CT_Tree_Guy
Platinum Member
<font color="blue"> Sorry if I have offended you, it was never intended. </font>
Tres Crows -
Far be it from me to be offended by being referred to as "dude", in a post generously sprinkled with "LOL's".
Part of the solution to the world's problems, perceived or real, is the frank, dispassionate and respectful exchange of ideas, carried out in a spirit of compassion, understanding, forgiveness and surrender of ego.
That said, I am not perfect, and from a purely egocentric standpoint, I do take exception to several sentiments expressed in your post, this paragraph in particular:
<font color="blue"> If you want to believe the world is ending go right ahead, for every noted scientist you find who supports that view there is one who does not. What this indicates to me is that we are still, unfortunately not up to speed on the global climate mechanisms much less how our human inputs are involved. </font>
I would not describe my belief that man's role in "accelerated global warming" is bringing about climatic changes at a rate that is not good for our long-term collective welfare as "believing that the world is ending". The world will go on no matter how much misery our short-sighted actions bring upon us. And I take exception to your implication that there is not a consensus among the scientific community that man's role in "acclerated global warming" is a cause for legitimate concern <font color="blue"> (for every noted scientist you find who supports that view there is one who does not). </font> And while I believe that there is a very convincing body of evidence that we are currently engaged in activities that are not going to serve us well in the long run, if we are indeed not yet "up to speed on the global climate mechanisms", perhaps that would be a wise thing to continue to strive for in a rational manner.
And please, let us be scientific and precise as we discuss these complex issues. I would submit that for every scientist who believes that "the world is ending" there are many more than just one who believe otherwise. The world is not ending, just getting a little less hospitable than I would like to see.
<font color="blue"> I know it gets the alarmist in a tizzy when anyone, anyone, points out that human impacts are only a partial explanation for climatological changes which have been ongoing now for let's say about 5 billion years. You might also note that I said we must be good stewards of our planet and conserve our resources and attempt to limit our impact whenever possible.
</font>
I could not help but think that this paragraph had at least a slight implication that I am an "alarmist" in a "tizzy". I am a realist, in pursuit of the truth. I have never been a big fan of name-calling, and never will be. I see it as counter-productive, and a hindrance to the healthy exchange of ideas. Also, it is my understanding that the "best" estimate of the earth's age is not 5 billion years, but rather, closer to 3 3/4 billion years. As for <font color="blue"> human impacts [being] only a partial explanation for climatological changes </font>, I think that a large part of the task at hand is to determine just how "partial" that impact is. It is my understanding that the global mean temperature rose 1 degree celcius during the 20th century, and is projected to rise 4.5 degrees celcius in the 21st. As a geologist, does it sound to you as if this represents a departure from what might be expected from purely "natural" causes?
The following is an excerpt from just one of many thoughtful examinations of man's role in "accelerated global warming".
Global Warming & Rising Oceans
"Fossil energy has fueled the advent and development of the industrial age and allowed human population to explode. The product of our industrial respiration, carbon dioxide (CO2), has increased in the atmosphere and now threatens to spoil our nest. The atmosphere does more than provide us with oxygen to breathe, it controls the heat balance of the world. The trouble is, compared to the ocean, the atmosphere is relatively small in mass, so human-induced changes can affect it dramatically.
Our atmosphere is small in mass, so changes to it are serious.
The greenhouse effect:
Prior to the advent of the industrial age, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm (parts per million). Today it's over 360 ppm. That's an increase of about 30% in less than 300 years.
There is now more CO2 in our atmosphere than ever before in Earth's history. For the earth, this is an unprecedented rate of change, about 10,000 years worth of change compressed into 100 years. And there is more CO2 in our air now than at any time since humans evolved, more than anytime over the last million years. The earth is used to slow changes, not fast ones. Slow changes allow the biosphere and earth's species time to adjust. Quick change may cause biological chaos and disrupt agricultural production".
***
No, the sky is not falling, but it's not in great shape either, and we just might be well-served to make some attempts to do something about the rapid changes that we are most likely bringing about through our current and future activities.
Lastly, while I appreciate your work in your field, I must reiterate my belief that your background is much more applicable to the determination of historical impacts of climate changes, rather than the prediction of future ones. Again, I choose to leave that type of science to those much more qualified than you or I. In saying so, I take nothing away from you as a scientist. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is beneficial to continue to learn as much as we can, no matter what our backgrounds, current activities or areas of expertise might be. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "he who does not become wiser every day is a fool". And although I don't know who said it, there is another quote that I've always liked: "The wise man knows what he does not know".
I don't know whether or not we as a species are currently engaged in activities which are not in our best long-term interest, but it certainly does seem that way. Very few things are known with absolute certainty, but perhaps it would be prudent to take action when something has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". From everything that I have gleaned from every source at my disposal, I do believe that man's role in "accelerated global warming" has met that test. Of course, I welcome any and all scientific evidence to the contrary.
I wish you a nice day as well,
John
Tres Crows -
Far be it from me to be offended by being referred to as "dude", in a post generously sprinkled with "LOL's".
Part of the solution to the world's problems, perceived or real, is the frank, dispassionate and respectful exchange of ideas, carried out in a spirit of compassion, understanding, forgiveness and surrender of ego.
That said, I am not perfect, and from a purely egocentric standpoint, I do take exception to several sentiments expressed in your post, this paragraph in particular:
<font color="blue"> If you want to believe the world is ending go right ahead, for every noted scientist you find who supports that view there is one who does not. What this indicates to me is that we are still, unfortunately not up to speed on the global climate mechanisms much less how our human inputs are involved. </font>
I would not describe my belief that man's role in "accelerated global warming" is bringing about climatic changes at a rate that is not good for our long-term collective welfare as "believing that the world is ending". The world will go on no matter how much misery our short-sighted actions bring upon us. And I take exception to your implication that there is not a consensus among the scientific community that man's role in "acclerated global warming" is a cause for legitimate concern <font color="blue"> (for every noted scientist you find who supports that view there is one who does not). </font> And while I believe that there is a very convincing body of evidence that we are currently engaged in activities that are not going to serve us well in the long run, if we are indeed not yet "up to speed on the global climate mechanisms", perhaps that would be a wise thing to continue to strive for in a rational manner.
And please, let us be scientific and precise as we discuss these complex issues. I would submit that for every scientist who believes that "the world is ending" there are many more than just one who believe otherwise. The world is not ending, just getting a little less hospitable than I would like to see.
<font color="blue"> I know it gets the alarmist in a tizzy when anyone, anyone, points out that human impacts are only a partial explanation for climatological changes which have been ongoing now for let's say about 5 billion years. You might also note that I said we must be good stewards of our planet and conserve our resources and attempt to limit our impact whenever possible.
</font>
I could not help but think that this paragraph had at least a slight implication that I am an "alarmist" in a "tizzy". I am a realist, in pursuit of the truth. I have never been a big fan of name-calling, and never will be. I see it as counter-productive, and a hindrance to the healthy exchange of ideas. Also, it is my understanding that the "best" estimate of the earth's age is not 5 billion years, but rather, closer to 3 3/4 billion years. As for <font color="blue"> human impacts [being] only a partial explanation for climatological changes </font>, I think that a large part of the task at hand is to determine just how "partial" that impact is. It is my understanding that the global mean temperature rose 1 degree celcius during the 20th century, and is projected to rise 4.5 degrees celcius in the 21st. As a geologist, does it sound to you as if this represents a departure from what might be expected from purely "natural" causes?
The following is an excerpt from just one of many thoughtful examinations of man's role in "accelerated global warming".
Global Warming & Rising Oceans
"Fossil energy has fueled the advent and development of the industrial age and allowed human population to explode. The product of our industrial respiration, carbon dioxide (CO2), has increased in the atmosphere and now threatens to spoil our nest. The atmosphere does more than provide us with oxygen to breathe, it controls the heat balance of the world. The trouble is, compared to the ocean, the atmosphere is relatively small in mass, so human-induced changes can affect it dramatically.
Our atmosphere is small in mass, so changes to it are serious.
The greenhouse effect:
Prior to the advent of the industrial age, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm (parts per million). Today it's over 360 ppm. That's an increase of about 30% in less than 300 years.
There is now more CO2 in our atmosphere than ever before in Earth's history. For the earth, this is an unprecedented rate of change, about 10,000 years worth of change compressed into 100 years. And there is more CO2 in our air now than at any time since humans evolved, more than anytime over the last million years. The earth is used to slow changes, not fast ones. Slow changes allow the biosphere and earth's species time to adjust. Quick change may cause biological chaos and disrupt agricultural production".
***
No, the sky is not falling, but it's not in great shape either, and we just might be well-served to make some attempts to do something about the rapid changes that we are most likely bringing about through our current and future activities.
Lastly, while I appreciate your work in your field, I must reiterate my belief that your background is much more applicable to the determination of historical impacts of climate changes, rather than the prediction of future ones. Again, I choose to leave that type of science to those much more qualified than you or I. In saying so, I take nothing away from you as a scientist. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is beneficial to continue to learn as much as we can, no matter what our backgrounds, current activities or areas of expertise might be. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "he who does not become wiser every day is a fool". And although I don't know who said it, there is another quote that I've always liked: "The wise man knows what he does not know".
I don't know whether or not we as a species are currently engaged in activities which are not in our best long-term interest, but it certainly does seem that way. Very few things are known with absolute certainty, but perhaps it would be prudent to take action when something has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". From everything that I have gleaned from every source at my disposal, I do believe that man's role in "accelerated global warming" has met that test. Of course, I welcome any and all scientific evidence to the contrary.
I wish you a nice day as well,
John
