Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

AGW and rising sea levels

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 6th July 2018, 19:58   #476
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,339
On post #461 I attached a Climate Dispatch article by James Kamis entitled: "Three New Studies Confirm Volcanism Is Melting West Antarctic Glaciers, Not Global Warming." One might think that an interested reader would click one or more of the links he provided to see what his underlying evidence amounted to. The first and most important was a 2018 article in Nature Communications entitled: "Evidence of an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier." (attached)
Here is the opening abstract:
Quote:
Tectonic landforms reveal that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) lies atop a major
volcanic rift system. However, identifying subglacial volcanism is challenging. Here we show
geochemical evidence of a volcanic heat source upstream of the fast-melting Pine Island Ice
Shelf, documented by seawater helium isotope ratios at the front of the Ice Shelf cavity. The
localization of mantle helium to glacial meltwater reveals that volcanic heat induces melt
beneath the grounded glacier and feeds the subglacial hydrological network crossing the
grounding line.
The observed transport of mantle helium out of the Ice Shelf cavity indicates
that volcanic heat is supplied to the grounded glacier at a rate of ~ 2500 ± 1700 MW, which is
ca. half as large as the active Grimsvötn volcano on Iceland. Our finding of a substantial
volcanic heat source beneath a major WAIS glacier highlights the need to understand subglacial
volcanism, its hydrologic interaction with the marine margins, and its potential role in
the future stability of the WAIS.
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04421-3 OPEN
1
Here is what Klamis said at the end of his article:
Quote:
Climate scientists strongly advocating the theory of the global warming to explain the WAIS melting should broaden their research and analyzation process to include the impact of geological forces, like subglacial volcanoes. ...
It sounds quite reasonable to me.

Joost, thanks for your concern about my eyes. The doctor was quite amazed that for an 82-year-old man I showed no signs of diabetic retinopathy.

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Friday 6th July 2018 at 21:58.
elkcub is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 7th July 2018, 16:47   #477
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
Just stumbled across this. . ..

https://scienceblog.com/502022/globa...odels-predict/
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 9th July 2018, 16:52   #478
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
One might think that an interested reader would click one or more of the links he provided to see what his underlying evidence amounted to.
Ah I've long given up at being surprised when people persist in arguing from a position of complete ignorance. But it does still rub me up the wrong way

WARNING: this is a long post, but there are a great many points to cover in countering the wilder claims made by Kamis in his “Climate Change Dispatch” article. The diligent reader will be able to find a lot of additional information with the help of Google and a good textbook or two.

Before we start, it is important to consider where the article posted by Ed was published. Climate Change Dispatch (CCD) one of the main climate change denier/skeptic websites. So when Kamis writes “Climate scientists […] should broaden their research and analyzation process […]. It’s time for all of us to help these well-intentioned scientists achieve this goal.” the implications are clear: those ‘mainstream’ climate researchers have 1) not yet considered subglacial volcanic activity, 2) therefore their interpretation of what is going on at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is incorrect, and 3) thus they are wrong about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in general. His already biased CCD audience will nod and agree, the vast majority ‘blinded by science’. A few might click the links to the original papers cited, but those are highly technical and difficult to understand for the layman. Thus, the duty for scientists to ‘simplify’ the information contained within those papers and convey the message(s) to their audience in a correct and dispassionate manner. So let’s examine whether Kamis has done so.

First, a small personal note and a bit of an introduction to the topic at hand.

As a young lad I was always fascinated by distant lands, exotic cultures, wildlife and landscapes. One particular image that stuck in my mind was a photograph (taken by a colleague-to-be as it turned out) of a 4x4 driving on an empty road in front of an imposing, ice-shrouded mountain range. Something like this (https://akamina.co/products/icelandic-road-2) but with a car in it. The picture was of the imposing Öræfajökull volcano in southern Iceland. It inspired me to take up Earth Science in university, and later on to spend a year in Reykjavík studying the local geology. In addition to punching well above its weight in international football, Miss World winners and horrible food, few places can compete with Iceland when it comes to the combination of volcanoes and glaciers. Unsurprising therefore that the ways these two interact were a significant topic in my degree, and Iceland hosts some of the world’s experts on subglacial volcanism.

When thinking about ‘volcanism’, it is important to keep in mind that this is not simply the eruption of lava and big clouds of smoke that wreak havoc on international air traffic. Volcanoes occur along weak spots in the Earth’s crust, either where tectonic plates drift apart (rift zones) or collide (subduction zones), or over particularly hot ‘plumes’ of mantle material (hot spots). Examples are the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and East African Rift Valley (both rift zones), the Andes (subduction zone) and Hawaii (hot spot). Iceland is a bit special because it’s a hot spot on top of a rift zone. The vast majority of volcanic activity occurs underground, but on the surface it leads to two things: geothermal heat and eruptions. Geothermal heat is (more or less) continuous and does what it says on the tin: warm up the surface. Not by an incredible amount, millions of people live in areas of elevated geothermal heat flow, but significant nonetheless and it’s on 24/7. For comparison, geothermal heat flow is only 0.03% of solar irradiance absorbed by the Earth. Volcanic eruptions on the other hand produce vast amounts of surface heat, but only episodically and for a short amount of time (especially geologically speaking). It’s true that some eruptions go on for years and years, but the vast majority don’t. In addition to producing heat and lava, volcanic eruptions also introduce gasses and dust into the atmosphere that can take years to settle down/dissipate (and may lead to temporary global cooling events, e.g. the late 18th century Laki eruption). Some people have argued that there has been a recent increase in volcanic activity, and even that this is what’s driving global warming. However, those claims are not substantiated by the data as eruption levels have remained ‘constant’ for the past 200 years at least (see discussion here: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-si...uptions.t6225/).

So, on to glaciers and ice caps/sheets. It is important to keep in mind that these are hydro-meteorological surface features that form wherever accumulation of snow exceeds melting/ablation for a good number of years (enough for the snow to compact and form perennial ice). Typically this is in areas that are cold (high latitude and/or altitude) and receive a lot of precipitation. Thus, the primary driver for glacier formation and size is climate, specifically the interaction between local climatological conditions and topography, although a few other factors come into play (see below). As an example, Iceland’s relatively low mountains in the south and west have glaciers (due to high precipitation), while similar mountains in the north and east do not (too dry). Note that our weather systems generally move west to east due to the Earth’s rotation, so mountain ranges facing oceans to their west are particularly prone to high precipitation and glacier formation (e.g. Alaska, British Columbia, Patagonia, Norway, Antarctic Peninsula). Glaciers gradually slide downhill, with most of the mass accumulation happening high up, and most of the melt happening lower down. This mass balance is highly sensitive to changes in climatological conditions, and a sustained change in weather pattern over many years will induce significant growth or shrinkage. Again, note that this includes changes in both temperature and precipitation (and in many cases wind). It’s not as simple as saying ‘it got warmer/colder’, therefore the glacier got smaller/bigger’. The rate at which a glacier moves downhill is influenced by its mass balance, the bedrock topography (terrain roughness) and something called basal melt. Basal melt is mostly generated by friction, but can be increased by geothermal heat (more on that below), which creates river systems and sometimes lakes at the glacier bed, literally lubricating its base. However, many high latitude glaciers (Greenland, Antarctica) have very little basal melt, meaning the glacier is frozen to the bedrock and moves only very slowly. Finally, there are marine-based glaciers which terminate directly in the sea. These are particularly sensitive to changes in the marine environment (water temperature, sea level) as this can create a ‘pull’ factor because the end of the glacier literally floats at the sea surface.

How do the two combine? Well, Earth scientists have been studying the effects of subglacial volcanism (volcano under enough ice) on the behaviour of both volcanoes and glaciers for decades. They’ve even looked for them on Mars (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-volcano-01b.html). And the dynamics are quite well understood, with many recent observations coming from Iceland. So is geothermal heat on its own enough to affect or prevent formation of a glacier? Somewhat, but judging by the number of glaciers on top of active volcanoes the answer is a firm no, not if the annual snow accumulation rate is sufficient. And seen as geothermal heat flux is insufficient to prevent glaciers from forming even in places like Kilimanjaro, it certainly isn’t enough to completely melt through ice caps hundreds or thousands of meters thick. Elevated levels of geothermal heat do increase the basal melt which makes the glacier slide downhill easier, but remember that the final ‘speed’ depends on basal topography and ice mass balance as well. Volcanic eruptions are easily capable of blasting a hole through a thick layer of ice; for example, in 2010 Eyjafjallajökull melted through a few hundred metres of ice (generating that annoying ash cloud) (https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=372020). However, that ice cap is now recovering rapidly despite high geothermal heat flow in the caldera. Eruptions may be powerful, but they are infrequent and do not affect the situation in the long term. For that the hydro-meteorological conditions which are the driving force behind glaciation need to shift significantly.

After that long introduction, let’s have a look at the Kamis article and the claims made therein:

Climate scientists (including those working on Antarctic ice sheet dynamics) have not considered geological forces, like subglacial volcanoes
This is clear nonsense. I was taught about subglacial volcanism at uni 20 years ago. The processes involved are well understood, if not always well constrained on a case-by-case basis (more on that below). There is a large body of scientific literature spanning decades of research, some of which is cited in the Loose et al. (2018) paper kindly attached by Ed. What about the rift system beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet? Surely that’s ‘new information’? Not really. This study from 2017 gives an in-depth overview of the WAIS and the underlying West Antarctic Rift System (http://sp.lyellcollection.org/conten.../05/26/SP461.7), which has been known to exist for decades.
Either Kamis truly believes his own statement (in which case he is woefully uninformed), or he made it in order to increase his own apparent authority for the readers of CCD.

The conclusions of the [Loose et al. 2018] research study […] cites bedrock geothermal heat flow as the root cause of Pine Island Glacier melting
Except…the paper doesn’t (surely you spotted that Ed?). The conclusions of the paper are entirely in line with what I discussed above; and they finish with the following:
“The magnitude and the variations in the rate of volcanic heat […] may impact the future dynamics of the Pine Island Glacier, during the contemporary period of climate-driven glacial retreat.”
In other words, either Kamis hasn’t read the entire paper, not understood it, or is lying for the benefit of his climate-sceptic audience. Take your pick.

This research study entitled “Bedrock in West Antarctica rising at a surprisingly rapid rate” shows that the very well-defined Marie Byrd bedrock mantle plume “hotspot” (MB plume) region is rapidly rising and forming an extensive high elevation dome.
Kamis refers here to a press release from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory about one of its own studies. Seroussi et al. 2017 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2017JB014423) parameterized geothermal heat flux above the MBL mantle plume (which incidentally has been in evidence since the Pliocene) with the following conclusion:
“The experiments show that mantle plumes have an important local impact on the ice sheet, with basal melting rates reaching several centimeters per year directly above the hotspot”.
Significant yes, and with important implications for overall WAIS stability. But several cm losses are easily within the range of glacial accretion rates for the Western Antarctic under current hydro-meteorological conditions – should those change then the additional basal melt may contribute to instability of the ice sheet, especially given that contains many marine-based glacier systems.

The Technical University of Demark (TUD) spearheaded the study which concluded that rapid elevation rise of the MB plume region is the result of post-glacial rebound. […]There are several problems with invoking post-glacial rebound as the cause of the MB plume region bedrock uplift [because 41 mm/year is] abnormally high when compared to normal post-glacial rebound rates [of] 25 millimeters per year
Kamis again cites a press release, but forgot to include the actual reference. It took a second to find it, because the work was not actually done at the TUD; the postdoc who did the work while at Ohio State University has since moved to the TUD (whoops, sloppy). Anyway the paper is in Science (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1335) and suggests the rapid uplift may actually help stabilize the WAIS in future, although this idea is disputed by others. What’s puzzling is Kamis’ assertion that 41 mm/year is too high for post-glacial geostatic rebound over mantle plumes – for example in Iceland rates of up to 92 mm/year have been calculated (http://jgs.lyellcollection.org/content/167/2/417). Thus, his next assertion is incorrect:
It is here likely that the rapid elevation rise rate of the MB plume region is caused by the uplifting action of geological forces and one has to wonder what other uplifting forces he has in mind? Presumably the mantle plume itself, but that was already included in the study he refers to, plus fully in line with known rates over mantle plumes.

Additional information concerning the geologically active Marie Byrd bedrock mantle plume “hotspot” and the giant deep-earth fault that fuels this plume…
Kamis demonstrates that, despite his undergraduate degree in geology, he has no clue what mantle plumes are. Hint: they are not fueled by giant deep-earth faults…

This study, entitled “New study suggests surprising wrinkle in the history of West Antarctic Ice Sheet”, proves that the WAIS significantly melted and retreated 10,000 years ago, then quickly recovered to its full extent. […] This information strongly indicates that ancient ice melting of the WAIS is almost certainly related to underlying bedrock geothermal heat flow from geographically specific geological features and not worldwide atmospheric global warming.
Another press release, not a study, and when you actually read it is says the following:
“The warming after the last Ice Age made the ice masses of West Antarctica dwindle rather rapidly. […] It retreated inland by more than 1,000 kilometers in a period of 1,000 years in this region—on geological time-scales, this is really high-speed. But now we detected that this process at some point got partially reversed. Instead of total collapse, the ice-sheet grew again by up to 400 kilometers. This is an amazing self-induced stabilization. However, it took a whopping 10,000 years, up until now. Given the speed of current climate-change from burning fossil fuels, the mechanism we detected unfortunately does not work fast enough to save today's ice sheets from melting and causing seas to rise.” (https://phys.org/news/2018-06-wrinkl...rctic-ice.html)
So not at all a rapid reversal as Kamis claims…misreading again or twisting the facts?

Combining the data and conclusions of three brand new research studies with very telling older research studies and previous CCD articles, it becomes very clear that melting of West Antarctica’s Ice Sheet is the result of bedrock geothermal heat flow, not atmospheric global warming.
Leaving aside the scientific ‘credibility’ of previous Climate Change Dispatch articles, this is 100% Kamis’ own interpretation. All his cited sources disagree with him (but who in his audience is going to check?), and his reasoning flies in the face of geological knowledge (and common sense). Instead, I recommend the review article by Van Wijk de Vries et al (2017), which I cited earlier and which discusses the WARS and its impact on the long-term stability of the WAIS in detail: http://sp.lyellcollection.org/conten.../05/26/SP461.7. As the authors conclude:
“Geological evidence points to the likelihood that the WAIS experienced extensive retreat during Quaternary glacial minima and concurrently contributed several metres to global sea-level rise. Currently, the WAIS may be undergoing another such wholesale retreat, as ice in the Pacific facing sector has consistently been retreating from the time of the earliest aerial and satellite observations. We do not consider it likely that volcanism has played a significant role in triggering the current retreat, for which there is compelling evidence that the forcing has initiated from the margins, but we do propose that subglacial volcanism has the potential to influence future rates of retreat by (1) producing enhanced basal melting that could impact upon basal ice motion and (2) providing edifices that may act to pin retreat.”
Hopefully my long introduction has provided some background for this conclusion, which makes sense from a scientific point of view.

Finally, I wanted to link to this exhaustive review of the glacial history of Antarctica: https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/f...Antarctica.pdf

Thanks for bearing with me, I hope the post was informative, and I urge everyone following the climate ‘debate’ to always fact check their sources.

Cheers,
Joost

P.S. happy to provide pdf’s or additional info as always!
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)

Last edited by Nohatch : Monday 9th July 2018 at 20:49.
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 10th July 2018, 13:08   #479
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
I see no evidence that the Pine Island Glacier is melting and retreating from man-made global warming. Other than model-based conjecture, where is it?
I also wanted to reply to this query, because it has an oft-used argument at its heart, namely: 'The evidence for man-made global warming is based on (unreliable) computer models, there is no empirical evidence'. That is factually incorrect, as is discussed here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...termediate.htm
AGW follows a sound theory based on extensive knowledge of atmospheric chemistry, and it is backed up by both direct and indirect/historic empirical observations. This is the evidence base, not the models itself. The latter are simply an attempt to predict the effects of increased atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, not justify the theory.

Cheers,
Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 8th October 2018, 18:28   #480
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
The bad news continues—

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/8/179488...un-ipcc-report
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 10:50   #481
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 726
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/09/reut...te-change.html

and a longer report (in Dutch) here: https://nos.nl/artikel/2254029-hof-k...ugdringen.html

The wording used by the court is interesting: not achieving GHG emission reduction targets would constitute a dereliction of the state's duty of care towards its citizens.

It will be interesting to see whether other countries follow suit.
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 16:11   #482
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/09/reut...te-change.html

The wording used by the court is interesting: not achieving GHG emission reduction targets would constitute a dereliction of the state's duty of care towards its citizens.

It will be interesting to see whether other countries follow suit.
It would indeed but I could name one which most certainly won’t. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Tuesday 9th October 2018 at 16:52.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 9th October 2018, 22:38   #483
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
To wit—

https://nyti.ms/2E9aUkl?smid=nytcore-ios-share
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 08:50   #484
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
It would indeed but I could name one which most certainly won’t. . ..
https://www.theonion.com/climate-res...lie-1828171232
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 16:11   #485
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
Ah, the Onion, a most valuable resource but as far as I know we two are the only BFers who have ever cited it. Go figure. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 11th October 2018, 21:12   #486
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
Ah, the Onion, a most valuable resource but as far as I know we two are the only BFers who have ever cited it. Go figure. . ..
Are we really? Hopefully we have brought this invaluable and reliable news outlet onto people's radar. Though I have to say for pure satire I prefer Breitbart
__________________
IOC Life list: 1313 (latest: Little Stint @ Lymington & Keyhaven Marshes, Hampshire, UK)
Nohatch is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 17th October 2018, 21:46   #487
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
AGW deniers—bad faith and cockroach ideas—
https://nyti.ms/2Ac8v4s?smid=nytcore-ios-share
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 5th November 2018, 17:29   #488
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
Dumbo’s moronic take—

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-clai...-ea09b0aa34dc/
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 6th November 2018, 01:42   #489
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 485
"Thinkprogress"...lol.

Partisan rag. Go back to The Onion...'twas more believable.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 6th November 2018, 19:25   #490
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,530
This may have been mentioned in this thread way back in the multitude of posts, so I apologize in advance:

If I were to assume those of you are against AGW are correct, then do you consider it okay that we as humans are spewing chemicals and pollutants into the air?

I'm just always confused on this score because it seems like we should act on the problem regardless of whether AGW is true or not. Or is it literally just the principal of the thing, the "lie of AGW" itself?
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 6th November 2018, 20:49   #491
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
This may have been mentioned in this thread way back in the multitude of posts, so I apologize in advance:

If I were to assume those of you are against AGW are correct, then do you consider it okay that we as humans are spewing chemicals and pollutants into the air?

I'm just always confused on this score because it seems like we should act on the problem regardless of whether AGW is true or not. Or is it literally just the principal of the thing, the "lie of AGW" itself?
You’re confused because apart from anti-big government ideologues and a handful of superannuated cranks, there is no “principled” opposition to AGW, just various interested parties (e,g., smokestack industry, miners) and hack politicians pandering to their base.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Tuesday 6th November 2018 at 23:17.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 9th November 2018, 16:42   #492
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,530
fugl,

While that may even be my personal bias, it seemed only fair to ask in the context of this thread what the motivation is with anti-AGW folks if for no other reason than insight on that perspective.

Let's say, for example, it really was some Big Lie, a huge conspiracy on the part of scientists. What then?

Are the anti-AGW out to "tell the truth" but at the same time still supporting some sort of anti-pollution agenda of their own?

Or do they honestly think that we're not really polluting the place and all is well with the world?

-----------

Something like this is playing out in California:

CARB made rules 10-odd years ago that go into force in 2019 over truck (big-rig) emmissions. The industry cites that the scientist who did the study that led to the law might have been wrong.

However, near as I can tell, at worst he is wrong about the specifics of diesel particulates causing cancer.

But even him being wrong does not negate that the discussion is about PM-2.5 pollution, which overall is known to be the worst kind of pollution.

So the truckers want to kill the CARB rule based on possible bad science, but seem to be overlooking that the general category of PM-2.5 is just bad for you according to all kinds of other legitimate science.

I guess in an ideal world, we'd kill the CARB rule for the bad diesel science, but turn right around and keep the rule just because it makes sense anyway. But that's not how government works, so is it okay to keep the rule for the wrong specific reason if it accomplishes a goal that is for the correct reasons in a broader sense?

-----------

An intellectual quandary that probably plays out quite a bit for truly legitimate reasons. But is it the same quandary for anti-AGW folks, or something else?

I think it's a fair enough question to bluntly ask...and would certainly change the tact I'd take when discussing this topic.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 9th November 2018, 21:53   #493
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
The facts prevail. . .. AGW and the Keystone XL pipeline—

https://politi.co/2JQJG11
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Friday 9th November 2018 at 22:00.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 18:26   #494
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
This may have been mentioned in this thread way back in the multitude of posts, so I apologize in advance:

If I were to assume those of you are against AGW are correct, then do you consider it okay that we as humans are spewing chemicals and pollutants into the air?

I'm just always confused on this score because it seems like we should act on the problem regardless of whether AGW is true or not. Or is it literally just the principal of the thing, the "lie of AGW" itself?
What a ridiculous posting.
...Assuming that some believe that it's 'okay' to trash our planet because they don't believe that man causes warming....outrageous.

And I could assume that many of the pompous AGW blowhards on this forum don't drive combustion engine cars, don't use oil or gas-fired furnaces to heat their homes, or don't use plastic products that are by-products of oil production, all because they 'imperil our planet' and increase CO2 levels.

But I'm not that naive.
It might just be that some of us 'deniers' are far better stewards of our planet than these hypocrites!
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 18:44   #495
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
What a ridiculous posting.
...Assuming that some believe that it's 'okay' to trash our planet because they don't believe that man causes warming....outrageous.

And I could assume that many of the pompous AGW blowhards on this forum don't drive combustion engine cars, don't use oil or gas-fired furnaces to heat their homes, or don't use plastic products that are by-products of oil production, all because they 'imperil our planet' and increase CO2 levels.

But I'm not that naive.
It might just be that some of us 'deniers' are far better stewards of our planet than these hypocrites!
I'm a bit confused by your reply...it's a bit muddled by what seems like an immediate vitriol to an honest question and request for information. If I struck a nerve or mis-interpreted, I apologize, but it wasn't the intent.

My question was in earnest. It sounds like you are anti-AGW (note I avoided the "denier" label...I want to keep this cordial and non-antagonistic), correct?

If so...I honestly want to know your "take" on pollution's affects on the long-term health of the planet, where you think the tact of AGW adherents has gone wrong, etc. If you do not believe in AGW, that is fair enough.

I know of at least two "contingents" of anti-AGW folks: 1) those that are simply against the science but I know nothing of their background beliefs beyond that; 2) those that honestly believe there isn't a pollution problem (regardless of belief for or against AGW) and we're just fine right now.

That isn't to say I know everything about the anti-AGW side, so am looking for an education on that side of things, outside the immediate context of "AGW doesn't exist" and certainly without any of the hateful bias on either side.

Again, I'm not trying to take sides, just get perspective. Tough to have real conversation without some basic understanding of both sides, yes?

Cheers,
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 20:26   #496
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
I'm a bit confused by your reply...it's a bit muddled by what seems like an immediate vitriol to an honest question and request for information. If I struck a nerve or mis-interpreted, I apologize, but it wasn't the intent.

My question was in earnest. It sounds like you are anti-AGW (note I avoided the "denier" label...I want to keep this cordial and non-antagonistic), correct?

If so...I honestly want to know your "take" on pollution's affects on the long-term health of the planet, where you think the tact of AGW adherents has gone wrong, etc. If you do not believe in AGW, that is fair enough.
If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time with that yokel, particularly now when he’s still upset over the results of the mid-terms.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 20:48   #497
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time
Except that I am honestly curious...and litebeam's the only one that spoke-up.

I have always wondered, but like many people, just made assumptions about those against AGW. Lately, I've gotten it into my head to let people break or bend my assumptions, if they can be cordial about it and use the opportunity for what it is.

I've found having patience and learning about "the other side" has been educational. Sometimes I learn new things, sometimes it reinforces existing things, sometimes it changes me in ways I couldn't have predicted.

It's also a pet hypothesis of mine that two polarized sides yelling at each other without really knowing what is going on in their adversary's head is useless anyway. So might as well try to learn, sympathize, and really dig-in to opposing viewpoints.

Dunno, just seems like the right thing to do, in any case. I can't promise perfect neutrality, but I try the best I can to listen and understand.

I hope litebeam will see it that way, or someone else will step-in and patiently and peacefully enlighten me.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 21:52   #498
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time with that yokel, particularly now when he’s still upset over the results of the mid-terms.
Yawn...
Always one step behind, Fugs.
I cared little about the midterms, a loss of power in the House (or even Senate) was completely predictable and expected. What wasn't expected were gains in the Senate.
All I have ever cared about are the courts... On that front the effects of this administration will be very far reaching indeed.

Kevin, if my reaction was terse, I apologize. Most here banter in bad faith with those they disagree with on AGW. Many questions are framed with the obligatory nonsense: "Do you believe God allows global warming?" or "Do you think the Earth is 5000 years old?" I've addressed this stuff before many times.

I believe the Earth warms and cools over millennia. I think we need to be very careful with how we treat this planet, the effects are important and sometimes lasting.
Carbon taxes and credits are a complete scam, IMHO. It is why some want to further the AGW issue. M O N E Y.

Last edited by litebeam : Yesterday at 21:56.
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 22:03   #499
CalvinFold
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018
 
CalvinFold's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: San Leandro, CA, USA
Posts: 1,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
Calvin, if my reaction was terse, I apologize. Most here banter in bad faith with those they disagree with on AGW.
Understood, and accepted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
I believe the Earth warms and cools over millennia. I think we need to be very careful with how we treat this planet, the effects are important and sometimes lasting.
Do you agree there is a pollution problem, just not that AGW should be the driver for "doing something about it"?

In other words, you might be okay with laws that cut-down emissions but only because "pollution is bad for other reasons"?

In other words, you don't need AGW as an "excuse" to do other things to cut-down on pollution?

And if I put words in your mouth, I apologize in advance. Feel free to correct me and clarify!

Quote:
Carbon taxes and credits are a complete scam, IMHO. It is why some want to further the AGW issue. M O N E Y.
Yeah all of that stuff really makes me scratch my head and feels like a bait-n-switch really. Or a solution designed by the same bankers who brought us other over-complex and obfuscated methods to do things.

If we're going to tackle pollution, just tackle it head on and take responsibility for it.

For example...while China shutting down it's end of the word recycling chain is a complete nightmare, I really can't disagree with what they did. I was also shocked that we (the USA) didn't have our own ways of dealing with the problem ourselves. I found that a very sad realization (basically made me feel like all my recycling good deeds were a lie) and had to admit it was a long overdue comeuppance.

So similarly....yeah taxes and credits are just shifting the problem away to someone or somewhere else, but not an actual solution.

Thank you for resetting this and giving me a chance to understand your personal take on things, it's very appreciated.
__________________
Kevin (aka CalvinFold)
My Gallery • Equipment used: 2013 | 2014 | 2015–2018
CalvinFold is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Yesterday, 22:06   #500
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
. . .It's also a pet hypothesis of mine that two polarized sides yelling at each other without really knowing what is going on in their adversary's head is useless anyway. So might as well try to learn, sympathize, and really dig-in to opposing viewpoints.. . .
Trouble is, sometimes one party’s “right”, with reason and concern for the public good on its side, and the other’s “wrong”—politically motivated, ignorant, corrupt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinFold View Post
.I hope litebeam will see it that way, or someone else will step-in and patiently and peacefully enlighten me.
Good luck on that. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rising Sun Sets in the South Farnboro John Cetaceans & Marine Life 3 Wednesday 2nd April 2014 20:49
Rising to the challenge (RSPB) BF Newsroom Latest news from the RSPB 0 Thursday 29th March 2012 16:58
Camera Insurance/rising prices simon Equipment Insurance 0 Thursday 22nd January 2009 20:59
Rising sea could end bittern boom (BBC News) BF Newsroom Live Bird News from around the World 12 Saturday 8th March 2008 09:57
Cormorants rising from the ashes.... Jos Stratford Birds & Birding 9 Tuesday 30th November 2004 15:17

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.19653511 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:38.