MnGCA

[Marsha and Silent Bob]

[casinoman]

[ghost640]

Wow, I’m amazed at the tone, tenor, and depth of misinformation in this thread. It’s even scarier that, while I consider this group to be ‘smarter-than-average’ (you actually get outdoors, know something about technology; on the other hand, you spend time looking for plastic stuff in the woods), it still reflects the level of understanding of the American public at large. Since most of the group seems pretty dug in on the ‘global-warming-is-a-government-scam’ idea, I don’t see a point in sending a dog into this fight, but at least need to point out the following.

Does a site called www.globalclimatescam.com really seem like a reputable source of information? It looks like the counterpoint to Earth Liberation Front site. At least draw from the International Panel on Climate Change or Pawlenty’s Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group , http://www.mnclimatechange.us/, neither of which are neo-radical ultra-environmentalist wacko groups, and provide some decent information.

Do your own homework – if you’re wondering about the myth or reality of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets or the amount of open water in Arctic – jeez, go to the NOAA or NASA sites and look at the time series images. Don’t rely on someone’s nth hand interpretation that’s been processed to make their point. If you think NOAA/NASA and the Navy are altering the imagery – in the same way my grandfather thought the moon landing was staged in Arizona - you probably have bigger problems than global change.

A lot of arguments are based on confounded scales issues. “It’s been cold the past few weeks (winter, years), therefore long-term climatic change is a myth, or its converse, “the Earth has had cooling and warming events in the past, so what’s the problem”? It’s like using the minute-to-minute variation in the stock market to predict long term trends. It would be just peachy if there were no variability in the climate signal, but the system, like the market, doesn’t work that way. It’s the rate of change over time-relevant scales (in my opinion, decadal – the world your kids are going to see) that will determine impacts on humans and other critters.

Casinoman – you know that glaciers occur on land, right?

Finally, USA Today came up to our shop last week to do an article potential loss of moose in Minnesota (good, they can archive that pesky “Welcome to Moose Lake” cache I DNF’d Monday). In typical USA Today fashion, they converted hours of interview into 2-sentence sound bites, which ended up mostly right, sort of. To be fair and balanced, they also interviewed people at a bar in Finland (“Moose are dying off because scientists sucking at the public trough are tranquilizing them “– I liked that one…)


USA Today 4.21.08

[LucidOndine]

I think that if you're not a climate scientist (and sometimes even when you are a climate scientist) all information regarding this subject is speculation, opinion, and heresay.

From what I think (and again, this is an opinion) there really isn't enough information recorded (read, thermometer) to really be able to say one way or another if we are currently experiencing global warming. Additionally, we do not have a controlled environment in which we can systematically say that humans are the cause of this specific period of climate change. In fact, I also believe that we do not know if at this point it is bad for us (and the Earth, for whatever criteria you use to establish this).

What I can say is that we are experiencing climate changes, which are a naturally occurring phenomenon in the world. If nothing ever changed, we would not have such events as ice ages, periodic drought, or even a period of 5 years with below average low or high temperatures. To be blunt, things change. There are a seemingly innumerable number of questions regarding this change and what is considered good or bad for humanity-- a question of preference, an area of gray moral rational, and how comfortable humans are in living in an environment affected by this change (be it by our own hand or something more "natural" for lack of a better term).

The questions regarding moral implications postulated by the predicament should probably go beyond the overarching question regarding what is good and bad for us. Moral implications are unique to humans alone, yet we feel the need to apply the nuances of such to other areas in a similar vein, such as should we remove buck thorn, dandelions, eurasian water milfoil and other non-native plants and animals. We are predisposed to consider what should and should not be within our own back yards, but I believe we have forgotten our place. Humans have limited domain over nature, and I think sometimes we need to be reminded of that. Telling someone to scrap the endangered species list, though, and of course you'll have many people up in arms. The same thing goes for global warming.

In short, it may or may not be happening (however one defines it), but in answering you're exposing your bias and personal preference regarding change. The environment as a whole will always be shaped by the actions of individual people and events beyond the control of humans.

The effort involved by everyone who feels the need to register their opinions on this matter is probably better served by taking action. Like in politics, this issue tends to be quickly divisive where you'll make friends and enemies quickly, but discussing the issue rarely changes people's opinions.

Just a reflection... carry on!
_________________
The Lucid Network (tm)-- More Bars in More Places!

[Marsha and Silent Bob]

My biggest issue is that funding comes and it goes and in order for it to continue to come you need to continue to research what someone is willing to pay to see. This is true on both sides of the fence and it's unfortunate either way.

I don't care if it cools, stays the same or heats up. In the end, the Earth will fix itself and either we will be here or we won't. The planet doesn't really care one way or the other.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.

[bflentje]

[bflentje]

[bflentje]

[merkman]

[bflentje]

[LucidOndine]

Agreed... just keep it cordial. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one needs to hear if person X thinks person Y is right or wrong or their tone is off. Let people digest it for what it is-- an opinion, which is never right or wrong.
_________________
The Lucid Network (tm)-- More Bars in More Places!

[spinowner]

It seems to me that ghost presented facts, not opinion. The dismissive statement that data which has been collected by observation and experimentation is "speculation, opinion and hearsay" is, in my opinion, demeaning to those who have collected the data. I suppose one could say that it's just speculation that the earth orbits the sun, but there has been enough data collected to show that such is not the case. The same thing is true regarding the increase of the mean temperature of the lower atmosphere and some of the effects of that change. Again, how and why have not been conclusively characterized, but it is no longer considered a matter of opinion that it is occurring.
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line!

[LucidOndine]

[NeoAddict]

I believe Global Climate Change is just one of the signs of impending doom beginning in or around 2012.

[bflentje]