--- obrien <obrien_at_proaxis.com> wrote: > >> Some scientests are now saying that corals may be > >> largely gone in 25 years > >> due to global > >> warming!!!! > > > >TD said: If we lose coral, it will be due to pollution, not > global warming. > > Obrien said: Today I heard on NPR that 2 years ago 10% of the > world's > coral was dead. It's now 27%! It's been looked at > extensively and the overwhelming evidence > points to warming. NPR, while occasionally entertaining, is so far to the liberal left that there is little they say that one can take to the bank. I would be highly suspect of any "scientific" findings they report. I am not up to date on the latest findings on global warming; but if I wanted to get an accurate balanced assessment, I sure wouldn't go by NPR. 10,000 years ago, the northern hemisphere was covered in ice to the extent that Long Island, NY, (where I live) was a terminal morraine. Is it warmer now than then, yes, but thats besides the point of alledged recent short term accelerated global warming. > When the sea otter were virtually wiped out in SE > Alaska and BC the same thing happened to the kelp > forests. Dispite our best efforts, these forests > are not back in anywhere near historic levels. Once > > this ecosytem is disrupted, it will take a long time > to > recover (unlikely in several lifetimes). Fear mongering is a perenial popular pastime that I have neither hope nor ambition to curtail; however, for the sake of those who may perhaps be easily influenced by dogmatic psuedoscience, I have humbly offered the aforementioned to assuage undue fear. > Unfortunately, the masses in this > country > don't show much will to manage problems until crisis > strikes. > And government is always two steps behind the > public. > Serious, sensable ecologists have been marginalized > by > conservatives and industrial spinmasters. I agree that Americans often operate in crisis management mode; but I will wait until there is at least a consensus amonst most responsible scientists that global warming even exists before I start to worry about it. Tom Dowling *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
HI folks, could not help weighing in on this one, Some of the work I do requires doing drainage studies from storm water run-off and snow fall data. And, not one to trust "scientific studies" much, I looked into the basis for the numbers we typically use for the 5 year, 10 year, 25 year, 50 year and 100 year events. And found little in the way of valid statistical or scientific evidence. The problem is we are ignorant on all of the forces that control weather: few of the process are known or understood with certainty and the earth itself (even it could be understood) is not a closed system. With all of the weather stations, computers and satellites we can not see into future more than about three days, and we do not have reliable weather data for most of the country further back than about 100 years, and certainly none of it without any detail. To be able to predict 1000 year, or even 100 year, trends based on this is totally laughable. Everytime someone tried to take rational theories and applied it to known weather patterns they found none of the predictions even close. For example someone took the greenhouse gas/global warming model back to the year 1900, the year most would agree was the initiation of widespread fossil fuel consumption, the model ended up showing that something like 90 percent of our atmosphere should be CO2 by Y2K. Clearly there are other forces at work that are not understood. There may indeed be evidence of global warming but the hard science that can predict the future of it, and the cause of it, are totally absent. So everyone is engaging in speculation (and most of it not scientific) at this point. Personally I would suspect that IF global warming is a real long term trend, THEN we as humans are likely unable to do anything about it, nor are we to blame. We know that vast swings in global climate has been the history of this plant, and humans had nothing to do with it. Why should we think the future will be anything different? So if this is a real trend, not just a short term anomaly, than there is likely nothing we can do about it. And even if it was possible to prove there is measurable contribution from human activities, which we can not at this point, I would say that the contribution due to people going kayaking is totally insignificant. You will not make any changes what so ever even if you completely stop going. You would be doing something else anyway, when kayaking you are using less fuel than most activities, including sitting at home in a heated house watching TV. Simply living causes impact to the environment, you consume food, air and water, and put wastes out. Besides that I suspect that animals, wetlands, forests, etc. put out far more "pollution", green house gases, than all human activity combined, and there are some studies that support this. And it makes sense if you compare the total biomass of these things compared to humans (we should be so arrogant and self centered to even think that humans can actually have some control over the weather!). It does not mean I would advocate irresponsible consumption or pollution, I just would be not throw around "scientific opinions" as if it some meaningful facts behind it. Scientists are just as prone to media and political pressure as anyone, especially if their future income depends on it, which is usually the case. I can remember just about 20 years ago the consensus of these same scientists was we were entering a cooling tread, complete with an artist's rendering of a giant glacier overtaking New York City on the cover of Science Magazine (I which I had kept that issue). Of course this was before there we're lots of grants being offered by the EPA , NSF and others to study global warning. The fact of the matter is that larger and larger numbers of people go out into the wilderness every year and there is no practical way to stop it. I would offer that these wilderness areas are far better off if we encourage human powered wilderness activities instead of jet skis, snow mobiles, 4x4s, etc. So all of us should encourage human powered transport, and all of the benefits of it, as much as possible, and as responsibly as possible, and not quibble over things we have no control over. The more responsable paddlers there are out there, instructing, teaching, or just be a good example for the rest of us, the better off we are. Peter *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I must apologize in advance, since I cannot now, nor ever will be able to keep from carrying on debate about climate change issues. I also think that climate change is very relevant to paddlewise, since sea kayakers will be significantly impacted by its effects (sea level rise, ecosytem collapse, more extreme weather, etc). At 11:00 AM 12/12/00 -0800, Peter A. Chopelas wrote: ><snip> >The problem is we are ignorant on all of the forces that control weather: >few of the process are known or understood with certainty and the earth >itself (even it could be understood) is not a closed system. With all of >the weather stations, computers and satellites we can not see into future >more than about three days, and we do not have reliable weather data for >most of the country further back than about 100 years, and certainly none >of it without any detail. Predicting weather changes on a local scale (in both time and space) and predicting whether global warming will occur are totally different animals. You are comparing apples and oranges. Weather is a chaotic process that by definition is unpredictable without 100% perfect input data. Global warming due to the greenhouse effect is not a chaotic process. We know exactly how much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere, and we know exactly how much sunlight hits the earth. It is easy to calculate, using a simple energy balance model, how much the Earth will warm in a 100 years. Undergrads do this regularly in class. Now, the trick is to understand exactly what global warming will do to weather. That is the million dollar question that everyone wants to know. Common wisdom suggests that extreme weather events will increase because a warmer atmosphere has more energy for storms. Scientific research on this is in its infancy right now, and there is no consensus on whether this is true or to what extent it may occur. One things that is certain, is that weather patterns will probably change somewhat or even dramatically. This is actually a big deal, since 6 billion people on Earth have pushed the carrying capacity of the land to the max. Climate change will cause ecosystems to slow down productivity as they readjust to new weather patterns, which will probably cause famine and drought for many years. Whether this happens in 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years is a major thrust of current research. The US just released their first ever assessment of the impacts of climate change on agriculture, human health, and ecosystems last month. This report is based on many regional scale models driven by global scale models. The report is conservative in saying that short term impacts to the US will be minor. Unfortunately, long term impacts are worse, but it is hard to think 100 years in the future. Unfortunately, the 120 year atmosheric residence time of CO2 requires that we think about the impacts of our actions on four or five generations into the future. Who among us does this on a regular basis? >To be able to predict 1000 year, or even 100 year, trends based on this is >totally laughable. Everytime someone tried to take rational theories and >applied it to known weather patterns they found none of the predictions >even close. For example someone took the greenhouse gas/global warming >model back to the year 1900, the year most would agree was the initiation >of widespread fossil fuel consumption, the model ended up showing that >something like 90 percent of our atmosphere should be CO2 by Y2K. Clearly >there are other forces at work that are not understood. To take one example of a model that didn't work and then claim that all models don't work is fallacious. Why not take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) assessment of *all* climate models, and use their results? They look at them all, and decide on the consensus result, which is that we can expect 8-10 degrees C warming by 2100. That is a staggering number for anyone who understands the scale of climate change. >There may indeed be evidence of global warming but the hard science that >can predict the future of it, and the cause of it, are totally absent. This is not true. The science that predicts the future and cause of it are there. Have you ever heard of the IPCC? It is made of up of hundreds of the world's leading climate change scientists who review *all* of the climate change related literature and distill the facts from that as best they can. Truly, there is no example of better science being conducted since the heyday of quantum mechanics in the 1930's. >So >everyone is engaging in speculation (and most of it not scientific) at this >point. Personally I would suspect that IF global warming is a real long >term trend, THEN we as humans are likely unable to do anything about it, >nor are we to blame. According to the IPCC, humans are *definitely* to blame. The emission of greenhouse gases is the primary cause. CO2 accounts for about half of all warming. >We know that vast swings in global climate has been >the history of this plant, and humans had nothing to do with it. Why >should we think the future will be anything different? So if this is a >real trend, not just a short term anomaly, than there is likely nothing we >can do about it. Yes there is something we can do about it.... stop emitting greenhouse gases. Viable alternatives exist, but we are complacent and unwilling to develop them in the absence of a crisis. We are lulled to sleep by the songs of fossil fuel interests who tell us that our economy will go bankrupt if we try to something global warming. On the contrary, our economy will benefit more than we can possibly imagine if we get serious about stopping global warming. This may sound like raving, but I can defend that statement adequately in another post if anyone cares. The most expensive thing we can do is to do nothing about climate change. >And even if it was possible to prove there is measurable contribution from >human activities, which we can not at this point, I would say that the >contribution due to people going kayaking is totally insignificant. You >will not make any changes what so ever even if you completely stop going. This is also false. Every time someone drives their car, then that person contributes to global warming in a significant way. If you total up all of the CO2 emissions from American personal automobiles (no semi-trucks, planes, trains, etc...), then that total is greater than the emissions of every other country in the world except for China and Russia. The sum total of each individual who drives is staggering, don't you think? If you buy a more fuel efficient car, or choose not to use your car, or even carpool religiously, then you can help prevent global warming as an individual. You'll be a lot happier when the gas crisis hits again this summer harder than ever. But to browbeat kayakers as causing global warming as a group is ridiculous. But since most kayakers drive cars, then we are indirectly responsible. Since global affects kayakers directly due to changes in the hydrologic cycle from climate change, then we should care about it and do our parts. <snip> >The fact of the matter is that larger and larger numbers of people go out >into the wilderness every year and there is no practical way to stop it. I >would offer that these wilderness areas are far better off if we encourage >human powered wilderness activities instead of jet skis, snow mobiles, >4x4s, etc. So all of us should encourage human powered transport, and all >of the benefits of it, as much as possible, and as responsibly as possible, >and not quibble over things we have no control over. The more responsable >paddlers there are out there, instructing, teaching, or just be a good >example for the rest of us, the better off we are. I couldn't agree with you more. Very well stated, however I think it is wrong to also dismiss global warming as an issue that shouldn't be included in your idea about instructing others on how to live responsibly. Cheers, kevin Kevin Whilden Your Planet Earth http://www.yourplanetearth.org (206) 788-0281 (ph) (206) 788-0284 (f) *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
There is only one definitive scientific experiment to prove whether global warming is happening: Continue on the way we are now and see what happens. If the ice cap melts and floods Bangladesh, there is global warming. I am quite prepared to accept that the global warming theory is incorrect. I don't think anyone is prepared for the consequences if global warming occurs. The cost of acting as if the theory is correct pales in comparison to the cost if the theory proves to be true. We can easily predict the consequences of changing our ways. Any hardship would be short lived. It would mess up a few 5-year plans. We have no idea what will happen if anything resembling global warming actually occurs. For example who is to say we will actually get warmer. The Gulf Stream could be redirected and all of Europe could become like Siberia. It is also quite possible the climate will change without our intervention. If this is true and we act as if we can make a difference, we have wasted a small amount of effort, but at least we know we tried. I would rather not perform the definitive experiment. Boy would we feel stupid if the theory proved true and we did nothing. Nick > >Some of the work I do requires doing drainage studies from storm water >run-off and snow fall data. And, not one to trust "scientific studies" >much, I looked into the basis for the numbers we typically use for the 5 >year, 10 year, 25 year, 50 year and 100 year events. And found little in >the way of valid statistical or scientific evidence. -- Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks 824 Thompson St, Suite I Glastonbury, CT 06033 (860) 659-8847 Schade_at_guillemot-kayaks.com http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ >>>>"It's not just Art, It's a Craft!"<<<< *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:58:48 -0800 (PST), Tom <tombrooklyn_at_yahoo.com> writes: >NPR, while occasionally entertaining, is so far to the >liberal left that there is little they say that one >can take to the bank. This comment supports my impression that most arguments about global climate change are political discussions, rather than genuine scientific debates. >I would be highly suspect of >any "scientific" findings they report. I agree to the extent that it always is better to go to the original source for information rather than relying on second- or third-hand accounts. However, in cases where I am familiar with the source material for the science stories that NPR reports (which is somewhat regularly since in my job I work for a research organization that publishes a major scientific journal), their coverage has been accurate. In fact, their science coverage is consistently more in-depth and thoughful than other broadcast news outlets. They spend more air time talking to researchers and explaining things than most radio and television news programs. Cheers, Craig Hicks Arlington, Virginia Folbot Kodiak *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:19 PDT