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 (), 435 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#16666 - 10/15/06 08:06 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
RicS Offline
Senior Member

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

What I said was not just my opinion. I have actually read research on coral reefs, and polar bears. I have not seen one single paper on polar bears that suggest their population is decreasing. You are using suggestions as to why polar bears may be under threat but the only way to know if this is true is to do the research of those that actually track polar bears or count them. I do know for instance that polar bears do not bear single cubs as the norm but as for the rest, it probably happens. The question is, overall, does it have much effect on the population. That type of explanatory remarks make the loss of polar bears sound real but they are not a substitute for real research. That research says that polar bear populations are increasing. Try the WWF for polar bear populations in Canada. If you want to argue this further I would suggest you point to research which shows polar bears are dying out.

Your comment on coral reefs obviously suggests your understanding of coral reefs is a bit lacking. Coral reefs are hugely affected by the river systems that feed the waters that surround them but once again that level of detail is best left to experts on coral reefs. Instead of suggesting my explanation was wrong, how about looking at what experts think.

As to disease, specifically malaria, your statement did imply that this was because of warming. Any reasonable person would have read into your four points that they were because of global warming. Disease migration, especially maliaria, is not due to global warming and I would be happy to point to research on this subject. My comments stand as they are.

Solar activities are not a field I am an expert in. However, I do understand that you can have a cluster of sunspots within a quiet period. If 2011 is predicted to be such a cluster then it may have a temporary effect on communications however unless the expected increase is going to be long term, and the studies I've read state that it will be quiet for the next 50 years, it will have no effect on the earth's climate. Bit like having a very hot day in the middle of winter. The snow might melt a bit but the next day when the temperatures go back to normal, so does everything else.


Regards


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

Top
.
#16667 - 10/15/06 10:57 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Te Urukehu Offline
Member

Registered: 09/08/06
Posts: 51
Loc: Aotearoa
That the anthropogenic nature of climate change has yet to be scientifically determined - appears to be at the heart of the climate research debate currently underway. The following link is Aotearoa / New Zealand's contribution to the global perspective:

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006930201100.ResponseToRSNZ.pdf
_________________________
Darkness is but the sum total of Creation inclusive of the Light.

Top
#16668 - 10/15/06 11:15 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Fascinating.

And while they beat their chests ... the ice melts.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16669 - 10/15/06 11:51 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Te Urukehu Offline
Member

Registered: 09/08/06
Posts: 51
Loc: Aotearoa
As Aotearoa / New Zealand is relatively close to the icey bits, I've recently bought a boat. Not a boat of Ark proportions of course, simply one that will take two children, the unpaired dog, and an equally solo flying budgie - oh yes, and the partner.
_________________________
Darkness is but the sum total of Creation inclusive of the Light.

Top
#16670 - 10/16/06 02:52 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Fascinating.

And while they beat their chests ... the ice melts.
.... and grows, and melts, and grows, and melts and....
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16671 - 10/16/06 03:29 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Hi Richard, I'm back. re: your "Disease migration, especially maliaria, is not due to global warming and I would be happy to point to research on this subject."
I'd be interested in seeing something along those lines.
~gotta go -small crisis w/ kids.
~Sam
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#16672 - 10/16/06 03:37 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK
Hello Richard,

If you, or anyone else would like to get the facts of Global Warming, I suggest you go to see the Documentary Film "An Inconvenient Truth"
Its a very powerful film. It is also due to come out on DVD (around November 2006). Well worth watching.
Al Gore spend a lot of money to get this film produced, since he wanted to influence President GW Bush to change his policy on Carbon emmissions.

Polar Bears are Drowning -
As more northern countries are fitting polar Bears with radio tracking collars, more info upon their movements feeding habits and deaths might surprise you, as the details are released.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1938132,00.html

Note- that the ICUN have just placed the Polar Bear on their Red List of Threatened Species

...and
Climbing Everest has become too easy today.
It can now be climbed in just ten hours! Says the Abbot of Tengboche Monastery, Nepal. Because- "there is less snow, and the glaciers are shrinking rapidly"
....and he should know, they supply the sherpas for the ascents. smile
_________________________
.

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



Top
#16673 - 10/16/06 03:53 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
Well Richard, I'm sure you've seen that Times article based on the 4 polar bears reference. But what about the: '...USGS and the Canadian Wildlife Service to be published next year will show the population fell 22% from 1,194 in 1987 to 935 last year.' Oh, wow-that's almost 20 years; so about 1%/yr out of a population of ~1000. Hmmm, well maybe not quite so significant. I thought it was a more sudden onset; still... guess it's just another pointer to poles retreating. I heard today that the polar caps on Mars have been retreating for at least 6 years now too.
~Sam
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#16674 - 10/16/06 09:13 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
RicS Offline
Senior Member

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

Polar Bears. This is a difficult subject because every single polar bear is not tagged. The WWF says that polar bears are not endangered, their numbers are stable or increasing. Others say differently. If you really wanted to argue about polar bears you would have to know how they are being counted now and have been counted in the past. There is a real possibility that previous counts double counted bears or that they were based on an estimate or indirect evidence. But it could also be that the 1,194 polar bears that are being observed by the Canadian Wildlife Service have been reduced to 935. How? By poaching perhaps. By shooting because they intruded on civilisation. How about they decided they didn't like being Canadian and have decided to wander into the US instead? Does that change in number prove global warming? This is the trouble with using abstract information to suggest global warming. Too many possible unrelated causes.

So let's not be so abstract. Lets look at the average temperature anomolies for the arctic regions. According to the satellite data there has been some regional warming and some regional cooling and overall, nothing. No difference in 30 years. So if the bears are dying it is really difficult to say it is global warming when overall their region has not changed in temperature.

And in the case of polar bears we even have conflicts as to what is happening with their population. If there are more of them where it is getting regionally warmer could that mean that they are migrating or having more cubs in response to some environmental trigger? How would I know? Unless you are a polar bear expert, how would you?

The crack about the four dead polar bears comes from An Inconvenient Truth. Mr Gore says that for the first time significant numbers of polar bears are drowning. He is referring to a study that records the observation of four dead polar bears after a major wind storm. I do not believe the two match all that well.

Mike, I've watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and commented on it at length on this forum before. It is very well presented but the science behind it goes from marginal to just plain wrong. Even though most scientists, even those that strongly agree with Global Warming, have agreed that the Mann graph is deceptive and based on invalid scientific method, Mr Gore continues to use it as if it is the unvarnished truth. Bit like the polar bears. Goes on about tropical glaciers when the majority of the melt of these glaciers occurred more than a century ago, well before supposed man-made global warming. The speed of melting of these glaciers has actually slowed in recent years.

I've already mentioned Mr Thompson's analysis of ice cores a few times but its worth mentioning again. You do not get six wildely differing results from six cores in three glaciers and decide that the way to resolve the differences is to average the results. Four of the cores did not support Mr Thompson's theories at all (the majority) but the two that did did so to a larger extent than the other four. Thus the average presents a result that only two of the six cores agrees with. I cannot see how anyone interested in accurate science can say this is good science or valid, yet this study is often quoted, including extensively by Mr Gore.

Mike, I'm happy to discuss any particular subject brought up by Mr Gore. His slide presentation is not science. He is an evangalist on global warming, that much is clear. He is also extremely good at putting his point across but none of the science is his. A great deal of what he has said in the Inconvenient Truth has annoyed even those that overall agree with him. The Mann "hockey stick" for instance does not go down well with those that have to face further discussion about something that has previously been settled.

Regards


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

Top
#16675 - 10/16/06 09:25 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
RicS Offline
Senior Member

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

Spread of Malaria

My bad habit of reading research papers that I find interesting but not cataloging them has come back to bite me yet again. I cannot lay my hands on the research which I was referring to right now. I can find nesw articles that refer to it but not the research itself. I will, might take me a few days, is all.

I am attempting to correct this problem by being much more careful to add these types of research papers that are not directly relevent to my studies into my database but it is a long slow process.

He is a website I found that disputes the nexus between global warming and spread of disease. The site seems to be rather right wing but the arguments seem reasonable. I'll look for some better ones.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba241.html

Here's a press release that makes similar points:

http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=13

I did like the quote:

Quote:
?Why don?t we devote our resources to tackling these diseases directly, instead of spending billions in vain attempts to change the weather??
I'd prefer to cite research directly and will when I've managed to backtrack where the research is. This at least is a beginning.


Regards


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

Top
#16676 - 10/16/06 09:48 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
The link ("rather right wing" site) does acknowledge the point:
According to a recent WHO report by Professor Paul Epstein of the Harvard School of Public Health, mosquitoes carrying malaria and dengue fever have been found at higher altitudes in Africa, Asia and Latin America due to warmer temperatures.
As I see it, that is the "evidence" for warming. All the other points in the article have to do with spread of disease, control of disease, location of disease, etc. All these points are controlled by social factors, not the climate. They do address the claim that disease is spread by global warming, but nothing refutes that mosquito habitat is expanding due to warming. I'll try the othere link later
~Sam
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#16677 - 10/16/06 06:37 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
My favourite line in the original post is the first line:

"Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday."

That immediately brought back some fond memories of my University days. Chem lab had us doing experiments on pH and charting the results. Those that took the time to do many small iterations had smoother line charts. And in the Materials Labs, where we looked at tensile strength of metal samples, the three samples that were tested using the machine's default setting produced consistently poor results. The next three samples, that had much smaller iterations in the increase in force applied, ended up showing the extra dip at the end of the elastic region. While you may not all understand this, the key point is that smaller iterations produced more precise results.

Another example is the Vostok ice cores. They calculated the temperature based on samples that were taken each meter. The charts that are available on the Internet show peaks and valleys. It is fairly consistent, but there is a problem. They only measured once each meter of depth. Each meter covered about 30 years near the top and 619 near the bottom. A lot can happen in 500 years. How do they know they found the true maximum? Sure they got fairly close, but it is indeed just an estimate of what the max is. An estimate. Now where did I see that word? Oh yes, in the first line of this post:

"Global temperatures are dangerously close to the highest ever estimated to have occurred in the past million years, scientists reported Monday."

Now this is from a news article, so it does not mention how the data was collected. If it was from ocean sediment, for example, then could further sampling have yielded a more accurate peak value? How accurate is the calculation for estimating the temperature? It is these questions that the news article does not address.

Does anyone have a link to the study, or at least the name of the study for which James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies was the study leader?

Top
#16678 - 10/16/06 08:21 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
And while you dissemble the ice continues to melt.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16679 - 10/16/06 08:57 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
And while you post your comment, the ice continues to thicken.

Top
#16680 - 10/16/06 11:02 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Quote:
Originally posted by John M Reynolds:
Another example is the Vostok ice cores. They calculated the temperature based on samples that were taken each meter. The charts that are available on the Internet show peaks and valleys. It is fairly consistent, but there is a problem. They only measured once each meter of depth. Each meter covered about 30 years near the top and 619 near the bottom. A lot can happen in 500 years. How do they know they found the true maximum? Sure they got fairly close, but it is indeed just an estimate of what the max is. An estimate.
The words 'Straws' and 'Clutching' come to mind.

Blacknad.

Top
#16681 - 10/17/06 02:00 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
JR wrote:
"And while you post your comment, the ice continues to thicken."

Where JR? Where? Point me to a link to a peer reviewed study that substantiates this.

Here?
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm

Or perhaps here?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16441

Or perhaps here?
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/melting.shtml

Oh I know you mean here?
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106798&org=NSF

Since you obviously don't believe or trust serious science perhaps I should link in someone with a vested financial interest in being objective:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2006/03/24/66732.htm

Keep it up JR. I have an entire university libfrary with citation indexes at my disposal. I can quite quickly send you tens of thousands of links to studies in peer reviewed journals if you wish to continue this.

Note to Blacknad.
Of course the ice gets thinner in some places and thicker in others. JR and his ilk are grasping at straws. What matters is the planet in its entirety. And most importantly the salinity of the mid-Atlantic conveyor.

They can dissemble all they want. But when the salinity drops to a low enough level the conveyor stops and the only thing we will here from them is whining about why no one told them earlier.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16682 - 10/17/06 03:34 AM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
... And most importantly the salinity of the mid-Atlantic conveyor.

They can dissemble all they want. But when the salinity drops to a low enough level the conveyor stops and the only thing we will here from them is whining about why no one told them earlier.
see, this right here is the total problem.

glacers expand and contract all the time. in years hot years they contract, and since this study was done during the second hottest year in recent years, and the hottest year they had the sats working, its only expected for them to contract some what. these articles dont give the any data that allows you to see if its a general pattern or a specific one.

worse that that, is the to unsubstanciated theory of the "mid-Atlantic conveyor disruption". There is only evidence that this has happen once and that was caused by an extreamly large amount of fresh water bursting through ice dams in north america. the melting of the ice glacers, if it is happening, would not put that much fresh water in the mid-Atlantic conveyor belt at one time. it would have time to react much as it has for thousands of years.

So the belt changes its northern most part a few miles or even a few dozen, this would not have that great an effect. a few areas, might get a little colder for a few years until the belt recorrected itself. maybe a few areas would get warmer, maybe a few areas dryer and another a little wetter. it would only be a short term change, and would quickly fix itself.

yet listen to global warming alarmist and they will tell you that it will kill off every human on the face of the earth.

of course there are only about 50 zillion things that can kill off every human on the face of the earth, yet we still keep going.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16683 - 10/17/06 03:12 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
DA Morgan, you proveded five links. The first one ( http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm ) is a condensed version of a 1998 study. It shows that the glaciers in Montana have been shrinking since the Little Ice Age. Table 1 shows "Glacier sizes at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' appear under '1850 Area'." The rest (28 of 39 glaciers) are single year values, most (25 of 39 glaciers) of which come from 1966. The values that were updated show that the earth has warmed since the little ice age. That does not surprise me. How does that contribute to your argument of anthropogenic global warming?

It also discusses some glaciers in specifics like the Agassiz and Jackson glaciers. "Retreat rates increased steadily to 14-42 m a-1 by 1926, and to 112-117 m a-1 by 1932." Is the 14 for Agassiz and the 42 for Jackson? Unless I am reading it wrong, the difference is at least (117-42=75m or 112-14=98m) 75 meters of retreat in the six years between 1926 and 1932 (12.5 m/year). In the 14 years between 1979 and 1993, it only retreated 50 meters (3.6 m/year). In other words, it seems like it was hotter in Montana during the late 1920's than it was in the 1980's. How does that contribute to your argument of greenhouse effect? Actually, it shows that 80's were warmer than 1850, but are cooler than the early 1930's.

The next link shows how the Upsala glacier retreated in the 4 years up to 2004. All that means is that the region around that glacier is now warmer than when the glacier was growing. That news article says that a "worldwide retreat of glaciers was observed during the twentieth century and most of the Patagonia's glaciers, including Upsala were no exception." That most means that there are exceptions. How much is most? I wonder how the scientists quantified it if at all. What percentage makes up that most. And the retreat does not mention thickening like Greenland was thickening.

It had a link to http://pubs.usgs.gov/prof/p1386i/chile-arg/wet/historic.html , so I checked out that page too. Similar to the Agassiz glacier, this shows that the San Quint?n glacier retreated 2 km in the 14 years starting in 1921 (143 m/year). It receded another 3.7 km in the 33 years starting in 1959 (112 m/year). This is confirmed by Table 11 (Mean variation of the glaciers area) lower on the page. Some showed an increase in area retreat rate while some showed a decrease in retreat rate. Table 12 shows the area of some glaciers grew while others receded between 1945 and 1986. In both cases the net was negative. That page does not mention thickness at all, so it is incomplete, but interesting none the less. Does it prove your dangerously warm hypothesis? No. It does prove that the area of some glaciers were growing while others were shrinking between 1945 and 1986 with a net area reduction of 3.7%. Not too bad from a link from a news article. Now we just need data on the rest of the world's glaciers. And it would be nice if they had data comparing it to the 1800's and early 1900's if not thousands of years so a more general trend could be seen.

You have not provided a link to any study that conclusively shows global warming. Why do you provide links to news articles (like the rest of your links) when you won't accept them yourself?

Anyway, the last 3 links are all about the same two studies. The first of the three says that the studies "show that Arctic summers by 2100 may be as warm as they were nearly 130,000 years ago." Ignoring the "may be" since this data is from computer models (that are out by at least 12% to 41%), that page contradicts your original post about 2005 having the highest temps for the past million years. There is a big difference between 130,000 years and 1,000,000 years.

The second of the bottom 3 links starts with the picture of how much thicker Greenland's ice is now as compared to the last Interglaciation. It also has the 130,000 years quote. Again, this contradicts your original post about 2005 having the highest temps for the past million years.

The last has the same "Arctic summers by 2100 may be as warm as they were nearly 130,000 years ago" quote. So are you contradicting yourself on purpose? Or have you simply changed your argument without letting us know? If you are trying to use these to argue against my glaciers thickening post, then why not post links that mention thickening instead of just area?

So what do we have from your links? That some glaciers shrank quickly in the early 1930. We also know that some increased while others decreased between 1945 and 1986 with a net area shrink rate of -3.7%. The oldest data included in those links was a picture from a computer model of the thickness of Greenland's ice during the last interglaciation. Since you suggest that you are not grasping at straws, perhaps you can fill me in on how this proves that 2005 was the warmest in a million years. Or at least, please explain what does this all prove to you?

Top
#16684 - 10/17/06 03:28 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
RicS Offline
Senior Member

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

I've realised by reading these posts that they are becoming more and more an excersise in futility.

Science is rarely discussed. A great deal of news articles are used and even with the science, there tends to be a counter for pretty much any argument you wish to put. Polar bear population increasing? No, not according to this study. Ice sheets getting thicker? Antarctica is a bit difficult to argue because most studies show that it is but the Arctic? Pick any position and there will be a study to back it up.

I went to the trouble of reading Dr Hansen et al's "Dangerous" paper, as dense and pretty much unreadable as it is. It normally would not interest me because it is all about models. That is, guesses as to what might happen if this happens or that factor turns out to do this. The model mainly used isn't even a particularly good one. It is very course and has been constantly adjusted because as it stood to start with it did not match the real world even remotely. Tweak any model enough and you can eventually make it match known data, and that is where I actually found the whole thing interesting.

The tweaks in this case have resulted in the model sort of matching the weather station data. It would seem that the satellite data is used when it comes to ice sheets because that is all there is but with respect to world average temperatures and the figures relied upon are the weather station data. But from 1979 there has been much better data. It is ignored.

Surely even those that think that global warming is a looming disaster can realise there is something wrong with a prediction that relies on data that is not as accurate as alternatives.

Is this really good science? Does it conform to appropriate scientific methodology?

If I get a response that says "Show me a peer reviewed research paper that refutes this" I'm really going to ignore the comment with the contempt it deserves. This is a study not even published. It is a study of prediction, not of what has been happening. There really should be no research that counters it because what research can you do in this case? A different model?

But any reasonable scientist should be able to look at any research and, if there are glaring flaws, recognise them. If the data used is known not to accord with more accurate data, I would assume most people would view the results with some skepticism. Either that or they are incapable of thinking for themselves.

As to the Vostok ice cores, recent re-examination has shown that these cores show that the increase in CO2 follows warming periods by an average of 600 years. The more detailed the examination, the worst the position becomes for those that relate CO2 to a climate forcing. Seems to becoming clearer that it is the other way around. And as to feedback mechanism, the CO2 seems to continue to rise for a time even when the temperatures decline again. That does not suggest a feedback mechanism but rather a simply cause and effect. Warmer temperatures increase CO2 with a significant lag. I would even have assumed that increasing CO2 would have had some effect on retaining the warmer period by the latest research on the Vostok cores does not suggest that at all.

But it is easy to twist this around and argue something else. This is climate. It is complex. Complex also means contradictory evidence is the norm, not the exception.

My last word for a while, until something interesting crops up that is worth responding to, or I come across some research that I believe will be of interest to those that may be interested, is that THIS period of time is only considered to be warming because of one thing, weather station data. Without that, the Time magazine of 1974 would be the prevailing view or perhaps there would be no prevailing view at all and Climate Science would have almost no funding at all, perhaps a good thing overall. Then maybe that could directly tackle the spread of infectious diseases, build better levees for cities and better warning systems for hurricanes, tornadoes and things that humans can do something about. And perhaps attack polution problems simply because car exhausts and burning coal do have environmental hazards.

The whole thing could be settled with research that would cost of not that many millions. Get all known weather station data. Work out a consistent approach that no one can condemn as biased. Remove urban effect data. Check every single station that is going to be used for local issues and then create a data set that is comparable over time and covers the major regions of the earth.

It's interesting that Mr Morgan is willing to argue the issues so veheremently on this site but not once has addressed the issues of weather station data, has not indicated that he has even looked at the data, let alone done any experimentation. For that matter, no one else has indicated they have looked at it either. If your position is so secure then looking at the data should quickly show up my logic error and you can be satisfied that I'm just a crank who knows nothing about climate change.


Regards


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

Top
#16685 - 10/17/06 04:31 PM Re: Global warming nears ?dangerous? level
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"see, this right here is the total problem.
glacers expand and contract all the time."

No it is not. Your argument is equivalent to saying some days are warmer than others. Well to quote Bart Simpson: Duh!

Climatologists are not so incompetent as to not understand and appreciate normal cycles. What is happening now is not normal.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Page 2 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.