global warming

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: global warming

Postby polarbuddha101 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:49 am

Let us all herald in the dawn of a new age and harness the power of the Sun!

Image
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
polarbuddha101
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:21 am

manas wrote:
danieLion wrote:...
how long do we have to hear this until time finally reveals how silly it is...


I'd say we will possibly all be old before this happens.

Not old at all - we will have to live backwards until about 1970 by which time we will all be very much younger than we are now.

manas wrote:In the meantime, I do notice (regarding this topic) that not one believer has turned sceptic, and not one sceptic has turned believer. We come to no conclusion with this debate, but only experience dissonance between otherwise mutual friends in the Dhamma. And imho, our friendship in the Dhamma matters much more than this debate.

In peace :anjali:

Yes, it's a bit sad. But from my point of view, "sceptic" and "believer" are both misleading descriptions. As I have said before, it is almost impossible that there is a well-informed, reasonably intelligent person who doesn't know the truth about AGW. There are a few people who are genuinely ignorant or misinformed: they ought to be willing to learn and one would hope that the evidence presented here is enough to (at least) begin that process. And there are even fewer who do know but pretend not to: they are liars and denialists and frankly, they are unlikely to change on the basis of any evidence presented to them, because they have been denying all that evidence (often) for years.
And on the other side, "believers" implies that it is a faith-based position. It isn't. The science behind AGW is every bit as solid as the science behind the tobacco/cancer link, the asbestos/mesothelioma link, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of evolution - all of which were denied just as vehemently when new and all of which are still denied by those unwilling to learn or with a vested interest in denying or obfuscating the truth. (See - again - the pie chart at http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart)
My position in relation to this thread is that I am willing to talk to those who are willing to learn, willing to share with those who want to do something about it, and totally unwilling to let a lie stand as the truth. It's actually my position in relation to every thread I participate in here, and to just about all my professional life (as a teacher) so I guess you're stuck with it. :tongue:
Why do I care? Simply because AGW is driving a looming environmental and human catastrophe, and IMO compassion demands that we do what we can to avert it. And if we don't know what's happening, we won't know what needs to be done.
/ :soap:

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3090
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:56 am

Kim,

Kim O'Hara wrote:Why do I care? Simply because AGW is driving a looming environmental and human catastrophe,


How do we know that?

IPCC have themselves said that: "The future level of global warming is uncertain,".

I've also read that:
MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Given that the 1995 summary gave an elephant stamp to the carbon dioxide pollution story, what (if anything) underpinned that summary? Frederick Seitz claimed critical caveats in the 1995 body text were deleted to permit the activist summary. Bolin denied this and said there were merely normal reviews of drafts. The deleted passages cited by Seitz included:

No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic causes …

None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases …

Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced …

Seitz, a former president of the US National Academy of Sciences and of the American Physical Society, said he had never witnessed “a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led to this IPCC report”.
where I found it


Ron made a good point that climatologists have trouble making accurate predictions more than 4 days in advance. I noticed that weather forecasts about day next week are often revised as we get closer to that day. Yet we find cataclysmic predictions about decades or more years in advance, credible.

As for your picture that you use as "argumentum ad populum":
What are those 13,950 articles talk about? Do they talk and prove that humans cause GW? Or do they merely talk about effects of climate change?
Can I have a list of those articles?

Can you provide THE BEST argument that humans cause GW from those papers? I need just one, good one. No need for thousands.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:30 pm

Hello Manas,

manas wrote:In the meantime, I do notice (regarding this topic) that not one believer has turned sceptic, and not one sceptic has turned believer. We come to no conclusion with this debate, but only experience dissonance between otherwise mutual friends in the Dhamma. And imho, our friendship in the Dhamma matters much more than this debate.


Good observation. But, I did actually consider believing AGW if provided good evidence. Unfortunately except for few ok attempts, I've seen to much Ad Hominems, argumentum ad populum, moving discussion off topic (ex: could we live in Cambrian climate) which is not what we are talking about, cherry picking the data, etc.

I may be strange, but I also consider how I would argue for AGW, and then I find refutations to those arguments... I am surprised that I haven't seen a certain argument about CO2... But even that argument is not applicable to us.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:57 pm

Dan74 wrote:Kim, are you still motivated to continue?

Buckwheat?

You can take a horse to water, but when it's well and truly dead, you should stop beating it because it had refused to drink.

(mixing metaphors is my vice of choice currently ;)

No, I am too tired to respond. I have previously responded to every point made in recent posts. Karuna dictates I stop flogging this equine kalyanamitta.
:anjali:
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:48 pm

Buckwheat wrote: Karuna dictates I stop flogging this equine kalyanamitta.


Are you calling me a horse? Wow. This discussion has reached a brand new level... I am perfectly willing to change my views. Are you willing to change yours?

Buckwheat wrote:I have previously responded to every point made in recent posts.


You have NOT responded to every point, you have attempted to respond to my 3rd point from this post.

My response was in posts such as here and also here. You have also talked about feedback here.

However there were a lot of cases disproving that CO2 levels that we have are correlated with warming. Vostok Ice Core data shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes by 400-1200 years.

Even though CO2 levels were rising during 20th century, during 1970s there was a global cooling scare...
If CO2 amplifies global warming, then shouldn't it mean that more co2 = warmer, less co2=colder?

The charts that I've posted in this post challenge the idea that somehow humans are accelerating warming. If anything, we aren't even preventing overall fall in the temperature when we look at 12K graph.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:17 pm


1) that's not a methodologically sound use of a pie chart

2) From the article:
The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature.
:rofl:
the peer-review process is corrupt and has been from the start.

3) why didn't the author list the "non-denier" studies? it seems like he doesn't want anyone to try and REPLICATE his so-called meta-analysis

4) assuming that the studies he looked at actually imply non-denial, it still amounts to an argumentum ad populum (the population in this case being scientists)...worse, popular agreement doesn't guarantee broad perspective

5) how does he know he got all the relevant scientist's opionions?

6) if there are that many non-denier scientists, it's incompatible with Powell's baseless contention that there's an INQUISITION against them

7)
Kim O'Hara wrote:And on the other side, "believers" implies that it is a faith-based position.
Really?

Whether or not you were offended by Muller’s attempt to calm the climate change debate, I’d like to focus instead on Powell’s deeper message. He claims that scientists have a responsibility to trust each other. As he says in the video, “If every scientist said, ‘I’m not going to believe what anybody else did until I do it myself,’ scientists would be at least a century behind where we are right now. That is, if something is done by a reliable lab, passes peer review, you should at least tentatively accept it until somebody shows you some reason why it’s wrong.”

This is a bold statement, and it made me think. As scientists, skepticism is one of our main responsibilities, maybe even our first priority, because we have implicitly agreed to collect knowledge from the physical world rather than myth or superstition. We must be skeptical of claims, unless they are supported by empirical evidence. So how did we end up with a “scientists vs. skeptics” debate, where scientists are compelled to say “don’t worry, just trust me”?
Source: The Berkeley Science Review

Trust like this makes critical thinking unnecessary and the quote shows how Powell thinks the corrupt peer review process trumps replicablity as a principle of sound scientific method. I'm guessing he never took a philosophy of science course.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:31 am

This is the current state of the debate, for anyone willing to read carefully and sensibly: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

:reading:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3090
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Postby daverupa » Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:57 am

There can be no convincing evidence given to one who is suspicious of the standards of evidence being used. Those who disagree with the scientific consensus must argue against either the science itself, or the motives for the consensus. Therefore, this discussion might usefully continue (elsewhere) as a general foray into epistemology with a focus on what it means to have "good evidence" for something.

Otherwise, I find that conspiracy theories render the individual who holds them incapable of equanimous conversation. It's definitely the third and worst field to hope seed will take root within.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4195
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:27 pm

daverupa wrote:There can be no convincing evidence given to one who is suspicious of the standards of evidence being used.


What is the best evidence? Can you, Kim, or Buckwheat please write it here in your own words, and we will talk.

I don't care who (Journalist, AGW proponent, Christian, Muslim, etc) said it. I go with the evidence.

daverupa wrote:Those who disagree with the scientific consensus must argue against either the science itself, or the motives for the consensus.


I agree or disagree with the data and arguments. I don't buy Ad Hominem, argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:52 pm

Alex123 wrote:
Buckwheat wrote: Karuna dictates I stop flogging this equine kalyanamitta.


Are you calling me a horse? Wow. This discussion has reached a brand new level... I am perfectly willing to change my views. Are you willing to change yours?


My apologies :oops: I was trying to be funny and creative, and lost clarity in the process. I did not intend to refer to you as a horse, but as a kalyanamitta. The horse was in reference to this debate, which has for quite some time been us talking past each other. I feel like you are not catching the point of any of my arguments, and then just responding with the same ol' arguments that I was refuting. You probably feel the same way about my posts, so that is why this debate has been "flogging a dead horse" for quite some time.

I don't think either one of us is willing to change our views based on what the other has to say. I'm sure both of us would change our views if presented by the right evidence from the right source, but you don't trust my interpretation of the facts, and I don't trust yours. I'm sure that we both really want to understand the truth and make the world a better place by reducing dukkha, but this debate is not helping that cause.
Last edited by Buckwheat on Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:59 pm

Alex123 wrote:What is the best evidence? Can you, Kim, or Buckwheat please write it here in your own words, and we will talk.

First, the evidence has already been presented and debated ad nauseum. Second, I am not even remotely qualified to dictate the terms of AGW "in my own words". We both know that you would not believe me. Why would you ask for such a silly thing? I know you're intelligent, so I will assume it was an oversight. If somebody new to the discussion has a specific question, I would be glad to address it. But, Alex, I think we could write each other's responses because this has gone on so long.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:04 pm

Alex123 wrote:I agree or disagree with the data ...

How on Eath can one "disagree with data"? Do you mean "not trust the data"? Data is just data. If it is gathered with integrity, it must simply be taken as a fact. The interpretation of data is another thing. Interpretations can be tricky, requiring clever minds and vigorous debate amongst trained prosfessionals, not amateurs like us.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:10 pm

danieLion wrote:
Whether or not you were offended by Muller’s attempt to calm the climate change debate, I’d like to focus instead on Powell’s deeper message. He claims that scientists have a responsibility to trust each other. As he says in the video, “If every scientist said, ‘I’m not going to believe what anybody else did until I do it myself,’ scientists would be at least a century behind where we are right now. That is, if something is done by a reliable lab, passes peer review, you should at least tentatively accept it until somebody shows you some reason why it’s wrong.”

This is a bold statement, and it made me think. As scientists, skepticism is one of our main responsibilities, maybe even our first priority, because we have implicitly agreed to collect knowledge from the physical world rather than myth or superstition. We must be skeptical of claims, unless they are supported by empirical evidence. So how did we end up with a “scientists vs. skeptics” debate, where scientists are compelled to say “don’t worry, just trust me”?
Source: The Berkeley Science Review

Trust like this makes critical thinking unnecessary and the quote shows how Powell thinks the corrupt peer review process trumps replicablity as a principle of sound scientific method. I'm guessing he never took a philosophy of science course.


The trust here comes after the peer-reviewed process for accepting empirical evidence, and can always be overturned by new evidence. It's not any different than "trusting" a senior monk who is well-respected in the monastic community until you have the time / capability to verify his teachings through your own experience.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:15 pm

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:I agree or disagree with the data ...

How on Eath can one "disagree with data"? Do you mean "not trust the data"? Data is just data. If it is gathered with integrity, it must simply be taken as a fact. The interpretation of data is another thing. Interpretations can be tricky, requiring clever minds and vigorous debate amongst trained prosfessionals, not amateurs like us.


I said "data and arguments". I cringe when I read about "catastrophic rise of temperature" and what is shown is VERY LIMITED data that compares current temperature with one of the coldest it ever been. I disagree with this kind of cherry picking. We are in interglacial which by definition means that
temperatures bounce off their lows and glacials recede. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial I am not professional, but I am not stupid not to see this.

If today's rate of rise in temperature was greater than it has ever been before, then I would agree that humans are contributing to global warming. Here is where I would like to see the data. Some of the "skeptical" points would be totally rebutted if data showed this. So far it seems that there is NOTHING unusual about current climate change.

Also, IPCC have said that "The future level of global warming is uncertain", and yet some find their predictions about how much temperature will rise for the next 10-100 years, credible...

Please read quotes in this post.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:51 pm

Alex123 wrote:If today's rate of rise in temperature was greater than it has ever been before...

:redherring: That is not the stated opinion of climate scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest.[8] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[9][10]
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:56 pm

Alex123 wrote:I am not professional, ...

Then why do you think your analysis of the data is more accurate than the vast majority of scientists?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:00 pm

Alex123 wrote:Ron made a good point that climatologists have trouble making accurate predictions more than 4 days in advance.

This shows you don't understand the difference between climate and weather. To illustrate, let's compare a single hand of poker to weather, with a lifetime of poker to climate. On any given hand, a player may win big, getting rich off the casino. However, over a lifetime of gambling, the house will always win. The reason for this is that probability is chaotic on the small scale (a single hand, a single weather event, etc.) but probability is very reliable over the long run (a lifetime of poker, decades of climate data).
Last edited by Buckwheat on Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:05 pm

Alex123 wrote:Please read quotes in this post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrant_(magazine)
The quotes in your post track back to an article by Quadrant Magazine, written by a biased journalist, not a scientist. I have no way to track the crdibility of this author, but I seriously question he is a reputable source for the kind of data he presents. Why would I believe this guy?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:06 pm

Buckwheat wrote:Then why do you think your analysis of the data is more accurate than the vast majority of scientists?


For example because I take longer term chart to see more data.

Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest.[8] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[9][10]


How do we know that this has anything to do with Humans?

Also, please note that these estimates are based on models... And if these models are just that, models?


Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:If today's rate of rise in temperature was greater than it has ever been before...

:redherring: That is not the stated opinion of climate scientists.


No red herring. In that sentence I had Lonesome yogurt's post in mind:

LonesomeYogurt wrote: The problem is the artificial increase in warming speed that does not allow for natural and sustainable adaptation.


Charts that we have do not show any abnormal increase in temperature. Actually the temperature seems to be going down, even with all the alleged extra warming by the humans.

As humans were releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere in the 1940s-70s the temperature was going down so much that we had a global cooling, cooling, scare. So much for the more co2 = more amplification of the temperature.
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fluke, Google [Bot] and 5 guests