Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[le Voyageur 72]

lol...

 

you do like to volley personal attacks, instead of debating the issues. Here's a clue, me bucko'....I've me COPE Director's hat on for this thread....

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

The weather does appear to be warmer now than in my youth, but then again in the 70's I htink it was predicted we were headed into a period of Global Cooling and that we could be in the begining of another Ice Age, to which others opined that actually the Ice Age was still going on, Human's were just the result of a respite in the Ice Age.

 

When you sit and look at the rings of a 3 foot in diamter tree, just recently cut down, and think of all the years that tree has stood, you get a sense of time. Out west you can see the layering of rock so much more often than on the East Coast, but you see it here as well. The striations in the rock, some almost parallel with the ground, other almost perpendicular and you think about the time associated with developing such formations and I wonder if our lifetimes, if the lifetimes of all serious scientists (starting with Archimedes) is long enough to evaluate anything changes in the earth's climate.

[packsaddle 753]

"Human's are now a virus on this planet, and a massive die off of these invasive parasites would see huge global benefits for other species, and eco systems."

A combination of "The World Without Us" and agent Smith's tirade to Morpheus, LOL. Virus or not, we're here and the option of the massive die off is not one many of us would willingly choose.

 

I can't think of a less-likely group to concoct a massive global conspiracy than a bunch of scientists. We're highly trained in our specialties but most of us are insufficiently skilled and insufficiently dishonest to be able to pull of a conspiracy bigger than stealing reagents from the next lab.

Anyone who has worked with massive numerical models understands the sources and behavior of uncertainty, especially if the model contains stochastic components (which the climate models do). Confidence diminishes rapidly the farther into the future the predictions.

But as some of us have noted, the risks associated with the worst predictions are 'interesting'. This is one reason politics enters the picture...potential public consequences and interest.

 

It is still quite possible to pursue science for its own sake. In fact I'd say that the majority do just that...it's one of the reasons they're not as visible as the few who like to be in front of the cameras.

Yes, I know some 'true believers' with regard to climate change. It's troubling to me but scientists are human and susceptible to human error. I also am willing to acknowledge that they might be correct.

Some of us do take them to task and the exchanges are outside public view so most of the time the public is unaware of them. I have not observed a single element of conspiracy or even coercion with regard to publications or data. On the contrary, there are instances where our ideas are very wrong...and it takes a while for us to reject them. (I actually pepper my lectures with these examples as 'cautionary tales' for the students)

I hope this is the case for climate change but I have not seen evidence to reject the hypothesis in favor of the null.

 

At the same time I'm not optimistic. I am certain that if we live long enough, most of us will know the actual answer (as Beavah mentioned). But I doubt that our political process will lend itself to the kinds of policies that lead to meaningful solutions. I think the most likely course, globally, is that we'll essentially do nothing about the problem even if we ALL become convinced that it is real. There is already a model for our behavior that leads me to this opinion:

We KNOW what our fiscal irresponsibility will do to future generations and we ignore it. We have been ignoring it, now, for decades. And we will use similar thoughtless rationalizations to do nothing, essentially ignore, climate change...even if we all think it's real.

 

GHB, if your son wants an advanced degree and if he's really as good as you say he is, HE should take the initiative and find something other than UGA. Believe me, there are plenty of better exciting, intellectually-challenging options. I say this to our best graduates, "now, for your own good, go somewhere else."

On the other hand, if he is unwilling to question his own ideas or put his convictions to independent scrutiny or test, maybe UGA is good.

 

[DanKroh 11]

Ok, I gotta ask because in 4 years in the biology department and a S.B. later, I never heard of "naturalistic" vs. "mutational" evolution. What, exactly, is the difference?

[scoutldr 726]

If there is a GW problem, I am not hopeful that humans will actually care enough to alter their pathetic narcissistic lives one iota. I can't even get the others who live under my roof to recycle or use CFL light bulbs. Every day, I come home from work and pull all the plastic water bottles and soda cans out of the garbage and go around and turn all the lights off in the middle of the day.

[GaHillBilly 10]

Sorry, the terms aren't clear. I should have said it better, but unfortunately, it's not a debate that has led to clarity of terminology.

 

Anyhow, what's currently required in most graduate biology departments is an a priori presumption of a closed natural universe. In other words even if you find, embedded in the DNA code the words in Hebrew, "I am Yahweh", you MUST assert -- even in the absence of all evidence -- that the explanation for that is random and explainable in terms of natural (ie, non-supernatural) causes.

 

It used to be acceptable to embrace natural causes only as a working hypothesis, but to leave open the possibility that the actual causes were not natural. All working scientists, even ones like Mendel and Newton who were devout Christians, did so. Both of these found natural causes in areas often previously assumed to be under direct divine action.

 

However, this is no longer acceptable. In most biology departments, senior graduate students must disavow any belief in the possibility of direct action by the God of the Bible in the physical world. I don't know whether some might tolerate direct influence by Wiccan 'spirits' or not. ;-)

 

Given that this excludes the physical resurrection of Christ, it appears that it is generally no longer possible for orthodox Christians to receive a doctorate in biology, no matter what the specialization. Except Behe, all of the working biologists I know of who are skeptical about the validity of the evolutionary theory are converts, and got tenure before they became Christians.

 

My son is still looking. But he's beginning to lean toward becoming a PA instead.

 

GaHillBilly

[le Voyageur 72]

If there is a GW problem, I am not hopeful that humans will actually care enough to alter their pathetic narcissistic lives one iota. I can't even get the others who live under my roof to recycle or use CFL light bulbs. Every day, I come home from work and pull all the plastic water bottles and soda cans out of the garbage and go around and turn all the lights off in the middle of the day.

 

I actually believe we will do ourselves in within the next 200 years as the tipping point has been passed. Our specie is now on the other side of the bell curve, and headed for extinction due to over population on a planet with finite resources...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziuFW-7h1LM

 

 

 

http://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/water/conservation/californias-water-supply-crisis

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22001218/The-Real-Water-Crisis-Soil-and-Groundwater-Salinization-in-the-Western-San-Joaquin-Valley

 

http://earthtrends.wri.org/features/view_feature.php?theme=1&fid=9

 

http://www.canada.com/technology/story.html?id=93844846-31dd-4750-a3e3-5b17cc7d7527

 

 

[mmhardy 10]

Say what you want.Im just wondering what palm trees will look like on Lake Superior.

[Trevorum 24]

I think it would be unlikely that the entire human species would become extinct, should of a global nuclear holocaust. More likely, our civilization could merely collapse, resulting in the deaths by starvation of billions within just a few years. A much lower density of humans (perhaps merely a few millions globally) would survive using an economy of locally sustainable, non-mechanized horticulture. Those new cultures would adapt to some new climate stability. Perhaps science and technology might arise again after hundreds of years of the second dark age. Maybe we could learn from the past and avoid the whole scenario the second time around. Or maybe not.

[John-in-KC 311]

Thoughts:

 

1) If I saw scientists in Copenhagen right now instead of diplomats and politicians ... with a report-out which politicians agreed to listen to in their offices, I'd be more comfortable. What I see is a lot of posturing by politicians instead.

 

2) There are ways to displace carbon in the energy cycle. Geothermal (this old rock underneath us is pretty hot, and can heat lots of water to spin lots of turbines), solar, and yes, wind ... all can do something to displace carbon.

 

3) Nuclear? Who is drinking the Kool-Aid here? Have we all forgotten Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm I know there is debate about how these pictures got taken, that they were taken is indisputable. There are consequences to nuclear energy ... and those consequences will take millenia to resolve, even in a safely operated environment.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I'm with scoutldr and Le Voyageur. I reckon our pathetic, narcissistic tendencies, at least in this country, will doom us. Like I said, there aren't any problems we seem willing to address rather than shove off on our kids and grandkids. And no science or thoughtful prudence can withstand da challenge of our rampant anti-intellectuals. Never trust anybody who worked hard enough to earn an advanced degree!

 

But I just can't help lookin' at all the lads (and young ladies) wearin' our uniform and honestly taking our Oath who we are betraying. On the Day of Judgment they will be our accusers before the Throne.

 

"Who among you, if his son ask for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?" (Matthew 7:9-10).

 

That would be us.

 

Beavah

 

[HiLo 10]

Don't blame the scientists. The saddest thing about the climate change discussions is that the economists and politicians have taken over the discussion from the scientists. The economists and politicians should stick to doing what they do well, managing the world's economy.

 

(In other forums where I play I have a terrific tongue-in-cheek emoticon I can use. I miss it here.)

 

Sorry about the cynicism.

[packsaddle 753]

This species will not go extinct. There might be a substantial decrease in population size but the same adaptive abilities that allowed us to swarm out of Africa and over the planet in the geological blink of an eye will ensure that no matter how the climate changes, at least some of us will continue the line...perhaps in less comfort than many of us enjoy now.

But if a really big object from space collides with earth, that might wipe the slate. Or maybe if the LHC, sometime next summer, does happen to synthesize a tiny black hole....

 

With regard to nukes, sorry but we've made that bargain already. We have them already and we're going to have more of them. Might as well learn to love it. Not too far from where I'm typing there is a stack (literally) of concrete containers that contains more spent fuel in one place than probably any other place on the planet. And it continues to pile higher and higher. Lovely. This is just one more burden that we've decided to leave to future generations.

 

GHB, anyone who does not want to engage in actual science should not attempt it, degree or not. Especially when other endeavors such as engineering, psychology, politics, law, or economics beckon.

 

Edited to address John-in-KC: Geothermal has significant problems that limit its application. Perhaps you are unaware of the recent closure of the plant in CA due to causing earthquakes. Also to mention the sparse distribution of those hot rocks near enough to the surface.

With regard to wind, etc., these technologies will only be viable if in the course of their lifetime they can produce energy in excess of that required to produce them in the first place. This kind of critical analysis is being displaced by political and economic interests.

Besides, I'd be interested in learning about the all-electric tractors, electric fertilizer, and electric pesticides.

Most of us haven't the slightest idea how incredibly difficult it would be to replace fossil fuels. It is a void that invites fantasies and illusions, reminiscent of a religious faith.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten 10]

I have a very difficult time engaging in any scientific discussion with those who hold the belief that the earth was created in 6 days and is only 5-10 thousand years old. Just sayin'.

[vol_scouter 365]

John-in-KC,

 

The amount of radiation released at the Three Mile Island site was small and there have been no significant effects. The news media has terrified the public of nuclear power. As to Chernobyl, the Russians were taking chances and knew it. The Russian designs were for ease & low cost of construction and operation. There are designs now that if the control rods are removed, the physics of the reactor will shut it down without any kind of intervention. We cannot decrease our dependence on foreign oil without nuclear energy.

 

The climate models are fraught with assumptions. Those assumptions could be valid, conservative, or total nonsense. The evidence is toward global warming but it is not clear that humans are too blame. Have you ever asked what is the percentage by volume of carbon dioxide in dry air? Dry air is approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 0.93% argon. That totals 99.93% of the atmosphere is not CO2which makes up just 0.038% of the atmosphere. H2O which is typically ~1% of the atmosphere is also a greenhouse gas. Additionally, there have been temperature increases on Mars (still SUV free - just a couple of fancy dune buggies) due to increased solar output. Some climate models treat the sun as a constant source term. The scientists are reporting what they predict with their models. Some have been too bold. To destroy an economy over these models is not a wise course. At the same time, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels is sensible.