Environmental Crisis: The Sky is Falling!

[Ranger Genius]

I've pointed out that the IPCCC and USNA (by the USGCRP) are fundamentally flawed. Please feel free to show me any data that does not cite any of these unscientific studies. You don't have to compare motives when the actual credibility of one of the sources has been thrown into doubt. Further, a straw man is a form of non-sequitur. I used 'the sky is falling' as an ad-hominem. I didn't say that the growing regions will shift. I said they will EXPAND.
According to the info I cited from the Marshall institute, warming has caused a decrease in drought, without causing an increase in flooding.
"Climate models?" You mean the Canadian Climate model? The one that performs very poorly when applied to recent trends? I thought we already went over this.

On an only slightly related note:

Remember in the seventies, when some of the same scientists trumpeting about global warming today told us all that we were headed for a second ice age, because they logged a few years of cooling trends? In the words of Penn Jilette:

"If they were still famous, we could point and laugh."

Incidentally, I'm going to participate in Stuart's experiment of ignoring BRR and his known socks, so please don't interpret my silence as concession to his points henceforth. Not that anecdotal arguments require any answering.

....more interested in a discussion about the environement or just interested in pissing people off with spurious and unsupported statements about a volatile subject?

Not so much pissing people off as attempting to challenge the assumptions that people hold about certain topics. If your natural response to having to defend your assumptions is to get pissed off, then you should probably avoid me.

Blyslv: I only have time at the moment to read one article, but I read the one about the cessation of oceanic currents due to the melting of the polar caps during the end of the last ice age, because it sounded intriguing. I especially like the paragraph about how the theory blatantly contradicts tha paleo-record.

I'm trying to answer everyone here, but my time resources are limited. I'm not trying deliberately to piss anyone off. Except, possibly for BRR.

[Guest]

Any intelligent person knows they have a finite amount of time on the planet. Your job, should you choose to accept it is to sample as much as you can as fast as you can. In 36 years of adulthood there has been a lot of time to sample a lot.. In truth,, there is little in the way of active outdoor work preferably with a touch of danger I haven't done, from the depths of the sea to the higher mountains.. Haven't you? You will be dead for a long time, might as well grab life by the balls and go for it. The only thing worse that dead is bored. Or bored and Urban... Or bored and urban and making a living sitting down.

Ranger is defending the undefensable,, lotta that on this site..

[dragonfly Jafe]

Any intelligent person knows they have a finite amount of time on the planet. Your job, should you choose to accept it is to sample as much as you can as fast as you can.

<snip>

Or bored and Urban... Or bored and urban and making a living sitting down.

Wouldn't urban living and/or sitting down qualify as part of the "as much as you can" arguement above?

Or are some things just not worth spending the time on? How do you determine which is which? Do you go by experience, or assumption? If experience, why shouldn't we have the same benefit as you had (experiencing things first hand)? If assumption, might there be a chance you are wrong? So shouldn't you/we try it after all?

regards, Jafe

[stuart]

I've pointed out that the IPCCC and USNA (by the USGCRP) are fundamentally flawed. Please feel free to show me any data that does not cite any of these unscientific studies. You don't have to compare motives when the actual credibility of one of the sources has been thrown into doubt. Further, a straw man is a form of non-sequitur. I used 'the sky is falling' as an ad-hominem. I didn't say that the growing regions will shift. I said they will EXPAND.

you have not shown how they are flawed, you have only stated that sources I find rather lacking in scientific objectivity find them flawed. It's not quite the same. I agree whole heartedly with your third sentance above. I think it applies beautifully to CATO. And just a point of order, how can 'the sky is falling' be an ad hominem attack? Who is being attacked? I think straw man is much more apt. You equate warnings about global warming to warnings about the sky crashing down. OK, so maybe it's a false analogy. And while we are tinkering, The validity of any statement made about us hurtling towards an ice age has absolutely no bearing on the validity of an assertion that global warming is a real threat. The amount of core sampling and other vital research that has been done between then and now is very substantial. I sure hope you are not heavily relying on a magic duo cum comedy team for your source of hard science.

[DVD Burner]

Nice avatar Genius!

[Badger]

I'm not sure that the science is completely in re. the climatic changes - especially the scenarios that are being pushed and pulled about in the media. I say this only because any climatologist will concede that cyclic abberations have punctuated the l o n g historical record (ice core data, paleobotanic analysis, geochronology, etc) suggesting that anamolies are part of the over all equation. The fact that data on such events have only come to the fore in the last 30-40 years and drawing conclusions from that limited data make me... wonder if in fact a detrimental climatic trend is indeed in the making.

Having said that, the following link to a report put out recently by none other than the Pentagon http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climatechange.pdf gives me pause around my ambivalence.

Have a look. Interesting reading and, so far as I can tell, the report is written fairly objectively.

[Maia]

Badger; Can you actually have a detrimental climate change? The dominant life form on the planet, cockroaches, may not see climate change as a problem. If we use the term detrimental, we are projecting our homocentric fears.. Yet, we are just one part of the environment..

There have been some good articles in the media on the possibility of drought being the norm in the West, unlike the relatively wet recent past. Powell saw this over a century ago, and planned the settlement and water use in the West accordingly. He was overridden by large business interests.. and their Senators, such as Senator Newlands of Nevada.. Hence the Newlands project... Derby Dam... extinction of the Pyramid Lake Cutthroat trout..

Couple of good books to read; Beyond the 100th Meridian, Stegner
Cadillac Desert, Marc Reisner
Rivers of Empire, Donald Worster
Water in the Hispanic Southwest: A Social and Legal History, 1550-1850, Michael C. Meyer

[sparkletarte]

Living in western Canada, the climate change is very noticable in the last 10 years, and particularly the last 5. It's drier, and hotter earlier in the spring. We have a definate water shortage compared to before. Old trees are showing signs of stress. In northern Canada it's even more extreme: the mosquitoes are out earlier and for longer, the treeline is moving north, the icepack breaks up earlier, and the ice that forms is thinner than ever before. Even where I live there is evidence of the glaciers shrinking. As well, one of the reasons that our fishery is doing so poorly is that the rivers where the fish spawn are too warm so the young die.

I think the change is much more noticable in areas that get a cold and snowy winter because we have something very temperature dependent- ice and snow.

[Ranger Genius]

That is an interesting report, though it does now balance the pro bono equation, allowing one to arraign the motives of the Pentagon (fishing for more funding.)

The document cites the IPCC study, though, as its source for global warming data. There are several reasons to doubt the validity of this report, such as the vocal criticisms from Dr. Vincent Gray, who is on the peer review panel for that study. Read some of his criticisms here.

If you're a glutton for punishment and want to see a huge number of graphs, charts, et cetera showing flaws in the IPCC, root around http://www.John-Daly.Com I'll just provide one illucidating example here, for now.

The conclusion from chapter eight of the IPCC states that there is a "discernible human influence" in global climate change, but this comment was added to the document AFTER the drafting scientists had met in Madrid, by one panel member, named Santer. This was based on his own studies of upper atmosphere temperatures he had done earlier. But his conclusion is based on these figures:

Anyone can see a warming trend here, and Santer claims it as a success because it matches his climate models (the same models used in the IPCC report) to a very high degree of accuracy. Why does the chart stop at 1988, you might ask? Good question. Here's the answer (the rest of the graph, with ALL of the available data):


Santer's (and the IPCC's) climate model is so far off for those last ten or so years as to be completely useless in predicting those trends. What use is a climate model that doesn't predict the climate? More fun to come later.

I just wish to state: I consider myself a conservationist. I'm concerned about the environment (I recycle, use public transit where possible, and have switched to a much more fuel-efficient car. I pick up litter anytime I walk past it, and write my elected officials regarding environmental issues). My point in pursuing this thread is to show that the scientific community is by no means in agreement about the nature, cause, severity, and importance of global warming, and other issues. I've never said that these are not things to be concerned about, only that the case has been overstated. I am enjoying this discussion greatly, and thank you all (with one exception) for keeping things on a civil basis.

[samtzu]

There are:

• Lies
  Damned Lies
  Statistics

Mark Twain

and in this thread... all of the above...
Sam

[Last Real Burner]

Being one of the few living clamatologist will concede that cyclic abberations have punctuated the l o n g historical record suggesting that anamolies are part of the over all equation. The fact that data on such events have only come to the fore in the last 30-40 years and drawing conclusions from that limited data make me... wonder if in fact we are detrimental to clams, yes a trend is indeed in the making. We should dress up as Clams, sneak up on the little buggers and scare the living shit out of the little fuckers. Furthermore, I er.....huh? climate not clams................

Never mind.

[stuart]

the scientific community is by no means in agreement about the nature, cause, severity, and importance of global warming

this is very similar to a prime argument creationists use against evolution. The very nature of the scientific community leads it to be in this state regarding just about everything.

[samtzu]

I believe that the clamitoligists should not be ignored...

"Yes Pat... I would like to BI a VALVE"

Sam

[Ranger Genius]

this is very similar to a prime argument creationists use against evolution. The very nature of the scientific community leads it to be in this state regarding just about everything.

A key difference being that there really is no disagreement about whether evolution takes place. There are a few slightly different ideas about exactly how it takes place, but unlike with global warming, evolution 1) has provided valid models which yield testable and verified predictions, and 2) comforms with observed (non-anecdotal) phenomena.

Global warming theory has thus far failed to meet the standard of reasonability, and yet its proponents routinely state it as though it were proven fact and suggest --in the most hyperbolic of language-- immediate and drastic responses, the costs of which are not justified by the threat. I always believed the hyperbole myself, until I heard Patrick Moore suggest that the case had been exaggerated and overstated, and decided to look into the matter for myself.

[Bob]

WWW searches are inherently biased.

[KellY]

This article is actually from 1997, but I havn't heard of any of these people recanting their positions. And please note, the Union of Concerned Scientists has no particular financial motivation in the matter.

World's Nobel Laureates And Preeminent Scientists Call On Government Leaders To Halt Global Warming

(Washington, DC - September 30) More than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science, have signed a landmark consensus declaration urging leaders worldwide to act immediately to prevent the potentially devastating consequences of human-induced global warming. The "World Scientists' Call for Action at Kyoto" was presented to the Clinton Administration today at a Science Summit on Climate Change in Washington, DC.
Let there be no doubt about the conclusions of the scientific community: the threat of global warming is very real and action is needed immediately," said Nobel laureate Henry Kendall, Chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists and author of the scientists' statement. "It is a grave error to believe that we can continue to procrastinate. Scientists do not believe this and no one else should either."

Leading scientists came to the Science Summit to ensure that government leaders base their global warming policies on climate science, not politics. In December, world leaders will gather in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate final agreement on a treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that are altering the climate. The White House has yet to announce its concrete proposals to limit global warming and has scheduled a conference on the subject for October 6.

The scientists' declaration urges all government leaders to demonstrate a new commitment to protecting the global environment for future generations. According to the scientists, a strong treaty will be the "first step to protect future generations from dire prospects that would result from failure to meet our responsibilities toward them. The stark facts carry a clear signal: There is only one responsible choice to act now."

"This is a wake-up call for world leaders. Never before has the senior scientific community spoken so boldly on the urgent need to prevent disruption to our climate," said Nobel laureate Dudley Herschbach, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University. "Scientists and citizens around the world will hold leaders accountable if a strong climate treaty is not reached."

The "Call for Action" is notable in both the pedigree and cautious nature of its backers. The signers come from 63 countries and include leaders and senior members of national science academies from around the world, chief authors and the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, National Medal of Science recipients, and winners of the Craaford Prize. A majority of the world's Nobel winners in science - 98 out of 171 - signed the statement.

The declaration points out that a strong climate treaty in Kyoto would address one of the most serious threats to the planet and future generations. The declaration states that:

* Global warming is underway and our overuse of fossil fuels is partly to blame.

* Climate change is projected to raise sea levels; increase the likelihood of more intense rainfall, floods, and droughts; and endanger human health by greater exposure to heat waves and encroachment of tropical diseases to higher latitudes.

* Climate change is likely to exacerbate food shortages and spread undernutrition by adversely affecting water supplies, soil conditions, temperature tolerances, and growing seasons.

* Climate change will accelerate the appalling pace at which species are now disappearing, especially in vulnerable ecosystems. Possibly one-third of all species may be lost before the end of the next century.

* Continued destruction of forests will undermine the environment's natural ability to store carbon, thereby enhancing global warming.

The scientists note that leading economists have identified viable policies for reducing global warming and urge government leaders to enact sound energy policies that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, like solar and wind power.

"We need to speed the transition away from oil and coal while developing cutting-edge technologies involving wind, biomass, and solar power," said Kendall. "A move to clean energy and energy efficiency will bring major benefits to both industrial and developing nations."

The world's scientists believe that completion of a strong Climate Treaty would set a "landmark precedent for addressing other grave environmental threats, many linked to climate change. It would demonstrate that the world's leaders have now recognized, in deeds and words, their responsibility for stewardship of the earth."

The Union of Concerned Scientists organized the scientists' statement and summit. Established in 1969, UCS is a national non-profit organization dedicated to advancing responsible public policies in areas where science and technology play a critical role.

[Ranger Genius]

"We need to speed the transition away from oil and coal while developing cutting-edge technologies involving wind, biomass, and solar power," said Kendall. "A move to clean energy and energy efficiency will bring major benefits to both industrial and developing nations."

I agree with this statement, and would even add stop-gap technologies like gas-electric hybrids, and fuel-cell technology (currently in beta-testing in several cities). It is not necessary, however, to use the kind of alarmist language that precedes it in that press release (and distinctly weasely language, I might add):

....partly to blame...
...projected to...increase the likelihood...
...likely to exacerbate...
...possibly one-third...

Rising ocean levels?

Near the center of that picture, just about the horizontal lines, you can see a groove in the rock. That groove was carved by antarctic explorer Capt. Sir James Clark Ross marking the mean sea level (point between high and low tides). This photo was taken at low tide Jan 20, 2004 on the 'Isle of the Dead' in Tasmania. Tidal range is less than a meter. That mark, by the way, is 50 cm across. If the water levels are rising so much, why is high tide today lower than the mean tide when that mark was made...in 1841?


Also, you're telling me that scientists who make a living studying global warming have nothing to gain by promoting a hysterical fear of it? Please.

[samtzu]

Naw... let's keep pissin' in the ocean and farting into the air because this planet is infinite and it can take whatever fucking abuse we dish out to her. She's a tough old bird... like the passenger pigeon...

Sam

[theCryptofishist]

She's a tough old bird... like the passenger pigeon...

And the dodo. And the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. And the Moas. And the Elephant Bird. And the Great Auk. And the Carolina Parakeet. I miss them all. (sniff)



And I've seen the book by the guy sited in the OP refuted by E.O. Wilson among others, but I don't have the link.

And to think that we are using 40% of the sun's productivity on the earth and not having an effect is odd.

And if we're wrong, we can always rev up the activities proven not to be environmentally harmful again. Make a mistake in the other direction and we may not have a chance to rectify it.

[Bob]

Take off your pants NOW.

Pants-wearing promotes bad thinking, bad science, and ill-thunken writing full of crap science.

The atmosphere "hates" this.

Nature "abhors" that.

Crap. Crap. Crap.

Take off your pants NOW.

[samtzu]

(Okay... Pants are off...)

"Hey! It's nice out!"

(think I'll leave it out.........)


Sam

[Maia]

DragonFly Jade; "Wouldn't urban living and/or sitting down qualify as part of the "as much as you can" arguement above?

Or are some things just not worth spending the time on? How do you determine which is which? Do you go by experience, or assumption? If experience, why shouldn't we have the same benefit as you had (experiencing things first hand)? If assumption, might there be a chance you are wrong? So shouldn't you/we try it after all?

You post a valid question,, Yes,, for instance, Ric lived in a couple of large cities,, Boston,, and Naples Italy. He spends a great deal of time (too much in my estimation) in Las Vegas,, [Draggin miscreants to the hoosegow] and he does like San Fran, in small doses, and will be there for a week.. Any San Franciscoites here, got FTA warrants? His son, much to his chagrin has moved to the city to experience the GQ party life, but keeps threatening to move up to Truckee and work on making the Olympic team.. He is a national class nordic racer, but bailed out for wine, women, and song.. So Ric understands the city,, but get through it fast and get out to some big rivers, high mountains, arid deserts, (He doesn't recommend swamps and jungles, too many bugs) ski across Greenland, float the Mackenzie.. but don't bring your urban experience to the outback.. Experience the wild lands on their terms..be hungry, be thirsty,,, Lie on your back in the hot desert sun, naked, very still, and see how close you can get the buzzards to come.. The desert sun can give you an orgasm.

Hasta,

Maia,,

[Badger]

Badger; Can you actually have a detrimental climate change? The dominant life form on the planet, cockroaches, may not see climate change as a problem.

Detrimental meaning a negative impact on one or more natural systems or cycles. Sure cockroaches, bacteria, etc. can adapt to dramatic changes but a good number of animal species are selected based in part on their environment. Granted, these too change over time but do so in a way that allow for Darwinian selectivity usually over large increments of time. The potential impact of man made environmental changes that occur over decades or even centuries throws a real wrench in the gears in that species adaptatation doesn't always happen that quickly. The results are usually extinction. When such changes happen quicker than the normal adaptive process then i think there is a detriment that's imparted in the natural order of things.

I shouldn't drink when I try to articualte such things BTW.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

The real data, however, indicate a global climate change of less than .75 (that's POINT-seven-five) degrees centigrade over the next fifty years, plus or minus .25 degrees centigrade.

I don't want to burst your bubble dude, but we have recorded a three degree rise over the last 80years here in Montana. Our glaciers are almost gone. Less then a third or quarter gone.

I place my money on that fact!

I think we're doomed dude but hey, I'm going to watch "GW Bush's New TV Game show- The Iraqi Pyramid Game Show! Woopee Goldberg will be right at the top!

and utah can change it's license plate to "Greatest Dust Bowl on Earth!"

A II Z

[DVD Burner]

[Maia]

Sunday ruminations; Not to quibble too much over it Badger, but the term, detrimental, seems to only work from one perspective. Thinking back over the millions of years,, great changes have occured, based on human... and mammal success at the current time, these changes have worked for our benefit, but detrimental to dinosaurs, great mammals, to be obvious.

Likely climate change disrupted the Anasazi and perhaps cause the abandonment of their homes... They might have seen that as a detriment, but then again that is looking at it from our 21st century perspective, perhaps the abandonment of their homes was a time of great rejoicing for reasons that we cannot be aware of.. (religious movement? ) That same climate change forced nomadic tribes to move, and maybe brought the Navajo and Apache on the the ground they (partially) live on today. And even made the Anasazi vulnerable to attack and robbery now that they were no longer in the defensible structures... so perhaps that climate change was seen as a positive by the Navajo and Apache.

If the West dries to the point of no longer being able to sustain the current large population, is that detrimental? And if so, to whom? Perhaps the Pronghorn will consider it a positive..

And who considers the desires of the Cockroach?

Saturday morning, Ric has to wire up a new irrigation pump and install it. We need to make a run for hay. Then this afternoon a long mtn bike ride up into the hills to a secret meadow with a pool of clear water. And finally a barbecue this evening, ribs,,, cooked over red oak coals brought in from Santa Maria CA, early greens from the garden, homemade icecream. How is the city this fine morning? Tomorrow we have to help Jack move cows from one allotment to another (that must be the wannabe cowboy some slicker whined about many posts ago)

Would be good to take a laser level to the playa and check the divot, see if a measurable degree of difference to the surrounding playa can be found, and if so, what does it mean?

[Bob]

No wonder ArtBellism is running rampant....

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Likely climate change disrupted the Anasazi and perhaps cause the abandonment of their homes...

Would be good to take a laser level to the playa and check the divot, see if a measurable degree of difference to the surrounding playa can be found, and if so, what does it mean?

The Anasazi did leave because of the increased desertification of the SW and is considered a fact!

As for a possible divot on the Playa, only with a Surveying instrument could you measure any change and don't expect it to be lower, but higher as well. I have camped in the walking area for years. The crust there is as undisturbed as most of the playa outside of the enclosed area of BM. I have noticed dunes forming around my tent in high winds and its not downwind from the entry road at all. The source is just the general usage that the playa just receives from all the traffic the playa gets in the playa sw of Gerlack and smoke creek desert. Maybe because of the structures dust could be collecting in the BM Staging area and the playa might actually be rising.

There are many dynamics evolved in that area and studies are on a long term basis.

Lack of rain, increased wind, traffic, earth disruptive practises, such as mining, farming, cattle ranching and tourism all have an effect.

multi-faceted studies can help everyone here from claiming that the other party is the culprit or stop all human activites in the Black Rock Desert. The means Ranching, Farming, Mining, off-road vehicles, BM, hobby Rockets, High Speed Land Record Setting, I mean all human activites except for foot, bike and horse travel. Just foot would be the safe bet. But we do have alot of time before that extreme is to be undertaken after remedies aplied first.

the playa heals itself given the time needed but the BLM could do more in to rehabilitate certain areas around the playa far from the BM site. I'm talking about the playa access areas all over the gullies and channeling. Get the BLM to stop paying for the unecessary police presence and put that money into re-hab and restoration. The wealth that BM generates can be a very good thing in that respect instead of pading every deputised cousin of a cousin to hound people that haven't hurt a playa fly!

A II Z

[Badger]

The Anasazi did leave because of the increased desertification of the SW and is considered a fact!

Incorrrect.

It still remains a theory.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>

Speculation abounds on just why the Anasazi disappeared (or left) the southwest but to suggest that one probable contributing variable is the reason is a leap which is not supported by the science. That and the fact that the Anasazi left no written record to back up your claim. There are other historical 'mysteries' that are the subject of similar speculation. Teotihuacan near Mexico City comes to mind. a large, thriving city which was seemingly abandoned overnight. Jamestown in Virginia being another. The fact is that there are no single 'facts' to explain why the folks disappeared.

[dragonfly Jafe]

DragonFly Jade; ...but don't bring your urban experience to the outback.. Maia,,

Until recently, I had never had an "urban" experience, having grown up in a "village" of ~80 persons. We even had a stop sign at our one intersection. I don't much like "urban" either (although 125,000 maybe doesn't qualify as "urban" in some folk's books), and relish leaving it behind whenever possible. After a few days of no electrical fields, I start to relax again.

regards, Jafe