global warming

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:38 pm

I think this debate has run it's course. I'm really tired of repeating myself and hearing you repeat yourself. There was a point where this debate got me to do some additional research and learn some new things. :geek: So thanks for that. :thanks: :anjali:
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 929
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:59 pm

I don't want to repeat myself either (unless there is new good point or new participant who doesn't want to read entire thread).
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:58 pm

Buckwheat wrote:I think this debate has run it's course. I'm really tired of repeating myself and hearing you repeat yourself. There was a point where this debate got me to do some additional research and learn some new things. :geek: So thanks for that. :thanks: :anjali:

Hi, Buckwheat,
Thanks for your contributions here. FWIW, Alex's responses to you were exactly the same as his responses to me in the New Normal thread - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963.

Alex123 wrote:I don't want to repeat myself either (unless there is new good point or new participant who doesn't want to read entire thread).

Hi, Alex,
I would be really happy if you could finish by saying either
(1) why you think your own knowledge, your own research and your own "found it on the internet" factoids outweigh the combined research of thousands of fully trained, hardworking and conscientious climatologists;
or
(2) that you have been wrong all along and now accept that AGW is real and is a significant threat to life on this planet.

I do not want you to repeat yourself yet again :rolleye: but just to answer this one crucial question.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3064
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Dan74 » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:10 pm

The underlying assumption proven wrong here and elsewhere, is that people engage and impartially evaluate the information put to them, when it is contrary to their cherished beliefs.

It's hard for all of us but I hope we all make an effort...

Karaniya Metta Sutta wrote:By not holding to fixed views, The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, Being freed from all sense desires, Is not born again into this world.
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: global warming

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:18 am

How about a new angle here, Alex:

Image

Why do you think this is? What possible explanation do you have for this consensus? How can you explain literally 99% of peer-reviewed climatologists being just incredibly, obviously wrong? Do you think it is reasonable to believe that, while the monolithic majority of scientists in any field support AGW, you and a few people funded by the companies and organizations causing global warming are actually in possession of the true knowledge?
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: global warming

Postby BlackBird » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:39 am

Alex123 wrote:
Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:AGW proponents were screaming how temperatures are going up and will continue to go up. Recent 10 years proved that assertion to be a bit overblown.

One of many reasons why I don't agree with AGW is that during period in Ordovician (4000-5000), CO2 levels were ~4400 vs current 396.80 and yet the temperature was COLD LIKE TODAY. Kim and Buckwheat's site says that it was because solar activity was low. Great. So solar activity is crucial factor.

Why are we so certain that similar situation will not play out today (solar activity, not merely CO2 determine the temperature)?

And >95% of CO2 is produced by nature anyways. Why we don't complain to it and pray that it stops producing so much CO2?


I provided evidence refuting everything you just said.


If I understood correctly, the main argument at skepticalscience is that solar activity was lower during late ordovician.

To me this says that, at the very least greaater solar activity is required for warming.

At worst, the there can be ICE AGE at CO2 levels of 3,000-4,400 ppm. This is much higher than current 396.80ppm. I am not scared.


Having not read this whole thread, could someone please point me in the direction of a post which refutes this kind of argument? To me it seems to have a decent logic to it.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:57 am

BlackBird wrote:Having not read this whole thread, could someone please point me in the direction of a post which refutes this kind of argument? To me it seems to have a decent logic to it.

metta
Jack

Alex will not acknowledge that the problem is not absolute temperature but instead temperature increase relative to time. We are seeing a thousand year's worth of normal temperature increase in 100 years. Because we are unnaturally accelerating warming through human action, the planet, not to mention humanity itself, does not have the thousands of years usually offered to adapt and change in the face of these rising levels of heat.

Imagine a man who weighs 110 pounds, which would be considered for most people underweight.

If he gained sixty pounds through safe and sane exercise and diet over the course of a year or two, then he would be at a healthy weight.


If he gained forty pounds in two weeks by binging on potato chips and cake, then he would be horribly unhealthy - even though his weight was in the end lower than the first case.


Do you understand what I'm trying to say? The problem that all climatologists are dealing with is not just how hot the planet is - the planet has been just fine at much higher temperatures than we have today. The problem is the artificial increase in warming speed that does not allow for natural and sustainable adaptation. The data Alex is posting has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is how human behavior can accelerate and distort natural warming patterns to the detriment of both humans themselves and the planet at large.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:10 am

BlackBird wrote:
Alex123 wrote:...
At worst, the there can be ICE AGE at CO2 levels of 3,000-4,400 ppm. This is much higher than current 396.80ppm. I am not scared.


Having not read this whole thread, could someone please point me in the direction of a post which refutes this kind of argument? To me it seems to have a decent logic to it.

metta
Jack

As I've repeatedly said to Alex, (1) what happened in the very distant past is totally irrelevant to us now since we didn't have to live in those conditions (and couldn't have) and (2) at the time scales of his favourite graphs, our current change is so rapid that it won't even be visible - the width of a vertical line on his millions-of-years charts is a period of maybe one million years, i.e. 10,000 times longer than the AGW change we are talking about.
But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3064
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:16 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:As I've repeatedly said to Alex, (1) what happened in the very distant past is totally irrelevant to us now since we didn't have to live in those conditions (and couldn't have)


And as I've said before: The earth doesn't care about us and our preferences are not its natural guiding principle. Climate is what it is and developed for 4.5 billion years prior to us and after us. Either species adapt to climate or die out.

Kim O'Hara wrote:and (2) at the time scales of his favourite graphs, our current change is so rapid that it won't even be visible - the width of a vertical line on his millions-of-years charts is a period of maybe one million years, i.e. 10,000 times longer than the AGW change we are talking about.
But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.



And for Earth that is 4.5 billion years old (and can theoretically go for another number of billion of years) even 1 million incriments are very small periods of times, nothing to say about mere 1,000 years.

Geological timescales are huge. 1,000 years is insignificant to 4.5 billion years.
Last edited by Alex123 on Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:19 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:\Alex will not acknowledge that the problem is not absolute temperature but instead temperature increase relative to time.


How do we know that similar OR higher increases in temperature didn't occur in the past?

How do we know that there are no mechanisms to slow temperature rise?

Why do we even think there is problem with temperature rise? We are in interglacial, a bounce back from extreme lows is inevitable.

If current temperature was higher than USUAL temperature (which occured over MANY millions of years , 22C for example) then there could be a problem.

If current CO2 levels were higher than USUAL levels such as above 1,000ppm (or even 3,000+), then I'd be concerned.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Dan74 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:21 am

Alex123 wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:As I've repeatedly said to Alex, (1) what happened in the very distant past is totally irrelevant to us now since we didn't have to live in those conditions (and couldn't have)


And as I've said before: The earth doesn't care about us and our preferences are not its natural guiding principle. Climate is what it is. Either species adapt or die out.

Kim O'Hara wrote:and (2) at the time scales of his favourite graphs, our current change is so rapid that it won't even be visible - the width of a vertical line on his millions-of-years charts is a period of maybe one million years, i.e. 10,000 times longer than the AGW change we are talking about.
But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.



And for Earth that is 4.5 billion years old (and can theoretically go for another number of billion of years) even 1 million incriments are very small periods of times, nothing to say about mere 1,000 years.

Geological timescales are huge. 1,000 years is insignificant to 4.5 billion years.


In other words you have not engaged or addressed anything put to you, Alex.

Fortunately scientists don't work this way - they need to anticipate and address criticisms.

Unfortunately democracy sometimes does and so we see very little action on this front.
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:22 am

LonesomeYogurt wrote:How about a new angle here, Alex:


I don't know the quality of those 13,950 articles vs 24 .

I would rather have 1 good argument than 100 bad ones, if you know what I mean. Quantity doesn't mean, by itself, quality.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:24 am

Dan74 wrote:In other words you have not engaged or addressed anything put to you, Alex.


I've addressed it. I am sorry if I don't buy into flawed arguments. Climate doesn't have to follow OUR desires. It is what it is.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby BlackBird » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:35 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

:namaste:
Kim


I've been posting these links myself, and Alex responded in this manner:

Alex123 wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Not according to this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

And interestingly relevant to your other number on the Solar argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm



Yes, I've seen that page on solar cycles. Doesn't it contradict their statement that "During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels."?


On first glance it would appear that he might have a point (I'm playing devil's advocate here). But first glances are not always right, so I would like this point to be addressed.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Postby monkey_brain » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:47 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Alex,
I would be really happy if you could finish by saying either
(1) why you think your own knowledge, your own research and your own "found it on the internet" factoids outweigh the combined research of thousands of fully trained, hardworking and conscientious climatologists;
or
(2) that you have been wrong all along and now accept that AGW is real and is a significant threat to life on this planet.

:namaste:
Kim


Are there really thousands of climatologist working on the issue of AGW? It seems surprising to me that there should be so many working on a single issue in climatology, which is just a small part of earth science. How many thousand are there?

Paul J
monkey_brain
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:53 am

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:57 am

BlackBird wrote:On first glance it would appear that he might have a point (I'm playing devil's advocate here). But first glances are not always right, so I would like this point to be addressed.

Even if he is right (which I doubt but can't be bothered checking), he has not got a point because he is not talking about a planet we could live on, far less build a complex civilisation on - nearly everything was different. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician#Climate_and_sea_level.
To put the timeframe in terms of distance: if the Ordovician ended 450 kilometres away instead of 450 million years ago, each year is one millimetre. If you set out from Wellington for the tip of the North Island (which is about that distance, I think), your own lifetime is less than the length of your shoe and you have gone beyond all recorded human history before you cross the street. The past really is a different country :tongue:

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3064
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:07 am

monkey_brain wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, Alex,
I would be really happy if you could finish by saying either
(1) why you think your own knowledge, your own research and your own "found it on the internet" factoids outweigh the combined research of thousands of fully trained, hardworking and conscientious climatologists;
or
(2) that you have been wrong all along and now accept that AGW is real and is a significant threat to life on this planet.

:namaste:
Kim


Are there really thousands of climatologist working on the issue of AGW? It seems surprising to me that there should be so many working on a single issue in climatology, which is just a small part of earth science. How many thousand are there?

Paul J

Just about every aspect of modern climatology is affected by AGW.
Numbers will depend on your definition of "climatologist". 1200 volunteered to contribute to the latest IPCC report (see http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ar5.html) and they would have been among the most highly qualified ... give each of them a half a dozen junior staff and half a dozen post-grad students and a dozen undergrad students and you're in the right ballpark.
:reading:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3064
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby BlackBird » Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:19 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
BlackBird wrote:On first glance it would appear that he might have a point (I'm playing devil's advocate here). But first glances are not always right, so I would like this point to be addressed.

Even if he is right (which I doubt but can't be bothered checking), he has not got a point because he is not talking about a planet we could live on, far less build a complex civilisation on - nearly everything was different. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician#Climate_and_sea_level.
To put the timeframe in terms of distance: if the Ordovician ended 450 kilometres away instead of 450 million years ago, each year is one millimetre. If you set out from Wellington for the tip of the North Island (which is about that distance, I think), your own lifetime is less than the length of your shoe and you have gone beyond all recorded human history before you cross the street. The past really is a different country :tongue:

:namaste:
Kim


Kim you're setting up a straw man here, nobody is suggesting anything about the feasibility of us being able to live during the Ordovician, that's a red herring. What the Ordovician is being brought in here for is the argument that:

"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)"

I.e. Here is a time on earth where temperatures were similar to what we have now, but the Carbon ppm was much much higher, suggesting there are other factors other than carbon at play when it comes to global warming.

and skepticalscience's response that:

"During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible"
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was ... vician.htm)

Alex is suggesting that they're contradicting themselves when they say in http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm
That since the sun's output and temperatures have been going in opposite directions, the sun is not responsible for global warming.

Now this is clearly not a full proof argument on Alex's behalf, but the point I want to make clear to you is that your response is a bit of a tangent to what material is on the table here.

metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:43 am

Hi, Jack,
Slightly crossed wires rather than a straw man :tongue: but sorry anyway.
You weren't very clear about what you thought needed addressing.
Okay: look at the timescale on the chart athttp://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
and take it into account when thinking of walking back to the Ordovician.
Better?

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3064
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Dan74 » Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:45 am

BlackBird wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote:But basically, all Alex's arguments (and some he hasn't put forward) are well refuted at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

:namaste:
Kim


I've been posting these links myself, and Alex responded in this manner:

Alex123 wrote:
BlackBird wrote:Not according to this site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... n-1998.htm

And interestingly relevant to your other number on the Solar argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-a ... arming.htm



Yes, I've seen that page on solar cycles. Doesn't it contradict their statement that "During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels."?


On first glance it would appear that he might have a point (I'm playing devil's advocate here). But first glances are not always right, so I would like this point to be addressed.


I am not sure what the point is. On one hand we have a statement of the lower sun activity in the Ordovician 480 million years ago compared to now and on the other a statement that over the last 30 years sun activity has been getting slightly slower.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/07/10/environment-climate-sun-dc-idUKL101501320070710

I am not a believer in man-made global warming. I think it is a very serious hypothesis with a lot of evidence on its side. And when there are serious indications that we are moving towards an environmental catastrophy with unprecedented effects on our civilization, it would be foolish to do nothing about it, especially when doing something also brings about benefits like decreased air pollution and cleaner ecosystem.

Another point for me as an academic is the mind-boggling hubris by part-time amateurs who believe themselves capable of out-thinking thousands of talented scientists who have dedicated their lives to the subject. Critical thinking is great, but some humility and realism would go a long way. We don't have to just accept things but if you are inclined to question, don't jump to conclusions - this is bad science.
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2640
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cooran and 8 guests