46 replies to this topic

[mvillanueva]

Ocean / Global Warming

[drdiver]

Yep, Michael it is true. And there's not much we can do about it. Kyoto and all.

Don't buy any beachfront property--especially in the Maldives.

[Genesis]

Oh please.

There's one study that says "yep", then three that say "nope."

The previous claim was that Anarctic ice flow shifts were definitely caused by global warming, and we were the change.

Until it was discovered that the same pattern happened 20-odd years back. Oops.

Guys and gals, there are long term climate cycles that are way beyond human intervention, in any direction. We are puny in the face of these changes.

Second, Kyoto was not and is not a fix. It did nothing to limit the emissions of the fastest growing areas in the world - specifically, China, South Korea and other "developing" nations were exempt from its mandate.

Third, it allowed "trading" of emissions credits rather than actually requiring that you cut emissions, and if you didn't feel like paying for someone else's "unused" credits, you could simply pollute and pay the fine. Or not, since there was no enforcement ability.

The US was correct in opting out of Kyoto, as it did not actually address anything. You simply can't ignore the developing world, since they are the fastest-growing emission sources.

[mvillanueva]

Oh please.

There's one study that says "yep", then three that say "nope."

The previous claim was that Anarctic ice flow shifts were definitely caused by global warming, and we were the change.

Until it was discovered that the same pattern happened 20-odd years back.  Oops.

Guys and gals, there are long term climate cycles that are way beyond human intervention, in any direction.  We are puny in the face of these changes.

Second, Kyoto was not and is not a fix.  It did nothing to limit the emissions of the fastest growing areas in the world - specifically, China, South Korea and other "developing" nations were exempt from its mandate.

Third, it allowed "trading" of emissions credits rather than actually requiring that you cut emissions, and if you didn't feel like paying for someone else's "unused" credits, you could simply pollute and pay the fine.  Or not, since there was no enforcement ability.

The US was correct in opting out of Kyoto, as it did not actually address anything.  You simply can't ignore the developing world, since they are the fastest-growing emission sources.

If you are going to task the article, I would welcome your input, but task the facts, opinions, and perceptions within this article .

I admit, you might be making a valid point somewhere in your rebuttal, only I cannot see it over the top of your soapbox.

Personally, I think you been reading too much Crichton.

Edited by mvillanueva, 17 February 2005 - 08:16 PM.

[Genesis]

I did read it.

One study does not equal proof when there are a dozen on the other side of the table.

[drdiver]

Sorry, Genesis, you hoeing a hard road here. I work in this area.

Yeah, there are a lot of studies. A lot of them sponsored by the government who didn't want to admit it that it was happening. But now, they actually do admit that yes, it is happening.

And there's about a thousand really good scientists who will tell you that it is happening.

And these are people who don't depend on the grant money for their opinion.

How long it will last? Nobody knows. That part it is true. Is it caused by CO2 emissions? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is just a local deviation that's only going to last 50 years. Could be. Nobody knows that answer.

The best evidence is actually the animals. I have ducks wintering over here in Central Texas that have NEVER been this far north. I have been here 20 years and never seen this. And it has been happening for the last three or four years.

Am I panicked? No. This is part of nature and part of what I am a part of. I take things as they come.

Peace,

Dennis

Ac

[mvillanueva]

I did read it.

One study does not equal proof when there are a dozen on the other side of the table.

Actually, the balance of yes to nay has been shifting over the past couple of years Barnett et al in 1999 agreed that it is hard to feret out the causal chain at the end of their abstract:

"Most, but not all, results suggest that recent changes in global climate inferred from surface air temperature are likely not due solely to natural causes. At present it is not possible to make a very confident statement about the relative contributions of specific natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed climate change. One of the main reasons is that fully realistic simulations of climate change due to the combined effects of all anthropogenic and natural forcings mechanisms have yet to be computed. A list of recommendations for reducing some of the uncertainties that currently hamper detection and attribution studies is presented." (Barnett et al., 1999)

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: Vol. 80, No. 12, pp. 2631–2659: Here

Subsequent studies pretty much show the reverse of your glibbly stated 1:3 ratio above. Most are coming out with evidence showing our influence on warming -- true, some do not support that view. But the number of studies reporting non-support or inconclusive evidence have been steadily declining.

Still.... Crichton could be right. The number of studies supporting any one view is certainly not evidence for its veracity.

[Genesis]

Especially when one controls who who's buying the studies.

Yes, there are studies funded by governments. And those funded by 'greenies.'

Remember, the tobacco companies claimed to have 'studies' showing that smoking wasn't harmful too.

The problem here is that this all comes down to computer models. Models all made with assumptions. Assumptions that have no way to be verified.

What is known as a fact is that climate shifts are normal events. Remember the history books? The "dust bowl" in Middle America that trashed crops for several years consecutively? We haven't seen drought like that in the United States since. Of course it might have happened before, but we weren't there to report it.

Sea temperatures are not a good indicator either. There have been two famous sea-temperature based studies that were discredited in the last few years. One of them had to do with the aforementioned Anarctic ice shelf (and the water around and under it.)

SSTs are volatile, because they are subject not only to the influence of cloud cover but also current shifts and weather systems. For example, this year we were hit by 4 hurricanes in Florida because a high pressure system that normally sits over the Atlantic during hurricane season was a couple hundred miles west of where it usually is. The result was that instead of recurving and missing the coast, these hurricanes came slamming inbound one after another. And - hurricanes are nature's SST warmth remover! Ivan removed 5 degrees F from the SSTs in one day here! I know - I dove just before and after it hit. The gauge don't lie!

Let's say you sit over some island and monitor SSTs. If a hurricane comes over that area, it will disrupt your measurements. You can't just 'average this out', because accurate numbers don't get collected that way - nor can you just say "well there was a storm this year" because the intensity, depth, and size of the storm, along with its speed over water, all influence how much heat they remove. Controlling for all that - accurately - when we're talking about changes of tenths of a degree in the averages simply is not possible.

Now if you want to argue that we ought to work on this anyway, on the possibility that we might be in trouble, ok. But to do that you have to convince everyone, and impose the pain equally on everyone. You most certainly cannot exempt the fastest-growing economies - and thus the fastest-growing polluters - from the process! Yet that's what Kyoto proposed to do. Why? Because they wouldn't agree to it otherwise. So we agree to damage our economy while we have a group of upcoming nations that have every intention to abuse that pact to unfairly compete with us? That doesn't make sense.

I'm about as ecologically-minded as they come. I bought an honest 50mpg car - not the overhyped and underdelivering hybrid either - because the fewer gallons of carbon-based fuels I burn, the fewer tons of CO2 I emit. Never mind that its a hell of a lot cheaper for me to fuel it than my truck.

Of course you have to weigh the fact that all of us who dive from boats have this little problem of boats being about as bad as it gets. My big boat gets about 1/2 mile per gallon of fuel - and that's pretty typical for a vessel of her size.....

So... are you prepared to give up diving to be a greenie-weenie?

I didn't think so.

Edited by Genesis, 17 February 2005 - 09:24 PM.

[mvillanueva]

Especially when one controls who who's buying the studies.

Yes, there are studies funded by governments. And those funded by 'greenies.'

Remember, the tobacco companies claimed to have 'studies' showing that smoking wasn't harmful too.

The problem here is that this all comes down to computer models. Models all made with assumptions. Assumptions that have no way to be verified.

What is known as a fact is that climate shifts are normal events. Remember the history books? The "dust bowl" in Middle America that trashed crops for several years consecutively? We haven't seen drought like that in the United States since. Of course it might have happened before, but we weren't there to report it.

Sea temperatures are not a good indicator either. There have been two famous sea-temperature based studies that were discredited in the last few years. One of them had to do with the aforementioned Anarctic ice shelf (and the water around and under it.)

SSTs are volatile, because they are subject not only to the influence of cloud cover but also current shifts and weather systems. For example, this year we were hit by 4 hurricanes in Florida because a high pressure system that normally sits over the Atlantic during hurricane season was a couple hundred miles west of where it usually is. The result was that instead of recurving and missing the coast, these hurricanes came slamming inbound one after another. And - hurricanes are nature's SST warmth remover! Ivan removed 5 degrees F from the SSTs in one day here! I know - I dove just before and after it hit. The gauge don't lie!

Let's say you sit over some island and monitor SSTs. If a hurricane comes over that area, it will disrupt your measurements. You can't just 'average this out', because accurate numbers don't get collected that way - nor can you just say "well there was a storm this year" because the intensity, depth, and size of the storm, along with its speed over water, all influence how much heat they remove. Controlling for all that - accurately - when we're talking about changes of tenths of a degree in the averages simply is not possible.

Now if you want to argue that we ought to work on this anyway, on the possibility that we might be in trouble, ok. But to do that you have to convince everyone, and impose the pain equally on everyone. You most certainly cannot exempt the fastest-growing economies - and thus the fastest-growing polluters - from the process! Yet that's what Kyoto proposed to do. Why? Because they wouldn't agree to it otherwise. So we agree to damage our economy while we have a group of upcoming nations that have every intention to abuse that pact to unfairly compete with us? That doesn't make sense.

I'm about as ecologically-minded as they come. I bought an honest 50mpg car - not the overhyped and underdelivering hybrid either - because the fewer gallons of carbon-based fuels I burn, the fewer tons of CO2 I emit. Never mind that its a hell of a lot cheaper for me to fuel it than my truck.

Of course you have to weigh the fact that all of us who dive from boats have this little problem of boats being about as bad as it gets. My big boat gets about 1/2 mile per gallon of fuel - and that's pretty typical for a vessel of her size.....

So... are you prepared to give up diving to be a greenie-weenie?

I didn't think so.

I see rhetoric, grandstanding, personal anecdotes, and a summary assumption meant to incite and inflame.

I do not see citations, thinking, or logic.

Please spare me the bullshit.

Wake-me or send me a PM when you want to debate.

[Genesis]

http://environmentwr..._scientists.htm

Read that with a critical eye.

You'll find an open admission of bias - the reason this candidate is at Scripps for his doctorate. Scripps did this "study".

This individual has a preconceived notion that there is "dramatic" climate change which we are causing.

Note that he hasn't done the research yet to back this up.

He "just knows."

Do you really think that this individual will conduct an unbiased review, choose unbiased locations for his measurements, control to the best of his ability for confounding factors, and not discount information that contradicts his original premise?

Of course he won't.

This is not how science is conducted. It is, however, how quackery has been practiced for thousands of years. From patent medicines to claims that the end of the world will come.... the latter proving embarassingly wrong time after time after time.

Now with that said, there's plenty of this sort of thing on both sides of this issue.

When I present the fact that these 'studies' are being conducted by "scientists" who have exactly this sort of pre-conceived belief, you recoil in horror and call names ("bullshit").

I thought that science was about putting forth a hypothesis (without conviction that it is true beforehand), finding evidence to support and refute it, with at least as much fervor attempting to disprove the hypothesis as prove it, debating that evidence, and then - if the facts admit - drawing a conclusion.

Science is not about starting with a conclusion, then searching for a set of "facts" that validate it, while discarding or underweighting any evidence that might suggest the opposite.

Yet this individual at Scripps admits - in print - that this is exactly where he is coming from. He is not alone.

An honest evaluation of this, or any other scientific endeavor, requires that such preconceived notions be eliminated from the process.

Scripps credibility on this matter has been attacked before, and its not difficult to find - in their 'scientists' and 'students' own words - all the evidence you need to back those questions up.

BTW, this is what the author of that study said just a few years ago....

Hindsight shows that much of last year’s unusual warmth was due to the recent El Niño short-term climate shift, says climatologist Tim Barnett from Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. Subtract the El Niño effect and “you’d probably say something different” about that nominally “warmest” year, he adds. Once again, natural weather changes muddled what seemed to be a clear global-warming signal.

Funny how when one actually looks at all of the evidence what appears at first to be clear suddenly isn't, and how who's funding what, and their political bent dujour, tend to cloud one's eyesight.

There is much more, of course.

Climate change certainly can screw certain people and certain populations. It can also benefit others! If your ox gets gored, that's bad, but what about those for whom their oxen are fed instead? Nobody wants to talk about that, yet it is inescapable that climate change will help some, and hurt others. Why do we focus only on the bad?

Then there is natural variation - which try as we might, we cannot control. As I'm sure you know, there have been several ice ages over the millenia - during which glaciers reached as far south as the middle of the United States! Certainly, the net "climate change" from then to now is so radically out of tune with what's being discussed here - a change of 1-4 degrees C in average temperatures over the period of the next century or so - as to mock any thought that we're "oh so grandiose and important."

Finally, CO2 is the major component in these greenhouse gasses which everyone is all worked up about. We're forgetting something here - plant life absorbs CO2 and emits oxygen through photosynthesis. Are we really loading the atmosphere to the degree that matters, or is a larger influence the removal of green plants from the earth, which we have relentlessly performed as we pave over the world?

Are you prepared to unpave your part of the world, your city, shopping mall, etc? Are you prepared to stop using all the wood that leads to the trees being cut down?

The carbon cycle is a natural part of life on this planet. Further, natural CO2 and Methane emissions are rather significant - and both are major contributors to greenhouse gases. Are we prepared to kill all the cattle, and stop eating beef?

Of course not.

The larger problem? There are too many people on the planet, and that problem is getting worse. The truly hard choices are being ignored for the simpletons, because nobody likes the hard choices. Witness the screaming about China, which has tried for over a decade to impose those hard choices - and how the rest of the world, including us right here in the United States, screamed "human rights violation."

Well, maybe - but do you have a human right to reproduce yourself right off the planet? If its not your kids, but your kids kids kids, does that make it ok for you to make like rabbits? Or is it reasonable to say "it stops here", and limit each pair of a man and woman to one child - by force if a simple request is not good enough? Then you look at the politics of this - there are nations, such as Israel, where were they to actually grant citizenship to the 'wrong' folks due to their increased rate of reproduction over the "right" folks the people in power wouldn't - by simple mathmatics - within 20 years. Ponder that one for a while.

None of this is simple, and pontificating on simple solutions to complex problems does not fix anything. It does, however, make certain researchers quite wealthy and give greenies a soapbox from which to scream, following which they get into their SUV that gets 8 mpg and drive away with a smirk on their face.

PS: I worked on something called "sustainable development" for more than decade when I was in my commercial life, both because it interested me and because the work I was doing with network development interested the researchers working those issues. Do some reading on it - this is a subject I've put a lot of time, effort, and study into over the last 20 years of my life, and the folks who I worked with on these matters were a whole hell of a lot smarter - and better-balanced in their evaluation - than these folks.

Edited by Genesis, 17 February 2005 - 10:23 PM.

[Marvel]

Genesis, I did as you suggested & read this article with a critical eye, actively searching for anything that might point to what you are trying to extrapolate from the article. Nowhere in it did I find anything that remotely resembled your claims that this person bases her research on "just knowing" or that she has a preconceived notion of dramatic climate change which we are causing.

I suggest that you revisit your own biases, which appear to cause you to misinterpret anything & everything you read to fit into your view of the world.

[mvillanueva]

Sweet lord.

BTW: The person you cite here in your link and then refer to throughout your post as a "he" is a woman. Her name is Tegan.


So to sum the facts upon which you base your post:

1. You cite a doctoral candidate (i.e., sans PhD at this point) who clearly stated she was writing a personal opinion piece. She dropped out of grad school. There is some real credibility for you in the area of critical thinking and scientific reasoning!

2. You quote Barnett who is in turn being quoted by The Global Climate Coalition, which is: "Currently, GCC members collectively represent more than 6 million businesses, companies and corporations in virtually every sector of U.S. business, agriculture and forestry, including electric utilities, railroads, transportation, manufacturing, small businesses, mining, oil, and coal.

You will note the organization has been deactivated since the links between their opinions the Bush administration were politically hot post election.

Your quote can be located here. Aside from the clear bias that organization has, your quote supports Barnett's later 1999 publication. If you note, the quote you chose, and presented on ABC news in 1998, presaged the same conclusions Barnett reached in his 1999 article -- that it is difficult to feret out the true causal chains of climate change.

Best to stick with original source material: So far your sources are (a) one dropped out grad student (b) one news-op piece by a very conservative web site, and (c ) your opinions. Is this your best scholarship?

3. My reference to your bullshit is about the manner in which you indiscrimantely wield personal opinion and anecdotal thinking under the rubric of objectivity and reason. Tautology went out of vogue about the same time of the Birth of the Reformation. You really would have made an ideal Cleric. Western Science no longer accepts the logic inherent in Kipling's "Just So Stories."

The larger problem here is truly not about global warming. The larger problem is not so much that you really do not know what you are talking about (certainly your lack of logic and absence of rational thinking support my observation), no, the larger problem is that you present yourself as having an expert and informed opinion on a topic of which you are both short on knowledge and long on rhetoric.

Truth be told, your approach of rambling, inflamatory ignorance is identical to what you have brought to other topics here on the board.

Again: Cut the bullshit Genesis. Get your citations and facts straight, leave off the inuendo about greenies and parking lots, leave the population about China in China, spare me the SUV stories, and stop preaching to me about the epistemology of science, and using citations of original sources, back up your claims about how you see the true causes of global warming.

Edited by mvillanueva, 18 February 2005 - 12:09 AM.

[ShamuLovesMe]

I see rhetoric, grandstanding, personal anecdotes, and a summary assumption meant to incite and inflame.

I do not see citations, thinking, or logic.

Please spare me the bullshit.

Wake-me or send me a PM when you want to debate.

Michael, you see "rhetoric" and "grandstanding" meant to "incite and inflame." I saw a passionate yet objective response. Since you're using big words like "tautology," here's a big word that describes what I see in your posts: ad hominem attacks.

Not everyone is an academic like you, so not everyone will debate by using citations, deductive reasoning and terms of art. This is a message board about diving, not a panel discussion at a global warming conference.

As with most issues about which most people feel so passionately, I find myself somewhere in the middle, seeing the logic of both sides yet unable to comprehend how individuals in either camp can be so incapable of understanding the other side.

Sure, there seems to be a lot of evidence to support the theory of global warming, but in my unscientific opinion, you need one hell of a lot of historical data to draw any conclusions about ANYTHING global.

(I also find it amusing that I'm choosing to defend Genesis, because my dad and I have a long-running debate about global warming in which he is the skeptic and I am the global warming believer.)

p.s. I, like Genesis, also find the hypocrisy in some so-called environmentalists very annoying (present company excepted). For example, a "greenie" I work with (to borrow the term both Michael and Genesis are using) talks a lot about environmental problems, yet drives a giant Ford Expedition. I thought that was bad enough, but I heard him referring to his "other" vehicle last week: a Ford Explorer. Please.

Edited by ShamuLovesMe, 18 February 2005 - 12:33 AM.

[mvillanueva]

I agree with you somewhat...

His language and misrepresentation of facts, his disregard for the orginal link and using that as a soapbox to share opinions and present them as facts warrants the call of bullshit.

I agree: Ad hominem attacks. Exactly.

What you see as "I saw a passionate yet objective response."

"So... are you prepared to give up diving to be a greenie-weenie?

I didn't think so. "

I saw those and other comments as inflamatory and inciting. You call that objective??.

Which is precisely what I saw his reponses as: Not a passionate defense but a extended condescending attitude that his position is so clearly apparent.

I cited citations -- but I did not present opinions and misrepresentations as facts.

I don't cite dropouts and conservative sites.

I suggested at the beginning a debate -- since he clearly appeared to be presenting opinion as fact. He subverts the very scientific process. So if you are going to walk in the land of scholar and present theories and rationales, then carry your citations and resources. Cause loudly stated opinions don't cut it. You going to run in my field of epistemology, then carry clear thinking.

So far, in all the responses, I dont see any back-up, only more bullshit.

Hence, Ad hominem.

he would have made a good cleric.

Edited by mvillanueva, 18 February 2005 - 12:47 AM.

[ShamuLovesMe]

Sorry, wrong word choice in a hurriedly scrawled post: I meant "reasonable" instead of "objective." So substitute the word, and I stand by everything else I wrote.

And I saw the "give up diving" comment not as inciting, but rather as a pointed exhortation to "walk the walk if you're going to talk the talk."

diversity of opinion (and diversity of fact, ha ha).