|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Typhoons & Climate Change - Are humans to blame?
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
The Phillipine's delegate to the UN says that the typhoon was the result of climate change.
Hard to disagree with him.
But who is to blame? Many (including yours truly) argue that climate change happens. And has always happened. Its written into the 'constitution' of the universe.
Others maintain it is the result of human activity loosing God knows what into the atmosphere.
If the latter then we can call a halt to it. If the former then trying to reverse its progress is akin to trying to do what King Canute tried ( and failed) to do.
So two questions. Are we to blame? Or how do we cope with the inevitable?
We can ( I hope ) all agree that God has nowt to do with it in the sense of direct causation..
Thoughts please.
[ 13. November 2013, 18:13: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I don't think it matters much. if you are in a canoe that is racing towards a waterfall, does it matter how much is due to your rowing and how much due to the current of the river.. wouldn't you be paddling backwards as fast as you can?
yes, some climate change has always happened. and the earth, as a whole, survived just fine. but individual species and even entire ecosystems did not. if you are taking the broad view that in the long run, it doesn't matter to the earth, you'd be right. but we are living here now, and while we are a very adaptable species, there are conditions which are more comfortable for us, and some which are less so.. and the process of change itself is not an easy one.
so do we adapt or try to stop? yes. we do both. why should it be one or the other. we should try to stop our own contribution, and we should adapt ourselves to the inevitability that, no matter what we do, there will be SOME change that we will just have to live with. we may lobe able to slow the increase, or keep it lower than it would otherwise be.. but I doubt we'd be able to stop it entirely.
I'm always puzzled by the argument that if we didn't cause it, then we don't need to do anything about it.
In the end, the cause is not the issue, really.. it's the response that matters.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Many (including yours truly) argue that climate change happens. And has always happened. Its written into the 'constitution' of the universe.
Things go in cycles but there's reason to think the current upswing is not in keeping with the prehistoric pattern of ups and downs. Consider this graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration. You can clearly see a cyclical pattern over the last 400k years, and you can clearly see we've broken out of it in a big way.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it's the speed of change that's alarming. I can't remember the exact figures, but I think in a 100 years we will see a rise in temperature much faster than previous rises. Also we have many stress factors today, such as pollution and urbanization. The combination could be appalling, especially if we are heading to a rise of 5 degrees, which is possible.
I don't know if you can connect individual weather events to climate change, but certainly, by all accounts, the oceans are now absorbing colossal amounts of heat, and when that is released, intense storms are more likely.
It seems incontrovertible that the precautionary principle should dictate our actions. Anything else is lunacy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's the speed of change that's alarming. I can't remember the exact figures, but I think in a 100 years we will see a rise in temperature much faster than previous rises. Also we have many stress factors today, such as pollution and urbanization. The combination could be appalling, especially if we are heading to a rise of 5 degrees, which is possible.
I don't know if you can connect individual weather events to climate change, but certainly, by all accounts, the oceans are now absorbing colossal amounts of heat, and when that is released, intense storms are more likely.
It seems incontrovertible that the precautionary principle should dictate our actions. Anything else is lunacy.
Unfortunately, the lunatics own the asylum....
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Speech by Filipino diplomat at the UN climate change conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7SSXLIZkM3E
And here is a similar speech delivered by the same Filipino diplomat about a year ago at the climate change conference in Doha. Hopefully someone will listen this time around.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I agree with Anyuta. Regardless of the cause of global warming, the list of what we can do about the problem remains the same.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I agree with Anyuta. Regardless of the cause of global warming, the list of what we can do about the problem remains the same.
Not really. If CO2 isn't the major driver of climate change then cutting emissions isn't going to help. Given that it is, major cuts in emissions are vital.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
People may or may not be aware that we've had our own little spat here in Australia about whether climate change is causing bushfires in October.
It is and it isn't. Some people get themselves terribly worked up proving that any particular bushfire isn't, on its own, 'caused by climate change'. But in exactly the same way that increased temperature provides more energy for typhoons, increased temperature increases the chance of a bushfire. Otherwise they would occur in winter just as often as in summer.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The preponderance of evidence shows we're the problem. I do wonder if we can be the solution.
Not since the before-internet days do I recall hearing names, locations and contact info being broadcast on radio. Except this time it is also broadcast on the internet. The BBC for instance is doing extra hours of that old fashioned shortwave radio on 3 extra frequencies to the area.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I don't think it matters much. if you are in a canoe that is racing towards a waterfall, does it matter how much is due to your rowing and how much due to the current of the river.. wouldn't you be paddling backwards as fast as you can?
I see your point but it's not a very useful parallel. If the flow of the river is much stronger than any force you can apply in response, or it's really a tide which will soon turn, then any action would be near futile. OTOH if you're paddling towards a hazard in gentle currents, changing your course will avert danger.
quote:
yes, some climate change has always happened. and the earth, as a whole, survived just fine. but individual species and even entire ecosystems did not. if you are taking the broad view that in the long run, it doesn't matter to the earth, you'd be right. but we are living here now, and while we are a very adaptable species, there are conditions which are more comfortable for us, and some which are less so.. and the process of change itself is not an easy one.
so do we adapt or try to stop? yes. we do both. why should it be one or the other. we should try to stop our own contribution, and we should adapt ourselves to the inevitability that, no matter what we do, there will be SOME change that we will just have to live with. we may lobe able to slow the increase, or keep it lower than it would otherwise be.. but I doubt we'd be able to stop it entirely.
I'm always puzzled by the argument that if we didn't cause it, then we don't need to do anything about it.
In the end, the cause is not the issue, really.. it's the response that matters.
The response does largely depend on the cause of the problem:
1) if it's a cycle it will soon turn
2) if it's natural and but huge, can we do anything?
*** PS Can we get the thread title changed to reflect the subject please? I suggest "Typhoons & Climate Change - Are humans to blame?"
[ 13. November 2013, 10:46: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
Typhoons happen. They just do, regardless of climate change. Was this one particular powerful as a result of man-made climate change? It's debatable. That debate needs to be informed by the best available scientific evidence.
But now, I think, is not the time for that debate. Now is the time to help those in need. Whether you wish to name your motivation as a christian ethic or basic humanitarianism, we are behoved to do what we can to help our fellow humans in a time of need. That can be done in a variety of ways, whether it be by volunteering time or sacrificing money.
Let's not squabble over causes when the consequences are staring us in the face.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't see it as either/or. Sure, all aid should be rushed to the Philippines; but at the same time, climate scientists may well be feeding this into their models. Well, they wouldn't be scientists if they didn't.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sorry, trapped by that blasted guillotine.
There is also the argument that if we simply look at consequences, and ignore causes, we guarantee more consequences.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
But now, I think, is not the time for that debate. Now is the time to help those in need.
Well, when IS the time? Once everyone's forgotten and the media cycle has moved on?
I see this kind of similar notion with any kind of bad occurrence that is not a one-off. Whether it's recurring natural disasters, or recurring gun massacres, for some reason when it's front and centre in the news 'is not the time' to actually try and discuss how we might stop it being in the news again and again and again.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's also an absurd false dichotomy, because it's events like this that make the layman wonder about climate change. Granted, you can't match single events with climate change predictions, but if it brings it more into popular consciousness, that's a good thing. There is enough trouble with denialists spreading their ignorance and do-nothing attitudes.
My wife campaigns on climate change, and sometimes she despairs at all the indifference and science-denial, but my view is that many people will not be persuaded by arguments in the first place, but by catastrophes, which may make them turn to the arguments and the science.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
But now, I think, is not the time for that debate. Now is the time to help those in need.
Well, when IS the time? Once everyone's forgotten and the media cycle has moved on?
I see this kind of similar notion with any kind of bad occurrence that is not a one-off. Whether it's recurring natural disasters, or recurring gun massacres, for some reason when it's front and centre in the news 'is not the time' to actually try and discuss how we might stop it being in the news again and again and again.
It's similar to arguing with your spouse about whether to spend your savings on a nice vacation or on fixing that hole in the roof. We can understand why the person arguing in favor of the vacation would prefer to only have these discussions on sunny days, but there's no real reason why this preference should be indulged by the pro-roof spouse.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Normal courtesy applies to the title of this thread. Happy to change it if shamwari concurs. Might be clearer if climate change got a mention in the title, but it's not a big deal.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Barnabas
I concur.
Title I put up was an attention grabber ( hopefully) rather than descriptive of theme.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Did ocean warming cause the most powerful landfall storm ever recorded ? Depends how long we've been recording the power of storms, but if you put this one next to others happening around the globe in recent times, then it is beginning to look a little suspicious .
Is fossil fuel burning to blame for it ? Yes it looks highly likely . Are we going to stop burning fossil fuels in the near future ? No we are not .
Is ocean warming going to accelerate this Century in a triple stage rise, culminating with catastrophic release of methane from the sea-bed ? Some say this will happen . At present they are classed as the same doomsayers who predicted the melting of the Ice-caps .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny
Unfortunately, the lunatics own the asylum.... [/QB]
You say that liek its a bad thing
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Is this a dead horse topic? Seems like I have seen similar topics there.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny
Unfortunately, the lunatics own the asylum....
You say that liek its a bad thing
Obviously in the context of a real asylum, concerned with the care and healing of real lunatics, it would not be a bad thing.
In the case of the metaphor, in which the "lunatics" are those who put personal opinion above scientific evidence, and are in position to make decisions which either worsen, or at least prevent the alleviation of climate change, what isn't bad about it?
I strongly resent those who will not have to face the worst effects of the addition of more energy to the atmosphere/ocean systems because they live in places at the moment relatively immune, and/or will be dead before the very worst becomes generally effective, talking up a view held by a tiny minority and rubbishing the processes suggested by those with a deeper understanding of where things are heading to protect those who will be most harmed. And these are the people with power.
Such solipsist behaviour is not good.
[fixed code]
[ 15. November 2013, 14:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Is this a dead horse topic? Seems like I have seen similar topics there.
No, it isn't. The DH topics are circumscribed and you can find the list by looking at the DH guidelines.
A number of topics recur frequently and climate change is one of them. There have been previous discussions in the Styx about extending the range of DH topics and you could start another if you want to explore this further.
Barnabas62, Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
I have been greatly impressed with Lester Brown, chair of Earth Policy Institute, with his book, World On the Edge 2011. It is the scariest story I have ever read. Covering not just Climate Change but also, water resources, deforestration, desertification and over population.
If you don't know about his work try this link for a short interview with Brown.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I strongly resent those who will not have to face the worst effects of the addition of more energy to the atmosphere/ocean systems because they live in places at the moment relatively immune, and/or will be dead before the very worst becomes generally effective, talking up a view held by a tiny minority and rubbishing the processes suggested by those with a deeper understanding of where things are heading to protect those who will be most harmed. And these are the people with power.
perhaps a personal problem? more energy than what? 'very worst'? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) majorities are inherently 'correct'? maybe they truly appreciate 'science', not profiteering paranoia ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ah, the white man's burden - sucks to be us
and if you think the wrong people have power now just wait until Al Gore (not really the skeptical type) can do as he wants, particularly if you're in a third world area where you don't currently have the blessings of the internal combustion engine (not that mules are bad... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) )
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
and if you think the wrong people have power now just wait until Al Gore (not really the skeptical type) can do as he wants, particularly if you're in a third world area where you don't currently have the blessings of the internal combustion engine (not that mules are bad... )
I live in a "third world country" in which one of the main "blessings of the internal combustion engine" is to be able to move people out of the way of an approaching typhoon, such as Tropical Cyclone Evan which swept over the western islands of Fiji last cyclone season (i.e. ~11 months ago). It was the strongest to hit Fiji for a decade or two, and destroyed most buildings in the Yasawa group of islands, but thanks to good warning systems and evacuation centres, no lives were lost. That Fiji has a much smaller population than the Philipines helps too!
Speaking in my personal capacity as a climate scientist, I can confirm the point made by previous posters that typhoons arise when the ocean is warmer than about 28 deg C, and that the hotter the ocean becomes the more water evaporates from it, and the hence the greater the strength of the resulting typhoon.
[fixed code]
[ 16. November 2013, 06:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
maybe they truly appreciate 'science', not profiteering paranoia
Bullshit. It's the crackpots who are alleging some sort of global conspiracy of climate scientists intent on destroying capitalism that's paranoid. And I've seen little evidence that they've any more interest in science than the moon landing hoaxers or the Kennedy conspiracy nuts.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
moron
So this illustrates profiteering paranoia? Maybe you could explain how - say by reference to the Summary Report, or if you like the bona fides of the many many scientists from all over the world who have co-operated in its production.
Historically, there have been some justifiable criticisms of these reports and the IPCC has always responded, shown willingness to re-examine and adjust. If they are just some kind of mad global conspiracy propagators, who is winding them up?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Typhoons & Climate Change - Are Humans to Blame?
Its far too soon to tell - ask again in about 200 years and it may be possible to give a definite answer.
Until then, its possible that human activity over the past 500 or so years is having some effect now, but we can't be sure.
What we can say is that the world's burgeoning population has a direct effect on climate through the clearance of large tracts of rain forest: and replacing that will take at least 150 years even if we start right now, which isn't likely or feasible since the population isn't shrinking, its growing.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Typhoons & Climate Change - Are Humans to Blame?
That seems to be a very strange way to phrase the question.
The climate changes naturally, it's recently (in geological terms) been fluctuating between phases with, and without, widespread glaciation without any humans around to have any impact. Typhoons, and other storm events, happen due to perfectly natural processes involving heating of tropical oceans and interactions with ocean and atmospheric circulation patters and land masses. They happened long before human beings came on the scene - and, indeed, very similar storms happen on other planets (the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, for example) where we cannot possibly be to blame.
The question is: Is the climate as it currently is different from what it would be if human beings hadn't developed the technology to burn fossil fuels and clear forests? And, related to that, is the frequency and intensity distribution of storms different from what it would be without humans? Of course, to answer that with absolute confidence you'd need a replica earth, identical in everyway except for the presence of human beings. The best we can do are some very sophisticated computer models. This allows us to repeat the experiments, using different models. Though there are variations in the outputs of different models, there are some substantial common features. And, those include changes to the frequency and intensity distributions of storm events with the frequency of larger storms increasing due to human activity. It's not possible to say any given storm is due to human activity, but it's possible to say conclusively that observed increases in the frequency of larger storms is due to human activity (though, we probably need to wait a few more years until we get enough data on storm frequency and intensity to say just how big any increase in storminess is).
It's a bit like smoking and lung disease. We know that non-smokers sometimes contract lung diseases, and that some smokers live to old age without any lung disease. But, the evidence is conclusive that smoking significantly increases the chances of contracting lung diseases - evidence from both statistics of incidence rates among smokers vs non-smokers, but also evidence from credible mechanisms by which smoke damages lungs.
In climate science we have credible mechanisms whereby human activity affects the climate - principally changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, with some landscape effects as well. We also have the evidence of changes in the climate. We don't have a real control group to see how our current climate fits into the distribution of natural climates. We have reconstructed historic climates and computer models. But, the evidence that human activity has resulted in a climate that has changed in a manner different from how it would have otherwise changed is compelling.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just reinforcing Alan's point with a quote from the IPCC Summary Report (which you can get from the link I provided in my previous post.)
quote:
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}
{para D.3, P15 of the Summary Report)
For convenience here is a link to the pdf.
The evidence is cumulative and impressive.
[ 17. November 2013, 08:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell
Nothing strange about it - that's the title of the thread in Purgatory - read it for yourself, nothing to do with me.
As for my linking population size to climate change - well, if human activity is having the effect (personally I think the science is probably right) then part of the equation has to be the sheer number of people on the planet. Inconvenient but true.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:But, the evidence that human activity has resulted in a climate that has changed in a manner different from how it would have otherwise changed is compelling.
Dude.
If I understand things correctly you might be a willing victim next year or so when I hope to paddle Loch Ness, and then paddle on to Findhorn or to other points erm.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Eh?
I'm trying to follow your point. Are you suggesting that acceptance of very strong scientific evidence that human activity has affected the global climate is in anyway comparable to belief in the existance of Nessie?
I'm not getting the Findhorn reference at all.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm puzzled, too.
What's wrong with the cumulative evidence presented by the latest IPCC Report?
I put it that way to avoid the detour down the road that the IPCC cannot be trusted. If you don't trust people, that justifies looking more critically at any evidence they provide. Fine, do that.
But if you can't do that, or can't be bothered to do that, or don't see the point of it, that's OK. It just means you have nothing seriously critical to add to the discussion.
[ 20. November 2013, 14:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It just means you have nothing seriously critical to add to the discussion.
You realize you're saying that to someone who self-identifies as a moron? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Seriously, though:
Once upon a time there was someone who thought minutely changing a trace element in the atmosphere could affect the climate and they told others.
Others thought the idea plausible and through a long, intricate series of events the idea gained substantial traction: it became a 'cause'. (I think Crichton said it best - go ahead and demonize him but at least admit here was a fairly sharp guy who had both the means and the leisure to do his homework)
And it took on unwarranted momentum, given the innumerable variables in the equation, and many careers and psyches became both financially and emotionally invested in promoting it, and somewhere along the line the point of nearly no return was passed - it might have been when someone first said 'deniers'.
So now it's barely humanly possible (how much crow can anyone digest?) for people like Gore to acknowledge they might *koff* have overstated their case.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Thanks for playing along!
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
And I should have said, again:
I recognize it's possible the warmers are correct but the jury is still sequestered.
Findhorn is a spiritual type place where Mike Scott once went; so did Van Morrison, hence my attraction.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
That's old hat, moron. The science has been progressively refined and the report publishers have responded to properly based criticisms from scientifically literate folks - whether they are sceptics or not is of no importance if their criticisms have been of method or evidence and have been objectively justified.
The summary report's "extremely likely" which I have quoted above is simply short hand for "very high probability, based on the evidence". Which juries are still out and why are they still out?
If it was a two horse race, the bookies would be no longer accepting bets on the IPCC horse being right.
Reaching back to another of your scepticisms, Nate Silver was right, wasn't he? And bookies did stop taking bets on Obama when the probability of Obama winning, according to Silver's model, went over 90%. The odds in favour of the IPCC position are better than those which favoured Obama in 2012. And they are getting stronger as time progresses.
You're whistling in the dark.
[ 21. November 2013, 00:26: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
We can ( I hope ) all agree that God has nowt to do with it in the sense of direct causation.
I'm surprised that this has been taken as a given, and not been challenged so far. Is God omnipotent and omnipresent or not? If He is, then He has a causal hand in everything, surely?
[ 21. November 2013, 00:47: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The idea of secondary causation was developed by medieval philosophers in reply to that, and still holds, I think. For example:
"In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power; we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass."
Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus et plantis.
This, of course, led to methodological naturalism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
maybe they truly appreciate 'science', not profiteering paranoia
Follow the money, that is a sensible approach.
Al Gore - $200 Million $46 Million from Apple stock and $100 Million from selling Current TV.
Koch Bros - $36 Billion Each. Built around greenhouse gas producing industries.
Hmmmm...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
Once upon a time there was someone who thought minutely changing a trace element in the atmosphere could affect the climate
Well, it's been known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for a century or so. It's one of those things that are as close to undeniable fact as you can get in science, something you can demonstrate in a test tube (well, almost ... a tube which you can contain air with variable concentration of CO2).
It wasn't until the 1970s that people began to realise that the assorted feedback mechanisms in the environment (eg: plant growth increasing with CO2 concentration) were not responding to maintain an equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration.
quote:
and they told others.
Translation: Scientists published their findings in peer reviewed journals and presented them at scientific meetings, bringing their observations to the scientific community and by means of normal scientific process convincing their peers that the data supported the hypothesis they were presenting.
quote:
Others thought the idea plausible and through a long, intricate series of events the idea gained substantial traction
Translation: The scientific process at work. Hypotheses stated, tested, modified, pulled to pieces by others intent on publishing (especially when one effect of publishing is to show your ideas are so much better than other ideas by showing how wrong the other guy is), refined, improved, tested again ... Eventually convincing the most skeptical audience there is, the scientific community, that the idea is not only plausible but well nigh certain.
quote:
it became a 'cause'.
WHich is an effect seperate from the science, though certainly dependent upon the science. And, like any cause there are advocates who seriously overstate their case. It's often an embarrasement to the scientists to find their work becomes a cause, but it doesn't in any way invalidate the science.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, moron's view of science is downright peculiar. It reminds me of the creationists' view of evolution science - rather paranoid, I suppose.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell - well put. I was just about to respond in kind but you saved me all that time. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Alan, thank you. I bowed out of this thinking that the argument was beyond me. Can't think what he thinks he's playing at.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
We can ( I hope ) all agree that God has nowt to do with it in the sense of direct causation.
I'm surprised that this has been taken as a given, and not been challenged so far. Is God omnipotent and omnipresent or not? If He is, then He has a causal hand in everything, surely?
That's a bit handwavey and fatalistic as far as an explanation goes.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
