|
|
|
|
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 12:02:37 PM | I just want to define what our debate will be about. Are you saying that 95% of the world's scientists and ALL of the internationaly and nationaly recoginized scientific organizations are part of a vast conspiracy to make us pay a carbon tax? By the way, there are some scientists ( very, very few) that claim that a time machine is possible, I guess that accounts for the 5%.*
* I personaly believe that a time machine is logically impossible. Suppose, one went back in time and killed your father before you were born, Then you would not exist which means that you could not have killed your father which means that you do exist....etc. You cannot assert both A and not A. I am willing to debate time travel also. | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 12:15:41 PM | | I find it odd that you are claiming to be the open minded one and you are the one that firmly makes the claim that global warming is some kind of plot. When one makes an extraordinary claim one must give extraordinary evidence. If for example someone tells me a dog ate my garbage and tore up my garbage bags, I will not require much evidence. However, if he claims that a moon man did it I would require a lot of evidence. To claim a VAST CONSPIRACY that involves 95% of the world's scientists is to make an extraordinary claim. | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 1:12:42 PM | | This puts me in an impossible position. If I quote scientific sources that confirm global warming , you will say that that is proof of the size of the conspiracy. If I give no evidence you will claim that I am arguing without evidence. That is the problem with conspiracy theories , they cannot be refuted. Not because they have substance, but because by definition no evidence for the opposing view is allowed. | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 1:25:25 PM | | First of all, multinational corporations are the elites that run the world, not governments. Why would they ( the multi-nationals) want to be taxed more? I also find it amusing that people that continue to talk about "freedom" really dont know what the word means. At least with government there is at least a little democracy, corporations are dictatorships. So one eliminates government to become more free, that only leaves dictatorships ( corporations). Whats an alternative? Unions? Community action, like Obama was involved in)? Most people that want the elimination of government are agianst those options. So we are back again to living under a dictatorship ( multi-national corporations.) | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 3:03:25 PM |
To claim that all of the above organizations are part of a vast conspiracy is absurd. To claim that they are all run by morons is equally absurd.
Your argument here is fallacious. You're assuming an institutional stance is equivalent to an individual one and that collective wisdom is the same as Truth. The two are quite different. For example, consider the number of institutions who would have agreed with the general (and commonly held) assertion not more than a few centuries ago that the Sun orbits the Earth. Are they all part of some big conspiracy? No, not really. They're just wrong. All of them.
Now consider the stance of any given individual within an institution. He wants security of tenure. He wants his papers published and (by extension), continued funding for his research. Are governments paying out $2,000,000,000 per annum to research the rather benign and natural oscillations of our current climate? Of course they aren't. They're paying for policy based evidence. Eisenhower warned about this after the Second World War, when governments started to seriously fund Science and the Scientific process became necessarily political (as it must be if it's funded by government).
The facts for me are quite simple. The question you need to ask is this, "what is required to falsify the theory that CO2 is a primary climate driver?". If you can't answer this question, your hypothesis is nothing to do with science. I've yet to see a systematic treatment of this issue in the literature .
You can also forget the models - models are conceptual representations of entities designed to aid in understanding. They have no predictive power whatsoever (and yet they are used by Scientists in this way). Climate models are particularly problematic, because they cannot model what Scientists do not know - and what Scientists do not know about Earth's climate is unfortunately considerable. | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 3:53:00 PM | So, when 95% of the scientists agree on something, its meaningless? Suppose that 100 people wittness a crime. 95 say ," yes, suspect X did it". True they could be wrong but any court in the land would find their combined testimony compelling. Also,comparing modern science to Galileo Galilei era science is fallacious. Science then was quite different because of the influence of the church.
OK, its possible that 95% of the world's scientists are wrong because of ignorance due to the era and level of knowledge we have at this time. However, the odds of that are VERY slim. Also, if we follow your argument we can never make any projections about anything. Well 95% of scientists say that smoking is bad for you. Well...I'll ignore them because we just dont have the present knowledge to be 100% sure they are right.
Nothing is 100% sure. Even the fact that the earth goes around the sun is only 99.999999999999999 % certain. Certainty is only for God not humans. However, to demand 100% certainty before making a decision is absurd. | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 4:17:48 PM | I have a low opinion of human nature, but even I would not say that 95% of the world's scientists falsify data in order to gain money! Sure it happens but as a % its rare.
As for my example of the 95/100 witnesses that identify the defendent. Would you say that it is legitamate for the defendent's lawyer to say, " well, they are only doing it for the publicity"I would claim that the defendent's lawyer should be required to defend such an outrageous claim. Your speculation that 95% of the world's scientists are altering data so they can benifit personaly is an equaly outrageous claim. One could even call it an extraordinary claim, in other words a claim that requires extraordinary evidence! | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 4:19:15 PM | Two points:
First, we've got new players rehashing the old debate as to the veracity of anthropogenic climate change theory. As I've mentioned many times before, until presented with a credible scientific argument that HAS SURVIVED APPLICATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD I'll continue to subscribe to the position maintained by every climate-related scientific organization and every national government on the planet - that human activities play a significant role in a warming planet.
Second, the only people I ever hear mentioning a carbon tax are those opposed to one. I know of no government anywhere proposing such a tax, no legislative body, no panel on climate change policy, etc.... If any of you are aware of ANYONE who is proposing implementation of a carbon tax, please enlighten the rest of us.
Dave | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 6:43:54 PM | | I was in BC about a year ago and a taxi driver was complaining about the carbon tax people were paying on gasoline. It was driving up his costs and he was losing money. | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 7:58:33 PM |
OK, its possible that 95% of the world's scientists are wrong because of ignorance due to the era and level of knowledge we have at this time. However, the odds of that are VERY slim. Also, if we follow your argument we can never make any projections about anything. Well 95% of scientists say that smoking is bad for you. Well...I'll ignore them because we just dont have the present knowledge to be 100% sure they are right.
Really? 95% of the world's scientists don't know a fecking thing about Climatology! The IPCC had thousands of signatories to its report. Of those, only approximately 66 were actually Climate Scientists. The rest were typists, accountants, auditors, boot polishers - anyone who even looked at the report.
There are lots of clever people out there who don't agree with the so called "consensus". What about the recent admission of NASA scientist Dr. John S. Theon that he no longer believes in CO2 based global warming (he was James Hansen's supervisor)? Are you going to ad-hominem him because he doesn't agree with you? Go for it. He "came out" as a sceptic after he retired. Can you guess why he waited until he was no longer on the pay-roll? Hmmmm. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/31/2009 4:39:29 AM | In her writing of last Sunday (the 25th), Novascotialass summed up the debate situation quite nicely:
"In my mnd, it's not a black and white situation where one side is right and the other is wrong; there a a myriad of factors contributing to our climate, some of which we understand, some that we don't."
In some of the postings written here, I've noticed that some of you have made remarks concerning the consensus of the "scientific community." This and the "significance" of the human role in climate change. Perhaps one should ask different questions, rather than assume the support of so many scientific organizations. Most, you'll see, support the position that human-produced greenhouse gasses play a "significant" role in recent climate change; which I've stated before as agreeing with my professional opinion of the topic. A better question to ask is how significant is that role? I would consider 10% causality as "significant," although the current science considers anthropogenic greenhouse gas production to play a greater role than that. From discussions with my peers, I would submit to you that there is great variety of opinion on the matter; in my own mind, it's subject to open question. Most of my peers hold that the human greenhouse gas production accounts for between 20%-85% of the climate changes of the last century.
What I propose to ask of those who agree with this position (that anthropogenic greenhouse production plays a significant role in causing current climate change) to state, generally, how much that role is. For instance, is it minor (one among many more or less equal causal factors), major (more than any other single factor), or dominant (more than all other factors combined). I, for one, would like to see the variety of opinion of the authors here on this particular question. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/31/2009 5:51:55 AM | That is an interesting way to look at the problem. I would respond that CO2 plays a major role.
I say that because our earth has been heating up since the last ice age, even before CO2 emissions were on the rise, so there is a natural driver causing the earth's warming. That rate of heating, I think, has doubled in the last century, which would indicate that some new driver has emerged that has an equal effect of all the drivers of the naturally occurring warming.
Good question; really makes you think about the situation. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/31/2009 9:27:25 AM | Well... here are a couple of interesting items... They show previous historic levels of CO2 going as high as 7000 ppm ... yep... not the 380ppm or so we have now... it's funny our planet didn't end up like venus then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
At the moment... IPCC claims that the 19th century pre-industrial CO2 levels as averaging out at about 280 ppm... However, a chart here...
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855
shows that maybe, it may not be quite all it seems at IPCC...
Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong.
They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong.
They told us, using the infamous “hockey stick” graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong.
They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong.
They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong.
They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong.
They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong it was 1934.
They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong. They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong.
This last is critical because the claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era.
In fact, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today, but how did they conclude they were lower? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/31/2009 11:35:08 AM |
That rate of heating, I think, has doubled in the last century, which would indicate that some new driver has emerged that has an equal effect of all the drivers of the naturally occurring warming.
It has? The evidence only makes it look like it has, superficially. When you consider that the 20th century was recovering from the Little Ice-Age, you would have to admit that you should be surprised if the rate of warming was NOT increasing. That is of course notwithstanding the fact that there's been no net warming for the last ten years; something that is in disagreement with IPCC (and a whole array of "expert") predictions and the hypothesis that CO2, a minor trace gas, is a primary driver in Earth's climate. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/31/2009 2:41:38 PM | ^^^^
the CO2 graph, alone, is damming evidence. Trace! are you positively barking?
The additional 7 billion tonnes per annum we leak into the atmosphere ontop of mother earths normal 300 billionish tonnes are hard facts to swallow. But i am almost certain you really mean natural climate variability and by god doth it varies; blessed be thee extended (above mean oo its outwith the mean now ooo ahhh a bit) solar minimum...along with many other variables.
I am positively certain you will find the little ice age occurred somewhere between from 12k to 17k maker upper as we go alonger..and perhaps included an extended solar minimum from observable data...
Tooters of to scowl at the albedo reducing kittys 2...they really do absorb solar radiation...and hog more than their fair share of the bed.
and as us all non god believing slipper wearing believe this is a good as place as any.....the next man made accelerated lapse out of this interglacial will most likely be due to a warming phase and and increase in precipitation (in winter), coupled with a reduced melt, in the northern hemisphere.
god bless CO2 ( and there is no way we can react in our pithy lifetime)
I have high hopes for the construction of an army of snowmen (people) for my world domination plans...which will initially involve acquiring the worlds repository of muffin stocks...and possibly coffee
woofs | |
|
| On The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/31/2009 4:20:30 PM | Thank you wvw, Donder, and nslass, for the recent upward trend in tone (1/30 4:19 :15 PM and 1/31 4:39 :29 AM)
As we well know, productive discussion of The Science of Global Warming--or any topic--requires periodic attention to the foundation of interaction: our agreed rules.
Let's all chill, demonstrably stay on-topic, and be as cool in on-line interaction as we would in person over cognac, single malt, or the reserve of your choice ; )
Replying To A Thread Subject or Post
Please ensure that all your replies are to the topic and nothing else. If your reply isn't related to the actual topic, then it's considered off topic or simply chatting, and will be removed. Replying to another post other than the original post is obviously permitted as long as what you are replying to, is also to the topic. As soon as you start replying to off topic comments, the thread is in jeopardy of being hijacked or derailed - leave off topic replies alone or the thread, if unsalvageable, will be deleted. [ http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingposts141520.aspx ]
NB: Less than a dozen moderators log in on a daily basis, and there is an average of 6,000 new posts per day[FAQ.aspx]; moderators have other things to do as well.
E) No Misquotations or Misrepresentations of other Posters. This is considered Libel.[ "General" heading in http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingposts141520.aspx ]
# Libel Post/Thread noun, (discussion board term)
1. A Post or Thread containing Mis-quotations or Mis-representations of other Posters.
2. A Thread or Message Post that contains aforethought, injurious and malicious Defamation of Character, which seeks essentially the exposure of hatred, contempt, ridicule, usually by means of spreading and/or publishing false, in[s]inuated or twisted Information about another POF Member.[ http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingposts141520.aspx#deflibel ] See also a 'net search for "netiquette" (IETF RFC 1855); Wikipedia is a good start : )
http://www.albion.com/netiquette/ is concise.
The following is useful when posting excerpts or a summary, rather than a long section verbatim:
Web[ ]link posted to Non-Commercial Info/Media, Library or News Sites are permitted, but only if relevant to the Topic under Discussion.
Non-Spam Web[ ]link to Commercial Sites which are Topic relevant but are not posted for the Purpose of Promoting/Marketing anything are permitted.[ http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts898384.aspx#898384 ]
Merci, y'all
: )
--RM
| |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/31/2009 4:33:33 PM | LBP, NSLass,
what's happening around you this winter doesn’t mean the world as a whole isn’t warming… 'cause the longer, broader data shows that it is. (Re. post by LBP, 1/27/2009 6:27 :08 PM.)
The data are not just results from models, they're real-life measurements like (for just one example) geophysical research from the Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, U.K. that tell the story. [ http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ ]
Climate Disruption, or Anthropogenic Climate Disruption (ACD), would be more accurate shorthand, since, with more energy in the atmosphere and hydrologic system, some regions become cooler, some drier, some wetter, as well as some become warmer. [Ref. link previously posted]
Climate change - the big picture
Climate change is a complex subject, with genuine areas of uncertainty and scientific controversy. There are also a number of misunderstandings which are recycled, often by non-climate scientists, and portrayed as scientific fact. As one of the world's leading centres on climate change we believe it is important to address all the issues. On this page you will find the known facts about climate change. [ http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html ]
Earth has natural warming and cooling cycles as well. This isn't one of them alone.
Note that the author Joseph D'Aleo ( LBP provided link http://www.almanac.com/timeline/coolclimate.php ) was a cofounder of The Weather Channel, and is now a commodities trader [ http://www.almanac.com/timeline/author.php ]. His http://icecap.us is funded by private investors.
ICECAP "provides access to […] scientists and journalists [who] are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather" [ http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us ]
Joseph D'Aleo has co-authored work by the Fraser Institute, a "free market"-oriented Canadian think tank. Climate change is one of the primary focuses of its environment-related research. The institute receives funding from Exxon-Mobil.
[ http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1276 (exxonsecrets.org is a Greenpeace project, documenting Exxon-Mobil's funding of climate change skeptics.)]
Dear everyone,
please remain mindful that outside of mathematics, science and the scientific method provide neither certainty nor proof. (Like climate disruption, gravitation is just a theory, too : )
--RM
| |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/31/2009 6:38:25 PM | the CO2 graph, alone, is damming evidence. Trace! are you positively barking?
I'm thinking that you're lacking in critical thinking skills. The CO2 graph from analyses such as the Vostok Cores, show us that temperature precedes CO2 rise by as much as 800 years. This is not a matter of debate. It's there in the core (conveniently ignored by the IPCC). The question you need to ask yourself is whether or not the theory that CO2 "takes over" from other factors at a certain point to become the primary driver is really a valid one. I've always doubted it and I see no reason to change my opinion.
It's also not debatable that Co2 is a trace gas. 380ppm - that's PARTS PER MILLION. It's a trace gas. It isn't a trace gas on Venus (100,000ppm). We are talking about Earth, aren't we? | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 2/2/2009 1:03:36 PM | When it comes to taxation, cabbies may not be the best authority. It’s hard to blame a tax for a net loss, when that tax wasn’t even levied yet and even at this time, is revenue neutral.
.
.
.
Some specific answers…
Msg 323…
I was in BC about a year ago and a taxi driver was complaining about the carbon tax people were paying on gasoline. It was driving up his costs and he was losing money.
Hi Nova,
That cabbie wasn’t being entirely upfront about the situation. About a year ago would be at the latest, last spring (say April or May of 2008). In British Columbia, not a single penny of carbon tax was collected until the first of July last year. How it was driving up his costs is beyond explanation unless his taxi was a stainless steel Delorean with a Flux capacitor. It sounds more like he was shilling for a bigger tip.
As far as losing money, it should be noted that in the first year of this tax there is only a 2.4 cent per litre levy applied (note that weekly, the price at the pump rises and falls 10 cents a litre on some other “cycles” in the price strategy too). This tax is also intended to be revenue-neutral, and a one percent tax cut for small business came into effect on the same day. Each taxpayer, regardless of whether they operate a motor vehicle also received a $100 cheque from the Provincial government in June. Here’s a little more clarity on the BC carbon tax:
http://www.ey.com/Global/assets.nsf/Canada/Tax_Alert_2008_No_10/$file/TaxAlert2008No10.pdf
Certainly, governments have been known to leverage “revenue-neutral” into something a little more lucrative, but that is politics, and unless even ONE of these conspiracy theorists can come up with a little evidence of collusion by climate science to deceive the public (AND that such deception is funded by “the government”), it is not even relevant.
.
.
.
When it comes to taxation, cabbies may not be the best authority. It’s hard to blame a tax for a net loss, when that tax wasn’t even levied yet and even at this time, is revenue neutral.
You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
| |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 2/2/2009 4:52:22 PM | Borg: maybe my internal clock is off, but here is an event to place my trip for you: If you live in Vancouver you might remember the blackout that occurred that shut down several downtown blocks for a couple days? I was lucky enough to be in a hotel about 3 buildings down from the underground fire responsible for the blackout. Anyway, that's when I was in BC and the cabbie made the comment to me about the carbon tax. Maybe it was in May or June 2008. I've made a few trips in the last couple years, so I might have been confused. So was the cabbie looking for a large tip? Perhaps....that certainly would not surprise me.
Anyway, a carbon tax to reduce consumption is one thing, but the real problems arise when companies who pollute buy carbon credits from countries where old-growth forest is cleared and crops are planted (you can buy credits from said countries to plant trees, but obviously removing the old growth is the bigger atrocity). I'm not sure how much that happens, but I have heard of it. | |
|
| The divergence on The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/3/2009 6:21:49 PM | Recalling
I [Peacethx] have read a few climate change debate threads lately and I think it[’]s appropriate to summarize the science behind climate change. […] CO2 is produced […] Arctic ice cap has shrunk […] 150 million acres of forests have died over the past 10 years in the US and Canada […] Climate change is believed to underlie the growing refugee problems in Darfur and other agricultu[re-]based countries. These are not predictions, they are facts on the ground. Predictions are much worse.[Msg. 1, 7/9/2008 7:18 :51 PM]
Over time with this as well as in several similar threads, how this issue is held has demonstrated a seeming dichotomy of foundational premises, though with some aspects in common.
Recurring commonalities seem to be
trust yourself. Study the science yourself. This is the [I]nternet and you can find arguments for both sides of anything.[8/31/2008 11:33 :06 AM and 8/31/2008 6:12 :27 PM, http://forums.plentyoffish.com/9117203datingPostpage12.aspx ] and
Do your own research. [A good search engine] is your friend. Study all the arguments, and [where] one rings true to you, do a bit of research on who is making the argument and read whatever counter arguments may be out there. [ibid, 8/31/2008 6:12 :27 PM]
Agreement on the need for gathering further evidence and understanding seems to be in common (at least also including most of the second group, below).
The divergence seems to be, in assessing accuracy of information and accepting trustworthiness; two conventions seem to have appeared:
(1) checking whether evidence has been through the peer-review process, and if so what those peers had to say. See if respected peers support any given stance, and whether someone pushing a perspective has a record of performing solid science.[ibid]
or
(2) that the peer-review process (or sometimes the realm of established science in practice--either or both) is so favorable to established views, that alternatives are not explored effectively.
The foundational difference seems to precede the two conventions, and the difference seems to be how the evidence is evaluated, however admissable evidence is defined and weighed, per either of the two conventions.
Now, in science (and in civil law), a preponderance of evidence is considered the deciding criterion: which conclusions have the weightier evidence. (Admissable evidence is generally defined for purposes of discussion as validly obtained {admissable is sufficiently accurate}, from credible sources {admissable is trustworthy enough}.)
Regarding "The Science of Global Warming":
The conventional science assesment seems to be that anthropenic climate disruption is contributing some significant influence to demonstrated climate change. Cause for action is sufficient, subject to assesment, and subject to refinement.
The alternative conclusion seems to be that either climate disruption does not exist (that is, virtually all evidence is normal, or is effectively unknown--i.e. insufficient), or that climate disruption is at most insignificantly anthropogenic, or is effectively unknown. Cause for action is, for now at least, insufficient. (A subset includes that action would be ineffective.)
(NB: What particular actions and how some action program might be implemented is well beyond the scope of <u>this</u> "The Science of Global Warming" forum thread question, not to mention that beyond the scope of this discussion is the numerous aspects of the social and political--beyond the scope of establishing the science per se.
____________
<u>The question</u>:
How does the alternative convention define the deciding criterion, and
how is the evidence weighted, the consequence of which is that its proposition is validated?
____________
--RM
| |
|
| The divergence on The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/3/2009 8:15:04 PM | To limit the discussion to the science, one would have to define what is true observation and analysis and what is parroting some prior work. If its preponderance of evidence based on the loudness of the chorus or the variety of ways to observe the same parameters, its a campaign and a vote, not science. That's fine for society's various decisions but it's circumstantial at best and prone to willful deception. Its obvious that "justice" can be bought or obtained simply though celebrity. Guilt becomes a jury's decision and truth takes a back seat to the presentation.
There is a great deal of money to be made from a society's choice to decide guilty when it concerns CO2. The vast majority of celebrities testify for that choice yet have appear to have very little analytical skills or technical training. The only entity painted as supporting the defense are the oil companies as if they are some evil monsters and not simply corporations of thousands of employees and investors. The "experts" in this trial are themselves invested in a guilty verdict though their income.
I have been accused of parroting the same old "debunked" arguments yet these claims have no path back to the claimed debunking. I have done my own analysis of CO2 and its IR spectrum of absorption and radiation based on my own work in this area. I have related this the radiation spectrum on our water dominated planet and the "color" temperature that can be expected from our planet. It falls short. The only counter seems to be traceable to a single computer model analysis. It reminds me of an inter-department "proof" of arguments also used in the 70's and 80's. The process was to print your analysis on green bar computer paper and management would believe anything you want because computers don't make mistakes or lie. Now we have the internet and all its preponderance of truth. (Invented by the leader of the global warming movement?)
To address Darfur mentioned earlier; I would suggest study of the climate CYCLES the Sahara has gone through. If the Sahara's rather long cycle repeats itself, the Sahara will continue expanding quite a bit larger before reversing. The ploy of linking a religious-racial-political genocide to the science of global warming is an emotional diversion, not science but not surprising considering the nature of the debate. The press, politicians, celebrities, bureaucrats, and even "scientists" have reason to promote the guilty verdict. The destruction of old growth forest, the growth of the gulf dead zone, and the shortages and cost of relief food for places like Darfur is a direct result of the global warming HYPE.
The alternative conclusion seems to be that either climate disruption does not exist.....
Actually, observations are dominated by natural cycles that are not somehow more gentle than most other natural events. Nature is more often explosive and abrupt in it changes. From the daily event of a sunrise peaking over the horizon to volcanoes earthquakes etc. Where some see acceleration in trends, I see the harmonic distortions of abrupt cycles from fundamental frequencies with periods longer than the existence of man. I see the mechanics of these cycles and see why they are both abrupt and cyclic. The only unknown is exact phase and magnitude of the cycles and all the forcing functions.
The question I would ask is: are you thinking for yourself or simply singing along because the music is so loud? | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/3/2009 8:42:41 PM | @ RenéMagritte
LBP, NSLass,
what's happening around you this winter doesn’t mean the world as a whole isn’t warming… 'cause the longer, broader data shows that it is. (Re. post by LBP, 1/27/2009 6:27 :08 PM.)
No where in my post did I indicate that what is going on to us this winter has anything to do itself with global warming or cooling. I just mentioned how I stumbled into the research and started looking at the historical winter climate data. I wasn't even looking for information on global cooling when I started to run across it.
I tried to get through your posts to see which side you are on but I'm afraid there are just too much attacking method and research as opposed to actually providing any information or opinion on the topic itself to actually get through it all. Attacking source is fine and even who provided the funds for the research, but what is actually wrong with that research would be very helpful. The same arguments for research funds going towards global warming can be said to cause biases but it's just an unfounded accusation unless you spell out what is wrong with the data.
I did view one of the links you posted in msg 295 and again in message 300.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20051009&slug=globewarm11
You quoted:
'With the unprecedented study devoted to climate change, the odds that this consensus is wrong are slim,' [science historian Spencer Weart, director of the Center for History of Physics] added.
'The fact that so many scientists think it's likely a truck is heading for us means that the last thing we want to do is close our eyes and lie down in the road.'"
From the same article also comes the quote:
"These days, Battisti ponders the Eocene, a period 35 million to 50 million years ago when alligators lived near the Arctic Circle and palm trees grew in Wyoming.
The world was hot because carbon-dioxide levels were three to five times higher than today — the result of a gradual buildup from volcanic eruptions. But global-climate computer models, which use mathematical formulas to represent complex atmospheric interactions, aren't able to reproduce that warming. When Battisti runs the models under Eocene-like conditions, they come up with much lower temperatures than actually existed — which means something was going on that scientists don't yet understand.
Models have improved greatly in the past 30 years but still can't anticipate all the ways the atmosphere will respond as greenhouse gases climb. The dozen models in use today predict average temperature increases of 3 to 11 degrees by the end of the century.
Though the numbers sound modest, it took only a 10-degree drop to encase much of North America in mile-deep glaciers during the ice age that ended about 12,000 years ago.
Skeptics point to uncertainties in the models and conclude the actual temperature changes will be lower than the predictions. Battisti points to the Eocene and warns that unknown factors could just as easily make things worse.
Could the skeptics be right, and the majority of the world's experts wrong?
The history of science shows consensus doesn't guarantee success. The collective wisdom of the early 1900s declared continental drift bunk. Some Nobel laureates attacked Einstein's theory of relativity."
My point was and has only been that I'm on the fence when it comes to causes of Global Warming still and not because I don't think humans are having an impact but because these unknowns, that we do indeed have, could leave us unprepared for something else.
So I say go forward with plans to lower CO2 levels because it certainly doesn't harm us or the environment. But the research should not stop there. We need to find out what these unknowns are because there is a possibility that global warming is going to be followed by global cooling. It is a cycle that has happened in the past. We don't know how long global warming will last or how hot it will get. We don't know what the missing part is that got the temperatures so high during the Eocene according this article.
No where in the research I saw did the scientists say:
1. Global Warming did not exist
2. Not one of them said we weren't currently going through it according to their research
3. Not one of them said that CO2 wasn't having an impact
What they are saying is that there is a chance that some of these other known and unknown factors could actually put us into a cooling phase. When the earth was warmer before, did it stay that way? No, it eventually cooled.
Even the scientists who believe that Global Warming is going to continue much longer before it declines, admit that there are there are indeed gaps in what we know. They qualify with, "can we afford to wait, until we know for sure?". I don't think we have to wait to implement their suggestions because regardless if they are wrong or right, there are other benefits to implementing these measures.
My own belief is that we are going through a natural cycle that we are impacting. If CO2 levels are indeed having the impact most scientists believe and we discover that this happened in conjunction with a natural cycle, then it was our ignoring the natural cycles of our planet and how we are connected to it that caused the problem in the first place so I think its really really important that we discover what the other contributors are here.
My point in posting an opposing opinion was just that, there are opposing opinions and from scientists so just because someone is opposing it doesn't make them some shut-in who is denial about the world. Some just want those other questions answer before jumping to judgment (not action).
| |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/3/2009 11:31:31 PM |
Skeptics point to uncertainties in the models and conclude the actual temperature changes
And also point out that these models can't accurately compute the weather from 1900 to 2000....
Not one of them said that CO2 wasn't having an impact
Emmm... Ice core samples from Antartica clearly shows CO2 levels actually follow temperature rises by about 600 to 800 years.... not preceding them... kinda ties in with the last warming cycle when Greenland was called that simply because it was green... about 700 years ago.
So I say go forward with plans to lower CO2 levels because it certainly doesn't harm us or the environment.
Who knows?... some people make the argument that we are going into a solar minimum stage where we just may need all the help keeping warmer... IF CO2 actually does help with that it may be a mistake to cut back... hehehe...
Now... how about instead we do something about the major pollution by global corporations... better use of effort and money.
Another reason why it's no longer refered to by the "consensus" as Global warming... but Global Climate Change... That way, no matter how the climate changes... they would be "right"... and still be able to make money from "carbon taxes" being bought and sold..... revenue neutral of course... 
Another factor which no one really looks at too closely is "Global Dimming"... give it a google... which just may be responsible for a bit of "global cooling"...
Some just want those other questions answer before jumping to judgment (not action).
Now... that I agree with. | |
|
| Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 6:26:31 AM |
So I say go forward with plans to lower CO2 levels because it certainly doesn't harm us or the environment.
The alcohol mandates and biofuels are a direct result of the efforts to cut CO2 from fossil fuels and they are resulting in destruction of rain forests, old growth forests, native grass lands, and a massive increase in the dead zones around river estuaries from the algae blooms from the fuel crop cycles. The competition with food crops has resulted in a lack of supply and higher cost for famin relief food. Many thousands have died as a result. Although there appears to be no investigation, much less conclusions, into the climate impact of wind turbines, my technical background tells me that not only will they have an impact, that impact will result in drought.
I guess I'm just off key when so many are singing the praises of Al Gore, the inventor of the internet. Many people seem to bow down and submit to the idea "Might as well, it can't do any harm." Sorry if I find that concept flawed. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. Please don't pave over me! I think for myself, please do the same. Parroting the opinions of others as some proof through shear volume is not thinking. | |
|
|
| Page 13 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
