Why we should think....Part 2

[DaveBrigg]

Maybe I've misread Tom's first post, but by drawing attention to the record amount of sea ice are you suggesting that this part of the world is experiencing climate change?

The most recent UN conference was titled 'United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change' which to my inexperienced eye would suggest that although global warming is generally accepted by those in the know, it will not affect all areas of the planet equally.

Can I add to the pictures of ice and snow? This is the Athabasca Glacier in Canada, which has retreated 1.5 km in just over a hundred years, experiencing an increased rate of decline since 1980.

 

[NT]

It is my mission to bring balance to unbalanced minds.

Never gonna happen. Discovering it is one of those rites of life. But the unbalanced do die eventually.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Lovely picture Dave.

(My mind would have to be seriously unbalanced before I bared my knees in a place like that.)

 

[Nemesis]

We all die eventually NT - balanced, unbalanced alike.

Maybe that's something you have yet to discover?

 

[NT]

We all die eventually NT - balanced, unbalanced alike.

Maybe that's something you have yet to discover?

I hereby award you no less than 2 prestigious awards for one post:
The Stating the Remarkably Obvious Award
&
The Daftest Assertion of the Year award.


NT

 

[Nemesis]

Well, I agreee obvious but thought it best to draw it to your attention, as I think the post you made about the unbalanced dying maybe wasn't totally balanced.

I could I am sure find much dafter assertions here. It's just my eyes tend to skim over long and tedious posts. Life's too short you see.

8)

Meeeeeow.

 

[Penners]

We all die eventually

What... everyone?

Damn!

 

[Nemesis]

I am sure, Penners, an exception can be made for you.

The BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6995999.stm


Oooh er.

 

[alice]

I don't understand the argument that global warming isn't happening because of evidence that the Antartic ice cap has grown since at it's fastest rate since 1979.

Whether it's a portent of global warming or not, it's not a very strong argument either way because of this tiny geological time frame has been taken out of context. Does a thirty year growth (or ebb) mean anything? Is it a part of a larger trend or an anomoly?

Last month, after my operation, I lost 10 pounds. Now it is coming back (sigh...). My weight has been pretty stable (to my despair) for the last 10 years, but you could say that since August 6th I've gained more weight in the last 5 weeks than I have in the last 10 years, and you'd be absolutely true. But it would be misleading because it would be out of context. I actually still weigh less than I did before my operation.

So how much ice was in Antartica before 1979 and is any change part of a larger trend?

alice

 

[biffvernon]

There's no argument, beyond that promulgated by a few contrarians.

The changes in Antarctic sea ice show no trends of statistical significance, the year to year extent showing considerable variability. There is nothing observed that does not fit with the models for anthropogenic global warming. It's is a very different situation to that found in the Arctic. Circulation in the Southern Ocean effectively prevents warm water reaching the Antarctic margin so the sea ice spreads to lower latitudes than in the northern hemisphere. The ice, being surrounded by ocean, receives heavy snowfall that weighs the ice down allowing sea water to spread on to the surface and re-freeze, resulting in much greater ice thickness than in the Arctic. The almost landlocked Arctic Ocean receives very little snowfall.

Global Warming is likely to be associated with an expansion of the Antarctic ice. If sea surface temperatures in the Southern Ocean rise there will be greater evaporation and heavier snowfall. This will lead to an extension of the winter sea ice.

 

[Pford75]

models for anthropogenic global warming

I think 'models' is a bit misleading...more like 'predictions', 'estimates' or 'guesses

To suggest you can 'model' something this complex is like suggesting you can 'model' my life and predict what I will be doing in 50 years time. Too many variables for this to be called a 'model'.

I'm not saying that there is no climate change....i'm just saying that it is not the scientific certainty that some claim it is. Contrarians / deniers are all terms used to belittle those with another point of view - wish we could all have our own perspective without the animosity.

FWIW, I actually thought Tom was trying to raise a valid question...albeit in a slightly confrontational way.

ie. How can receding arctic ice be clear evidence of global warming and antarctic ice expansion not be?

I'm sure I'll be bombarded by scientific evidence...but I wish those already convinced, could see why things like this leave the undecided amongst us a little confused.

 

[Flyfisher]

There's no argument, beyond that promulgated by a few contrarians.

Well you can't argue with that!

 

[Nemesis]

NT will.

:roll:

 

[Penners]

:lol:

 

[biffvernon]

How can receding arctic ice be clear evidence of global warming and antarctic ice expansion not be?

I'm sure I'll be bombarded by scientific evidence...but I wish those already convinced, could see why things like this leave the undecided amongst us a little confused.

I've just explained why less ice in the Arctic and more ice in the Antarctic are both evidence of global warming. If scientific evidence does not persuade you I can't help you.

Nothing in science is certain but some things are likely enough to make it worth altering ones actions for.

 

[alice]

In this part of the US there are a lot of born-again Christians who rail against public schools teaching the theory of evolution. There seems to be a line of thought that if something is labeled a theory, it must just be opinion and wrong opinion, at that.
The science teachers I work with are fond of pointing out that gravity is a theory, too, but if you want to argue the point, try jumping off a cliff first.

All we can do, scientist and the general public, is to look at the data and see where it leads us. Personally, I don't have a problem with two sets of scientists looking at one set of data and coming to different conclusions. That debate is healthy. I do have issues with people who look at data and argue that the data is false because it doesn't square with their ideas.

Newsweek ran an article on the global warming debate a few months ago. In it they weren't analyzing whether global warming was true or not, but how the debate was being framed between the two opposing camps. The magazine found that very little actual research was being conducted by the anti-global warming scientists (who are very few in number). They simply spent their research money and time declaring that data that opposed their view was false and that the methods of the scientists who conducted studies that suggested global warming were faulty.

alice

 

[Lime]

In it they weren't analyzing whether global warming was true or not,

This is not the argument.

There is little argument that there has been a warming of the earth recently.

What the argument is centred on is whether mankind's activities has caused it.
That is far from proven and that is what is in dispute.

 

[alice]

I wasn't posting on the validity of the global warming debate or if it is manmade or not, but on way both sides use the data to support their views.

From what I've seen published, the vast majority of scientists who are out in the field and collecting data on everything from the habitat of butterflies to the thickness of glacial ice are finding in their data evidence of climate change. Other scientists have put forth a theory, based on that data, that this change is not part of a natural cycle but is a result of manmade carbon emissions. From what I've read, the scientists who oppose that theory haven't gone out to remeasure the ice or redo the experiments, but are spending their time simply denying that the data is valid and arguing with how the experiments are set up. When this happens it's not scientific inquiry, but propaganda.

Now the global-warming-is-not-manmade group can yell all they want, but until they come up with hard data that can compete with the wide variety of experiements, etc that show otherwise, then I will continue to listen to the side that can produce the best objective evidence. I do a lot of reading, and I haven't seen the data-driven reports that are against the man-made global warming arguments, and goodness knows, if they were out there the oil companies would be shouting it from the rooftops.

alice

 

[Lime]

I don't quite understand your reasoning.
Data is being acquired concerning global temperatures and other parameters.
It is important that the information is collected properly.
If that method is questioned, what is wrong with that?

Then that information/data is interpreted.

As there is little or no dispute over global warming occurring why the need to remeasure eveything if in disagrement over Man's involvement?
It is a matter of interpretation of the existing data surely?

 

[NT]

> From what I've seen published, the vast majority of scientists who are out in the field and collecting data on everything from the habitat of butterflies to the thickness of glacial ice are finding in their data evidence of climate change. Other scientists have put forth a theory, based on that data, that this change is not part of a natural cycle but is a result of manmade carbon emissions.

Its a hypothesis, not a theory. Theyre 2 different things.


> From what I've read, the scientists who oppose that theory haven't gone out to remeasure the ice or redo the experiments, but are spending their time simply denying that the data is valid and arguing with how the experiments are set up.

Yup, which is all thats needed, to point out why the so-called evidence is not really valid evidence at all.


> When this happens it's not scientific inquiry, but propaganda.

Bingo, but possibly not the way you meant it. Thats how you spot propaganda, a lot of assertions with no valid evidence to back them up, and illogical arguments.


> Now the global-warming-is-not-manmade group can yell all they want, but until they come up with hard data

I think this is misrepresenting the POVs a bit, whether we're undergoing climate change is not the issue. The POV that is proposed and objected to is the set of the following beliefs:
1. Climate change is occurring
2. The change is caused by manmade factors
3. The change will be catastrophic
4. We can prevent catastrophy by changing our energy use patterns.

That is the argument put forward, and regrettably the 'evidence' for it is to put it mildly questionable.


> then I will continue to listen to the side that can produce the best objective evidence.

There isnt any valid evidence for the above belief-set yet. It would be a lot easier if there were, and we'd all know for certain one way or t'other.


NT