Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Global Warming

G'day Daniel,

I have provided a URL to a study whose conclusions were based on data that pretty much is indisputable.

The 1979 study actually had a value because it did show how hard it was to get accurate data. It also used data that went back as far as 80 years. Since when is a study of no value because it happened to have been done 30 years ago? It simply does not tell you anything about what has happened in the last 30 years. If someone were willing to provide me access to raw data I would happily update it and submit it for publication.

As I said, I will provide references as and when I find them. I have already provided one, which I thought was precisely on point to your opinion.

You haven't provided a single URL by the way so it is somewhat unfair to point out my flaws when you do not do so yourself.

I'll happily discuss any particular study with you providing I can gain access to that study and look at either the data or how it was collected.

I have no firm opinion as to global warming. The opinions I expressed in response to Justine where not firmly held views but my current thoughts based on my current knowledge. But I do believe that all studies should include some thought that starts with the opposite premise. For instance to a global model of warming it should include: "There is no conclusive proof to global warming. Prove me wrong." Not, ?we all agree that global warming is a big deal now let's do research that shows this?.

I do make a number of sweeping generalisations. But at least I do so in a field which I have particular academic expertise in, and an interest that has continued from well before global warming was even a concept.

Historic ice age coverage is of particular interest to me because we were developing a theory (along with a number of others in the same field) relating to what really happens with the advance of a glaciation. What we found was you had to go into a great many scientific disciplines to find evidence of ice coverage. You needed knowledge in biology, vulcanology, geology, and many other fields. There was evidence of snow and ice coverage in parts of the US and Europe for instance 12,000 years ago of which there is no trace left on the landscape but it was darn hard to find. But how do I show this to you as evidence? It is knowledge I picked up over some years a long time ago. As I said it is still contentious, although the area of my studies has pretty much disappeared. After all who wants to fund a study on the transition between glaciations and interglacial periods that really is only of academic interest when you can fund studies on warming that is happening right now? So it is going to be hard for me to find current studies that back many of my sweeping statements. I do think, however, that I do differentiate those statements with those that I make relating to specific studies. This is a discussion forum after all and opinions are important to any discussion.

I still find our discussion interesting and think I've said it before but I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong by showing a study that actually has underlying data that is without dispute. I found one for you. Your turn.

Oh, and what filter would you suggest for the search you suggested that will eliminate all but scientific studies? I know you have significant computer skills but so do I and I'd really would appreciate your instruction in something I have not been able to figure out.

I think you misinterpreted my working background with a degree - actually the most important expertise for much of my working life was the in the legal field. I already said I do not have a degree in engineering. I have included more information at the end of this as, unlike you, they are not available online anywhere but since there is no way for a reader to verify them, I will say they are of no value in any discussion here but since they have now been mentioned more than once, I will clarify.

As to the length of these posts, for those that find them too long, my apologies. I suffer from a medical condition that allows me only limited times to do things such as this and can only do so at the peak of medication cycles. This keeps my brain active and its fun but it is also very difficult so I have little time to actually put much thought into what I write in the sense of keeping it concise. I?m afraid my typing abilities ? I type much faster than I talk ? mean that I can write a great deal but then find my mental acuity waning when it comes to editing. So I either don?t say anything or say perhaps way too much. I?m not looking for sympathy by the way. I have an OK life and a wonderful family and am grateful for the abilities but thought some explanation for the long posts was in order.

Daniel, I am greatly enjoying our discussions and hope we can continue for a while as long as I can present research and my thoughts on it that is of interest to you both in favour and against your arguments and if you wish to do the same but if it gets onerous, I do understand


Regards


Richard
Fields of study:
BA: Political Science, Earth Science, History of Religion
BSc: Earth Science, Climatology
MSc: Computing
JSD: Tort law ? including insurance law reform and legislative reform/restrictions

Richard, why don't you post on the wiki global warming talk page? There you have a number of professional climate scientist who are editing and they can address your points in much greater detail.

RicS wrote:
"I have provided a URL to a study whose conclusions were based on data that pretty much is indisputable."

There is no such thing as a study whose ocnclusions are indisputable. And a study done in 1979 is essentially irrelevant when it has been contradicted numerous times by work done within the last decade.

Daniel,

I really don't think you wish to actually debate your views, only rubbish others. The study to which you quoted saying it was indisputable, was the study done by UK Met and Uni of Alabama. Its data was taken from one source, bouys in place for a little more than 20 years. Now if data can be said to be reliable, my guess is that data can be. That is not to say there might not be an argument with the location of the bouys etc, but for accuracy the data is difficult to contest.

It would actually be nice to see you back up just one of your statements with a reference to an actual study. Since you won't do it, I see no point in continuing, which is a pity.


Regards


Richard

Rics, although I disagree with you about Global Warming, I have to agree with you about Daniel's character. Daniel is right though about Global Warming, but if you want to debate things about Global Warming, you should go to the Wiki talk page. There you have some professors in climate science who are editing. They won't insult you.

RisS wrote:
"I really don't think you wish to actually debate your views, only rubbish others." and "The study to which you quoted saying it was indisputable,...."

No study, ever published, has ever been indisputable. Not one. And most certainly not a 1979 study on the temperature of the planet earth. What makes this study indisputable? Your ego or the author's?

This isn't about rubbishing you. It is about your statement, or the authors, rubbishing the scientific method.

DA Morgan wrote

There is no such thing as normal.

what i refer to as normal is that point where the tempature where the amount of energy the earth recieves is equal to the amount of energy it radiates at night + the amount of energy that it reflects, etc during the day. currently the amount of energy we recieve is greater than the amount we radiate and reflect, causing the ice to melt. as long as the ice is there the earth cant reach that point.

there are several ballace points to considere. one is the amount of co2 that is put into the air vs the amount that rain fall cause to fall out. the second is the amount of sulfer dioxide ice crystals that are in the upper atmosphere. all valcanos put out a percentage of sulpher dioxide. it reacts with water to form sulpheric acid ice, which reflects the light much more than anything but ice, but because of the temperture of the upper atmospher remains constant it does not melt. it can only fallout but that takes as long as thirty years. during this time it cuts the tempature the lower altitude recieves. the more there is, the more the tempature drops.

the third is how much heat reaches the serface, how much is reflected and absorbed and how much is radiated. the amount that reaches the upper altitude is relatively the same, with some minor variation, year to year. the first two have some effect on the third, but it mostly stands on its own.

green house gasses do radiate and reflect the heat back towards the serface, but there is only so much co2 on the earth and that has never changed.

scaremongers tell how much damage to the earth, the co2 released by the industrial revolution has done, but the thing is, that co2 came from the atmosphere in the first place. how is returning it to where it came from harming the earth. the reason that that co2 is out of the atmosphere is that the plants that were made of it, got buried at the begining of the ice age. the major way the earth gets rid of co2 is though the oceans. eventually it will reach the bottom of the ocean where it will be returned to the lava center and then returned to the atmosphere by valcanos once again.

the only things damaged is the easy life humans have had for the last 20000 years, as the tempature climbs above what we are confortable. If that happens, we will have to evolve or be replaced. we cant control what happens with the atmosphere yet.

and yes i do understand science. I am one of the few appearantly that does not focus on one area of it to the exclusion of all others. that allows me to see the fallacy of saying how things are going to be ruined and to see patterns that others refuse to see.

an example is the fact that ppl that study ice ages cant seem to figure what cause them, they if they would ask volcanoist (what ever they are called), about what happen at the begining of thise ice ages, and what happen at the time of each of the extensions of them the mystery would be solved.

Count Iblis II wrote

I don't think so given these statements:

then explain something to me. 600000 years ago the glacers reached as far south as new york state. they have been receding every since. if man is the only cause of global warming, what cause it before man appeared.

The tilt of the earth's axis isn't constant. It wobbles and that causes the high lattitudes to cool down and heat up periodically, giving rise to the ice ages.

dehammer asks:
"then explain something to me. 600000 years ago the glacers reached as far south as new york state. they have been receding every since. if man is the only cause of global warming, what cause it before man appeared."

You are confusing two entirely separate things. One is the natural and periodic climate changes that have occurred since the planet was formed. They have many causes and not one has ever been correlated to the industrial revolution and the increased discharge of greenhouse gases caused by humans.

Then there is the current extreme warming that does correlate.

Do you think that normal periodic changes render it impossible for our industrial activities to have an affect on climate?

Both are occurring. One is our responsibility ... or more precisely ... evidence of our irresponsibility.

DA Morgan I would love to know the origins of the claims you have just made..

1.You claim he is confusing 2 different things, first to even make that claim you must first KNOW the reasons for ALL prior climate changes that have taken place, without that there is no point of origin for the change. What were those causes? for without those we have NO BASIS to know, or to make claim as to why to so called Global warming is now taking place.

2. You also go on to say that this global warming period is extreme, today's warmth is NOT unprecedented.

If fact it was WARMER during the last Interglacial and the warmth was NATURAL(IPCC).

What is ALSO interesting and troubleing to those who make these wild claims is very few species on the planet would have evolved over such a short time (116,000 years) and thus it brings into question EVERY SINGLE DIRE PROJECTION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF WARMING ON THE GLOBAL ECOSYSTEM. Or to put it another way, if a specie is older than 116,000 years then what does this say about that the specie making it through greater warmth before so there is no particular reason to believe it won't make it under the highest projected warming levels published by the IPCC.

The warming for the last century was ~1 degree F, this is extreme? by what standard?

Archer wrote:
"first to even make that claim you must first KNOW the reasons for ALL prior climate changes that have taken place"

Lets follow your analogy to its illogical conclusion. If I don't know precisely every reason why an airplane crashed ... it didn't crash. I don't need to know ALL reasons ... just some of them.

Archer wrote:
"You also go on to say that this global warming period is extreme, today's warmth is NOT unprecedented."

The warming is not ... perhaps even the speed of warming is not. But the correlation with human activity is unprecedented.

But perhaps the problem here is that you are taking the attitude that because it has happened before it is of no consequence. Or even to assume your position is correct ... to assume it is totally a natural phenomena it is of no consequence.

Thus I expect that you believe we should do nothing to minimize the impact of other natural phenomena on us such as hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, volcanos. Stop all research. What the heck.

When the world economies lie in ruin and wars of survival are taking place ... I do hope you won't be hypocritical and say "I wish someone had done something about all this back in 2006."

Terrific article on Vladimir Shaidurov's hypothesis that the Tunguska meteorite may have caused global warming, the best I've seen so far.

It's a pity that the theory isn't getting any discussion, both right and left seem to hate the idea instinctively. Right or wrong it's interesting, and either way, might provide a practical way of counteracting global warming.

I've posted my own discussion of the theory at http://logictutorial.com/occam.html along with a discussion of how a too-simple view of Occam's Razor helped blind us to global warming for so long.

Tunguska and tectoic plate movement, and pole reversal are theories that are worth looking into..

DA Morgan.. you have lots of opinions, and no basis of facts, for if you do, your not posting them, where we can see them, I see you posting threads, and running around telling people your THOUGHTS but your just parroting party lines, and little else.. who is the provider of your "factual statements".. tell me the studies, who did them? where I can find this proof you offer up?, were can I read how the studies where done? that is called backing it up.. or should everyone just take your word for it you know what you are talking about and we dont?

Simple FACT, Weather, in and of itself, is a chaotic non-linear dynamical system, why do you think it is anything but?

Over the last 600 million years, carbon doxide concentrations have varied from 5000 ppm to less than 200 ppm, due primarily to the impact of geologicalprocesses and biological innovations. It has been argued (Veizer 1999) that variations in greenhouse gas concentrations over tens of millions of years have not been well correlated to climate change,with perhaps plate tectonics playing a more dominant role.

And thanx, but I am pretty sure most of us have already heard the chicken littles running around telling us we are all doomed unless we stop.. but thanx anyways.

Daniel,

One last try.

1. The study in 1979 is NOT relevant to any of these arguments except in difficulties in obtaining accurate data.

2. The study that I made the comment that the data was indisputable (an exageration but it was one study that actually used data that had an extremely good chance of being accurate) was completed in 2001. I already said this in my last post. This seems to indicate you do not actually read replies, which makes the whole process of discussion completely mute (except to others that might have an interest). While nothing in science is completely indisputable, there are many things that can be assumed to be valid. A study that uses the same measuring devices over a period of time, where the measuring devices themselves are shown to be accurate, is much closer to being indisputable than one that relies on recorded data where variables have been introduced over time that cannot be accounted for. THAT was the point being made. Looking at meteorological data over a period of many years from anywhere on this earth and the data is subject to dispute. Data from or above water has changed because the depth of collection and height of readings have changed. Data in small towns have changed because of the urban warming effect of nearby towns, or because the station has been moved, or because the measuring instruments have been replaced, or the time of measurements have been changed, or a tree nearby has grown or has been chopped down, or a building built or demolished. These variables all introduce uncertainties that you really cannot adjust for. However, the one study that I did quote, used measuring devices all made the same way, always in the same places, and with calibrated instruments. That makes the measurements reliable (although I concede the point that it does not make them or the study indisputable).

3. You keep making statements such as "the current extreme warming". This is not a field you seem to have taught, been published in, or seem to have particular expertise in. Yet you make statements such as the above as if you KNOW with absolute certainty of the truth of that opinion. I have suggested several times now that you refer to actual studies in support of any of your statements and you have not done so. That is the very definition of an unscientific argument.

Regards

Richard

Russell: The reason the "theory" isn't getting any recognition is that it does not even rise to the level of theory ... it is just a crackpot looking for attention.

Archer asks:
"Simple FACT, Weather, in and of itself, is a chaotic non-linear dynamical system, why do you think it is anything but?"

Where did I once say anything about weather being anything at all? I didn't even use the words weather or chaos or linear or dynamic. Gong!

RicS wrote:
"1. The study in 1979 is NOT relevant to any of these arguments except in difficulties in obtaining accurate data."

What was difficult in 1979 with 1979 technology is not difficult with current technology. 1979. Two years before the personal computer existed? Two years before DOS? In technological terms you are talking about the stone age.

Current extreme warming:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Learn something!

where are the STUDIES? WHO DID THEM? WHAT WERE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STUDIES TO BE DONE?

You talk about RicS reference to 1979 report as what? not valid due to the ideal no one had personal computers when it was done? your kidding right? we flew to the moon 10 years prior WITHOUT THE PERSONAL PC.. IF that is the logic you base your "foundations of truth and science" on, then do we also discount ALL data, science and studies prior to 1979 due to the fact it is stone age as you describe it..

DA Morgan would do better in a School Debating Team the way he abuses an argument and resorts to insult and put downs. Better still a politician. Reading through this forum it seems he thinks he's an expert on everything and when he gets battered down he jumps sideways and comes in from another angle, never having to admit he was wrong. You gotta admire that.

Easy.

Archer asks:
"where are the STUDIES?"

Well Archer studies do not walk up to your door, knock politely, and ask to be invited in.

Some very interesting points raised.

No one knows what the climate was of the earth pre recorded history. There is evidence to suggest that there were periods even during this last series of glacial/inter-glacial fluctuations that might have been warmer than today and certainly there is a strong presumption that there were periods prior to that that were warmer but actual temperatures are not known and the evidence is not planet wide for any period so supposition has to be used.

But I still find it amazing that we go through two prolonged periods of cooling in the twentieth century, a warming period of quite short duration and then from about 1980 another warming period (and using NASA's figures, that warming trend equates to 0.04 to 0.06 degrees per decade) and this somehow correlates with man's activities. Huh? That's a bit like saying that Hurricane Andrew was caused by man because of the rapidly increasing usage of land and sea in the area where Andrew struck.

Coincidences can a do occur in the natural world. To not be a coincidence you actually need some science that is not "herd mentality" to suggest otherwise.

Why was it cooling during much of the century when the greenhouse gases were already substantial from man's activities?

These are all philisophic questions that cannot easily be answered but they certainly deserve some considered thought.