North pole to melt this year?
- Thread starter hornpharmd
- Start date
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
Well now there's a question, isn't it? Whether the situation we face with the climate is like a tumor, whether it is cancerous or not. We know from experience that cancer is deadly if left untreated. We know that it has killed others that we loved, and many others that we only knew casually. Expert knowledge is not required in order to know that we need the help of experts.
But the situation with the climate is not like this. We do not know from experience that the climatic conditions we face are deadly. We know of no other worlds that have been killed by such things, either those we loved or those we only knew casually. Now, it might turn out to be deadly for us; that is a possibility. But it also might turn out to be more like the alleged dangers that we commonly hear about on the various Sunday afternoon infomercials, the ones that claim your intestines are in poor shape, and that you need an onslaught of antioxidants in order to stave off a host of long-term and short-term health problems. And of course it may fall somewhere in between: as a concern, for sure, but one that can be adapted to through the normal institutional mechanisms of society.
The tendency to associate our environmental situation with something like cancer is characteristic of the "interest or concern" of those who seek careers in climate science, and which, in the absence of experience or proof, leads them on to visions of doom and devastation.
But the situation with the climate is not like this. We do not know from experience that the climatic conditions we face are deadly. We know of no other worlds that have been killed by such things, either those we loved or those we only knew casually. Now, it might turn out to be deadly for us; that is a possibility. But it also might turn out to be more like the alleged dangers that we commonly hear about on the various Sunday afternoon infomercials, the ones that claim your intestines are in poor shape, and that you need an onslaught of antioxidants in order to stave off a host of long-term and short-term health problems. And of course it may fall somewhere in between: as a concern, for sure, but one that can be adapted to through the normal institutional mechanisms of society.
The tendency to associate our environmental situation with something like cancer is characteristic of the "interest or concern" of those who seek careers in climate science, and which, in the absence of experience or proof, leads them on to visions of doom and devastation.
Coelacanth, if your family doctor tells you that you've contracted a rare fungal infection - one you've never heard of but which will, he assures you, kill you without treatment - do you ignore his warning?
I don't think you would ignore the warning and I don't think you would rely on prayer - I think you would let the medical expert treat you.
Of course, I may be wrong about your intelligence and good sense.
I don't think you would ignore the warning and I don't think you would rely on prayer - I think you would let the medical expert treat you.
Of course, I may be wrong about your intelligence and good sense.
C
Coelacanth
Guest
I think you are right about my response to that situation.
But the question is whether the situation is analogous in some meaningful way. It is not.
But the question is whether the situation is analogous in some meaningful way. It is not.
Terra Time Line
An excerpt from the link above illustrates what may be lie ahead if the past is any indication. Earth's day used to be 6 hours and the sun has steadily grown 25% brighter over the past 4 billion years...
- 125,000 yrs ago: Eemian stage or Riss/Würm interglacial period.
Hardwood forests grew above the Arctic Circle.
Melting ice sheets increased sea level by 6 meters (20 feet)
- 110,000 yrs ago: Start of Würm/Wisconsin glacial period
- 105,000 yrs ago: Stone age humans forage for grass seeds such as sorghum.
- 80,000 yrs ago: Non-African humans interbreed with Neanderthals[28]
- 74,000 yrs ago: Toba volcanic eruption
releases large volume of sulfur dioxide
- Homo sapiens reduced to about 10,000 individuals.
- 70,000 yrs ago: Tahoe glacial maximum
glaciers cover Canada and northern US.
- 60,000 yrs ago: Oldest male ancestor of modern humans[3]
- 46,000 yrs ago: Australia becomes arid,
bush fires destroy habitat, and megafauna die off.
- 40,000 yrs ago: Cro-Magnon man appeared in Europe.
- 28,000 yrs ago: Neanderthals disappear from fossil record.[29]
- 26,500 yrs ago: Taupo supervolcanic eruption
in New Zealand
- 22,000 yrs ago: Tioga glacial maximum
sea level was 130 meters lower than today
- 19,000 yrs ago: Antarctic sea ice starts melting.[22]
- 15,000 yrs ago: Bering land bridge between Alaska and Siberia
allows human migration to America
- 12,900 yrs ago: Explosion of comet over Canada [23, 24, 25]
causes extinction of American megafauna such as the mammoth
and sabretooth cat (Smilodon), as well as the end of Clovis culture
- Fired pottery invented (12,000 yrs ago)
- 11,400 yrs ago: End of Würm/Wisconsin glacial period.
Sea level rises by 91 meters (300 ft)
An excerpt from the link above illustrates what may be lie ahead if the past is any indication. Earth's day used to be 6 hours and the sun has steadily grown 25% brighter over the past 4 billion years...
- 125,000 yrs ago: Eemian stage or Riss/Würm interglacial period.
Hardwood forests grew above the Arctic Circle.
Melting ice sheets increased sea level by 6 meters (20 feet)
- 110,000 yrs ago: Start of Würm/Wisconsin glacial period
- 105,000 yrs ago: Stone age humans forage for grass seeds such as sorghum.
- 80,000 yrs ago: Non-African humans interbreed with Neanderthals[28]
- 74,000 yrs ago: Toba volcanic eruption
releases large volume of sulfur dioxide
- Homo sapiens reduced to about 10,000 individuals.
- 70,000 yrs ago: Tahoe glacial maximum
glaciers cover Canada and northern US.
- 60,000 yrs ago: Oldest male ancestor of modern humans[3]
- 46,000 yrs ago: Australia becomes arid,
bush fires destroy habitat, and megafauna die off.
- 40,000 yrs ago: Cro-Magnon man appeared in Europe.
- 28,000 yrs ago: Neanderthals disappear from fossil record.[29]
- 26,500 yrs ago: Taupo supervolcanic eruption
in New Zealand
- 22,000 yrs ago: Tioga glacial maximum
sea level was 130 meters lower than today
- 19,000 yrs ago: Antarctic sea ice starts melting.[22]
- 15,000 yrs ago: Bering land bridge between Alaska and Siberia
allows human migration to America
- 12,900 yrs ago: Explosion of comet over Canada [23, 24, 25]
causes extinction of American megafauna such as the mammoth
and sabretooth cat (Smilodon), as well as the end of Clovis culture
- Fired pottery invented (12,000 yrs ago)
- 11,400 yrs ago: End of Würm/Wisconsin glacial period.
Sea level rises by 91 meters (300 ft)
I don't expect to convince Coelacanth or VYFan that they're wrong about the impact the release of fossil CO2 will have on the earth's climate. I do, however, want to understand why you have the attitudes you do. Is it just an example of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand when faced with something you would rather not deal with? Is it a general misunderstanding of science's role in our world? Is it a general antipathy towards science? Is it because the scientific message is in conflict with other viewpoints that are important to you? Is it because you value short-term over long-term good?
I lean towards the last though I recognize that more than one of these hypotheses could be right. The human tendency to choose short-term gain is such a ubiquitous element in the human character. It's explained, as is everything, by our evolutionary history. The primitive human who failed to concentrate on the short-term - finding food, avoiding that dire wolf, seducing that female - didn't pass on his genes. It's no wonder that we've evolved into a creature that is so short-sighted.
I lean towards the last though I recognize that more than one of these hypotheses could be right. The human tendency to choose short-term gain is such a ubiquitous element in the human character. It's explained, as is everything, by our evolutionary history. The primitive human who failed to concentrate on the short-term - finding food, avoiding that dire wolf, seducing that female - didn't pass on his genes. It's no wonder that we've evolved into a creature that is so short-sighted.
That kind of makes me laugh, which is good on this thread.
So, I'll play....
We were created with a strong and true sense that our individual lives are important even in the immeasurable expanse of time and space. With God eliminated as a factor to interplay with and discharge that longing in our hearts for importance, it is no wonder that modern secular humanists must throw themselves into whipped up scientific melodramas in which a vote for the right candidate or a persuasive post on a forum JUST MIGHT SAVE THE WHOLE WORLD FROM DESTRUCTION IN OUR LIFETIME!!!
Hey, just having some fun, which is what I think you were doing.
So, I'll play....
We were created with a strong and true sense that our individual lives are important even in the immeasurable expanse of time and space. With God eliminated as a factor to interplay with and discharge that longing in our hearts for importance, it is no wonder that modern secular humanists must throw themselves into whipped up scientific melodramas in which a vote for the right candidate or a persuasive post on a forum JUST MIGHT SAVE THE WHOLE WORLD FROM DESTRUCTION IN OUR LIFETIME!!!
Hey, just having some fun, which is what I think you were doing.
GT…great line of questions and I appreciate the tone.
I agree with you that I wouldn't go to just anyone to get treatment for cancer (although I definitely WOULD pray for it and have it prayed for because I know people whom God has healed from cancer in ways that science can't explain). Regardless, of that though, I think Coel did a good job outlining the problem with "climate science." the truth is, we have massive gaps in our knowledge that make the knowledge we do have highly suspect. As I have said, the lack of consideration of cloud coverage is just one issue that by itself may completely "fell" climate science and change AGW theory altogether. The same goes for the sun's role in warming and cooling and if we are indeed on the precipice of another extreme minimum, we will see another one of the dogmatic assertions of some climate scientists tested. in fact, i have seen so many things NOT be true that have been declared to be true dogmatically by climate scientists that I am actually surprised that you put so much faith in them. Here are just a few:
1. The declaration 5 years ago that we were going to see less and less snow across the states and even in the Northeast.
2. The declaration that the oceans were rising faster than ever.
3. the declaration that hurricane frequency and intensity was on the upswing because of CO2 caused warming right before one of the slowest periods in hurricane activity we have had in the past Century.
4. the fact that AGW predicts both sides of every phenomenon and then declares "victory" whatever happens.
5. the fact that many of the things pointed to by climate scientists were true before the Industrial Revolution ever got under way in earnest (the warming rate, the rate of sea level rise, the melting of the world's glaciers, etc).
So…when you say my reason isn't science, i know you believe that heartily, but the truth is, we are looking at a nascent science that is constantly discovering new truths about the world's oceans, the sun's role, the multi-decadal oscillations etc which call it all into question.
I could also mention the global ocean heat content…which continues to confound climate scientists. the past 10 year's (more like 12 at this point) hiatus in actual warming (note: staying warm is not the same as warming. when an oven reaches 350, but then refuses to budge, it is not warming and it adds little information value to the discussion to mention that the oven is the "hottest it has been in 20 minutes of keeping records").
I agree with you that I wouldn't go to just anyone to get treatment for cancer (although I definitely WOULD pray for it and have it prayed for because I know people whom God has healed from cancer in ways that science can't explain). Regardless, of that though, I think Coel did a good job outlining the problem with "climate science." the truth is, we have massive gaps in our knowledge that make the knowledge we do have highly suspect. As I have said, the lack of consideration of cloud coverage is just one issue that by itself may completely "fell" climate science and change AGW theory altogether. The same goes for the sun's role in warming and cooling and if we are indeed on the precipice of another extreme minimum, we will see another one of the dogmatic assertions of some climate scientists tested. in fact, i have seen so many things NOT be true that have been declared to be true dogmatically by climate scientists that I am actually surprised that you put so much faith in them. Here are just a few:
1. The declaration 5 years ago that we were going to see less and less snow across the states and even in the Northeast.
2. The declaration that the oceans were rising faster than ever.
3. the declaration that hurricane frequency and intensity was on the upswing because of CO2 caused warming right before one of the slowest periods in hurricane activity we have had in the past Century.
4. the fact that AGW predicts both sides of every phenomenon and then declares "victory" whatever happens.
5. the fact that many of the things pointed to by climate scientists were true before the Industrial Revolution ever got under way in earnest (the warming rate, the rate of sea level rise, the melting of the world's glaciers, etc).
So…when you say my reason isn't science, i know you believe that heartily, but the truth is, we are looking at a nascent science that is constantly discovering new truths about the world's oceans, the sun's role, the multi-decadal oscillations etc which call it all into question.
I could also mention the global ocean heat content…which continues to confound climate scientists. the past 10 year's (more like 12 at this point) hiatus in actual warming (note: staying warm is not the same as warming. when an oven reaches 350, but then refuses to budge, it is not warming and it adds little information value to the discussion to mention that the oven is the "hottest it has been in 20 minutes of keeping records").
MOP,
Again, you're presenting your opinion on the state of climate science - an opinion that the majority of scientists expert in relevant fields would disagree with. If you disagree with anthropogenic climate change, it isn't because the science is weak - it's not. There has to be other reasons you disagree with the scientists. Economics, politics, philosophy, religion - there has to be a reason. I want to understand why you believe as you do. That, believe it or not, is a mark of respect. I'm not just writing you off as an anti-science kook.
Again, you're presenting your opinion on the state of climate science - an opinion that the majority of scientists expert in relevant fields would disagree with. If you disagree with anthropogenic climate change, it isn't because the science is weak - it's not. There has to be other reasons you disagree with the scientists. Economics, politics, philosophy, religion - there has to be a reason. I want to understand why you believe as you do. That, believe it or not, is a mark of respect. I'm not just writing you off as an anti-science kook.
But GT, I disagree. I do think the science is weak and entirely myopic. What I mean by that is this: I think that we are just beginning to understand the complexities of climate but people are rushing to judgment and largely in error. It would be like studying a running car by turning on the radio and correlating it in some way with the radio. No doubt you could make many true observations about the radio and indeed you could find correlations with the engine, but you would be mistaken in many of your conclusions due to a misunderstanding of the entire system.
I do understand that you are honoring me and not trying to write me off. But with your perspective, we are always slaves to the latest understanding of any subject. Look at the sun…it was just 9 years ago that NASA was predicting one of the largest solar cycles on record. Hathaway told us that we could expect a gigantic solar cycle with tons of sunspots. Now we are in the weakest solar cycle in 100 years and staring at the distinct possibility of a solar minimum that may last for decades. How do you see that fitting in with your tendency to think that whatever the latest expert says is most correct? Hathaway/NASA was totally mistaken. Does this inform your tendency to accept by faith whatever the latest declarations of "science" is on any given subject?
Another example of this is the study that came out in May which suggests that the sun may have 6 times the impact on global temperatures than we thought just a month earlier. Now, which is true? Because if that new study turns out to be correct, then much of what you are touting in this thread, will be greatly weakened by one study. Do you see the problem?
I do understand that you are honoring me and not trying to write me off. But with your perspective, we are always slaves to the latest understanding of any subject. Look at the sun…it was just 9 years ago that NASA was predicting one of the largest solar cycles on record. Hathaway told us that we could expect a gigantic solar cycle with tons of sunspots. Now we are in the weakest solar cycle in 100 years and staring at the distinct possibility of a solar minimum that may last for decades. How do you see that fitting in with your tendency to think that whatever the latest expert says is most correct? Hathaway/NASA was totally mistaken. Does this inform your tendency to accept by faith whatever the latest declarations of "science" is on any given subject?
Another example of this is the study that came out in May which suggests that the sun may have 6 times the impact on global temperatures than we thought just a month earlier. Now, which is true? Because if that new study turns out to be correct, then much of what you are touting in this thread, will be greatly weakened by one study. Do you see the problem?
GT, for a scientist with considerable intellect, you sure lack a skeptical side. should i go dig up the countless things that climate science has wrongly predicted? or where it has predicted both sides of an issue where it can't fail? how is climate science falsifiable?
you have fun rhetoric (i mean who wouldn't prefer "informed" opinions?), but my point is that some of what is "informed" today is still highly incomplete by any reasonable standard.
can you give me a clear and scientific way that the current understanding of climate science would be falsified in your mind?
you have fun rhetoric (i mean who wouldn't prefer "informed" opinions?), but my point is that some of what is "informed" today is still highly incomplete by any reasonable standard.
can you give me a clear and scientific way that the current understanding of climate science would be falsified in your mind?
C
Coelacanth
Guest
GT, what science, exactly, do you claim that I deny?
C
Coelacanth
Guest
C
Coelacanth
Guest
I asked you first:
What science, exactly, do you believe I am denying?
What science, exactly, do you believe I am denying?
C
Coelacanth
Guest
I'm not above being manipulated, GT. Happens all the time. But it's just so un-artful and transparent in this case, that I refuse to respond out of respect for my aesthetic principles. For the sake of moving on, you're free to think that I doubt evolution. And that I believe AIDS is transmitted primarily by gay mosquitoes. I honestly do not care. You'll have to find a more artful and less demeaning way of drawing me into those discussions than merely "Hey, I now call upon you to prove that you do not, in fact, believe in absurd positions". If that cost me bonus points, so be it. I'm willing to bet it will cost you more bonus points to withhold a presentation of the science that I supposedly doubt, especially since I asked you first and since my question is no manipulation, but is as straightforward as possible. Or, as I say, you're welcome to believe that I believe what I do or don't actually believe. Believe what you want.
Still, what science do you believe that I deny?
Still, what science do you believe that I deny?
I will answer. I don't believe In common descent. I question the current state of climate science. I believe the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. I believe the universe is 13.7 billion years old. I believe HIV causes AIDS. I don't believe that overpopulation is a huge problem yet or in the next Century.
That last one is a strange one because indon't think there is even close to a "consensus" on that one is there?
That last one is a strange one because indon't think there is even close to a "consensus" on that one is there?
C
Coelacanth
Guest
Now that we have that out of the way, GT, what science in particular do you think I am denying?
Ag with kids
2,500+ Posts
interesting that the latest news out is that from 1998 to 2008 we saw no warming and actually a slight cooling trend. Even researchers are perplexed:
Cooling trend?
Cooling trend?
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 582
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 608
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
