Ice-Bound Ship Was On Global Warming Mission

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I should also add that that particular field seems to attract some of the most liberal professors…I have seen interns come out quoting Al Gore as if it was gospel.

Real world experience seems to change those folks pretty quickly… when they are taken out of a cloistered liberal, academic environment.[/quote]

Which is a huge problem. I studied under some very down to earth professors, and also some like you mention. Like I said before there needs to be a balance. People who are too extreme simply get shut down by the public, and rightfully so. Making false claims to try to scare people into believing do more harm than good. Just gives those same people something to use against you later on down the line.

102

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I should also add that that particular field seems to attract some of the most liberal professors…I have seen interns come out quoting Al Gore as if it was gospel.

Real world experience seems to change those folks pretty quickly… when they are taken out of a cloistered liberal, academic environment.[/quote]

Which is a huge problem. I studied under some very down to earth professors, and also some like you mention. Like I said before there needs to be a balance. People who are too extreme simply get shut down by the public, and rightfully so. Making false claims to try to scare people into believing do more harm than good. Just gives those same people something to use against you later on down the line. [/quote]

Sounds like you are keeping an even keel…good luck with your next degree!

103

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

…global warming is in fact real. [/quote]

So what?

So sea levels rise over a very long period of time so coastal cities must adjust and also consequently agricultural production increases. Too many positives accompany global warming that make it difficult to cast it as the guy wearing the black hat.[/quote]

Its not solely the sea levels rising that poses a problem. Its what is going on under the sea and how its affecting the aquatic species there. Ex, ocean acidification, fish migration, etc. And arguing that agricultural productivity has increased is a double edged sword.

Once again I am familiar to both sides of the debate on industrial ag (I work on a farm, dad’s heabily involved with ag). Productivity has increased by at the expense of other things. So if you calculate efficiancy into your measure of productivity… meh not so much.

104

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
I should also add that that particular field seems to attract some of the most liberal professors…I have seen interns come out quoting Al Gore as if it was gospel.

Real world experience seems to change those folks pretty quickly… when they are taken out of a cloistered liberal, academic environment.[/quote]

Which is a huge problem. I studied under some very down to earth professors, and also some like you mention. Like I said before there needs to be a balance. People who are too extreme simply get shut down by the public, and rightfully so. Making false claims to try to scare people into believing do more harm than good. Just gives those same people something to use against you later on down the line. [/quote]

Sounds like you are keeping an even keel…good luck with your next degree![/quote]

Thanks for the kind words. I honestly can’t wait!

105

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
It amazes me that people still argue about whether global warming is true or not. There is overwhelming undeniable evidence that this is fact happening. Now whether people choose to do something about it is on them. I am finishing up a degree in environmental science so I know both sides of the issue. And as a matter of fact both extremes piss me off to no end. I can’t stand those who say global warming is a lie and that its just a hoax created by the government. I also can’t stand those who say that everyone must switch to electric cars immediately and all contributors to climate change must be immediately stopped. There is a middle ground, but that middle ground contains the solid truth that global warming is in fact real. [/quote]

Are you enjoying college?[/quote]

Yes for the most part I am. I’ve been plagued with health issues the past 2 years so my choice to go to community college paid off. Im graduating this semester and then transferring to get a degree in exercise science at a university so thats where the fun should start. [/quote]

Stay as long as you can, I am the Administrative Manager for an environmental consulting and engineering firm…jobs are extraordinarily scarce in the field without a postgrad degree and experience.

But I started out in exercise science as well, the options in that field seem cool…if you don’t like money.[/quote]

The graduate level degree is absolutely necessary for that field.

I concur regarding exercise science as well, but in that case it is much more about the people you know to get jobs. Networking (very much outside class time) is extremely important and internships are as well. You can get good jobs after you work your way up, but only if you know people. So my advice is to network as much as possible and keep up with contacts.
[/quote]

I greatly appreciate your advice guys. I’m not planning on getting a job in environmental science. It was community college or no college so that’s what I ended up doing. Best decision of my life. I started going to the gym, fell in love with training, met the cscs for the college who has mentored me and done more for me than I could possibly imagine. I gained self confidence, fought through the toughest obstacles life’s thrown at me (so far), and most importantly went from no plan at all and going down a shaky road to knowing exactly what I want to do with my life. Sorry for the long drawn out story, I’m just very passionate about the decision which I guess comes from defending community college from onslaughts of my “privelaged” fellow highschool graduates.

My plan so far is to get my bachelors in exercise science. I already have connections and have been offered the opportunity training clients for my friend but I really want my cscs. I’m nothing special and still have an incredible amount to learn, but unfortunately know more than most of the students in the major at my current college.

I agree completely that networking is the most important aspect of landing a job and something I will be focusing on when I get out of the boonies and to my next college. If I don’t like where I am at the end of my bachelors degree I will continue on to get a masters in strength and conditioning specifically, something I may do just for the hell of it anyways cause I love learning. [/quote]

That’s really good to hear mate. Great decision on some college rather than no college at all. Best way to make the most of your situation. Congrats man.

It’s a tough road but it can be done successfully. If I may, the most important thing outside of networking (for practical job opportunity reasons), is two-fold: continuing SELF-DIRECTED learning by continuing to read everything possible and expand your knowledge base and also by real-world under-the-bar experience. Real-world experience is absolutely paramount–and so is making physique/strength progress of your own.

A ton of master’s degree CSCS people can quote facts all day long but when it comes down to it they can’t get you strong or powerful. A ton of people like John Meadows only got a bachelors…but their CSCS means something because they have the practical experience in getting people big and strong to make it work, starting with themselves. Always be practical, rather than fancy.

“If you stop reading, you have just become obsolete and will never be relevant”. It’s extremely true. And if you don’t get results with yourself, how will you be able to gauge what works for others??

106

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
It amazes me that people still argue about whether global warming is true or not. There is overwhelming undeniable evidence that this is fact happening. Now whether people choose to do something about it is on them. I am finishing up a degree in environmental science so I know both sides of the issue. And as a matter of fact both extremes piss me off to no end. I can’t stand those who say global warming is a lie and that its just a hoax created by the government. I also can’t stand those who say that everyone must switch to electric cars immediately and all contributors to climate change must be immediately stopped. There is a middle ground, but that middle ground contains the solid truth that global warming is in fact real. [/quote]

It depends on your definition of “global warming” and what, specifically, it entails. What is the definition you are using?[/quote]

Without getting too nerdy on ya my definition includes the climate change and its associated effects beyond just the polar ice caps meliting such as ocean acidification and the effects on animal populations [/quote]

No, I’m actually talking about the specifics. While I agree that it is a good idea to become educated in the field you are discussing and that you are entering into discussions concerning your degree, I would posit that a more directly valuable proficiency would be to understand experimental parameters, design benefits and flaws, and data collection/statistical processes used to come to certain conclusions.

That’s not a knock on you, but saying “global warming is a fact” can mean many things. Some of them are uncontroversial and some of them are bullshit. As Utah mentioned above, you seem very level-headed and that is absolutely critical. Also, very nice to talk to lol.

107

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
It amazes me that people still argue about whether global warming is true or not. There is overwhelming undeniable evidence that this is fact happening. Now whether people choose to do something about it is on them. I am finishing up a degree in environmental science so I know both sides of the issue. And as a matter of fact both extremes piss me off to no end. I can’t stand those who say global warming is a lie and that its just a hoax created by the government. I also can’t stand those who say that everyone must switch to electric cars immediately and all contributors to climate change must be immediately stopped. There is a middle ground, but that middle ground contains the solid truth that global warming is in fact real. [/quote]

Are you enjoying college?[/quote]

Yes for the most part I am. I’ve been plagued with health issues the past 2 years so my choice to go to community college paid off. Im graduating this semester and then transferring to get a degree in exercise science at a university so thats where the fun should start. [/quote]

Stay as long as you can, I am the Administrative Manager for an environmental consulting and engineering firm…jobs are extraordinarily scarce in the field without a postgrad degree and experience.

But I started out in exercise science as well, the options in that field seem cool…if you don’t like money.[/quote]

The graduate level degree is absolutely necessary for that field.

I concur regarding exercise science as well, but in that case it is much more about the people you know to get jobs. Networking (very much outside class time) is extremely important and internships are as well. You can get good jobs after you work your way up, but only if you know people. So my advice is to network as much as possible and keep up with contacts.
[/quote]

I greatly appreciate your advice guys. I’m not planning on getting a job in environmental science. It was community college or no college so that’s what I ended up doing. Best decision of my life. I started going to the gym, fell in love with training, met the cscs for the college who has mentored me and done more for me than I could possibly imagine. I gained self confidence, fought through the toughest obstacles life’s thrown at me (so far), and most importantly went from no plan at all and going down a shaky road to knowing exactly what I want to do with my life. Sorry for the long drawn out story, I’m just very passionate about the decision which I guess comes from defending community college from onslaughts of my “privelaged” fellow highschool graduates.

My plan so far is to get my bachelors in exercise science. I already have connections and have been offered the opportunity training clients for my friend but I really want my cscs. I’m nothing special and still have an incredible amount to learn, but unfortunately know more than most of the students in the major at my current college.

I agree completely that networking is the most important aspect of landing a job and something I will be focusing on when I get out of the boonies and to my next college. If I don’t like where I am at the end of my bachelors degree I will continue on to get a masters in strength and conditioning specifically, something I may do just for the hell of it anyways cause I love learning. [/quote]

That’s really good to hear mate. Great decision on some college rather than no college at all. Best way to make the most of your situation. Congrats man.

It’s a tough road but it can be done successfully. If I may, the most important thing outside of networking (for practical job opportunity reasons), is two-fold: continuing SELF-DIRECTED learning by continuing to read everything possible and expand your knowledge base and also by real-world under-the-bar experience. Real-world experience is absolutely paramount–and so is making physique/strength progress of your own. A ton of master’s degree CSCS people can quote facts all day long but when it comes down to it they can’t get you strong or powerful. A ton of people like John Meadows only got a bachelors…but their CSCS means something because they have the practical experience in getting people big and strong to make it work, starting with themselves. Always be practical, rather than fancy.

“If you stop reading, you have just become obsolete and will never be relevant”. It’s extremely true. And if you don’t get results with yourself, how will you be able to gauge what works for others??[/quote]

Which is why I am so glad I came upon this decision how I did. I haven’t been training for long but I’ve spent the past 3 years reading everythign I can get my hands on pertaining to strength training also spending as much time as I can in the gym. I agree 100% on practical over fancy, its a theme I try to live my entire life by and was brought up as such. My biggest worry going off to college is I have been dealing with a lower back injury for the past year and a couple surgeries that I hypthesise are related and my strength levels are shit. For example a year ago I had a goal of my lifts to be a 500 DL, 405 squat, and 315 BP before I went off to study exercise science. Now I haven’t DL’d in a year, squatted in about 2, and my bench is just coming back after a 4 month layoff from another injury. I am gonna bust my ass just to get back to where I was a year ago. The point behind all this is I have been reading tons of books, know a bit more than average (for my peers atleast), but am struggling with my real world practical problems. Just a bitch slap in the face of how little it really can apply. I can’t wait to go off and study exercise science purely to get answers to the many questions I have… not from books but from older more expereienced guys whose brains I can pick for information

108

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
It amazes me that people still argue about whether global warming is true or not. There is overwhelming undeniable evidence that this is fact happening. Now whether people choose to do something about it is on them. I am finishing up a degree in environmental science so I know both sides of the issue. And as a matter of fact both extremes piss me off to no end. I can’t stand those who say global warming is a lie and that its just a hoax created by the government. I also can’t stand those who say that everyone must switch to electric cars immediately and all contributors to climate change must be immediately stopped. There is a middle ground, but that middle ground contains the solid truth that global warming is in fact real. [/quote]

It depends on your definition of “global warming” and what, specifically, it entails. What is the definition you are using?[/quote]

Without getting too nerdy on ya my definition includes the climate change and its associated effects beyond just the polar ice caps meliting such as ocean acidification and the effects on animal populations [/quote]

No, I’m actually talking about the specifics. While I agree that it is a good idea to become educated in the field you are discussing and that you are entering into discussions concerning your degree, I would posit that a more directly valuable proficiency would be to understand experimental parameters, design benefits and flaws, and data collection/statistical processes used to come to certain conclusions.

That’s not a knock on you, but saying “global warming is a fact” can mean many things. Some of them are uncontroversial and some of them are bullshit. As Utah mentioned above, you seem very level-headed and that is absolutely critical. Also, very nice to talk to lol.[/quote]

No offense taken. I would like to add that a portion of our time was spent studying statistical analyses and trends to back up the data. Unfortunately I found it boring but learned enough to be steadfast in knowing that global warming truly is factual. I do not stay up to date with current information regarding it or what the news claims. I abosulutely will not agree that every study claiming global warming is in fact true. However, like I said before there is too much evidence for it to be denied. The real underlying problem in my opinion is a very touchy subject that doesn’t get too much attention… Overpopulation.

109

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
It amazes me that people still argue about whether global warming is true or not. There is overwhelming undeniable evidence that this is fact happening. Now whether people choose to do something about it is on them. I am finishing up a degree in environmental science so I know both sides of the issue. And as a matter of fact both extremes piss me off to no end. I can’t stand those who say global warming is a lie and that its just a hoax created by the government. I also can’t stand those who say that everyone must switch to electric cars immediately and all contributors to climate change must be immediately stopped. There is a middle ground, but that middle ground contains the solid truth that global warming is in fact real. [/quote]

It depends on your definition of “global warming” and what, specifically, it entails. What is the definition you are using?[/quote]

Without getting too nerdy on ya my definition includes the climate change and its associated effects beyond just the polar ice caps meliting such as ocean acidification and the effects on animal populations [/quote]

No, I’m actually talking about the specifics. While I agree that it is a good idea to become educated in the field you are discussing and that you are entering into discussions concerning your degree, I would posit that a more directly valuable proficiency would be to understand experimental parameters, design benefits and flaws, and data collection/statistical processes used to come to certain conclusions.

That’s not a knock on you, but saying “global warming is a fact” can mean many things. Some of them are uncontroversial and some of them are bullshit. As Utah mentioned above, you seem very level-headed and that is absolutely critical. Also, very nice to talk to lol.[/quote]

No offense taken. I would like to add that a portion of our time was spent studying statistical analyses and trends to back up the data. Unfortunately I found it boring but learned enough to be steadfast in knowing that global warming truly is factual. I do not stay up to date with current information regarding it or what the news claims. I abosulutely will not agree that every study claiming global warming is in fact true. However, like I said before there is too much evidence for it to be denied. The real underlying problem in my opinion is a very touchy subject that doesn’t get too much attention… Overpopulation.
[/quote]

What I have been trying to get at is this: “global warming is factual” is true for the last 100+ years, but why is it true? How much of it is caused by humans, is it significant, etc. Saying “global warming is true” is equivalently saying “the globe shifted .8 deg C positive in mean temperature over the last 100 years”. This is uncontroversial. This is also almost never what somebody actually means when they say “global warming is real”, and that is why I asked the question, and why I have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to people saying that.

110

I’m also still waiting for the Anchor to link his 97% claim. Or at least to defend, coherently, his 97% claim. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

111

Ah i see exactly what you’re saying. Well the studies, at least the good ones, show that the reason it is related to humans is the rate at which it has occurred. These studies show a correlation between the increase in the human population, specifically after the industrial revolution, and the increase in global warming. Which is why I mentioned overpopulation. You obviously have a background in the sciences, if so please don’t take the following as an insult to your intelligence as something you already know to be basic. People think a hundred of years is a long time.

However, when you put this in relation to the history of the earth this is merely the blink of an eye. Hell a thousand years is nothing. The existance of humans is only a fraction of the history of the earth. Global changes tend to occur very very slowly. So the rapidness of global climate change is what truly alarms scientists and brings fact to many of their claims.

112

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’m also still waiting for the Anchor to link his 97% claim. Or at least to defend, coherently, his 97% claim. I don’t think that’s going to happen.[/quote]

Well of course it’s not true. After all science isn’t driven by the pursuit of facts, its driven by money… And telling people to stop contributing to global warming doesn’t make any money. DIdn’t ya know :wink:

114

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

What I have been trying to get at is this: “global warming is factual” is true for the last 100+ years, but why is it true? How much of it is caused by humans, is it significant, etc. Saying “global warming is true” is equivalently saying “the globe shifted .8 deg C positive in mean temperature over the last 100 years”. This is uncontroversial. This is also almost never what somebody actually means when they say “global warming is real”, and that is why I asked the question, and why I have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to people saying that.

[/quote]

Would you agree that the following propositions are also uncontroversial:

  1. The addition of carbon dioxide to a closed atmosphere raises the mean temperature of that atmosphere.

  2. Human beings have added and continue to add carbon dioxide to the Earth’s atmosphere.

This is to say nothing about magnitudes and extents, of course. And I find myself in or around the center when it comes to the whole political debate. But would you not agree that these general propositions are sturdy?

115

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

What I have been trying to get at is this: “global warming is factual” is true for the last 100+ years, but why is it true? How much of it is caused by humans, is it significant, etc. Saying “global warming is true” is equivalently saying “the globe shifted .8 deg C positive in mean temperature over the last 100 years”. This is uncontroversial. This is also almost never what somebody actually means when they say “global warming is real”, and that is why I asked the question, and why I have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to people saying that.

[/quote]

This is to say nothing about magnitudes and extents, of course. [/quote]

Again the take home argument…we may be contributing, but how much…and to what magnitude.

116

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
Ah i see exactly what you’re saying. Well the studies, at least the good ones, show that the reason it is related to humans is the rate at which it has occurred. These studies show a correlation between the increase in the human population, specifically after the industrial revolution, and the increase in global warming. Which is why I mentioned overpopulation. You obviously have a background in the sciences, if so please don’t take the following as an insult to your intelligence as something you already know to be basic. People think a hundred of years is a long time.

However, when you put this in relation to the history of the earth this is merely the blink of an eye. Hell a thousand years is nothing. The existence of humans is only a fraction of the history of the earth. Global changes tend to occur very very slowly. So the rapidness of global climate change is what truly alarms scientists and brings fact to many of their claims. [/quote]

No offense taken. I do actually have a background in the sciences (I currently do biochemical research within academia) I’m familiar with what you are talking about as well. The question is what kind of perturbation force are we and to what extent, and exactly how sensitive is the globe to perturbation. That is not directed at you in any case.

100 years is a very small time, I agree. However, it is what people are harping on. The bulk of the rapidness of climate change in the last 100 years is susceptible to explanation by a number of other mechanisms aside from people. For instance, specifically because you and I agree that 100 years is a short time period, the possibility of an extended “burp” or spike in global temperature is possible–when you deal with geological time periods 100 years is susceptible to being “noise” itself within the larger pattern, no matter how abrupt the change. There were significant other spikes throughout human history as well.

However, whether or not those hypotheses are correct or whether we as humans are the primary driver is only ONE of the problems at hand. The other question is: how sensitive or resilient is the global climate? And a final question is very, very relevant: how well do our computerized climate models predict and how resilient are they? There are a number of problems here that are documented in the peer-reviewed literature. Currently I consider a lot of that modeling rudimentary. Which means I think it needs more research and more funding to get better. We really need good models.

The overpopulation thing is another subject entirely, probably not for this thread lol.

117

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:

…The real underlying problem in my opinion is a very touchy subject that doesn’t get too much attention… Overpopulation.
[/quote]

It’s had plenty of attention. You’re just too young to remember it.

It was a big deal back in the '70’s (and before that) along with the “coming ice age.”

By the way, if overpopulation is your grave concern you’d better do all you can to pump out more carbon so as to increase warming so as to increase ag production. Despite your purported “double edged sword” the overpopulation “problem” will need more arable acres.[/quote]

You are correct. I am too young. More arable acres does not solve the overpopulation problem, merely adds upon it. The saying about robbing peter to pay paul comes into play here. There is already far too many people to sustainably feed on this earth. Something needs to be done about preventing the population from continuing to sky rocket or unfortunately nature will settle the issue for us in a not so pleasant way… The biggest problem with overpopulation is nobody wants to be that asshole that says there needs to be a limit to how many children you can have.

118

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

What I have been trying to get at is this: “global warming is factual” is true for the last 100+ years, but why is it true? How much of it is caused by humans, is it significant, etc. Saying “global warming is true” is equivalently saying “the globe shifted .8 deg C positive in mean temperature over the last 100 years”. This is uncontroversial. This is also almost never what somebody actually means when they say “global warming is real”, and that is why I asked the question, and why I have a bit of a knee jerk reaction to people saying that.

[/quote]

Would you agree that the following propositions are also uncontroversial:

  1. The addition of carbon dioxide to a closed atmosphere raises the mean temperature of that atmosphere.

  2. Human beings have added and continue to add carbon dioxide to the Earth’s atmosphere.

This is to say nothing about magnitudes and extents, of course. And I find myself in or around the center when it comes to the whole political debate. But would you not agree that these general propositions are sturdy?[/quote]

In general yes. However at the same time there is some question about C02–some peer reviewed work shows a possible NEGATIVE feedback rather than positive as has been suggested due to natural plant aerosol production (this was new to me until recently mentioned, so I have not yet investigated but the article appears in Nature Geoscience ). Further there is some work that shows C02 actually lags rather than drives (at least directly) mean temperature, by somewhere in range of hundreds of years. All in all, rather large and pressing questions remain quite open.

I would say it is pretty damn obvious humans contribute to C02 levels.

EDIT–Let it be noted that the negative feedback loop I referenced is not a wholesale negative loop but a modifier to C02 contribution. I can clarify if needed.

All this being said, I believe it would be irresponsible for people to not look into realist’s claims about AGW catastrophe smh. There are very highly regarded and frequently published (peer review of course) and cited researchers in this camp and it is a massive disservice to ignore them.

119

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
There is already far too many people to sustainably feed on this earth. [/quote]

This is not true–there is a documented food surplus. We already make enough to feed about twice the current population of earth. There is, however, a vast inequality in distribution and use.

120

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]bulkNcut wrote:
There is already far too many people to sustainably feed on this earth. [/quote]

This is not true–there is a documented food surplus. We already make enough to feed about twice the current population of earth. There is, however, a vast inequality in distribution and use.[/quote]

If you were to take out the word sustainable, I would not be able to argue against you. But current agricultural practices are far from sustainable. Not the farmers fault in any way for those of you who may be farmers, just the government/economy.