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 Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Short Comment to Dan (DA Morgan):

"We all agree", so from your last post you include yourself in the group: "university campuses and among researchers in the field." or was the use of "we" simply a topo?

Actually I came across 30,000 scientists that, at least as a group, do not agree with global warming. That is a lot! But since their organisation probably did not ask all their members to make that broad statement, it is no more reliable than the research of Ms Oreskes or any other claim to consensus. I'm still amazed at how many researchers in the area of climate that express reservations concerning global warming or whether it is man made if asked privately so my admittedly small anecdotal evidence suggests that "we all agree" whether the royal we or a topo so that included you when it shouldn't, isn't all that valid at all.


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
RicS is another one who would have us twiddle our (opposable) thumbs while the ecosystem collapses. That's our freatest failing, doing nothing. Because of our short life spans we tend to look at things from a generational perspective. And, really, things aren't all that much different from how they were 40 years ago. But from a Paleontological perspective, things are changing at breakneck speed.

Millions of years from now Paleontologists from some neighboring star system will visit Earth. They'll find evidence of mass extinctions, and they will ask the same questions that our Paleontologists ask - "What happened?" They'll see the Devonian Extinction, the Ordovocian, the Cretaceous, the Triassic, all seen in stark stone evidence. But the one that will puzzle them the most will be ours. The one that came with the invention of the Dugout Canoe, the Stone cutting edge, the iron plow, the Automobile, the Chainsaw, the Bulldozer, the Automobile. They will surely ask, "What happened here?"

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Wolfman,

I hate to say this, but you're not putting up any scientific arguments either. In that respect you are not even an improvement on Dan.

So you do not like my position. Why? What makes you think that my position "would have us twiddle our thumbs". What ecosystem is collapsing?

By the way, the very great constant in the evolution of creatures on earth is mass extinction. It has happened several times during earth's history.

Man may well be condemmned by your thus far fictional paleeontogolists but I doubt whether global warming will be even a remote consideration. We have stuffed the planet in many much more mundane ways.

But back to the topic. This was, a long time ago, a thread discussing the science of global warming. Since this is a science forum, it would be really nice if the discussion had at least something to do with science.

Suggesting anyone who disagrees with your world view is allowing the destruction of the earth is not exactly a science discussion. It really is just a way of insulting someone else's perspective.

Actually in paleontogological terms this interglacial period is a tiny hiccup before the world goes back to a cold, mostly ice covered place (well at least much of the Northern Hemisphere). Looking at any reasonable evidence and within that interglacial period very little is currently changing. The world has certainly been hotter than at present before and will be so again, but probably not within an Ice Age.

Go to the main page of this forum and you will find a discussion topic on global warming being responsible for civilisation. All of man's civilisation has occurred within this rather long interglacial period. When it ends, unless man is prepared for it, it will also mark the end of civilisation for most of humanity. So is that the "What Happened Here?"?

All we have right now is evidence that the world warmed up a little bit after the Little Ice Age and bugger all else. If you want to argue that "things are changing at a breakneck speed" fine, but suggest just what is changing and how it has been measured.

Actually, instead of condemming someone for having a different view to what is popular, how about doing something really simple. Go to Wiki and read the section on Scientific Method, then apply what you have read to any major climate change study, especially to and doomsday warming models. Scientific Method demands that research provide sufficient information so that others reading the research can replicate the experiment or study and reach similar conclusions.

Do you really believe getting six wildely different ice core samples and deciding to average the result fits within any acceptable scientific method? Or for the ice sheet of Greenland, using a study that used two points and itself proved to be almost 12 metres out in vertical distance (an enormous error for the particular project) and then base all later studies on the losses of ice sheet on the study that cannot even be replicated from the figures provided?

How about ocean temperature data that has been manipulated to show that the world's oceans have warmed progressively since the 1880s because the data is not comparable over time. There is data which is comparable over time, the British Admiralty Data and it shows no warming trend. So which data should be used in such studies?

Or explain why the Continental US weather station records shows no trend at all in temperature over the last 120 years, except that it was a bit warmer, then colder, then warmer, then colder, and currently it is doing nothing much at all after a little bit of warming in the 80s. Why does this set of figures match realistically with the satellite and balloon data but not with the rest of the world. Why should the satellite data, the balloon data and the US data match and show no trend when such a huge warming trend exists in the world average data sets for the same period? Why should the US data, the satellite data show no trend upwards when urban effect should be causing the apparent average to rise (although this would not effect the satellite data much at all).

So is questioning scientific method, when it really seems to be lacking basic scientific requirements, twiddling thumbs now?

Is that what science has come to. Pretty much the equivalent of the Catholic Chuch in the dark ages, telling any scientist that questioned the perceived view of the world, that they were not only wrong but so wrong that they could be put to death unless they stayed quiet. The questioning of a hypothesis is fundamental to better refining the hypothesis. How come that does not seem to apply in global warming? Questioning it condemns the author, rather than enlightens and expands knowledge.

In simple scientific terms, Wolfman, if you don't like my hypothesis, that to date much of the global warming hype remains hype because of the scientific method used, then suggest where I am wrong.

Pick any of the topics. Data sets currently are fascinating me because I am attempting to provide a method to create a GHCN type data set free of bias from urban effect, changed weather station location, and with consistent methods defined for such things as "daily average" and "world average" in a way that is completely transparent to anyone reading the research.

Of course such an endeavour will only be successful if it aligns with the weather balloon data from the late 1950s and the satellite data from 1979, whether very minor changes need to be allowed because of satellite drift and an alleged unsatisfactory insulation in the early 70s balloons.

If I can work this out then it will be interesting to see what the results are because right now we have different ways of creating an average to compare to on a yearly basis and those different methods do not accord. That means there is a significant error in one or more of the methods. Of course, there would be those that would suggest that the results should be averaged. I've seen it down. The average shows global warming so, it must be right. But such a conclusion flies in the face of simple logic placing much more weight on a system that is able to provide an near exact comparable record over time.

Global Warming is only a fact, if there is evidence to support it. If the current evidence is faulty then the whole pack of cards falls.

So I have provided several starting points for a hypothesis on global warming which could be a scientific discussion on this forum.

Actually the effort I need to put in to my research currently is extremely difficult so I resent the twindling our thumbs crack. In the backwards world of climate change, those that work very hard in an area that may contradict the pravailing view, are "Nay-sayers" and perform no useful service nor do they work productively.

I will give you a very basic hypothesis that I am currently working on.

The Statement:
The GHCN 2 data set contains mathametical errors of many magnitudes greater than the alleged global warming amount of less than a single degree. Some average methods raise the average temperature by more than 3 degrees. The data set contains numerous multiple records for the same location, often with considerabl variations to the extent that one year may be several degrees warmer than the base and the other record may have the same record being several degrees colder. The patterns mostly do not mach at all. So what should happen with these various recordings. How about averaging them together?

My proposal is to go back to the source and as much as possible obtain the raw records. An avereging method useful over the entire period studied is declared a standard and used against all data so that averages are calculated and from those averages, monthly averages can be made available.

Where the raw records cannot be obtain then research is required into the methods of measuring the data over the period of the measurements and whether such methods mean the data is corrupted beyond use, has a reasonable way of overcoming the difficulties or whatever. It may be found for instance that local stations have always only used on method of average. If this conforms with the established "standard" then the data can be used.

Where data has to be manipulated, great care should be taken to ensure that the manipulation does not introduce any bias. Such part of the process should be fully docummented so that others can determine bias if it has not been revomed.

Once data is collected from all localities which are able to provide consistent records over time and that now conform to the "standards" it winnowed to remove data that will have an error because of changes made to the weather station or its immediate surrounds or simply because no records were taken for a time. The data that remains should then provide an unbiased set of data of the average temperature for the period of the records.

The result could be that it shows global warming and further thought will be required in respect to the conflicting ground data and satellite data. Behaps the ground data simply is too flawed to provide a good comparable data record over time.

If you do not like my hypothesis or the proposed method of caring out an alternative, feel free to comment at length. We will at that point back to a discussion on the science.


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Re: Going back to the generally more normal climate of this ice age (90% to 95% of this current Ice Age) has the potential to kill just about everyone and a great many species that man has managed to bring to the brink of extinction through habitat degredation, indiscriminate hunting or poaching or simply introducing more competitive species such as.... -Richard
I sure agree with that statement. My fear is that climate change (possibly anthropogenic warming) will push us over some tipping point and we'll end up back in a glaciation phase. I should probably read all 6 pages before say too much, but is there any example or evidence of a "tipping point?" I can only think of deep ocean circulation, but don't know how well that is modeled or understood to be a delicate balance. ~Sam


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Wolfman wrote:
"RicS is another one who would have us twiddle our (opposable) thumbs while the ecosystem collapses. That's our freatest failing, doing nothing."

RicS responded:
"I hate to say this, but you're not putting up any scientific arguments either."

You don't hate to say it. You get great pleasure out of saying it. We have repeatedly posted links to research studies and asked you to post links to studies that refute them and not once have you done so. What you have done is write huge volumes of text that are not worth reading because they are your personal opinions rather than actual studies conducted by REAL researchers with expertise in the field.

Wolfman is completely correct. You are intentionally and willfully taking a position and sticking with it without regard to the evidence. That makes what you post not just unscientific but unworthy of being in a science forum.


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
Hi Richard

In your Oct 5th http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1104/3.html#000041 comment, you had this:

"Actually, quite aside from the Conveyer system, the collapse of the magnetic field of the sun back to around 12 billion kilometres, means sunspots should pretty much dissappear. The last time that happened the very harshest part of the three part LIA occurred. The collapse is due actually have an effect around October 8th (no not in 50 years, this year) and two independant studies I have reviewed both indicate that the quiet period will last more than 50 years."

It is now past Oct 12th, and I am wondering if you have heard anything about the collapse yet? Although your prediction strikes me as trying to predict a volcanic eruption or an earthquake, I was just hoping for more information.

Wolfman, Richard admited that we are doing terrible things to this planet and that those things have to be corrected. He simply stated that global warming was not one of them since there is no irrefutable scientific proof it exists.

John M Reynolds

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
RicS try for consistency. You just wrote:
"since there is no irrefutable scientific proof it exists."

No one, except perhaps you and a couple of crackpot zealots, claim there is no proof global warming exists. The only thing in dispute is the contribution to it created by human activity.

You have repeatedly not responded with evidence.
You have repeatedly not addressed the research.
You have repeatedly earned disdain.
Time to stop digging.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day John,

I'm no expert on the sun's cycles but I obtained a copy of a research paper and another one was published about the same time that both concluded that the sun was about to go very quiet for 50 years or so.

I think the October date was a bit like predicting tides. It isn't difficult to do, if you have enough information concerning the cycles.

As to what happens after the 12 October, my guess is ... nothing! The magnetic field fluctuation apparently affects the earth's climate but my guess is there would be a considerable delay. It would take a little while for the effect to actually produce results. But the study did point out that the results were fairly fast after the change in the magnetic field, in he region of a few months to less than three years, if I'm reading it right.

And as to "irrefutable", I liked the comment but I would use the word "reasonable" rather than irrefutable. Pretty much no theory ever gets to the level of irrefutable but right now, my comment on global warming is I have not seen any reasonable proof, especially in relation to temperatures.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Dan,

So the citations I provided where not worthy of your enquiry? And the suggestion you look at the data sets is not worth doing?

Mr Morgan, you have provided links to no research, just news articles. How come your links to opinion news articles somehow correlate to "research" yet my citations directly to research do not mean anything? Doesn't seem particularly fair.

As I said, pick a topic and I'll provide citations to research papers that dispute global warming in relation to that field.

And just so I understand Mr Morgan's statement of facts, it would include the conclusion that the several hundred research papers I have in my database are all done by crackpots and cranks. I'd go on but this is simply a circular argument.

Mr Morgan, you do not wish to actually debate or discuss any scientific issues, only quote news links and denegrate anyone who does not agree with you. Post some links to research and I'll be happy to continue a discussion.

I find it amazing that, while I do post considerable text which is my opinion, it also includes direct discussion on research that you have referred to, or is used to "prove" global warming. You do not counter any of this except to say that I am a crank.

I personally do not care what you think of me and have patiently addressed any direct issue concerning global warming you have raised.

I don't hold a position because I like the position particularly. Do you think it is fun to worry every day that your funding promise will be yanked because your results are just so unpopular? It isn't actually. As I have said so many times it is probably not worth repeating because you, Dan, simply will ignore it, my only concern in relation to climate studies that relate to the present is the problems with scientific method and the use or misuse of data. I would much rather go back to what most interests me, and that is the cause of flips between glaciations and interglacial periods and the time it takes for such events.

Perhaps, instead of calling me a crank, and a crackpot zealot you might like to address any one of these points:

1. Show one single study relating to temperature where the data is not seriously flawed.
2. Have a look at the GHCN data set. Here is the link to NASA's site that uses it: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ . Try the random test I suggested and then tell me that the GHCN data set really is reliable and you did not get more cooling trends than warming trends by picking sites at random.
3. Find any ocean temperature records that show global warming AND are comparable against themselves over time.
4. Dispute NASA's findings that the Antarctic ice coverage is actually increasing. Since you seem to prefer news articles to research here is a selection:

?As climate shifts, Antarctic ice sheet is growing? ?Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2005

?Scientists link global warming to Antarctic?s ice cap?s growth? ?Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2005

?Antarctica ice cap thickens? ?Pittsburgh Post Gazette, May 20, 2005

?Warming is blamed for Antarctic?s weight gain? ?New York Times, May 20, 2005

?Ice sheet confounds climate theory? ? The Telegraph, May 20, 2005

?Antarctica ice cap thickens, slowing rise in sea levels? ? Pioneer Press, May 20, 2005



5. Pick any aspect of climate change such as glaciers, sea levels, anything and actually argue your case that this aspect supports global warming without the data being manipulated and with proper scientific method applied. I really would like to see such research. There must be some out there, surely.

But you will not do any of this, Dan. You will simply call me another name and say that I'm not providing any links to research, even though that is actually a pretty serious misrepresentation of what I have actually done. Either Dan, you will not respond at all, or you will have some comeback that includes an insult or derogatory comment. Let's see. Perhaps it will be something along the lines that this post is nothing but more waffle on my behalf and contains nothing by my worthless opinion. Or parhaps I am being overly harsh because continiuing to address each issue Mr Morgan raises is met with yet another less than complimentary post and no science.

And the reason why I have even bothered to respond yet again? Because there are more people on this forum than those that simply wish to denigrate other's positions and they actually might wish to think for themselves. I really hope so.


Regards


Richard


PS. For those actually interested in the issues, the very substantial increase in the volume of the Antarctic has been confirmed in more than one study. This is one: Curt Davis (University of Missouri-Columbia), 2005, published in ScienceExpress. And then there are several about the reduction in mass of the western part of Antarctica. An example would be John O. Stone of University of Washington's team finding that the WAIS deglaciation began 10,000 years ago and is not related to present climate events. To quote one of the other authors, Ackert: "Recent ice sheet dynamics appear to be dominated by the ongoing response to deglacial forcing thousands of years ago, rather than by recent anthropogenic warming or sea level rise." (I think this research was partly published in Science two or three years ago, but cannot find the direct reference right now).

And of course Stone, Ackert and Curtis are zealots and cranks, by the criteria of Mr Morgan.

As to whether I cherish popularity or supporting a position because the evidence supports it, I would refer you to my current signature quote by George Bernard Shaw.


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day all,

Record World Average Apparently Proves Global Warming, What Does Record Cold Temperatures Prove?

I know that I've produced a considerable volume of posts in this thread but thought this might be interesting to some.

2005 was a record high year. But how much mention is there of 2002-2003 Northern winter breaking numerous records for cold? Does this prove global cooling? Huh!

Some of the records:

  • Bejing having 6 consecutive days of snowfall in December 2002. Not previously recorded despite more than 120 years of records.
  • Record low temperatures or near record ice or snow coverage in places as far afield as Finland, India, Bangladesh, several areas of the Russian Federation.


I could go on but this actually proves nothing except records, both high and low, are broken pretty much every year somewhere.


Richard

PS. Anyone know how an small image may be inserted into these posts, without it having to be on a website somewhere else? I have graphs etc from some research that some people might find interesting. They are only a few kb each.


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
RicS wrote:
"So the citations I provided where not worthy of your enquiry?"

I looked at them. They did not address the studies and evidence amassed by multiple independent and government researchers in multiple countries that establish conclusively the planet is warming.

Thus their were not relevant and I am not easily distracted. So lets drag you back to the topic once again. Is there a single study, published in a peer reviewed journal, that clearly demonstrates that the study referenced here was in error?

Yes or No.

Simple and Boolean.

And if yes then without thousands of words of text just provide the link that references the work in question.


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day Dan,

I challenge your reply. I simply find what you say extremely difficult to believe. How did you look at the research I referred to? Since the research is not on the Internet for the most part, you actually went to the trouble of obtaining hard copies? You really expect me to believe that you did this in two days or so.

Apparently you decide what is relevant because you apparently are "not easily distracted". The research I cited was specific to particular aspects of climate change. Pick another specific aspect and I'll provide more but it seems it doesn't matter what I provide, you don't care.

What study are you talking about by the way? Your post makes little sense. Some study was "referenced here". Huh? The study that suggests global cooling? I would be loathe to agree with that, although it makes an interesting point.

I give up. I am not going to respond to further posts by you unless they relate to a specific study or actually address a point I have raised or the cited studies raised.

Read your posts in this thread and tell me how you have even once actually addressed this topic or the general topic of global warming aside from name calling and news article or opinion links. Somehow that is twisted around to you needing to drag me back to the topic. Sheesh. All I want to do is discuss the topic but as I said, I give up. Happy to respond to anyone else or even you Dan, if you address an issue in global warming aside from opinions of others.

There really is nothing more that I can do. I have led you by the hand to the data and explained the problems with it, yet you have not once addressed this even in passing. And data analysis should be right up your alley.

What proves global warming if not glaciers, temperature variations, ice sheet melting or thickening, sea level rises? There is not much else left. I've referred directly to records on sea levels and temperature. I've cited "peer reviewed" published research on ice sheet melting/thickening and glaciers. What else is there?

And please do not say that you need to see a peer reviewed research paper on the temperature data before you will even consider that it is faulty. I've already indicated that this is one area where there is no published research, aside from the numerous comments stating flaws in the data in various pro global warming research.

By the way, the questions in this post are rethorical. I do not expect you to address them because you managed to answer only one of my questions thus far, the one concernig the citations in the post above and I have considerable reservations about your answer to that one.

And to anyone else still reading these posts, my wife raised an interesting point with me, not ever having had anything to do with science ever. Her question: "What makes you think you are right?" A terrific question. The answer is I don't think I am right. I have put forward a proposition. Scientific method follows that the proposition should be open to challenge and can be found wanting. I have no trouble with that. I would be happy to be proved wrong. As I have said a few times, I originally was of the view that there was little doubt the earth had warmed from 1980 on and overall had warmed from about 100 years before that. What I doubted was weather this was due to CO2 because that proposition seemed to have some holes, including the major cooling trends when the CO2 concentrations increased the most, and the US data being in such conflict with the world data. I had a reasonable understanding that the US data was much more likely to be accurate than much of the rest of the world. It is only because I have had to look at specific research and the methods used that the problem with "average" and just how big a margin of error this can introduce was highlighted to me. I always had a doubt about how good weather station data was, simply because we had so much trouble finding weather stations with consistent data when I had to do this for a project in the 70s but didn't realise just how bad it possibly was.

I assumed that the ice sheets were melting a bit. It seems logical if the world has warmed a bit but looking at those studies only showed up flaws in how ice sheet volume was determined before satellite data and just how unreliable that data was likely to be.

I did not know, for instance, that there was a a few sets of ocean air and sea temperature data that contradict pretty much every general study on those temperatures. The trouble is the sets that show no warming trend at all are the ones more likely to be comparable(and a significant cooling trend by very accurate measurements in the last few years - and I'm happy to cite the peer reviewed published research on ocean temperatures dropping should anyone care to look at this aspect).

All I have asked of Mr Morgan or anyone else who wishes to discuss global warming issues is to demonstrate where my logic is wrong, where there is accurate data, where I've made a mistake and some major study demonstrating global warming has no scientific method flaws.

When I taught, I had a very bad habit of starting a course with what sounded like an absurd premise and saying: "Prove me wrong". I got this from a professor who started an earth science course with "The flip between glaciations and interglacial periods takes seven years. Prove me wrong." So myself and some fellow students set out to do just that. It was because of this attempt that we all learned so much about just what evidence was available about the change over period between the two climatic states.

Yes, and I'm creating another long post, probably too long for most to bother reading it. So I'll stop.


Regards


Richard
alias RicS
or ' The Climate Change Zealot'


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Apparently you missed the part where I wrote:

"Yes or No.
Simple and Boolean.
And if yes then without thousands of words of text just provide the link that references the work in question."

You are apparently impressed by length rather than content: I am not.


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
J
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 174
DA Morgan said, "They did not address the studies and evidence amassed by multiple independent and government researchers in multiple countries that establish conclusively the planet is warming."

Great. Name one study.

John M Reynolds

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
We have repeatedly posted links to research studies and asked you to post links to studies that refute them and not once have you done so.
If you have actually posted a link to a study, ive yet to see it.

ive seen links to news articles by the score. news articles are written with one goal in mind, sell subscriptions. they are not data, they are not the studies, and they are sometime not even the facts that the scientist have stated, but rather a paraphrasing of it, that makes it seem to say the opposite. you have done (or at least tryed) to do that to me several times in these forums. That does not prove anything.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Go to google.com

Put in the following search criteria:

"arctic ice cover" and "2006"

I'm tired of posting and reposting. You can easily trace any of the 19,800 items returned.

And for the terminally lazy I'll give you one leaving only 19,799 to go.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06315_sea_ice.html


DA Morgan
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
W
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
W
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 264
I suggest that RicS's wife has the patience of a Saint,

What's with this fixation about proving that GW is a "naturally occuring event"? And, if the hypothesis IS true, what, do we fold our arms and do nothing?

There IS some good in GW. The annual Baby Seal Clubbing Festival off the coast of Newfoundland has been cancelled - the ice is too thin for Humans to walk on.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Ah Wolfman,

Taking over from Mr Morgan, are we? Nothing but an attack, even if a reasonably polite one on the individual, rather than any science at all. I have no idea what your science interests are but it would be nice if for a change we could actually look at science rather than personalise this issue so that anyone who does not agree with you has a "fixation" and apparently also a long suffering wife.

Actually I did not say that Global Warming was a naturally occuring event. I actually said there was no reasonable evidence to support that there is anything such thing as global warming. Slight difference.

While I personally do not see the point of such a huge campaign to protect baby seals especially since their natural predators kill them much slower and inflict far more pain, and they are not endangered. But they do look cute on those posters, don't they. Very strange world when protection against the idiocy of man is afforded on the basis of how cute the animal is.

Actually if global warming was a naturally occuring event, Wolfman, do you suggest we attempt to intervene anyway. And there is a lot of good to "global warming", it is called civilisation. Without this interglacial period we would still be hunter gatherers without a written language. I'm not sure whether the planet would have been better off but I'm sure happier to be living in modern society and am very thankful for this for my family.

So what does a "natural" warming do that is positive? Extra CO2 follows a warming trend. More plant production. Much better food production in third worlds. More habitable and arable land. Better protection against disease (that last one sounds strange because global warming is being blamed for such things as the spread of malaria - actually I could quote considerable research by medical experts, not climate scientists, that indicate that malaria spread has nothing to do with whether the world is warmer or even a little cooler. Same with a number of other diseases. But why bother quoting real studies when they are not worthy of discussion in this particular thread, especially if they do not support the doom and gloom of global warming.

Australia is currently in a drought. Australia is always in a drought. Next to Antarctica, it is the driest continent. It has had appalling droughts, some lasting decades. Agriculture has been pushed to marginal regions where rainfall was terrific just after WWI and in the 50s but the pattern went back to a more normal one.

The threat of global warming has added an entirely new twist. In the last three months land in the main grain belts has dropped about 40% in value and generational farmers that have weathered previous bad times and have created exceptionally productive and efficient properties and giving up because they fear that this drought is because of global warming and that it is a waste of time perservering because it will only get worse.

This would all be fine if global warming is likely to be true, or likely to lead to more extreme droughts. The second is not true. The first seems to be a position that just does not have real science to prove it, hence the request after request after request to provide any research that truly shows global warming, these requests being ignored entirely. What have we been getting instead, news articles! Even NASA news releases can be very misleading when compared to the underlying research they pupport to represent. The "rapid" and "disturbing" loss of Arctic sea ice, for instance, does not match the actual research at all, and only the very negative is emphasised. Overall, the total ice is stable. All these news articles seem to have one thing in common, the use of "if", "might" and "may". Predictions in climate science are generally recognised as a particularly good way to look foolish. I wouldn't dream of saying the world is not going to get hotter. It seems from the solar evidence it might be about to get a little cooler but I wouldn't bet on it. Climate is too complex for predictions at our current level of understanding.

So Wolfman, I'm happy to discuss global warming with you if you want to discuss the science of global warming. If you go into any specifics I'll even provide citations directly to research. By the way, because I happen to think that I am not completely alone in my less than glowing response to the scientific methods used in the global warming research that gets all the publicity, I did a bit of looking at the surveys and research of climate scientists. It seems that very few of them enthusiastically support global warming being man made. The majority do agree with its existence, but a sizeable minority question even this. This type of information is really easy to find, by the way, it just is not reported in news articles.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Ah RicS ... 5,044 characters, 870 words, 2 pages in MS Word ... and not a single link to a single study refuting the actual science.

Perhaps Wolfman is, like me, deluded into thinking that in a science forum ... one should make arguments based on serious science ... not who can write largest number of lines.

quality <> quantity


DA Morgan
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 310
G'day John and dehammer,

Me, I've decided not to bother. You raised valid points but the response is simply going to be an endless cycle it seems.

That was my last post in response to Wolfman, unless he wishes to discuss the science of global warming. Otherwise this has become a particularly pointless exercise, one I'm afraid I created when I was about to go back into hospital and thought that it was worth making some remarks aimed at Mr Morgan. I've also perpetuated it by responding to each post.

Obviously citations or requests for studies are not going to elicit a reasonable response.

I do hope someone posts some global warming science so we can start over with a discussion not based on how many words I write (and I write a great deal and probably too much, I've already acknowledge that a few times) or just how much of a zealot or crank I am. That is not science or scientific discussion and it is just getting stale.

But it is not up to me to dictate how you respond to posts so feel free to keep trying if you want to. Just seems that it has become a rather pointless exercise imho.


Regards


Richard

PS. I made a mistake in the post about drought prices. That should have been 30%. While it probably was a mistake no one would notice, I would prefer to correct the typo.


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5