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 (), 436 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#16646 - 10/13/06 11:43 PM Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday.

In a study that analyzed temperatures around the globe, researchers found that Earth has been warming rapidly, nearly 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) in the last 30 years.

"The average surface temperature is 15, maybe 16 degrees Celsius (60 degrees Fahrenheit)," said Alan Robock, a meteorologist and climate researcher from Rutgers University who was not involved with the study.

If global temperatures go up another 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C), it would be equal to the maximum temperature of the past million years.

"This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made (anthropogenic) pollution," said study leader James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

For the rest of the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15003895/
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
.
#16647 - 10/14/06 12:11 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
another news story, with no science based on the common knowledge that there was a record year, yet nothing to show why, save the arthors preconcieved notion that it was man made polution.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16648 - 10/14/06 12:18 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
"This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made (anthropogenic) pollution," said study leader James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

It will be interesting to watch some of our members pull apart James Hansen's statement.

But then again, what does he know - he only works for NASA.

Ah, but I see that he was dealing with the skeptics 7 years ago.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

Some things never change.

Blacknad.

Top
#16649 - 10/14/06 12:29 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Oh, I see Dehammer got there before me, and I could have predicted what he was going to say.

Dehammer said "another news story, with no science"

So you took no notice of the fact that this statement comes after a 'SCIENTIFIC STUDY', and after Hansen had considered the evidence...

Now I may be wrong, but I assumed that the 'SCIENTIFIC STUDY' bit might actually be evidence of some SCIENCE. Sorry to jump the gun there.

Maybe Uncle Al will join in at this point and remind us that "wildfires are big and they burn lots of trees, stoopid". smile

Blacknad.

Top
#16650 - 10/14/06 01:07 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Anonymous
Unregistered


"wildfires are big and they burn lots of trees, stoopid"

Let's leave off the name calling and the encouragement thereto.

Amaranth
Moderator

Top
#16651 - 10/14/06 03:17 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Rose ... I think immitation one of the finest forms of flattery and Blacknad was just flattering Uncle Al. No offense should be taken by dehammer.

But really dehammer this has got to be the silly season for you. You are willfully turning a blind eye to the obvious.

Reconsider your position. The earth is absolutely warming: And a lot. The only question left at issue is the percentage contribution from human habitation.

And if you don't believe it is then kindly explain the photographic evidence accumulated during your lifetime. PhotoShop?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16652 - 10/14/06 03:46 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacknad:
Oh, I see Dehammer got there before me, and I could have predicted what he was going to say.

Dehammer said "another news story, with no science"

So you took no notice of the fact that this statement comes after a 'SCIENTIFIC STUDY', and after Hansen had considered the evidence...

Now I may be wrong, but I assumed that the 'SCIENTIFIC STUDY' bit might actually be evidence of some SCIENCE. Sorry to jump the gun there.

Maybe Uncle Al will join in at this point and remind us that "wildfires are big and they burn lots of trees, stoopid". smile

Blacknad.
sorry, I must be reading a different link. All i saw was a news story about a study, that quote it, and then came to its own conclusion. I never found the actual study.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16653 - 10/14/06 04:26 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Reconsider your position. The earth is absolutely warming: And a lot. The only question left at issue is the percentage contribution from human habitation.

And if you don't believe it is then kindly explain the photographic evidence accumulated during your lifetime. PhotoShop?
It depends on what exactly you are refering to.

Im sure you have heard of the little ice age that ended a couple centuries ago. If your refering to the fact that it has warmed up since the coldest part of the little ice age, then yes i agree that it has warmed up.

If on the other hand you are claiming as some has that man has raised the temperature of the world from its "standard" temperature, then first your going to have to figure out how to define the "standard" temperature.

One thing that i cant understand at all is how people make it like the earth is about to end or that our civilization is about to be destroyed. I will not say that we are not going to do so, but its not the co2 that is going to be a problem, nor the temperature.

name any other animal on earth that can live anywhere from the deepest, coldest polar region, to the hottest desert. man can even live beneith the waves or in space, a place that no other life form known to man has ever done so.

the global temperature has ranged from a point where the earth has been totally frozen, to a point where the hottest temperature man has ever faced would seem like a cool day. the earth will not be harmed if the temperature returns to that, and man will adapt with his normal ease to anything that comes along. we are not facing extinction, as many have indicated, even if the worse case scenario.

back to the point, the earth cycles from cold to hot with many things causing it. does this mean that we are having global warming, no, it means that were are having global climate changes, that are normal. are we near the top of the range, no, not even close. are we in danger of this? only if we panic and do something stupid like cause a global freeze that puts the entire world under ice.

you are so good at politics that at one point i could have sworn that you were a political instructor or even a professor of politics. This is one more example of why i thought so. Using the global "we agree" statements to make it look like everyone agrees with you is pure politics. Too bad you didnt go into politics, you could have been president with your skills.

show me the proof that the world temperature has risen, show me the raw uncorrected data, show me the data that has not been corrected to show the increase. I dont have to ignore any thing, because i look at everything. I dont let others spoon feed me my opinions. When they say that we have to beleive this or accept this, then i say, why, where is the evidence.

youve accused me of not seeing the tide go out as evidence of a tidal wave approaching, If i see the water recending, then yes, ill look to see what is there. on the other hand, if im setting on the beach, and people are running around claiming that a tidal wave is rapidly approaching, while my feet are in the waves, then ill have to have more proof.

many years ago, there were people who were terrified, because they had heard that there was a war going on, world wide, that we were losing and losing badly. In fact, we were losing so badly, because we did not have a single way of stopping the enemy. This enemy was not someone that wanted to take us over, and make us follow his orders, he wanted to kill us all. people were in a panic.

then they came on and said, "this is only a broadcast of Orsen Well's 'war of the worlds' and the martians are not landing". Personally, if i had been there, i would have gone out to look for the meteroid landings before i paniced.

as far as the evidence that you refer to. its possible to show a man holding up a 40 foot shark bare handed, without using photoshop. its a matter of prospectives.

an example: taking photos of one glacers and the evidence that it is retreating, while deliberately refusing to show any sign of the other 4 nearby glacers, all of which are advancing. by ignoring them, its very easy to make people believe that all the glacers in the world are retreating.

example 2: talking about how the glacers are disappearing in one areas, while at the same time ignoring the fact that in another area, only a short distance away, they are increasing.

example 3: talking about how during a record season, the ice has melted so much, yet ignoring the fact that on the cold years, the ice had increased.

example 4. choising the years in such a way that all of the records so it increasing in temp, decreasing in ice, or what ever.

example 5. using only short term data. such as a satelite record that is only 4 year long to prove that the ice is disappearing, when all it can show is that they ice has disappeared for 4 years, not what it was like before that.

the big proof that this is not a scientific study is that it uses the word dangerous as part of its title. what is so dangerous about the temperature rising in one year. how do they determine what is a dangerous level. its pure political hype.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16654 - 10/14/06 06:13 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
I'm just commenting on this last statement: "the big proof that this is not a scientific study is that it uses the word dangerous as part of its title. what is so dangerous about the temperature rising in one year. how do they determine what is a dangerous level. its pure political hype."

You don't need proof that it's not a scientific study (though you're right about the emotionally charged word); because it's obviously a news article. It's about scientific studies, but it's the news person who says 'dangerous.' Oops, I see Hansen used the word first. Well maybe he does have an agenda or bias, but still my point is that there is data from scientific studies in this article. Do you consider it ALL pure political hype just because Hansen says "evidence implies" we're "close to dangerous levels...of pollution."
The article isn't proof of anything, but I don't see it as totally worthless either. But if I was to pick something to critique, it'd be the .2C rise refered to. Someone, (not involved with the study?) says a 1C rise would be the 1Myr. record, so my critique would be: is .2C "dangerously close" to one whole degree C. --or words to that effect.
Actually, the more I read that article, the more I wonder if Hansen even knew about the other information quoted by Roback or the reporters comment(?) about 1C being highest in 1Myr.
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#16655 - 10/14/06 08:22 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
levels of polution i could agree, any level is dangerous, and the more we have to deal with the more the danger is. but how does that prove any thing about global warming.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16656 - 10/14/06 10:32 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
More and more scientists are reluctantly admitting that the Earth is getting warmer. The exact cause of this warming has been obscured by the various natural feedback mechanisms that nature brings into play, in trying to preserve the status quo.
Trying to calculate the effect of the many and varied feedbacks involved, is proving so difficult
that many scientist would rather not comment.

Its when the natural feed back mechanism breaks down that we are liable to experience 'thermal runaway' with all its consequences.

Daniel Morgan has put out a lot of excellent posts, all about global warming, and its consequences.
Those that have doubts, should scroll back and read them.

Its pointless arguing that glaciers are melting, and then stating that they are growing back in thickness elsewhere. It dos'nt mean much since overall, its a feedback mechanism of Nature, that is trying to redistributing itself and preserve its status quo.

Its the total overall effect, of those few +degrees worldwide, that has to be looked at and taken into account, both above and below the Earths surface.

Prehaps one ought to be reminded that sharks, and man-of-war jelly fish, are now straying into the seas around Europe.
That Coral growing in the tropical seas, are dying, due to the warmer waters.
That the deserts in the world are increasing in area rapidly.
Not forgetting the slow northward march of the malaria mosquitoe.

Polar Bears hollow out snow caves, in which they hibernate and give birth. Their snow shelters are OVER the sea. They also trek hundreds of miles across the ice to hunt for seal.
But more are dying from exaustion by swimming, since the ice floes are breaking up and getting fewer. They need the ice to lay on, watch, and catch their food.

Your great grandfathers were looking for the 'North West Passage, (Frobisher etc) 200 years ago. There was'nt one,.....it was solid ice all year round.
Today Canada is thinking of passing a law, so that they can charge a fee for all American, European and Japanese tankers that will soon be using this short cut all year round.
There are plans to built a second and much wider Panama Canal, it probably wont be needed, the northern route to Continents would be quicker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal
Read the para labelled "Competition"

You dont have to be a scientist to realise there is more moisture (energy) in the air, look at our world weather.

Finally you might not know it,unless you were told by NASA,....that the Sun's output is increasing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer
_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
#16657 - 10/14/06 10:58 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaranth Rose:
"wildfires are big and they burn lots of trees, stoopid"

Let's leave off the name calling and the encouragement thereto.

Amaranth
Moderator
Aww, come on Amaranth. Please let me bait Uncle Al - I love reading his posts. They are highly entertaining when I can understand them.

Blacknad.

Top
#16658 - 10/14/06 04:21 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day all,

Here is a direct submission by Dr Hansen. I'll leave it for anyone to decide just how unbiased Dr Hansen is. The use of "dangerous" is clearly Dr Hansen's from the very beginning and his emphasis. This is a public document by the way so I'm not reproducing anything that Dr Hansen did not wish to be generally distributed.


Quote:
Several people have asked about the status of ?Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study?, submitted to JGR in December 2005, which includes figures used in my ?Keeling? presentation at AGU earlier that month.

Given the reaction of the editor and some referees (attached) it seems the jig is up for publication in JGR of detail comparable to that in our ?Efficacy? paper (JGR, 110, D18104, 2005), which had 28 figures and 45 pages. I indicated in my submittal letter with the ?Dangerous? paper that we could break it into two parts: simulations of past climate (which test the model) and climate projections (which investigate ?dangerous? change), but clearly that would not satisfy the new publication criterion that readers must ?be able to read a paper in one sitting without stopping? (EOS Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 87, 140, 4 April 2006).

I also disagree with the editor?s philosophy about figures, which I think are worth a thousand words. Given simulations for 10 individual forcings, it is valuable to show the response to each side by side, along with observations and the standard deviation of ensemble members. The intelligent reader does not need to have each map explained in detail. And throwing out the maps showing lesser response would do more harm than good, making the presentation more difficult to follow and less instructive.

I suspect that the difficulty in getting progress toward publication of this paper relates not only to its length but to an unstated sociological matter. I sense an aversion to papers with blunt statements about the practical significance of results (though I would not claim that this example demonstrates it, or even that the statistics on all the papers I have ever submitted could prove it). If societal implications do not belong in a geophysical journal, who is going to say them for us? What is wrong with connecting dots, and why should we have to write a separate paper for a different journal, satisfying some entirely different editorial criteria ? meaning, in practice, that the implication paper never gets written? In papers a century ago, which are a delight to read, the authors did not seem afraid to discuss implications. Why impose self censorship and leave important conclusions opaque to others?

In any case, I have divided the paper into two parts: ?Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study? and ?Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS model E?. Both papers are available at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~www/. The small version of each paper has figure resolution/quality reduced, while the large version has figure quality approaching what it would be in journal publication.

We will submit the ?Dangerous? paper for publication soon. We may have to publish the other paper as a report, as I can?t think of a journal that is likely to accept a paper that long.

The content of these papers is the same as before division into two, except that we have added two figures to ?Dangerous?, Figures 9 and 10, which you may find interesting.
Regards


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

Top
#16659 - 10/14/06 05:16 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Richard, thanks for the kind reply. ~Sam
&re: your last post. Wow, so do I get that JGR rejected Hansen's article? I haven't tried the link yet, but I find this quote real interesting. Now I'm curious about the 'Efficacy' paper too. Did that generate a lot of controversy? Thanks for your input. ~Sam
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#16660 - 10/14/06 05:16 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day again,

This is my current favourite topic, temperature data. So Mike Kramer believes that everyone is admitting the world is getting warmer. How do they reach that conclusion? As Mr Blair, PM of Britain says, science is not a matter of voting for a position, it is a matter of scientific enquiry. The majority deserve to be listened to but that does not mean they are always right.

I liked that rather reasoned and rational approach.

The last couple of days I've been looking at a research paper that is all about temperatures. It shows the earth is cooling! The authors do not believe this by the way but that was the only conclusion they could reach from the data they had when they attempted to eliminate various errors in the Surface Air Temperature data. I don't believe this is going to be published in Science any time soon.

This is where it gets tricky. In order to replicate this study, you need access to the data. Hey presto, the GHCN data set is available on the Internet for you to download. I've posted this a few times, but this is an easy access version: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ . Here's another link: http://fuzzo.com/ghcn/. If you want to do anything with the GHCN data, this is as good a program as any to be able to read it.

OK, so you now have 7,000 weather station monthly averages. Dr Hansen and his co-authors are actually talking about a computer simulation of rather course structure. Way too course to take into account clouds for instance and very much out of date. But it is still a model. ie. A guess. Why would every other science, be extremely sceptical of researchers guessing the future, yet climate studies, love it so much?

Forget the "average" fiasco which may make the figures, especially from 1970 on, out by as much as 2 degrees. In order to do anything with this data, you have to eliminate urban effect. That cuts out the majority of the figures. Then you need to standardise your model. Can't have 500 points in the US and none in Africa. That would bias the results if there is a regional climate shift that is not worldwide. But you also need data that goes back a few years and relates to the same station. So now we are down to about 1% of the stations. That's 70 stations. And that's why you get global cooling. You don't have enough data.

Why not use the satellite data or the balloon data for Dr Hansen's model? Well, because it does not show global warming. It shows a marginal warming in 30 years based on two hot years. It matches sunspots where the SAT data diverges from the sunspot data markedly since 1970. I quote Dr Sami Solanski of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research:

Quote:
"The temperature of the Earth in the past few decades does not rcorrelate with solar activity at all."
But did it in the past. Yep. Another scientist:

Quote:
"A couple of years ago, I would not have said that there was any evidence for solar activity driving temperatures on Earth. Now I think there is fairly convincing evidence"
Paula Reimer, palaeoclimatologist.

And this:

Quote:
"If you look back into the sun's past you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity"
Scientific method suggests that if you have persuasive links between two systems then if you have records that do not match either of these two systems at all, generally, you have a look at what might be wrong with the data.

So, what is it. If global warming is man-made and if you believe satellite data is accurate for such things as ice measurements of the Arctic, then satellite data must be accepted for the world's comparison temperatures, you have a really big problem, that the satellite data does not show global warming overall, just a bit of an increase in a couple of years that really do correspond with solar activity.

This cannot be that hard to understand, really. You have a data set that any study of demonstrates just how bad it is. You have two other data sets that no one can argue are extremely accurate that do not agree with it at all. Sure you can argue a bit about shielding problems in the early 70s or shift problems with satellites but if you assume the absolute worst and correct for these, you still do not get any match with the other set of data and you still do not get global warming. You get a little variation upward for a very short time within a 30 year period.

If you want to argue with this, it is really very simple. Point to any research that suggests that the SAT data is not flawed. Suggest logic problems with the comparison of the SAT against the balloon and satellite data. Suggest some global warming reason why the satellite data will show nothing when the world really is warming such as the models suggest that global warming will cause a cooling in the upper atmosphere and that is screwing up the data. I wouldn't suggest you use this theory on the two scientist groups that produce the satellite data, however, because it really ignores how satellite data is collected. It does not collect upper atmosphere temperatures as a major component of the temperatures that are used.

So, if you really think there is global warming (and you might well be right but not based on the satellite data currently available - the 30 years does not show it and it is just not long enough), suggest data that is comparable and is not just regional and is not seriously flawed. While you're at it, suggest why the very good data that is available from the US and Canada, and New Zealand and Australia, does not correspond with the rest of the SAT. If you take them alone, taking out urban areas, you get some regional climate changes with some of the US warming, some cooling, some of Australia warming, some cooling, but overall no pattern or a cooling one.

This is not all that complicated in the end. It is really easy to obscure facts or cover for bad data.

A Couple of Long Stories About How Errors Can Occur Where Everyone Turns out to be Wrong

I had to work out why a railway line sunk once. For four years the very best engineering firms in the world had been arguing amongst themselves. Each expert opinion on why the collapse occurred, brought a response, usually another hundred pages longer than the opinion, from the other four groups pointing out all the flaws and why another theory fitted better. 40,000 pages of expert opinion eventually turned up. It would have been really funny if it did not involve several hundred jobs and $120 million dollars and the railway line not being fixed (it didn't carry trains but 180 tonne specialist equipment).

All I found with all that opinion was not facts but science used to obscure facts. The opinions became progressily more densely scientific, with more complex formulas, each time.

End result? I asked each group to submit their theory in a standard form without attacking any other theory and while they did that I interviewed those involved and had another expert take samples and we both examined the scene by cutting a rather big hole under the railway line. Not one of the theories came close to being correct because they were not being produced to do that. The reputations of some very big egos rested on the results of this, not to mention who would cough up the $120 million.

It turned out that everyone made some mistake that contributed to a very simple failure in the end. The original geotech survey didn't sample enough of the area to really determine what was there. The geotech survey was fudged a bit towards a way that would cut a couple of million dollars of the building costs and quality material was assumed to be in the excavation area when the geotech survey suggested only that it might be, and it was wrong in this because it was in an area where there were too few samples.

So then the next group of experts were faced with a decision of using material that wasn't what was needed. So they changed the specs, using some calculations that would have worked except for some drainage issues and the fact that this was not a standard railway line. The definition on what "crushed" was, was altered a little bit.

One person in construction, who was very experienced in construction but did not have a great many letters after his name, actually pointed out that the material was deficient. He was told he didn't know what he was talking about.

Some pipes that needed to be specially made for drainage were not available and so a substitution was made for another type that should have been as good, but wasn't because of the other changes.

Overall, each mistake or correction was very minor. Each looked like it would not affect the outcome or impinge on the margin of safety by more than a tiny amount. That was true if the stuff was up to scratch. But it wasn't and the whole thing started to sink after a couple of years.

I had the world's top experts trying to figure out why power grid stations were blowing up (and in a couple of cases frying workers). Couldn't do it until it was found that a purchasing officer had a friend in a chemical company and swapped over the supply of some insulating material to that company. They made almost identical insulation gunk so wham was the harm? Helped his friend make a $10,000 sale. Trouble is the material had a temperature range only up to 55 degrees celcius and the material it was covering on occasion reached 58 or 59 degrees. The actual specifications required material rated to 65 degrees (although the normal working range was the same for the originally requested material and for the swapped one). This little change, that no one could figure out for months cost over $3 billion.

I've done hundreds of these types of enquiries and, while, they have nothing to do with global warming, they do have to do with why everybody just knows that global warming is irrefutable and even man-made because of the CO2 and the very real possibility that "everyone" doesn't know that they are talking about. Not saying I do, but I really would like more people to focus on the fundamental part of global warming, the data. If it cannot be trusted, then you either need to get better data or work out a way to prove global warming through other means, if it is true, which the satellite data suggests it might not be.


Regards


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

Top
#16661 - 10/14/06 05:31 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day Mike,

Just a quick comment (which knowing how I type will end up being 16 pages LOL). Anyone that studies past climate will tell you nature is not an entity. It does not "try" to do anything. There is no "balance" to climate. There are temporarily stable states that actually turn out to be not all that stable.

The really big mystery of climate studies is just why deglaciations (the switch that happens every once and a while during an Ice Age and happened a bit over 11,000 years ago) suddenly occur or why the opposite then happens a few thousand years later and the glacial period then lasts for so much longer than the interglacial period.

You want to suggest what feedback mechanisms obscure global warming in the last few years. I'm really interested in this aspect of what I call "excuse science" (rather a derogatory term but if someone comes up with a reason why their overall theory is still right despite the observed evidence no longer fitting it really starts to sound like nothing more than an excuse). To fit excuse science, the excuse has to be opinion rather than research, not corroborated with any real evidence, and not accepted by the original researchers that the excuse is aimed at demonstrating they missed some important point. It may well be a valid excuse by the way, but cannot be trusted on its own.

Satellite data can't be trusted because our models show that global warming will cause cooling. Oh, the US data shows cooling because our models show that global warming will produce regional cooling. The Antarctica obviously will get thicker ice coverage during global warming because global warming will cause more precipitation (that one really is a bit rich since the people using it generally know that there has been no change in precipitation rates in the Antarctica for 50 years). The balloons were not properly shielded so they warm up during the day in the 70s creating higher base temperatures (the shielding one really is reaching, the balloon data perfectly matches the satellite data which does not have a similar error in the 70s and the alleged shielding deficiencies were only for a short period).


Regards


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

Top
#16662 - 10/14/06 05:47 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day,

Making this an altmightly long reply but I missed something.

Four polar bears prove global warming? Title of my lecture. Where did you get the information about the polar bears. The populations of polar bears are increasing especially in areas of the Arctic where the temperature is increasing. They are decreasing in areas where the temperature is decreasing. Not a good example because any polar bear expert will disagree.

Coral reefs. Been around for hundreds of millions of years. They actually thrive in very hot world climate conditions but they have a whole bunch of cycles. Most coral experts suggest that coral reef damage is due to man-made pollution in rivers that flush into the areas where the reefs are. That is not evidence of global warming but it is evidence of man's stupidity.

Malaria. Global warming. No connection! Don't take my word, look at the experts in disease migration. Malaria is due to the intrusion of man into areas that we used to avoid because of malaria and due to such simple things as allowing the importation of used tires (tyres) filled with water that also contain the nasty little anopholis (have no idea how to spell this) mosquito. Do a google search and you will find that this is one of the worst examples of panic reporting done by global warming proponents and news reporters you will find. Telling lies does not help anyone's case (and I'm not saying they are deliberately lying, only that those that repeat this argument really haven't taken the time to confirm whether any expert in diseases actually agrees with it or not). Indeed, you wil find some very pissed off doctors because by blaming global warming the emphasis is taken away from really simple means to avoid the continuation of this spread, so repeating this falsehood endlessly is actually killing people. That is something I think is reprehensible. You don't make statements to help your argument that has the capacity to kill people without being very very sure of your facts. Dr Singer, a distinguished scientist in the field of climate science, has made this point many times, and is listened to less and less. If the risk is very small but the premiums very large or the possibility exists that real damage will be done by addressing such a risk, it is not a good idea to do so.

I'm sorry, but I have to say that using this as an example, if remembered by others, has the capacity for real harm and Mike, I do not for a second think, that anyone really wants to do this. I would really suggest you do a search on all the medical research about this subject before making such a statement again.

And one last thing, the article on solar magnetic fields to be blame for any global warming is not an argument that supports your views on global warming at all. That article was saying that it was all due increased solar activity. That was a news article but, according, to a whole bunch of research coming from solar experts, we have just this month entered a quiet phase which will last at least 50 years.

Regards


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

Top
#16663 - 10/14/06 05:49 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
I'll read your last post later, but I can now see why JGR speaks to 'readable in one sitting.' I was struck by the Solar Irradiance section (3.3.3)(in the Transient paper) which I think could address some of the comments made on the 8 page thread (Russian scientist...).
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#16664 - 10/15/06 10:37 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
anyman Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/18/04
Posts: 134
amaranth is taking her duties as moderator far too seriously

dan has posted jazz on global warming, and his continued efforts at a defense become more...

Top
#16665 - 10/15/06 05:52 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
Quote:
Originally posted by RicS:
Richard says:-

The populations of polar bears are increasing especially in areas of the Arctic where the temperature is increasing.

Coral reefs. Been around for hundreds of millions of years. They actually thrive in very hot world climate conditions........

Malaria. Global warming. No connection!..................... I would really suggest you do a search on all the medical research about this subject before making such a statement again.

And one last thing, the article on solar magnetic fields to be blame for any global warming is not an argument that supports your views on global warming at all.

Solar Activity-
That article was saying that it was all due increased solar activity. That was a news article but, according, to a whole bunch of research coming from solar experts, we have just this month entered a quiet phase which will last at least 50 years.


Richard
Hi Richard,

Taking Solar activity first:-
That article was saying that "it was all due to INCREASED solar activity" ....Q.E.D
End of conversation. Sorry to be so curt, I'm short of time.
Also you say-............"we have just this month entered a quiet phase which will last at least 50 years".
I dont know Richard, you may be right....however the sun is gearing up for a 'sunspot ' maximum. A sunspot maximum means an active sun. Next sunspot maximum is in 2011
Its predicted that it will be one of the worst ever, in terms of upsetting all types of communications, as well as 'tripping' power lines off, leaving homes and business's without power.

Malaria = Global warming?
I didnt say that, nor meant to imply it.
I just mentioned the 'slow march northward of the mosquitoe insect' ......implying, thats due to
global warming.

Coral Reefs...I said they are dying due to warmer
seas.
They may be affected by pollution, but river estuarys are usually hundreds of miles from the normal habitat of these delicate ANIMALS.

Lastly....You say the population of polar Bears are increasing?
Wrong.
The overall population of polar Bears is very much decreasing.
Since Artic warming, the Bears have moved in to the edges of human habitations and forage for food in rubbish dumps. Where they have become a dangerous nuisance. People drive out in trucks to photograph them, having never seen them before. Also Polar Bears only bear one Cub, they are very vunerable, as they normally walk with their mothers many hundreds of miles to the sea, at the edge of the ice shelf. Now due to warming, the ice shelf is not continuous, and breaks up into ice floes, the Cubs die from exaustion swimming from one ice floe to another. Itshould be noted that their food, the Seals, are only to be found in large numbers, in the sea at the edge of the ice shelf.
Another result of Global Warming.

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.

-
_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



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.