Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 393 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#16431 - 08/16/06 06:31 AM trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
it appears that the predictions of many on how bad things are going to get have a problem in the models

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/contrary.asp

it appears that the atmosphere is warming less than the earth, which is reverse for what it should be if polution is the primary cause of global warming. since these are people who are trying to claim that, i dont see any of them checking out how much more accurate their model would be if they included the suns effect on the tempature. after all, the sun warms the earth, which warms the air. Hmmm, that sound formilar. perhaps a reading of this link will show you where from.

heres another site that an give you a clue as to why the models are not as accurate as they should be.

http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/tar-2000.htm
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
.
#16432 - 08/16/06 08:15 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Wolfman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Pago Pago, American Samoa
...the insinuation being that the Global Warming School of Thought is nothing more than a bunch of Chicken Littles?

Call me naive, but when it comes to trying to strike a balance with Nature I think we should err on the side of caution.

Top
#16433 - 08/16/06 08:29 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
doesn't that sound a little bit arrogant. thinking that we as a species, are big enough to strike a balance with nature. the scaremongers claim that we are going to double the greenhouse effect with all the co2 we are pumping into the atmosphere. how is that possible when the co2 only contributes 2.5 percent of the greenhouse effect. water vapor contribute 88 percent. even if we double the co2 in the air, we would not be able to do 5 percent of the greenhouse effect. in mans entire existence we have not even increased the co2 by 10 percent. we are doing more damage to the temperature controls with asphalt and concrete than we are with the co2. weve done even more by the destruction of forest that the asphalt. yet do the scaremongers tell us to get rid of concrete and asphalt? Do they tell us to plant more trees. no, they say we have to get rid of factories and cars. You want to do your part in stiking a ballance with nature, plant trees. look for ways to cool the earth around your home. that will reduce the 'asphalt effect'.

id be a lot easier at worrying about the damage polution was doing if it was not so obvious that its more political in nature than reality.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16434 - 08/16/06 08:35 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Wolfman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Pago Pago, American Samoa
Arrogant, I don't think so. Asking too much, probably. But if Termites can live in harmony with Nature why can't we? We can't because we don't even try. As long as we are "guided" by the Military-Industrial Complex, we never will either.

Top
#16435 - 08/16/06 11:25 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
sure. lets go back to the caves. anything else requires industries. do you want to do without heat in the winter. how about air conditioning in the summer. how about safe food. how about medicines. all of these require industries.

OK, so if you don't want to give up industries, how about letting the communists take control over them, like they did in Russia or North Korea. did you know that North Korea is one of the shining stars of communism and its got the worse poverty level of any semi industrial country in the world. the only reason were not hailing the communist regime is that we in America have the strongest military in the world. its not the biggest, its not the fastest, its the strongest. If your an American, its the reason that no one comes here and dictates to you what food you will eat, what shoes you will wear, and what grade school you will stop at. very few would be allowed the time to graduate from high school as it would not be necessary. few other countries would boast better. why do we not. because we have a military-industrial complex that keeps us from having to allow someone that has no idea what our country is like telling us what to raise and where to go.

people complain about how the population will soon reach 9 billion. without that military-industrial complex the world population would have peaked at about 3 billion with half of them starving and only about 1 million having anything worth having because they were the ones in control over the industries. without any industries at all, the world population would be limited to less than one billion and most of them would have a life span of about 40 years or less. much of that would be spent suffering from one form of disease or another. please pray tell, how would we be better off.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16436 - 08/16/06 10:32 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
So that's it for you dehammer. Life is a simple Boolean choice between black and white, good and bad, left or right.

We can't have efficient industries ... we either have what we have now or move to the caves.

We either have what we have now or we all submit to Communist or Fascist dictatorship and presumably giving our daughters to Kim Il Sung.

Good thing you weren't offering up opinions during the dark ages or born in Cambodia.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16437 - 08/17/06 07:40 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
show me an alternative way of creating the things we want without industrial complex and ill follow it if its half as good.

show me a way of not having to Sieg Heil hitler without military (hint, America tried that before pearl harbor as did England before the invasion of France) and ill accept that we don't need military.

efficent industrial complex is still a industrial complex. a small efficent military is still part of the military complex. improvements can be made to them but that does not mean that they are not still there.
ive yet to see a way for our world to exist without either. they maybe an evil, but it appears that they are a necissary evil. show me a realistic alternative and you just might find yourself at the head of a new religion. perhaps the invisible purple rhinocerios can lead the way.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16438 - 08/17/06 01:05 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Sorry Dehammer, but I must come to DA Morgan's defense. The problem is that the Wolfman was ambiguous in his post:

Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfman:
Arrogant, I don't think so. Asking too much, probably. But if Termites can live in harmony with Nature why can't we? We can't because we don't even try. As long as we are "guided" by the Military-Industrial Complex, we never will either.
Why is guided in quotes? What is he trying to say without actually writing out the words? Is he insinuating that we are lead instead of guided by the Military-Industrial Complex? Does he assume that termites, as well as other creatures of this planet, do not fight amongst themselves?

He did not come right out and say that we must get rid of the Military-Industrial Complex, but that we must stop being "guided" by it. If that is what he meant, then I like your post, but we would need clarification of Wolfman's sparse post. Perhaps he could at least provide a link to an article or site that discusses how were are "guided" by the Military-Industrial Complex. Until then, there is not much use in discussing his post. Too many assumptions are needed.

Top
#16439 - 08/17/06 02:10 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
considering that the discussion was about how the scaremongers are trying to claim that the pollution from industrial complex are causing global warming when the evidence does not support that, that there is even evidence that global warming may not in fact exist AND considering that the next post is the one that he is insinuating that the military-industrial complex is leading the way to disaster, i would have to surmise that he is in fact coming in on the side that the m-i-c is and evil force destroying the world and must be removed. how else can we "live in harmony with nature". how can we live in harmony with nature with coal plants poring tons of co2 into the air or nuclear power plants producing radioactive waste or cars putting tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. the answer is obvious. we cant. so either we get rid of all the unnatural things like cars and houses made of anything but wood and dirt, and get rid of ac and things like that, or we keep those things and do our best to learn to live closer to nature. We do things like find a way to use bio fuels and wind power and things like that. we do things like use the least amount of electricity as we can, like finding the most fuel efficient cars, and work towards making non fossil fueled cars. those things require that we have a m-i-c, at least part of which is currently working towards these goals. trying to claim that they are leading us is misleading as they IS us (phrasing used for emphasis).

im not saying we need to do these things because of global warming (mainly because im not longer sure it even exist). im saying do them because its better for the inhabatants of this world.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16440 - 08/17/06 04:53 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer asks:
"show me an alternative way of creating the things we want without industrial complex and ill follow it if its half as good."

Visit Norway, or Sweden, or quite a few other first-world countries. One of the problems some of us in this country have with the Texas mentality is the "Not invented here" syndrome. This may come as a shock to you but the US is not number one, numero uno, in many many areas of endeavour. We are not the healthiest people on the planet. Nor the happiest. This list of disciplines where our ego is not matched by reality is rather long.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16441 - 08/17/06 06:44 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Wolfman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Pago Pago, American Samoa
DA, add Canada and Australia to that list, they're doing alright.
Dehammer closes by suggesting that we develop Industries for the betterment of the inhabitants of this world. If they could talk, I'm sure that Orangutans, for example, would beg to differ. Oh, were you referring exclusively to the Human inhabitants? Oh, short term, pumping poison into the atmosphere and the oceans and the soil will surely not kill us. Long term is another story. Call me a wack-o (or a Scaremonger) but I think of the Earth as a closed system. Compare it to an aquarium. You can strike a balance or you can pollute it to a point where evrything but insignificant life forms can live.

Top
#16442 - 08/17/06 08:40 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
And New Zealand and Denmark and a lot of other places I could name.

What amazes me about dehammer's answers is that the truth is current industries ONLY benefit officers and stockholders. That is what the law requires. The law requires that "shareholder value" is maximized.

Society MAY benefit with the increase in stockholder value but the two are mutually exclusive. It also may not benefit. And right now our laws and business ethics are all based on short-term benefits.

One one at Exxon is thinking 300 years into the future. From what I understand not more than 30 years. I would like to think that the children in K-12 schools will grow up in a world in which their governments did not stick them with the tab and pollution from past short-sighted policies. Nor is a policy based on ... well we can do it but we'd better bomb other countries back into the stone age if they do it too ... a winning strategy. What happens when there are as many cars in China, per capita, as there are in the US? I think the answer is remarkably simple to ferret out.

The Texas mentality is *** think personally act personally *** and it won't work long term. There is not enough room in the solar system for a boatload of cowboys.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16443 - 08/18/06 04:07 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
This may come as a shock to you but the US is not number one, numero uno, in many many areas of endeavour. We are not the healthiest people on the planet. Nor the happiest. This list of disciplines where our ego is not matched by reality is rather long.
show me where i said everything was made in the usa or had been invented here.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16444 - 08/18/06 04:18 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfman:
DA, add Canada and Australia to that list, they're doing alright.
Dehammer closes by suggesting that we develop Industries for the betterment of the inhabitants of this world. If they could talk, I'm sure that Orangutans, for example, would beg to differ. Oh, were you referring exclusively to the Human inhabitants? Oh, short term, pumping poison into the atmosphere and the oceans and the soil will surely not kill us. Long term is another story. Call me a wack-o (or a Scaremonger) but I think of the Earth as a closed system. Compare it to an aquarium. You can strike a balance or you can pollute it to a point where evrything but insignificant life forms can live.
please pray tell, what kind of polution does wind mills produce. what kind of hydorcarbons does electric cars produce, esp if they are being powered by solar energy. how would using these harm Orangutans. ballance does not demand getting rid of the m-i-c. it demands finding better ways of doing things we do now.

sorry but your idea of the earth being a closed system is way off. we get a lot of energy from the sun which is not in our earth. we also lose a lot of that energy to space. finding ways of using that energy would make thing better for humans, Orangutans, fish, birds and more. focusing on man only created global warming when it does not exist and things like that take away from the things that are really important. things like finding better ways to get around that dont hurt fish and birds. things like finding ways of making things work better, or to get rid of real problems like the o2 depleated areas of the gulf of mexico caused by fertilizers. instead of punishing industries for causing global warming when they are doing no such thing, we should be giving them incentives to find better ways to do those things that are harmful.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16445 - 08/18/06 04:38 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
What amazes me about dehammer's answers is that the truth is current industries ONLY benefit officers and stockholders. That is what the law requires. The law requires that "shareholder value" is maximized.
actually I'm aware of this stupidity.

Quote:
Society MAY benefit with the increase in stockholder value but the two are mutually exclusive. It also may not benefit. And right now our laws and business ethics are all based on short-term benefits.
actually they are not mutually exclusive. there are many companies that have found ways of making the compatible. an example is an electric company that gets a lot of its energy from windmills. this is not the best things for stockholders outright. but thanks to some lobbying from several of the companies, laws were made which allows the extra cost of those wind mills to be tax deductible, this means that those companies can make more money from the windmills than they can from coal. this is better for their stock holders. this means its both in compliance with the laws telling them to do things maximize the stockholders incomes, and the environments needs. they are the part of the group that lobbied for this change in the tax laws. why cant other companies do this. the answer is simple. its the people that are involved that are the problems, not the mic. the problem is individuals.

Quote:
One one at Exxon is thinking 300 years into the future. From what I understand not more than 30 years. I would like to think that the children in K-12 schools will grow up in a world in which their governments did not stick them with the tab and pollution from past short-sighted policies. Nor is a policy based on ... well we can do it but we'd better bomb other countries back into the stone age if they do it too ... a winning strategy. What happens when there are as many cars in China, per capita, as there are in the US? I think the answer is remarkably simple to ferret out.
actually that depends on what kind of cars they are. if they are the type we have now, it could be trouble, but then again, we'd run our of gas a lot faster, and would be forced to change sooner.

on the other hand if they are electric cars and there is enough green energy to run them, then it will not be near the problem you insinuate it is.

if you don't want the grandchildren to have to pay the bills for this, why not get off your duff and do something about it. there are tons of groups working on getting the laws changed, join them. otherwise your just part of the problem.

Quote:
The Texas mentality is *** think personally act personally *** and it won't work long term. There is not enough room in the solar system for a boatload of cowboys.
once more your lack of understanding of reality is extremely showing. there are more people with that attitude in the northwest than there are in Texas. there are places in Texas that have already begun working on using hogs manure (we have a lot of hog farms in some parts of the country) to produce gas to produce electricity. since the gas is being produce by natural processes that start with co2 in the air, and end with co2 in the air, there is no additional pollutions created. why do they do this? simple, the owners of the hog farmers spotted a possibly new source of revenue. between tax breaks and things like that, this is very good for the stock holders. if you want to change industry to a more green one, this is a good way to do it. btb one of the reasons they did this is a little known law in texas that gives industries breaks for doing thing like this. does the state of washington have such laws?
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16446 - 08/18/06 01:16 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
What is needed is a grass roots effort. Change peoples' minds toward going green and the govenrmnet policies will follow. With more people buying green, less non-green products will be made as demand decreases. The key is to change people's minds and make them aware of what companies contribute to pollution.

And who are the stock holders? At least in Canada, much of our retirement plans (rrsp's) are all based on mutual funds. I don't know how much of the population has pension plans or rrsp's or resp's (education), but most people I know do. When corporations do well, that bodes well for our future and for seniors on a fixed income.

The policies are needed for government controlled industries. In Canada, that would include Hydro. At a minimum, it would be nice to have my Ontario Government upgrade the coal fired plants to high efficiency ones as they ramp up the creation of more green energy like windmills. Actually, it is the USA that is much further ahead as compared to Canada when it comes to upgrading infrastructure for the betterment of nature.

John M Reynolds

Top
#16447 - 08/18/06 09:01 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
actually there is a grass roots effort, but it needs more support. there is also some govermental groups that are doing the same (at least here in the us).
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16448 - 08/18/06 09:17 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Wolfman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Pago Pago, American Samoa
Too little, too late, guys. As bizzarre as it sounds, what the Environment really needs is a few more Ted Kaczynski's. A lot more.

Top
#16449 - 08/18/06 09:33 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
how is it too late? because the al gore said it was almost too late? because the scaremongers claim that its too late? If you dig into their evidence, there is too many questions that they are not willing to answer. I personally have begun to doubt if there ever was a global warming at all, let alone one of mans makings. it (to me atleast) appears that all the hoopla is about cycles that are on the upside at this point, rather than an acutally increase in tempature globally.

the reason i believe we should go green, is that the polution is harming the inhabatants of this planet. everything from making children sick to cutting short a some older folks life, to killing off some species of animals. its never to late to reduce the damage we are doing to the inhabitants of this world.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16450 - 08/18/06 09:40 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Wolfman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Pago Pago, American Samoa
Der Hammer -
Too late in the sense that Humanity is too set in its ways to make wholesale changes for the sake of the Environment.
When I was a kid a recall watching a documentary from China showing how they had plans to "filter" emmissions through water. The resulting sludge was to be used in the Construction Industry as fill material. It appears that they have abandoned that philosophy, and are just pumping the smoke into the Atmosphere.
Pollution is a cumulative thing - oh, here we go again...

Top
#16451 - 08/18/06 11:24 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
china is about the same point in the evolution of the understanding of their part of polution as we, the us, were in the 1960's or about. with luck, by seeing what is happening with america, they will not take 30 to 35 years or so to reach were we are now. If the us can find a better way (finacially) to do things more green, then they will copy it.

acutally polution has a half life, different types have different lengths. some forms of polution disappear in about 5 years, while nuclear polution can last thousands. so no its really not cumlative. It will build to a certain point, then the older stuff of that type will disappear. unfortuantely, some of it will take many decades to reach that level. IF in the meantime, a better way of doing things is found then the level will stop growing until that half life is reached. We can hope that that time will come soon, or we can do what we can to hasten it, and we can do our part to lower the amount of polution that is created. unless you live in china, i dont think there is much you can do about them.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16452 - 08/19/06 09:10 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"If the us can find a better way (finacially) to do things more green, then they will copy it."

The US is a decade or more behind Europe. Methinks the Chinese would do the planet a favour if they ignored the U.S. and its self-centered backward ways and studied Western Europe.

It isn't always about America and Americans.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16453 - 08/20/06 11:36 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
probably true about them been better off following the european model. personally i dont know much about it. I always wanted to go to europe, but instead went to the orient when i was in the military.

thing is how does that have to do with the fact that there is really a whole lot of evidence piling up that says the global warming alarmist are barking up the wrong tree.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16454 - 08/20/06 08:30 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"thing is how does that have to do with the fact that there is really a whole lot of evidence piling up that says the global warming alarmist are barking up the wrong tree."

You want to know why I think your posts are not simplistic but lazy the above is a classic example.

If evidence is piling up, which it is not, then where is the result of your google search that supports the statement?

As you are making a claim with respect to reputable science how about using a search engine to find reputable science articles written by reputable scientists that support your statement?

What you posted is personal opinion. And the intimation that it is supported by serious science preposterous on its face and in my opinion demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity.

Source: www.google.com
Search: "Climate Predictions" and "global warming"
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16455 - 08/20/06 09:19 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
why should i Google it when the evidence has been posted here and in other threads on this site. all of which you ignored claiming that the either the company that owned the site was financed by the oil company (not always) or of the wrong political party (obviously from your post on that, if they had political leanings different than you they were wrong about everything) or something along these line, rather than discussing the subject of the articles themselves.

its not from laziness, because if i were lazy, id simply follow the pack and claim the earth is doomed. no, the fact that i found evidence is evidence of the fact that i have already done the search. why not get off you lazy duff and read some of the things other people post, rather than simply discard them, or discuss the finding rather than ignore it because you don't like the owners of the site.

it does not take much work to simply say "I'm not discussing this because the site owners are ....". show a little initiative and find something wrong with the evidence we show you. If you cant, don't try the arrogant "I'm so great i don't need to explain, your to lazy (or childish, ignorant, or just plain was taught by the wrong school as you used to say) to understand it" routine.

let me list some of the evidence that has recently been put out on this forum.

1) the IPCC has recently changed their act to put all (including natural) warming under the category of man made and only let people know in very fine print hidden away on the back page.

2) the year that AL Gore used as the book mark for the evidence that the great melt off, was the year that Mount Pinatubo erupted, dropping temperature world wide by .9 degrees. temperature in Greenland was 4 degrees colder than normal that year. of course there was less melt off that year than normal, but this is the book mark that Al Little, i mean Gore wants to use proof of global warming.

3) IPCC did not use the summaries that the scientist gave them, and none of the scientist that was consulted about it agree with the political motivated summery that IPCC came up with.

4) IPCC use the tree rings from northwest us to prove that there was global warming, instead of all the other evidence. tree rings do not show temperatures let alone what was going on in the rest of the world. other evidence shows that area had a different growing patterns than other areas of the world, but IPCC went only with these to show that the world was warmer during the little ice age and cooler during the global warming of the middle ages.

5) they have had to constantly juggle the readings to reconcile them with the models to prove that the global warming is still happening.

6) they recently discovered that the snow fall pattern of the last century was not as stable as the people that made the global warming scare claimed it to be. it varies way to much for them to say that there has been much if any change in the last few years.

7) I posted a link to a site that had a graph that showed that while the global temperature has gone up in the last century, it has also fallen, and there were more than one period of time during the last century that the temperature world wide was higher than it is now. It also showed that the temperature has fallen in the last 5 years.

I'm sure there was more, but these are part of what was there. Yet you still claim there is no evidence of rigging of the temperature for political power. what would it take for you to acknowledge that there is evidence of political motive for the global warming scare rather than actual evidence of it.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16456 - 08/20/06 10:45 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer asks:
"why should i Google it when the evidence has been posted here and in other threads on this site"

1) Because you don't want everyone else to think, as I do, that you are lazy.

2) Becaues you don't want everyone else to conclude, as I have, that you mask personal opinions in statements designed to make them seem to be something other than just your uninformed opinion.

3) Because you are incorrect. No one has ever posted links supporting your contention (you might note that one link to one scientist at one college is not a preponderence of the evidence).

4) Because by not doing so you undercut any credibility your statement might have had.

Need more? I've got a boat-load for you. ;-)
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16457 - 08/21/06 11:09 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
1) Because you don't want everyone else to think, as I do, that you are lazy.
you mean to lazy to post the links that i posted on the very first post? you mean as lazy as someone who does not even bother to read their own links?

Quote:
2) Because you don't want everyone else to conclude, as I have, that you mask personal opinions in statements designed to make them seem to be something other than just your uninformed opinion.
If you would bother to read any of the links that i provided in this and other threads, you would see that i have done some searching and have found evidence. Its easy to claim there is no evidence if you keep your eyes closed.

Quote:
3) Because you are incorrect. No one has ever posted links supporting your contention (you might note that one link to one scientist at one college is not a preponderence of the evidence).
how quickly you forget. how about RicS. remember him. you argue for him for weeks after i got here. don't know when he first started arguing with you, but i do remember him giving you several links that refuted your arguments. (note to any one that was not here but is interested: do a little research in this forum. set the filter to last year and search for threads da started about global warming. You ll find many that da started but found other people disagreeing with him. there are lots of links to sites refuting everything that da said.)

Quote:
4) Because by not doing so you undercut any credibility your statement might have had.

Need more? I've got a boat-load for you. ;-)
yes how about a real reason, one that does not have anything to do with your not reading links and you being too lazy to follow. do you really believe that anyone reads only this thread. the only way anyone would believe that diatribe is if they did not see any of the other threads with links in them. I'm not going to waste space duplicating all the other threads and links that have already been posted, some multiple times.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16458 - 08/21/06 04:11 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
If some part of my communication, above, was unclear then there is nothing more to add: So I won't. Conversation over!
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16459 - 08/21/06 05:33 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
of course. since you cant win, why bother trying to learn. there are many links posted on many threads. the evidence is there. unlike you i dont make threads to duplicate other threads.

so sure. if you have nothing to prove that they evidence is wrong, then this part of this thread is over.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16460 - 08/21/06 06:05 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"since you cant win"

Is that how they practice science in Texas? As a team sport with a goalpost?

When's half-time.

It amazes me that you can be entirely rational when discussing non-science and as soon as it involves science you posture, pontificate, and refuse to support your statements. Why?

Purely rhetorical question. I have no intention of responding further in this thread so here's your chance to get in the last word as always.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16461 - 08/21/06 08:02 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
what amazes me that you act like you know everything, when at the same time, you cant even figure out what your own links say. Ive supported all of my arguments, and your reply are basically "i don't agree with that so its wrong". in case you don't realise it yet, i don't accept that kind of argument. i demand you back your arguments up or stop posting and I've noticed that you have stopped several times when I've done that. every time you have you make it look like you are the offended one. Is that how they cover their routs in Washington, by calling them a victory?
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16462 - 08/22/06 03:37 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Quote:
Originally posted by dehammer:
What would it take for you to acknowledge that there is evidence of political motive for the global warming scare...
What would it take? Probably some evidence to acknowledge.

Can you explain the political motive for the Global Warming 'Scare'?

Evidence against:

1. Scientists have been warning about Global Warming for decades and governments are still either slow to catch on and way behind the science or still in denial. If there was something for political powers to gain from Global Warming then they would have seized upon it much sooner.

2. Generally, at the centre of the political process lies a desire to increase people's dependence upon the state. The Global Warming 'Scare' has the exact opposite effect. It drives people to become self dependent for energy by finding alternative renewable energy sources that are less likely to be monopolized by government and Big Business - and also less likely to generate massive tax revenues.

3. A response at governmental levels requires a significant expenditure and funding for green energy projects. Most governments try to avoid situations where they have to throw away money - and if Global warming was a politically motivated scare, then that is exactly what they would be doing.

There are many reasons why Global Warming is unlikely to be a politically motivated scare. Maybe you meant something else by your statement.

If not, what is your evidence? Convince me that you are not to be lumped in with the mindless conspiracy theorists who don't believe we put a man on the moon.

Blacknad.

Top
#16463 - 08/22/06 03:52 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Here's a lovely little quote from the UK Guardian paper:

"The old right has been on an arduous journey, with most finally converted to the truth universally acknowledged, except by flat-earthers: the world is warming at life-on-earth threatening speed. When the climate-deniers' case collapsed, they retreated to an ideological redoubt claiming global warming was a natural phenomenon, not amenable to man-made remedy. But that fortress crumbled too, and even George Bush, last of the deniers, conceded."

Apparently Bush wasn't the last.

Blacknad.

Top
#16464 - 08/22/06 05:24 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Wolfman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Pago Pago, American Samoa
For this argument to end (finally) it will take a Landmark Event. Melting glaciers aren't dramatic enough to convince those who've bought into the "Natural Course of Events" school of thought. For years I've said it would be the sight of thousands of dead penguins. Picture that. Thousands of penguin carcasses on the 6:00 News. Water temp rises, Krill dies off. Fish die off. Penguins starve, face extinction. Massive Human effort to round up the remaining few to preserve in captivity. "Hey, maybe those Scaremongers were onto something".

Top
#16465 - 08/22/06 05:37 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
The problem, once again, is that politics has put itself squarely into a discussion where it is wholly inappropriate.

Whether global warming exists is apolitical

Whether humans are causing some or all of the affect is apolitical.

What we should do about it if it exists and if it is a problem ... that is political.

When Karl Rove and the rest of his anti-science crowd step out of the way we will make some progress.

There are a lot of reasons why political expediency is trying to maintain the status quo. What incentive does Saudi Arabia have to see a decrease in petroleum usage? How about Iran? Norway? Venezuela? Mexico? Kuwait? the UAE? Russia? etc. How about Exxon? BP? PetroMex?

Now against the power and influence of those governments and multi-billion dollar corporations are arrayed GreenPeace and a handful of other non-profits supporting themselves on donations.

That someone like dehammer can claim some sort of equality between these two groups is laughable. I think, in everyone's heart, they know we are heading for a brick wall at 75mph. They just don't want to acknowledge it just as they don't want to acknowledge the simple fact that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny won't save their moral souls.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16466 - 08/22/06 06:30 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Wolfman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 264
Loc: Pago Pago, American Samoa
I agree, the multi-nationals will have their way: Might Makes Right. Our only chance for long-term survival will be a total revision of thinking. It sure doesn't make matters any better when you have citizens who take satisfaction from trying to discredit those of us who ARE concerned.

Top
#16467 - 08/22/06 07:51 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
And I am continually amazed at the people, like dehammer, that buy the party line without ever considering the vested interests of those involved.

Corporate and government interests have billions on the line. The rest of us ... just our personal happiness.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16468 - 08/22/06 09:52 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
The problem, once again, is that politics has put itself squarely into a discussion where it is wholly inappropriate.

Whether global warming exists is apolitical

Whether humans are causing some or all of the affect is apolitical.

What we should do about it if it exists and if it is a problem ... that is political.

When Karl Rove and the rest of his anti-science crowd step out of the way we will make some progress.

There are a lot of reasons why political expediency is trying to maintain the status quo. What incentive does Saudi Arabia have to see a decrease in petroleum usage? How about Iran? Norway? Venezuela? Mexico? Kuwait? the UAE? Russia? etc. How about Exxon? BP? PetroMex?

Now against the power and influence of those governments and multi-billion dollar corporations are arrayed GreenPeace and a handful of other non-profits supporting themselves on donations.

That someone like dehammer can claim some sort of equality between these two groups is laughable. I think, in everyone's heart, they know we are heading for a brick wall at 75mph. They just don't want to acknowledge it just as they don't want to acknowledge the simple fact that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny won't save their moral souls.
get real. politics is about power. who has it and how does not. the global warming politicians like gore and IPCC have the power, and they want more. they want to control things like corporations and things which are not in their realm. how can they do this? simple by passing laws that force companies and such to give more power to the goverments. this give goverments more control over everything. how can you not see this? how can you not see whats wrong with this? the people who are behind the global warming scare are the same ones that were behind the global freeze scare and the ozone hole scare and things like that. the chemicals that they claimed cause the ozone hole have dropped considerable, but the ozone hole has not changed. it shrinks and grows, grows and shrinks. the amount of various chemicals in the hole change drastically, but it does not change the size of the hole.

the same was done with global warming /freezing. the tempature changes several degrees yet it does not really change anything. what does change, what did change with the ozone hole, is who has the power. it went from people to the goverment. that is the way it always does with these scares. are they people who do these studies doing the same as the ones that are paid by the oil companies, you bet your bippy. they are being paid by money raised by political hacks wanting more power. they cherry pick the data they use to make their side look like it has more info. by changing a few words in their report, the IPCC lumped solar caused global warming in with polution caused global warming and claimed it was all caused by man. they have basically rewritten history to make it look like there was no global warming before the industrial revolution. that means that the entire global warming from the entire history of earth is due to polution. that is completely wrong.

you bet your backside that its all politics as usual. you cant discuss global warming without it.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16469 - 08/22/06 09:58 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
And I am continually amazed at the people, like dehammer, that buy the party line without ever considering the vested interests of those involved.

Corporate and government interests have billions on the line. The rest of us ... just our personal happiness.
party line???????????????? what party claims that the goverment is responsible for the global warming scare. the oil companies claim there is none what so ever. either you have not even read a single thing i have every written or you are just being a yoyo. I have stated repeatedly that you cant go by either alone.

oil companies spend billions claiming there is no such animal as global warming. i say they are wrong.

goverment spends millions proven that global warming will destroy us all unless we give them total power. i say they are wrong.

show me the party line that agrees with that. I have stated time and time again that global warming is a factor of several cycles, largely of the sun, but also of the earth. Show me the party line that goes along that line.

you claim its the people that will benifit from the goverment taking all their control and choises, well open your eyes. YOU are the one that is blindly following the political party line.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16470 - 08/22/06 10:04 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Eduardo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 106
Loc: Guildford, UK
Quote:
the global warming politicians like gore and IPCC have the power, and they want more.
Newsflash: Bush is in power not Gore.

By your logic Bush must be the biggest global warming advocate on earth, I think we can all agree he is not.
_________________________
Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Top
#16471 - 08/22/06 10:19 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacknad:
Quote:
Originally posted by dehammer:
What would it take for you to acknowledge that there is evidence of political motive for the global warming scare...
What would it take? Probably some evidence to acknowledge.

Can you explain the political motive for the Global Warming 'Scare'?
did you every see what happen when the same politicians began ragging about the ozone hole. companies that had made freon went out of business and the political party hacks that came up with the newer stuff got rich. is that something you want to see done with the new age ones.

how about all the politicians that have been elected claiming they were going to help clean up the co2 and pollutants that were going to destroy the earth. Id say that was pretty good motive for jumping on the band wagon.

Quote:
[QUOTE]Evidence against:

1. Scientists have been warning about Global Warming for decades and governments are still either slow to catch on and way behind the science or still in denial. If there was something for political powers to gain from Global Warming then they would have seized upon it much sooner.
are you talking about IPCC? that is a major political party. In case you have not notice, they did not use one scientist's summery in their summery. the one they created was strictly created by politicians. are you talking about the scientist that claimed in the 1970's that we were headed for a global ice age?

Quote:
2. Generally, at the centre of the political process lies a desire to increase people's dependence upon the state. The Global Warming 'Scare' has the exact opposite effect. It drives people to become self dependent for energy by finding alternative renewable energy sources that are less likely to be monopolized by government and Big Business - and also less likely to generate massive tax revenues.
name one that has really become viable that did not require huge amount of licensing fees. so far the only thing that is close is wind mills and those are not really working that well. do you have any idea how much the licensing fees cost in most places. let me give you a hint. all of the big wind farms are owned by the same big business that you say the work takes power from.


Quote:
3. A response at governmental levels requires a significant expenditure and funding for green energy projects. Most governments try to avoid situations where they have to throw away money - and if Global warming was a politically motivated scare, then that is exactly what they would be doing.
then please explain why they are trying to raise taxes to cover "green cost". going green means more tax dollars to cover the expenses (some of which are covered by other taxes as well)

Quote:
There are many reasons why Global Warming is unlikely to be a politically motivated scare. Maybe you meant something else by your statement.

If not, what is your evidence? Convince me that you are not to be lumped in with the mindless conspiracy theorists who don't believe we put a man on the moon.

Blacknad.
how about the fact that when politicians quote the IPCC report they don't included the statement that the term "climate changes" includes solar and other causes of global warming, but instead the politicians use the quote to prove that man has done a major increase in the temperature.

or how about the government agency that published the temperatures of the last century, but did so quietly because it showed the temperature has fallen in the last 5 years. when the politicians use the chart it does not include the last 5 years.

or how about the fact that AL (chicken little) Gore used Greenland coldest year of the last few decades as his bench mark to prove that the melt off has increased.

or how about how all of the politicians that use the snow fall reports from Greenland fail to mention that the year to year variation of the snowfall there and in arctic are so much that they any claim that there is less snow fall in recent years is just so much hot air.

if you think these are just me blowing hot air, try googling them for yourself. or at least read some of the links i and others have provided in other threads.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16472 - 08/22/06 10:22 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Newsflash: Bush is in power not Gore.

By your logic Bush must be the biggest global warming advocate on earth, I think we can all agree he is not.
newsflash, Bush's cant get elected again. Gore is still trying. when Bush got elected global warming was not the biggest item he dealt with.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16473 - 08/22/06 10:57 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Eduardo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 106
Loc: Guildford, UK
Your spelling is abysmal, your grammar is a joke.
You barely, if ever, capitalise when necessary. (I assume your Shift & Caps Lock keys do work). You begin sentences with 'or'.

You are clearly educationally subnormal.

Why on earth would I take anything you have to say seriously?

Quote:
when Bush got elected global warming was not the biggest item he dealt with
No sh1t Sherlock!!!

Sorry 'bout that folks but I really do not have time for these purveyors of corporate double think.
_________________________
Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Top
#16474 - 08/22/06 11:58 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
TwoSheds Offline
Member

Registered: 08/17/06
Posts: 52
Loc: MA
Come now, a grammar critque? Isn't that hitting below the belt?

Top
#16475 - 08/22/06 11:59 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer's Texas literacy level sometimes leads me to remark that perhaps it is the Big W himself. But then I remember that I, all too often, don't proof read this stuff as well as I should so I've been hesitant to criticize him.

But truly dehammer. Everything you do here reeks of a lack of actual education.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16476 - 08/23/06 12:40 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
TwoSheds Offline
Member

Registered: 08/17/06
Posts: 52
Loc: MA
"Everything you do here reeks of a lack of actual education."

I've seen a lot of things that reek and don't reek of education on this site. I've certainly seen you make some very thoughtful and interesting arguments, but I was taught in school that an ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy. So it should not be used in debate.

Top
#16477 - 08/23/06 01:09 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
You are correct. And I really do try to note label the mentally challenged as morons. But to lift the kimono a bit the truth is that sometimes it is my opinion that those posting are being willfully, wantonly, and maliciously obtuse or are intentionally trying to hijaack the site.

And given my impression of the moderators, until recently, I saw little reason not to just call 'em as I say 'em.

You'll note that now that the moderators have finally taken their job seriously I am parsing my language more carefully. Well with the exception of the occassional quote from the bard.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16478 - 08/23/06 12:21 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Eduardo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 106
Loc: Guildford, UK
Quote:
Originally posted by TwoSheds:
Come now, a grammar critque? Isn't that hitting below the belt?
Maybe.

I can accept illiteracy and ignorance.

However, when the ignorance is wilful and coupled with an arrogant, reactionary attitude, then I am afraid a few shots may stray below the belt as there is little, if anything, going on above the neck.
_________________________
Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Top
#16479 - 08/23/06 02:04 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
So your argument is that if I'm not using perfect grammar, i cant have a lot to say that is relevant. Every heard of narcolepsy. Its a conditions where you are half asleep most of the time, or on the verge of falling asleep. That does not mean i don't have a brain or know how to use it. It just means that i have to concentrate on things more, and somethings such as capitalizing is not that important. I try to use a spell checker, but when I'm angry at people (for example) for choosing to blindly ignore evidence and claiming it does not exist, then i get in a hurry. The links that you people have denied exist have been posted in several threads, yet since they aren't posted on the "proper" or "politically correct" sites, they cant be real. So you don't have to even notice what they say. That is not very scientific. THAT is very arrogant.

So what is your excuse for not reading the links?

Da, i find it extremely amusing that you claim others are hijacking the sites when you have a tendency to push any thread away from things you cant disprove by arguing that the poster is not smart enough to actually post it.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16480 - 08/23/06 05:36 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"So your argument is that if I'm not using perfect grammar, i cant have a lot to say that is relevant."

No that is not what he said. Try reading again only this time for comprehension. Here it is:
"I can accept illiteracy and ignorance. However, when the ignorance is wilful and coupled with an arrogant, reactionary attitude,...."

He specifically states that he can accept you being illiterate and ignorant.

What causes the problem is, as he says, "coupled with an arrogant, reactionary attitude" such as someone who would write: "So your argument is that if I'm not using perfect grammar" which is totally contrary to what he wrote.

Walk into a room with a large mirror and look into it. Do you see yourself? Good. We don't see you. We've never met you. The only impression we have of you is the one you have made. It isn't one you should be proud to take out in public.

In the future try labelling personal opinion as personal opinion. In the future provide research results (google) to support statements that you believe to be true fact based. And in the future read more than just the words, also the intent, before posting irrelevancies.

If you do no one will care about the fact that your grammar would earn you a W in school.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16481 - 08/23/06 08:22 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Actually that post was based on the one he made on the previous page, not the one directly above it. I should have quoted him. I will lable mine as personal opinion when you do, which will be 90 percent of what you write. I would advise you the same, but you cant seem to find ones that are in agreement with you half the time. Perhaps a better advise is to read the links.

Now here is the primary question. WHAT does this have to do with the links i provided at the begining about there being evidence against global warming? 4 pages of post and da has yet to comment on the links nor has any save the first one. Wolfman and I are the only ones to have any comment about the subject of this thread. John M Reynolds came close. Everyone else is more interested in how bad I am with grammer, spelling and puntuation than in the fact that the people doing the global warming modeling have to adjust the temperature readings on a regular basis to keep them in line with the model.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16482 - 08/23/06 11:25 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Eduardo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 106
Loc: Guildford, UK
Quote:
Everyone else is more interested in how bad I am with grammer[sic]
Actually I believe it is just me, your paranoia not withstanding.

Quote:
but when I'm angry at people ... then i get in a hurry
Precisely, you spin out a line of pre-programmed garbage rather than actually think.

Quote:
Every heard of narcolepsy
Oh! There it is. The special pleading card.

Did you realise that I am just a brain in a jar, and the jar is in the dark, and some people put cigarette butts in the jar? This is sarcasm by the way.

Anyhoo! Onwards!

Let's look at your links shall we, mmm! Not exactly shining pillars of the scientific establishment are they?

From one of your links...
Quote:
However, it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future.
Ouch!!!

And from their front page
Quote:
Global warming is a reality, and some folk are taking the opportunity to study the effects firsthand.
As for John Daly, isn't he a big, fat golf pro?

Come on, surely you can do better than this?
_________________________
Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Top
#16483 - 08/24/06 01:45 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Okay, to bring this back on topic, could you answer a few questions for me?

Why is it now called climate change instead of global warming?

Why have satellites, which are accurate to 0.1 degrees and have been monitoring the earth since 1984, not detected a significant rise in global temperature?

Why do the Vostok ice cores show that the temperature has pretty much leveled off for the past 10,000 years?


You want links?
Evidence that man did not make a significant contribution to any global warming:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

17,000 scientists protest global warming alarmism and irrational Kyoto policies:
http://www.nightshadebooks.com/discus/messages/53/3622.html?1149192155

I found the above two in the http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1072/2.html thread.

My link and its full article about global warming alarmism from that same thread:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1072/3.html#000034

The http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html page, from 27 October 2004, notes that "Sunspots have been more common in the past seven decades than at any time in the last 8,000 years, according to a new historic reconstruction of solar activity."

More evidence of a stronger sun is on the http://www.netscapades.com/franklintrail/wildlife.html page that mentions how "Inuit are now applying sunscreen to protect themselves from sunburns." A CBC radio host from Rankin Inlet being interviewed relayed stories about the sun now feeling warm in December when it never used to. This has been going on for the past 5 years or so according to him.

This, http://tinyurl.com/l6nxh (gcmd.nasa.gov), site shows the solar activity changing and calming about 10,000 years ago.

And about the Vostok ice core data, this page: http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/ has a picture that has been published elsewhere that shows the 10,000 year leveling off.

The politics and big business of it is probably best left for a different forum.

John M Reynolds

Top
#16484 - 08/24/06 02:04 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Dehammer wrote this in the http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1081/3.html#000040 post.

Quote:
... politicians ... so much hot air.
Ha ha!

Perhaps it is all the hot air from politicians that is creating any global warming. It is CO2! Save the planet... duct tape a politician's mouth shut.

John M Reynolds

Top
#16485 - 08/24/06 02:26 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by Eduardo:
Actually I believe it is just me, your paranoia not withstanding.
perhaps you might want to check out da post at the bottom of page three of this thread.

Quote:
Precisely, you spin out a line of pre-programmed garbage rather than actually think.
no, i dont "spin out a line of pre-programmed garbage." If I were spewing things out without thinking, I would be forced to join the loudest minority, and that would put me on the global warming bandwagon.

Quote:
Oh! There it is. The special pleading card.
no. I am not asking for any special favors, I was explaining why im not trying to be perfect. According to you, only those with perfect spelling and grammer are able to think for themselves. what a load of whooie.

Quote:
Did you realise that I am just a brain in a jar, and the jar is in the dark, and some people put cigarette butts in the jar?
that would explain why you have enought time and energy to try to be perfect in your words.

Quote:
Let's look at your links shall we, mmm! Not exactly shining pillars of the scientific establishment are they?
so what is wrong with the scientist that they quote? Or are you pulling a da, and claiming that only the ones that are on the global warming bandwagan are legitimate.

Quote:
From one of your links...
Quote:
However, it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future.
Ouch!!!
never said there would not be some. there is also some global cooling on the horizon. Does this mean we are going to go back into a full fledge glacieration?

Quote:
And from their front page
Quote:
Global warming is a reality, and some folk are taking the opportunity to study the effects firsthand.
As for John Daly, isn't he a big, fat golf pro?
which one was the quote from. come on, cant you do better than that? There might be a john daly that is a pro golfer, who knows. that does not mean hes the same one. there was a story recently about a expro basket ball player that was having trouble with fans in his home town because another ex pro basketball player with the same name from a different town and team had gotten in to trouble with the law. Oh, and lets not forget the senator that has the same name as mine, yet ive never been elected for anything past high school.

Quote:
Come on, surely you can do better than this?
sure i could but what difference would it make, you would only pay attension to the fact that it was not your party line, therefore its wrong.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16486 - 08/24/06 05:20 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Thanks for the links Mr. Reynolds. No thank for again no links Mr. Dehammer.

The problem John is that not one of those links is to a college, university, serious science publication, or any other place worth as much as a cup of coffee at Starbucks. They are all just so much internet nonsense.

If you can't find it at washington.edu, or nasa.gov, or similar it is unworthy of consideration and I think you know it. The fact that you couldn't find anything serious to support your proposition speakes very loud volumes with respect to its credibility (or lack thereof).
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16487 - 08/24/06 08:56 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Anonymous
Unregistered


Dan,
I'm kind of tired of your elitist attitude.

Amaranth

Top
#16488 - 08/24/06 11:28 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Amaranth Rose, who is Dan?

DA, why did you not answer my questions?

As well, my first link references phd's from Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; a Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; a doctor from Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama in Huntsville; someone from University of Sussex, Brighton, England; Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics; and Dalhousie University

The second is about more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees.

The third is a link to a thread on this site.

The fourth quotes scientists: a climatologist and former professor at the University of Winnipeg; an adjunct professor in the department of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University; a retired (in 1994) senior research scientist in meteorology and oceanography at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who is now leading an international scientific team that includes the United Nations and the Canadian Weather Service; a professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia

The fifth was about a study from Max Planck Institute in Germany

The sixth was just about observations of arctic changes. You seem to allow observations about glaciers, so this is just more evidence.

The seventh is from nasa

The last shows data that was published in Nature and Environmental Science and Technology (American Chemical Society), and Quaternary Science Reviews.

Now that I have shown that the links cite scientists and science journals, will you now answer my questions:

Why is it now called climate change instead of global warming?

Why have satellites, which are accurate to 0.1 degrees and have been monitoring the earth since 1984, not detected a significant rise in global temperature?

Why do the Vostok ice cores show that the temperature has pretty much leveled off for the past 10,000 years?

John M Reynolds

Top
#16489 - 08/24/06 12:43 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Thanks, John, for those links and the discussion of them. When Amaranth Rose refered to Dan it was Daniel A Morgan.

DA, the thing is, ive given you links before and with you elitist atitude, ive given up with them since you dont bother reading them. Otherwise you would have known about all the scientist and such that John mentioned in the last post. Of course, since Ive already mention many of those scientist in other threads, Im already aware that you have by now discounted every one of them as being a crank because they dont agree with the preprogrammed party line you spout. When you are ready to discuss content of the links ill give more links.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16490 - 08/24/06 01:13 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
here is another point that Ive been trying to make. this guy says it better.

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Media/amsterdam.html

note that some of the media are now starting to worry about global freezing because of a misquote from this scientist by the name of Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Physics of the Oceans
Potsdam University and Member of the Academia Europaea.

the media gets ahold of a simi good news story and creates a panic.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16491 - 08/24/06 05:04 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Rose wrote:
"I'm kind of tired of your elitist attitude."

And you think links in a science forum from "ihaveanaxetogrind.com" are a reference to establish the thinking of the science community"?

That isn't elitist that is science.

I went to google.com and did the search, as I always do before challenging people's "facts" and I had no problem finding statements from NOAA, WHO, major research universities, and even a few detractors.

When someone intentionally ignores those results and posts as he did that is lawyering ... not science.

If asking someone that claims to be a college graduate to act like one is elitist then I plead guilty as charged.

But as someone with a degree in biology yourself I wonder how you would feel if you had been asked, in a paper you were writing, to reference
http://www.nightshadebooks.com in your list of citations? I expect you would have gagged first and then had the professional ethics to refuse very shortly thereafter.

Am I wrong?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16492 - 08/24/06 08:01 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
the thing about that da is that you refuse to discuss what the scientist (good, reputable, scientist working in that field) are saying just because they are quoted on a site that is not of your political party line or because its not pure science. Well, the BBC is not pure science either but you have no problem accepting them. You have no problem accepting reports from NASA that support your claims, but not ones that disagree with you. why should we post the links if you ignore what they say and only attack the sites owners. Ive given you links to things from NASA or other just as reputable, but you ignore them and attack the site owners of the other links that support that or from which i found the links to NASA's reports.

The problem with many sites is that they want things that are newsworth, or contriversal or is part of the latest hot topic. They dont want to report people saying, "there is nothing to worry about" they want to report people saying, "if you dont listen to us, your children will die". They dont want to report people saying, "everything is going according to the earths cycles, albet with a tiny change due to mans influence". THAT is not sensational enough for the majority of sites. The ones that do post these report are considered by elitist to be unworth of their time because they are not very sensational enough and because they are willing to go against popular alarmist rhetoric.

I personally dont care if the site owners are "ihaveanaxetogrind.com", if they have reports that are done by others, ill pay attension and look at what the scientist have said. Of course after that you have to find out if the scientist actually did say those things. that is not a given.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16493 - 08/24/06 11:15 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"the thing about that da is that you refuse to discuss what the scientist (good, reputable, scientist working in that field) are saying just because they are quoted on a site that is not of your political party line or because its not pure science."

You just disagreed without yourself which, for most people, is reasonably hard to do. You start off saying "you refuse to discuss what the scientist are saying" and you follow it up with "because its not pure science." That is logically impossible. What the good scientists are saying IS pure science.

But putting that aside for the moment. My point is that there is nothing at nightshadebooks.com that is serious science so how can one use it as a reference as to what serious scientists are thinking?

If one wants to know what serious scientists are thinking rather they go to these:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
A serious peer reviewed science magazine

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate_change/climate-consensus.html
An organization of scientists

http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Lindzen-NYT2006.pdf#search=%22%22consensus%22%20and%20%22global%20warming%22%22
University of California at San Diego
(you might note this item disagrees with me but anyone looking for credibility would have found it)

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.htm
The Brookings Institution

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000723consensus_statement_.html
The University of Colorado

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1229_041229_climate_change_consensus.html
National Geographic

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm
A science magazine

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/Fish/southflorida/news/bush2004.html
Florida Museum of Natural History

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/cretaceous.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/200504.html
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Rutgers University
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/glwarm/housescience.htm

There is a huge difference between them and:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm
Which is the level of the discussion we've been having and to which I, an effete elistist snob, object.

And it would not have been hard to come up with a list of hundreds of serious references.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16494 - 08/25/06 01:50 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
[quote] dehammer wrote:
"...because they are quoted on a site that is not of your political party line or because its not pure science."[/unquote]

You just disagreed without yourself which, for most people, is reasonably hard to do. You start off saying "you refuse to discuss what the scientist are saying" and you follow it up with "because its not pure science." That is logically impossible. What the good scientists are saying IS pure science.
try rereading that for content. dont try to take parts of the sentence and put them together to make it say something totally different. thats rather third graderish.

Quote:
But putting that aside for the moment. My point is that there is nothing at nightshadebooks.com that is serious science so how can one use it as a reference as to what serious scientists are thinking?


If one wants to know what serious scientists are thinking rather they go to these:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
A serious peer reviewed science magazine
If you follow their links all of them of these quotes are based on the lies the IPCC (a very political entity that disregarded the scientists summeries to create its own summery)

this one is interesting. if you follow the links it has, it shows a graph that links the rise in co2 and temperature for the last 350000 years. the interesting point is that the graph shows the co2 following the rise, not leading it. If greenhouse is that big of an indicator of the future temperature, shouldnt it lead the temperature rise?

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf
top of page 5

Quote:
http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Lindzen-NYT2006.pdf#search=%22%22consensus%22%20and%20%22global%20warming%22%22
University of California at San Diego
(you might note this item disagrees with me but anyone looking for credibility would have found it)
Im glad you at least read that there is not a complete agreement over it.

Quote:
First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.
how can 7000 plus scientist disagreeing with it be a near unanimous acceptance?

Quote:
The reality is that the present state of science does not allow us to come to a conclusion that global warming has affected hurricanes.
this is proof that global warming from humans intervention is a major problem?
I find it interesting that this associate history professor could not find anything to disagree with humans causing the global warming when there were 7000 plus scientist signing a patition against the global warming alarmist tactics.


once again someone who cant find a single one of the 7000 scientist that disagree. Its interesting to me that right at the top, right under the graph, there is an ad for someone trying to sell the idea that coal will be the next fuel for cars since it will have less polutants (somehow). this site is all about how all scientist are in agreement that man has caused the global warming. (if it list any other possible cause i cant find it)

Quote:
this one is all about how Bush is responsible for the hurricanes of last season, even though no scientist has every proven a solid link between mans polution and the increase in ocean temperature (except for the fact that they cant think of anything else that might consieveably have anything to do with it), or a change in the cycle of increases in hurricane activities that is decades long.

Quote:
The last decade of the 20th Century was the warmest in the entire global instrumental temperature record, starting in the mid-19th century. All 10 years rank among the 15 warmest, and include the 6 warmest years on record
interesting that that happens to be the time when the solar activity was higher than its been in centruies. We only started coming out of it during the last few years, albet its still rather high on the average. interesting that the temperature has dropped since the "last decade of the 20th Century".

Quote:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/200504.html
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
not sure where you were going with this one. I find it interesting that they have discovered that the earth has frequent changes of up to 30 meter in sea levels.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/2005041418803.html
does that mean that part of the current changes in sea level might be part of another earth cycle?


Quote:
But these gases are not the only cause of climate change. When the most recent climate model experiments, done since the latest IPCC report, include the effects of greenhouse gases, aerosols (particles in the atmosphere), volcanic eruptions, ozone depletion, solar variations, and El Ni?o in their calculations, they produce simulations of climate change of the past 100 years that agree quite well with the past surface temperature record. For example, Haywood et al. (1997) describe calculations made with the climate model of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) at Princeton University. When they attempt to simulate the climate change of the past 130 years taking into consideration just the effects of CO2 increases, the model produces too much warming as compared to observations.
so it appears that man has not been the major contribitor that many claim. Additional, this report indicates that co2 will stay in the atmosphere about a century, where as the other alarmist sites state multiple centruies.

Quote:
There is a huge difference between them and:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm
Which is the level of the discussion we've been having and to which I, an effete elistist snob, object.
I have to agree with some of these thing but you will note that they mentioned President Clinton being in the White House. A few things have changed since he was president.

Quote:
And it would not have been hard to come up with a list of hundreds of serious references.
I have no doubt. the thing about that is that line that will get the most attension from the press. That will get the most traffic from net surfers. Both of those result in more money from ad buyers.

Here is something i think you should note. i addressed each of your links, without resorting talking about the site owners and things, even. can you do that?
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16495 - 08/25/06 05:50 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer science is not lawyering. One does not present only links that agree with their position. If they are do they are so wholly lacking in credibility as to be laughable.

I am as aware of serious science that disagrees with me as I am serious science that does agree with me.

Which is why I am offended when people try to make arguments based on nonsense from poppycock.com.

BTW: The point of my links was that there are links from and to serious science sites. It was not my intent to edit them or provide links that supported on position or the other.

Now you try it.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16496 - 08/25/06 11:15 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
BTW: The point of my links was that there are links from and to serious science sites. It was not my intent to edit them or provide links that supported on position or the other.
I understand now. You don't want to have a debate, you just want people to post links and go ooo and ahhhh. That must be why you have not answered my questions. Here is another:

Since you are "as aware of serious science that disagrees with [you] as I am serious science that does agree with [you]," why do you start topics that only argue the pro-global warming side?

Or are you going to answer my other questions first?

John M Reynolds

Top
#16497 - 08/25/06 11:31 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Eduardo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 106
Loc: Guildford, UK
Sorry to butt in here JMR but can you explain why it is that 95% of climate scientists agree that human induced climate change is a reality?
_________________________
Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Top
#16498 - 08/25/06 01:54 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer science is not lawyering. One does not present only links that agree with their position. If they are do they are so wholly lacking in credibility as to be laughable.

I am as aware of serious science that disagrees with me as I am serious science that does agree with me.

Which is why I am offended when people try to make arguments based on nonsense from poppycock.com.

BTW: The point of my links was that there are links from and to serious science sites. It was not my intent to edit them or provide links that supported on position or the other.

Now you try it.
In that case why did you argue with me for weeks after i came back that there were no scientist who disagreed with the "fact" that humans were the primary cause of global warming and had always been. What difference does it matter where a link is sited, if the scientist that are quoted are real and have actually made the quotes. For a very long time, I was saying that neither the oil companies or the global warming alarmist had the full truth, but you were adament that the oil companies were 100% wrong and the alarmist were 100% right.

If your willing to admit that the earth maybe responsible for much of the change, why are you still arguing that man is responsible for the melting off of greenlands ice, even in the face of the fact that the interior ice has gotten a lot thicker? Most of the studies, perhaps all, as far as i know, are ignoreing that, and only showing how much of the fringe areas are disappearing or getting thinner.


Ed, the thing is this, few if any scientist have ever claimed we have had no effect on the climate. that would be a very hard line to prove. OTOH, id like you to show me that 95 percent of the scientiest agree that we are the major factor that some claim and a lot of the media claim is unanimous. I was reading recently that if we dont get rid of the cars in american within 10 years it will be too late and the planet will be uninhabitable with in 100 years. That is extream scaremongering. Al Gore is not much better.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16499 - 08/25/06 05:09 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by Eduardo:
Sorry to butt in here JMR but can you explain why it is that 95% of climate scientists agree that human induced climate change is a reality?
Prove your statement is accurate.

Top
#16500 - 08/25/06 08:31 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Nothing yet? Well, from the http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/future.shtml site, I found this quote:

"A vast majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC consensus that Earth will warm along with increasing greenhouse gases."

I just don't know where you get the 95% from nor the human induced part of your quote. Science is where you take a hypothesis and try to prove it. If you are successful, then others try to confirm your work. Once an experiment proves your hypothesis wrong then the whole thing falls apart.

Climate is very complex. Check out this page:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/382_myths.htm

Almost half way down, while they are trying to dispell the "human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide emissions" myth, they talk about a balance that has existed for 10,000 years. That is indeed interesting.

That 10,000 years is an anomoly. The earth's temperature has been within 2 degrees Celcius for 203 of the 239 data samples. That is it has been within 2 degrees 85% of the time and within 4 degrees in all samples except 1 where it hit 2.06 C. Why has the earth's temperature been mostly within 2 degrees for the past 10,000 years?

Check the graph from GRID and UNEP in the Myth 7 section of the http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html website. The past 10,000 has been quite warm. I have plotted the data myself and found that the average temperature for the past 400,000 years up to 1950 is -4.52 degrees Celcius. The average is much cooler than what it was in 1900. I got the data from http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat and calculated the average using a spreadsheet. If you exclude the anomolous past 10,000 years of data, the average drops to -4.85 C.

To contrast this, the highest temperatures found by this data were more than 3 degrees Celcius warmer than it was in 1900. Since the ice cores only took samples at 1 meter intervals, the hottest and coldest years were probably missed. So, the question remains. Why has the past 10,000 years had an average of -0.36 C while the average for the past 400,000 has been -4.5 degrees Celius cooler?

Why would scientists ignore the anomolies? Why do they quote greenland data from 1992 when that year was an anomoly? Why do they choose to ignore salps that are an indicator of a natural mechanism that deals with excess carbon in the atmosphere? Why are they cherry picking data? Why have the Inuit only recently been able to feel the heat of the sun in December? And why won't anyone answer my questions?

John M Reynolds

Top
#16501 - 08/25/06 09:55 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
perhaps the answer is that you are not accepting their cherry picked benchmarks as gosple. Alarmist have to use those benchmarks to prove how bad things are getting. The data you used is straight, unaltered, "uncorrected" data, which they cant explain without "correcting". other than that, i dont know why any one cant answer them.

I notice that the first link you had explained that the solar energy had only risen a fraction of a percent. Notice they discuss solar energy, rather than solar flares which are totally different animal. From what that says, id would hazzard a guess that they are not taken flares into account, nor the magnetic effects the flares have, and the effect that have on the earth. something that i find interesting is that they show in their chart that the natural tendacy of the temperature should have dropped, even though solar activity has been on the upswing most of the last century. how do they explain that if they took it into account.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16502 - 08/25/06 11:58 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
John wrote:
"I understand now. You don't want to have a debate, you just want people to post links and go ooo and ahhhh."

No no and no. I want people to post links that have content that can be relied upon so that when they disagree with what someone thinks they can educate myself as to the source of their belief.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16503 - 08/25/06 11:59 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
John M wrote:
"Prove your statement is accurate."

Oh so when it is someone else you want them to provide credible proof but when it is you we are supposed to just accept any old thing you can type.

Got it. I'll remember the double-standard for future reference.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16504 - 08/26/06 03:17 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
he's just following your example.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16505 - 08/26/06 12:04 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Dehammer, your last post is insulting. I have given plenty of links to scientific sites and even sites that are pro the global warming stance. Perhaps the problem is I did not link to that bastion of higher knowledge, the BBC, like DA does. Instead, I asked 3 questions.

The first is simple common knowledge. What used to be called global warming is now called climate change. I wanted to know why.

The second was about satellite records not showing a significant increase in temperature since 1984. I did not provide many links to that one, I admit. Here, http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm , is an old one from 1997. It claims that the water cycle had affected the amount of water vapour that is "a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide." That means clouds were not a part of their computer models back in 1997. That page has not been updated, but it links to another page, http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html , for its data. That second page has been updated to even include some data from this year. It basically shows the average temperature rising since 1997. That leads to another question. If clouds kept the earth cool until 1997, why suddenly is the water cycle not a factor? Dehammer, do you still have the link to the temperature data from, I think, the US weather service that indicates lower than predicted temperatures from the year 2000?

My last question about the past 10,000 years being consistantly warm has many links in this thread which I provided. Its links are to a variety of sources including the pro global warming side. No one seems to be able to explain it.

All I get in reply is Eduardo's loaded question that assigns belief in global warming to 95% of climate scientists and claims the 95% all believe that climate change is human induced. That is pretty profound. I could not find a source, so I asked for his. At least his question is on topic.

This must mean no one has the answers, so I have to look elsewhere.

John M Reynolds

Top
#16506 - 08/26/06 04:36 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
sorry, no intent to insult you.

let me see if i can answer part of that.

the IPCC found out that there was a lot of evidence that most of the increase in temperature was due to natural causes and natural cycles. since their stated mission is to prove that man is responsible and that things have to be done their way or disaster will follow, then they cant have people understanding that most of that increase has nothing to do with man, and that man cant do anything about the majority of it. Their recommendations are pretty severe, which is hard for most people to accept. if they tell people that the recommendations will only slow the expected change, few people would be willing to follow it.

In addition there is considerable more evidence that the increases are due more to natural cycles and conditions of the earth than the IPCC wants people to see. If the majority of it is cyclic and we are near the top of the cycles, then the temperature rises will drop with out the need for those severe recommendations.

To cover these cyclic and other causes, they changed the name from global warming to climate changes. part of this was due to the fact that some areas are seeing a drop in temperature. But mostly it was to cover the fact that the new name covers all the various causes of climate change. That way when politicians and others quote them, there is no obvious connection between what they are quoting and solar flare, solar energy increases, volcano activities, ect.

one example is that under the ice that has been melting so much, they have discovered an active volcano, that was appearantly dormant for centuries. its outputting a lot of heat into the water below the ice caps, which is causing part of the melt off.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1129_icebreaker.html

edit, i could have made a small mistake here, i believed there were ones under the arctic, but have not found the links i was looking for. instead i found ones about Antarctica volcanos melting off much of the ice there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

on the other hand i did find these

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1707-01-
and
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1707-02-
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16507 - 08/26/06 05:26 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
heres another site with something to say.

http://www.carc.org/pubs/v15no5/4.htm

look down about half way and youll find this

Quote:
There are a few important points about these profiles relevant to today's debate about the direction in which climate may be heading.

The climate at the drill-site has been colder than today's for about 80 000 out of the past 100 000 years. We tend to view our current climate as normal; however, it is very far from normal when viewed in terms of 100 000 years of record. Using ocean core records we might even say the planet's climate is due to return to the "normal" condition of an ice-age. What we should be seeking is not the cause of the ice-ages but the cause of interglacial periods.
If the ice-caps melted completely during the main part of the last interglacial period then that period must have been substantially warmer and/or longer than the present one.
The climate of the last 60 years has been colder than average for the last 10 000 years but warmer than average for the last 1000 years.
note that its only in compairison of the last 1000 years that we are in a warming condition. taking in a longer time frame and we are colder than normal.

just so you know, it was written by Dr. Roy M. Koerner Principal Investigator: Natural Resources Canada Geological Survey of Canada

a little farther down he says
Quote:
The ice-core record in Figure 2 shows a large range of climatic conditions over the past 100 000 years. Compared to the last 10 years, temperatures show a range from about 10?C to 15?C colder 18 000 years ago through 3?C warmer 7000 to 8000 years ago, to 5?C warmer more than 100 000 years ago when the ice-cap began its growth. On a shorter time-scale, during the period of instrumental record, there is evidence from our cores of a 2.5?C warming between about 1750 and 1950. The warming trend, which has occasionally been identified as carbon-dioxide induced, can be seen as part of a much longer natural one.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16508 - 08/26/06 09:31 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Thank you for your replies. I like your links, about volcanoes and the one about ice cores. If you look at the ice core data, there has not been a period like the past 10,000 years. What are the chances that it will get warmer and melt the top layers of ice. If we then got cooler, then ice cores that will be taken 100,000 years from now may only see our 10,000 as a gradual rise instead. Then again, due to the frigid temps of Antarctica, that is unlikely. How long has Antarctica been there? Why do ice cores only go back 420,000 years? Was there a time before that where there was no ice on Antarctica?

According to the June 10, 1999 AP article found on the http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/icecore2.htm site, "They stopped drilling about 120 yards (109 meters) short of a subterranean lake the size of Lake Ontario that's been trapped for perhaps millions of years beneath the ice sheet. Scientists want to send sterilized robots to explore the pristine lake and are protecting it from contamination until then." They drilled 3,623 m (over 2 miles) and stopped. If that lake has been trapped for millions of years, then that last 109 meters would go back those same millions of years.

That was 7 years ago. Have sterilized robots been sent yet? Is there new data going back millions of years yet? Apparently, Lake Vostok is not frozen. The http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/oldissues2000-2001/2000_1126/vostok.html page talks about using Lake Vostok as a training ground for technology that can check out Europa - A Jupiter moon that may have a liquid lake beneath a layer of ice. Of course, that does not help us. I want to know the data. Why don't they test the technology on one of the other 80 lakes?

According to the http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/vostok_pr.html page, "If it ever had a direct link with the air above it, that connection ended some 30 million years ago." Thirty million years is a lot of data to give up for only 109 meters of drilling. Would 30 million years be enough for Antarctica to slowly move over the southern pole?

According to the http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Pangea/Pangea3.html page, "250 millions years ago the Earth's seven continents were all grouped together into a supercontinent called Pangea."
Is Antarctia still moving? Is this planet indeed under a cold spell like the http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html page suggests? Will this planet ever see the end to this cold spell? That 30 million years of data (even if it only ends up being 10 million years) may be able to tell us some of this.

In 2004, the access hole technology development was still in the draft phase. This is according to the http://salegos-scar.montana.edu/docs/Workshops.htm page's last link. That is the newest information I found.

Where else can we get more historical data that relates to temperature? Do you have a link to geology ocean floor records?

John M Reynolds

Top
#16509 - 08/27/06 08:42 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
alex_J Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/27/06
Posts: 6
I don't have time to read through this whole thread to see if this has been noted, but the temperature discrepancy issue is old news, and has since been addressed. Stratospheric cooling (a predicted consequence of the amplified greenhouse effect) was found to bias the satellite temperature record. With correction for it, the data shows a warming trend just as the other records, and other lines of observational evidence, do.

There's a link and some commentary on this and other common arguments at GlobalWarmingTuth.org and illconsidered.blogspot.com .

And dehammer: 1. I don't know where you get your interpretation of the IPCC's mission or aggregate findings, but where exactly does it state that "most of the increase in temperature was due to natural causes and natural cycles"? If anything, the 2001 assessment affirms a significant human influence. Where does the IPCC report highlight natural processes that account for "most" of the trend? Link please. And 2. The current interglacial period is apparently one of the longer ones, expected to last thousands of years more .

Regardless of all this argument, or the ten+ year old articles used to support it, there's still no peer-reviewed study that successfully indicates there are natural forcings that can account for most of the current (and ongoing) warming trend. Period. Meanwhile, the science supporting the human-amplified greenhouse effect as the primary cause, and suggesting that we're just seeing the beginning of this process (subject to the delay of thermal inertia and the amplification of feedback effects) has only gained strength.

John: The Antarctic ice cores do go back further than 450,000 years. To date, they've been analyzed to 650,000, and may yield data back to 800,000.

Top
#16510 - 08/28/06 03:14 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Hi alex_J. Welcome to the discussion. I like your first link very much. When trying to combat the other side of the story, they make some serious flaws though. For example, trying to disprove "Most of the warming has occurred before 1940", they say, "With a record 2005 temperature anomaly, this is no longer correct." It must be noted that a single year does not a trend make. Your second link on this topic goes further to cherry pick 1992 to say that the temperature had increased steadily through the 1990's. That is normal after the large volcanic eruption. It would be much more interesting to compare the 1980's to the last couple of years.

Bye the way, climate is weather.

It says, "Re: Mars - Even if there were a global warming trend on Mars resulting from a rise in solar output, there are no oceans and the atmosphere is much thinner there, so temperatures are more responsive to even small changes in solar energy." Large subterrainian glaciers affect mars. They are huge heat sinks just like our oceans and glaciers.

If there is no "significant rise in solar energy," then why do inuit in northern Canada now have to wear sunscreen? They can now feel the heat of the sun in December where they never used to be able to.

Human activity causes .028% of the "Greenhouse Effect"

I liked the link they had in their glaciers section to the NASA page that compares 1996 to 2006 data for Greenland melt. This is another example of cherry picking though. They would have to compare 1991 instead to get meaningful data. This has already been addressed in this thread.

Your link says, "Although consensus isn't required by any science..." Yes it is. If it is not required then it is not science.

Your second link goes further and gives silly answers. For example, then tackling the "It was even warmer than today during the Holocene Climatic Optimum without any human influence." question, they give this: "Actually, it turns out that though there may have indeed been some temperatures in the same range as today, this was regional to the northern hemisphere and confined to the summer months." This is wrong. The data is taken from the vostok ice core that was extracted from Antarctica. AS well, the several I checked are even refuted in the comments section.

Your links also saddened me since they were not able to address my questions like why have we had a fairly stable temperature for the past 10,000 years.

I understand that you may not want to read the entire thread, but how about page 5 and 6 at a minimum to see where the discussion is going.

And thank you for letting me know about the 650,000 years for the Vostok ice core data. The http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10004065.shtml page has a graph of the new data.

John M Reynolds

Top
#16511 - 08/28/06 03:44 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by alex_J:
And dehammer: 1. I don't know where you get your interpretation of the IPCC's mission or aggregate findings, but where exactly does it state that "most of the increase in temperature was due to natural causes and natural cycles"? If anything, the 2001 assessment affirms a significant human influence. Were does the IPCC report highlight natural processes that account for "most" of the trend? Link please. And 2. The current interglacial period is apparently one of the longer ones, expected to last thousands of years more .
you see thats the problem. they have lumped it all together so that all the increases are counted as human caused. they have a small print hidden somewhere telling that they lumped it all together because they were talking about the total increase, where as, if you want to know how much is human caused you have to seperated out the other causes. They dont mention them, merely add their influence into the human caused ones. I have already given several links to places where the scientist have talked about other causes.

Quote:
Regardless of all this argument, or the ten+ year old articles used to support it, there's still no peer-reviewed study that successfully indicates there are natural forcings that can account for most of the current (and ongoing) warming trend. Period.
sure if they are all lumped together there is no evidence that anything not accounted for is in any way resposible for the change. after all they have already accounted for natural cycle of the sea level changes, the solar flare and the solar output increase, not to mention volcanos and earth el nino and el nina, and we all know that man is responsible for all of these. what else coudl be the cause of the global warming? how can you claim it was from a single magazine article written years ago when they discuss ice cores that were taken last year.

Quote:
Meanwhile, the science supporting the human-amplified greenhouse effect as the primary cause, and suggesting that we're just seeing the beginning of this process (subject to the delay of thermal inertia and the amplification of feedback effects) has only gained strength
sure, human amplified solar effects, and human amplified volcano effects are all part of that. im not saying that man has not had some effect, but he is not nor has he ever been the primary cause of what has happen.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16512 - 08/28/06 08:14 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
alex_J Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/27/06
Posts: 6
John: The difference between weather and climate is elemental and real. Weather is characterized by short-term fluctuation. Much more variable and subject to fleeting influences than overall climate. More here , if you're interested.

With the addition of 2005 in the averages, the claim that most warming occurred before 1940 is indeed incorrect. After all, global warming refers to average temperature anomaly. Did you happen to catch this comparison of 1930-1940 anomaly to the 90's? And we're obviously getting a good start on the 21st century.

As for it being normal for temperature to increase after a volcanic eruption: If anything, volcanoes have a cooling influence in the shorter term (from particulates and sulfur dioxide), and present-era volcanic activity puts out relatively little CO2. The observed increase is traceable to human activity, not volcanoes. If you're asserting that warming in the 90's was somehow a result of volcanic activity, how about citing the papers on which you base this?

As for the Inuit and sunscreen, you seem to be confusing ozone depletion (increased ultraviolet penetration) with global warming (increased re-radiation of infrared). Readings of insolation are the essential measurement - the dermal preceptions of the Inuit could be influenced by increased sunburn from UV, and perhaps even regional changes in cloud cover or aerosol pollution.

The tiny percentage of the greenhouse effect claim is an old, misleading one (although I don't know where you get the .028% from), and ignores feedbacks in the climate system. See here for discussion.

On Greenland, I didn't see the other thread, but choosing 1991 (a single year) for the comparison seems like more of a cherry picking expedition than using the decade from 96-06. What's important is that the decade shows a pronounced change, and one that accompanies a multitude of other changes around the world. These are not explained by natural processes or regional fluctuation.

Your comment on consensus in non-sensical. Science is an open process of exploration and the testing of theory. It's aim isn't to reach a consensus, even though one may arise in the course of study (and warrant attention from society).

On the mid-holocene climatic optimum, the link actually says "Warmth during the mid-holocene, about 6000 years ago, is a similar story, with non-synchronous seasonal warmth at high latitudes", and provides a link to scientific discussion. Where's your supporting evidence saying they're wrong and that the ice cores suggest is was a major global event? You make vague counter-claims without backing them up. Regardless, the current trend perists in the absence of an orbital forcing.

I don't know why the links "saddened" you with their lack of explanation of climatic stability during a mild interglacial. That's pretty much a given relative to other periods. Things had remained relatively calm, with no significant forcings that would create instability. Humans have changed that.

dhammer: You're mistaken in suggesting "they" are counting all of the increase as human-caused. It's widely acknowledged that solar flux accounts for part of the trend - but a small one. And you make broad statements about how scientific data is presented without giving any specifics. Your provision of "several links to places where the scientist have talked about other causes" isn't the same as supporting the claim that "most of the increase in temperature was due to natural causes and natural cycles". You're avoiding the point.

Your responses to my remark don't answer the question of what natural mechanisms account for the persistent warming trend. What we do have is a sharp rise in CO2, with CO2 being the primary persistent greenhouse gas and a precursor to other changes that amplify warming. Your claim that man isn't primarily responsible remains unsupported. Until I see links to studies that have passed peer review suggesting that some combination of natural effects are mostly responsible, while human emission of 7+ gigatons of carbon equivalent annually has little effect, I'm done here.

Top
#16513 - 08/28/06 11:37 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
About picking a year, I want to compare 1991 or earlier instead of 1996. They picked a year that is still influenced by the volcano eruption's cooling. Of course volcanoes have a cooling effect. That is the point. It took years for the earth to recover from that.

Ozone depletion has been on the decline. As well, the ozone hole is north of the inuit from Rankin Inlet and the sun shines from the south. They now have to wear sunscreen because the sun is burning them where it never used to and it never used to burn their ancestors. This is new. Or ar you saying that ozone depletion has been causing the earth to warm?

About the 0.28% and dehammer's supposed avoiding of the point, you can start with the http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor558911 section and follow its link to the http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html page. Or you can read this entire thread and see all of these links that were not avoided.

If what you say about science, namely that "It's aim isn't to reach a consensus,..." then why have peer review. Science is about testing hypotheses and having others confirm it. That is consensus.

I am glad you are interested in this topic. Please take your time and read this thread and let us know if, when you are done, you are able to answer any of the questions we raised like the past 10,000 years being inexplicably warm and consistant.

John M Reynolds

Top
#16514 - 08/28/06 05:13 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by alex_J:
dhammer: You're mistaken in suggesting "they" are counting all of the increase as human-caused. It's widely acknowledged that solar flux accounts for part of the trend - but a small one. And you make broad statements about how scientific data is presented without giving any specifics. Your provision of "several links to places where the scientist have talked about other causes" isn't the same as supporting the claim that "most of the increase in temperature was due to natural causes and natural cycles". You're avoiding the point.
then you must not be reading them. one of them specificly pointed out that models that went by man being the only cause were way off, while the ones that ignored mans influence were only off a much smaller amount. This to me means that man is not the primary cause. Only by including all causes did they get close to the mark (notice only close) without haveing to do adjustments. Those models did not show a major upwards trend because there is evidence some of those cycles are going to be dropping. Some even show a moderate drop in temperature for the next half century. Only the ones that show man as the primary cause show the temperature going totally out of wack. The ones that show man as being the primary cause are the ones IPCC used that totally removed the little ice age and the mid ages global warming.

Quote:
Your responses to my remark don't answer the question of what natural mechanisms account for the persistent warming trend. What we do have is a sharp rise in CO2, with CO2 being the primary persistent greenhouse gas and a precursor to other changes that amplify warming. Your claim that man isn't primarily responsible remains unsupported. Until I see links to studies that have passed peer review suggesting that some combination of natural effects are mostly responsible, while human emission of 7+ gigatons of carbon equivalent annually has little effect, I'm done here.
why should i repeat the links when you dont read them the first time, or discount them because they are not of the correct political party.

as to the link between co2 and temperature, better look at the graphs you and da have previded. WHEN they put them together, the co2 rise is after the temperature rise, not preceding it. according to the theory that the oceans are delaying the changes by assorbing it, there should be a signifacant lead time, yet its not even in existance much of the time.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16515 - 08/28/06 09:04 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
alex_J Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/27/06
Posts: 6
I don't have long, but to clarify: I'm loooking for studies that have passed peer review/have been independently replicated, successfully supporting the claim that most of the increase in temperature is due to natural causes. I have yet to see them, including in the last few pages of this thread.

The argument that temperature rise has preceeded CO2 increase is another oldie. This may be true of glacial terminations, when another forcing is involved and CO2 is purely a feedback, but in this case (an imbalance unprecented since prehistory), the CO2 is a forcing. I previously noted that the current accumulation can be traced back to fossil fuel combustion (via mass balance and isotopic analysis). The warming-induced rise argument may be convenient but it doesn't work. As for your last point, the CO2/temperature flux graphs I've seen aren't detailed enough to spot the effect of thermal inertia. Perhaps you have a piece of evidence that shows nearly instanteous warming? Or better yet, a graph of natural causes followed by a lagging temperature response.

John: The real question is whether volcanic cooling had a significant influence on that time period. NASA factored Pinatubo into their studies, predicting a masking of the overall warming trend for several years. They don't seem to be basing the GW case on the recovery from that event, and there are changes in play that go beyond pre-Pinatubo climate.

Most sunscreens don't protect from a hotter sun - they absorb UV, and maybe reduce windburn. The only reference I found with a quick search was regarding more frequent and intense sunburn. In other words, from ultraviolet (and perhaps even a change in their sensitivity to it, who knows?). They're apparently not feeling an increase in the sun's output. Regardless, you can't support the case for a significantly higher insolation with regional anecdotal reports.

Peer review is part of the testing process. The keyword used at Globalwarmingtruth.org is "required". Consensus (general agreement) is in no way required in science. Anyone can try to undermine a set of conclusions, as long as they properly apply the scientific method.

Your links make me think I'm wasting my time here. Research doesn't appear to support the listed natural causes as being primary in the trend, and the second link trots out the stale argument about water vapor being the primary greenhouse gas. Trouble is, it's not the primary persistent greenhouse gas, and doesn't act as a forcing. It's included in research as a feedback since temperature regulates it's concentration. Without CO2, temperatures would cool and more water vapor would precipitate out. Just look at the Milankovitch cycles: An initial orbital forcing, followed by cooling, and a reduction of CO2 and water vapor leading to more cooling. Apparently you missed this little note .

Lastly, I find the question you raised about the "past 10,000 years being inexplicably warm and consistant." interesting. First, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Earth has been (and will likely continue to be for the next 10,000+ years) in an interglacial period, so of course it's going to be relatively mild & stable. The warming trend is taking us beyond that. Secondly, you say the (relative) warmth over the past 10 millennia is "inexplicable", yet you seem awfully convinced that natural mechanisms are mostly responsible for global warming.

Top
#16516 - 08/28/06 10:37 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by alex_J:
I don't have long, but to clarify: I'm loooking for studies that have passed peer review/have been independently replicated, successfully supporting the claim that most of the increase in temperature is due to natural causes. I have yet to see them, including in the last few pages of this thread.
It depends on which peers you are talking about. the global warming peers will definately not be jumping on the bandwagon, but those who are not already convienced have passed it. The problem with people demanding it be passed by peers is that they often only accept the review by those who agree with them and not others.

Quote:
The argument that temperature rise has preceeded CO2 increase is another oldie. This may be true of glacial terminations, when another forcing is involved and CO2 is purely a feedback, but in this case (an imbalance unprecented since prehistory), the CO2 is a forcing. I previously noted that the current accumulation can be traced back to fossil fuel combustion (via mass balance and isotopic analysis). The warming-induced rise argument may be convenient but it doesn't work. As for your last point, the CO2/temperature flux graphs I've seen aren't detailed enough to spot the effect of thermal inertia. Perhaps you have a piece of evidence that shows nearly instanteous warming? Or better yet, a graph of natural causes followed by a lagging temperature response.
ok, this really makes sense. First you use it as evidence of what the co2 is going to cause, then you say, its not the cause of all the other times, merely there product of it. which is it, the cause or the effect. If its the cause and the feedback kept making it worse, why did the temperature drop while the co2 levels stayed high. The higher levels should have prevented a drop in temperature.


Quote:
John: The real question is whether volcanic cooling had a significant influence on that time period. NASA factored Pinatubo into their studies, predicting a masking of the overall warming trend for several years. They don't seem to be basing the GW case on the recovery from that event, and there are changes in play that go beyond pre-Pinatubo climate.
they may add in it, but why is it that they use the year that the effect on ice is at its most extream for the benchmark on how far the ice has melted?

Quote:
Most sunscreens don't protect from a hotter sun - they absorb UV, and maybe reduce windburn. The only reference I found with a quick search was regarding more frequent and intense sunburn. In other words, from ultraviolet (and perhaps even a change in their sensitivity to it, who knows?). They're apparently not feeling an increase in the sun's output. Regardless, you can't support the case for a significantly higher insolation with regional anecdotal reports.
your missing the point. the uv is greater during solar flares than otherwise. think of what happens if you drop a ice cube on a hot pan. it first melts then splater all over the place. that is how it is when the solar flares are higher. they send out more materials which react with the atmosphere and the magnetic field of the earth. This causes heat. exactly how it affects the earth is unknown, but its been proven to do so. The uv also is absorbed by the ice easier than visible light or even infrared (which is largely reflected by the ice). this leads to faster melting and hotter temperature at the poles. I suspect that the solar wind material that is stricking the atmostphere there is also having effect on the ice, but thats just MHO.


Quote:
Peer review is part of the testing process. The keyword used at Globalwarmingtruth.org is "required". Consensus (general agreement) is in no way required in science. Anyone can try to undermine a set of conclusions, as long as they properly apply the scientific method.
so why is thet peer review of those who are not already convience that man is the main cause of global warming not acceptable.

Quote:
Your links make me think I'm wasting my time here. Research doesn't appear to support the listed natural causes as being primary in the trend, and the second link trots out the stale argument about water vapor being the primary greenhouse gas. Trouble is, it's not the primary persistent greenhouse gas, and doesn't act as a forcing. It's included in research as a feedback since temperature regulates it's concentration. Without CO2, temperatures would cool and more water vapor would precipitate out. Just look at the Milankovitch cycles: An initial orbital forcing, followed by cooling, and a reduction of CO2 and water vapor leading to more cooling. Apparently you missed this little note .
perhaps you can explain why they dont take into account the fact that the higher levels of water vapor leads to more co2 being flushed out of the air by rain? According to all of those links the only way co2 gets out of the air is by plants. Ever heard of carbonic acid rain? Its kind of a natural fertilizer. the higher the water vapor, the more storms there are, and the more lightning you have. If there is more co2 in the air, that creates more carbonic acid. yet no one ever mentions that.

Quote:
Lastly, I find the question you raised about the "past 10,000 years being inexplicably warm and consistant." interesting. First, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Earth has been (and will likely continue to be for the next 10,000+ years) in an interglacial period, so of course it's going to be relatively mild & stable. The warming trend is taking us beyond that. Secondly, you say the (relative) warmth over the past 10 millennia is "inexplicable", yet you seem awfully convinced that natural mechanisms are mostly responsible for global warming.
better look at that graph of yours again. the last interglacial period was not so stable.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16517 - 08/29/06 05:09 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
alex_J Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/27/06
Posts: 6
On CO2, you ask which it is, cause or effect. It's not hard to grasp the concept that it can act as both a forcing and a feedback. I don't know of a period when high CO2 wasn't eventually followed by warming, or at least an offset of a cooling, but nobody says it's the only influence (short-lived sulfate aerosol is another one). Only that it's the main forcing in the current trend, and a persistent one that threatens to disrupt our nice relatively stable in this interglacial, biosphere.

You're thrashing all over the place on solar, throwing in UV speculation, but your point was that the dermal sensations of the Inuit suggest an overall increase in energy. I maintain that you can't make that assumption - we'll just have to agree to disagree. UV is considered as part of TSI (it accounts for 10%). I haven't seen a study showing that increased UV is responsible for accelerated ice melt, and the claim that extra solar energy plays a stronger role than the amplified greenhouse effect isn't consistent with stratospheric cooling.

On Pinatubo, that one year isn't exactly used as a baseline all by itself. And some of the strongest melting and disintegration has occurred in the last several years, continuing the trend beyond the Pinatubo recovery, and (again) beyond pre-Pinatubo conditions.

Back to peer review, studies are rejected (and the reasons documented) if they're fundamentally flawed. Despite some whining from fossil-funded contrarians whose crap didn't make it into the official literature, I've yet to see anyone prove an international conspiracy to corrupt the scientific process.

On water vapor, higher temperatures mean more can remain uncondensed, even with regionally heavier precipitation events. I don't know where you get the idea that carbonic acid itself acts as a fertilizer, but if memory serves, only a small percentage of the CO2 dissolved in water forms carbonic acid. It's a relatively minor part of the total carbon sink that currently absorbs over 40% of our emissions. We'd already be in a world of trouble if that sink didn't exist.

Regarding a previous point, multi-forcing models (including the latest from NCAR), do project a significant warming even at the low end of the range, and I recall at least two scientists (including Gerald North) stating that they only reproduce observed data when the CO2 increase is included. Claims that "hockey stick" reconstruction omitted "little ice age" and MWP data have been thoroughly refuted, and the reconstruction has been independently verified.

Well, that's enough for me. I'm done spinning my wheels here. Objective readers can do their research (examining sources in the process) and come to their own conclusions. Have fun in denial, and may the strongest science lead to a brighter future.

Top
#16518 - 08/30/06 12:33 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
lets start off with the 'claims that "hockey stick" reconstruction'. what exactly is "hockey stick". if your talking aobut it being refuted, who refuted it? IPCC? they are the ones that tried to claim that the evidence from tree rings in washington state disproved it. first off, the tree rings dont show temperature, and secondly, washington state has the ocean currents to moderate the temperature swings. Show me where they got their "independant verification"

so far you have not shown any place that was not quoting IPCC that has stated that man is the primary cause of the temperature rise. If mount pinatub was not the base line, why do most studies used 1992 and 1993 as their base lines.

as far as green land is concerned please explain why they discount the amount of ice increases in the interior and focus on how much the fringes are melting. As far as i can see, there is more ice being added to in the interior than there is ice loss in the fringes. If you have 10 acre with a one meter increase, and 1 acre with a 10 meter loss, have you gained or loss ice? Global warming alarmist would say that there was a 10 acre/meter loss.

as far as the co2 goes, maybe you should check out what information about global ice ball. these are periods where the entire earth, including the middle of the pacific, froze solid. What happens is that the ice reaches a point where the albeto of the planet is such that there is insuffient energy from the sun reaching the earth to maintain the temperature, so there is a continual freeze. It continuses to freeze until there is no unfrozen water left touching the atmosphere. With no water to evaporate, there is no more clouds. With no clouds the sun hits the ice and bounces away. So what happens to cause the ice ball called earth to melt? volcanos, especially super volcanos. they spew out tons of gasses, including sulpher dioxide, water vapor and carbon dioxide. Now the sulpher dioxide will combine with part of the water vapor and form high level clouds that will block out the sun. Now with the ice already covering the world, this does not make a lot of difference. Eventually, over several years, the sulpher falls out of the atmosphere, as does a the water vapor. fortuantely, this leaves the co2 in the atmoshere, or at least a good chunck of it. Over several hundred thousand year (perhaps even a million or two) years, this co2 builds up and as it does the greenhouse effects begins to build. eventually there is enough co2 in the air to cause the ground levels to increase above freezeing. when this happens, the ocean (or a small part of it) melts. As soon as the water vapor hits the atmosphere in large quantities, the fun begins. for a thousand years, there is such a storm that it makes katrina look like a summer squal. eventually, the rain washes out most of the co2 and the temperature drops again. but by this time the ice has retreated to beyound the runaway point, and the sun is able to keep warming the earth up. the proof of this is large calcuim carbon deposits in very high altitudes. the only way they could have been formed is if that areas was underwater. the only way that could happen is if there were an ice surrounded lake there and a large amount of water that had an extreamly high level of carbon in it. the fact that there are places like this all over the world shows that it happen all over the world.

the point is that rain can wash out the co2 by itself. the higher the level of co2, the higher the amount of co2 that gets washed out. If other means handle the majority now, that does not mean more of it will be washed out with the levels increase.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16519 - 08/30/06 11:25 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by alex_J:
Lastly, I find the question you raised about the "past 10,000 years being inexplicably warm and consistant." interesting. First, you seem to be ignoring the fact that Earth has been (and will likely continue to be for the next 10,000+ years) in an interglacial period, so of course it's going to be relatively mild & stable. The warming trend is taking us beyond that. Secondly, you say the (relative) warmth over the past 10 millennia is "inexplicable", yet you seem awfully convinced that natural mechanisms are mostly responsible for global warming.
I wanted to address this point. This idea is from the Vostok ice core data. It shows the past 10,000 years has been consistantly warm. It does not show any other period that has not been increasing or decreasing for that long a period. Why has the earth's temperature suddenly been stable when it had never done this in the past 400,000 years? Since the industrial revolution is less than 500 years old, it did not cause it, so of course I conclude that it must be natural.

You also said, "Without CO2, temperatures would cool and more water vapor would precipitate out. Just look at the Milankovitch cycles: An initial orbital forcing, followed by cooling, and a reduction of CO2 and water vapor leading to more cooling." Again, the ice cores do not show that. There are long periods in the ice core data where the CO2 level increased while the temperature decreased. Like I explained in the http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1104/2.html#000022 post, this indicates that the greenhouse effect is bunk with respect to the world.

I would be grateful if you could explain the past 10,000 years temperature anomoly and the fact that temperature and CO2 levels are only loosely correlated.

John M Reynolds

Top
#16520 - 09/13/06 10:28 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Anonymous
Unregistered


Dear Learned Persons, It has been interesting reading this 'Cat Fight". I'm very sorry to read such bickering over what could be a very serious topic.
I have worked for over 50 years with very qualified members of the science (phisics mostly) community (many whose names you would recognize) and not once have I read or heard such child like drivel.

Please return to the subject with a clear mind and documented facts.

Jim Young

Top
#16521 - 09/14/06 03:20 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
So we're suppose to accept only facts given by a political party and not point out the areas that they are overlooking?
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16522 - 09/18/06 09:42 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Larannet Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/18/06
Posts: 2
Loc: The Global Earth
I totally agree!
_________________________
hell yeah

Top
#16523 - 09/20/06 04:52 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
Hi,

Wow, what a thread. The amount of different arguments that have been used to support or oppose various points of view is just amazing.

This is a thread that is impossible to really address because it cuts across way too many subjects all at once.

How about closing this thread off and starting threads that deal with any of the issues so they can be discussed rationally?

I've seen Vostok records being thrown in, the Mann et al Hockey Stick graph, various parts of the Holocene epoch being mentioned in respect to various temperatures and on and on. Oh and my favourite: satellite data needing to be "corrected" - I'm sorry but in my language that means "I don't like the data this has provided. It does not fit my theory so we'll have to come up with an excuse why it is faulty". Satellite data is currently compiled mainly by one man. It appears that he has done a marvellous job. I say that only for one reason. We finally have data that exactly matches another set of data on climate also collected by very accurate instruments. That is weather balloons. Before anyone enters this argument, I'm just throwing in one of the very great many arguments that have gone on in this thread to show how it could go off on another tangent. Not really to start a discussion about why satellite data, because it does not show global warming, is obviously wrong.

Just to show how impossible it is to rationally address so many issues at once, I'm going to try. See if a even one solitary person agrees with me.

Climate science, as it currently stands, is not a science. No self respecting scientist would put their name to pretty much anything published concerning Global Warming.

We know we are in a warmer period than the last glaciation. There is human evidence that suggests that it was rather hot around what is called the Bronze Age Warm Period. It was probably hot in the Roman Warm Period. It was very hot in the Medieval Warm Period, from the human records. It was very cold during the various parts of the Little Ice Age and now it is a bit warmer. By how much? Wouldn't have a clue and no one else who values scientific processes should either.

There is no way currently known to determine the temperatures of the Holocene period up to 1880 except in the very general terms I've just used. There is no way of knowing whether the world has warmed or cooled since 1880 except in the very general terms that it warmed up for a bit, cooled down again, warmed up, cooled down in the 50s a bit, cooled down again in the 70s until it warmed up unevenly around the world in the latter 70's and then warmed a bit but not by much from 1980 on.

This goes against pretty much every global warming study (and for that matter the various global cooling studies which were done in the 70s). Why don't we know anything other than those general terms? Because the science of world temperatures is so very badly flawed.

Tree rings do not show temperature at all. They show precipitation levels and CO2 effects plus stressors on the tree. Tree rings are great for telling when a fire occurred or a drought but not much else (oh, they are good for physicists to work out magnetic strength of the sun through Carbon 14 and a Beryllium isotope I don?t currently remember). Tree rings might be useful for general temperature estimates providing you know the precipitation records and stressors on the tree, and that is just impossible.

Ice cores tell you bugger all about climate. They do tell you a bit about pollution and once again a great deal about the suns magnetic forces. They also tell you fairly well when volcanic activity occurred and give a fair indication of the amount of activity but not much more. Use ice cores for CO2 levels and the science cannot be replicated in a laboratory. That makes it bad science. Physics studies on the methodology of interpreting ice cores have indicated that it all depends on where the cores are. They do tell you something about precipitation levels. The ratio of Oxygen 14 to 16 does not tell you the temperature in the past because the principal science has been shown to be unreliable. Ice cores only a couple of metres apart give wildly different results for Oxygen 14 to 16 ratios so that shoots done the Vostok records for one.

Just one example of ice cores to demonstrate just how unreliable they are Lonnie Thompson studied ice cores in the Andes. He took six cores. They gave quite significantly different results. He AVERAGED the results, with four out of the six cores showing the opposite to what the average showed simply because the other two had bigger variations in the other direction. Does anyone even remotely suggest this makes any sense at all. If ice cores were reliable how come the six cores were so different? How come the published result was actually the opposite to what the majority of the cores showed? Because it was not science to average the cores. It was not science to even suggest what the cores implied in relation to climate unless Mr Thompson was able to obtain consistent results in the cores. The fact that the cores are Tropical and the laboratory work done in the physics of ice cores suggest that even if the ratio of 16 to 18 reflects historic atmosphere, it relates pretty much fully to precipitation. Glaciers can grow in a climate that is warming. It all depends on the precipitation patterns.

Surface Air Temperature is probably the most incomplete bunch of data of anything man has recorded in a scientific endeavour. There is no standard for average. There is no accurate way of measuring urban effect. The British put their measuring devices under the eave of a building. The Americans in direct sunlight. The British very often forgot to swap sides when in the southern hemisphere. No one has ever suggested that the same measurements be taken, so the data collected varies from station to station. No one has standardised times for taking temperatures and when daylight savings came in no one thought that following daylight savings for data collection might not be the most sensible thing in the world.

Why? Because all this data was not collected for anyone to create an average temperature of the world or even to compare temperatures over time except for the local area so the newspaper can write ?Hottest day in 123 years.? ?Most rain ever recorded in a single day?. The temperatures were taken for agricultural purposes and so that weather predictions could be made for a day or two ahead. So the locals had some idea of whether they needed trousers or shorts (or five parkas or whatever). It's only been since the 70's that anyone has even suggested that all this wildly different data, recorded and tallied numerous different ways, might be a way of telling the temperature for a big chunk of the world or the whole world.

There is no way of measuring just how much the data has been affected by modernisation of equipment. SAT records don't show much of anything. Ocean water temperatures show zero warming if you rely only on records taken at the water surface by such entities as the British Navy when they ruled the ocean waves. They liked to record such things. It is only when you introduce data from engine inlet temperature recording that the data goes really out of whack.

The Antarctic is shrinking two dimensionally and increasing substantially three dimensionally. I trust the three dimension figures much better because they are done by satellites.

Greenland is shrinking if you follow one of the worst examples of bad scientific methodology I have ever seen (and the one that everyone quotes). It is not shrinking in another study which seems to have had a better methodology but was still not perfect.
Tornadoes have been increasing in number because of technology. No other conclusion can be drawn from it. Hurricanes have increased in the Atlantic following a significant lull. There is certainly evidence to indicate there have been worse hurricane seasons within the period of human habitation of the area. And as to the number of hurricanes being a record that comes down to technology improvements in recording hurricanes that never make landfall and would not even have been named in 1950. Despite that increase in technology, Pacific Hurricanes (called typhoons or cyclones) have dropped in number.

Sea levels. Australia is perhaps the best place to do a long term study. It has three very big oceans lapping at its shores. It is politically stable and the records should have no bias. Pity that is not true for the government organisation that played with their own figures to suggest the sea level was rising. The organisation is the CSIRO and they used two stations for a brochure on global warming, out of the 23 around Australia with long term records to assert not just that the sea level was rising but that it was due to global warming (and even those two were arguable). Use all 23 and you get nothing at all. Worse, you get a fall in sea level over the last 80 odd years if you take into account subsidence due to water extraction and the subsidence amount is something that has been accurately measured during that time.

Have I missed anything at all relating to Global Warming?

If you wish to argue Global Warming, how about sticking to one subject per thread and know your subject please or ask questions. In a forum like this, rather than everyone stating views as if they were the people who write the papers, remember all scientific learning comes from observation or being taught. If I give an opinion on a study, I?ve read the study, not the abstract and, if it can be obtained, I?ve looked at the data. But that?s me because I actually studied Climatology in the 70s and still am.

There is currently only 60 PhDs in Climate in the US. It is not a subject that you will find a lot of people that have been doing it for their careers. Dr Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute has a degree in physics and astronomy not in climate or earth sciences.

Use the forum to learn. I sure have even from those that disagree with me the most. Understand the science and look at what physicists have determined by repeatable and verifiable lab experiments. That includes problems with tree rings, ice cores, arguments about satellite data and a few other things that are actually quite critical.

Yes, I did miss something. Glaciers. They are shrinking. Europe, South America, US and Africa have shrinking glaciers. Pity that 70% of the total glaciers in the world are expanding and the ones most often quoted have been shrinking and lost large percentages of their masses well before the world started warming from the last effects of the Little Ice Age.

There, now I've probably annoyed absolutely everyone because I've had a go at pretty much every major global warming argument, not because I disagree with any of them but because I'm one of those picky people when I study science, I need my science to follow established scientific methods. I sound like a rabid supporter of the anti-global warming camp but actually I don't (I was offered a rather well paid contract with a right wing enterprise but declined - that's me declaring my pecuniary interests - I'm currently not paid by anyone although I have been working on the promise of a grant that has not yet been finalised. It is with one of the most pro-global warming entity that probably exists).

By the way, nothing I've said suggests that global warming isn't a fact or that CO2 doesn't raise world temperatures by some factor, only that you cannot use bad science and appallingly bad methodologies to prove anything.

Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#16524 - 09/20/06 06:01 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Richard, if the points you raise are scientifically sound you should be able to get an article criticising GW science published in a leading journal.

Top
#16525 - 09/20/06 07:02 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
Hi Count,

Oh, they are scientifically sound.

It's just you don't hear them raised very often or if you do you don't see them put together.

For instance, can anyone on this site state that they knew how SAT data was collected and how the yearly averages were actually calculated - that is all the way back to the raw data?

And, unless I'm badly deluded, my current study will get published. But not an article criticisng GW science. You'd need to be someone of renown in Climate circles (not just a lowly BSc even where they are good at studying studies and has a working background that backs their expertise in the field of critical analysis of studies and the like).

The trouble is if you are of some renown in Climate circles, unless retired, you wouldn't dare raise all my points in an article submitted for publication. It would never get past the peer review either. Don't you know, Global Warming is an irrefutable fact. It would be chirlish to be critical just because a bit (well, all actually) of the science is a little faulty.

Think I'm wrong. Submit a brief summary of what I write to any scientific journal, saying the author can back everything written with sound scientific studies and lab research. I doubt you will even get a reply.

Try another tack. Global Warming uses one set of figures to get to the SAT (Surface Air Temperature) average for the earth. That is the GHCN data (either version one or version two). The data sucks! Not because of anything any of the persons responsible for collecting the data did, except that the GHCN data provides monthly averages of the data only with no indication at all just how that monthly average was calculated as it is calculated at the source. There is so many gaps in the data that you can use statistical analysis to demonstrate just how unreliable it is. I could write a comprehensive paper just comparing the GHCN data with raw data from specific locations and showing just how much it differs depending on how an average is calculated. That should make interesting reading since pretty much all arguments fundamentally come down to the world average Surface Air Temperature. If it is invalid, how do you argue anything about global change?

Is it possible to get a valid dataset that could be used to create an average. With a huge amount of work, you could at least produce a dataset that used the same method for all data for average and for how you average the averages. But it would still have urban effect and what I call "local urbanisation" effects. Eliminate all but rural locations and you do not have sufficient data for a valid comparison.

Even then you are still left with data that is full of gaps and has very few stations with contiguous records from 1880. Once you start combining that data, your maths better be impecible. Even still if the results show a cooling or no warming, the whole thing is going to be written off as a front for the Bush Administration or ExxonMobil and the peer review will indicate to the journal that you are a crackpot not worthy of publication.

My study is on studies and it is already hitting terrible hurdles. But lets assume that the plug is not pulled and it is finished. It will get published probably because of who is backing it but it will not be accepted. I personally do not believe I'll ever be allowed to finish it without getting funding elsewhere and that means it probably won't be accepted for publication. Who is going to believe that EVERY study on global warming is blatantly biased, or uses scientific methodology that is either suspect or just bad. No one will believe that. Scientists are much more honest than say politicians so a study with such a conclusion. I truly hope that I can point to exceptions or a statistically significant amount of studies that this does not apply to - I'm not trying to predetermine the outcome, only that I've now looked at a fair few studies with the same depressing results. I did not expect the results I am seeing. I thought all I would find was unintential bias that creeps into almost all science when the author of research holds a particular view on the subject.

I made this offer to Dan Morgan on this forum several times. Point to any scientific study and providing I can access the data used, I'll point out the flaw. Even without the data, I may still be able to point out the flaw. Mr Morgan has never taken me up on the offer. My only criteria is that it has to be pro-warming and not related to the sun or magnetic influence of the sun. Anyone else who thinks that the science I mentioned is faulty can take up the challenge. Now, I also have a condition. The analysis I do has to be considered by the challenger and if they disagree they have to also provide an explanation based on scientific principles or valid scientific methodology.

Look up "A Sceptics Guide to an Inconvenient Truth". (www.cei.org/pdf/5478.pdf) The science is actually pretty good. The backer is terrible because they are known to oppose any legislation relating to global warming and have actually sued the US government over related issues. They are funded by the oil industry. So no one will believe a word that is written. It makes a great many points that I have been making for a while but a whole heap better argued and overall it is worthless.

Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#16526 - 09/21/06 07:03 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Larannet Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 09/18/06
Posts: 2
Loc: The Global Earth
well i don't agree with you. it's such a superficial opinion. Think about more deeply, cause this sucks.
_________________________
hell yeah

Top
#16527 - 09/21/06 07:31 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
Hi Larannet,

I'm happy to hear other's views but what does your post mean? What was a superficial opinion? My views that I really cannot present with reference to physics studies, graphs and the like in this thread or "A Sceptics Guide to an Inconvenient Truth". The guide is 110 pages and does include numerous references. I really would not call that superficial. Many would not agree with it, much more to do with its authorship and support than exactly what it says.

Considering the length of the post and the detail it would seem that you - if you are referring to my reply to the Count or my previous post - that what you consider "sucks" is my views. Why, pray tell do you think that? Is there science at issue that you disagree with perhaps? I'm interested is all.


Regards


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#16528 - 09/21/06 03:27 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Richard,

If there indeed exists a bias in the peer review system then that should be addressed by making public the unfair referee reports.

I'm not familiar with climate science, but I know that in physics such bias is rare. I know of a few cases were people have made public their referee reports to expose unfair/bad reports, see here and here.

If you just raise objections about the way climate scientists have collected and analysed their data, then it is difficult for us (non experts in this field) to judge if these objects are indeed relevant. You can always raise objects against objections etc. etc. etc.

If you have an exchange between experts then it is easier for people like me (non experts, but qualified scientists in other fields) to see if you have indeed valid points which are not taken seriously.

Top
#16529 - 09/21/06 05:51 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
Hi Count,

Actually the problem is more difficult than just peer review. You have to get past the editor first. There are very few people with qualifications in Climatology. I was told today the figure is around 200 for the US. Most that undertake research or publish papers have qualifications in other fields. I wish to complete a PhD dissertation in Climatology and only one University in Australia is able to take this on and even then it is done by the Mathematics Department.

So submitting a paper to a journal where you have no qualifications in the field of Climatology or only basic qualifications, will not get you very far, unless you are well known. Ms Oreskes is very well known and is an Historian yet she is often quoted (even by me but for negative reasons) and thus had no trouble getting editors to agree to papers. It would seem that you become a "world class expert" in Global Warming and thus have easy access to editors in recent times only if you agree with Global Warming or are not disputing some key aspect.

I have sought publication or review a few times and often do not even get the courtesy of a reply. I actually have never even reached a peer review. Does this mean I am terrible in the field that I have chosen to study?

Thank you for your links. I am afraid the science was quite dense to me and it is not an area I understand at all. But I did understand the argument that went on, especially the very poor response second hand. The whole system seems to work very well indeed. The authors had a paper in their chosen field. There was a problem with the review process and they complained. The complaint was resolved (even if by submission to a different publication) and the paper published after some modification in response the very constructive critiscms by the reviewer.

The points I have been making the last couple of days relate to the way the discussions were going more than anything.

If a thread was discussing one particular point such as the real temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the use of tree rings to arrive at temperature averages, then I'd be able to quote physics studies and provide links etc so that persons such as yourself could easily follow along.

I think by the way I wrote the last few posts in this thread and the other one going at the moment "Global Warming IS Fault of Man ..." that these were opinions. Based on research but opinions. Oh, the reference to solar activity referred to a paper about to be published so I cannot give any link to it and to a New Scientist article which I did give a reference for (but not a link).

While I am not up on the science to solar activity and its relationship to Climate on earth, the science does seem reasonable and because, like predicting the tide, there are known patterns to the sun, a prediction of a quiet period seems to be not something that is in the realms of Nostradumus type predictions.

I have certainly read reports that link Climate to solar activities but the mechanism for it, being to do with the fluctuation of the magnetic field of the sun, which in turn affect the solar radiation on the earth - as far as I understood the science - certainly seems rational. However I have seen Global Warming arguments where sunspot activity, solar flares and magnetic fluctuations are said to have little or no effect on the earth without any science being used to back up such assertions.

So I understand your position. In the field of solar science I am in the very same position. It is interesting to see the arguments put and a rationale to the science but it is not an area that you can create a laboratory experimint to replicate just how the process works. Historic observation records do very much support that the lack of sunspots corresponds to a cold period and intense sunspot activity corresponds to a warm period, so that seems to provide good evidence to support the science involved.

As to the validity of the collection and analysis of data in climate science, there is a completely different forum that may provide an interesting review of the sciences involved. Today (21 September) the State of California filed suit for $50 billion against GM, Ford - six auto makers - alleging public nuisance for producing products that contribute to global warming.

Nuisance is a very old tort but a rather novel one to apply in a situation like this. It has been used because suits against power companies by various states relating to similar arguments have been dismissed in the preliminary stages.

If this lawsuit gets to the point where evidenciary filings occur then the issue of the scientific validity of the methods used in climate studies is likely to be scrutinised in depth. If it goes to trial then it is very possible that these issues will be considered and decided whether they are really valid. It certainly is different compared to peer reviewed publishings but the scrutiny is likely to be much more intense and may actually expose the methodologies to critiscm and even judgement on the issue.

I probably will not be posting for a few days and if I don't post for more than a week don't expect a post ever again. I have mentioned that I'm stuck at home because of a spinal injury, partial paralysis and the like. So now I have a raging staff infection that I didn't notice for a while because it started in an area where I have no feeling. Its spread to more than half my leg just this evening and I've been told that I will need an antibiotic drip.

I do hope I see how the threads have been progressing in my hopefully short absence.


Regards


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#16530 - 09/22/06 01:43 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Anonymous
Unregistered


Richard,
best wishes and hope for a full recovery. You will be missed.


Amaranth

Top
#16531 - 10/18/06 04:48 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Anonymous
Unregistered


you guys obviously have absolutely no life if you type this much on a computer about global warming. We are all going to die so who really cares about that. The world is going to end no matter what so why worry about it. YOU GUYS ARE STUPID TO EVEN WASTE THE TIME WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

Top
#16532 - 10/18/06 05:10 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Brian, I've sure learned a lot about global climate change by following these threads for just a week or two now. Not only do I see how complex the climate is, but I also am learning how to define and understand the problems of quantifying climate change as a part of the whole earth/solar-system dynamic. I understand your feelings, stated above; but I think it's not a waste of time if you can finally see or learn of a way to save the world.

"Life is nature's way of turning light into heat." --R.Dawson
We've gotta stop being so efficient at that!
~Samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#16533 - 10/18/06 05:48 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Brian wrote:
"We are all going to die so who really cares about that."

Well based on that logic I suggest you start smoking cigarettes. Cook your brains with heroin. And take up base-jumping while stoned as a hobby.
Maybe with a stick of dynamite clamped between your teeth. I hear it is a real blast.

Some of us are interested in the quality of our lives. And some of us are interested in the quality of the lives of our children too. You, apparently, are a teenager who has yet to grow out of a phase that all of us who are adults have experienced. Put a smile on your face. Soon those connections in your brain will be rewired and your attitude will change.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.