global warming

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:15 pm

danieLion wrote:
Buckwheat wrote:If you have specific, verifiable evidence that some data or interpretation are not trustworthy, then by all means present it.

Evidence is irrelevant when methodology is unsound.

How can I argue with the word of God himself?
Disciples, this I declare to you: All conditioned things are subject to disintegration – strive on untiringly for your liberation.

Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:31 pm

ism
Ñāṇa wrote:
danieLion wrote:
Buckwheat wrote:If you have specific, verifiable evidence that some data or interpretation are not trustworthy, then by all means present it.

Evidence is irrelevant when methodology is unsound.

Skepticism doesn't establish anything.


Depends on what you mean by scepticism.

I picture the true sceptic as a man eager and alert, his deep eyes glittering like sharp swords, his hands tense with effort as he asks, 'What does it matter?'

I picture the false sceptic as a dude or popinjay, yawning, with dull eyes, his muscles limp, his purpose in asking the question but the expression of his slackness and stupidity (Edward Alexander Crowley, The Soldier and the Hunchback: ! and ?, Part 1).
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:33 pm

Buckwheat wrote:
danieLion wrote:
Buckwheat wrote:If you have specific, verifiable evidence that some data or interpretation are not trustworthy, then by all means present it.

Evidence is irrelevant when methodology is unsound.

How can I argue with the word of God himself?

Wise choice. Better not to.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby danieLion » Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:40 pm

AGW = zeitgeist.

Zeitgiests are about cutlural trends and fashions, groupthink and the herd instinct and rarely have anything to do with science.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:58 pm

Since this has devolved into the proclamation of platitudes...

Actions have consequences. :thinking:
Disciples, this I declare to you: All conditioned things are subject to disintegration – strive on untiringly for your liberation.

Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:53 am

AGW: Snow is melting and glacials are receding!
Answer: Of course, we are living in the Holocene interglacial. By definition this is what happens in interglacial that started about 11,400 years ago.

During late Ordovician period there was an Ice Age, temperatures were as cold as today, and yet CO2 was 3,000 - 4,400 ppm (and perhaps higher).
AGW: But sun activity was lower!

Q: What prevents sun activity from being lower TODAY or in near future so as to cancel out all "excessive heating" supposedly caused by 396.80ppm of CO2 and send us back into ice age? I've read that global warming can cause global cooling, thus supposedly we don't even need lesser solar activity...

Is the planet going to continue warming "too much and too fast"? Or is it going to cool down "due to global warming"?

No wonder that IPCC have said that: "The future level of global warming is uncertain,"
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby BlackBird » Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:55 am

Hi all



Scary stuff
"And so, because this Teaching is so different from what Westerners are accustomed to, they will try to adapt the Teaching to their own framework. What they need to learn to do is not to adapt the Teaching to their own point of view but to adapt their own point of view to the Teaching. This is called saddhá, or faith, and it means giving oneself to the Teaching even if the Teaching is contrary to one’s own preconceived notions of the way things are."- Ven Bodhesako

Nanavira Thera's teachings - An existential approach to the Dhamma | Ven. Bodhesako's essay on anicca
User avatar
BlackBird
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:12 pm

I listened to that clip.

He has certainty which even IPCC admitted not to have: "The future level of global warming is uncertain,"
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby daverupa » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:24 pm

Alex123 wrote:I listened to that clip.

He has certainty which even IPCC admitted not to have: "The future level of global warming is uncertain,"


And you have skepticism which even the IPCC doesn't have.

What tiring obfuscations.
    "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: 3704
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:56 pm

daverupa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:I listened to that clip.

He has certainty which even IPCC admitted not to have: "The future level of global warming is uncertain,"

And you have skepticism which even the IPCC doesn't have.


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
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:05 pm

Alex123 wrote:I listened to that clip.

He has certainty which even IPCC admitted not to have: "The future level of global warming is uncertain,"

Do you understand the role of uncertainty in science? Every possible measurement has an associated uncertainty. The future "level of global warming" is very different from "the fact that the globe will warm". Your source continues...
For the lowest emissions SRES marker scenario ("B1" - see the SRES article for details on this scenario), the best estimate for global mean temperature is an increase of 1.8 °C (3.2 °F)[17] by the end of the 21st century. This projection is relative to global temperatures at the end of the 20th century.[19] The "likely" range (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement)[20] for the SRES B1 marker scenario is 1.1–2.9 °C (2–5.2 °F).[17] For the highest emissions SRES marker scenario (A1FI), the best estimate for global mean temperature increase is 4.0 °C (7.2 °F), with a "likely" range of 2.4–6.4 °C (4.3–11.5 °F).

So if the climate is relatively resistant to the effects of CO2, we will likely rise 3.2 °F, if it is relatively sensitive, 7.2 °F. Any of these situations is something that will have a large impact on human society and the Earth as a whole.
Disciples, this I declare to you: All conditioned things are subject to disintegration – strive on untiringly for your liberation.

Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Buckwheat » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:09 pm

Alex123 wrote:
daverupa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:I listened to that clip.

He has certainty which even IPCC admitted not to have: "The future level of global warming is uncertain,"

And you have skepticism which even the IPCC doesn't have.


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


That was almost 20 years ago. The certainty that global warming is caused by human actions is much more certain now days.
Disciples, this I declare to you: All conditioned things are subject to disintegration – strive on untiringly for your liberation.

Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
 
Posts: 927
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:48 pm

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:I listened to that clip.

He has certainty which even IPCC admitted not to have: "The future level of global warming is uncertain,"

Do you understand the role of uncertainty in science? Every possible measurement has an associated uncertainty. The future "level of global warming" is very different from "the fact that the globe will warm". Your source continues...
For the lowest emissions SRES marker scenario ("B1" - see the SRES article for details on this scenario), the best estimate for global mean temperature is an increase of 1.8 °C (3.2 °F)[17] by the end of the 21st century. This projection is relative to global temperatures at the end of the 20th century.[19] The "likely" range (greater than 66% probability, based on expert judgement)[20] for the SRES B1 marker scenario is 1.1–2.9 °C (2–5.2 °F).[17] For the highest emissions SRES marker scenario (A1FI), the best estimate for global mean temperature increase is 4.0 °C (7.2 °F), with a "likely" range of 2.4–6.4 °C (4.3–11.5 °F).

So if the climate is relatively resistant to the effects of CO2, we will likely rise 3.2 °F, if it is relatively sensitive, 7.2 °F. Any of these situations is something that will have a large impact on human society and the Earth as a whole.




And all these rises in temperature could quickly be cancelled out if global "warming" causes global cooling or even, Ice Age. So really, there is a LOT of uncertainty as to how much temperatures will rise, for how long, will the temperatures cool down, how much, etc.

I can just picture this:
- If temperature rises, some will say "See? AGW is true!"
- If temperature falls, they will say "It is fault of AGW that caused global cooling"!
- If temperature stays the same, they will say "Temperatures are too high and it is due to AGW!"
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby daverupa » Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Scientific uncertainty? Scream it from the mountaintops! Vindication!
Scientific consensus? Well, now just hold on a second... I don't know for sure...

:rolleye:

Such an epistemological coma makes learning new information supremely difficult...
    "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: 3704
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:03 pm

daverupa wrote:Scientific consensus?


Argumentum ad populum. Just because many people believe an incorrect idea, it doesn't by itself make it right.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby daverupa » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:00 pm

Alex123 wrote:
daverupa wrote:Scientific consensus?


Argumentum ad populum. Just because many people believe an incorrect idea, it doesn't by itself make it right.


Just ridiculous, Alex.

rational wiki wrote:So, what's the difference between most people believe X and scientific consensus which is, at the end of the day, most scientists believe X. Doesn't this make out scientists to be somehow superior to the rest of the population?

There are two significant differences.

Firstly scientific consensus doesn't claim to be true, it claims to be our best understanding currently held by those who study the matter. Scientific claims for truth are always tentative rather than final, even if they are often very impressive tentative claims for truth.

Secondly scientific consensus is built upon a foundation of logic and systematic evidence - the scientific method - rather than dogma (or that which is taught in Sunday school) or popular prejudice. The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers. Note that even long established scientific consensus can be overthrown by better logic and better evidence typically preceded by anomalous research findings.
    "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: 3704
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:22 pm

daverupa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:
daverupa wrote:Scientific consensus?


Argumentum ad populum. Just because many people believe an incorrect idea, it doesn't by itself make it right.


Just ridiculous, Alex.


It is not. Please note: "it doesn't by itself make it right."

So what I've said is technically correct. As if scientists never had incorrect ideas centuries ago.

Talking about consensus...

A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis," according to James Taylor, writing at Forbes.com. As he points out, if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming.

100-36= 64% who do not believe in AGW.

So on which side is consensus?
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby daverupa » Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:54 pm

Alex123 wrote:...only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers...

So on which side is consensus?


It's easy to make stats favor your argument when you artificially constrain the sample. Weak.

Remember that pie chart with the comparison of peer-reviewed articles accepting or rejecting AGW? That pie chart answers your question.

Finally, what you said was that scientific consensus equates to argumentum ad populum. You aren't technically correct, you aren't even close. No one claimed it was right solely due to consensus; the consensus reflects a long period of peer-reviewed research, not a simple majority vote.
The consensus comes not from blindly agreeing with those in authority but from having their claims to be thoroughly reviewed and criticised by their peers.


Did you even read this part?
    "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: 3704
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Postby Alex123 » Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:38 pm

daverupa wrote:It's easy to make stats favor your argument when you artificially constrain the sample. Weak.


And how do we know it wasn't done in case of pie chart posted by Kim? I am not saying that it was... But I've read similar things to what you have said when it comes to AGW, that the question was tricky and that polled scientists were picked to produce certain result... If you want, I can try to find it again. But let us be clear, there are other consensus that suggest that majority of scientists do not believe in AGW.

This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys. This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis...

For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... -skeptics/



daverupa wrote:Remember that pie chart with the comparison of peer-reviewed articles accepting or rejecting AGW? That pie chart answers your question.


You mean this one?

Which says: "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject global warming".

Please note, 13,950 are climate articles. It doesn't say 13,950 articles proving that humans cause Global Warming.

And 24 do reject AGW. Without analyzing all of them, it is hard to conclude the QUALITY of facts - rather than quantity.

As for temperature predictions:

Image
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2788
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Postby fig tree » Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:29 pm

This Forbes article is a good example of how the "skeptic" side tends to handle evidence. I wish I had access to the original source, but it appears to be behind a paywall. From what a self-proclaimed opponent of "climate alarmism" says, however, it appears that the survey was of a highly biased sample of geologists and engineers, not to be deceptive, but because the authors wanted to study people they count as "deniers".

For those of you who have not actually read the journal paper, here is what it is really about: some social scientists are trying to peer into the minds of “deniers” (their word choice, not mine) to see what makes them tick. What better laboratory could they find than engineers in Alberta that are likely associated with the gas and oil industry!

The authors of the paper are not saying “a bunch of smart scientist and engineer types think global warming is largely over-blown – maybe you should consider their perspective.” Rather, they are saying “Those poor engineer types up there in Alberta live in a world that revolves around oil and gas and their psyches are not able to grasp the true dangers of global warming because of the social and political structure in which they live. What are the proper tactics to bring them around to the right kind of thinking?” (Not their actual words, but my interpretation of their words.)

http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/science-or-science-fiction-professionals-discursive-construction-of-climate-change/

The oil and gas industry stands to lose big if the risk is taken even a fraction as seriously as it deserves to be, and one doesn't need to look down upon these people to be aware of how difficult it is to accept that what one is doing for a living might be causing a lot of harm. It's to be expected that only about 1/3 of them are fully persuaded of AGW.

Forbes is reckless in their handling of any evidence that seems to favor their preferred point of view, and so are some of the participants here.

Fig Tree
User avatar
fig tree
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Buliwo and 4 guests