Bolivian Glacier Disappears

What I don't understand is that both seattlegal and wil keep on throwing out these wildcards in the hope that it changes the game.

Now I'm not smart enough to understand how the Little Ice Age fits into the scheme of things or the significance of "flash-frozen" mammoths, but I can't believe that the scientists who study these issues haven't taken these into account.

Nobody is smacking themselves in the forehead and exclaiming, "Of course! Flash-frozen mammoths! Why didn't I think of that before?!"

So go ahead. Throw down all the wild cards you want. But if you're really convinced it means something, don't just post it in a religious forum. Send your ideas to the people who really understand this issue.

And let us know how that works out for you.
 
What I don't understand is that both seattlegal and wil keep on throwing out these wildcards in the hope that it changes the game.

Now I'm not smart enough to understand how the Little Ice Age fits into the scheme of things or the significance of "flash-frozen" mammoths, but I can't believe that the scientists who study these issues haven't taken these into account.

Nobody is smacking themselves in the forehead and exclaiming, "Of course! Flash-frozen mammoths! Why didn't I think of that before?!"

So go ahead. Throw down all the wild cards you want. But if you're really convinced it means something, don't just post it in a religious forum. Send your ideas to the people who really understand this issue.

And let us know how that works out for you.

I told you earlier that this carbon footprint obsession in the context of global warming is really starting to resemble a religion, where carbon is being turned into a scapegoat. I'm trying to raise consciousness here. (In the religious sense.) I think that would very much be appropriate content for a comparative religion forum. ;)

Regarding the science: punching holes in theories is how science works. Without it, science can quickly become stagnant. It's the duty of a scientist to try to find flaws in theories in order for the theories to be refined. Input from other specialized areas of science can be most helpful in this regard. It brings more data and viewpoints to the table. It helps to remind those who have forgotten to look at the forest, and not just the trees. (More consciousness raising?)
 
I told you earlier that this carbon footprint obsession in the context of global warming is really starting to resemble a religion, where carbon is being turned into a scapegoat. I'm trying to raise consciousness here. (In the religious sense.) I think that would very much be appropriate content for a comparative religion forum. ;)

So let's follow that for a moment.

Imagine for a moment that "reducing our carbon footprint" really does take hold of the public. People reduce their driving, start using public transportation, bikes, walk. There's an increased demand and use of solar energy, wind. People start to wear natural fibers instead of synthetics. A greater awareness of all the ways we use and output C02 into the atmosphere becomes a deciding factor of what people buy, invest in, and choose for their lives.

What's wrong with that?
 
So let's follow that for a moment.

Imagine for a moment that "reducing our carbon footprint" really does take hold of the public. People reduce their driving, start using public transportation, bikes, walk. There's an increased demand and use of solar energy, wind. People start to wear natural fibers instead of synthetics. A greater awareness of all the ways we use and output C02 into the atmosphere becomes a deciding factor of what people buy, invest in, and choose for their lives.

What's wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with the outcome. Does the end justify the means, is that what you are saying. Amway people call it 'hide the ball' don't tell them you are bringing your friends and relatives to an Amway meeting/convention...afterall if they join and you make money ...What's wrong with that?

Wild cards?? Me thinks we are discussing and asking questions.

take a look at the notes from that quiz...are they false or misleading?
bullet_black.gif
[SIZE=+1]In 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. [/SIZE]Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
bullet_black.gif
[SIZE=+1]President Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10% of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. [/SIZE]Global Warming Treaty is All Pain, No Gain ---Malcom Wallop
bullet_black.gif
[SIZE=+1]Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to express their view that "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." [/SIZE]The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
 
Regarding the science: punching holes in theories is how science works. Without it, science can quickly become stagnant. It's the duty of a scientist to try to find flaws in theories in order for the theories to be refined. Input from other specialized areas of science can be most helpful in this regard. It brings more data and viewpoints to the table. It helps to remind those who have forgotten to look at the forest, and not just the trees. (More consciousness raising?)

Absolutely true - but there are no real holes punched through existing climate models, other than to point out that they cannot be exact in their predictions, but the mechanics are generally regarded as sound within the scientific establishment.

I was reading New Scientist through the 1990's and climate change studies were regularly covered in there - not as from a cabal of shadowing-interest groups, but as part of a scientific community. There was no general protest against the results, models, and theories being developed.

However, once we reach the Bush era we suddenly get lots of US scientists - especially those employed in oil companies (would love to provide references, but I just remember noting their interested background when reading these reports) rallying into an organised campaign of trying to discredit climatology as a science. It should have been no surprise to see George W Bush also making a stand that climatology was oil wrong - after all, how much more impartial can you get than someone whose family's wealth is tied to oil?

It's interesting to note that tobacco companies were exposed not all that long ago for trying to completely undermine research into the negative effects of tobacco smoking through an organised campaign of discrediting biological research which happened to counter the $$$ interests of the tobacco industry.

I would suggest the same has happened with climate change, and the irony is that so many intelligent people have picked up on bashing climatology and climate change models.


Sure, climate models need refining, need criticising, need revising to keep in line with the facts.

But the arguments that Global Warming is a fraud is not an attack on climatology, but instead an attack on science in general - either science works through trying to challenge ideas through observation and hypotheses, or else science is a vehicle for corporate interests - and I would suggest the core of the objections to climatology come from these.

It's very much like the evolution vs creationism argument - deeply politicised, with plenty of well-funded pseudoscience masquerading as valid objections to scientific theory.

I've watched the climate issue develop for well over a decade, and if Global Warming is determined to be false, then this can only mean that there is a horrendously deep flaw within scientific method in the first place, for such a concept to have ever dominated climatology in the first place.

In the meantime, all you well meaning objectors I can only applaud for your honest exploration and concerns of the issue, but I've yet to see climatology refuted as unscientific, and therefore the studies that have been developing for decades.

In the meantime, I'm sure we'll continue to see oil-funded objections to Global Warming models continues to pollute the intellectual integrity of the west.

(This is all just a personal monologue I thought I'd add to the conversation - no offence intended, I just wanted to enjoy a little discussion. :D ).
 
Nothing wrong with the outcome. Does the end justify the means, is that what you are saying.

What I am trying to say is that SG likes to call incomplete knowledge "a religion". But can anybody give me an example of complete knowledge? Can't I just as easily call SG's and your views religions as well?

Incomplete knowledge can be alleviated with a little digging. And as you've demonstrated it's not as if dissent is being silenced. Each side of this argument is getting ample opportunity to put forth their case. So who's "hiding the ball" here? The balls are on the table for everyone to see.

So the general public lags behind in understanding a complex issue? What a surprise. I think that could apply to any position. Shall we just start calling everything a religion now? How does that raise awareness or the level of debate? It doesn't. It's merely a smokescreen thrown up by someone who would love to have the evidence and scientific support on their side, but does not.
 
take a look at the notes from that quiz...are they false or misleading?

Heh, interesting stats, but this is clearly a piece of propaganda in it's structure with a clear strawman attack.

Firstly it points out volumes of scientists advocating attention to Global Warming, then denigrates them as in no position to comment.

Then is declares there is an even larger volume of scientists who object, but doesn't make any attempt to claim any have any connection to climatology.

Many scientists read science literature such as Scientific American, New Scientist, Nature, etc, so are regularly exposed to disciplines outside of their own - heck, many people let alone scientists have real interests across a range of scientific disciplines.

In the meantime, I wonder how many of the 17,000 who objected were qualified in climate sciences, and what proportion worked in the trillion dollar oil-coal industries. :)
 
So let's follow that for a moment.

Imagine for a moment that "reducing our carbon footprint" really does take hold of the public. People reduce their driving, start using public transportation, bikes, walk. There's an increased demand and use of solar energy, wind. People start to wear natural fibers instead of synthetics. A greater awareness of all the ways we use and output C02 into the atmosphere becomes a deciding factor of what people buy, invest in, and choose for their lives.

What's wrong with that?

I agree..besides I always thought Reduce, Reuse and Recycle was a great campaign slogan for all of us "peons." ;)

Thanks Brian for your intelligent and thoughtful contribution to this discussion.
 
Absolutely true - but there are no real holes punched through existing climate models, other than to point out that they cannot be exact in their predictions, but the mechanics are generally regarded as sound within the scientific establishment.

I was reading New Scientist through the 1990's and climate change studies were regularly covered in there - not as from a cabal of shadowing-interest groups, but as part of a scientific community. There was no general protest against the results, models, and theories being developed.

However, once we reach the Bush era we suddenly get lots of US scientists - especially those employed in oil companies (would love to provide references, but I just remember noting their interested background when reading these reports) rallying into an organised campaign of trying to discredit climatology as a science. It should have been no surprise to see George W Bush also making a stand that climatology was oil wrong - after all, how much more impartial can you get than someone whose family's wealth is tied to oil?

It's interesting to note that tobacco companies were exposed not all that long ago for trying to completely undermine research into the negative effects of tobacco smoking through an organised campaign of discrediting biological research which happened to counter the $$$ interests of the tobacco industry.

I would suggest the same has happened with climate change, and the irony is that so many intelligent people have picked up on bashing climatology and climate change models.
I agree with you that biased opinions abound on the matter. I'm just as happy to punch holes in the pro-oil companies bias as I am with punching holes in the political carbon taxing bias.


Sure, climate models need refining, need criticising, need revising to keep in line with the facts.
Ain't that the truth. :)

But the arguments that Global Warming is a fraud is not an attack on climatology, but instead an attack on science in general - either science works through trying to challenge ideas through observation and hypotheses, or else science is a vehicle for corporate interests - and I would suggest the core of the objections to climatology come from these.
I never said that global warming was a fraud, I said that it is to be expected during an interglacial. I'm sticking with the longer range climate model here, not just focusing in on this interglacial period, in an effort to retain the proper context.

It's very much like the evolution vs creationism argument - deeply politicised, with plenty of well-funded pseudoscience masquerading as valid objections to scientific theory.
I agree.

I've watched the climate issue develop for well over a decade, and if Global Warming is determined to be false, then this can only mean that there is a horrendously deep flaw within scientific method in the first place, for such a concept to have ever dominated climatology in the first place.
Again, I never said that global warming wasn't happening. I'm disputing the hypothesis that it is caused by greenhouse gases.
Confusing effect with cause, and forgetting that correlation does not prove causation are definitely flaws that can develop, and the error can be multiplied when these flaws are integrated into a model.

In the meantime, all you well meaning objectors I can only applaud for your honest exploration and concerns of the issue, but I've yet to see climatology refuted as unscientific, and therefore the studies that have been developing for decades.
I never said that climatology as a whole was unscientific. Cherry picking the evidence by ignoring data that does not fit your model is bad science, however.

In the meantime, I'm sure we'll continue to see oil-funded objections to Global Warming models continues to pollute the intellectual integrity of the west.
Would you say that the website where I got the global warming quiz was funded by oil companies? :confused:
West Virginia Plant Fossils - Table of Contents

(This is all just a personal monologue I thought I'd add to the conversation - no offence intended, I just wanted to enjoy a little discussion. :D ).
No offense taken. :)
 
So let's follow that for a moment.

Imagine for a moment that "reducing our carbon footprint" really does take hold of the public. People reduce their driving, start using public transportation, bikes, walk. There's an increased demand and use of solar energy, wind. People start to wear natural fibers instead of synthetics. A greater awareness of all the ways we use and output C02 into the atmosphere becomes a deciding factor of what people buy, invest in, and choose for their lives.

What's wrong with that?
Is scapegoating carbon dioxide justified? Why can't people do this without demonizing CO2?
 
Is scapegoating carbon dioxide justified? Why can't people do this without demonizing CO2?

What do you mean by "demonizing"? A web search of CO2 and greenhouse gases shows that CO2 is the single strongest force amongst the human produced gases connected to climate change.

Science Time

Different atmospheric components apply different “forces” to global warming, here summarized in a plot by the IPCC Physical Science report: CO2 has the greatest forcing, though other chemicals might have a greater per-molecule forcing.

forcing-279x300.jpg


Wikipedia

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F). The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.

These are just two sources, but as you can see CO2 is seen as having over twice the effect as methane and ozone respectively.

I'ts not only the major player as human contributed gases are concerned, it is one we can easily control. The less fossil fuels we consume, the less CO2 we add to the atmosphere.

But what do I know? I'm an art school drop-out graphic designer!

So please, rather than have me do a poor job of describing CO2s role in climate change, perhaps you can explain what you see as the unfair demonization of this gas. How are we scapegoating CO2?
 
What will all the trees breathe when the CO2 is gone?

All the trees will die and we'll be forced to eat each other.

I hear Floridians are nice and crunchy... must be all that time in the sun.

mmmmmm... extra crispy.
 
What do you mean by "demonizing"? A web search of CO2 and greenhouse gases shows that CO2 is the single strongest force amongst the human produced gases connected to climate change.

Science Time

Different atmospheric components apply different “forces” to global warming, here summarized in a plot by the IPCC Physical Science report: CO2 has the greatest forcing, though other chemicals might have a greater per-molecule forcing.

forcing-279x300.jpg


Wikipedia

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F). The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.

These are just two sources, but as you can see CO2 is seen as having over twice the effect as methane and ozone respectively.

I'ts not only the major player as human contributed gases are concerned, it is one we can easily control. The less fossil fuels we consume, the less CO2 we add to the atmosphere.

But what do I know? I'm an art school drop-out graphic designer!

So please, rather than have me do a poor job of describing CO2s role in climate change, perhaps you can explain what you see as the unfair demonization of this gas. How are we scapegoating CO2?
I am disputing the claim that CO2 causes global warming, and cite the massive ice age during the late Ordovician, when CO2 levels were way above 4000 ppm, as compared to today's levels of less than 400 ppm. If global warming was caused by high levels of CO2, then there should have been runaway global warming, instead of an ice age, during this period.
 
I am disputing the claim that CO2 causes global warming, and cite the massive ice age during the late Ordovician, when CO2 levels were way above 4000 ppm, as compared to today's levels of less than 400 ppm. If global warming was caused by high levels of CO2, then there should have been runaway global warming, instead of an ice age, during this period.

Please see the post above for your answer.
 
seattlegal, a grueling ten minutes of internet research produced this article from Ohio State University...

STUDY BOLSTERS GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY, SOLVES ICE AGE MYSTERY

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Critics who dismiss the importance of greenhouse gases as a cause of climate change lost one piece of ammunition this week. In a new study, scientists found further evidence of the role that greenhouse gases have played in Earth’s climate.

In Thursday’s issue of the journal Geology, Ohio State University scientists report that a long-ago ice age occurred 10 million years earlier than once thought. The new date clears up an inconsistency that has dogged climate change research for years.

Of three ice ages that occurred in the last half-billion years, the earliest ice age posed problems for scientists, explained Matthew Saltzman, assistant professor of geological sciences at Ohio State.

Previous studies suggested that this particular ice age happened during a time that should have been very warm, when volcanoes all over the earth’s surface were spewing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

With CO2 levels as much as 20 times higher than today, the late Ordovician period (460-440 million years ago) wasn’t a good time for growing ice.

Critics have pointed to the inconsistency as a flaw in scientists’ theories of climate change. Scientists have argued that today’s global climate change has been caused in part by buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting from fossil fuel emissions.

But, critics have countered, if CO2 truly raises global temperatures, how could an ice age have occurred when a greenhouse effect much greater than today’s was in full swing?

The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.

“Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrations drive climate.”

Saltzman and doctoral student Seth Young found that large deposits of quartz sand in Nevada and two sites in Europe -- Norway and Estonia -- formed around the same time, 440 million years ago. The scientists suspect that the sand formed when water levels fell low enough to expose quartz rock, so that wind and rain could weather the rock into sand.

The fact that the deposits were found in three different sites suggests that sea levels may have been low all over the world at that time, likely because much of the planet’s water was bound in ice at the poles, Saltzman said.

Next, the scientists examined limestone sediments from the sites and determined that there was a relatively large amount of organic carbon buried in the oceans -- and, by extension, relatively little CO2 in the atmosphere -- at the same time.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age.

For Saltzman, the find solves a long-standing mystery.

Though scientists know with a great degree of certainty that atmospheric CO2 levels drive climate change, there are certain mismatches in the geologic record, such as the Ordovician ice age -- originally thought to have begun 443 million years ago -- that seem to counter that view.

“How can you have ice when CO2 levels are through the roof? That was the dilemma that we were faced with. I think that now we have good evidence that resolves this mismatch,” Saltzman said.

Scientists at the three sites previously attributed these quartz deposits to local tectonic shifts. But the new study shows that the conditions that allowed the quartz sand to form were not local.

“If sea level is dropping globally at the same time, it can’t be a local tectonic feature,” Saltzman said. “It’s got to be the result of a global ice buildup.”

Saltzman wants to bolster these new results by examining sites in Russia -- where he hopes to find more evidence of sea level drop -- and in parts of South America and North Africa, which would have been covered in ice at the time.
 
seattlegal, a grueling ten minutes of internet research produced this article from Ohio State University...

STUDY BOLSTERS GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY, SOLVES ICE AGE MYSTERY

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Critics who dismiss the importance of greenhouse gases as a cause of climate change lost one piece of ammunition this week. In a new study, scientists found further evidence of the role that greenhouse gases have played in Earth’s climate.

In Thursday’s issue of the journal Geology, Ohio State University scientists report that a long-ago ice age occurred 10 million years earlier than once thought. The new date clears up an inconsistency that has dogged climate change research for years.

Of three ice ages that occurred in the last half-billion years, the earliest ice age posed problems for scientists, explained Matthew Saltzman, assistant professor of geological sciences at Ohio State.

Previous studies suggested that this particular ice age happened during a time that should have been very warm, when volcanoes all over the earth’s surface were spewing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

With CO2 levels as much as 20 times higher than today, the late Ordovician period (460-440 million years ago) wasn’t a good time for growing ice.

Critics have pointed to the inconsistency as a flaw in scientists’ theories of climate change. Scientists have argued that today’s global climate change has been caused in part by buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere resulting from fossil fuel emissions.

But, critics have countered, if CO2 truly raises global temperatures, how could an ice age have occurred when a greenhouse effect much greater than today’s was in full swing?

The answer: This particular ice age didn’t begin when CO2 was at its peak -- it began 10 million years earlier, when CO2 levels were at a low.

“Our results are consistent with the notion that CO2 concentrations drive climate.”

Saltzman and doctoral student Seth Young found that large deposits of quartz sand in Nevada and two sites in Europe -- Norway and Estonia -- formed around the same time, 440 million years ago. The scientists suspect that the sand formed when water levels fell low enough to expose quartz rock, so that wind and rain could weather the rock into sand.

The fact that the deposits were found in three different sites suggests that sea levels may have been low all over the world at that time, likely because much of the planet’s water was bound in ice at the poles, Saltzman said.

Next, the scientists examined limestone sediments from the sites and determined that there was a relatively large amount of organic carbon buried in the oceans -- and, by extension, relatively little CO2 in the atmosphere -- at the same time.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that the ice began to build up some 10 million years earlier than when volcanoes began pumping the atmosphere full of the CO2 that ended the Ordovician ice age.

For Saltzman, the find solves a long-standing mystery.

Though scientists know with a great degree of certainty that atmospheric CO2 levels drive climate change, there are certain mismatches in the geologic record, such as the Ordovician ice age -- originally thought to have begun 443 million years ago -- that seem to counter that view.

“How can you have ice when CO2 levels are through the roof? That was the dilemma that we were faced with. I think that now we have good evidence that resolves this mismatch,” Saltzman said.

Scientists at the three sites previously attributed these quartz deposits to local tectonic shifts. But the new study shows that the conditions that allowed the quartz sand to form were not local.

“If sea level is dropping globally at the same time, it can’t be a local tectonic feature,” Saltzman said. “It’s got to be the result of a global ice buildup.”

Saltzman wants to bolster these new results by examining sites in Russia -- where he hopes to find more evidence of sea level drop -- and in parts of South America and North Africa, which would have been covered in ice at the time.
I found the abstract for the study:
Long-lived glaciation in the Late Ordovician? Isotopic and sequence-stratigraphic evidence from western Laurentia -- Saltzman and Young 33 (2): 109 -- Geology

The problem is, the abstract cites no figures for CO2 levels for the time period which he says the ice age in question took place. My sources show CO2 levels as still being many more times than today's levels for all periods outside of the Carboniferous and Permian.
 
I found the abstract for the study:
Long-lived glaciation in the Late Ordovician? Isotopic and sequence-stratigraphic evidence from western Laurentia -- Saltzman and Young 33 (2): 109 -- Geology

The problem is, the abstract cites no figures for CO2 levels for the time period which he says the ice age in question took place. My sources show CO2 levels as still being many more times than today's levels for all periods outside of the Carboniferous and Permian.

Bring on your sources.

I was just reading an article The debate is just beginning — on the Cretaceous! from realclimate.org — Climate science from climate scientists

Here's an excerpt where the writer talks about the difficulty of measuring CO2 levels of paleoclimates...

"These climates would be just dandy as a natural test of the Earth's sensitivity to long lived greenhouse gas concentrations were it not for one nasty fact: it is very, very difficult to get an accurate idea of how high the CO2 concentrations were so far back in time (see Crowley and Berner or Broadly Misleading on RC). For example, estimates for the Eocene range from values similar to modern CO2 concentrations all the way up to 15 times pre-industrial CO2. This unpleasantly large range represents uncertainties in the proxies used to estimate CO2 in the distant past."

And SG? As this evidence continues to pile in, promise me you won't go all Nick_A on us here okay? As discussed in this IO thread http://www.interfaith.org/forum/can't we just hold it's okay to change your mind and accept new ideas.

I promise to embrace that as well.

So bring it ON!!! :D
 
We get to deconstruct past climate models as well? Kewl!

This should be fun! :D

Perhaps we should start a new thread for this, and perhaps the Mods or Brian can move the appropriate posts there!
 
Back
Top