global warming

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
Locked
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

Alex123 wrote:If today's rate of rise in temperature was greater than it has ever been before...
:redherring: That is not the stated opinion of climate scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest.[8] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[9][10]
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

Alex123 wrote:I am not professional, ...
Then why do you think your analysis of the data is more accurate than the vast majority of scientists?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

Alex123 wrote:Ron made a good point that climatologists have trouble making accurate predictions more than 4 days in advance.
This shows you don't understand the difference between climate and weather. To illustrate, let's compare a single hand of poker to weather, with a lifetime of poker to climate. On any given hand, a player may win big, getting rich off the casino. However, over a lifetime of gambling, the house will always win. The reason for this is that probability is chaotic on the small scale (a single hand, a single weather event, etc.) but probability is very reliable over the long run (a lifetime of poker, decades of climate data).
Last edited by Buckwheat on Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat »

Alex123 wrote:Please read quotes in this post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrant_(magazine)
The quotes in your post track back to an article by Quadrant Magazine, written by a biased journalist, not a scientist. I have no way to track the crdibility of this author, but I seriously question he is a reputable source for the kind of data he presents. Why would I believe this guy?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

Buckwheat wrote:Then why do you think your analysis of the data is more accurate than the vast majority of scientists?
For example because I take longer term chart to see more data.
Climate model projections were summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicated that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest.[8] The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.[9][10]
How do we know that this has anything to do with Humans?

Also, please note that these estimates are based on models... And if these models are just that, models?

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:If today's rate of rise in temperature was greater than it has ever been before...
:redherring: That is not the stated opinion of climate scientists.
No red herring. In that sentence I had Lonesome yogurt's post in mind:
LonesomeYogurt wrote: The problem is the artificial increase in warming speed that does not allow for natural and sustainable adaptation.
Charts that we have do not show any abnormal increase in temperature. Actually the temperature seems to be going down, even with all the alleged extra warming by the humans.

As humans were releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere in the 1940s-70s the temperature was going down so much that we had a global cooling, cooling, scare. So much for the more co2 = more amplification of the temperature.
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Apr 01, 2013 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Ron made a good point that climatologists have trouble making accurate predictions more than 4 days in advance.
This shows you don't understand the difference between climate and weather..
Or you didn't understand the point. If we have trouble to predict how warm/cold it will be 4 days or more in advance, then what can we say about 10-100 years?!
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Post by daverupa »

Alex123 wrote:
Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Ron made a good point that climatologists have trouble making accurate predictions more than 4 days in advance.
This shows you don't understand the difference between climate and weather..
Or you didn't understand the point. If we have trouble to predict how warm/cold it will be 4 days or more in advance, then what can we say about 10-100 years?!
That's still comparing weather and climate, Alex, which is fallacious in terms of understanding climate science. But this was already mentioned, and you have failed to learn the information. So, you either remain unwilling to learn, or unable.

I'm utterly flummoxed.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 »

daverupa wrote:That's still comparing weather and climate, Alex, which is fallacious in terms of understanding climate science.
I am not comparing weather to climate. Of course there is a big difference. But if we can't accurately predict one day, how can we accurately predict daily temperatures over whole period (some say 30 years) in order to say what temperatures and over what range will be?

How accurately can we predict the sun's activity in near or further future? It affects the climate.

Kim,
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
Click here to see this peer reviewed research paper.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

Kim O'Hara wrote:...carefully and sensibly...
once again you've resorted to name-calling via defamation innuendo
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

daverupa wrote:There can be no convincing evidence given to one who is suspicious of the standards of evidence being used. Those who disagree with the scientific consensus must argue against either the science itself, or the motives for the consensus. Therefore, this discussion might usefully continue (elsewhere) as a general foray into epistemology with a focus on what it means to have "good evidence" for something.
You're trying to draw lines in the sand while the tides coming in. Science just means knowledge, so talking about science is not a "foray" into epistemology. It is empistemology! "Suspicion"/scepticism (not to be confused with absolute dout) is a necessary condition for good science. Have you ever taken a course in statistics, resarch methods, philosophy of science, the history of science? I have. I'm not just blowing smoke. That's why it's so easy for me to spot bad science (and my masters degree is a masters of science). Your "point" amounts to no more than an inappropriate use of an argumentum ad populum unlike my appropriate use of an argumentum ad verecundiam.

If scientific consensus and peer review were "the gold standard of science" ( :rofl: ) we'd still be believing with most scientiists/epistemologists in the 1600s that the earth is motionless. Galileo disproved Aristotle's physics--which held that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight--with his famous Tower of Pisa experiments, which flew in the face of the then accepted "scientifc consensus."
daverupa wrote:Otherwise, I find that conspiracy theories render the individual who holds them incapable of equanimous conversation. It's definitely the third and worst field to hope seed will take root within.
This devloves to name-calling via defamation innuendo. Scepticism, iteration, critical thinking and counter-induction are necessary for good science/epistemology. Conclusiveness is the enemy of knowledge. So please stop mis-labelling things that appeaar contrary to your precious opinions. Calling things you merely disagree with "conspiratorial" itself inhibits "equanimous conversation."
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:I agree or disagree with the data ...
How on Eath can one "disagree with data"? Do you mean "not trust the data"? Data is just data. If it is gathered with integrity, it must simply be taken as a fact. The interpretation of data is another thing. Interpretations can be tricky, requiring clever minds and vigorous debate amongst trained prosfessionals, not amateurs like us.
Data is never just data. The fact that we want it to begin with adds one layer of interpreatation, and "gathering it with integrity" is itself another layer of interpretation. Nothing by good science/epistemological methods should be taken as fact. Assuming there's a clear distinction between "trained professionals" and "amateurs" is another layer of interpretation.

Ever heard of the Observer Effect, The Copenhagen Interpreation, The Uncertainty Principle? Ever taken a college course in statistics, research methods, philosophy of science, history of science, etc...?

I have. Am I a trained professional or an amateur?

Silly distinction.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

Buckwheat wrote:
danieLion wrote:
Whether or not you were offended by Muller’s attempt to calm the climate change debate, I’d like to focus instead on Powell’s deeper message. He claims that scientists have a responsibility to trust each other. As he says in the video, “If every scientist said, ‘I’m not going to believe what anybody else did until I do it myself,’ scientists would be at least a century behind where we are right now. That is, if something is done by a reliable lab, passes peer review, you should at least tentatively accept it until somebody shows you some reason why it’s wrong.”

This is a bold statement, and it made me think. As scientists, skepticism is one of our main responsibilities, maybe even our first priority, because we have implicitly agreed to collect knowledge from the physical world rather than myth or superstition. We must be skeptical of claims, unless they are supported by empirical evidence. So how did we end up with a “scientists vs. skeptics” debate, where scientists are compelled to say “don’t worry, just trust me”?
Source: The Berkeley Science Review
Trust like this makes critical thinking unnecessary and the quote shows how Powell thinks the corrupt peer review process trumps replicablity as a principle of sound scientific method. I'm guessing he never took a philosophy of science course.
The trust here comes after the peer-reviewed process for accepting empirical evidence, and can always be overturned by new evidence. It's not any different than "trusting" a senior monk who is well-respected in the monastic community until you have the time / capability to verify his teachings through your own experience.
Apples and oranges. In the latter case you at least approximate a sufficent sample, but not in the former. Plus, it ignores the more important scientific/epistemological principles that trust/faith is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for good science. The Buddha himself encouraged critical, sceptical examination of his very own self and teachings. And I'm not alluding to the Kalama Sutta, which is merely supplemental to the even bolder Vimamsaka Sutta (MN 47).
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: global warming

Post by danieLion »

daverupa wrote: That's still comparing weather and climate, Alex, which is fallacious in terms of understanding climate science. But this was already mentioned, and you have failed to learn the information. So, you either remain unwilling to learn, or unable.

I'm utterly flummoxed.
Are you assuming there's not a necessary connection between climate and weather?
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: global warming

Post by daverupa »

:zzz:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: global warming

Post by Polar Bear »

I haven't really drawn a line in the sand myself but my geology professor firmly believes that all the worry about CO2 is madness. In class today he started talking about the issue and I jotted down a couple of things he said. These are all rough paraphrases:

Water vapor is actually our most prevalent greenhouse gas and accounts for about 98% of the atmosphere's heat holding capacity.

The reason that CO2 has been targeted by politicians is because water vapor ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

Of the remaining 2%, CO2 represents about half, i.e. CO2 is only responsible for 1% at most of our atmosphere's heat retention capabilities.

Mankind has been around for the lowest CO2 levels in geologic history.

360-260 million years during the paleozoic era CO2 represented about 6% of the earth's atmosphere and this period was a time of glaciation, not melting or warming.

Today, CO2 represents roughly .039% of earth's atmosphere or 390 parts per million.

Burning of fossil fuels has not yet doubled atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial evolution.

Given that we aren't even that CO2 isn't even that close to being 1% of the atmosphere and given that it was 6% CO2 during a time of glaciation it seems silly to think that the CO2 that humans are putting back into the atmosphere is going to put us on a runaway course of global warming that's going to destroy civilization and the environment.

Just to reiterate, I myself don't take a position on this matter. I'm all down for solar power regardless but I'm not a scientist, I haven't looked at or understood the totality of the geologic or climate records. So I really don't know. Just wondering what the global warming affirmers have to say about these sorts of things.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Locked