My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

Everybody can feel good about throwing some charcoal in/on the garden or lawn, if for no other reason than to retain more moisture; no 'belief' in 'global warming' required. :)

 

To what type of "belief" are you referring?

 

As I understand it, you are using this to somehow be deragatory toward people who accept the science behind climate change and it's relation to human activity, yet all it means is "a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

 

 

For more on types of belief, the wiki gives a good overview:

 

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moontanman]

To what type of "belief" are you referring?

 

As I understand it, you are using this to somehow be deragatory toward people who accept the science behind climate change and it's relation to human activity, yet all it means is "a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

 

 

For more on types of belief, the wiki gives a good overview:

 

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

There goes that word belief again, I think I'll eliminate from my vocabulary! All it does is cause trouble and confuse the issue.[EVIL][/EVIL]

[InfiniteNow]

I agree this is a reasonble method for sequestering some carbon, and I think the best chance of implementing it is distributed small scale operations. Everybody can feel good about throwing some charcoal in/on the garden or lawn, if for no other reason than to retain more moisture; no 'belief' in 'global warming' required. :)

 

To what type of "belief" are you referring?

 

As I understand it, you are using this to somehow be deragatory toward people who accept the science behind climate change and it's relation to human activity, yet all it means is "a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true."

 

 

For more on types of belief, the wiki gives a good overview:

 

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

There goes that word belief again, I think I'll eliminate from my vocabulary! All it does is cause trouble and confuse the issue.[EVIL][/EVIL]

 

Indeed. Funny how religion so consistently screws things up. :)

[Essay]

....the nine billion would fit in Texas for sure but how much of Texas is really suitable for humans? You would have to take away all the mountain sides and scrub deserts, all the unlivable areas. If you did that you would be quite crowed and still not have a means to obtain food.

....

We don't have room for what we have for everyone to live at a level where poverty isn't the norm.

I'll have to look for some support on this, but I still maintain:

"I don't want 9 Billion people, but that was the number I heard somewhere [anyone else know?], when they projected into the future with current trends and expected advances, etc.

The point is that this (9B) was judged to be workable [above poverty level], with efficient management of resources." -#353

 

My feeling is that we will find progress increasingly difficult if we continue with business as usual (BAU).

 

I'm sorry to have brought up that vague Texas analogy. Of course you're right about the arable land, etc.

It seems to me that you want to achieve Type 1 status (through BAU?) in order to leave our increasingly untenable niche; whereas I'm pushing for restoring the niche in order to secure Type 1 status.

 

I don't think just achieving space travel would qualify a civilization as Type 1.

Wouldn't it be too difficult to support an interplanetary fleet without a bountiful homebase? :)

I think Kaku suggests a civilization would need to master many of the planetary forces (and successfully manage them) before qualifying as Type 1. This would then also allow for space travel. :)

:hyper:

[Essay]

"There goes that word belief again, I think I'll eliminate from my vocabulary! All it does is cause trouble and confuse the issue." -MTM :)

I think we are forced to express ourselves more clearly when we avoid that word.

 

 

I agree this is a reasonble method for sequestering some carbon, and I think the best chance of implementing it is distributed small scale operations. Everybody can feel good about throwing some charcoal in/on the garden or lawn.... :hyper:

 

...and it doesn't even have to be the TP thing. Just changing ag. practices, to keep the soil healthier (no till, organic, etc.) will get the numbers that the IPCC was talking about.

If we did the TP thing on marginal, non-ag. soils [Forestry & Range Management], it'd probably double what the farmers could do alone.

:)

[Moontanman]

I'll have to look for some support on this, but I still maintain:

"I don't want 9 Billion people, but that was the number I heard somewhere [anyone else know?], when they projected into the future with current trends and expected advances, etc.

The point is that this (9B) was judged to be workable [above poverty level], with efficient management of resources." -#353

 

My feeling is that we will find progress increasingly difficult if we continue with business as usual (BAU).

 

I'm sorry to have brought up that vague Texas analogy. Of course you're right about the arable land, etc.

It seems to me that you want to achieve Type 1 status (through BAU?) in order to leave our increasingly untenable niche; whereas I'm pushing for restoring the niche in order to secure Type 1 status.

 

I don't think just achieving space travel would qualify a civilization as Type 1.

Wouldn't it be too difficult to support an interplanetary fleet without a bountiful homebase? :evil:

I think Kaku suggests a civilization would need to master many of the planetary forces (and successfully manage them) before qualifying as Type 1. This would then also allow for space travel.

 

If we stay on the earth conditions will continue to get worse. We are slowly destroying the ecosystem by developing land that the ecosystem needs to stay wild. We are also creating a mass extiction of the scope of the extiction that wiped out the dinosaurs.

 

I agree that space travel isn't enough to qualify us as type one, space travel is the first step. type one staus cannot be achieved from a planet bound species. One thing is for certian, with out developing space travel we will never leave this planet and we will go down with the ship. As things continue to get worse, and all we can really do is slow down the decline. At some point we will not be able to mount anything like a space program, all our resouces will go toward slowing the decline of the Earths environment. After that we will simply drown in our own problems and die out. A few million years later the earth will recover but we will be gone.;)

[InfiniteNow]

This is a great discussion, guys. I hope you continue it.

 

 

Maybe a moderator can split these off into their own thread, though, since this one is about GW?

 

 

In the meantime, carry on here to make sure the posts all stay together. Type I civilization? Space? Mass extinction? Population density? Right on, good stuff! :evil:

[Turtle]

"There goes that word belief again, I think I'll eliminate from my vocabulary! All it does is cause trouble and confuse the issue." -MTM :eek_big:

I think we are forced to express ourselves more clearly when we avoid that word.

 

Since 'that word' is the premise of the thread, I believe I used it appropriately to the context. ;)

 

...and it doesn't even have to be the TP thing. Just changing ag. practices, to keep the soil healthier (no till, organic, etc.) will get the numbers that the IPCC was talking about.

If we did the TP thing on marginal, non-ag. soils [Forestry & Range Management], it'd probably double what the farmers could do alone.

:hihi:

 

I have been wondering just how much charcoal is still hanging out in forests from fires. :hihi: Should we gather it, or leave it be? ;)

[freeztar]

Maybe a moderator can split these off into their own thread, though, since this one is about GW?

 

Bump...

(unfortunately, this is out of my jurisdiction for such actions)

[Essay]

...

Since 'that word' is the premise of the thread, I believe I used it appropriately to the context. :cup:

...

I have been wondering just how much charcoal is still hanging out in forests from fires. :beer: Should we gather it, or leave it be? :(

 

LOL Turtle, you are entirely correct about the title.

...

I've been wondering if we should pre-emptively gather all some of the trees killed by GW (pine beetles) to help manage the coming decades of mass forest fires.

I think there'll be enough charcoal to go around (remaining in the mountains, and harvested).

 

...but still, this is "off-topic."

 

meanwhile... for those still feeling shaky, any comment on this below, as an independent verification of GW?

 

Look at a new parameter of CC effects; see the anthropogenic component clearly demonstrated:

 

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/beltrami-etal2002.pdf

"These fluxes indicate that 30% of the heat gained by the ground in the last five centuries was deposited during the last fifty years, and over half of the five-century heat gain occurred during the 20th century."

-from: Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophysical Research Letters., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310

 

Note the "hockey stick" like shape of the graphs.

[Turtle]

LOL Turtle, you are entirely correct about the title.

...

I've been wondering if we should pre-emptively gather all some of the trees killed by GW (pine beetles) to help manage the coming decades of mass forest fires.

I think there'll be enough charcoal to go around (remaining in the mountains, and harvested).

 

I put belief in single quotes, {'belief'}, to indicate an acknowledgment of the varying definitions and philosophical debates on the definition & use of the word.

 

Yes, let's go out & pick up a bunch of the dead wood to use & reduce the fuel load for future fires! Seems a no-brainer to me.

 

meanwhile... for those still feeling shaky, any comment on this below, as an independent verification of GW?

 

Look at a new parameter of CC effects; see the anthropogenic component clearly demonstrated:

 

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publi...i-etal2002.pdf

"These fluxes indicate that 30% of the heat gained by the ground in the last five centuries was deposited during the last fifty years, and over half of the five-century heat gain occurred during the 20th century."

-from: Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophysical Research Letters., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310

 

Note the "hockey stick" like shape of the graphs.

 

Mmmm...I don't see a graph, because the link goes somewhere else!? :confused: But, I found this bit the link does lead to contains elements of my earlier skeptical comments on the modeling.

 

Now, from an unlikely source (Real Climate) have come the statements

 

“A scenario only illustrates the climatic effect of the specified forcing - this is why it is called a scenario, not a forecast. To be sure, the first IPCC report did talk about “prediction” - in many respects the first report was not nearly as sophisticated as the more recent ones, including in its terminology. “

 

“One should not mix up a scenario with a forecast - I cannot easily compare a scenario for the effects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data, because I cannot easily isolate the effect of the greenhouse gases in these data, given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.”

 

Real Climate states that the scenarios can

 

“….. become obsolete, and….. cannot be verified or falsified by observed data, because the observed data have become dominated by other effects not included in the scenario.” ...

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News

[InfiniteNow]

[Essay]

Sorry I'm such an idiot. No wonder nobody....

Here is the link:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/beltrami-etal2002.pdf

 

-from: Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophysical Research Letters., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310

 

...and WOW InfiniteNow, --great Graph. The turquoise "borehole" line shows what this paper indicates. ...Thanks.... :confused:

[Turtle]

Sorry I'm such an idiot. No wonder nobody....

Here is the link:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/beltrami-etal2002.pdf

 

-from: Beltrami, H., J. E. Smerdon, H. N. Pollack, and S. Huang (2002), Continental heat gain in the global climate system, Geophysical Research Letters., 29(8), 1167, doi:10.1029/2001GL014310

 

...and WOW InfiniteNow, --great Graph. The turquoise "borehole" line shows what this paper indicates. ...Thanks.... :)

 

How embarrassing. :o Probably better not to mention it again...the skeptic's link you accidentally posted, that is... better not mention that one again. This one >> Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News Shhhh!

 

On your 'real' link, I don't find anything on the deep ocean temperature variance, or an indication of how it affects the upper layer temperatures. I see a lot of boreholes on the map too; how long have we been drilling those & how is temperature data derived from them? :confused:

[InfiniteNow]

How embarrassing. :o Probably better not to mention it again...the skeptic's link you accidentally posted, that is... better not mention that one again. This one >> Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News Shhhh! :)

 

On your 'real' link, I don't find anything on the deep ocean temperature variance, or an indication of how it affects the upper layer temperatures. I see a lot of boreholes on the map too; how long have we been drilling those & how is temperature data derived from them? :confused:

 

If you're the one insinuating doubt or error in the data, then truly the onus falls on you to answer your own questions. The rest of us accept the data as accurate.

 

Btw... Ole' Rog is an interesting fellar.

 

I have encountered his name before in another GW debate thread where he said the following in conclusion to a link I provided:

 

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » NOAA Cover Up Of US Historical Climate Network Surface Station Photographs

 

This is clearly a procedure to avoid making these photographs available. Indeed, in the papers that have been published with photographs of these HCN sites, care was taken to not publish the address or name of the observer.

 

<...>

 

The new NOAA policy is a deliberate attempt to avoid presenting this information for scrutiny.

 

 

The references, IMO, don't warrant that conclusion, and I am inclined to agree with and accept the response Roger Pielke Sr received via email from NOAA which stated the following:

 

The policy is an attempt to protect volounteers from harrassment by the kind of conspiracy nuts that Surface Stations is likely to inspire.

 

 

 

There's also this (fancy that... he's a political scientist, not a climatologist):

 

Roger Pielke Jr - SourceWatch.

 

During congressional hearings on political interference with government scientists by members of the Bush Administration, Pielke testified that Bush's actions are not different from prior administrations. It was later revealed that his testimony had been sought by Republicans on the committee.

 

<...>

 

Pielke is regularly cited by conservative activists to undercut the science on global warming and policies that might mitigate climate change.

 

<...>

 

A study he published in the journal Proceedings of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society contains numerous references that were not peer-reviewed.

 

The main citation for the paper is a study that Pielke published in the skeptic journal Energy and Environment which not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. A review of the paper finds that Pielke cites the Energy and Environment study four different times in his latest paper.

 

<...>

 

At the 2007 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Pielke Jr. gave a joint presentation on hurricanes and climate change with global warming skeptic Stephen McIntyre.

 

McIntyre's is another name favored by skeptics and thoroughly debunked by experts in the field. However, to his credit, he did find an error in a data point regarding temperature in the early 20th century and he contacted NASA to have it corrected. The rest of his work, unfortunately, is wrought with falsehoods and misrepresentations.

[Turtle]

Something on ocean temperature variance by depth, and a project underway to correct some of the deficiencies in the models. :confused:

 

...Why do we need Argo?

 

We are increasingly concerned about global change and its regional impacts. Sea level is rising at an accelerating rate of 3 mm/year, Arctic sea ice cover is shrinking and high latitude areas are warming rapidly. Extreme weather events cause loss of life and enormous burdens on the insurance industry. Globally, 8 of the 10 warmest years since 1860, when instrumental records began, were in the past decade.

These effects are caused by a mixture of long-term climate change and natural variability. Their impacts are in some cases beneficial (lengthened growing seasons, opening of Arctic shipping routes) and in others adverse (increased coastal flooding, severe droughts, more extreme and frequent heat waves and weather events such as severe tropical cyclones).

 

Understanding (and eventually predicting) changes in both the atmosphere and ocean are needed to guide international actions, to optimize governments’ policies and to shape industrial strategies. To make those predictions we need improved models of climate and of the entire earth system (including socio-economic factors).

 

Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations? ...

Argo - part of the integrated global observation strategy

 

Post Script: Essay, you may not have seen this information, which received a critical review largely focussed on the writing style, and not critically contending the facts revealed by the mud-core research off British Columbia. Note the multiple sun cycles involved beyond the Schwabe. Also, did I see you say some part of an ocean is getting colder?

 

 

Read the sunspots

 

posts #55 to #64 >> http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/10648-global-warming-i-am-more-worried-6.html

[InfiniteNow]

Something on ocean temperature variance by depth, and a project underway to correct some of the deficiencies in the models.

Huh?

 

Specifically, which model(s)?

Specifically, which deficiencies?

Once you've addressed that, what is the quantitative impact of those deficiencies on the conclusions?

Once you've addressed that, how does it counter the conclusions of the other models which do not suffer from those deficiencies?

 

 

Science is not generally done in sign language, yet you continue doing little more than hand waving. :confused: