Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 fit_man4U
Joined: 4/13/2005
Msg: 54
The Science of Global WarmingPage 3 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Is it not true that the head of the IPCC reluctantly admitted (i believe in January of this year) that global temperatures,on average, have not risen since 1998? Can someone confirm or elaborate on this.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 55
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:02:01 PM
The process of monoculture species has been common many times in the history of life on this scum covered ball of magma. Species that fall into this trap tend to de-evolve to some minimal level of existence incapable of surviving inevitable challenge. Human society has tried it many times as well.
Capitalism and industrialism are human society adaptations to enable innovation and collective human effort to achieve greater productivity and survive adversity and challenge. They are in effect a streamlined adaptation processes. Socialism takes away natural survival of the fittest and rewards non-productivity. Instead of the most productive becoming the decision makers through capitol generated by productivity, socialism puts the most parasitic in charge. Productive adaptations to energy supply will come from rewarded innovators, not government edict. Government will reward itself first. Suggest reading Animal Farm.
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 56
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:06:49 PM
For the time being ConsciousSoul. I will agree with you if you can answer my last question.

The earth will warm and cool even without human intervention. Where do we set the global thermostat?
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 57
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:11:19 PM
Here is another question woth answering.

What is wrong with global warming?

Every period of warming in the past has been followed by prosperity, why not this time?
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 58
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:35:32 PM
So a warming trend to an ice age is "relatively stable"?
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 59
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:43:04 PM
Let's pretend I'm stupid (not a stertch for most LOL), answer me a question.

What is the most prevalent greenhouse gas?
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 60
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:58:03 PM
good link to read

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 61
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/23/2008 10:10:51 PM

For all of the anti-global warming activists, heed these words. Is it necesarily that bad to STOP POLLUTING? Regardless of the reasons, why, we all know pollution is bad.


CO2 is not pollution. GW hysteria diverts financial and scientific resources away from pollution. GW hysteria is what lead to the ethanol scam which has contributed to the rise in price of gas and food (leading to starvation and malnutrition), and has increased pollution.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 62
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/25/2008 2:14:46 PM
CO2 is necessary for life on this planet... green plants are thriving (including crops) because of the higher levels.... thereby locking CO2 into their cells.

We are discussing Global Warming here.... not pollution... which I am sure most people here are against.


.....and Vitamin A is a beneficial vitamin for human health, but too much can be fatal. Water is essential for all life, but humans won't last long in an underwater environment.

Just because CO2 has many beneficial applications doesn't mean too much of it in the wrong place can't cause problems, which meets my definition for pollution.

Some plants, like ragweed, may indeed be thriving under the increased quantities of CO2. Many plants, however, may not. See

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021206075233.htm

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11655

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

And all that extra CO2 in our oceans is increasing seawater acidity to the point that shellfish may not be able to produce viable shells soon along with a number of other threats to healthy ocean ecosystems.

http://aprn.org/2008/07/07/ocean-turning-acidic-threatening-fisheries-possible-mass-extinction/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060220231628.htm

There are those here who don't think concentrations of atmospheric CO2 higher than ever experienced in human history are anything to worry about. The established scientific community thinks otherwise. Quibbling over whether to call it pollution or too much of a good thing doesn't change the urgency of cutting back on our production of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to minimize the damage of climate change/global warming.

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 63
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/27/2008 12:09:46 PM
Pardon me if I don't post "biblical" quotes from whatever publish or parish advocate or denialist but its not a religion for me. I want the answers for myself. The most critical issues I see are too complex for extrapolating trends. Water vapor, clouds, and ocean currents are more likely responsible for the observed changes attributed to "climate" changes. A second problem I see with CO2 being a cause is the nature of CO2 and its absorption of IR. As I see it, the entire effect of CO2 absorption of IR occurs in a few hundred feet in an atmosphere miles thick. Increasing CO2 is more like adding layers of paint to an already painted surface. I could see similar arguments in CO2 actually assisting cooling in that the CO2 could act to bypass the reflection of IR by clouds.
As for the models, they are self adjusting weather prediction models. They self adjust by feeding back their own errors over time thus making them better models for weather prediction. They are not unlike specialized data compression algorithms for sound or video. They extrapolate for missing data by modeling what has happened earlier. If they have some faulty term, say CO2 warming added, the self adjusting nature of the algorithms will compensate. Such algorithms are not appropriate for extrapolating outside their time range or outside reasonable limits and so many AGW adherents do just that. In short, the science has been been pushed aside for religious beliefs that serve special interests.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 64
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/27/2008 6:20:22 PM

Where is the warming? CO2 has increased 5% since the 1990's, what's happened to the temperature since the turn of the century?


Well, let's see. Starting in 2001, each year has been in the top ten warmest years in the last 150.

2001 (7th)
2002 (4th)
2003 (3rd)
2004 (5th)
2005 (2nd)
2006 (6th)
2007 (8th)

And in case you were wondering, 1998 was the warmest year in the last 150, so there's no question that the past ten years have been the warmest decade on record.

My source:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 66
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 8:46:50 AM
Do you really think the UN is without agendas and is the absolute pinnacle of science?

My only point about "green house gas" was concerning the bias of the label itself. Do you feel CO2 causes a green house to be warmer than ambiant? Please explain the label if not. CO2 ABSORBS very narrow bands of IR, not a wide spectrum. The glass of a green house REFLECTS IR in a wide spectrum, not absorb it, nor does the glass move, its not a gas. Any body that absorbs EM will just as readily radiate it. That is the case with CO2. In effect, the CO2 will heat from IR radiated from the surface then through convection, transport it to higher altitudes and radiate it into the cold of space. Basic physics would seem to indicate it can be a convection cooling engine. In effect, it bypasses clouds that do act like green house glass. Then again, water vapor that is a broader spectrum IR absorber than CO2 but doesn't become a reflector until precipitated into clouds. The formation of clouds is a complex function that requires particulates. Such particulates can come from earth, from cosmic dust, or from solar flares. The time of day that clouds exist determine the heating or cooling effect they may have. If during the day, they tend to reflect higher energy wavelengths of light preventing solar cooling. At night, the clouds reflect IR keeping the planet warm. So what is the mix of particulates and what is their schedule? The solar heating of the surface itself is very dependant on color. Green, from say irrigated agriculture, absorbs more heat and evaporates more water that dry grass. So should people starve? Then there is the melt of polar region ice. If one is to actually read the observations of those sounding the alarm, you will find descriptions of the surface appearing dirty from centuries of accumulated dust now concentrating on the surface making it dark. This causes an accelerating melt from solar absorption. Most of this dust is believed to come from past volcanic activity and as it accelerates melting that in turn accelerates its own concentration, that would tend to produce an asymptotic melt rate exactly like that described by AGW alarmists. Then we have ocean currents. Where they flow is determined by geography but their propulsion is driven by two major engines. One is thermal, the other the difference in water density from fresh water ingress. These engines work by depth and the spin of the earth. As the polar region ice melts, it feeds the engine transporting warm water toward the poles. The warm water then increases the melt thus increasing the melt rate under the ice. Again, such a system would be cyclic yet the melting would be asymptotic as the ice recedes. Just like the AGW alarmists claim is a result of CO2. I am open to some science but so far, I have not seen it, only alarm based on over simplified physics and a highly biased and misleading label.

I really do feel ice ages occured in the past and they were cyclic in nature. I don't feel the time domain characteristics of their fundamental and harmonic cycles are well known. I do not feel there is sufficient sample density or an adequate sampling window to extrapolate phase angles of these cycles and thus extrapolate an accurate picture of future climate from the data. The extrapolations form the AGW alarmists is relatively short term yet our data on these cycles is long term only and of uncertain accuracy. This is the science of measurement technology in which I am regarded as an expert. I currently work with the light spectrum including IR. What I see is a mob mentality based in fear, not physics.

I have not deferred to some mystical group of omnipotent bureaucrats in an organization consisting mostly of third world banana republics and dictatorships but I have applied my own analysis of observations from the very same sources the alarmists use. If you wish to argue any of these points, I would suggest you explain their analysis as you understand it instead of chanting their conclusions as if some biblical scripture. I make a living by doing what others have concluded could not be done. I am not a publish or parish academic funded out of fear and politics. I am doing my best to keep this science instead of religion. Coincidence is not proof but it often serves religion.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 67
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 9:17:11 AM

As for the temperatures, Dave, there is some problem there, too. Urbanization and land use (more than what the algorithmic filters have allowed for) cloud the issue. It seems the thermometers still have a warm bias in them for the last couple of decades (McKitrick & Micheals; Pielke et al.) of measured temperatures. The recent surface warming has been shown to be certainly exxagerated.


First off, McKitrick and Michaels didn't look at any of the years I cited.

Second, they published their paper through a periodical that has a history of shaky peer review and resignations of editors due to the failings in their peer review process.

In the four years since publication of their paper I can't find a single peer reviewed paper supporting their conclusions.

And a number of strong rebuttals to their paper showed up shortly after publication. Among other things they confused degrees and radians, a mistake on the order of the failed mars lander attempt when metric and english systems were confused. Here's one rebuttal:


8 December 2004
Are Temperature Trends affected by Economic Activity?
Filed under:

* Instrumental Record

— rasmus @ 8:14 AM

In a recent paper, McKitrick and Michaels (2004, or "MM04″) argue that non-climatic factors such as economic activity may contaminate climate station data, and thus, may render invalid any estimates of surface tem­perature trends derived from these data. They propose that surface temperature trends may be linked to various local economic factors, such as national coal consumption, income per capita, GPD growth rate, literacy rates, and whether or not temperature stations were located within the former Soviet Union. If their conclusions were correct, this would hold implications for the reliability of the modern surface temperature record, an important piece of evidence indicating 20th century surface warming. However, numerous flaws with their analysis, some of them absolutely fundamental, render their conclusions invalid.

First of all, there are a number of issues that they did not address that logically must must be addressed for their conclusions to be tenable. MM04 failed to acknowledge other independent data supporting the instrumental thermometer-based land surface temperature observations, such as satellite-derived temperature trend estimates over land areas in the Northern Hemisphere (Intergovernmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report, Chapter 2, Box 2.1, p. 106) that cannot conceivably be subject to the non-climatic sources of bias considered by them. Furthermore, they fail to reconcile their hypothesis with the established large-scale warming evident from global sea surface temperature data that, again, cannot be influenced by the local, non-climatic factors they argue contaminate evidence for surface warming. By focusing on thermometer-based land observations only, and ignoring other evidence conflicting with their hypothesis, MM04 failed to address basic flaws in their arguments.

Perhaps even more troubling, it has been noted elsewhere that MM04 confused "degrees" and "radians" in their calculations of areal weighting factors, rendering all of their calculations incorrect, and their conclusions presumably entirely invalid.

The focus of this piece, however, is on yet another fundamental problem with their analysis as identified by Benestad (2004). Benestad (2004) repeated their analysis using a different statistical model (linear and generalised multiple regression model) and the same data set. Benestad (2004) first reproduced the basic results of MM04 (i.e., established similar coefficients for the various factors used by MM04) using the full data set. This established an appropriate baseline for further tests of the robustness of their statistical model. As described below, their statistical model failed these tests, dramatically.

For one thing, the statistical significance they cited for their results was vastly overstated. One of the most basic assumptions in statistical modeling is that the data used as predictors in the model are Independent and Identically Distributed ('IID'). It is well-known, however, that temperatures from neighboring stations are not independent. Due to the large-scale structure of surface temperature variations, nearby measurements partly describe the same phenomenon. Any statistical analysis using such temperature data must account for the fact that the actual degrees of freedom in the data is far lower than the nominal number of stations (see e.g. Wilks, 1995). McKitrick and Michaels, however, failed to account for this issue in estimating the statistical significance of their results. Had they accounted for this "spatial correlation", as Benestad (2004) points out, they would have found their results to be statistically insignificant.

Benestad (2004) then tested the skill of the model through a 'validation' experiment. Such an experiment seeks to construct a statistical model using part of the dataset, and then independently test the model's validity by seeing how well it predicts the rest of the data that weren't used. Benestad (2004) thus divided the data into two independent batches. Temperature station data between 75.5S and 35.2N were used to calibrate the statistical model, while the remaining data (stations north of 35.2N representing less representing something under 25% of earth's surface) were used for validation of the model. It is clear that the model was not able to reproduce the trends in the independent data (see Figure 1). The conclusion of McKitrick and Michaels that surface temperature measurements are significantly influenced by the non-climatic factors used in their statistical model, hence appears to be false.

In their reply to Benestad(2004), McKitrick and Michaels (2004b, or "MM04b") argue that such validation experiments (i.e, splitting up the data to test the validity of statistical modelling) is not common in the refereed climatological literature. That argument is puzzling indeed, as such tests are standard in statistical modeling exercises, and have been used and documented in many peer-reviewed articles in the meteorological and climatalogical literature (see this list of publications by just one researcher alone or even the introductory textbook by Wilks, 1995).

MM04b also complain that in Benestad (2004), the statistical model was calibrated with the 'worst' data (and that 'better', data covering less than 25% of earth's surface, should have been used instead). This too is puzzling, since any hypothesised deterioration of data quality should in principle, as we understand the very premise of their hypothesis, be taken into account in the statistical model through the use of factors such as literacy or GDP.

In their reply to Benestad(2004), McKitrick and Michaels (2004b) claim that I do not dispute their approach (i.e., multivariate regression using economic variables as potential predictors of surface temperature). That claim is both peculiar, and misses the point. A method is only valid when applied correctly. As described, above, MM04 failed egregiously in this regard. The purpose of my paper was simply to demonstrate that, whether or not one accepts the merits of their approach, a correct, and more careful, repetition of their analysis alone is sufficient to falsify their results and their conclusions.

The conclusions of McKitrick and Michaels (2004) thus clearly do not stand up to independent scrutiny. This alone does not mean that their analysis was not a potentially useful contribution to the field. A critical analysis of past work by other researchers can provide independent quality control on scientific undertakings, with the caveat that the analysis is performed properly. Unfortunately, in the case of the McKitrick and Michaels (2004) analysis, this does not appear to have been the case.
 ThymeKiller
Joined: 2/1/2008
Msg: 68
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 9:52:30 AM
As I've said many times the climate models work if we have a closed loop system with positive feedback, however the science is now ready to prove the climate operates in a negative feedback cycle. With negative feedback there isn't anthropogenic global warming.

Warning this was published last week. You may not find anybody willing to claim it's fake yet.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 69
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 11:01:03 AM
Oh, you could have used my data to assert no net warming so far this century. We've pretty much just stayed consistently hot. I agree, though, that surface temps should be combined with satellite readings for the most accurate results. On the scale that we look at for global warming a brief leveling off for a few years is not statistically significant.

And your assumption that my 150 year range implied a hotter year back then was disingenious. That's just as far back as most scientists go to utilize thermometer readings for their databases. Earlier than that we have to rely on ice core and tree boring data, combined with historical accounts. If you had looked at my link and the associated graph you would have seen that we were considerably cooler 150 years ago than we are now.

I do concede, though, that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are not the ONLY human influences on climate. Land use is an important forcing factor as well, and needs to be included in climate change strategies.

Dave
 neopol
Joined: 9/26/2006
Msg: 70
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 2:44:29 PM

Then there is the melt of polar region ice. If one is to actually read the observations of those sounding the alarm, you will find descriptions of the surface appearing dirty from centuries of accumulated dust now concentrating on the surface making it dark. This causes an accelerating melt from solar absorption. Most of this dust is believed to come from past volcanic activity and as it accelerates melting that in turn accelerates its own concentration, that would tend to produce an asymptotic melt rate exactly like that described by AGW alarmists.


I prove this theory every winter on my icy, snowy driveway.

A few times every winter we get packed snow/ice that cant be shoveled. Its bonded to the concrete driveway. Very slick & icy. I dont throw salt due to the corrosive effect, I throw COLD ashes/cinders from my fireplace on it for traction only. The cinders provide traction until a warmup occurs & melts the hazard.

When the next sunny day comes, wherever I threw these ashes, the ice is melted down to the concrete...from the solar energy being absorbed by the dark particulates. The denser concentrations of ashes melt the ice faster. The areas where there were no dark ashes are untouched by by solar radiation...as if nothing changed. They remain as icy as before.

The first dissenting thought by some here would be...."perhaps there is a chemical reaction occuring....etc."

NO. It only happens during the sun of the day. Nothing happens at night, nor on an overcast day. I see this every winter. Perhaps others who dont understand the dynamics here can try it this winter on their own. Use any dark colored material...it'll work just the same.


Then we have ocean currents. Where they flow is determined by geography but their propulsion is driven by two major engines. One is thermal, the other the difference in water density from fresh water ingress. These engines work by depth and the spin of the earth. As the polar region ice melts, it feeds the engine transporting warm water toward the poles. The warm water then increases the melt thus increasing the melt rate under the ice. Again, such a system would be cyclic yet the melting would be asymptotic as the ice recedes


I think thats being understood finally. Time usually outdates most conventional theories.


Antarctic ice shelf collapse explained

Published: Feb. 7, 2008 at 12:06 PM


ABERYSTWYTH, Wales, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Welsh scientists have discovered global warming was only one of many factors leading to the 2002 collapse of a major Antarctic ice shelf.

Professor Neil Glasser of Aberystwyth University in Wales, who led the study while working as a Fulbright Scholar in the United States, said the findings refute the common belief that the collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in Antarctica was a sudden response to climate change.

"Ice shelf collapse is not as simple as we first thought," said Glasser, who explained climate is just one factor and other atmospheric, oceanic and glaciological factors are involved. He said observations by glaciologists and numerical modeling by other scientists showed the ice shelf had been in distress for decades.

The collapse of ice shelves indirectly contribute to a rise in sea level. Since ice shelves float on the ocean, they already displace the same volume of water, he said.

"But when the ice shelves collapse, the glaciers that feed them speed up and get thinner, so they supply more ice to the oceans," he said.

The study that included Ted Scambos of University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center appears in the Journal of Glaciology.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.



http://www.topix.com/tech/2008/02/antarctic-ice-shelf-collapse-explained
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 71
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/28/2008 2:56:53 PM

The collapse of ice shelves indirectly contribute to a rise in sea level. Since ice shelves float on the ocean, they already displace the same volume of water, he said.

"But when the ice shelves collapse, the glaciers that feed them speed up and get thinner, so they supply more ice to the oceans," he said.

The study that included Ted Scambos of University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center appears in the Journal of Glaciology.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.


I wonder what happens when you dump a lot of ice into water? My semi-educated guess is that the water gets colder. Colder water absorbs atmospheric CO2 better and also evaporates less. Less evaporation means less water vapor in the atmosphere. With CO2 and water vapor removed from the atmosphere the Earth cools. The colder water also contracts and the sea levels drop.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 72
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/30/2008 2:35:00 PM

I wonder what happens when you dump a lot of ice into water? My semi-educated guess is that the water gets colder.

Actually this is a bit complicated, like making ice cream by putting salt on ice. If the ice is melted by the salt, then heat is absorbed in the phase change. If the sea water is already below the freezing point of fresh water, recently melted ice in the form of water would actually raise the temperature. The ice may also "evaporate" as in sublimation.


Colder water absorbs atmospheric CO2 better and also evaporates less. Less evaporation means less water vapor in the atmosphere. With CO2 and water vapor removed from the atmosphere the Earth cools.

That assumes the "green house" effect but again, the physics are problematic for a number of subtle reasons. IR is broad spectrum while the absorption is in narrow bands. IR outside of the bands is not absorbed. At what distance of atmosphere is all the IR in the specific absorption bands saturated? For the CO2 bands, its a few hundred feet. Outside of those bands, the CO2 is transparent and the IR radiates right on through. The real "green house" effect comes from the glass, not the gas. Green house glass reflects IR in a broad spectrum as do clouds. The only real "green house" effect on earth's atmosphere is from clouds. The formation of clouds is also not a simple function as much water vapor in the upper atmosphere is already below the temperature it need to condense into clouds. It needs particulates to begin to condense into droplets and/or ice crystals. This can come from surface dust, volcanic activity, or cosmic dust from space or solar emission such as flares. The clouds can also cool depending on their daily cycle.


The colder water also contracts and the sea levels drop.
Water is an interesting substance. Just before freezing, it expands during ice crystallization. That is why pipes are damaged by freezing.


I don't understand the imperative for a "climate change strategy".

When people cease to think and instead rely on "experts", there is a kind of religion displacing science. Note the vast number of "biblical" verses quoted in the debate no matter what forum. It is somewhat excusable or understandable when the ill-informed are lead around by politicians or celebrities with blatant yet denied agenda's but when otherwise intelligent people resort to quoting "scripture" for science, it really does put a black eye on science. The political action resulting from this religion can be disastrous. Note the ethanol mandates with questionable benefit and major environmental damage. If these people cannot get the science right, what makes anyone think they will reasonably predict the impact of their far reaching, often repressive, political actions?

Man is a member of life on this planet. We evolved far higher levels of rationalization than any other species. The question becomes, is this a destructive mutation or some improvement in the uncertain destiny of life itself. I like to think the latter but when I see such closed minds, its easy to have doubts.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 73
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/30/2008 4:07:21 PM
Now, things like land use changes (deforestation), over-fishing and pollution (Co2 is not a pollutant) are things one can have a reasonably intelligent debate about.


Interesting. You agree that human activities can have negative impacts on the land and the oceans, but not the climate? How did you decide to draw that line? And you've deemed CO2 not a pollutant, even though the vast majority of climate scientists and even the Supreme Court think otherwise.

How would you define pollution? Does it have to be something that is universally noxious? If so, you would have to take issue with the EPA regulating ozone at ground level, since it's a benefit farther up in the atmosphere.

There are a number of definitions of pollution to be found out there, but most are some variation of "a substance that in sufficient quantities negatively impacts humans, ecosystems, and/or property". Scientists and policy makers believe CO2 meets that definition. You don't.

You assert that the concept of carbon sequestration is ridiculous, yet vegetation has been doing exactly that since long before humans walked the planet. If you're referring to geologic carbon sequestration, ie pumping CO2 deep underground, that's entirely feasible, from a technological standpoint. It remains to be seen if it's a practical strategic choice.

But you reject any strategies related to climate other than adaptation, because, if I'm understanding you correctly, you can't fathom how humans could have any impact whatsoever on climate. We can move mountains and rivers, destroy fisheries, strip 95 percent of the topsoil from the entire US, drive entire species extinct, but nothing we'd ever do could have any impact on the climate. Please correct me if I'm not capturing your perspective accurately.

Since you do appear to be sensitive to overfishing, how about if we consider the impacts of CO2 from another perspective? There is a large body of scientific evidence demonstrating that the oceans are becoming more acidic due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. This poses a major threat to sea life in general, shellfish in particular. Is that sufficient justification to develop a strategy to limit CO2 production?

Just wondering....

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 74
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/30/2008 4:34:46 PM

When people cease to think and instead rely on "experts", there is a kind of religion displacing science. Note the vast number of "biblical" verses quoted in the debate no matter what forum. It is somewhat excusable or understandable when the ill-informed are lead around by politicians or celebrities with blatant yet denied agenda's but when otherwise intelligent people resort to quoting "scripture" for science, it really does put a black eye on science. The political action resulting from this religion can be disastrous. Note the ethanol mandates with questionable benefit and major environmental damage. If these people cannot get the science right, what makes anyone think they will reasonably predict the impact of their far reaching, often repressive, political actions?


You've repeated this theme a number of times in posts on this topic, and each time I ask myself why you equate believing experts with ceasing to think. When you plan a driving route, don't you trust the experts who designed the roads and bridges you'll be traveling on and the vehicle you'll be driving? You trust the experts who developed computers and the internet enough to participate in this forum. Do you stop thinking the moment you turn on your computer?

You've also used the religion analogy more than once, equating citations of peer-reviewed scientific papers with quoting scripture. Again, I don't see the parallel. Most religious texts, whether Bible, Koran, etc... are essentially static. They don't evolve much over time, but serve as a ready reference for practitioners of that particular faith.

Peer-reviewed science, on the other hand, is constantly evolving. Merely publishing a peer-reviewed paper is only one step in the scientific method that brought us those bridges and computers and internet, not to mention a plethora of other technological advances. Once a paper is published others go over it with a fine toothed comb, checking the math, the data collection, the interpretation of data, and every other aspect of it by among other things attempting to duplicate the results shared in the paper, often publishing their own papers to affirm, revise, or reject the original.

That's how science progresses. That's how climate science has arrived at the current conclusion that human activities impact the climate. It didn't happen all at once. They don't just keep citing the same old original papers. New studies, new papers, new observations continue to support the concept of anthropogenic climate change.

I find it interesting that you opened your post with an excellent dissertation on the mechanisms of sea water interacting with ice - all information that was discovered through the same scientific method you reject as mere 'religion'.

Finally, you closed with this:


Man is a member of life on this planet. We evolved far higher levels of rationalization than any other species. The question becomes, is this a destructive mutation or some improvement in the uncertain destiny of life itself. I like to think the latter but when I see such closed minds, its easy to have doubts.


And the question begs to be asked - are the closed minds those that reject the scientific method or those who believe the results of that method are worth incorporating into our strategies?

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 75
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/1/2008 9:56:05 AM

You've repeated this theme a number of times in posts on this topic, and each time I ask myself why you equate believing experts with ceasing to think.

What makes a person "expert"? Is it some form of popular vote? Is it institutional employment? Is it political power? The reality is that it is all these and they have little to do with real science. Real science questions everything, religion does not as its about faith.


When you plan a driving route, don't you trust the experts who designed the roads and bridges you'll be traveling on and the vehicle you'll be driving?

They defined them. In many cases, they are full of innovations that previous "experts" deemed were impossible.


You trust the experts who developed computers and the internet enough to participate in this forum.

The opportunities for humor are boundless.


Do you stop thinking the moment you turn on your computer?

Is that your argument? I might at times agree.


I find it interesting that you opened your post with an excellent dissertation on the mechanisms of sea water interacting with ice - all information that was discovered through the same scientific method you reject as mere 'religion'.

Nope. Papers published and taken as fact had nothing to do with the analysis of data. I have not read the papers or studied the data. My analysis was probably more in line with the reasoning behind the effort to make the study. My discussion of the mechanism is based entirely on my understanding of physics. Unlike anyone I have ever met, I could have done the same by the age of 9, about the same time I won a contest for a state wide anti-pollution campaign. By the age of 11, I had a concept involving a faster way to implement binary multiplication by dividing number registers in segments and computing in phases to overcome the logical progression of the carry bit. Now this is common place in high end processors over 40 years later. I was not to build my first actual computer until much later in 1976 although it was rumored I had done it in 1973. I was an engineer with IBM at age 18 in 1973 with no college. I quit to get a degree. I found college to be quite repressive of free thought. Every project or assignment asked for creative thinking but I almost always found the limits of their "box". Many times, I went outside their "box" and had to prove the point repeatedly. True innovation is a punishable offense in institutional environments where a great many of these papers come from. It is no surprize that AGW papers continue to flow from and within the confines of the same "box". In the "evil" corporate world, innovation wins in the market and gives value to the company. It is quite different from "getting published" and tenur.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 76
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/1/2008 1:47:09 PM
Ya Know, ahoytheredave, I think we agree more than disagree on what constitutes good science. Where we differ is on whether mainstream climate science has undergone sufficient scrutiny to pass muster.

I think you know, but merely publishing a paper is only one step in the process. The paper does have to survive the peer review process, but that doesn't mean its conclusions are simply accepted on face value. Far from it. The next step is for other scientists to go over it with a fine toothed comb, checking everything from the math to the data collection process, to the premises the conclusions were based on. Often they will try to duplicate any experiments or data collection to see if they get the same results. They then uphold, adjust, or reject the original hypothesis.

Every aspect of climate science has been through many repetitions of this process, and that's still going on. It's far from over. But over and over and over again the evidence supporting the premise that humans play a significant role in a warming planet is upheld.

nicebluiz weighs in periodically with citations he feels supports the skeptic stance. Whenever I've investigated his sources I've found that either they don't say what he says they say, or that even though they may support his position and may have passed initial peer review they did not stand up to subsequent review by other scientists. I haven't looked at every one of his citations, so it's quite possible that he's found an exception or two to my assertions, but the fact remains that the overwhelming weight of repeated scientific scrutiny of this issue from every imaginable angle continues to support AGW.

You clearly have far more scientific expertise than I do. From what you share you've accomplished much with your talents. I understand your frustration with 'the system', but do wish you were able to participate in it to the extent that you could present your hypothesis for analysis by other scientists. That would settle this discussion far better than you and I will be able to do.

Meanwhile, let's agree that good science requires careful scrutiny and repeated validation. Let's agree to disagree whether AGW has survived that test.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 77
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/1/2008 6:35:08 PM
Let's start with the supreme court.


In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars.

The case Massachusetts v. EPA was brought by a group of 12 states (CA, CT, IL, ME, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA) and a number of local governments and environmental organizations. The court had been asked whether CO2 was a pollutant, and if the EPA had the right to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new cars. The EPA—supported by 10 states (AL, ID, KS, MI, NE, ND, OH, SD, TX, UT), four motor industry trade associations and two coalitions of utility companies—argued that under the Clean Air Act (CAA) it did not have the power to regulate CO2 emissions because carbon dioxide was not deemed to be a pollutant. Furthermore, a causal link between GHGs and climate warming was not unequivocally established, according to the EPA’s position.

But the Court decided that greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA capacious definition of “air pollutant”, and the EPA has statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. It was a split ruling, with five judges voting in favor and four dissenting.

http://www.dieselnet.com/news/2007/04epa.php


Now I'm not by any means saying the Supreme Court is infallible. And this was a split decision. I only mention it as an example of a group not known for environmental progressiveness agreeing that CO2 is a pollutant.

The Wegman report was not peer reviewed and has spawned a number of rebuttals. It essentially challenged the accuracy of Mann's 'hockey stick' graph of rising temperatures. That graph has been tweaked a couple of times since it came out in '98 and may well be tweaked further. That's how science works.

By 'majority of scientists', I mean the vast majority of scientists who do engage in the scientific method, subjecting their work to peer review and publishing it in recognized scientific journals. I don't think you understand the scientific method as it's been applied for the past century.

Here's an analogy. I could claim that my buddies timed me in a 100 meter dash in my backyard in world record time and it wouldn't mean much. To have my record accepted I would need to set my time on a regulation track under conditions acceptable to world track authorities.

By the same token anyone with a science degree can go to congress or the press and claim whatever hypothesis they choose to, but for it to be accepted by the mainstream science community it needs to go through the peer review process, which not only includes getting published, but then being subjected to intense scrutiny and multiple attempts to duplicate and verify the results. The vast majority of climate scientists who have participated in such a process support the concept of anthropogenic climate change. Wegman and a handful of others have not, but never the less loudly proclaim that they still know better than anyone else.

I'm glad you appreciate the value of biodiversity and healthy fisheries. I'm sorry you don't see the threat rapid climate change poses to both. I notice you didn't respond to my question about CO2 making our oceans more acidic.

I don't know what a perfect global temperature is. My common sense tells me that changing it rapidly is not a good thing. And there is no record, going back over 600,000 years, of CO2 concentrations ever changing as rapidly as they have this past century. My common sense tells me that's worth worrying about, and a whole lot of science backs me up.

Honestly, I don't need to present anything to prove that. A whole lot of scientists a lot smarter than me already have. If you want to prove otherwise, get your hypothesis published in a recognized journal and let's see how it holds up.

I'm sorry you feel legitimate results of the time proven scientific method are ridiculous. Thankfully, policy makers and judges do not.

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 78
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/1/2008 11:08:28 PM
So the same court accused of putting Dubya in office are now science experts? I am really not surprised government bureaucrats want more authority. Its what they do.


By 'majority of scientists', I mean the vast majority of scientists who do engage in the scientific method, subjecting their work to peer review and publishing it in recognized scientific journals. I don't think you understand the scientific method as it's been applied for the past century.


You might revisit what scientific method means. Where is the control and what specific variables being tested and in what way? Are all other variables controlled? Nope. The whole AGW theory is based purely on observations and coincidence, not experiment, not scientific method. Acceptance is within the framework of a wide variety of agenda's. Those who get funded and disagree have their funding sources berated and their credibility imperiled. Those that chant in chorus will be labeled as credible scientists. In such a climate, the conclusions are predetermined. Its more like a religion than science. Much like a TV evangelist, the minister of the "church" flies around in a private jet making a fortune doing his ministerial work to his flock of believers.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 79
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/2/2008 7:24:08 PM

If you do a little research, you'll see that from actual experiments (Herfort et al., Idso et al., etc.), "hermatypic corals incubated in the light achieve high rates of calcification by the synergistic action of photosynthesis [our italics]," which, as they have shown, is enhanced by elevated concentrations of HCO3- ions that come courtesy of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content". In other words, sea life quite likes HCO3, incredible though it may sound to your Warmist brain.


Research indeed. Yours appears to come directly from Idso's website, a well know skeptic source. Here's one of many responses:


In a recent article in the website CO2 Science, Idso et al. (2008) used the results of a controlled bicarbonate-enrichment experiment to argue that ocean acidification is not a problem for corals reefs. Interestingly, the experiment by Herfort et al. (2008) was not an ocean-acidification experiment. Ooops. So, from any scientific or even logical standpoint, Idso et al. (2008) have no argument whatsoever.

Herfort’s experiment focused on the effects of increasing bicarbonate concentrations on rates of photosynthesis and calcification of coral reef organisms. I hear some of you ask: “But, is that not the same as ocean acidification?” Well, in a nutshell - no. Ocean acidification is the result of declining pH caused by the uptake of atmospheric CO2. Herfort et al. kept their pH (the parameter that determines acidity) constant at 8.2 across all treatments. This also means that Herfort’s results are totally irrelevant to the major problems of ocean acidification – (1) carbonate saturation state and (2) acidosis of cellular mechanisms such as photosynthesis.

The lowered pH from ocean acidification leads to low concentrations of carbonate ions, the building blocks of all marine calcifying organisms, which can lead to critically low rates of calcification and even shift to net rates of calcium carbonate dissolution. Also, the proper functioning of cellular mechanisms such as photosynthesis are sensitive to pH change, so keeping pH constant would not capture those stresses.

Bottom line, Herforts’ experiment did the opposite of any realistic future scenario: by keeping pH constant while increasing bicarbonate (HCO3-) concentrations they boosted carbonate ion (CO3=) concentrations and thereby rates of calcification, and ignored any effects of acidosis. Idso et al (2008) is another sad example of uninformed propaganda, running with one of two sentences from a study they do not comprehend – and then leaping to their own naive conclusion that the overwhelming amount of good science predicting negative effects of ocean acidification, is simply alarmist.

In the interest of science, I’d like to openly invite Craig, Sherwood or Keith Idso to defend their critique in light of this, and would be very interested to hear the perspective of Lydie Herfort and authors as to the rather open interpretation of their paper by others.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071017102133.htm


As to rapid increases in temperature, we haven't seen that yet. I'm not basing my concerns on already observed temperature shifts, although they are certainly important, but rather on the far greater increases the mainstream climate science community predicts for the decades to come.

We seem to need to agree to disagree on whose science to believe.


As I said, they are paid to support the paradigm. What a shock it is when they return research that confirms and enhances the paradigm! More money to their elbows I say. The scientific Journals peddling this rubbish don't uphold their own policies on things like data archiving and the publication of review commentary, so I'm not sure why you hold the process of peer review for Climate Science in such high regard.


Just about everyone is paid by someone. Your sources are paid by Exxon and other fossil fuel industries. Government may be far from perfect, but I'd sooner trust government-funded science than that funded by those with a strictly profit-motivated agenda.

I often hear accusations that government scientist funding is dependent upon supporting AGW, but have seen little evidence of that. Indeed there are ample reports of the Bush administration aggressively censoring government reports to make climate change seem less dire than the science suggests.

Exxon, on the other hand, offered $10,000 apiece for any paper from any scientist challenging the IPCC report. That's far more direct evidence of science bias for pay than anything I've seen to support government science bias accusations.

You don't believe in the scientific method. I do. That pretty much sums up our differences. I remain grateful that you are concerned about deforestation and over fishing, in spite of the fact that the scientific method has provided much justification for those concerns.

Dave
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming