Climate Change Discussion/ split from What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

[Earl Weiss]

Admin Note: This thread was split from a discussion in the TKD forum. Please keep it polite and respectful, as you've done so far, and stay out of politics.

That's a fine sentiment until it becomes a defence against reality. Climate change comes to mind.

.

Interesting example but not one I would use due to difference in ease of testing. Move X can be tested to accomplish Y purpose. Climate change? In the 1070's we had articles about entering anew ice age. Climate change is a a fact . Been changing since earth existed. Modeling reasons is another story. Similar to trying to model Physiology with physics. not always so easy. Like the earth, the Body is not a simple thing to model.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Climate change? In the 1070's we had articles about entering anew ice age./QUOTE]

1070's???? I thought your name was Earl Weiss, not Connor McCloud...

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Interesting example but not one I would use due to difference in ease of testing. Move X can be tested to accomplish Y purpose. Climate change? In the 1070's we had articles about entering anew ice age. Climate change is a a fact . Been changing since earth existed. Modeling reasons is another story. Similar to trying to model Physiology with physics. not always so easy. Like the earth, the Body is not a simple thing to model.

The 1970s hype about a possible ice age was primarily articles in the popular media. The majority of peer-reviewed scientific articles went the other way. (From 1965 to 1979, 42 papers predicted global warming while only 7 predicted global cooling.) The overall scientific consensus was that climate was not understood well enough to accurately model and predict.

Five decades later we have a lot more research on the matter and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that we are in a period of rapid warming, that the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and that the consequences over the upcoming decades are likely to be severe.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

 

[DaveB]

Interesting example but not one I would use due to difference in ease of testing. Move X can be tested to accomplish Y purpose. Climate change? In the 1070's we had articles about entering anew ice age. Climate change is a a fact . Been changing since earth existed. Modeling reasons is another story. Similar to trying to model Physiology with physics. not always so easy. Like the earth, the Body is not a simple thing to model.

That's the beauty of science. It's a process of building a picture of reality by continual refinement. Accepting mistakes as a means of discarding incorrect paths to get closer and closer to the truth.

The 1970s were 40+ years ago. That's a lot of refining time. Perhaps if people (ie government and industry) had acted on those first warnings we wouldn't now only be able to discuss damage limitation.

 

[Flying Crane]

The 1970s hype about a possible ice age was primarily articles in the popular media. The majority of peer-reviewed scientific articles went the other way. (From 1965 to 1979, 42 papers predicted global warming while only 7 predicted global cooling.) The overall scientific consensus was that climate was not understood well enough to accurately model and predict.

Five decades later we have a lot more research on the matter and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that we are in a period of rapid warming, that the cause is primarily anthropogenic, and that the consequences over the upcoming decades are likely to be severe.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

We are actually in the middle of an ice age right now, but we are in a phase of ice recession, which fluctuates on a timescale of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

Within the current warmer period of ice recession, we are also experiencing rapid warming (with significant contributions from human activity) on a scale fast enough to create serious problems for many species, without a chance to adapt to a changing climate.

The thing is, being in an ice age on the larger scale, while experiencing a warming trend significant enough to pose a threat to all species currently living in this planet is in no way inconsistent. But media like Feaux News and those who watch it (both civilians and politicians alike), who wish to silence real science, will try to spin that kind of thing into self-serving nonsense. Liars deceiving the uninformed and the gullible and the deliberately ignorant.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Within the current warmer period of ice recession, we are also experiencing rapid warming (with significant contributions from human activity) on a scale fast enough to create serious problems for many species, without a chance to adapt to a changing climate.

I bolded what I think is an important point. Every so often I see people speculating on the idea that a warmer global climate might be okay or even desirable. In the abstract, that's probably correct. The problem is the transition - for humans we've built our coastal cities and our agricultural resources around the climate we have now. For other species, they've spend tens of thousands of years adapting to the current climate. Now we have changes happening in decades that normally would take centuries or millennia and no one is ready to adapt that quickly.

(Kind of getting away from the subject of TKD forms, though. )

 

[DaveB]

I bolded what I think is an important point. Every so often I see people speculating on the idea that a warmer global climate might be okay or even desirable. In the abstract, that's probably correct. The problem is the transition - for humans we've built our coastal cities and our agricultural resources around the climate we have now. For other species, they've spend tens of thousands of years adapting to the current climate. Now we have changes happening in decades that normally would take centuries or millennia and no one is ready to adapt that quickly.

(Kind of getting away from the subject of TKD forms, though. )

The link is people making excuses to ignore information that doesn't confirm their current way of doing things.

Training culture, especially around traditional elements like forms, are a lot like climate change in this regard.

 

[Earl Weiss]

That's the beauty of science. It's a process of building a picture of reality by continual refinement. Accepting mistakes as a means of discarding incorrect paths to get closer and closer to the truth.

.

Yes, they can be really good at explaining why they were wrong then but of course are correct now. Same with economists, ad weathermen

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

 

[dvcochran]

Yes, they can be really good at explaining why they were wrong then but of course are correct now. Same with economists, ad weathermen

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

The short answer is we do not really know. One thing is certain, we have the ability to gather exponentially more data globally and atmospherically. It will take time (decades) to figure out more accurately what all this data means and how it fits together. The one argument I do agree with is that man , and our affects on the planet, are a factor. Big or small I have no idea. The best thing we should get from "crying wolf" about global warming is to do a better job at our jobs and forcing ALL economic powers (petroleum for example) to operate cleaner.
The historical cycle I find most interesting is the cataclysm effect. The repeated world ender such as a massive volcano(s) or meteor strike that ends nearly all life every million years or so. The true balancing of nature. Who knows if mankind will even survive or come out as the dominant species. Of course it does the currant version of mankind little good to take such a long term view of things.
And I am a creationist. Go figure.

 

[Flying Crane]

The short answer is we do not really know. One thing is certain, we have the ability to gather exponentially more data globally and atmospherically. It will take time (decades) to figure out more accurately what all this data means and how it fits together. The one argument I do agree with is that man , and our affects on the planet, are a factor. Big or small I have no idea. The best thing we should get from "crying wolf" about global warming is to do a better job at our jobs and forcing ALL economic powers (petroleum for example) to operate cleaner.
The historical cycle I find most interesting is the cataclysm effect. The repeated world ender such as a massive volcano(s) or meteor strike that ends nearly all life every million years or so. The true balancing of nature. Who knows if mankind will even survive or come out as the dominant species. Of course it does the currant version of mankind little good to take such a long term view of things.
And I am a creationist. Go figure.

I do not believe it will take decades to figure out. The geologic evidence is quite clear, pointing to a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide beginning with the start of the industrial revolution when the burning of coal and oil on a large scale really took off. The geologic record tracks this very clearly, the scientific community is not confused about it. The effects of the carbon dioxide are known and there is a lot of evidence. It will not take decades to sort through it. It is well understood, right now.

In terms of cataclysmic mass extinctions such as supermassive volcanic eruptions or giant meteorites, they are far far more rare than every million years or so. Geologic evidence has uncovered four or five of them, the last one being 65.5 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct. Good evidence indicates both volcanic activity and a giant meteor in that case. Prior to that, the cataclysmic events are separated by some hundreds of millions of years, my memory is slipping on just how long, but it would be easy to look up.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, they can be really good at explaining why they were wrong then but of course are correct now. Same with economists, ad weathermen

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

That is some funny stuff. The Heartland Institute worked in the 1990s with Phillip Morris to try and deny the health risks of second hand smoke and to try and prevent smoking bans.

This information is easy to find. Looks like the Heartland Institute is on the wrong side, yet again.

 

[DaveB]

Yes, they can be really good at explaining why they were wrong then but of course are correct now. Same with economists, ad weathermen

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Your absolutely, America is indeed full of fools that would rather make a quick buck than safe guards the planet.

When Mr Ferera gets a job at NASA I might be more inclined to listen to him.

Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[skribs]

The diamond block can be middle or low.

Diamond Middle Block (the students left arm is a little low in this picture...)
View attachment 21929

Diamond Low Block
View attachment 21930

Admittedly, these blocks are really just a combination of a high block and outside middle or low block. Two simultaneous blocks, rather than a unique block. But it's convenient to have a specific name for the combination.

The fact it has a specific name hints at its importance to me.

 

[dvcochran]

I do not believe it will take decades to figure out. The geologic evidence is quite clear, pointing to a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide beginning with the start of the industrial revolution when the burning of coal and oil on a large scale really took off. The geologic record tracks this very clearly, the scientific community is not confused about it. The effects of the carbon dioxide are known and there is a lot of evidence. It will not take decades to sort through it. It is well understood, right now.

In terms of cataclysmic mass extinctions such as supermassive volcanic eruptions or giant meteorites, they are far far more rare than every million years or so. Geologic evidence has uncovered four or five of them, the last one being 65.5 million years ago when the dinosaurs went extinct. Good evidence indicates both volcanic activity and a giant meteor in that case. Prior to that, the cataclysmic events are separated by some hundreds of millions of years, my memory is slipping on just how long, but it would be easy to look up.

We just had the 4th warmest September (tied with 2017)since 1880. We just had the coolest October since 1912. The CO2 levels cannot be argued. Like I said earlier, we just don't know yet. All this is a marathon, not a sprint. In earth term that is millions of years.

 

[Flying Crane]

We just had the 4th warmest September (tied with 2017)since 1880. We just had the coolest October since 1912. The CO2 levels cannot be argued. Like I said earlier, we just don't know yet. All this is a marathon, not a sprint. In earth term that is millions of years.

I agree with what you are saying, with the exception of not knowing. We do know.

Unless I am missing something in your message?

 

[dvcochran]

I agree with what you are saying, with the exception of not knowing. We do know.

Unless I am missing something in your message?

According to ice shelf recordings of the last 2000 years, which is as far back as they could go, CO2 did not start going up appreciably until about 1750. Then it started really taking off. Still hardly enough time to understand what is really going on. A lot of people are up in arms about information gathered in the last 50-100 years. While we are able to gather greatly more pertinent information today, it still takes time. A lot of time to understand what is going on.

 

[Flying Crane]

According to ice shelf recordings of the last 2000 years, which is as far back as they could go, CO2 did not start going up appreciably until about 1750. Then it started really taking off. Still hardly enough time to understand what is really going on. A lot of people are up in arms about information gathered in the last 50-100 years. While we are able to gather greatly more pertinent information today, it still takes time. A lot of time to understand what is going on.

Ok, I am clear on what you are saying and I do disagree in that there is a good understanding of what is going on, at least in terms of it being quite bad. If anything, the lack of understanding is revealed where a bad prediction turns out to be not as bad as it actually is. The science is good and clear in that the effects of greenhouse gasses like methane and carbon dioxide on the atmosphere and how it is affecting the global climate is not a mystery, not by a long margin. The gains they are making in their understanding reveals the problem to be worse than previously thought.

 

[Earl Weiss]

According to ice shelf recordings of the last 2000 years, which is as far back as they could go, CO2 did not start going up appreciably until about 1750. Then it started really taking off. Still hardly enough time to understand what is really going on. A lot of people are up in arms about information gathered in the last 50-100 years. While we are able to gather greatly more pertinent information today, it still takes time. A lot of time to understand what is going on.

I could not find video on line but John Stossel had a show with scientists pointing out that the graph Al Gore used in the Inconvenient Spoof, when they moved the lines closer together, showed increasing temps preceded the CO2 rise.

 

[DaveB]

I could not find video on line but John Stossel had a show with scientists pointing out that the graph Al Gore used in the Inconvenient Spoof, when they moved the lines closer together, showed increasing temps preceded the CO2 rise.

Again I direct you to the NASA website linked above.

There are many many many many more scientists than the two John Stossell paid, representing many many independent groups of scientists who are quoted confirming the reality of climate change.

Furthermore the website lists far more pieces of evidence than I was aware of before i looked.

 

[Flying Crane]

I could not find video on line but John Stossel had a show with scientists pointing out that the graph Al Gore used in the Inconvenient Spoof, when they moved the lines closer together, showed increasing temps preceded the CO2 rise.

JOHN STOSSEL??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHABAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!