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 (), 461 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 5 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#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
Page 5 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.