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

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
0 registered (), 90 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Science-based ECONOMICS--Take a LOOK, OK!........
by paul
Today at 05:19 PM
Ebola hits NYC
by paul
Yesterday at 09:07 AM
Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,
by Tutor Turtle
10/22/14 09:10 PM
Inverse Square Law & (analogy) Inverse Cubic Law
by newton
10/22/14 11:25 AM
Do we ask too much of time?
by Orac
10/21/14 07:34 PM
Is There Any Treatment & Cure of Ebola Virus
by Amaranth Rose II
10/21/14 11:45 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 26
Bill S. 23
Revlgking 22
Orac 21
Tutor Turtle 15
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#16491 - 08/24/06 12:04 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Rose wrote:
"I'm kind of tired of your elitist attitude."

And you think links in a science forum from "ihaveanaxetogrind.com" are a reference to establish the thinking of the science community"?

That isn't elitist that is science.

I went to google.com and did the search, as I always do before challenging people's "facts" and I had no problem finding statements from NOAA, WHO, major research universities, and even a few detractors.

When someone intentionally ignores those results and posts as he did that is lawyering ... not science.

If asking someone that claims to be a college graduate to act like one is elitist then I plead guilty as charged.

But as someone with a degree in biology yourself I wonder how you would feel if you had been asked, in a paper you were writing, to reference
http://www.nightshadebooks.com in your list of citations? I expect you would have gagged first and then had the professional ethics to refuse very shortly thereafter.

Am I wrong?
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Of Interest?
#16492 - 08/24/06 03:01 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
the thing about that da is that you refuse to discuss what the scientist (good, reputable, scientist working in that field) are saying just because they are quoted on a site that is not of your political party line or because its not pure science. Well, the BBC is not pure science either but you have no problem accepting them. You have no problem accepting reports from NASA that support your claims, but not ones that disagree with you. why should we post the links if you ignore what they say and only attack the sites owners. Ive given you links to things from NASA or other just as reputable, but you ignore them and attack the site owners of the other links that support that or from which i found the links to NASA's reports.

The problem with many sites is that they want things that are newsworth, or contriversal or is part of the latest hot topic. They dont want to report people saying, "there is nothing to worry about" they want to report people saying, "if you dont listen to us, your children will die". They dont want to report people saying, "everything is going according to the earths cycles, albet with a tiny change due to mans influence". THAT is not sensational enough for the majority of sites. The ones that do post these report are considered by elitist to be unworth of their time because they are not very sensational enough and because they are willing to go against popular alarmist rhetoric.

I personally dont care if the site owners are "ihaveanaxetogrind.com", if they have reports that are done by others, ill pay attension and look at what the scientist have said. Of course after that you have to find out if the scientist actually did say those things. that is not a given.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16493 - 08/24/06 06:15 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"the thing about that da is that you refuse to discuss what the scientist (good, reputable, scientist working in that field) are saying just because they are quoted on a site that is not of your political party line or because its not pure science."

You just disagreed without yourself which, for most people, is reasonably hard to do. You start off saying "you refuse to discuss what the scientist are saying" and you follow it up with "because its not pure science." That is logically impossible. What the good scientists are saying IS pure science.

But putting that aside for the moment. My point is that there is nothing at nightshadebooks.com that is serious science so how can one use it as a reference as to what serious scientists are thinking?

If one wants to know what serious scientists are thinking rather they go to these:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
A serious peer reviewed science magazine

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate_change/climate-consensus.html
An organization of scientists

http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Lindzen-NYT2006.pdf#search=%22%22consensus%22%20and%20%22global%20warming%22%22
University of California at San Diego
(you might note this item disagrees with me but anyone looking for credibility would have found it)

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.htm
The Brookings Institution

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000723consensus_statement_.html
The University of Colorado

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1229_041229_climate_change_consensus.html
National Geographic

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108213307.htm
A science magazine

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/Fish/southflorida/news/bush2004.html
Florida Museum of Natural History

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/cretaceous.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/200504.html
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Rutgers University
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/glwarm/housescience.htm

There is a huge difference between them and:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm
Which is the level of the discussion we've been having and to which I, an effete elistist snob, object.

And it would not have been hard to come up with a list of hundreds of serious references.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16494 - 08/24/06 08:50 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
[quote] dehammer wrote:
"...because they are quoted on a site that is not of your political party line or because its not pure science."[/unquote]

You just disagreed without yourself which, for most people, is reasonably hard to do. You start off saying "you refuse to discuss what the scientist are saying" and you follow it up with "because its not pure science." That is logically impossible. What the good scientists are saying IS pure science.
try rereading that for content. dont try to take parts of the sentence and put them together to make it say something totally different. thats rather third graderish.

Quote:
But putting that aside for the moment. My point is that there is nothing at nightshadebooks.com that is serious science so how can one use it as a reference as to what serious scientists are thinking?


If one wants to know what serious scientists are thinking rather they go to these:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
A serious peer reviewed science magazine
If you follow their links all of them of these quotes are based on the lies the IPCC (a very political entity that disregarded the scientists summeries to create its own summery)

this one is interesting. if you follow the links it has, it shows a graph that links the rise in co2 and temperature for the last 350000 years. the interesting point is that the graph shows the co2 following the rise, not leading it. If greenhouse is that big of an indicator of the future temperature, shouldnt it lead the temperature rise?

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate-change-final.pdf
top of page 5

Quote:
http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/Lindzen-NYT2006.pdf#search=%22%22consensus%22%20and%20%22global%20warming%22%22
University of California at San Diego
(you might note this item disagrees with me but anyone looking for credibility would have found it)
Im glad you at least read that there is not a complete agreement over it.

Quote:
First, the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.
how can 7000 plus scientist disagreeing with it be a near unanimous acceptance?

Quote:
The reality is that the present state of science does not allow us to come to a conclusion that global warming has affected hurricanes.
this is proof that global warming from humans intervention is a major problem?
I find it interesting that this associate history professor could not find anything to disagree with humans causing the global warming when there were 7000 plus scientist signing a patition against the global warming alarmist tactics.


once again someone who cant find a single one of the 7000 scientist that disagree. Its interesting to me that right at the top, right under the graph, there is an ad for someone trying to sell the idea that coal will be the next fuel for cars since it will have less polutants (somehow). this site is all about how all scientist are in agreement that man has caused the global warming. (if it list any other possible cause i cant find it)

Quote:
this one is all about how Bush is responsible for the hurricanes of last season, even though no scientist has every proven a solid link between mans polution and the increase in ocean temperature (except for the fact that they cant think of anything else that might consieveably have anything to do with it), or a change in the cycle of increases in hurricane activities that is decades long.

Quote:
The last decade of the 20th Century was the warmest in the entire global instrumental temperature record, starting in the mid-19th century. All 10 years rank among the 15 warmest, and include the 6 warmest years on record
interesting that that happens to be the time when the solar activity was higher than its been in centruies. We only started coming out of it during the last few years, albet its still rather high on the average. interesting that the temperature has dropped since the "last decade of the 20th Century".

Quote:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/200504.html
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
not sure where you were going with this one. I find it interesting that they have discovered that the earth has frequent changes of up to 30 meter in sea levels.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2005/2005041418803.html
does that mean that part of the current changes in sea level might be part of another earth cycle?


Quote:
But these gases are not the only cause of climate change. When the most recent climate model experiments, done since the latest IPCC report, include the effects of greenhouse gases, aerosols (particles in the atmosphere), volcanic eruptions, ozone depletion, solar variations, and El Ni?o in their calculations, they produce simulations of climate change of the past 100 years that agree quite well with the past surface temperature record. For example, Haywood et al. (1997) describe calculations made with the climate model of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) at Princeton University. When they attempt to simulate the climate change of the past 130 years taking into consideration just the effects of CO2 increases, the model produces too much warming as compared to observations.
so it appears that man has not been the major contribitor that many claim. Additional, this report indicates that co2 will stay in the atmosphere about a century, where as the other alarmist sites state multiple centruies.

Quote:
There is a huge difference between them and:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/green.htm
Which is the level of the discussion we've been having and to which I, an effete elistist snob, object.
I have to agree with some of these thing but you will note that they mentioned President Clinton being in the White House. A few things have changed since he was president.

Quote:
And it would not have been hard to come up with a list of hundreds of serious references.
I have no doubt. the thing about that is that line that will get the most attension from the press. That will get the most traffic from net surfers. Both of those result in more money from ad buyers.

Here is something i think you should note. i addressed each of your links, without resorting talking about the site owners and things, even. can you do that?
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16495 - 08/25/06 12:50 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer science is not lawyering. One does not present only links that agree with their position. If they are do they are so wholly lacking in credibility as to be laughable.

I am as aware of serious science that disagrees with me as I am serious science that does agree with me.

Which is why I am offended when people try to make arguments based on nonsense from poppycock.com.

BTW: The point of my links was that there are links from and to serious science sites. It was not my intent to edit them or provide links that supported on position or the other.

Now you try it.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16496 - 08/25/06 06:15 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
BTW: The point of my links was that there are links from and to serious science sites. It was not my intent to edit them or provide links that supported on position or the other.
I understand now. You don't want to have a debate, you just want people to post links and go ooo and ahhhh. That must be why you have not answered my questions. Here is another:

Since you are "as aware of serious science that disagrees with [you] as I am serious science that does agree with [you]," why do you start topics that only argue the pro-global warming side?

Or are you going to answer my other questions first?

John M Reynolds

Top
#16497 - 08/25/06 06:31 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
Eduardo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/10/06
Posts: 106
Loc: Guildford, UK
Sorry to butt in here JMR but can you explain why it is that 95% of climate scientists agree that human induced climate change is a reality?
_________________________
Eduardo
Resistance is futile. Capacitance is efficacious.
There are 10 types of people in the world... Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Top
#16498 - 08/25/06 08:54 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer science is not lawyering. One does not present only links that agree with their position. If they are do they are so wholly lacking in credibility as to be laughable.

I am as aware of serious science that disagrees with me as I am serious science that does agree with me.

Which is why I am offended when people try to make arguments based on nonsense from poppycock.com.

BTW: The point of my links was that there are links from and to serious science sites. It was not my intent to edit them or provide links that supported on position or the other.

Now you try it.
In that case why did you argue with me for weeks after i came back that there were no scientist who disagreed with the "fact" that humans were the primary cause of global warming and had always been. What difference does it matter where a link is sited, if the scientist that are quoted are real and have actually made the quotes. For a very long time, I was saying that neither the oil companies or the global warming alarmist had the full truth, but you were adament that the oil companies were 100% wrong and the alarmist were 100% right.

If your willing to admit that the earth maybe responsible for much of the change, why are you still arguing that man is responsible for the melting off of greenlands ice, even in the face of the fact that the interior ice has gotten a lot thicker? Most of the studies, perhaps all, as far as i know, are ignoreing that, and only showing how much of the fringe areas are disappearing or getting thinner.


Ed, the thing is this, few if any scientist have ever claimed we have had no effect on the climate. that would be a very hard line to prove. OTOH, id like you to show me that 95 percent of the scientiest agree that we are the major factor that some claim and a lot of the media claim is unanimous. I was reading recently that if we dont get rid of the cars in american within 10 years it will be too late and the planet will be uninhabitable with in 100 years. That is extream scaremongering. Al Gore is not much better.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16499 - 08/25/06 12:09 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Quote:
Originally posted by Eduardo:
Sorry to butt in here JMR but can you explain why it is that 95% of climate scientists agree that human induced climate change is a reality?
Prove your statement is accurate.

Top
#16500 - 08/25/06 03:31 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Nothing yet? Well, from the http://www.ucar.edu/research/climate/future.shtml site, I found this quote:

"A vast majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC consensus that Earth will warm along with increasing greenhouse gases."

I just don't know where you get the 95% from nor the human induced part of your quote. Science is where you take a hypothesis and try to prove it. If you are successful, then others try to confirm your work. Once an experiment proves your hypothesis wrong then the whole thing falls apart.

Climate is very complex. Check out this page:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/382_myths.htm

Almost half way down, while they are trying to dispell the "human activities contribute only a small fraction of carbon dioxide emissions" myth, they talk about a balance that has existed for 10,000 years. That is indeed interesting.

That 10,000 years is an anomoly. The earth's temperature has been within 2 degrees Celcius for 203 of the 239 data samples. That is it has been within 2 degrees 85% of the time and within 4 degrees in all samples except 1 where it hit 2.06 C. Why has the earth's temperature been mostly within 2 degrees for the past 10,000 years?

Check the graph from GRID and UNEP in the Myth 7 section of the http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html website. The past 10,000 has been quite warm. I have plotted the data myself and found that the average temperature for the past 400,000 years up to 1950 is -4.52 degrees Celcius. The average is much cooler than what it was in 1900. I got the data from http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat and calculated the average using a spreadsheet. If you exclude the anomolous past 10,000 years of data, the average drops to -4.85 C.

To contrast this, the highest temperatures found by this data were more than 3 degrees Celcius warmer than it was in 1900. Since the ice cores only took samples at 1 meter intervals, the hottest and coldest years were probably missed. So, the question remains. Why has the past 10,000 years had an average of -0.36 C while the average for the past 400,000 has been -4.5 degrees Celius cooler?

Why would scientists ignore the anomolies? Why do they quote greenland data from 1992 when that year was an anomoly? Why do they choose to ignore salps that are an indicator of a natural mechanism that deals with excess carbon in the atmosphere? Why are they cherry picking data? Why have the Inuit only recently been able to feel the heat of the sun in December? And why won't anyone answer my questions?

John M Reynolds

Top
#16501 - 08/25/06 04:55 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
perhaps the answer is that you are not accepting their cherry picked benchmarks as gosple. Alarmist have to use those benchmarks to prove how bad things are getting. The data you used is straight, unaltered, "uncorrected" data, which they cant explain without "correcting". other than that, i dont know why any one cant answer them.

I notice that the first link you had explained that the solar energy had only risen a fraction of a percent. Notice they discuss solar energy, rather than solar flares which are totally different animal. From what that says, id would hazzard a guess that they are not taken flares into account, nor the magnetic effects the flares have, and the effect that have on the earth. something that i find interesting is that they show in their chart that the natural tendacy of the temperature should have dropped, even though solar activity has been on the upswing most of the last century. how do they explain that if they took it into account.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16502 - 08/25/06 06:58 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
John wrote:
"I understand now. You don't want to have a debate, you just want people to post links and go ooo and ahhhh."

No no and no. I want people to post links that have content that can be relied upon so that when they disagree with what someone thinks they can educate myself as to the source of their belief.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16503 - 08/25/06 06:59 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
John M wrote:
"Prove your statement is accurate."

Oh so when it is someone else you want them to provide credible proof but when it is you we are supposed to just accept any old thing you can type.

Got it. I'll remember the double-standard for future reference.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#16504 - 08/25/06 10:17 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
he's just following your example.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16505 - 08/26/06 07:04 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Dehammer, your last post is insulting. I have given plenty of links to scientific sites and even sites that are pro the global warming stance. Perhaps the problem is I did not link to that bastion of higher knowledge, the BBC, like DA does. Instead, I asked 3 questions.

The first is simple common knowledge. What used to be called global warming is now called climate change. I wanted to know why.

The second was about satellite records not showing a significant increase in temperature since 1984. I did not provide many links to that one, I admit. Here, http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm , is an old one from 1997. It claims that the water cycle had affected the amount of water vapour that is "a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide." That means clouds were not a part of their computer models back in 1997. That page has not been updated, but it links to another page, http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html , for its data. That second page has been updated to even include some data from this year. It basically shows the average temperature rising since 1997. That leads to another question. If clouds kept the earth cool until 1997, why suddenly is the water cycle not a factor? Dehammer, do you still have the link to the temperature data from, I think, the US weather service that indicates lower than predicted temperatures from the year 2000?

My last question about the past 10,000 years being consistantly warm has many links in this thread which I provided. Its links are to a variety of sources including the pro global warming side. No one seems to be able to explain it.

All I get in reply is Eduardo's loaded question that assigns belief in global warming to 95% of climate scientists and claims the 95% all believe that climate change is human induced. That is pretty profound. I could not find a source, so I asked for his. At least his question is on topic.

This must mean no one has the answers, so I have to look elsewhere.

John M Reynolds

Top
#16506 - 08/26/06 11:36 AM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
sorry, no intent to insult you.

let me see if i can answer part of that.

the IPCC found out that there was a lot of evidence that most of the increase in temperature was due to natural causes and natural cycles. since their stated mission is to prove that man is responsible and that things have to be done their way or disaster will follow, then they cant have people understanding that most of that increase has nothing to do with man, and that man cant do anything about the majority of it. Their recommendations are pretty severe, which is hard for most people to accept. if they tell people that the recommendations will only slow the expected change, few people would be willing to follow it.

In addition there is considerable more evidence that the increases are due more to natural cycles and conditions of the earth than the IPCC wants people to see. If the majority of it is cyclic and we are near the top of the cycles, then the temperature rises will drop with out the need for those severe recommendations.

To cover these cyclic and other causes, they changed the name from global warming to climate changes. part of this was due to the fact that some areas are seeing a drop in temperature. But mostly it was to cover the fact that the new name covers all the various causes of climate change. That way when politicians and others quote them, there is no obvious connection between what they are quoting and solar flare, solar energy increases, volcano activities, ect.

one example is that under the ice that has been melting so much, they have discovered an active volcano, that was appearantly dormant for centuries. its outputting a lot of heat into the water below the ice caps, which is causing part of the melt off.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/11/1129_icebreaker.html

edit, i could have made a small mistake here, i believed there were ones under the arctic, but have not found the links i was looking for. instead i found ones about Antarctica volcanos melting off much of the ice there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

on the other hand i did find these

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1707-01-
and
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1707-02-
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16507 - 08/26/06 12:26 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
heres another site with something to say.

http://www.carc.org/pubs/v15no5/4.htm

look down about half way and youll find this

Quote:
There are a few important points about these profiles relevant to today's debate about the direction in which climate may be heading.

The climate at the drill-site has been colder than today's for about 80 000 out of the past 100 000 years. We tend to view our current climate as normal; however, it is very far from normal when viewed in terms of 100 000 years of record. Using ocean core records we might even say the planet's climate is due to return to the "normal" condition of an ice-age. What we should be seeking is not the cause of the ice-ages but the cause of interglacial periods.
If the ice-caps melted completely during the main part of the last interglacial period then that period must have been substantially warmer and/or longer than the present one.
The climate of the last 60 years has been colder than average for the last 10 000 years but warmer than average for the last 1000 years.
note that its only in compairison of the last 1000 years that we are in a warming condition. taking in a longer time frame and we are colder than normal.

just so you know, it was written by Dr. Roy M. Koerner Principal Investigator: Natural Resources Canada Geological Survey of Canada

a little farther down he says
Quote:
The ice-core record in Figure 2 shows a large range of climatic conditions over the past 100 000 years. Compared to the last 10 years, temperatures show a range from about 10?C to 15?C colder 18 000 years ago through 3?C warmer 7000 to 8000 years ago, to 5?C warmer more than 100 000 years ago when the ice-cap began its growth. On a shorter time-scale, during the period of instrumental record, there is evidence from our cores of a 2.5?C warming between about 1750 and 1950. The warming trend, which has occasionally been identified as carbon-dioxide induced, can be seen as part of a much longer natural one.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#16508 - 08/26/06 04:31 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Thank you for your replies. I like your links, about volcanoes and the one about ice cores. If you look at the ice core data, there has not been a period like the past 10,000 years. What are the chances that it will get warmer and melt the top layers of ice. If we then got cooler, then ice cores that will be taken 100,000 years from now may only see our 10,000 as a gradual rise instead. Then again, due to the frigid temps of Antarctica, that is unlikely. How long has Antarctica been there? Why do ice cores only go back 420,000 years? Was there a time before that where there was no ice on Antarctica?

According to the June 10, 1999 AP article found on the http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/icecore2.htm site, "They stopped drilling about 120 yards (109 meters) short of a subterranean lake the size of Lake Ontario that's been trapped for perhaps millions of years beneath the ice sheet. Scientists want to send sterilized robots to explore the pristine lake and are protecting it from contamination until then." They drilled 3,623 m (over 2 miles) and stopped. If that lake has been trapped for millions of years, then that last 109 meters would go back those same millions of years.

That was 7 years ago. Have sterilized robots been sent yet? Is there new data going back millions of years yet? Apparently, Lake Vostok is not frozen. The http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/oldissues2000-2001/2000_1126/vostok.html page talks about using Lake Vostok as a training ground for technology that can check out Europa - A Jupiter moon that may have a liquid lake beneath a layer of ice. Of course, that does not help us. I want to know the data. Why don't they test the technology on one of the other 80 lakes?

According to the http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/vostok_pr.html page, "If it ever had a direct link with the air above it, that connection ended some 30 million years ago." Thirty million years is a lot of data to give up for only 109 meters of drilling. Would 30 million years be enough for Antarctica to slowly move over the southern pole?

According to the http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Pangea/Pangea3.html page, "250 millions years ago the Earth's seven continents were all grouped together into a supercontinent called Pangea."
Is Antarctia still moving? Is this planet indeed under a cold spell like the http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html page suggests? Will this planet ever see the end to this cold spell? That 30 million years of data (even if it only ends up being 10 million years) may be able to tell us some of this.

In 2004, the access hole technology development was still in the draft phase. This is according to the http://salegos-scar.montana.edu/docs/Workshops.htm page's last link. That is the newest information I found.

Where else can we get more historical data that relates to temperature? Do you have a link to geology ocean floor records?

John M Reynolds

Top
#16509 - 08/27/06 03:42 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
alex_J Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/27/06
Posts: 6
I don't have time to read through this whole thread to see if this has been noted, but the temperature discrepancy issue is old news, and has since been addressed. Stratospheric cooling (a predicted consequence of the amplified greenhouse effect) was found to bias the satellite temperature record. With correction for it, the data shows a warming trend just as the other records, and other lines of observational evidence, do.

There's a link and some commentary on this and other common arguments at GlobalWarmingTuth.org and illconsidered.blogspot.com .

And dehammer: 1. I don't know where you get your interpretation of the IPCC's mission or aggregate findings, but where exactly does it state that "most of the increase in temperature was due to natural causes and natural cycles"? If anything, the 2001 assessment affirms a significant human influence. Where does the IPCC report highlight natural processes that account for "most" of the trend? Link please. And 2. The current interglacial period is apparently one of the longer ones, expected to last thousands of years more .

Regardless of all this argument, or the ten+ year old articles used to support it, there's still no peer-reviewed study that successfully indicates there are natural forcings that can account for most of the current (and ongoing) warming trend. Period. Meanwhile, the science supporting the human-amplified greenhouse effect as the primary cause, and suggesting that we're just seeing the beginning of this process (subject to the delay of thermal inertia and the amplification of feedback effects) has only gained strength.

John: The Antarctic ice cores do go back further than 450,000 years. To date, they've been analyzed to 650,000, and may yield data back to 800,000.

Top
#16510 - 08/27/06 10:14 PM Re: trouble for global warming fans
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Hi alex_J. Welcome to the discussion. I like your first link very much. When trying to combat the other side of the story, they make some serious flaws though. For example, trying to disprove "Most of the warming has occurred before 1940", they say, "With a record 2005 temperature anomaly, this is no longer correct." It must be noted that a single year does not a trend make. Your second link on this topic goes further to cherry pick 1992 to say that the temperature had increased steadily through the 1990's. That is normal after the large volcanic eruption. It would be much more interesting to compare the 1980's to the last couple of years.

Bye the way, climate is weather.

It says, "Re: Mars - Even if there were a global warming trend on Mars resulting from a rise in solar output, there are no oceans and the atmosphere is much thinner there, so temperatures are more responsive to even small changes in solar energy." Large subterrainian glaciers affect mars. They are huge heat sinks just like our oceans and glaciers.

If there is no "significant rise in solar energy," then why do inuit in northern Canada now have to wear sunscreen? They can now feel the heat of the sun in December where they never used to be able to.

Human activity causes .028% of the "Greenhouse Effect"

I liked the link they had in their glaciers section to the NASA page that compares 1996 to 2006 data for Greenland melt. This is another example of cherry picking though. They would have to compare 1991 instead to get meaningful data. This has already been addressed in this thread.

Your link says, "Although consensus isn't required by any science..." Yes it is. If it is not required then it is not science.

Your second link goes further and gives silly answers. For example, then tackling the "It was even warmer than today during the Holocene Climatic Optimum without any human influence." question, they give this: "Actually, it turns out that though there may have indeed been some temperatures in the same range as today, this was regional to the northern hemisphere and confined to the summer months." This is wrong. The data is taken from the vostok ice core that was extracted from Antarctica. AS well, the several I checked are even refuted in the comments section.

Your links also saddened me since they were not able to address my questions like why have we had a fairly stable temperature for the past 10,000 years.

I understand that you may not want to read the entire thread, but how about page 5 and 6 at a minimum to see where the discussion is going.

And thank you for letting me know about the 650,000 years for the Vostok ice core data. The http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10004065.shtml page has a graph of the new data.

John M Reynolds

Top
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
mikehussey, Philep, qhmpl, Cameron, mikke
710 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 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.