Global warming... it's happening!

Off-topic Chatter
81

B42, I have absolutely no ill will toward you or any of my other BLF friends who see this differently than me. I don’t take anything any of you guys say personally, and I hope you don’t either. There have been many conversations here that fall far afield of the rules. I’m a little ashamed to say I have participated in more than my share. The thing is, I never hold a grudge or go away angry. I hope you can do likewise.

My FB comment was not directed at you, pre se, but rather I was trying to make the point that none of us are really that important or relevant. I was not making assumptions about you personally.

I have a BA in a soft science that relies heavily on statistics and a JD that helps me focus very narrowly and logically on evidence, so I have to think I’m as well equipped as anybody to reason my way through a topic. Should I read more science? Maybe. But who has the time. Conversely, I think you should read more news stories about scientist who fabricate data, like this or this. If nothing else, we should all be more skeptical about we read/hear because everyone has an agenda- even scientists. I do know that when you drive down the GSPW to Cape May, there are signs that say something to the affect of, “14,000 years ago the land on either side of the roadway was covered in sea water and the surrounding high ground consisted of barrier islands”.

Now, I don’t need a real scientist or a historian to tell me that that was, one, before industrialized man, two, that sea levels were 20’ higher, and three, that it must have been much warmer to cause enough ice to melt to raise the water that high.

Ironically, while I was in here enjoying our conversation last night, my family was watching Shark Week on Discovery and I overheard something about megalodon fossils being found in the California mountains which seems to suggest that the water was higher then too.

Now, of course, there are geologic forces which cause or contribute to the current elevations of particular areas, but, this quote form the megalodon wikipedias page seems to suggest, again, that the earth’s climate fluctuates wildly in either direction form where is today without any input whatsoever from industrialized man.

Oceanic cooling and sea level drops

“The Earth has been in a long term cooling trend since the Miocene Climactic Optimum, 15-17 Ma ago. This trend may have been accelerated by changes in global ocean circulation caused by the closure of the Central American Seaway and/or other factors (see Pliocene climate), setting the stage for glaciation in the northern hemisphere. Consequently, during the late Pliocene and Pleistocene, there were ice ages, which cooled the oceans significantly. Expansion of glaciation during the Pliocene tied up huge volumes of water in continental ice sheets, resulting in significant sea level drops. The major reason cited is the decline in ocean temperatures at global scale during the Pliocene. This cooling trend adversely impacted C. megalodon, as it preferred warmer waters, and as a result it may have declined in abundance until its ultimate extinction during the Pleistocene. Fossil evidence confirms the absence of C. megalodon in regions around the world where water temperatures had significantly declined during the Pliocene. Furthermore, these oceanographic changes may have restricted many of the suitable warm water nursery sites for megalodon, hindering reproduction. Nursery areas are pivotal for the survival of viviparian species.”

It may very well be true that collectively, we are committing suicide of a species. We may have overpopulated the planet. We may use too may resources. It may be too late. Or maybe not. There are new discoveries every day and we are an adaptive bunch. Beside, we can always find another planet.

Why We’ll Never Run Out of Energy: Q&A with Science Writer Charles Mann

And try to have a more hopeful outlook, B42. Everything will find balance in the end. I recently read a study that asserted that if current demographic trends continue, world population will top out at 9 billion and be below our current level by the end of this century and continue to decline. A decreasing population will solve lots of these problems, as will all of the as yet unimagined discoveries that are sure to happen- but it won’t alter the cooling of warming cycle of mother earth.

Oh, and for clarity, I don’t think that global warm is a hoax, just man made global warming.

82

For some thousand years ago I had 1.5 km of ice over my house.
Fortunately it melted again, but came back some more thousand years
later.
It happened 3 or 4 times in a row!
Could some of the clever people here please explain where the warmth
and the cold came from then?
There where no people here then, except me and I had only a meager
fire going in the garden which did not produce much CO2, if any at all,
as I used firewood not coal or oil.

83

Yes this is another one of the set of basic “denier arguments” that is off track. Nobody is arguing cycles in warmth and cold happen and many ice ages have happened. Because something has happened (or happened many times) does not prove we can not influence the speed of it happening. Thats false logic. If you look at the speed at which the cycles occur through time as evidenced in records in the rock and even the tiny snippit of human history, the speed seems to be accelerating. We are the most likely culprits and there is evidence our actions and chemical releases could be and are very likely whats changing it. That is all. Yup it happened before. Yup it will happen again. But, it will completely change the world and cause a lot of human disaster the way we are populating the planet now. And there is question that we may be able to disbalance the cycle so much so as to throw it into a new higher temperature cycle set, possibly even so much as to make it uninhabitable for us. Not for bacteria, no. The earth would be fine yes. If this “worst case” scenario happens, more simple organisms and bacteria will eventually re-set things eventually probably, we just wont be around to see it.

84

It would uninhabitable for us regardless of the cause.

85

So why is our planet so hot ?

Are we humans to blame here , or not ?

'Cause the warmer the air

the less clothes women wear

That's a good thing , more often than not

One day we might figure it out

We'll continue to try I've no doubt

Let's all keep our heads cool

For we know as a rule

Constant change is what life's all about

86

Finally, some real wisdom.

87

No, the false logic is in you thinking that after numerous, naturally occurring, wild climate changes, that the one we we are in right now is caused by man. :nerd_face:

88

That a cycle happens does not disprove you can or can’t influence it, that is false logic. Come on, you’ve got to be able to see that. :slight_smile:

89

cone: no not upset or angry just hoping to clear away some of the non arguments that are constantly masqueraded as real serious “arguments” against global warming. I dont really think this breaks the rules, as its not really political, I am trying to stay away from that, and I at least am trying to argue the science only of the situation. What we do about it is the political part. Oil companies and certain camps have confused people about what is the politics of it and what is the science and politicians are not qualified to even really speak on the science. The veracity of the data and where it points should not be a political thing, only what we do after :slight_smile:

What you are saying now does make a lot more sense now, yes. I’m not going to put my degrees out there but yes I have a few and one directly in science. Its true as I wrote above the cycles are always moving, but there is solid evidence the pace is accelerating. Yes as I rationalized above in a different post too, its possible and probable that some of the scientists had an agenda and maybe some of their reports are not quite as neutral to say the least, however the ones most suspect are the very ones you believe, so its kind of ironic this argument is used. I dont at all deny that. I’d say there are some influenced on both camps, but, the influence is much stronger on the side making tons of money (as always), and numbers indicate many are probably not influenced on the other side: not hundreds, thousands of people. They arent all influenced. The very few saying it isnt happening? Very probably, connections are already proven for most of them. If you accept that some are influenced and go about it logically, it actually nullifies the “denier” group and not the other camp! Ironic isnt it?

“And try to have a more hopeful outlook, B42. Everything will find balance in the end. I recently read a study that asserted that if current demographic trends continue, world population will top out at 9 billion and be below our current level by the end of this century and continue to decline. A decreasing population will solve lots of these problems, as will all of the as yet unimagined discoveries that are sure to happen- but it won’t alter the cooling of warming cycle of mother earth.”

I do have hope, like I said there are a few scientists who think if we make some big shifts in agriculture and manufacturing we could steer this relatively easily, as compared to what the more doomsday-ish scenario people think. I just dont like it when I see a bunch of people “denying” basic facts that overwhelmingly say something, and then using somewhat political non arguments to say it isnt happening. Running out of energy: thats a whole separate topic really…not really what global warming is about, unless you are talking switching to “cleaner” fuels. What you say here makes alot more sense though: you dont believe we can reverse the affect if we did it or not (which is again a different argument than did we accelerate it in the first place). However, denying that the cycle seems to be accelerated in the face of evidence is really politics or not understanding and just going with personal beliefs.

90

On another note, here in my small town of Clovis NM we have had an unusually cool and wet summer. It’s been awesome compared to the heat and drought we had last year.

91

That a reoccurring cycle happens does prove that the cycle happens and will happen again, that is simply logical. Come on, you’ve got to be able to see that. :slight_smile:

I fall back to the arrogance of man, B42. We are not that powerful or influential in terms of what we can ultimately do to the earth. Yank every human off this rock and in the smallest amount of time, all evidence of us being here will be gone and the earth will still be at X point in her heating and cooling cycle. We didn’t cause, nor can we control, stop, reverse, or alter the cycle. Certainly not in any meaningful way.

92

It’s always worth looking stuff up.

Can we tell natural variation from change caused by burning fossil carbon?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm

Can we tell natural variation from changes faster than nature has ever changed?
USGS: http://www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/pt_nat_climate.asp

Scientific skeptics will make you think — and think about who you trust.

How to tell honest presentation from cherrypicking:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes
Page down to where he shows you how, “Depending on your preconceptions, by picking your start and end times carefully, you can now ‘prove’ that:
Temperature is falling!
Temperature is static!
Temperature is rising!
Temperature is rising really fast!”

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
— Richard P. Feynman.

“I equals E over R”
— Ohm

I really, really wish things were the way I wish they were.
Science and statistics make me keep thinking, instead of just wishing.

93

Hank, I like the part in the USGS link that says they use “climate modeling”, in part, to prove global warming. I don’t know a whole lot about mathematical modeling, but I know the models they use at the Weather Channel for predicting hurricanes and tomorrow’s weather are often wrong.

Which makes a simpleton like myself doubt the accuracy and veracity of mathematical models. Kind of makes me wonder if I should put all my climate eggs in that basket.

94

Touche! :slight_smile:

95

If we have the power to cause our own extinction in one fashion then it does not follow that we have the power to prevent it in some other fashion. We have a choice in this matter. Others, not so much.

Rich people abusing power and wealth does not substantiate a good reason for everyone else doing so or excuse any of us from doing what is right. They may make the most noise but there are a lot more of us.

96

Lol, this craziness happens on every forum you know? And always the same sides with logic vs no logic, I wonder if it says something about one side vs the other?

cone, as a JD you do know you are making logical fallacies and not real arguments right? “Hank, I like the part in the USGS link that says they use “climate modeling”, in part, to prove global warming. I don’t know a whole lot about mathematical modeling, but I know the models they use at the Weather Channel for predicting hurricanes and tomorrow’s weather are often wrong.” This is the logical fallacy of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (because current weather models are often wrong, climate modeling is wrong)

Also, from the same family comes this false logic: the cock crows, then the sun comes up, therefore the cock is responsible for raising the sun every morning.

97

What does this have to do with the accuracy of climate/weather models? If you can’t accurately predict what is going to happen in the next 24 hours, why should any of us trust predictions for events over the horizon? The answer is, of course, that we shouldn’t.

No Rufus, my friend, I’m sorry, you have no choice in any of it.

Yet none of you guys have turned off the computer to help save the planet. :stuck_out_tongue:

98

cone, you make good examples of logical fallacies throughout your posts. Lets identify!

You start your arguments and repeat the known fallacy of a logical Non Sequitur (it does not follow): “If man could could control the climate, it would 72 degrees F with low humidity and the skies would always look like they did in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” and statements of “Because cycles happen, we cant affect them” One does not follow the other, obvious logical fallacy.

Following that, Slippery Slope statements are made to insinuate support for another Non Sequitur: “some scientists that say global warming is happening are suspected to be unscrupulous. So global warming isnt happening.” It is a slippery slope argument to say because some are unscrupulous, they all are, and a non sequitur to use this as proof of something else.

Ad hominem argument is then used (Against the person.) Instead of evaluating any faults in statements, an attack on the person is made: “We are just not that important. Which is something you should keep in mind before you post something on FB. Big smile”

Appeal to Ignorance is then used to support your side: (Argument on something is supposedly true because its opposite has not been proven true. Similarly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) “Global warming isnt happening: I can’t see it happening” this is also a logical fallacy of Appeal to Wrong Authority: your specialty is not climate change, so your opinion does not counter those who have this opinion.

You then use another Ad Hominem attack, followed by a group of Red Herrings, and finishing off with a Non Sequitur: “As for the rest of it, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. Assuming for moment that the earth is getting hotter, as evidence clearly suggests it does do from time to time, do you, B42, think man could stop it from happening? If we could magically get every human being to live a preindustrial agrarian lifestyle, would the earth stay at the perfect temp? What about the next ice age? Do you believe that mankind will ever have the power to prevent it? Sheer folly, my friend, sheer folly.”

You follow with a Circular Reasoning, and a Personified Abstraction (the earth is supposedly personified here, but since it isnt a person, writer can make it say/do whatever he feels like): “Humans can’t prevent the earth’s cycles, nor can they cause them. The earth will do as she wishes. If we become a burden, she will deal with us accordingly. But you singularly, or all of us collectively, can’t change, delay, or reverse whatever cycle we happen to be in at the moment.

You add a Post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy to “support” another insinuated Ad Hominem attack and use Red Herring to talk about “Human Farming”.
“But, hey, if believing scientists who have been caught fabricating data makes you feel otherwise…”

And on with Circular Reasoning, Ad Hominem attack, followed by another Non Sequitur: “Actually, the fact that I can’t influence means I can’t influence it. As for the rest of it, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. Assuming for moment that the earth is getting hotter, as evidence clearly suggests it does do from time to time, do you, B42, think man could stop it from happening?”

I haven’t been able to detect a proper argument from you. Zero points for cone.

As a JD, I hope a guide to logical fallacy is your intent, because you make a spectacular case of use of logical fallacy to support a position which you have yet to show any merit to.

99

What a sour puss. You would have us bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we have no responsibility to act as grown ups and face the problems we are creating. We are breeding like rabbits and eating the cupboard bare while pouring our refuse over the earth expecting some jolly green giant to pick up after us. Abandoning technology and going back to the stone age won’t fix anything but ignoring critical issues and won’t save us either. No one person can effect the changes needed but every person who turns a blind eye comes down on the wrong side of the balance. Ever play tug of war? Global warming is just one symptom of the problems of ignorance, complacency, and laziness. Man up.

Rant over.

100

Thanks. :stuck_out_tongue:

You’re forgetting style points.