PhotographyREVIEW.com Off-Topic Forum

Anything that's not related to photography, except religion and politics*. Discuss Britney Spears, your Kiss records, swing dancing, salsa recipes. The Off-Topic forum is moderated by walterick and adina.
*Religious and political threads will be deleted
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 36 of 36
  1. #26
    light wait photophorous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    1,910

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    Quote Originally Posted by masdog
    Actually, the ice core data shows an interesting cycle where CO2 levels vary by about 80 ppm, from approximately 200 PPM to 280 PPM. According to wikipedia, ice core data shows that CO2 concentration in 1832 was 284 ppm, and the most recent modern concentration they have on record is 383 ppm.

    As I understand, forests are only a fraction of the planet's carbon sink. The largest carbon sink is the ocean. In addition to man's contributions, other sources of carbon dioxide include volcanic activity and the decomposition of organic material.
    I just did a quick search and found several graphs, but they only go back about 1000 years. They show the approximately 80ppm variations you refer to, and then they show the increase to about 100ppm above anything in the past 1000 years...coincidentally beginning around the time we started burning fossil fuels.

    Ignore my comment about forests. I didn't mean to suggest that was a significant issue, just an example of something we know for certain.

    I've heard the argument about volcanic activity before. I could be wrong, but I thought volcanic activity was something that is slowly decreasing as the earth's core cools. Is there any data to show volcanos started producing more CO2, around the same time we started burning fossil fuels?

    Organic matter has always been decomposing, so I don't see how that argument works. If there is an increase in decomposing organic matter, I'd be surprised if humans didn't have something to do with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by masdog
    Consensus science isn't always right. For instance, there was a time when many scientists believed that the luminiferous aether was the medium that light passed through. The Michaelson-Morley experiment in 1887 should have killed that idea, but it led other scientists to find other ways for that theory to work. It wasn't until special relativity came along that the theory was finally put to pasture.

    That doesn't mean that the global warming theory is wrong either. It was just an example where consensus science was wrong.
    There was a time when they thought the earth was flat too. We'd be foolish to expect 100% accuracy from our scientific community, but relying on the statistically unlikely possibility that the scientists are all wrong would be much more foolish, IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by masdog
    I haven't read that the largest changes are being observed at the poles.
    I may be wrong about that, in terms of largest temperature changes. What I meant to say is that the changes are most easily observed at the poles (or any extreme cold environment). And I don't think the concrete in urban environments has anything to do with what's going on at the poles.

    Quote Originally Posted by masdog
    I agree that our climate is extremely complicated, and I am concerned that there is something our models aren't accounting for. That is why I am skeptical of the idea of man-made global climate change - we simply don't know enough about the system to say it is entirely man's fault..
    The climate models don't change my opinion one way or the other. While I do think the data going in to the models is accurate for the most part, I don't know if all of the necessary data is being included. Any time a system as complicated as our climate is modeled on a computer, assumptions are made to simplify the algorithms. That's where I suspect most errors would appear, but I still think we can learn something from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by masdog
    I agree that there is some distrust of science by many who reject global warming. But then again, there are some scientists who object to some part of the prevailing theory on the matter. Both sides of the debate are much more qualified than either of us when it comes to discussing the issue...
    I guess what frustrates me about this argument (and I'm not directing this to you specifically) is that so many people seem to just ignore the issue, or decide it's not an issue at all, just because there is a lack of certainty. People also exaggerate the level of uncertainty to make it sound like there is much more debate in the scientific community than there really is. For the most part, on the biggest issues, the scientists agree.

    The only thing I know for sure is that we should take this seriously and not just dismiss it. If this were a foreign policy issue that involved national defense, we would be extremely cautious, maybe even preemptive. But since it's the scientists that are worried, instead of the politicians, we'd rather sit back and do nothing until it's too late. The politicians' track records are no better than the scientists' and they may be worse.

    Paul

  2. #27
    Senior Member mn shutterbug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    SW MN
    Posts
    2,386

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    Paul, I really enjoyed your arguments and your concern. I certainly agree that this is a subject we should all take seriously. To ignore all these warnings is just plain foolish.
    Mike
    www.specialtyphotoandprinting.com
    Canon 30D X 2, Canon 100-400L, Thrift Fifty, Canon 18-55 IS 3rd generation lens plus 430 EX II flash and Better Beamer. :thumbsup:

  3. #28
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,963

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    Hi Paul,

    This is my last post before I leave for vacation. Got most of my stuff done so I have just a moment or two to comment.

    First of all, let address your concern about discussing issues such as this. I, personally, love to discuss and debate politics and religion. I do not get emotionally overcharged, as some do. So you don't have to worry about offending me. I hope the same holds true for others here.

    Secondly, my feeling is that you might be just a tad naive of the scientific community. I would love to believe that all their motives are pure, but as I am sure you well know, in the end they are but men, just like our politicians. Therefore, I am a healthy skeptic of both, as loads of money, power, notoriety, etc., all play a part in these circles. Take these things away, and we would all be assured of honest, critical work.

    I just finished reading a book entitled Creation's Tiny Mystery, by Robert Gentry. In it not only does Gentry offer a theory that goes against the grain of the scientific community, but he also shows what happens when one upsets the balance of the status quo. You can find it here online. It took me about four hours to get through it. It's easy to absorb for even us folk who aren't scientists. Gentry's findings, indirectly, would even cast a huge shadow of doubt upon the alledged "historial" data found in ice cores, since his research implies they couldn't possibly be more than a few thousand years old.

    There is one thing, however, that we can be certain: science is always tentative. Consequently, our lives should not hinge upon every theory they throw out there, no matter how much of a consensus is behind it.

    As a friend of mine recently stated, "Scientists never have to say they're sorry. They just have to come up with a new theory."

    See ya in about a week!


    Quote Originally Posted by photophorous
    Hi Ray,

    Thanks for taking the time to address my questions. I have to ask myself sometimes why I get involved in these conversations. I don’t want to make enemies on photography review, so I hope you understand none of this is personal. My only goal in participating in this type of discussion is to persuade people to be more open to the possibility that we need to make some changes. I want people to go research this for themselves.

    What I read in your response is a general distrust for the scientific community. You seem to think everyone involved either has a personal agenda, or is simply wrong. I find it very hard to believe that a majority of scientists, for want of notoriety and money, would knowingly subscribe to a false theory. If they are seeking notoriety, wouldn’t they be better off going against the grain, and being the one who really uncovers the truth? Time will always expose bad science.

    Such a politically unpopular topic as global warming wouldn’t seem like the best way to get grant money out of our government either. I would think a scientist working to disprove the theories of global warming would get grant money just as easily, if not easier, due to the fact that that opinion is underrepresented. There are always people who sell out, and scientists are not above this, but to think the majority is doing so seems like nothing more than cynicism.

    So, the other thing that could be going on here is simple failure on the part of the scientists. They could just all be wrong. It’s happened before. But, the often sited Global Cooling scare of the 70’s is not an example of this. That was more of a media issue than a scientific issue. There were lots of scientists involved in discussing the cooling trend, which was real, although short term. But only a small number of those scientists went so far as to say it was an irreversible dooms day scenario. Most of the scientists at that time did not know what to think of it and made no claim that it was due to human activity. It was a few scientists that set off a media storm. There was never a consensus.

    This time it’s very different. Science is largely a process of elimination, and there’s no doubt that today’s scientists have much better technology and more historical data. I think you can safely assume that the mistakes of the 70’s will not be repeated. Data proves that humans have caused an enormous increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, extending far beyond any historical spikes. There’s no science that disputes that; only speculation from unscientific sources. The data also proves that the earth is warming. Ice on Antarctica has melted to uncover portions of the continent that have been covered for thousands of years or more. Glaciers on top of mountains around the world are doing the same. We are in a warming trend. The question is whether or not this increase in CO2 is causing or contributing to the warming trend.

    Taking any position in this debate is risky. If you think that global warming is real and there’s something we can do about it, you run the risk of unnecessarily spending money and making sacrifices. If you think global warming isn’t real, you run the risk of watching our society crumble, as flooding, storms, and potentially even the onset of another ice age destroy our infrastructure and cause widespread war and famine...because you chose to do nothing. No one knows how bad this could be, but we do know there are a lot of relatively cheap and easy things we could do that might help.

    Paul

    Ray O'Canon
    Digital Rebel XTi • Digital Rebel • Canonet GIII QL17 • Agfa Parat-1

    The liberal, socialist politician's nightmare: "What a comfort to the farmer to be allowed to supply his own wants before he should be liable to pay anything, and then only pay on his surplus." - Jefferson to Madison on Taxes,1784

    My Canonet GIII QL-17 photos on flickr.

  4. #29
    Formerly Michael Fanelli, mwfanelli, mfa mwfanelli2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    648

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    General observations:

    I may be wrong about that, in terms of largest temperature changes. What I meant to say is that the changes are most easily observed at the poles (or any extreme cold environment). And I don't think the concrete in urban environments has anything to do with what's going on at the poles.
    It is faster at the poles right now. Ice reflects about 90% of the light hitting it. Melted ice, i.e., water, reflects about 20-30%. That means that the acceleration of heating is much greater at the poles because of vastly increased absorption of energy. This is the "short" term result. The long term result is sudden cooling as the ocean currents change. Not a contradiction as others have stated.

    Robert V Gentry is a scientist gone creationist. He has an honorary, not earned, doctorate. His actual education is no better than mine, I'm guessing worse. His book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, is faith, not science. There is a difference!

    Secondly, my feeling is that you might be just a tad naive of the scientific community. I would love to believe that all their motives are pure, but as I am sure you well know, in the end they are but men, just like our politicians.
    Yes, you are right. But what makes science move on IN SPITE OF THIS is the scientific method. No matter how petty people are, the scientific method grinds on and eventually comes to the truth. So many people have no clue what the scientific method is all about.

    There was a time when they thought the earth was flat too.
    This is a misconception. Most people never believed this due to easy observations of the horizon dropping away, especially for those at the coasts, and the curved shadow of the Earth during lunar eclipses. The greeks were not the first to measure, quite well, the Earth's diameter. The "flat Earth" stuff was an attempt in the 1700s (1600s?) to discredit the beliefs of "primitive heathens."
    Last edited by mwfanelli2; 08-27-2007 at 02:51 PM.
    “Men never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do so from religious conviction.” — Blaise Pascal

  5. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    110

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    This is a fascinating subject to me, so I thought I might just chime in with a few tidbits. First off, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the research being conducted and science in general at large in the population. The ice age scare in the 70's was a normal progression of science. A hypothesis was developed that was proven incorrect through rigorous testing. That happens everyday in science. Next, for scientists to call global climate change a theory is a big deal. People throw around the word 'theory' much to liberally. For something to be a theory, it must undergo many attempts to proven it wrong. The general idea that climate change is occurring at catastrophic rates has yet to be disproved. And one last little thing to chew on before I am late for class. The idea that humans are significantly aggravating global climate change has been much more thoroughly tested than most of the medicines we rely on day in and day out are. On a little side note to this, my sense of smell is just now returning after a 3 week absence thanks to the thoroughly tested nasal drugs I was prescribed for a heavy sinuous infection, lol.

    By the way, not out to make anyone mad. Just critiquing what I perceive in the conversation.

  6. #31
    Formerly Michael Fanelli, mwfanelli, mfa mwfanelli2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    648

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    One note... Most people don't understand how words are used in science. You can not have multiple meanings and shades of meaning in science. Science takes words from the vernacular and gives them specific meanings. So, words such as theory, force, weight, etc. have specific scientific meanings that are not the same as the meanings most people use.
    “Men never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do so from religious conviction.” — Blaise Pascal

  7. #32
    project forum co-moderator Frog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    wa state
    Posts
    11,195

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    All I want to know is if this means I have to stop eating refried beans with guacamole?
    Keep Shooting!

    CHECK OUT THE PHOTO PROJECT FORUM
    http://forums.photographyreview.com/...splay.php?f=34

    Please refrain from editing my photos without asking.

  8. #33
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,963

    Re: Looks the moose are off the hook....


    Ray O'Canon
    Digital Rebel XTi • Digital Rebel • Canonet GIII QL17 • Agfa Parat-1

    The liberal, socialist politician's nightmare: "What a comfort to the farmer to be allowed to supply his own wants before he should be liable to pay anything, and then only pay on his surplus." - Jefferson to Madison on Taxes,1784

    My Canonet GIII QL-17 photos on flickr.

  9. #34
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,963

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    Quote Originally Posted by mwfanelli2
    Robert V Gentry is a scientist gone creationist.
    So what? Being a creationist does not automatically invalidate one's research. And keep in mind it was the evidence Gentry found that led him away from an evolutionary postion to one of creation, not the other way around. That is how science is supposed to work, isn't it? If the evidence falsifies a theory then one is supposed to reject the theory, not the evidence or the scientist who made the discovery.

    He has an honorary, not earned, doctorate. His actual education is no better than mine, I'm guessing worse. His book, Creation's Tiny Mystery, is faith, not science. There is a difference!
    Wow, talk about showing one's bias! I am pretty sure Dr. Gentry's credentials far outweigh yours. How many papers have you had published in Nature or Science? If the answer is none, then perhaps you ought to bite your tongue.

    Ray O'Canon
    Digital Rebel XTi • Digital Rebel • Canonet GIII QL17 • Agfa Parat-1

    The liberal, socialist politician's nightmare: "What a comfort to the farmer to be allowed to supply his own wants before he should be liable to pay anything, and then only pay on his surplus." - Jefferson to Madison on Taxes,1784

    My Canonet GIII QL-17 photos on flickr.

  10. #35
    Formerly Michael Fanelli, mwfanelli, mfa mwfanelli2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Perryville, MD
    Posts
    648

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    Quote Originally Posted by schrackman
    So what? Being a creationist does not automatically invalidate one's research. And keep in mind it was the evidence Gentry found that led him away from an evolutionary postion to one of creation, not the other way around. That is how science is supposed to work, isn't it? If the evidence falsifies a theory then one is supposed to reject the theory, not the evidence or the scientist who made the discovery.
    You leave science behind when you ignore the scientific method. Creationism is NOT science, it ignores the scientific method (look that up). Evolution has a growing pile of evidence as well as the required predictions that experiments are showing to be true. Why do you think that religious groups are so much against genetic research? Too much is being proven right and the technology is young.


    Wow, talk about showing one's bias! I am pretty sure Dr. Gentry's credentials far outweigh yours. How many papers have you had published in Nature or Science? If the answer is none, then perhaps you ought to bite your tongue.
    LOL! Read the "papers" he published. It is pseudo-science nonsense. He is not the only one. Ever hear of String Theory? That field is filled with remarkable scientists and mathemeticians. Its certainly a lot more involved than anything Gentry has done. But it too suffers from not being science yet. Without experimentally observable predictions, it is really nothing more than faith. Maybe someday, but not now.

    If you really and truly don't understand the deep gap between an honorary and earned doctorate, I feel sorry for you. But this is common among anti-science groups.

    I spent most of my time, after a small stint at Brookhaven National Labs, in the computer field starting when it was punched cards, paper teletype machines, and mainframes. Look up some of MY papers before you make any more silly assumptions.

    Look, if you choose to view the world from the supernatural point of view, that's fine. People have been doing that since the beginning of time. I choose to look at the world from the point of view of science, logical and rigorous. Others see the world through art, music, literature. There is no problem with any of this. The trouble begins when one system tries to make believe it is doing the same job as another. Would you appreciate a physics explanation of god?

    My view from the world of science may be right, it may be wrong. Your view from the supernatural may be right or it may be wrong. But faith is not science and science is not faith. Don't keep mixing them up.

    This silly argument has gone on long enough. That's it for me!
    “Men never do evil so cheerfully and completely as when they do so from religious conviction.” — Blaise Pascal

  11. #36
    Princess of the OT adina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    rockin' it in the D
    Posts
    3,853

    Re: A new culprit to blame for climate change

    Quote Originally Posted by Frog
    All I want to know is if this means I have to stop eating refried beans with guacamole?

    YES! Your avocado and bean consumption is reeking havoc on our planet!
    I sleep, but I don't rest.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •