This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/
A couple of thoughts... Looking at the graph, the "hiatus" or plateau for surface air temps is sitting well above the 20th century averages; this is already a problem, since the last decade contains several of the highest average global temps on record. Last year the highest ever for Australia -- the year before for the continental US. We are ALREADY seeing the adverse impacts of climate change -- invasive species costing farmers and ranchers (and forests here in UT) millions in losses. The article fails to mention that sea levels are rising FASTER than the IPCC forecasts. Vast stretches of coral reef are dying, fresh water resources are disappearing for large metro areas across the globe, and the antarctic ice is starting to break up, at disconcerting rates. The article concludes with, basically, "it's OK to wait and see what happens next" -- a foolish summary, IMO. It may already be too late to reverse course in time to make a difference. We may already be past the tipping point. What's ridiculous is that these costs are orders of magnitude above any imagined profit losses to energy companies (whose FUD machine annually outspends NASA's entire budget). My 2 cents. /R ________________________________ From: Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:39 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Rich and all, I hear the claims made that sea level has already risen. The commenters in the above article quote an unbelievable rise in sea level per degree centigrade, and yet I have not seen a graph that shows this to be true. Can you point me to a place where I can see this rise in sea level, please? (Intended to be a respectful and honest request, not a satirical comment.) Global warming cannot be measured by local temperature rise, and I think that may apply to specific countries as well as more localized places. Australia and the US may be larger places, but should the measure be more global than that? I am also interested in the reduced sea ice claims. My observation says that the sea ice in Alaska has begun to rebound. I watch the sea ice cams in Barrow and there always seems to be plenty. They are still ice bound today - at least by land fast ice. Again, perhaps this observation is more local than what is meaningful. Locals will say that there has been more ice in the last two or three years than in the past. Is sea ice rebounding in spite of the fact that CO2 is rising? Where is the data? (It may exist, but I have not seen it.) The well substantiated altering and choosing of data by some of the UN groups has not added to my confidence in their arguments. In short, I am still confused by all of the claims that are being made by both sides of this debate, and I have not seen reliable data to back up many of the claims. The only claim I have seen that seems to be consistent is that warming has stopped on a global basis since the late 1990s. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:24 PM, Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote: A couple of thoughts... Looking at the graph, the "hiatus" or plateau for surface air temps is sitting well above the 20th century averages; this is already a problem, since the last decade contains several of the highest average global temps on record. Last year the highest ever for Australia -- the year before for the continental US. We are ALREADY seeing the adverse impacts of climate change -- invasive species costing farmers and ranchers (and forests here in UT) millions in losses. The article fails to mention that sea levels are rising FASTER than the IPCC forecasts. Vast stretches of coral reef are dying, fresh water resources are disappearing for large metro areas across the globe, and the antarctic ice is starting to break up, at disconcerting rates. The article concludes with, basically, "it's OK to wait and see what happens next" -- a foolish summary, IMO. It may already be too late to reverse course in time to make a difference. We may already be past the tipping point. What's ridiculous is that these costs are orders of magnitude above any imagined profit losses to energy companies (whose FUD machine annually outspends NASA's entire budget). My 2 cents. /R ________________________________ From: Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:39 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
http://news.yahoo.com/hidden-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-below-1905065... On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:55 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: Rich and all, I hear the claims made that sea level has already risen. The commenters in the above article quote an unbelievable rise in sea level per degree centigrade, and yet I have not seen a graph that shows this to be true. Can you point me to a place where I can see this rise in sea level, please? (Intended to be a respectful and honest request, not a satirical comment.) Global warming cannot be measured by local temperature rise, and I think that may apply to specific countries as well as more localized places. Australia and the US may be larger places, but should the measure be more global than that? I am also interested in the reduced sea ice claims. My observation says that the sea ice in Alaska has begun to rebound. I watch the sea ice cams in Barrow and there always seems to be plenty. They are still ice bound today - at least by land fast ice. Again, perhaps this observation is more local than what is meaningful. Locals will say that there has been more ice in the last two or three years than in the past. Is sea ice rebounding in spite of the fact that CO2 is rising? Where is the data? (It may exist, but I have not seen it.) The well substantiated altering and choosing of data by some of the UN groups has not added to my confidence in their arguments. In short, I am still confused by all of the claims that are being made by both sides of this debate, and I have not seen reliable data to back up many of the claims. The only claim I have seen that seems to be consistent is that warming has stopped on a global basis since the late 1990s. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:24 PM, Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote: A couple of thoughts... Looking at the graph, the "hiatus" or plateau for surface air temps is sitting well above the 20th century averages; this is already a problem, since the last decade contains several of the highest average global temps on record. Last year the highest ever for Australia -- the year before for the continental US. We are ALREADY seeing the adverse impacts of climate change -- invasive species costing farmers and ranchers (and forests here in UT) millions in losses. The article fails to mention that sea levels are rising FASTER than the IPCC forecasts. Vast stretches of coral reef are dying, fresh water resources are disappearing for large metro areas across the globe, and the antarctic ice is starting to break up, at disconcerting rates. The article concludes with, basically, "it's OK to wait and see what happens next" -- a foolish summary, IMO. It may already be too late to reverse course in time to make a difference. We may already be past the tipping point. What's ridiculous is that these costs are orders of magnitude above any imagined profit losses to energy companies (whose FUD machine annually outspends NASA's entire budget). My 2 cents. /R ________________________________ From: Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:39 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Re. Tyson's somewhat tortured explanation of the Permian Extinction: Russia's Popigai Meteor Crash Linked to Mass Extinction On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:21 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/hidden-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-below-1905065... On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:55 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: Rich and all, I hear the claims made that sea level has already risen. The commenters in the above article quote an unbelievable rise in sea level per degree centigrade, and yet I have not seen a graph that shows this to be true. Can you point me to a place where I can see this rise in sea level, please? (Intended to be a respectful and honest request, not a satirical comment.) Global warming cannot be measured by local temperature rise, and I think that may apply to specific countries as well as more localized places. Australia and the US may be larger places, but should the measure be more global than that? I am also interested in the reduced sea ice claims. My observation says that the sea ice in Alaska has begun to rebound. I watch the sea ice cams in Barrow and there always seems to be plenty. They are still ice bound today - at least by land fast ice. Again, perhaps this observation is more local than what is meaningful. Locals will say that there has been more ice in the last two or three years than in the past. Is sea ice rebounding in spite of the fact that CO2 is rising? Where is the data? (It may exist, but I have not seen it.) The well substantiated altering and choosing of data by some of the UN groups has not added to my confidence in their arguments. In short, I am still confused by all of the claims that are being made by both sides of this debate, and I have not seen reliable data to back up many of the claims. The only claim I have seen that seems to be consistent is that warming has stopped on a global basis since the late 1990s. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:24 PM, Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote: A couple of thoughts... Looking at the graph, the "hiatus" or plateau for surface air temps is sitting well above the 20th century averages; this is already a problem, since the last decade contains several of the highest average global temps on record. Last year the highest ever for Australia -- the year before for the continental US. We are ALREADY seeing the adverse impacts of climate change -- invasive species costing farmers and ranchers (and forests here in UT) millions in losses. The article fails to mention that sea levels are rising FASTER than the IPCC forecasts. Vast stretches of coral reef are dying, fresh water resources are disappearing for large metro areas across the globe, and the antarctic ice is starting to break up, at disconcerting rates. The article concludes with, basically, "it's OK to wait and see what happens next" -- a foolish summary, IMO. It may already be too late to reverse course in time to make a difference. We may already be past the tipping point. What's ridiculous is that these costs are orders of magnitude above any imagined profit losses to energy companies (whose FUD machine annually outspends NASA's entire budget). My 2 cents. /R ________________________________ From: Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:39 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I meant his "explanation" for the Eocene Extinction. On , Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: Re. Tyson's somewhat tortured explanation of the Permian Extinction: Russia's Popigai Meteor Crash Linked to Mass Extinction On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:21 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/hidden-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-below-1905065... On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:55 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: Rich and all, I hear the claims made that sea level has already risen. The commenters in the above article quote an unbelievable rise in sea level per degree centigrade, and yet I have not seen a graph that shows this to be true. Can you point me to a place where I can see this rise in sea level, please? (Intended to be a respectful and honest request, not a satirical comment.) Global warming cannot be measured by local temperature rise, and I think that may apply to specific countries as well as more localized places. Australia and the US may be larger places, but should the measure be more global than that? I am also interested in the reduced sea ice claims. My observation says that the sea ice in Alaska has begun to rebound. I watch the sea ice cams in Barrow and there always seems to be plenty. They are still ice bound today - at least by land fast ice. Again, perhaps this observation is more local than what is meaningful. Locals will say that there has been more ice in the last two or three years than in the past. Is sea ice rebounding in spite of the fact that CO2 is rising? Where is the data? (It may exist, but I have not seen it.) The well substantiated altering and choosing of data by some of the UN groups has not added to my confidence in their arguments. In short, I am still confused by all of the claims that are being made by both sides of this debate, and I have not seen reliable data to back up many of the claims. The only claim I have seen that seems to be consistent is that warming has stopped on a global basis since the late 1990s. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:24 PM, Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote: A couple of thoughts... Looking at the graph, the "hiatus" or plateau for surface air temps is sitting well above the 20th century averages; this is already a problem, since the last decade contains several of the highest average global temps on record. Last year the highest ever for Australia -- the year before for the continental US. We are ALREADY seeing the adverse impacts of climate change -- invasive species costing farmers and ranchers (and forests here in UT) millions in losses. The article fails to mention that sea levels are rising FASTER than the IPCC forecasts. Vast stretches of coral reef are dying, fresh water resources are disappearing for large metro areas across the globe, and the antarctic ice is starting to break up, at disconcerting rates. The article concludes with, basically, "it's OK to wait and see what happens next" -- a foolish summary, IMO. It may already be too late to reverse course in time to make a difference. We may already be past the tipping point. What's ridiculous is that these costs are orders of magnitude above any imagined profit losses to energy companies (whose FUD machine annually outspends NASA's entire budget). My 2 cents. /R ________________________________ From: Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:39 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:25 PM, Joe Bauman via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: I meant his "explanation" for the Eocene Extinction. On , Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: Re. Tyson's somewhat tortured explanation of the Permian Extinction: Russia's Popigai Meteor Crash Linked to Mass Extinction On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:21 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/hidden-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-below-1905065... On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:55 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: Rich and all, I hear the claims made that sea level has already risen. The commenters in the above article quote an unbelievable rise in sea level per degree centigrade, and yet I have not seen a graph that shows this to be true. Can you point me to a place where I can see this rise in sea level, please? (Intended to be a respectful and honest request, not a satirical comment.) Global warming cannot be measured by local temperature rise, and I think that may apply to specific countries as well as more localized places. Australia and the US may be larger places, but should the measure be more global than that? I am also interested in the reduced sea ice claims. My observation says that the sea ice in Alaska has begun to rebound. I watch the sea ice cams in Barrow and there always seems to be plenty. They are still ice bound today - at least by land fast ice. Again, perhaps this observation is more local than what is meaningful. Locals will say that there has been more ice in the last two or three years than in the past. Is sea ice rebounding in spite of the fact that CO2 is rising? Where is the data? (It may exist, but I have not seen it.) The well substantiated altering and choosing of data by some of the UN groups has not added to my confidence in their arguments. In short, I am still confused by all of the claims that are being made by both sides of this debate, and I have not seen reliable data to back up many of the claims. The only claim I have seen that seems to be consistent is that warming has stopped on a global basis since the late 1990s. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:24 PM, Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote: A couple of thoughts... Looking at the graph, the "hiatus" or plateau for surface air temps is sitting well above the 20th century averages; this is already a problem, since the last decade contains several of the highest average global temps on record. Last year the highest ever for Australia -- the year before for the continental US. We are ALREADY seeing the adverse impacts of climate change -- invasive species costing farmers and ranchers (and forests here in UT) millions in losses. The article fails to mention that sea levels are rising FASTER than the IPCC forecasts. Vast stretches of coral reef are dying, fresh water resources are disappearing for large metro areas across the globe, and the antarctic ice is starting to break up, at disconcerting rates. The article concludes with, basically, "it's OK to wait and see what happens next" -- a foolish summary, IMO. It may already be too late to reverse course in time to make a difference. We may already be past the tipping point. What's ridiculous is that these costs are orders of magnitude above any imagined profit losses to energy companies (whose FUD machine annually outspends NASA's entire budget). My 2 cents. /R ________________________________ From: Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:39 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Hi Brent, A quick look found these two sites: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators On a personal note, I had the opportunity to spend 3 months in 1973, in the mountains and lakes of Yahoo and Jasper National Parks, in Canada, doing Glacial Lake Sedimentation studies. Returning to the area a few years ago, I was shocked to see how far the glaciers had receded from the time I worked up there. I am aware that my single datum could be local and unimportant, but it is very clear that something has changed in that area. I am an unabashed supporter of science and research, and a real believer in following the data trail. If someone makes a statement, with no references, I am apt to discount it. If I can trace the information back to the original paper or data source, I can then make a decision based on my knowledge of the original work. I am far more apt to give credence to a paper published in Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, Nature or other sources that keep to the peer-review process. If a paper is only published in a journal that does not do peer-review, or does not publish anything other than work that supports only one predetermined outcome, I have to discount it's value. Anything published by a group that does not openly divulge it's funding sources or potential conflicts of the PI, is immediately suspect. These rules mean I have to work a lot harder to make up my mind on what I believe, but my children's children's future demands that I be willing to do so. Josephine On Jun 18, 2014, at 5:55 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Rich and all,
I hear the claims made that sea level has already risen. The commenters in the above article quote an unbelievable rise in sea level per degree centigrade, and yet I have not seen a graph that shows this to be true. Can you point me to a place where I can see this rise in sea level, please? (Intended to be a respectful and honest request, not a satirical comment.)
Global warming cannot be measured by local temperature rise, and I think that may apply to specific countries as well as more localized places. Australia and the US may be larger places, but should the measure be more global than that?
I am also interested in the reduced sea ice claims. My observation says that the sea ice in Alaska has begun to rebound. I watch the sea ice cams in Barrow and there always seems to be plenty. They are still ice bound today - at least by land fast ice. Again, perhaps this observation is more local than what is meaningful. Locals will say that there has been more ice in the last two or three years than in the past. Is sea ice rebounding in spite of the fact that CO2 is rising? Where is the data? (It may exist, but I have not seen it.)
The well substantiated altering and choosing of data by some of the UN groups has not added to my confidence in their arguments. In short, I am still confused by all of the claims that are being made by both sides of this debate, and I have not seen reliable data to back up many of the claims. The only claim I have seen that seems to be consistent is that warming has stopped on a global basis since the late 1990s.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:24 PM, Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote:
A couple of thoughts...
Looking at the graph, the "hiatus" or plateau for surface air temps is sitting well above the 20th century averages; this is already a problem, since the last decade contains several of the highest average global temps on record. Last year the highest ever for Australia -- the year before for the continental US. We are ALREADY seeing the adverse impacts of climate change -- invasive species costing farmers and ranchers (and forests here in UT) millions in losses. The article fails to mention that sea levels are rising FASTER than the IPCC forecasts. Vast stretches of coral reef are dying, fresh water resources are disappearing for large metro areas across the globe, and the antarctic ice is starting to break up, at disconcerting rates. The article concludes with, basically, "it's OK to wait and see what happens next" -- a foolish summary, IMO. It may already be too late to reverse course in time to make a difference. We may already be past the tipping point. What's ridiculous is that these costs are orders of magnitude above any imagined profit losses to energy companies (whose FUD machine annually outspends NASA's entire budget). My 2 cents. /R
________________________________ From: Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:39 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
There are a number of charts at this location. The first one, charting sea levels from 1880 to 2008, should satisfy your request. There are a great number of charts at this location, some link to specific articles. https://www.google.com/search?q=global+sea+level+rise+chart&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: "Richard Tenney" <retenney@yahoo.com>, "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:55:25 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article Rich and all, I hear the claims made that sea level has already risen. The commenters in the above article quote an unbelievable rise in sea level per degree centigrade, and yet I have not seen a graph that shows this to be true. Can you point me to a place where I can see this rise in sea level, please? (Intended to be a respectful and honest request, not a satirical comment.) Global warming cannot be measured by local temperature rise, and I think that may apply to specific countries as well as more localized places. Australia and the US may be larger places, but should the measure be more global than that? I am also interested in the reduced sea ice claims. My observation says that the sea ice in Alaska has begun to rebound. I watch the sea ice cams in Barrow and there always seems to be plenty. They are still ice bound today - at least by land fast ice. Again, perhaps this observation is more local than what is meaningful. Locals will say that there has been more ice in the last two or three years than in the past. Is sea ice rebounding in spite of the fact that CO2 is rising? Where is the data? (It may exist, but I have not seen it.) The well substantiated altering and choosing of data by some of the UN groups has not added to my confidence in their arguments. In short, I am still confused by all of the claims that are being made by both sides of this debate, and I have not seen reliable data to back up many of the claims. The only claim I have seen that seems to be consistent is that warming has stopped on a global basis since the late 1990s. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:24 PM, Richard Tenney <retenney@yahoo.com> wrote: A couple of thoughts... Looking at the graph, the "hiatus" or plateau for surface air temps is sitting well above the 20th century averages; this is already a problem, since the last decade contains several of the highest average global temps on record. Last year the highest ever for Australia -- the year before for the continental US. We are ALREADY seeing the adverse impacts of climate change -- invasive species costing farmers and ranchers (and forests here in UT) millions in losses. The article fails to mention that sea levels are rising FASTER than the IPCC forecasts. Vast stretches of coral reef are dying, fresh water resources are disappearing for large metro areas across the globe, and the antarctic ice is starting to break up, at disconcerting rates. The article concludes with, basically, "it's OK to wait and see what happens next" -- a foolish summary, IMO. It may already be too late to reverse course in time to make a difference. We may already be past the tipping point. What's ridiculous is that these costs are orders of magnitude above any imagined profit losses to energy companies (whose FUD machine annually outspends NASA's entire budget). My 2 cents. /R ________________________________ From: Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:39 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Hi Brent, I saw an interesting article in the July S&T, by J. Kelly Beatty entitled "Illuminating Earthshine" (pages 54-55) that may shed some light on this (is that a pun?). Here are a couple relevant paragraphs from the article: "These reflectivity data have become increasingly important in the ongoing debate over global climate change. For example, the Project Earthshine work shows that Earth's albedo made a distinct jump (by roughly 0.5%) from late 1998 through mid-2000, and then afterward it largely leveled off. By comparison, the Sun's output varies only by about 0.1% over an 11-year-long solar cycle. So if Earth has become 0.5% more reflective, then the amount of sunlight reaching the ground has been reduced by about 2 watts per square meter. This change can't be explained by an increase in greenhouse gases - in fact, this increasing albedo trend, if sustained over time, would tend to make Earth cooler, not warmer. Goode says that more observations, covering the period since 2007, should be published soon." I'm not sure if albedo changes have been factored in to any of the IPCC models. I suspect not. Clear skies, Dale. -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:40 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I saw a very in depth article a while back dealing with ancient and modern tree ring analysis (and since then several TV programs). According to that article and the tree ring evidence, what we are going through right now is well within the "normal" parameters exhibited by the tree ring evidence. It was also backed up by the layers in the ancient glaciers and the conclusion of the article is that the earth is in a very "normal" state according to the ancient evidence over the geological time, in short- nothing out of the long term ordinary is happening right now, including fluctuating sea levels and CO2 levels. In fact we are in a moderate era. There is far too much knee jerk reactions going on, rather than a close and careful study of the available data that we already have on hand. The "human effect" on the earth may actually be preventing us from heading into another "cold period" that was abundant in the dark ages. Is the glass half full or half empty? Everyone had a right to their N, but let's not make a few peoples personal opinion a FACT until there is reliable proof. Look at the FREON debacles from the '70's and '80's and the impact that it had on all of us, now that has been PROVEN to be wrong so we are all stuck with far less efficient air conditioning because someone's OPINION was wrong and yet we are still living with the consequences of it. Scientist and politicians with personal agendas is the real problem. Computer modeling is only as good as the person writing the code and imputing the data, get either wrong and the output in garbage- GIGO- garbage in, garbage out. The REAL problem is that people don't get awards and grants and fame from saying that everything is NORMAL, so why do we reward people who get it wrong? Why is it so easy for people to forget the scientific process and revert to witchcraft and sorcery? Yep, that's my two cents worth! -Barrett www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:40 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time. I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic. Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
http://news.yahoo.com/rising-sea-levels-exposing-bodies-buried-wwii-soldiers... ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I have no comment, other than I can't spell my own name, and I'm bat-$#!t crazy. C. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
"...ocean heat content is objectively the most important piece of evidence. The vast majority of heat from global warming goes into the oceans, so ocean heat content is a more reliable indicator of climate than surface or atmospheric temperature. This data shows global warming has accelerated in the last 15 years... " http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-its-speeding-up.h... ________________________________ From: Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article http://news.yahoo.com/rising-sea-levels-exposing-bodies-buried-wwii-soldiers... ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I have no comment, other than I can't spell my own name, and I'm bat-$#!t crazy. C. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
May I compliment everyone on the rational approach to this article and the issue of climate change. THANK YOU!. There is a bunch of data here that I need to study and digest. I like Josephine's attitude - that of wanting to see the sources behind the data. Please, keep the data and reasonable comments coming. The logic and lack of emotion are exactly what I am looking for. On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:48 PM, Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote: "...ocean heat content is objectively the most important piece of evidence. The vast majority of heat from global warming goes into the oceans, so ocean heat content is a more reliable indicator of climate than surface or atmospheric temperature. This data shows global warming has accelerated in the last 15 years... " http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-its-speeding-up.h... ________________________________ From: Richard Tenney via Utah-Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article http://news.yahoo.com/rising-sea-levels-exposing-bodies-buried-wwii-soldiers... ________________________________ From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:31 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I have no comment, other than I can't spell my own name, and I'm bat-$#!t crazy. C. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I would love to see the links to the data and studies behind the claims made in this post, so that we can determine the validity of the arguments. If it is not worth the effort to to do that, then the arguments cannot be considered scientifically valid. Respectfully, Josephine On Jun 18, 2014, at 8:58 PM, BWFlowers <BWFlowers@comcast.net> wrote:
I saw a very in depth article a while back dealing with ancient and modern tree ring analysis (and since then several TV programs). According to that article and the tree ring evidence, what we are going through right now is well within the "normal" parameters exhibited by the tree ring evidence. It was also backed up by the layers in the ancient glaciers and the conclusion of the article is that the earth is in a very "normal" state according to the ancient evidence over the geological time, in short- nothing out of the long term ordinary is happening right now, including fluctuating sea levels and CO2 levels. In fact we are in a moderate era. There is far too much knee jerk reactions going on, rather than a close and careful study of the available data that we already have on hand. The "human effect" on the earth may actually be preventing us from heading into another "cold period" that was abundant in the dark ages. Is the glass half full or half empty? Everyone had a right to their N, but let's not make a few peoples personal opinion a FACT until there is reliable proof. Look at the FREON debacles from the '70's and '80's and the impact that it had on all of us, now that has been PROVEN to be wrong so we are all stuck with far less efficient air conditioning because someone's OPINION was wrong and yet we are still living with the consequences of it. Scientist and politicians with personal agendas is the real problem. Computer modeling is only as good as the person writing the code and imputing the data, get either wrong and the output in garbage- GIGO- garbage in, garbage out. The REAL problem is that people don't get awards and grants and fame from saying that everything is NORMAL, so why do we reward people who get it wrong?
Why is it so easy for people to forget the scientific process and revert to witchcraft and sorcery?
Yep, that's my two cents worth! -Barrett www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:40 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Here's a few links with varying opinions- more can be garnered from GOOGLE. Like I stated previously, you can find evidence to back up whatever opinion you are looking for. That was my point. http://www.priweb.org/globalchange/climatechange/studyingcc/scc_01.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/tree-rin g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology http://ltrr.arizona.edu/about/treerings http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/CDcourses_treerings.html http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_2_2_11t.htm http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/rrussell/climate/paleoclimate/dendrochronology.html http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/documents/tree-rings.pdf http://uregina.ca/~sauchyn/geog411/dendrochronology.html http://www3.wooster.edu/treering/ http://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/history-in-the-heartwood/ http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/uplandhardwood/research-topics/disturbances/dendr ochronology.html http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/newsroom/highlights/tree-rings-link-c limate-and-carbon-africa https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Dendrochronology.html http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescience/glaciers.htm http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/climate.html https://www.asf.alaska.edu/blog/why-do-scientists-study-glaciers/ http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glaciers.htm http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/TreeRing.pdf http://hol.sagepub.com/content/7/4/375.short http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003358949090046N http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1551585?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=37 39256&sid=21104181712637 http://www.paleoglaciology.org/regions/TienShan/TreeRingStudies/ http://www.researchgate.net/publication/241529436_Tree_ring_and_glacial_reco rds_of_Holocene_climate_change_northern_Gulf_of_Alaska_region http://web.cortland.edu/barclayd/publications/1999b_Holocene.pdf -Barrett www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com www.FallenStarHunters.com -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Josephine Grahn Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:45 PM To: Utah Astronomy List Serv Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I would love to see the links to the data and studies behind the claims made in this post, so that we can determine the validity of the arguments. If it is not worth the effort to to do that, then the arguments cannot be considered scientifically valid. Respectfully, Josephine On Jun 18, 2014, at 8:58 PM, BWFlowers <BWFlowers@comcast.net> wrote:
I saw a very in depth article a while back dealing with ancient and modern tree ring analysis (and since then several TV programs). According to that article and the tree ring evidence, what we are going through right now is well within the "normal" parameters exhibited by the tree ring evidence. It was also backed up by the layers in the ancient glaciers and the conclusion of the article is that the earth is in a very "normal" state according to the ancient evidence over the geological time, in short- nothing out of the long term ordinary is happening right now, including fluctuating sea levels and CO2 levels. In fact we are in a moderate era. There is far too much knee jerk reactions going on, rather than a close and careful study of the available data that we already have on hand. The "human effect" on the earth may actually be preventing us from heading into another "cold period" that was abundant in the dark ages. Is the glass half full or half empty? Everyone had a right to their N, but let's not make a few peoples personal opinion a FACT until there is reliable proof. Look at the FREON debacles from the '70's and '80's and the impact that it had on all of us, now that has been PROVEN to be wrong so we are all stuck with far less efficient air conditioning because someone's OPINION was wrong and yet we are still living with the consequences of it. Scientist and politicians with personal agendas is the real problem. Computer modeling is only as good as the person writing the code and imputing the data, get either wrong and the output in garbage- GIGO- garbage in, garbage out. The REAL problem is that people don't get awards and grants and fame from saying that everything is NORMAL, so why do we reward people who get it wrong?
Why is it so easy for people to forget the scientific process and revert to witchcraft and sorcery?
Yep, that's my two cents worth! -Barrett www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:40 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus / _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Barrett, I’m a little confused. I can’t quite get a grip on what you consider “ancient”. I was, once, a professional archeologist. I’ve done dendrochronological analysis. “Dendro" sampling from archeological sites in the American Southwest can be a confusing state of affairs. However, one thing you could be sure of, one couldn’t extract a meaningful dendrochronological date of more than ~10,000 years B.P. I never had one close to that extreme, but it is possible to extrapolate a date that far back based on tree-ring analysis. In terms of the climate discussion we’re having, however, tree ring analysis would be, virtually, meaningless. The problem today is how much carbon we’re putting into the atmosphere. Until, approximately, 200 years ago the amount of carbon humans were putting into the atmosphere was of little significance in terms of altering global climate. Human “urban” civilization began about 10,000 years ago. Of course, tree-ring analysis will register what you described as a “normal” state of affairs in terms of climate during this period. Global climate has been remarkably “stable” for the past 10-15 thousand years, at least as far as human dispersal is concerned. That’s one reason for the rapid expansion of human civilization to nearly every part of the globe during the past 10,000 years. CO2 levels, globally, have been fairly stable for nearly the last one million years, hanging in there at about 250 ppm on average. The levels have steadily gone up since the dawn of the industrial revolution. The levels we are experiencing, today, exceed the CO2 levels for the past 800,000 to 1 million years. These are measured CO2 levels from ice core samples. This is not one of your “GIGO” computer-modeling scenarios. If you want to refute it you need to gather substantially different ice core data. I haven’t gathered any lately, have you? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract?sid=2939853d-7aa7-4... Also, you say 'The REAL problem is that people don't get awards and grants and fame from saying that everything is NORMAL, so why do we reward people who get it wrong?’ In this, I think you miss the point. What the climatologists are saying is that the past 1 million years have been fairly “normal” in terms of CO2 levels. From ice core data it has been shown that a fluctuation in 30 ppm CO2 (in a “normal” situation, i.e., no industrialized humans) takes, on average, about 1000 years. Our last 30 ppm increase took 17 years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm What the climatologists are reporting is the extremely abnormal situation occurring at this time. The problem is, very few are listening. Dave On Jun 18, 2014, at 18:58, BWFlowers <BWFlowers@comcast.net> wrote:
I saw a very in depth article a while back dealing with ancient and modern tree ring analysis (and since then several TV programs). According to that article and the tree ring evidence, what we are going through right now is well within the "normal" parameters exhibited by the tree ring evidence. It was also backed up by the layers in the ancient glaciers and the conclusion of the article is that the earth is in a very "normal" state according to the ancient evidence over the geological time, in short- nothing out of the long term ordinary is happening right now, including fluctuating sea levels and CO2 levels. In fact we are in a moderate era. There is far too much knee jerk reactions going on, rather than a close and careful study of the available data that we already have on hand. The "human effect" on the earth may actually be preventing us from heading into another "cold period" that was abundant in the dark ages. Is the glass half full or half empty? Everyone had a right to their N, but let's not make a few peoples personal opinion a FACT until there is reliable proof. Look at the FREON debacles from the '70's and '80's and the impact that it had on all of us, now that has been PROVEN to be wrong so we are all stuck with far less efficient air conditioning because someone's OPINION was wrong and yet we are still living with the consequences of it. Scientist and politicians with personal agendas is the real problem. Computer modeling is only as good as the person writing the code and imputing the data, get either wrong and the output in garbage- GIGO- garbage in, garbage out. The REAL problem is that people don't get awards and grants and fame from saying that everything is NORMAL, so why do we reward people who get it wrong?
Why is it so easy for people to forget the scientific process and revert to witchcraft and sorcery?
Yep, that's my two cents worth! -Barrett www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:40 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I'm not sure if anyone has provided the link to this article that was in Scientific American April 2014. My husband just read it and we were discussing it earlier tonight. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-dange.... It addresses the slowing rate at which the earth's average surface temperature has been increasing. Nancy Matro On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it. The earth's is a living "creature" and the variables of the total entity are far too complex to jump to conclusions based on even good evidence, much less the over abundance of fallible or misinterpreted "evidence". I guess I have a lot of faith in the earth and its ability to "heal" itself. Yes, mankind is making its indelible mark upon the land and will continue to do so. The ever increasing population growth is only going to make things progressively worse and o matter how hard we try to "go green" and protect the earth from ourselves, it will always be too little too late. I'm not preaching doom and gloom, actually quite the opposite. As long as mankind is on this earth we will find some way to deal with the problems we create. The USA had done a great job of cleaning up its act and it was quite simple in fact, we just moved the pollution to China! Now the big question is- Where is China going to move it? Ok, I'll turn the soap box over to someone else now! :) -Barrett www.FallenStarHunters.com www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Matro Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:38 PM To: Brent Watson; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I'm not sure if anyone has provided the link to this article that was in Scientific American April 2014. My husband just read it and we were discussing it earlier tonight. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-dange.... It addresses the slowing rate at which the earth's average surface temperature has been increasing. Nancy Matro On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus / _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I respectfully disagree with most of your conclusions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "BWFlowers" <BWFlowers@comcast.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:35:15 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it. The earth's is a living "creature" and the variables of the total entity are far too complex to jump to conclusions based on even good evidence, much less the over abundance of fallible or misinterpreted "evidence". I guess I have a lot of faith in the earth and its ability to "heal" itself. Yes, mankind is making its indelible mark upon the land and will continue to do so. The ever increasing population growth is only going to make things progressively worse and o matter how hard we try to "go green" and protect the earth from ourselves, it will always be too little too late. I'm not preaching doom and gloom, actually quite the opposite. As long as mankind is on this earth we will find some way to deal with the problems we create. The USA had done a great job of cleaning up its act and it was quite simple in fact, we just moved the pollution to China! Now the big question is- Where is China going to move it? Ok, I'll turn the soap box over to someone else now! :) -Barrett www.FallenStarHunters.com www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Matro Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:38 PM To: Brent Watson; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I'm not sure if anyone has provided the link to this article that was in Scientific American April 2014. My husband just read it and we were discussing it earlier tonight. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-dange.... It addresses the slowing rate at which the earth's average surface temperature has been increasing. Nancy Matro On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus / _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I wouldn't agree or disagree with someone known only as "CenturyLink Customer." If you want to discuss anything, please use your real name. Also, it's hard to tell exactly what you're disagreeing with. -- Joe On Friday, June 20, 2014 11:15 AM, CenturyLink Customer <jcarman6@q.com> wrote: I respectfully disagree with most of your conclusions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "BWFlowers" <BWFlowers@comcast.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:35:15 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it. The earth's is a living "creature" and the variables of the total entity are far too complex to jump to conclusions based on even good evidence, much less the over abundance of fallible or misinterpreted "evidence". I guess I have a lot of faith in the earth and its ability to "heal" itself. Yes, mankind is making its indelible mark upon the land and will continue to do so. The ever increasing population growth is only going to make things progressively worse and o matter how hard we try to "go green" and protect the earth from ourselves, it will always be too little too late. I'm not preaching doom and gloom, actually quite the opposite. As long as mankind is on this earth we will find some way to deal with the problems we create. The USA had done a great job of cleaning up its act and it was quite simple in fact, we just moved the pollution to China! Now the big question is- Where is China going to move it? Ok, I'll turn the soap box over to someone else now! :) -Barrett www.FallenStarHunters.com www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Matro Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:38 PM To: Brent Watson; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I'm not sure if anyone has provided the link to this article that was in Scientific American April 2014. My husband just read it and we were discussing it earlier tonight. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-dange.... It addresses the slowing rate at which the earth's average surface temperature has been increasing. Nancy Matro On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus / _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Thank You Joe, you had the guts to say what I was just thinking :) -Barrett www.FallenStarHunters.com www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman via Utah-Astronomy Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:17 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I wouldn't agree or disagree with someone known only as "CenturyLink Customer." If you want to discuss anything, please use your real name. Also, it's hard to tell exactly what you're disagreeing with. -- Joe On Friday, June 20, 2014 11:15 AM, CenturyLink Customer <jcarman6@q.com> wrote: I respectfully disagree with most of your conclusions. ----- Original Message ----- From: "BWFlowers" <BWFlowers@comcast.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:35:15 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it. The earth's is a living "creature" and the variables of the total entity are far too complex to jump to conclusions based on even good evidence, much less the over abundance of fallible or misinterpreted "evidence". I guess I have a lot of faith in the earth and its ability to "heal" itself. Yes, mankind is making its indelible mark upon the land and will continue to do so. The ever increasing population growth is only going to make things progressively worse and o matter how hard we try to "go green" and protect the earth from ourselves, it will always be too little too late. I'm not preaching doom and gloom, actually quite the opposite. As long as mankind is on this earth we will find some way to deal with the problems we create. The USA had done a great job of cleaning up its act and it was quite simple in fact, we just moved the pollution to China! Now the big question is- Where is China going to move it? Ok, I'll turn the soap box over to someone else now! :) -Barrett www.FallenStarHunters.com www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Matro Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:38 PM To: Brent Watson; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I'm not sure if anyone has provided the link to this article that was in Scientific American April 2014. My husband just read it and we were discussing it earlier tonight. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-dange.... It addresses the slowing rate at which the earth's average surface temperature has been increasing. Nancy Matro On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus / _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Joe and Barrett, it was from Joan. If you notice, the email address does state jcarmen6@q.com I always see it on her posts. She's not deliberately hiding her identity, IMO. On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Joe Bauman via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
I wouldn't agree or disagree with someone known only as "CenturyLink Customer." If you want to discuss anything, please use your real name. Also, it's hard to tell exactly what you're disagreeing with. -- Joe
On Friday, June 20, 2014 11:15 AM, CenturyLink Customer <jcarman6@q.com> wrote:
I respectfully disagree with most of your conclusions.
"One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it." I disagree. The vast majority of the scientific data, about 90-95%, are documenting global warming. There doesn't seem to be room here for "any conclusion." As to earth beng a living "creature" I agree. I also agree to its complexity. I submit mankind better learn about that complexity if it, as a species, is/are going to survive. Certainly the earth has been able, in the past, to heal itself, but can it do so with what is happening now? There are those whose believe its already too late, global warming is a given. The earth will stabalize at a higher temperature. Short-lived life forms will adapt. The question now is will mankind survive. Now that's doom and gloom. Here's hoping that scenario is wrong. No matter how much man goes green it will always be too little too late. I disagree. See the previous paragraph. "The USA has done a great job of cleaning up its act." I disagree. See the following link. Please note this was published 15 January 2014. Note specifically Table 2. The USA is Numero Uno in contribution to global warming. Ahead of China, no. 2, by about 275% Nope, the USA is not doing a great job. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014010/article Your comments about moving it to China, I hope, were meant to be humorous,and I did snicker. However, China's air pollution problem is quite serious. In your vein, maybe China will move it to the artic, which will probably be a full-fledged ocean when they get around to it. I stand by my initial comment, I respectifully disagree. As for the many links you posted, you will probably be surprised that I read quite a few of them, part of the reason this post is so late in getting up. One article you posted, about the Olympic National Park Glaciers, clearly documents global warming with dramatic photos of two glaciers at the turn of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century. Of particular interest to me was the "History in the Heartwood," www.nps.(whatever) Tree rings are incredibly interesting, for studying the past. Of course there have been periods of drought and good growth seasons in the past, but most of the articles and their research ended around 1975, one went up to 1995, prior to global warming really kicking in. The question is what is happening now, particularly in the 21st century. We can't wait until 2100 to look at tree rings for the past 100 years to see if global warming is real. As Dave posted, the CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels now, never so high in the last million years. What is real and now is there are almost 8 Billion people on the planet. Even if only half that number are burning fossil fuels for electricity, warmth and travel, that is unprecedented in the history of the planet. It is unprecedented for even 50 years ago. To think that has no impact on earth is naive. My two cents worth Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "BWFlowers" <BWFlowers@comcast.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 7:35:15 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it. The earth's is a living "creature" and the variables of the total entity are far too complex to jump to conclusions based on even good evidence, much less the over abundance of fallible or misinterpreted "evidence". I guess I have a lot of faith in the earth and its ability to "heal" itself. Yes, mankind is making its indelible mark upon the land and will continue to do so. The ever increasing population growth is only going to make things progressively worse and o matter how hard we try to "go green" and protect the earth from ourselves, it will always be too little too late. I'm not preaching doom and gloom, actually quite the opposite. As long as mankind is on this earth we will find some way to deal with the problems we create. The USA had done a great job of cleaning up its act and it was quite simple in fact, we just moved the pollution to China! Now the big question is- Where is China going to move it? Ok, I'll turn the soap box over to someone else now! :) -Barrett www.FallenStarHunters.com www.BarrettsCustomLeather.com -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Matro Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 10:38 PM To: Brent Watson; Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article I'm not sure if anyone has provided the link to this article that was in Scientific American April 2014. My husband just read it and we were discussing it earlier tonight. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-dange.... It addresses the slowing rate at which the earth's average surface temperature has been increasing. Nancy Matro On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Brent Watson via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
This article points out a common occurrence in science. Models that are used to predict the future are notoriously fallible. They must be continually tweaked to make sense. This is the essence of science and the scientific method. Rarely do we get it right the first time.
I bring this up so there can be an intelligent conversation about the topic. There is always way too much name calling and innuendo made by commenters, as can be seen in the comments section of this article. Please, lets have a civil conversation. Without civility there can be no unemotional, fact based debate. I for one would really like to hear the rational facts from both sides of this (unfortunately) hotly debated topic.
Again, please no name calling, and only rational fact based debate.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus / _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Personally I think this is a great discussion and I am enjoying it very much. On the other hand I'm not sure that it is appropriate to the astronomy nature of this list. To that end I will keep this short. :) Yes, I was mixing in levity and I'm glad you caught that. More importantly my main point was purposely disguised and that wasn't caught. To clarify it and be intentionally blunt in order to keep this reply short- THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH. There is no way that the earth can sustain even the current population, much less the rate of growth that we are experiencing and not have a profound effect upon it. As long as people are on this planet, they will change the planet. We are already having (small)effects & affects on other planets and heavenly bodies. IF PEOPLE really care about the planet we live on, then people are going to have to limit the size of the population, OR "nature" will do it for us. The environment of the planet has steadily changed over time and always will, with or without mankind's "help". Overpopulation is the real problem. <<--There I said it! China is the only country on the planet that has attempted to do anything about it. At the same time, China is dealing with pollution problems not experienced in most any other country. People on this list sometimes bring up the problems of light pollution, and rightly so. We all would like to see the stars and night sky better, but who is causing the light pollution? I have many, many interests- astronomy is but one. I like meteorites, but recent rulings by the federal government have great curtailed the collection of them on so-called public lands, thus hindering scientist that study them. I like cars, guns, airplanes, wood working, metal working, leatherworking, dog training, physics, 4wheeling and many other things. Because of my diverse interests I have many opinions that don't necessarily agree with one another, but it also gives me insight into other topics and maybe a different perspective. In my perspective- things are way out of whack and balance no matter where you look or what the topic is. No matter what we do or don't do, the earth and universe will still be here long after we are gone, so does it matter that we are here now? Human life is held sacred, by some people and not worth a dime to others. HUMANS are the problem of the earth, but without "us" who would appreciate what the earth and the universe offers? Does a worm care about black holes and supernovas? Personally- I'd really like to know if there is intelligent life elsewhere, if real UFO's exist, where does bigfoot hide out, was life seeded on earth, created or just a pure accident of nature. Astronomy, like so many other scientific disciplines do try to answer those questions, and I am quite interested in the conclusions. As smart as mankind has become, we are still so very ignorant. -Barrett -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of CenturyLink Customer Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 1:19 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article "One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it." I disagree. The vast majority of the scientific data, about 90-95%, are documenting global warming. There doesn't seem to be room here for "any conclusion." As to earth beng a living "creature" I agree. I also agree to its complexity. I submit mankind better learn about that complexity if it, as a species, is/are going to survive. Certainly the earth has been able, in the past, to heal itself, but can it do so with what is happening now? There are those whose believe its already too late, global warming is a given. The earth will stabalize at a higher temperature. Short-lived life forms will adapt. The question now is will mankind survive. Now that's doom and gloom. Here's hoping that scenario is wrong. No matter how much man goes green it will always be too little too late. I disagree. See the previous paragraph. "The USA has done a great job of cleaning up its act." I disagree. See the following link. Please note this was published 15 January 2014. Note specifically Table 2. The USA is Numero Uno in contribution to global warming. Ahead of China, no. 2, by about 275% Nope, the USA is not doing a great job. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014010/article Your comments about moving it to China, I hope, were meant to be humorous,and I did snicker. However, China's air pollution problem is quite serious. In your vein, maybe China will move it to the artic, which will probably be a full-fledged ocean when they get around to it. I stand by my initial comment, I respectifully disagree. As for the many links you posted, you will probably be surprised that I read quite a few of them, part of the reason this post is so late in getting up. One article you posted, about the Olympic National Park Glaciers, clearly documents global warming with dramatic photos of two glaciers at the turn of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century. Of particular interest to me was the "History in the Heartwood," www.nps.(whatever) Tree rings are incredibly interesting, for studying the past. Of course there have been periods of drought and good growth seasons in the past, but most of the articles and their research ended around 1975, one went up to 1995, prior to global warming really kicking in. The question is what is happening now, particularly in the 21st century. We can't wait until 2100 to look at tree rings for the past 100 years to see if global warming is real. As Dave posted, the CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels now, never so high in the last million years. What is real and now is there are almost 8 Billion people on the planet. Even if only half that number are burning fossil fuels for electricity, warmth and travel, that is unprecedented in the history of the planet. It is unprecedented for even 50 years ago. To think that has no impact on earth is naive. My two cents worth Joan
A civil discussion between adults is always worthwhile. There is very little in this post I didn't agree with. :) Well, I'm not much for dog training or 4 wheeling (yet) But don't stress too much about this being not appropriate to the board. You're right, it isn't, but then there have been whole threads that went on for days about tires and Jambo restaurants. Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: "BWFlowers" <BWFlowers@comcast.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 9:14:43 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article Personally I think this is a great discussion and I am enjoying it very much. On the other hand I'm not sure that it is appropriate to the astronomy nature of this list. To that end I will keep this short. :) Yes, I was mixing in levity and I'm glad you caught that. More importantly my main point was purposely disguised and that wasn't caught. To clarify it and be intentionally blunt in order to keep this reply short- THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH. There is no way that the earth can sustain even the current population, much less the rate of growth that we are experiencing and not have a profound effect upon it. As long as people are on this planet, they will change the planet. We are already having (small)effects & affects on other planets and heavenly bodies. IF PEOPLE really care about the planet we live on, then people are going to have to limit the size of the population, OR "nature" will do it for us. The environment of the planet has steadily changed over time and always will, with or without mankind's "help". Overpopulation is the real problem. <<--There I said it! China is the only country on the planet that has attempted to do anything about it. At the same time, China is dealing with pollution problems not experienced in most any other country. People on this list sometimes bring up the problems of light pollution, and rightly so. We all would like to see the stars and night sky better, but who is causing the light pollution? I have many, many interests- astronomy is but one. I like meteorites, but recent rulings by the federal government have great curtailed the collection of them on so-called public lands, thus hindering scientist that study them. I like cars, guns, airplanes, wood working, metal working, leatherworking, dog training, physics, 4wheeling and many other things. Because of my diverse interests I have many opinions that don't necessarily agree with one another, but it also gives me insight into other topics and maybe a different perspective. In my perspective- things are way out of whack and balance no matter where you look or what the topic is. No matter what we do or don't do, the earth and universe will still be here long after we are gone, so does it matter that we are here now? Human life is held sacred, by some people and not worth a dime to others. HUMANS are the problem of the earth, but without "us" who would appreciate what the earth and the universe offers? Does a worm care about black holes and supernovas? Personally- I'd really like to know if there is intelligent life elsewhere, if real UFO's exist, where does bigfoot hide out, was life seeded on earth, created or just a pure accident of nature. Astronomy, like so many other scientific disciplines do try to answer those questions, and I am quite interested in the conclusions. As smart as mankind has become, we are still so very ignorant. -Barrett -----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of CenturyLink Customer Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 1:19 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article "One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it." I disagree. The vast majority of the scientific data, about 90-95%, are documenting global warming. There doesn't seem to be room here for "any conclusion." As to earth beng a living "creature" I agree. I also agree to its complexity. I submit mankind better learn about that complexity if it, as a species, is/are going to survive. Certainly the earth has been able, in the past, to heal itself, but can it do so with what is happening now? There are those whose believe its already too late, global warming is a given. The earth will stabalize at a higher temperature. Short-lived life forms will adapt. The question now is will mankind survive. Now that's doom and gloom. Here's hoping that scenario is wrong. No matter how much man goes green it will always be too little too late. I disagree. See the previous paragraph. "The USA has done a great job of cleaning up its act." I disagree. See the following link. Please note this was published 15 January 2014. Note specifically Table 2. The USA is Numero Uno in contribution to global warming. Ahead of China, no. 2, by about 275% Nope, the USA is not doing a great job. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014010/article Your comments about moving it to China, I hope, were meant to be humorous,and I did snicker. However, China's air pollution problem is quite serious. In your vein, maybe China will move it to the artic, which will probably be a full-fledged ocean when they get around to it. I stand by my initial comment, I respectifully disagree. As for the many links you posted, you will probably be surprised that I read quite a few of them, part of the reason this post is so late in getting up. One article you posted, about the Olympic National Park Glaciers, clearly documents global warming with dramatic photos of two glaciers at the turn of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century. Of particular interest to me was the "History in the Heartwood," www.nps.(whatever) Tree rings are incredibly interesting, for studying the past. Of course there have been periods of drought and good growth seasons in the past, but most of the articles and their research ended around 1975, one went up to 1995, prior to global warming really kicking in. The question is what is happening now, particularly in the 21st century. We can't wait until 2100 to look at tree rings for the past 100 years to see if global warming is real. As Dave posted, the CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels now, never so high in the last million years. What is real and now is there are almost 8 Billion people on the planet. Even if only half that number are burning fossil fuels for electricity, warmth and travel, that is unprecedented in the history of the planet. It is unprecedented for even 50 years ago. To think that has no impact on earth is naive. My two cents worth Joan _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Joan, you left out the busses (and I don't mean kisses). 73 Sent from my iPad
On Jun 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, CenturyLink Customer <jcarman6@q.com> wrote:
A civil discussion between adults is always worthwhile. There is very little in this post I didn't agree with. :) Well, I'm not much for dog training or 4 wheeling (yet) But don't stress too much about this being not appropriate to the board. You're right, it isn't, but then there have been whole threads that went on for days about tires and Jambo restaurants.
Joan
----- Original Message ----- From: "BWFlowers" <BWFlowers@comcast.net> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 9:14:43 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article
Personally I think this is a great discussion and I am enjoying it very much. On the other hand I'm not sure that it is appropriate to the astronomy nature of this list. To that end I will keep this short. :) Yes, I was mixing in levity and I'm glad you caught that. More importantly my main point was purposely disguised and that wasn't caught. To clarify it and be intentionally blunt in order to keep this reply short- THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH. There is no way that the earth can sustain even the current population, much less the rate of growth that we are experiencing and not have a profound effect upon it. As long as people are on this planet, they will change the planet. We are already having (small)effects & affects on other planets and heavenly bodies. IF PEOPLE really care about the planet we live on, then people are going to have to limit the size of the population, OR "nature" will do it for us. The environment of the planet has steadily changed over time and always will, with or without mankind's "help". Overpopulation is the real problem. <<--There I said it! China is the only country on the planet that has attempted to do anything about it. At the same time, China is dealing with pollution problems not experienced in most any other country. People on this list sometimes bring up the problems of light pollution, and rightly so. We all would like to see the stars and night sky better, but who is causing the light pollution? I have many, many interests- astronomy is but one. I like meteorites, but recent rulings by the federal government have great curtailed the collection of them on so-called public lands, thus hindering scientist that study them. I like cars, guns, airplanes, wood working, metal working, leatherworking, dog training, physics, 4wheeling and many other things. Because of my diverse interests I have many opinions that don't necessarily agree with one another, but it also gives me insight into other topics and maybe a different perspective. In my perspective- things are way out of whack and balance no matter where you look or what the topic is. No matter what we do or don't do, the earth and universe will still be here long after we are gone, so does it matter that we are here now? Human life is held sacred, by some people and not worth a dime to others. HUMANS are the problem of the earth, but without "us" who would appreciate what the earth and the universe offers? Does a worm care about black holes and supernovas? Personally- I'd really like to know if there is intelligent life elsewhere, if real UFO's exist, where does bigfoot hide out, was life seeded on earth, created or just a pure accident of nature. Astronomy, like so many other scientific disciplines do try to answer those questions, and I am quite interested in the conclusions. As smart as mankind has become, we are still so very ignorant. -Barrett
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of CenturyLink Customer Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 1:19 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article
"One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it." I disagree. The vast majority of the scientific data, about 90-95%, are documenting global warming. There doesn't seem to be room here for "any conclusion."
As to earth beng a living "creature" I agree. I also agree to its complexity. I submit mankind better learn about that complexity if it, as a species, is/are going to survive. Certainly the earth has been able, in the past, to heal itself, but can it do so with what is happening now? There are those whose believe its already too late, global warming is a given. The earth will stabalize at a higher temperature. Short-lived life forms will adapt. The question now is will mankind survive. Now that's doom and gloom. Here's hoping that scenario is wrong.
No matter how much man goes green it will always be too little too late. I disagree. See the previous paragraph.
"The USA has done a great job of cleaning up its act." I disagree. See the following link. Please note this was published 15 January 2014. Note specifically Table 2. The USA is Numero Uno in contribution to global warming. Ahead of China, no. 2, by about 275% Nope, the USA is not doing a great job.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014010/article
Your comments about moving it to China, I hope, were meant to be humorous,and I did snicker. However, China's air pollution problem is quite serious. In your vein, maybe China will move it to the artic, which will probably be a full-fledged ocean when they get around to it.
I stand by my initial comment, I respectifully disagree.
As for the many links you posted, you will probably be surprised that I read quite a few of them, part of the reason this post is so late in getting up. One article you posted, about the Olympic National Park Glaciers, clearly documents global warming with dramatic photos of two glaciers at the turn of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century. Of particular interest to me was the "History in the Heartwood," www.nps.(whatever) Tree rings are incredibly interesting, for studying the past. Of course there have been periods of drought and good growth seasons in the past, but most of the articles and their research ended around 1975, one went up to 1995, prior to global warming really kicking in. The question is what is happening now, particularly in the 21st century. We can't wait until 2100 to look at tree rings for the past 100 years to see if global warming is real. As Dave posted, the CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels now, never so high in the last million years. What is real and now is there are almost 8 Billion people on the planet. Even if only half that number are burning fossil fuels for electricity, warmth and travel, that is unprecedented in the history of the planet. It is unprecedented for even 50 years ago. To think that has no impact on earth is naive.
My two cents worth
Joan
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Well said! 73 Sent from my iPad
On Jun 21, 2014, at 9:14 AM, "BWFlowers" <BWFlowers@comcast.net> wrote:
Personally I think this is a great discussion and I am enjoying it very much. On the other hand I'm not sure that it is appropriate to the astronomy nature of this list. To that end I will keep this short. :) Yes, I was mixing in levity and I'm glad you caught that. More importantly my main point was purposely disguised and that wasn't caught. To clarify it and be intentionally blunt in order to keep this reply short- THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH. There is no way that the earth can sustain even the current population, much less the rate of growth that we are experiencing and not have a profound effect upon it. As long as people are on this planet, they will change the planet. We are already having (small)effects & affects on other planets and heavenly bodies. IF PEOPLE really care about the planet we live on, then people are going to have to limit the size of the population, OR "nature" will do it for us. The environment of the planet has steadily changed over time and always will, with or without mankind's "help". Overpopulation is the real problem. <<--There I said it! China is the only country on the planet that has attempted to do anything about it. At the same time, China is dealing with pollution problems not experienced in most any other country. People on this list sometimes bring up the problems of light pollution, and rightly so. We all would like to see the stars and night sky better, but who is causing the light pollution? I have many, many interests- astronomy is but one. I like meteorites, but recent rulings by the federal government have great curtailed the collection of them on so-called public lands, thus hindering scientist that study them. I like cars, guns, airplanes, wood working, metal working, leatherworking, dog training, physics, 4wheeling and many other things. Because of my diverse interests I have many opinions that don't necessarily agree with one another, but it also gives me insight into other topics and maybe a different perspective. In my perspective- things are way out of whack and balance no matter where you look or what the topic is. No matter what we do or don't do, the earth and universe will still be here long after we are gone, so does it matter that we are here now? Human life is held sacred, by some people and not worth a dime to others. HUMANS are the problem of the earth, but without "us" who would appreciate what the earth and the universe offers? Does a worm care about black holes and supernovas? Personally- I'd really like to know if there is intelligent life elsewhere, if real UFO's exist, where does bigfoot hide out, was life seeded on earth, created or just a pure accident of nature. Astronomy, like so many other scientific disciplines do try to answer those questions, and I am quite interested in the conclusions. As smart as mankind has become, we are still so very ignorant. -Barrett
-----Original Message----- From: Utah-Astronomy [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of CenturyLink Customer Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 1:19 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] An interesting article
"One thing about scientific data is there is enough of it to garner any conclusion that you want to make of it." I disagree. The vast majority of the scientific data, about 90-95%, are documenting global warming. There doesn't seem to be room here for "any conclusion."
As to earth beng a living "creature" I agree. I also agree to its complexity. I submit mankind better learn about that complexity if it, as a species, is/are going to survive. Certainly the earth has been able, in the past, to heal itself, but can it do so with what is happening now? There are those whose believe its already too late, global warming is a given. The earth will stabalize at a higher temperature. Short-lived life forms will adapt. The question now is will mankind survive. Now that's doom and gloom. Here's hoping that scenario is wrong.
No matter how much man goes green it will always be too little too late. I disagree. See the previous paragraph.
"The USA has done a great job of cleaning up its act." I disagree. See the following link. Please note this was published 15 January 2014. Note specifically Table 2. The USA is Numero Uno in contribution to global warming. Ahead of China, no. 2, by about 275% Nope, the USA is not doing a great job.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/1/014010/article
Your comments about moving it to China, I hope, were meant to be humorous,and I did snicker. However, China's air pollution problem is quite serious. In your vein, maybe China will move it to the artic, which will probably be a full-fledged ocean when they get around to it.
I stand by my initial comment, I respectifully disagree.
As for the many links you posted, you will probably be surprised that I read quite a few of them, part of the reason this post is so late in getting up. One article you posted, about the Olympic National Park Glaciers, clearly documents global warming with dramatic photos of two glaciers at the turn of the twentieth century and now in the twenty-first century. Of particular interest to me was the "History in the Heartwood," www.nps.(whatever) Tree rings are incredibly interesting, for studying the past. Of course there have been periods of drought and good growth seasons in the past, but most of the articles and their research ended around 1975, one went up to 1995, prior to global warming really kicking in. The question is what is happening now, particularly in the 21st century. We can't wait until 2100 to look at tree rings for the past 100 years to see if global warming is real. As Dave posted, the CO2 levels are at unprecedented levels now, never so high in the last million years. What is real and now is there are almost 8 Billion people on the planet. Even if only half that number are burning fossil fuels for electricity, warmth and travel, that is unprecedented in the history of the planet. It is unprecedented for even 50 years ago. To think that has no impact on earth is naive.
My two cents worth
Joan
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
participants (11)
-
Brent Watson -
BWFlowers -
CenturyLink Customer -
Chuck Hards -
Dale Hooper -
Dave Gary -
Joe Bauman -
Josephine Grahn -
Larry Holmes -
Nancy Matro -
Richard Tenney