South Cascade Glacier - Gone in a century?

[Bushwhacker]

As it stands, you didn't refute any of my points geek. I didn't say anything about humans knowing about humans .. I asked how you could possibly know in 40 years (irrefutably a small percentage of the time this Earth has been in orbit) what factors are causing the period of climatic fluctuation that we are currently in. So if you were attempting to invalidate my last assertion by publishing the senseless rhetoric in your last post, you failed. Try again?

 

You see, there is a huge difference between humans digging up fossils and presenting them as evidence that Dinosaurs roamed the earth and the current "debate" on global warming. This is, I guess, what is fueling the great debate on this subject. Where are your fossils (ie your tangible evidence) that would PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that "global warming" is caused by human factors? Wild assertions and speculation doesn't count in the realm of absolute proof.

[Squid]

Why weep for the glaciers? Weep because it affects route selection and beauty at certain times of year, not because we humans are having a negative impact on them .. because there's certainly not sufficient proof to substantiate that claim.

 

 

IPCC

 

I think BushWhacker would like to be handheld on an elaborate proof starting from number theory and ending in atmospheric sciences (with brief detours into epistomology and ontology thrown in) which clearly shows human impact on global warming. He'd like it in 30 minutes or less please. During commercials.

 

 

edited to fix goofy link

Edited September 14, 2004 by Squid

[Bushwhacker]

What does that mean .. being handheld? Is that like a handheld walkie talkie? A handheld PDA?

 

By your post you sound like you want to know more than everyone else on the subject, but you don't .. that's why we're debating it still. Show me the PROOF .. there has, as of yet, been no person on the face of the earth, no report that has ever been published that PROVES an outright correlation between humans and what tree huggers like to label as global warming.

[philfort]

As it stands, you didn't refute any of my points geek. I didn't say anything about humans knowing about humans .. I asked how you could possibly know in 40 years (irrefutably a small percentage of the time this Earth has been in orbit) what factors are causing the period of climatic fluctuation that we are currently in. So if you were attempting to invalidate my last assertion by publishing the senseless rhetoric in your last post, you failed. Try again?

 

To me, your point read "the climate has been around for a billion years, so how could we know anything about it by studying it for 40 years". I'm not sure I see the logic in that. What does the length of time climatic fluctuations have been going on have to do with trying to understand what causes them? And also, 40 years is misleading, because there are data from thousands of years available to compare to recent history.

 

Even if there isn't substantive proof that human activities are causing global warming, if the majority of scientists who study this believe it is very likely, shouldn't that be enough to start worrying about it, and start making changes?

[Geek_the_Greek]

The point is that we obviously do know certain things (a great many, as it happens) about humans. It's obviously not a perfect analogy. But the fact is there are many fields of science where we are trying to understand processes that move at time scales far slower than our lives allow us to study directly. Try astronomy, for one. I presume you're not arrogant enough to try to arge that all astronomy is bunk? Geology? Continental drift? I study trees, many of which live far longer than humans, and therefore the field shares some of the same problems.

 

There are plenty of analysis techniques you can use when you can't directly study a process. Substituting space for time is one, making empirical models is another, and making process-based (mechanistic) models is another. Or sometimes you are forced to just look at the rough evidence that you do have (fossils, craters, e.g.) and come up with a qualitative idea of what happened.

 

The point is that I'm guessing you're not a climate scientist. Neither am I. So maybe we should just leave the climate science to photomatt and the other climate scientists, and trust them, just like we trust engineers to build us fast cars that won't spontaneously self-destruct, or we trust doctors (within reason) to mend and rehabilitate our broken bones. The pop-skepticism is pretty silly.

[Bushwhacker]

I never said we shouldn't be studying it. I said there is no proof of the purported correlation between human activity and "global warming". The silly statement, "Weeping for the glaciers" implies absolute knowledge that human's are causing "global warming". Maybe you should read more carefully.

[Bushwhacker]

To me, your point read "the climate has been around for a billion years, so how could we know anything about it by studying it for 40 years". I'm not sure I see the logic in that. What does the length of time climatic fluctuations have been going on have to do with trying to understand what causes them?

 

I challenge you to find a scientistic who is concerned with the issue who refutes this logic. In fact, this is a major part of the great debate. The fact that we can't know if this is merely a period of climatic fluctuation as is normal with Astral bodies in the solar system, or whether the cause is something more sinister such as the burning of fossil fuels is what constitutes the largest portion of the entire debate. I think we've got some more studying to do before we jump to conclusions .. like perhaps several generations worth.

 

Another way to put it: If, in 40 years, the average temperature of Earth plummetted over 40 degrees, wouldn't that leave the global warming conspiracists feeling a little confused? This is why time spent researching is critical.

[Squid]

No, I'm not posturing as some expert in atmospheric sciences- which means I'm not pretending to know more than these folks.

They definitely acknowledge that "Climate change decision making is essentially a sequential process under general uncertainty." As you argue, we don't (and won't) have the complete picture- there will always be some blank spots on the knowledge map. Enough knowledge is there to begin to get the general idea. To be crippled into inaction by this uncertainty is foolish- unless you profit from this inaction.

 

 

If you refuse you read the report in the link, let me summarize some key points:

"The earth's climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities."

 

"Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era."

 

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

 

What in this picture is unclear, Bushwhacker? Shall we take no action until we know exactly what percentage is attributable to human activity? What salient data are you wainting for?

[Bushwhacker]

"The earth's climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities."

 

"Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era."

 

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

 

What in this picture is unclear, Bushwhacker? Shall we take no action until we know exactly what percentage is attributable to human activity? What salient data are you wainting for?

 

These are statements .. WHERE'S THE BEEF? Anyone can make these statements without proof .. it's what the treehuggers have been doing for years trying to perpetuate their claims. But until you or the folks in that report show me how you/they came to those conclusions, you're going to get criticism from folks like me who require more proof that Santa exists besides merely my parents telling me so.

[Bogen]

This is why time spent researching is critical.

 

Don't have time, if they are right. Burden of evidence is overwealming, if you understand it. There are great many things in this world that require understanding rather than absolute, tangible proof. Of course, it may be that global temp is on the rise through purely natural factors, and pollution only increases the rate by some undetermined factor. Do you think we should ignore pollution? What are you arguing about?

[Bushwhacker]

If, at this point, you still can't tell what my argument is, then you've got far greater problems than global warming.

 

Ignore pollution? I ride my bike to work instead of driving my car to reduce the effects I'm having on pollution -- not global warming. Are we reading the same post?

[Bogen]

Alright, I guess the jigs up boys. You're right, BW, global warming is a big scam. But we have the best of intentions, we are trying to convince policy makers that pollution is more than stinky, so maybe they'll make it stop. Now hush up and play along.

[JoshK]

Bushwhacker, should we sit around for another 40 years waiting for more "proof" or should we start to do something about the problem that 99% of scientists think we are the source of? I choose a proactive approach.

[Squid]

If, at this point, you still can't tell what my argument is, then you've got far greater problems than global warming.

 

How did you know?

 

(btw, what is your argument?)

[j_b]

It's funny how folks jump to conclusions on things so quickly (ie Global Warming)

 

some of the "folks [who] jump to conclusions":

 

intergovernmental panel on climate change: linkprovided in other posts above

 

american meteorological society: http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

 

american geophysical union: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

 

national academy of science: http://tinyurl.com/7xbmc

 

american association of state climatologists: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Policy-Statement-on-Climate.htm

 

etc ...

[j_b]

I said there is no proof of the purported correlation between human activity and "global warming".

 

this is science not mathematics. science never provides absolute proof to very complex real world problem such as global warming. based on available evidence, the increase in greenhouse gas concentration (human induced) is the only credible explanation for the observed rise in temperature over the last century (and increasingly so with each new study). all other hypotheses (change in solar activity, earth albedo change, etc ...) do not explain most of the increase in temperature especially that observed over the last 50years.

[JayB]

I don't think there's any real scientific debate about the connection between increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and increasing global temperatures.

 

Gotta love the internet where everyone is an expert.

 

I am not sure why you are slamming me over this as I am in agreement with your camp on this particular piece of data. The fit between global temperatures and CO2 in the ice-core data is pretty tight.

 

However, as you suggest, I am not the least bit informed when it comes to the precise manner in which ice-core samples are used to asses historical temperatures. Is it merely the thickness of each ice layer that serves as a proxy for temperature in each data point?

 

Anyhow - my main point was that the Paul Ehrlich style missives from the Deep Ecology folks aren't going to do anything to wean the masses off of central heating et al. Gotta tether your agenda to concrete measures that will benefit the general public in some tangible way if you are going to achieve anything.

[JayB]

As it stands, you didn't refute any of my points geek. I didn't say anything about humans knowing about humans .. I asked how you could possibly know in 40 years (irrefutably a small percentage of the time this Earth has been in orbit) what factors are causing the period of climatic fluctuation that we are currently in. So if you were attempting to invalidate my last assertion by publishing the senseless rhetoric in your last post, you failed. Try again?

 

You see, there is a huge difference between humans digging up fossils and presenting them as evidence that Dinosaurs roamed the earth and the current "debate" on global warming. This is, I guess, what is fueling the great debate on this subject. Where are your fossils (ie your tangible evidence) that would PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that "global warming" is caused by human factors? Wild assertions and speculation doesn't count in the realm of absolute proof.

 

I think the data extends quite a bit further back than you think, as is the case with the ice-core samples from antartica I mentioned. I am sure that there are others that people actually in the field could toss out there as well.

 

But I agree with your point in that documenting climate change and understanding the precise mechanisms that govern it are two entirely different things.

[JayB]

I would be interested in hearing what people propose to do about the problem in light of the fact that a wholesale abandonment of fossil fuels would immediately result in a massive global depression that would make the Great Depression look benign in comparison.

[ski_photomatt]

Bushwacker - please think a bit before posting. Go read some of the linked references on what "proof" is currently available concerning the connection between humans and climate change. I can sum up the several flaws in your argument quite simply.

 

1. Science, and all human knowledge for that matter, is cumulative. Modern climate science stands on the shoulders of all the work done previously - the mathematics developed progressively since the dawn of time, the physics developed over the last 300 years, the technology needed to power a modern computer. The equations governing fluid motion were written down in the 1800's. You get the point. Climate science does not exist in a vacuum.

 

2. There are climate records extending back many thousands of years (110,000 years or more). Aside - JayB, it's more convoluted than measuring the thickness of each layer in the ice core. The concentration of O18 is measured, then this is correlated to temperature, see this: info on GISP2 ice core

 

3. This is all somewhat irrelevant anyway. If one can understand how the climate system works, then build a model or otherwise translate this understanding into something that can be used to predict the future, then it doesn't matter how long that takes, whether it be 40 seconds or 40 years or 40 centuries. If you understand the system, then you can understand how it will react to a forcing.

 

This is the problem though, as JayB rightly pointed out. We don't completely understand the climate system. Understanding what CO2 does is easy - this problem was solved 40 years ago - but understanding how that feedbacks on Earth is very hard. Given a concentration of CO2, no one can answer how much warming will occur. A range of answers is more appropriate.

 

Couple this with the value question we as a society must answer: How much warming is OK? How much is too much? This is where it gets sticky. If society could answer that question - a big if - scientists still couldn't tell them what CO2 concentration to shoot for. They could give a lower and upper bound, but uncertain answers like this don't fly so well in DC.

 

The great tragedy of all this is that this uncertainty - about how much warming will occur, not about whether it will, or what the cause is - gets taken and spun around and fed to the American public as a bunch of scientists bickering among themselves. In the end the real message gets lost.

[j_b]

I am not the least bit informed when it comes to the precise manner in which ice-core samples are used to asses historical temperatures. Is it merely the thickness of each ice layer that serves as a proxy for temperature in each data point?

 

it is obtained from the ratio of heavy to light stable oxygen isotopes in ice. at colder temp, the lighter isotope evaporates more readily from sea water than the heavier isotope (more fractionation) which results in a low ratio of heavy to light isotope in the ice sample. the heavier isotope will also precipitate more readily at colder temp while travelling poleward. Note that during colder climes (large icesheets) the oceans will be enriched in heavy oxygen which will be reflected in the ocean sedimentary record (carbonates). the ice and ocean sed records are the 2 main proxies for quaternary temps although carbonates in caves (speleothems) have also been used to such effect.

[j_b]

I would be interested in hearing what people propose to do about the problem in light of the fact that a wholesale abandonment of fossil fuels would immediately result in a massive global depression that would make the Great Depression look benign in comparison.

 

- invest in clean energy technology (yesterday would be best)

- stop gutting emissions legislation (the industry will not control emissions by itself)

- raise (significantly, like double) car fuel economy standards

 

it's a start and it won't be enough.

[Jake]

So how much CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution anyway then?

[JayB]

Interesting stuff about the isotopes.

 

What about nuclear fuel? No greenhouse gasses and the technology employed today uses passive, negative feedback mechanisms to squelch the reactor if it overheats to a dangerous lever.

[JayB]

Interesting stuff about the isotopes. And speaking of isotopes...

 

What about nuclear fuel? No greenhouse gasses and the technology employed today uses passive, negative feedback mechanisms to squelch the reactor if it overheats to a dangerous level and won't go critical even if the engineer falls alseep at his desk, the computer controlling it crashes, and an earthquake hits all at once. They produce power that is free of atmospheric emission, and our European friends are currenly generating up to 1/2 of their power with them. They would also help reduce the annual payments to the mullahs.

 

The reintroduction of nuclear power would also require a rational public capable ofasessing the pros and cons in a reasonable manner, so I am not holding my breath, but I am surprised that the folks ringing the alarm bells on climate change aren't at least willing to consider this option.