Originally Posted By ecdc >>Skepticism is always welcome in science. But all the major organizations that actually study this are saying the same thing.<< Of course, people like woody only want skepticism in science in very specific areas. For some conservatives, only global warming and evolution are still up for debate. When they're rushed to the hospital, suddenly there's no reason to be skeptical of a blood transfusion, or IV's, or any other number of things that might save someone's life. Ironically, woody types on a computer here at LP. Perhaps the jury's still out on that one as well. Where's the skepticism? Those who rail on science are shockingly ignorant of what "science" actually is.
Originally Posted By woody >>Those who rail on science are shockingly ignorant of what "science" actually is.<< Dogma?
Originally Posted By woody ecdc: Since you don't get it, I'll state it again for you S-L-O-W-L-Y. Science goes on. There is no consensus on Global Warming. To suggest the debate of Global Warming is over means science isn't respected. I provide links where there was research where the science produced another conclusion. I believe in science to find the true. The true of Global Warming isn't finished. If you think the debate is over, Global Warming is dogma.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The report said the ice remained persistent. It didn't melt enough to any degree that it is significant.> >>It did not say that. Show me where, please. It didn't form an opinion on how significant it was; it only said there was more at this period than previously thought. YOU translated that in your brain into "not significant." But they didn't say that.<< <The first paragraph said it "The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today." The significance comes from not melting enough ice to cause the sea level to rise. Quote "Today, the Antarctic ice cap stores enough water to raise sea level by about 60 metres if the whole mass melted and flowed back into the ocean. But the new results are consistent with independent evidence that sea level fell by about 25-40 metres at this time. Sea level is known to fall as water is removed from the oceans to build continental ice-sheets and to rise as ice melts and returns to the sea." So actually, the sea level fell during a time of a hot temperature contrary to arguments that the sea level could rise.> Once again, you demonstrate that you are not able to comprehend what you read. This article is commenting on an interesting phenomenon that happened 91 million years ago. However, unlike 91 millions years ago, sea levels ARE rising today due to the melting. Not to a dangerous level yet. But today's ice melting is NOT causing a sea level decrease, but a sea level increase. We obviously don't have all the data on what ELSE was happening 91 million years ago that made its situation different from today's. But we do know what today's situation is - the melting is causing the sea levels to rise. In other words, this is an interesting finding on what happened 91 million years ago, but what happened then is different from what is happening now. >>They do have empirical evidence; ice cores, fossils, and more. This is what shows them that, although we've had periods of warming before, what is happening now is of a different degree, and happening faster. Hell, your OWN link said that.<< <He did say that, but I think this came from an opinion not supported by the evidence. In other words, he doesn't know and he admitted this.> Your interpretations are quite convenient, and obviously colored by your biases. NO ONE quoted in the article you linked to knows exactly how and why these phenomena occurred. The ones that suggest warming might not be all that bad, you accept. The ones who say it is a problem you dismiss. This is very telling. <Quote "Dr André Bornemann, who led the research at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, and who has since moved to Leipzig University, Germany, says it is not clear where such a large mass of ice could have existed when the Earth was so hot or how ice growth could have started. 'This study demonstrates that even these super-warm climates were not warm enough to always prevent ice growth." Then he said "However, paradoxically past greenhouse climates may actually have aided ice growth by increasing the amount of moisture in the atmosphere and creating more winter snowfall at high elevations and high latitudes,' he said." So.... the greenhouse effect might do the opposite of what we think is true.> And yet you still ignore that that is not the phenomena we are seeing today. <In the last quote "The findings support for another related study from The University of Sheffield and Yale University in the journal, Nature Geoscience which suggested there could still be cold spells in a general greenhouse world.". Another hedge on the Global Warming debate, but I think it describes a fact rather than the exception.> Of course you do. But you obviously don't understand the science. >>There is no need to panic, but there is a need to alleviate the situation rather than stick our heads in the sand.<< <Yes, the panic is unnecessary and your head is in the sand. The un-Eistein and it shows.> I'll take the word of every major climate-study group on the planet over yours, woody.
Originally Posted By woody >>In other words, this is an interesting finding on what happened 91 million years ago, but what happened then is different from what is happening now.<< Okay, that's your line. There isn't anything in the article remotely saying this study should be taken in isolation. He did say this "Although such work might someday help researchers to better evaluate global warming on geological timescales, Dr Bornemann emphasised global climate change is now happening on a completely different, much more rapid, time scale." This means the substance of the study could be true, but not in millions of years, but quite soon, and the result is not much ice melting. Only the timeline is in doubt. >>I'll take the word of every major climate-study group on the planet over yours, woody. << I'm just trying to get the information out on new studies.
Originally Posted By woody There is a link for discussion of this article. Some commenters provided some juicy information. <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2008/01/10/sciglacier110.xml#form" target="_blank">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear th/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2008/01/10/sciglacier110.xml#form</a> "The rate of change of sea level rise has not accelerated in the past 110 years of measurements. Plots around the world can be found in the Tide and Currents website. For example Syndey Australia link" "Even the IPCC notes that there has not been any acceleration in the rate of rise. Without a dramatic, up to 10 times, increase in the rate of sea level rise, the human causation for global warming is in serious trouble." <a href="http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140" target="_blank">http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.g ov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=680-140</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>In other words, this is an interesting finding on what happened 91 million years ago, but what happened then is different from what is happening now.<< <Okay, that's your line. There isn't anything in the article remotely saying this study should be taken in isolation.> Huh? The point is, there isn't anything in the article remotely saying that the phenomena of 91 million years ago resembles the phenomena of today. In fact, the quote at the end says just the opposite. <He did say this "Although such work might someday help researchers to better evaluate global warming on geological timescales, Dr Bornemann emphasised global climate change is now happening on a completely different, much more rapid, time scale." This means the substance of the study could be true, but not in millions of years, but quite soon, and the result is not much ice melting. Only the timeline is in doubt.> What? He means what he says: this is an interesting study that gives us information on very long ago phenomena, what is happening today is fundamentally different. He's saying specifically that you CAN'T extrapolate from that ancient data to today's situation. >>I'll take the word of every major climate-study group on the planet over yours, woody. << <I'm just trying to get the information out on new studies.> New studies that you don't even understand. As for you next post, it's a link to bloggers who read the story - in other words, lay people like us who are debating what it means, NOT climate experts. The quote you include is from one of those bloggers and how HE interprets another link; but as we've seen, sometimes lay people don't understand what they read, and/or interpret it the way their bias commands. Meanwhile, all the major worldwide climate study groups are saying the same thing: it's real, it's at least partly human caused, and it must be addressed. And that's all I'm saying. Not to panic. But not to pretend that business as usual is a good idea, either.
Originally Posted By woody >>He means what he says: this is an interesting study that gives us information on very long ago phenomena, what is happening today is fundamentally different. He's saying specifically that you CAN'T extrapolate from that ancient data to today's situation.<< Where's the "fundamentally different" in the line? The actual line is "Dr Bornemann emphasised global climate change is now happening on a completely different, much more RAPID, TIME SCALE" >>He's saying specifically that you CAN'T extrapolate from that ancient data to today's situation.<< No he didn't. In the first paragraph. "The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today." That's the article. Maybe the author of the article is wrong, but that is what's written.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>He means what he says: this is an interesting study that gives us information on very long ago phenomena, what is happening today is fundamentally different. He's saying specifically that you CAN'T extrapolate from that ancient data to today's situation.<< <Where's the "fundamentally different" in the line? The actual line is "Dr Bornemann emphasised global climate change is now happening on a completely different, much more RAPID, TIME SCALE"> Um, "completely different" and "fundamentally different" would be, you know, synonyms. >>He's saying specifically that you CAN'T extrapolate from that ancient data to today's situation.<< <No he didn't.> Yes, he did. If the two periods are on completely different scales, then you can't extrapolate from one to the other. Logic 101, woody. <In the first paragraph. "The most pessimistic predictions of sea level rises as ice sheets are melted by global warming may have to be scaled back as a result of an extraordinary discovery that ice persisted when the Earth was much hotter than today." That's the article. Maybe the author of the article is wrong, but that is what's written.> Good grief, you do realize that the 'completely different' quote was from Dr. Bornemann (an expert), and the first paragraph was from the Daily Telegraph newsman (a layman), right? Like all newsmen, he was trying to start with a catchy first paragraph so that the reader will want to read the whole thing. Note that he says "MAY have to be scaled back." And then the bulk of the article doesn't even really back up that first paragraph, since the two time periods are completely different. He wouldn't be the first newsman to write a headline or first paragraph that wasn't really backed up by what followed. For all we know he has the same bias you do. At any rate, the actual SCIENTISTS involved say that a). there was this interesting phenomena 91 million years ago where we had more ice than we might have thought, given how warm it was, and b). one should be aware that this period was completely different than today, and the warming we're seeing today is happening much more rapidly.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>ecdc: Since you don't get it, I'll state it again for you S-L-O-W-L-Y. Science goes on. There is no consensus on Global Warming. To suggest the debate of Global Warming is over means science isn't respected.<< woody, I get it just fine thanks - as anyone who is following any number of threads can see. Of course science goes on, but that doesn't mean we don't take certain steps when we do learn more and more. To return to my example of medical science (which you naturally ignored, instead choosing to toss out more insults), we know enough about the human body to know that certain steps and certain things will help it. We know, for example, that quitting smoking or never smoking in the first place greatly reduces one's chances of getting lung cancer. But we still can't cure lung cancer, so we continue our research and development. The science goes on, but we don't toss out everything we know. The science on global warming can and absolutely should go on. But we know some basic things: that the earth is warmer, and that the difference between this time around and previous warming periods is the astronomical levels of CO2, which never were as high. We know certain steps we can take to help reduce the CO2, so we should. Of course, we want to continue our research and learn as much as we can so we can continue to help mankind to, you know, not be obliterated from the earth. Only someone entirely obtuse and desperate to create perceived "opponents" would interpret what anyone has said as "the science should stop." Next time, try responding to what someone actually says instead of just inventing a strawman.
Originally Posted By woody >>Um, "completely different" and "fundamentally different" would be, you know, synonyms.<< Different time scales, buddy. Not talking about something "fundamentally different" in other ways. He is not saying what you are claiming here "He means what he says: this is an interesting study that gives us information on very long ago phenomena, what is happening today is fundamentally different. He's saying specifically that you CAN'T extrapolate from that ancient data to today's situation." TIME SCALES are different. That's all he is saying.
Originally Posted By woody >>Only someone entirely obtuse and desperate to create perceived "opponents" would interpret what anyone has said as "the science should stop."<< I suppose this is your dammed attempt at trying a civil discussion especially saying something spectacularly WRONG like "Of course, people like woody only want skepticism in science in very specific areas." You made me into your opponent. Gee, why don't you go back and try to be more polite. >>Next time, try responding to what someone actually says instead of just inventing a strawman.<< I can see that I read you correctly all along. >>The science goes on, but we don't toss out everything we know.<< I didn't ask you to. I never disputed Global Warming. I disputed the cause and effects AND man's contribution to it. There's no argument from me that CO2 contributed to Global Warming. The study points out that the hotter climate causes more moisture in the air, thus there's more potential for snow and ice at higher elevations. Therefore, the ice melting issue solves itself. It is pretty logical itself.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "I'm just trying to get the information out on new studies." For what purpose? What exactly are you hoping to gain by proving that Global Warming is false? Let's just for a moment assume that you're right, and that man has nothing to do with Global Warming? Even if that was so, do you think we should continue to use oil and coal for all of our energy needs? Should we continue to power our lives with things that will eventually run out -- and with things that we have to go to war over just so we can secure our supply? Or, should we instead do the patriotic thing, and get this country off foriegn oil, and onto a completely renewable source of energy -- one that Americans don't have to die to protect. See, this is my biggest problem with people that are trying to disprove Global Warming -- they aren't helping anyone. Even if Global Warming proves to be false, we should still be taking the steps that are being advised by scientists to get off non-renewable forms of energy -- it's the best thing we can do for this country in the long run. As Thomas Friedman says, "Green is the new Red, White and Blue", and I firmly believe that he is right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Um, "completely different" and "fundamentally different" would be, you know, synonyms.<< <Different time scales, buddy. Not talking about something "fundamentally different" in other ways.> Your ignorance of how important that is is really kind of staggering. <He is not saying what you are claiming here "He means what he says: this is an interesting study that gives us information on very long ago phenomena, what is happening today is fundamentally different. He's saying specifically that you CAN'T extrapolate from that ancient data to today's situation." TIME SCALES are different. That's all he is saying.> But the time scales ALONE mean you can't extrapolate from then to today, Einstein. Geez, it's like explaining something to a particularly obtuse and petulant teenager who thinks he knows everything. The time scale is a crucial element; arguably THE crucial element. We've had periods where we were as warm as we are right now. But these warming periods took many centuries to heat up, and then many centuries to cool down again. What has happened in the past century has been much more rapid than ever seen before. This is how we know it's not just a natural cycle, but is partly human-caused. The time scale is key. And because of this difference, what we're seeing today is completely different from what we saw 91 million years ago. Now... let's see if you grasp that, or simply come back with some version of "nu-uh."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So you can come up with another version of "uh-uh, you idiot"?" Wow, even Doug's on woody's case.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Wow, even Doug's on woody's case.> Well no. My comment was not directed at Woody. I'm not surprised that you misinterpreted what you read, however.
Originally Posted By woody >>I'm not surprised that you misinterpreted what you read, however.<< Certainly, Dabob2 and SPP misinterpreted everything that's been written, which is not unusual. >>But the time scales ALONE mean you can't extrapolate from then to today, Einstein. Geez, it's like explaining something to a particularly obtuse and petulant teenager who thinks he knows everything<< That's an argument against the article. Go ahead and call the scientist an idiot. I'm sure you feel satisfaction from that!!!
Originally Posted By woody >>Let's just for a moment assume that you're right, and that man has nothing to do with Global Warming? Even if that was so, do you think we should continue to use oil and coal for all of our energy needs? Should we continue to power our lives with things that will eventually run out -- and with things that we have to go to war over just so we can secure our supply? Or, should we instead do the patriotic thing, and get this country off foriegn oil, and onto a completely renewable source of energy -- one that Americans don't have to die to protect.<< See Post 20.
