"Out of the Mouths of Babies!"

[amicus]

The force of your argument is impressive and you do have a valid viewpoint, which I acknowlege.

However, and I suspect you know this, many unscrupulous advocates take your position and purvey it into, 'there is no absolute knowledge, only theories. or something akin to that. That 'social attitude' about scientific method, while I doubt it affects real scientists, colors the lay world into doubt than any 'objective truths' exist at all out side basic science.

Perhaps I am obsessive about the distinction, but since it has led to a 30 year long fright night scare about issues such as Global Warming, I feel compelled to speak in defense of 'real' knowledge, as opposed to subjective opinion.

Interesting....thank you...

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Well, thank your for that...I too, long ago, would have raged against cities using rivers as sewage disposal units.

In the matter of Global Warming however, such things as the Kyoto Accords and restrictive limitations agains industry, mining & logging and so on, have and will continue to drive up the cost of living for basic needs such as energy, fuel, housing and food. And if the doomsday scenario's are not supportable by fact, then it seems an unjust act to penalize the many for the 'theories' of the few.

Perhaps see you again sometime...

amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

Love You!

 

[Liar]

In the matter of Global Warming however, such things as the Kyoto Accords and restrictive limitations agains industry, mining & logging and so on, have and will continue to drive up the cost of living for basic needs such as energy, fuel, housing and food.

Energy being the big problem for the rich, fresh water being the big problem for the poor. So it's mainly a problem for us western over consumers.

And if the doomsday scenario's are not supportable by fact, then it seems an unjust act to penalize the many for the 'theories' of the few.

The doomsday possibility is scientifically well enough supported. That your house will be hit by a tornado is not supportable by fact. But that it might be, is supportable. So it's up to you, the expensive brick house with a good basement, of a cheap trailor? One costs you alot now, but might save you a bundle later. I know what I'd choose, but I'm a notorious coward.

 

[The_old_man]

Just to set the record straight: Yes, it has been going on for millions of years. And the climate changes in the past has been much much bigger than the ones that some are fretting about now. Northern Europe has since the last ice age for instance gone from freezing solid to sub-tropic and now it's somewhere in between.

So why the environmentalist panic? Not because the temperature fluctuations are very big, but because they are very fast. The last century, especially the last 50 years, temperature gauges have been dancing the boogie between slightly cold and slightly warm like never before in the history of the planet. Last 20 years with a slight tendency towards the warmer end.

Now, if that actually is a problem, a symptom of a problem, or nothing to be concerned with, nobody knows for sure. But the only constant that have changed, and thus the thing causing it, has been human interference. It is different, and we're pretty ignorant if we don't take that seriously.

#L

The highlighted segment above is the type of unfounded absolute that has no factual support, but engender legislation to restrict the use of "Greenhouse" or "Ozone depleting" gasses. There is absolutely no record of GLOBAL climate available prior to records begun several hundred years ago.

Other than the continuing retreat of glaciation begun at the end of the last ice age, all other evidence is "Chicken Little" exaggeration.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There are a number of methods used for determining paleotemperatures. None of them is as perfect as we'd like, but taken together they comprise a pretty impressive body of knowledge.

The most widely used takes advantage of the relative abundance of two isotopes of Oxygen—O18 and O16—in atmospheric water. The ratio changes with temperature, and so by examining preserved samples of snow from the poles, the ratio of O16:O18 in atmospheric water can be determined, which gives a good idea of the ambient temperature existing when the precipitation fell.

http://geology.rutgers.edu/~jdwright/JDWWeb/2001/Wright_2001.pdf

Another method is similar, but depends on the relative soluibilities of the Inert gases (Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton).

http://www.eawag.ch/research_e/w+t/UI/noblegasmethod.html

Ratios of calcium to magnesium in fossilized mollusk shells has also been used. Mollusks use these elements in their shells, and they derive them from the sea water. The solubility of both elements is dependent on water temperature.

Another method is called “amino acid geochronology”. It’s based on the relative amounts of certain amino acids (aspartic and glutamic acids) and their mirror image molecules (enantiomer) in ancient mollusk shells. The conversion is very temperature sensitive, and by analyzing the amounts of these amino acids, good estimates of average environmental temperatures can be arrived at.

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsk5/AAGL/projects/paleotemperatures.html


The relationship between human activity and current climate change is complex and in dipute. But there are some facts that aren’t, such as the atmospheric levels of Carbon Dioxide over the last several thousand years.

The record looks something like this:

4000BCE --- ~280 parts per million CO2
2000BCE --- ~280
0 AD --- ~280
1780 AD --- ~280
1830 AD --- 315
1975 AD --- 330
1995 AD --- 360
2005 AD --- 380
2050 AD --- ~500 (projected value)

If this current trends continues, levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will reach 500 ppm by the middle of this century, or around 2050. The last time CO2 concentrations were that high was in the Eocene period, 50 million years ago, when there were giant crocodiles in Colorado and the dinosaurs had just bought the farm.

Those are the facts. As far as I know,no one disputes them.

So we can debate what effect these levels of CO2 will have on us on earth (probably nothing too dire as long as you don’t own land in Venice, Italy or the Netherlands), or even what’s causing them, but there’s little doubt that the CO2 is rising and rising fast.

 

[BlackShanglan]

However, and I suspect you know this, many unscrupulous advocates take your position and purvey it into, 'there is no absolute knowledge, only theories. or something akin to that. That 'social attitude' about scientific method, while I doubt it affects real scientists, colors the lay world into doubt than any 'objective truths' exist at all out side basic science.

Amicus, forgive me if I am wrong in thinking that you were responding to me, but it seems that you were. And yes, I think you're quite right about the opposite side of this coin. Although there is an enormous difference between agreeing that theories and connections can be influenced as social mechanisms and saying that there are no facts, or that what is factual reality is a matter of opinion, the leap over the gulf appears remarkably easy for many people to take. I'm reminded of a quotation whose author I cannot recall: "We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not all entitled to our own facts." I thought it a good way to put it.

Of course, the difficulty is always in the gray areas. No one really argues that gravity doesn't exist; no one really argues that you can flatly prove the most experimental theories about time and the fabric of the universe. But when you hit something in the middle, like evolution, it's trickier. That it is a theory and not a fact is true, but the terminology can be confusing. Some proponents wish it accepted flatly as a fact, which I think a bad idea simply because it confuses people as to the difference between meaurable fact and theory. However, opponents wish to treat the word "theory" as suggesting that all ideas connected with the concept are entirely optional - as if theories about the physical world were simply opinions and a matter of outlook. This, too, is a problem. It seems to me that that middle ground is where we most often run into troubles.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

Yes, I was responding to your comment...is it possible we have reached at least tentative agreement on something? Shall I send out for Champagne and Cigars?

amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

Yes, I was responding to your comment...is it possible we have reached at least tentative agreement on something? Shall I send out for Champagne and Cigars?

amicus...

I'm as surprised as you are. I've checked the Literotica FAQ, but can't find a listing for "finding oneself in agreement with amicus." Perhaps it's not asked very frequently? I'll leave you the cigars, but would love a nice cold bucket of champagne. Cheers!

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

The doomsday possibility is scientifically well enough supported. That your house will be hit by a tornado is not supportable by fact. But that it might be, is supportable. So it's up to you, the expensive brick house with a good basement, of a cheap trailor? One costs you alot now, but might save you a bundle later. I know what I'd choose, but I'm a notorious coward.

Damn, that's a good analogy.


Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt. Carry on.

 

[Liar]

The highlighted segment above is the type of unfounded absolute that has no factual support, but engender legislation to restrict the use of "Greenhouse" or "Ozone depleting" gasses. There is absolutely no record of GLOBAL climate available prior to records begun several hundred years ago.

Other than the continuing retreat of glaciation begun at the end of the last ice age, all other evidence is "Chicken Little" exaggeration.

*shrug* Whatever, sarge. Call it what you will.

All I can do is relate to what I've been told by people far more insightful than me. Unless they are, for no apparent reason, lying out of their asses. We're not even talking about blaming it on CO2 or ozone depleting gases, just reciting measured data. Crying shennanigans and "no factual support" is a pretty easy route though. And you obviously chose to ignore my further postings on the matter. Have it your way.

#L

 

[amicus]

Minsue Liar


"...Originally Posted by Liar

The doomsday possibility is scientifically well enough supported. That your house will be hit by a tornado is not supportable by fact. But that it might be, is supportable. So it's up to you, the expensive brick house with a good basement, of a cheap trailor? One costs you alot now, but might save you a bundle later. I know what I'd choose, but I'm a notorious coward.



Damn, that's a good analogy..."


Close, but no cigar. Tornado's are a known weather phenomenon and more occur in the United States, namely 'tornado alley', than any where else in the entire world.

The ocean level has risen by about 400 feet since the last glaciation was at a maximum. Global temperature records and variations, although an infant science, is recorded in tree rings and in layers of ice on glaciers and both ice caps and determined by drilling for core samples that can be dated and the analyzed.

The amount of CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere in the past can also be estimated by these procedures. Ozone in the upper atmosphere is produced by lightning strikes, globally, more than a million each day, if I recall.

It is difficult enough for scientists to compile and analyze sufficient data to even 'confirm' the rise and decline of previous ice ages, although other geographical evidence left behind by retreating glaciers is ample.

There is no doubt that mankind affects the environment, one need only observe greater Los Angeles, or study downwind effects from major cities, to observe that automobile exhaust and heat absorption by concrete roads and buildings, does in fact creater weather changes. The burning of coal in London and Paris two centuries ago created pollution severe enough to cause health problems.

Burning fossil fuels does indeed put hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, strip mining does indeed pollute water tables and streams and rivers and clear cut logging does indeed affect stream runoff and fish habitat and animal life as well.

Even saying all of this, mankind learns, we no longer use rivers or the ocean as dumping grounds. We have learned to be more conscious of harmful chemicals of all kinds.

And it is true that large corporations and even government agencies will use procedures and methods that are extremely hazardous, until it is pointed out and they are stopped.

Buried in all the data, raw date, hard data, are so called social engineers who have a rose colored vision of how the world 'ought to be' in their eyes.

Those views are rooted in the observable excesses of man and industry, but grow beyond that into a desire by many, to 'manage' the ecology with respect to preservation and a return to 'natural pristine eco systems' rather than include 'man' in the equasion.

This desire has been promulgated in the sciences, as funded by government, educational and private benefactors, to a point where, over the past forty years, it has become an 'international' effort to limit the industrial growth of nations to satisfy the desire to 'preserve and protect' at any cost.

Anyone who will take the time to read the Kyoto Accords, and learn the outcome if those accords were imposed, would realize that it would effectively destroy the economy of western industrialized nations and prohibit third world nations from ever being able to grow into modern countries.

Well, the links were provided in another post and if you want 'knowledge' rather than a political mantra, I am sure you will do the research.

amicus...