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
2 registered (samwik, Bill), 99 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Cryosphere still warming.
by samwik
39 minutes 53 seconds ago
First Ebola Case in the U.S.
by Bill
Today at 05:50 PM
TWO MASS m and ONE TABLE EXPERIMENT
by newton
Yesterday at 06:26 AM
first step to design antygravitation materials
by newton
09/29/14 03:15 AM
Bohr atom model ( Orac even You will understand )
by newton
09/27/14 09:05 AM
Two Electrons Experiment
by newton
09/26/14 08:50 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 76
Orac 28
paul 27
Bill 20
samwik 12
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#8726 - 08/15/06 12:25 PM 'More disasters' for warmer world
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Rising temperatures will increase the risk of forest fires, droughts and flooding over the next two centuries, UK climate scientists have warned.

Even if harmful emissions were cut now, many parts of the world would face a greater risk of natural disasters, a team from Bristol University said.

The projections are based on data from more than 50 climate models looking at the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.

The study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

For more:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4791257.stm
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
Of Interest?
#8727 - 08/15/06 01:21 PM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
The article you cited leaves many questions.

What were the assumptions for the models? With what accuracy have these 52 models been able to predict the weather and forest cover that we have had for the past 100 years? With what certainty can they say that a single digit rise in temperature will cause the amount of forest cover to change? What is the point in comparing the models' output when they all have different inaccuracies and different assumptions? Are there more models that they did not include for some reason? With what accuracy have they been able to predict the amount of cloud cover for the next 200 years?

Richard Betts said this study makes an "important new contribution to the debate on the effects of climate change." These are just guesses at what could happen in the future. Environment Canada is rarely correct in its 5 day forecast. If meteorologists cannot predict what will happen 5 days into the future without at least an average of 95% accuracy, what makes people so confident in the 200 years predictions? Go to http://www.forecastadvisor.com and enter a zip code to find out its 5 day forecast accuracy.

A debate should be based on facts, not wild speculations of what could happen. This is like your Greenland\'s Melting topic that sunk into a hairied discussion on what cities are going to be below sea level. There is another question. Why did these 52 models not indicate a huge rise in sea levels? A debate on the effects of climate change is barely useful in developing plans for the future. It is great propaganda though.

I like how the articles finishes with this, "Dr Scholze said he hoped the findings would be used in debates on dangerous climate change and the measures needed to avoid it." It is as though they think there is some way of avoiding climate change. How can you avoid something that is out of our control?

John M Reynolds

Top
#8728 - 08/15/06 05:10 PM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
John Reynolds writes:
"The article you cited leaves many questions."

I would hope so. I would hope you couldn't look up at the moon and not have a few questions.

But we really have reached the point where there is not much left to debate except how much and by when. Even the anti-science President of the United States has now acknowledged global warming to be real. Which truly amazed me given he so far has spent a great deal of time denying the obvious.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8729 - 08/15/06 11:34 PM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
before i can even start to get worried about how bad the emissions are going to be, id first have to stop worrying about how much the sun is doing to the earth. If you can show me that they took into account the affect of the sun, then id be more likely to take the polution in to account more. unless they can show me that they have taken into consideration that the sun has been moving towards a solar maximum for the last few centuries, then id not have much confidence in their long term forcast.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8730 - 08/16/06 12:00 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
" If you can show me that they took into account the affect of the sun, then id be more likely to take the polution in to account more."

I haven't the time or inclination to show you. If you are truly interested go to google.com or fazzle.com and find it yourself (2-3 minutes maximum effort required).

I think the point here is that even a first year college student could, and would, ask your question so to suppose that PhD climatologists and the researchers in every country that have worked on this somehow forgot the sun is just plain (you know what I'm thinking so fill in word here).
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8731 - 08/16/06 12:31 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
they why do they claim that the only effect that is causing the increase in global warming is the polution. in case you have not notice, many have said otherwise and their forcast for distant time is much lower than those you follow.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8732 - 08/16/06 09:55 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
DA Morgan.

Are you not going to even try to field any of my questions? Did you read the article I cited in the Greenland's Melting thread? If you did not read it, then you missed tidbits like this:

"If anything, the increased shrillness of global warming theory devotees may be a sign of scientific weakness, says Chylek. "What is very discouraging is that many people who strongly support global warming caused by carbon dioxide are trying to suppress scientific discussion," he says. Legitimate scientists welcome challenges that test their theories. They can help make a scientific argument stronger. "You have to think about it [the opposition], discredit it eventually, and then go forward. But if you try to suppress dissenting opinion, it shows that you are really weak in your positions," he says.

But, in many cases, Canadian scientists had little choice but to toe the line of the previous federal Liberal government. Environment Canada transformed into a church of global warming theory, and researchers looking for funding were frozen out unless they signed on to the official dogma. "Obviously, if you are against the measured direction pushed for by governments, it will slow down your professional progress," Chylek says. "You will have difficulty at university getting tenure, you will not be getting grants, et cetera." But he says that friends of his, who have since retired, have come clean with doubts about anthropogenic global warming. "So now they say, 'Now I am retired; now I can say what I really think,'" he says." -- http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=print.print_article&article_id=1864

Why are you even posting here if you don't want to participate in the debate? Telling dehammer that you don't have the time or inclination to show him that he is right or wrong, means you are not participating in the discussion.

Top
#8733 - 08/16/06 10:20 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer asks:
"why do they claim that the only effect that is causing the increase in global warming is the polution."

I can't think of a single serious science article I have ever read in which any climatologist or researcher claimed the ONLY cause was pollution.

Where do you get this stuff?

If you would post links it would give some basis from which to conclude that you aren't just drinking way too much Colt.45 and making this stuff up. Because, to be honest, that is my impression. Seriously. I've never heard anyone ever make that claim except you.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8734 - 08/16/06 10:34 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
The article you quoted in the first post of this thread has the following where Marko Scholze was quoting the UN:

"The United Nations says we should limit greenhouse gas emissions so we do not have dangerous climate change."

In other words, limiting greenhouse gas emissions will prevent dangerous climate change. That put's 100% of the cause of dangerous climate change onto green house gasses. 100% = only.

So I guess we get this stuff from you.

Top
#8735 - 08/16/06 10:56 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
Uncle Al Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 540
Loc: Southern California
Quote:
over the next two centuries
And if not then, the next 500 years, or the next millennium. LA building code is good to about a Richer 7 temblor. A new study for Caltech shows that a Richter 7.9 will tumble LA. Official PANIC! And if built to withstand a Richter 8, they'll model a Richter 10.

2007 is Officially the most devasting hurricane year in human history. Hurricanes feed off high water temps. The Gulf of Mexico, the entire Gulf Stream, is cooking like mama's bad soup. The number of hurricanes (devastating or otherwise) in 2007 is going to be... about... zero.

Are you going to derail tens of $trillions of First World economies because a bunch of loud frauds claim to know God's e-mail address? Does economics work? Does psychology work? Ha ha ha. Climatology makes those endeavors look like decent science. Hey git - climatology cannot model clouds. Do you think clouds make a difference?

Does religion work? Only if you are a priest on the receiving end of collection baskets.
_________________________
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

Top
#8736 - 08/16/06 01:29 PM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
Anonymous
Unregistered


JMR,
I tried your link and didn't get any article, just a header and my print window showed up again. Do you have another link, perhaps?

Amaranth

Top
#8737 - 08/16/06 01:39 PM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
dehammer asks:
"why do they claim that the only effect that is causing the increase in global warming is the polution."

I can't think of a single serious science article I have ever read in which any climatologist or researcher claimed the ONLY cause was pollution.

Where do you get this stuff?

If you would post links it would give some basis from which to conclude that you aren't just drinking way too much Colt.45 and making this stuff up. Because, to be honest, that is my impression. Seriously. I've never heard anyone ever make that claim except you.
boy does this seem formilar for some reason. oh, yes, we just did this exact exchange a week or two ago in another thread.

ive notice that you have not bother posting on the thread i started that had links to things that pointed out the flaws in the theory of 'only man made global warming'.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8738 - 08/16/06 01:43 PM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaranth Rose:
JMR,
I tried your link and didn't get any article, just a header and my print window showed up again. Do you have another link, perhaps?

Amaranth
try copy/paste the link and remove the 'print.print' part. then search for global warming or Chylek
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8739 - 08/16/06 02:34 PM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
I haven't tried searching for global warming or Chylek. I found that searching for Greenland gives a link to the article to which I was referring. I posted the text into the Greenland's Melting topic for those who wish to read it without registering at Western Standard's website:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/1/1072/3.html

Top
#8740 - 08/16/06 05:39 PM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"ive notice that you have not bother posting on the thread i started that had links to things that pointed out the flaws in the theory of 'only man made global warming'."

Actually I did respond but it seems one of our mild mannered moderators ate the content.

What I said was that no climatologist or serious scientist had ever claimed that 'only man' and I asked you to demonstrate that climatologist ever made the statement. Personally I think you made it up.

Hopefully this is mild enough to survive.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8741 - 08/17/06 02:27 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
this sounds so familar. oh, yes we just did this in another thread a short while back. after i showed you that there were some people that did claim this. you ignored them and made fun of the fact that i claimed they were not following all the trends of the tempature changes when they only followed those of the last half centruy.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8742 - 08/17/06 02:42 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
why should i do this again when the last time i did so you ignore it and made fun of the fact that i claimed that they were not following all the tempature changes since they were only considering the last half century. seem you had a problem with the word all.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8743 - 08/17/06 11:40 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer asks:
"why should i do this again when the last time i did so you ignore it"

I don't know. Perhaps someone else can answer that question for you.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#8744 - 08/18/06 12:27 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
OK, here's a new one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201677.html

notice that they have to "concluded that more recent satellite data -- coupled with some corrections to earlier analyses -- had reconciled surface temperature observations with satellite records."

why did they have to correct the earlier analyses if it was correct? why did they have to reconcile the data in order to make them comply?

yet even after having to alter the data they still came to the conclusion:

Quote:
The report also concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#8745 - 08/18/06 08:40 AM Re: 'More disasters' for warmer world
John M Reynolds Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/14/06
Posts: 174
Loc: Canada
Let me get this straight. DA posted a link to an article about a paper where Marko Scholze, from the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences, and the paper's lead author, quotes the UN as saying , "The United Nations says we should limit greenhouse gas emissions so we do not have dangerous climate change."

Though this quote says that if humans were to limit greenhouse gas emissions, then we would not have dangerous climate change.

Then DA says, "that no climatologist or serious scientist had ever claimed that 'only man' and I asked you to demonstrate that climatologist ever made the statement. Personally I think you made it up."

That means DA thinks that Marko Scholze is not a serious scientist. So, then why did DA post the original article?

John M Reynolds

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
mallihamalliha, Gareth, hussen, charliechucks7, tom
701 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.