can't really say that would be "periodically changes." so, obiously there has been some use of emission regulations... when I last visited London, I easily could see more than 10 meters away...

I wonder where you would be now, if everyone would have assumed that being "periodically changes" and continued pollution just like before...

 

[Natoma]

I'll just put it to you this way joe. You don't know how many PMs I've received from various members of the b3d community who have stated in no uncertain terms that it is a useless and pointless effort to debate with you, because of the manner in which you post.

I just happen to be the only one who feels like voicing it. Whether you choose to accept that or not is your decision. I disagree a lot with MrsSkywalker, and I disagree alot with Vince, among others on this board. Ever wonder why I've never made those assessments about their posting styles?

Think about it.

Back on topic:

Pascal: I'm on the team. Currently have 180/600 done so far.

Silent_One: I think what people are trying to do today is minimize the damage until more is known about the environmental effects. We do from scientific study that certain human influences can have a negative effect on the environment. Right now we don't know the extent because really, environmental study is a new science. But I think it's safe to say that until we do find out how good/bad things are by our intervention, we should try to limit our influences on the environment.

It's better safe than sorry imo.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

IMHO we cant have a definitive or conclusive evaluation of the effects of human intervention then we should control/minimize this level of intervention just as a precaution.

I don't think anyone really disagrees with that.

The question is "how much control" and "minimize to what extent?" We can take it to rediculous extremes:

We should all be walking to work on non-paved routes....taking care to "step around" any living thing so as not to disrupt "nature".

or

There should be no emission laws or regulations. Just do whatever is cheapest.

The truth is, conservatives, just like the greens, see a happy medium between those two somewhere. There are things that some believe are worthy precautions, and some believe are just a waste of money, that's all.