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
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 101
The Science of Global WarmingPage 5 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

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: 102
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: 103
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: 104
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: 105
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: 106
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: 107
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: 108
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: 109
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
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 110
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/2/2008 10:22:44 PM
The scientific method is NOT a voting process. It is a process involving experimentation with controlled variables. It is certainly not observations of coincidences in nature with no control of variables.

As for an open public prize for a challenge to the IPCC report, what is biased or unfair about that? If the very same challenge come from Al Gore, would it be so ridiculed? The ridicule itself shows an emotional bias that has no place in science. There are all kinds of science prizes.
 Trulio
Joined: 12/26/2005
Msg: 111
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/2/2008 11:15:35 PM
Science may also be "descriptive" ....Climate change science is part descriptive...
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 112
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 12:10:46 AM

As for an open public prize for a challenge to the IPCC report, what is biased or unfair about that? If the very same challenge come from Al Gore, would it be so ridiculed?


Yes it would, and so it should be. It's one thing to offer a prize for the best new electric car battery or the first privately funded spaceship. It's quite another to offer payment for a particular interpretation and then cite the result as unbiased science.

As for what the scientific method is and isn't, wikipedia offers an excellent overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Peer_review_evaluation

It's too long of a read to post here, but in all fairness offers support for both your assertions and mine. The advantages and pitfalls of peer review are covered. And it's far easier to control all variables in a lab than it is when your 'lab' is the entire planet, but the basic principles still apply.

Where you and I differ is whether the hypotheses represented by mainstream climate science have adequately applied the scientific method. From my perspective it seems as though you think someone proposed that human activity impacts the climate and everyone else has just nodded their heads in approval since, converting to the new-found 'religion' without applying the scientific method to test that hypothesis every possible way. If I'm not capturing your thoughts correctly please correct me.

I've witnessed a steady revision of climate science that continues to this day, with ample scrutiny and replication of results. Satellite data discrepancies, accounting for missing CO2, and historical and modern temperature records have been examined and re-examined, data revised and conclusions adjusted accordingly. Sunspots, water vapor, volcanos, the urban heat island effect, natural cycles, the medieval warm period, the Holocene Climatic Optimum, other planets, historic lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature, and Mann's hockey stick have been the subject of intense study, debate, experiments, re-calculations and where appropriate, revision.

You don't think enough science has been done to justify taking action to minimize negative human impacts on the environment. I do. We both agree, I'm sure, that much more science remains to be done. The question is when we decide there is sufficient scientific justification to change our practices. It doesn't appear that we'll agree on that answer.

Dave
 gottalight
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 113
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 12:18:25 AM

Current global CO2 value is 385 ppm. GIven current emission trends, we will reach 550 ppm over the next 5 years, which is twice pre industrial levels.


Has anybody run these numbers through their brain? Something ain't right here. Pre-Industrial is about the time of the invention of the steam engine, early 1800's, close to the turn of the century.

You are saying that it rose 110 ppm in 200 years, and it will rise 165 ppm in the next 5 years. I hope Al Gore didn't hang his hat on those numbers, or that projection.
 ThymeKiller
Joined: 2/1/2008
Msg: 114
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 6:31:22 AM
Yes I've thought about the CO2 numbers and they seem to match what would be the norm after a mini-ice age event.

I've seen defense of the "Hockey Stick" over and over and it's refutation was the reason I started doubting the whole climate change paradigm. When My college professor taught me about the imbalance of carbon I wondered why clouds weren't taken into consideration as a negative feedback. But now I realize the science isn't mature enough to even consider the whole system.

I have yet to see a credible defense of the "Hockey Stick". I have yet to see an unbiased "peer review". What I have seen is vociferous denunciations of any evidence refuting Anthropogenic global warming.

What I'm more inclined to believe is the environmentalist have come up with a way to stifle capitalism with fearmongering. Why else would the communists commit to the reduction of carbon energy in the west and not in their own countries?
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 115
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 11:32:27 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/unreport-2007.html

A good primer.

Thyme..you havent researched enough. You dont have the background to critically analyse your thoughts or your professors thoughts. Please, read some more before you introduce your pointless doubting Thomas arguments. But then your comments are based on some conspiratorial theory about why communists want us to have climate change regulation. This shows you the kind of opinions that are out there on the side of climate change debunking.

Climate change debunkers are being championed by the Oil lobby, the same PR teams who advised us that tobacco does not cause cancer have been retained by Bush and now Steven Harper, to protect our precious manufacturing sector. Climate change debunkers share bed space with people who believe that communists are taking over the world by having us regulate emissions. Climate change debunkers share bed space with the Fraser Institute and other "think tanks" who are funded by big petrol.

If you are a climate change denier, you have strange bedfellows.
 ThymeKiller
Joined: 2/1/2008
Msg: 116
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 12:39:55 PM
Peace you haven't a clue about my background or credentials and thankyou very much you can shove your opinions up your @ss. Our precious manufacturing sector keeps you employed to spread your specious lies.

If you had a clue you'd do more research about your posting than what you've already shown. I've posted the MIT refutation of the Hockey Stick and I've studied the raw data on CO2 interaction with atmospheric temperatures. Have you?

I've had peer reviewed studies and I know how science politics works. Do you?

I've also seen how academics who live in ivory towers oppose oil drilling for any reason what-so-ever and support the reduction of the human race for the good of the planet.

What I haven't seen is credible support for the hockey stick. The so called proof that the world is warming at the greatest rate in history. Any proof Peace? I didn't think so. You're hot air.lol
 gottalight
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 117
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 3:56:48 PM
Hockey Stick! Love it. Not anywhere near an accelerating parabola. It's a funny thing about mathematics: It is way more accurate than any "observation" qualities of science. If the observations supported a parabola, I would be more intrested in Global Warming, but I am much more concerned regarding starvation and malnutrition and overpopulation as effects without causes entering the mix.

Main cause of starvation is guess what?

No food.
 ZeroSpazz
Joined: 1/31/2008
Msg: 118
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 6:02:52 PM

Main cause of starvation is guess what?

No food.


Great quote Gottalight, made me spit out my beer.

Have to say I am not that into the concept but I will have to go along with Ahoytheredave as being the one that reflects my thoughts best. Seems to me however that for the last few months I have been hearing more and more about Solar variations and cycles and how that effects the climate. I did read that most of the current climate models that indicate climate change are based on observations of a fixed solar input rather than a variance of any sort. New data, which really isn't all that new but more accepted, seems to be showing rather large cycles in solar activity. Its almost as if the scientific commuity is doing one of these, "Whoops, we forgot to adjust for some variables and we need new data on climate change."
Kind of glad too, because it is an election year and this has taken a back seat to most issues. Recent polls suggest that most people really aren't buying it either. Now if they want to use it as a kick in the pants to help us get the ball rolling on alternative fuels thats fine. But I'm not going to help go around and stick cork's up cows behinds because cow farts are destroying the ozone.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 119
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 8:26:05 PM

Climate change debunkers are being championed by the Oil lobby.....

As I said, the AGW religion resorts to attacking the funding of anyone who questions their dogma. No oil lobby has ever funded me. I pay high prices for gas in my economy car just like Al Gore pays for luxury jet, only he is more able to afford it. He has a cult following. In other threads, I have pointed out how AGW driven political activism has led to such actions as ethanol mandates that have resulting in expanded crop cycles killing huge areas of sea life with the resulting algae blooms. The killing is a result of the algae dying and decaying depleting oxygen in the water in a process that produces CO2 and CH4. Now we have the same people talking about how man made CO2 in the oceans is killing the coral. Good job boys. The farming expansion is accelerating the cutting of rain forests and the competition with food crops has reduced available food stocks to alleviate famine. Sorry if I'm not impressed by this type of environmentalism.

I have presented analysis of the CO2 in the atmosphere demonstrating how the basis of the AGW theory is itself flawed. I have presented analysis of polar region ocean currents and how those would have characteristics of ice melt exactly like that observed. I have presented analysis of glacial melt rates explaining why the melt behaves as observed. Not one of these has been refuted. I am anxious to have this scientific discussion but so far, the AGW believers seem mute.

In the history of life on this scum covered ball of magma, a side effect of this life has been a gradual reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. In the past, with an atmosphere rich in CO2, the planet was teaming with life. It is for that reason we have fossil fuels. Life is harder now that plants are more stressed to make the sugars they and we need to survive. What does this imply? Is there no critical thinking? Maybe the OP really wasn't asking for a science discussion.
 NewWayHome
Joined: 9/20/2006
Msg: 120
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/3/2008 8:32:12 PM
A forty-five foot rise in sea level gives me ocean front property. Go for it!
 2wheel
Joined: 2/19/2007
Msg: 121
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/4/2008 12:03:04 AM
^^^^^^^^^

Wel I wouldn't hold your breathl... you may have one heck of a LONG wait.

The IPCC themselves with their "computer modeling" predict at the very most a 14" rise in ocean levels by 2090.... and probably only 7"... and even that is subject to review when more data comes in.

Sea levels have been going up all along by about 4" per century anyways...

The MSM feeding frenzy wants everyone to think... OMG it's gonna rise by 20 feet real soooooooooon.....
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 122
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/4/2008 7:00:31 AM
Look for a movie from the Hollywood crowd featuring a world covered with water and evil tobacco and oil abusers.........oh wait, we already had one. Its easy to confuse its "science" with that of Gore's movie. The above earlier post clearly shows the public confusion.
 ThymeKiller
Joined: 2/1/2008
Msg: 123
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/4/2008 9:51:19 AM

Look for a movie from the Hollywood crowd featuring a world covered with water and evil tobacco and oil abusers


WaterWorld?
 Last not Least
Joined: 10/27/2007
Msg: 124
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/4/2008 9:59:17 AM
Why is it that anyone expressing a contrary opinion is automatically a shill of the evil corporate elite?
The same people demonizing big oil in this particular instance probably haven't given up their SUVs. This is good example of a thing that we call hypocrisy. A lifetime of participating in overconsumption and then they are instantly wiped clean of sin by embracing yet another wad of junk science.
 relaxing in the sun
Joined: 5/25/2007
Msg: 125
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/4/2008 6:10:22 PM
The supreme court says....... God help us all we know the supreme court has made so many good decisions before. I was also unaware that you had to be a scientist to be a member of the supreme court( I thought you had to be a Lawyer. I would also like to point out that in the midst of global warming that will destroy us in no time we are enjoying a very cool summer here on the east coast. Oh and where are all the hurricanes? After Katrina every meteorologist in the country claimed 06 would give us devastation like we've never seen.What happened? I agree that we should take every step to lower emissions or better yet find another source of energy. But how is it that all of these politicians that say Americans are wast full and need to learn to conserve now say we need to raise the gas tax because Americans are using less?? And how in Shakespeare's time English wine was the best know to Europe? They can't even grow grapes in England today. Why? Because their climate is not warm enough. Look let's all work together to fix the things we can, and if you really believe that global warming is a threat then you need to write a letter to good ol Al Gore and tell him that taking private jets all over the place and letting his limos Idle with the air blasting for hours at a time while he tells us all that we need to change and conserve really hurts your case. The reality is that Americans are starting to conserve. Do you know what happens in Maryland when people conserve enough electricity that it is noticeable? Your Democratic Governor lets you utility double your rate so that it's profits are not hurt!!!! So if co2 is a pollutant then we should all commit suicide because well....we all expel it from our body's! But before we go we should kill every breathing thing on earth to ensure it's future. lets not forget to plug up all the volcanos to. Oh and may I mention that our governments way of dealing with these pollutants is to charge for carbon credits and ruin up the price of gas so that working class family's have to decide between paying the power bill or getting to work. Lets get real the only reason that our government has decided to back this is because they figured out how to make a killing at it. If they cared about the environment my democratic state would make their state run sewage plants stop dumping raw poo into the Chesapeake bay!!! Well enough for now to anybody who took the time to read this unfocused rant thanks and feel free to take it to me point for point at ou812deidu2001@yahoo.com.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming