U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-27-2011, 07:17 AM
 
Location: DC
6,505 posts, read 6,426,164 times
Reputation: 3102

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Historical records indicate that this has happened before.
One of those times before, the age of the dinosaurs came to an end. It wouldn't have been a pleasant time to live through. We didn't have an advanced civilization that is based upon a particular climate level back then.

 
Old 05-27-2011, 09:09 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,394,061 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
I don't think it's alarmist or worst case scenario to suggest that if we continue on our current course we will see significant sea level rises. Right now sea level is increasing about 8 inches a century. Most of the world population lives close to the coast. It will be very expensive to relocate -- Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Charleston, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, Corpus Christi, San Diego, Los Angeles, etc.
What data does that graph use? TOPEX? The reason I ask is that TOPEX raw numbers have been showing aprox a 12mm drop in over the last 2-3 years in sea level.

The question would then be what data is being used and what methods are being applied to its result?

Also, have you bothered to check those various cities to see what their localized rise of sea level might be and if it happens to be outside of the normal increases documented in historical contexts? You might be surprised if you do.

edit: It appears your record is from wiki, which may or may not be valid (you don't link to a specific reference, so it is difficult to ascertain its source). Remember, it was for that very reason that the Wegman report was retracted due to its use of a wiki source to which was improperly cited on wiki to its original source. I would use a direct agency if you wish to avoid such issues of sourcing problems.
 
Old 05-27-2011, 09:13 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,394,061 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
One of those times before, the age of the dinosaurs came to an end. It wouldn't have been a pleasant time to live through. We didn't have an advanced civilization that is based upon a particular climate level back then.
Actually, there are documents and reports of ships passing through such in the 1800's. /shrug

I would have to look for it, but there was an excellent historical analysis done a while back to which took multiple sources of logs, records, pictures, journals, news articles, etc.... and evaluated the accounts to establish a basic perspective of the Arctic during that time. It didn't appear that the idea of a heavy melt was unheard of.
 
Old 05-27-2011, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,610,611 times
Reputation: 3358
So what I'm seeing, just from the data/arguments (valid or not) provided in the last few threads is 1) polar ice is melting, 2) sea levels are rising, and 3) we have evidence that this has happened before on more than one occasion. There is still no conclusive evidence that humans are the cause or that we can do anything about it. To the contrary, the confirmed historical evidence we do have indicates that this is a natural cyclic phenomenon. If this is indeed the case, as the evidence suggests, the only thing we humans can really do is get out of the danger zones and preserve as much of our population and civilization as possible. Instead of wasting time trying to assume responsibility and attempting to change/fight the course of Nature, which will likely prove ultimately futile, perhaps our efforts would be more wisely spent ensuring that our species can survive such an event.
 
Old 05-27-2011, 09:48 AM
 
2,671 posts, read 2,794,663 times
Reputation: 1987
Quote:

1500s to 1900s
Sea ice has played an important, and often tragic, role in the exploration of the polar regions since the 1500s. Initially, Europeans were interested in finding the “Northwest Passage," a hypothetical sea route through the Arctic from Europe to Asia. The Europeans thought that if they found such a route, it would lead to a much faster voyage because the distance was so short between Europe and the Arctic. But the arctic sea ice stymied many attempts from the 1500s through the 1800s.
It wasn’t until 1906 that the Northwest Passage was finally successfully navigated by Roald Amundsen, a famous Norwegian polar explorer who also led the first expedition to the South Pole. Navigation through the Northwest Passage was a difficult voyage and took Amundsen and his crew three years to complete.
Sea ice was also an important factor in attempts to reach the North Pole, which is situated in the middle of the Arctic Ocean and is covered by sea ice the entire year. Initially, some explorers believed that enough open water existed for a ship to navigate to the North Pole. This led to the ill-fated Jeannette expedition, led by the U.S. Navy in 1879.
All About Sea Ice: Exploration: Arctic
 
Old 05-27-2011, 09:52 AM
 
2,671 posts, read 2,794,663 times
Reputation: 1987
Our climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. Right now, humans are the dominate forcings, and the issue is not that climate change has or has not happened in the past, the issue is the accelerated rate of change caused by multiple actions of humans.
 
Old 05-27-2011, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,610,611 times
Reputation: 3358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecovlke View Post
Our climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. Right now, humans are the dominate forcings, and the issue is not that climate change has or has not happened in the past, the issue is the accelerated rate of change caused by multiple actions of humans.
I agree, personally, that some of our practices are most likely exacerbating or accelerating the natural cycle. Which ones and to what extent remains inconclusive... and therein lies the debate. But the fact still remains that, if this is a natural cycle, even if we modify our actions we'd only be returning the cycle to it's natural timeline, not avoiding the event.

I agree that there are several practices that need to be changed because they are ecologically unsound in many ways and we need to focus on pragmatically researching and altering those specifically rather than trying to change the course of an entire planet. Jumping into solutions for ill-defined problems that are based on inconclusive research may actually do more harm than good... we need to slow down and be more rational when making "global changes".

Steady progress and incremental changes would allow us to determine whether our solutions had a positive (or negative!) affect, which would ultimately create better solutions and improve adoption. I believe that much of the resistance we're experiencing with "going green" is that we've had just one too many half-cocked solutions forced on us with little or no conclusive evidence, and which ultimately turned out to either not solve the stated problem or caused more problems than it solved.
 
Old 05-27-2011, 12:04 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,394,061 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecovlke View Post
Our climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time. Right now, humans are the dominate forcings, and the issue is not that climate change has or has not happened in the past, the issue is the accelerated rate of change caused by multiple actions of humans.
And that is the issue to which is being contested. The use of past occurrences is to establish the fact that we have not properly delineated cause and effect within the issue.

You claim humans are the dominate forcing, but this has yet to be properly established and this is exactly why past occurrence and cycles are brought into play when we consider such an influence.

Honestly, you can't get scientists to agree on most aspects of Co2 and its effect to the climate in many areas, yet we are going to jump the gun and proclaim a conclusion?

This is exactly the problem here.

Look, if we are the problem, then it should be established by means of proper scientific evaluation, not speculation and random musings which have been shown to be heavily influenced by political position.

I will sing and dance the tune IF it is shown properly through science. The entire issue has been that science has been pushed aside to promote crusades of various individual interests.

I don't care who they are, what titles they have and how much they proclaim themselves authorities. If they can not properly and according to the basic principals of the scientific method establish their case, they might as well proclaim their truth as that of the divine and in that case, I am not a believer, nor will I bow down to such fanatic idealism.
 
Old 05-27-2011, 12:17 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,394,061 times
Reputation: 2608
Here is my position and problem with this entire issue.

I do not know what is fact concerning the issue of climate change. The entire issue is based on speculation concerning the data collected. None of it is conclusive as it is a new field and we have very little collection time concerning the trends for the levels of requirements our conclusions require.

What I do know is that a scientist is and always shall be a skeptic. It is their specific purpose, their nature, and their process to be skeptical of all things until evidence is properly collected and tested to provide a consistent result that can be replicated and explained properly to a conclusion.

Personally, I view anyone who proclaims a conclusion in this issue as tainted, biased, and nefariously involved. Any scientist who makes such conclusive claims is not a scientist, but a disgrace to the profession to which conflicts with the entire aspect of establishing conclusions without the proper process of explaining such occurrences.


I think science in general has been corrupted, much like it was in the earlier years of its progression. That is, I think people have found means to use the authority of science as a means to establish doctrinal demands on the populace. It is medieval in is application, religious in its assertions, and nefarious in its use these days.

To someone who truly respects science, no authority, no consensus, no establishment of the mob will suffice as it is no different than the vicious mobs of yesterday who burned innocent people at the stake to promote their vile agendas.

Either we respect science and its PROPER process, or we discard it and promote social authority to which we will eventually decay into a society of superstitious ignorance as those who use it for their cause drive us into submission.

To be blunt, I spit on those people, they disgust me to no end.
 
Old 05-27-2011, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Interior AK
4,729 posts, read 8,610,611 times
Reputation: 3358
While I'm not quite as vehement as Nomander, I do agree that we don't have enough data to make any rational conclusions, the data we do have may be questionably collected (it's easy to corrupt your data set with improper assumptions and methods -- you tend to find exactly what you're looking for regardless of its validity if you're not careful), and we have nothing but theory and speculation at this point.

A true scientist would look at some data, formulate a hypothesis, and then systematically attempt to prove and repeat it. What's happening now is that people are grabbing the hypothesis and running with it as if it were proven just because some scientist postulated it or some modeling program predicted it. Missing the whole "proven and repeatable" aspect of the Scientific Method... that's pseudo-science and leads to superstition and charlatanry.

If you want me to change my belief in something, either prove your position conclusively or (at the very least) provide me with enough solid data and a well-formed argument to convince me. If you give me incomplete or suspect data, can't support your argument with documented sources, and resort to name-calling and brow-beating then you're certainly not going to convince me no matter how aggressive you are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:19 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top