global warming

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

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?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

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

Post by danieLion »

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

Post by danieLion »

AGW = zeitgeist.

Zeitgiests are about cutlural trends and fashions, groupthink and the herd instinct and rarely have anything to do with science.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

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

Actions have consequences. :thinking:
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

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,"
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: global warming

Post by BlackBird »

Hi all



Scary stuff
"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

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

I listened to that clip.

He has certainty which even IPCC admitted not to have: "The future level of global warming is uncertain,"
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Post by daverupa »

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
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

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
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

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.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

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.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

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!"
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Post by daverupa »

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
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

daverupa wrote:Scientific consensus?
Argumentum ad populum. Just because many people believe an incorrect idea, it doesn't by itself make it right.
Locked