PDA

View Full Version : The End of the World as We Know it: Global Warming!



Pages : [1] 2

Olorin
27th May 07, 02:42 AM
Not a day goes by without another news report about the dangers of global warming. The issue of climate change has captivated the attention of politicians, the public, celebrities, and scientists. While I do not doubt that the world is getting warmer, do reject the extreme claims made by many scientists and politicians as to the causes and consequences of global warming.

Now before you type out your responses “how dare you reject science” or “who are you to argue with the facts” or the new favorite “the jury in on global warming” Or as a recent poster remarked…


It's funny how facts are the new determinant of political allegiance. (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46762)

I do ask you to keep an open mind and read tell the end of my post. After that, feel free to call me any name you wish, I am use to that reaction from people who have never had to confront opposing viewpoints.

Lets get to it…

Now, this is a typical graph of climate change. (as far as I know all graphs were taken from sites that support the consensus view of global warming)

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w209/Olorinii/640px-Instrumental_Temperature_Reco.png

This graph shows the increase in temperature in the last 150-160 years. As you see, the temperature has risen steadily since the time of the Second Industrial Revolution. But look more closely at the peaks and valleys.

We see several unexpected dips in average temperature. First off, we have a dip in temperatures in the 1860s and peak in the 1880s. After the 1880s, temperatures continue to fall as the world enters WWI. Then temperatures rise steadily into WWII but then dip again in the post war years and this dip lasts almost into the 1980s. Now if one were to argue that the industrial production of WWII caused an increase in temperatures then we would expect to see a similar, but albeit less, increase in temperatures during WWI. But we do not, temperatures fell during the first great global war and increased during the second.

In addition, we see no great jump in temperature in the post war years despite this being the heyday of American industry, the rebuilding of Europe, the rebuilding of the Soviet Union, the Great Leap Forward in China, and the rebirth of Japanese industry. In fact, temperatures went down.

Let’s back in up a bit…all the way to the year 1000.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w209/Olorinii/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

What this graph shows is multiple estimates of global temperature in the last 1000 years. The first thing that one should notice is that the dramatic rise in temperature portrayed in the 150-year model is less pronounced when you add 1000 years of perspective.

As you will notice, the temperature of the earth is basically the same as it was 1000 years ago, a period called the Medieval Warm Period. If you want to get technical, it is .4 degree hotter than it was 1000 years ago. Ya that’s what all the fuss is about, less that ½ of a degree in the last 1000 years. Lets back it up again, this time 2000 years.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w209/Olorinii/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

This picture gives us a good perspective of the Medieval Warm period as it shows us the cooler temperatures that preceded it. The interesting thing about this graph is that the global temperature has dropped by .61 to .90 and the world did not end. It also hit as high as .2 over norm and, once again, the world did not end. In addition, unless I am mistaken, the dark black line is in fact based on computer modeling and not actual recorded temperatures. (hence the astrix)

And finally my favorite chart, all the way to the year 450,000 BC.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w209/Olorinii/400000yearslargesmall.jpg

This chart shows the ebb and flow of global temperatures over the last half million years. Now to me that looks like a fairly consistent pattern of heating and cooling. And while I will admit that the global temperature does tend to follow the CO2 level in parts per million, it does not always reflect or mirror global temperature. Often global temperature seems to jump ahead of or lag behind the C02 level, sometimes it does not react proportionally to the level of C02 in the atmosphere, and at times, it runs counter to it.

In addition the global patterns of warming and cooling that have taken place in the last half a million years cannot be blamed on human activity or industrialization as humans have not had the ability to affect the climate by producing C02 until very recently. So why then do we see this pattern of warming and cooling?

However, I do not want to pump C02 into the atmosphere, pollute the rivers, or kill the endangered snails. But when I see the kind of fear mongering going on in regards to global warming, from the Al Gore’s and Leo Dicaprio’s...that Florida will be the new Atlantis, and that we will all live in a world covered by water I tend to get a little suspicious. I think I’ve seen this in a movie…

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w209/Olorinii/waterworldsmall.jpg

So why? Why the alarmism? Well that’s easy. The Global Warming = apocalypse, gives scientists three things. First, it gets them national attention. Next, it gets them money in the form of grants. Finally, it gets them influence with politicians and other powerful elites. In short, it gets them respect, money, and influence. And that is why they will never allow any academic debate on this topic.

While I am at it, I will include a list of other things that scientists told us would be the end of the world…

Global Warming (Now)
Y2K (2000)
The Hole in the Ozone Layer (1990s)
The Depletion of the Rain Forrest (1980-1990s)
Acid Rain (1980s)
Global Cooling (1970s)
Overpopulation (1960s)
Under population (1930-1900)

I can keep going if you like…I left out Killer Bees!

In twenty to thirty years, the issue of global warming will be forgotten and a new HOT issue will have taken its place.

In fact, I will tell you what it will be…

Are you ready? It will be the lack of fresh drinkable water.

And that is how it works, when one issue has run its course, you jump to the next, and so on…and so on. It’s the politics of fear…

DAYoung
27th May 07, 04:27 AM
1. Many of the world's top climate scientists disagree. Now, this doesn't mean they're right, but it is cause for concern when experts tell you something that's really bad, and it's a consensus amongst many of the the most respected.

2. Even if it's a little bit right, the stakes are very high. Better to be safe than sorry.

3. I wouldn't group the environmental issues with things like Y2K - it's a very different empirical phenomenon. There was and is acid rain, rainforest depletion, overpopulation (at least when combined with excessive levels of consumption), the hole in the ozone layer. All these are affecting people now. The fact that they're also pet issues for celebrities and the media is neither here nor there.

Good post - thanks, Olorin.

bob
27th May 07, 04:45 AM
In twenty to thirty years, the issue of global warming will be forgotten and a new HOT issue will have taken its place.

In fact, I will tell you what it will be…

Are you ready? It will be the lack of fresh drinkable water.



This is already a huge issue in Australia right now, to the extent that it will win and lose governments elections based on people's perception of how they respond to it. And the fact that most dam levels are at all time lows and some towns are having water shipped in by tanker suggests that it actually is kinda important.

Yiktin Voxbane
27th May 07, 05:40 AM
Here in South Oz. we have been on stage 3 water restrictions for months now . No using automated watering systems, hand watering the garden once a week.
Yet our Womble-in-residence, John Howard, thinks that showering with a bucket is a bit severe .

Out of touch asshole .

His national plan for the Murray river, while garnering support at first, now seems to be Waning in popularity .

Without signifcant rainfall in the ensuing months, Adelaides drinking supply will be even more comprimised than normal (we were the second to last place on earth, that ships were forbidden from taking on fresh water.) . For some of the inhabitants of earth, these things are a cause for worry at least .

emboesso
27th May 07, 07:48 AM
I doubt during the Little Ice Age people were sitting around wringing their hands like Uriah Heep saying, "Oh God! What have we done to the planet!"

No, such self-absorbency is limited to Prufrockian Modern Men, who need a Hemingway lead character to come along, smack them in the head, and say "Get over yourself!"

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html


The Faithful Heretic
A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions

Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there’s Reid Bryson. At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.


How Little We Know

Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.

“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.

In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.

We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”

We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”


What Leads, What Follows?

What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.


Renaissance Man, Marathon Man

When others were laughing at the concept, Reid Bryson was laying the ground floor for scientific investigation of human impacts on climate. We asked UW Professor Ed Hopkins, the assistant state climatologist, about the significance of Bryson’s work in advancing the science he’s now practiced for six decades.

“His contributions are manifold,” Hopkins said. “He wrote Climates of Hunger back in the 1970s looking at how climate changes over the last several thousand years have affected human activity and human cultures.”

This, he suggests, is traceable to Bryson’s high-school interest in archaeology, followed by college degrees in geology, then meteorology, and studies in oceanography, limnology, and other disciplines. “He’s looked at the interconnections of all these things and their impact on human societies,” Hopkins says. “He’s one of those people I would say is a Renaissance person.”

The Renaissance, of course, produced its share of heretics, and 21 years after he supposedly retired, one could ponder whether Bryson’s work today is a tale of continuing heresy, or of conventional wisdom being outpaced by an octogenarian.
Without addressing—or being asked—that question, UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.”

“In his lifetime, in his career, he has shaped the future as well as the present state of climatology,” Moran says, adding, “We’re going to see his legacy with us for many generations to come.”

Holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Boston College, Moran became a doctoral candidate under Bryson in the late 1960s and early ’70s. “I came to Wisconsin because he was there,” Moran told us.

With Hopkins, Moran co-authored Wisconsin’s Weather and Climate, a book aimed at teachers, students, outdoor enthusiasts, and workers with a need to understand what the weather does and why. Bryson wrote a preface for the book but Hopkins told us the editors “couldn’t fathom” certain comments, thinking he was being too flippant with the remark that “Wisconsin is not for wimps when it comes to weather.”

Clearly what those editors couldn’t fathom was that Bryson simply enjoys mulling over the reasons weather and climate behave as they do and what might make them—and consequently us—behave differently. This was immediately obvious when we asked him why, at his age, he keeps showing up for work at a job he’s no longer paid to do.

“It’s fun!” he said. Ed Hopkins and Joe Moran would undoubtedly agree.
“I think that’s one of the reasons for his longevity,” Moran says. “He’s so interested and inquisitive. I regard him as a pot-stirrer. Sometimes people don’t react well when you challenge their long-held ideas, but that’s how real science takes place.”—Dave Hoopman

Dark Helmet
27th May 07, 11:37 AM
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w209/Olorinii/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png


http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w209/Olorinii/400000yearslargesmall.jpg


Now.....Unless I miss my guess. These charts seem to show that we are in a hotter 'period' of climate change.That must be due to environmental change the industrialisation of the past 150 years.

What I’ve been wondering is this era of climate change coming to an end or is it likely to last much longer?

WarPhalange
27th May 07, 11:52 AM
You should make a video about this and call it "Loose Kelvins".

I mean, some random guy who looked at a few graphs and charts knows a LOT more than experts in the field, right?

Shawarma
27th May 07, 12:03 PM
They're all socialists, Loops, and as we all know, socialists hate industry and progress, which is why they try to discredit it every chance they get.

ironlurker
27th May 07, 12:34 PM
In fact, I will tell you what it will be…

Are you ready? It will be the lack of fresh drinkable water.

And that is how it works, when one issue has run its course, you jump to the next, and so on…and so on. It’s the politics of fear…
Actually, this is already an important issue, but most people aren't aware of it.

It's one of the main reasons why unilateral withdrawal and a two-state solution, which would seem to an outside observer to be common sense, has yet to happen in the Israel-Palestine situation.

http://www.imemc.org/attachments/may2007/westbankwatermap.gif

Olorin
27th May 07, 05:03 PM
Wow all the Australians responded, weird…


I mean, some random guy who looked at a few graphs and charts knows a LOT more than experts in the field, right?

Now remember kids, like Poop Loops always says “never question authority.”


The Israel-Palestine situation.

Thanks for bringing up another impossibly complicated problem…


.

WarPhalange
27th May 07, 06:24 PM
Now remember kids, like Poop Loops always says “never question authority.”

You're not. You're telling a bunch of people with equal credentials (i.e. none) why the authority is wrong without giving them a chance for rebuttal. If you want to question the experts, then go email them or have a discussion with them. Don't tell me why they're wrong. I don't give a shit unless you've done their level of work.

Last I checked, you're a historian, not a scientist. Different fields.

ironlurker
27th May 07, 10:27 PM
Thanks for bringing up another impossibly complicated problem…

.
I'm just trying to prepare for your water shortage=fake thread 30 years from now.
The water shortage/control element is relevant because I think it helps clarify what the problem is w/global warming, etc. : it's not political, it's socio-cultural.

Issues go totally unknown and then when a constellation of factors come together they spread like rampant wildfire, 0 to crisis in 60 seconds.

The fact that 80%+ of Israel's water comes from Palestine is a serious, yes impossibly complicated problem - that no one knows about.

And yes, when water shortage enters the public consciousness, it will likely be as mega-crisis, because
a) the media makes money from sensationalism,
b) most people lack the knowledge to contextualize and evaluate water shortage/global warming/overpopulation beyond either panic or denial and
c) people are often motivated only by crisis- and even enjoy it: taking care of problems in a steady and prudent manner is boring and requires effort.

Has global warming been politicized? Certainly. Yet the politicians wouldn't have the ability to spin if a/b/c above weren't true.
This is especially the case with b, because people hate math and are afraid of science. Ignorance + Democracy = Demagoguery

Sun Wukong
27th May 07, 10:48 PM
Olorin,

Got a few questions:

1. Where did those graphs come from? Who made them? Was it an independent environmental study that wasn't funded by anybody with a lobbying group or was it brought to us by the same people who insist that it still hasn't been proved that smoking causes lung cancer?

2. Is any information missing that would make those graphs intellectually dishonst on their own? ie, were there any geo-thermal anomalies of those time periods that would explain previous fluxuations of temperature? Do they account for outlying highs/lows? Do they include outlying results globally?



3 a. The first graph shows a .4 raise in temperature kelvin for the average global temperature over the previous peak temperature, is that correct? What are the implications of a .4 global temperature increase over the pervious peak in temperature?

3 b. What caused the increase in temperature?


4. What testing processes were used while collecting the data for those graphs?

5. Were the testing procedures used for sampling the data used in those graphs uniform? ie, was the data collected in the same way for each involved portion in the test using the same equipment and same sampling method? If not, why not?

6. Is there a sampling variation involved that may skew the results?

7. When the data was collected for those graphs did they use all the data present? If not, why not?

8. What purpose were those graphs originally intended for? IE, what was the goal outline for the study they were created for?

I could go on and on, but I seriously doubt you are willing or able to put in the time necessary to answer even a few of the questions I've asked with any degree of intellectual integrity. I'm not insulting you here, but with all due respect you can't possibly think that small collection of charts pulled from god knows where using unknown data sampling techniques from unknown sources even remotely comes close to honestly questioning the validity of something that is widely regarded as a fact in the scientific community.

No insult meant, but... I'd have to say you'd have to do alot better to come up with a real challenge for it than a few uneducated guesses using flimsy and most probably highly misunderstood sources.

Olorin
28th May 07, 01:00 AM
You're telling a bunch of people with equal credentials (i.e. none) why the authority is wrong without giving them a chance for rebuttal.

So If I what to talk about how a movie sucks I should take it up with the director/writer? Last time I checked this is a discussion board.


I don't give a shit unless you've done their level of work.

Now remember kids, like Poop Loops always says “never question authority.”


Last I checked, you're a historian, not a scientist. Different fields.

Does this mean that you have to believe everything I say about history because you have not done my level of work?


Olorin,

Got a few questions:

Shoot…


1. Where did those graphs come from? Who made them? Was it an independent environmental study that wasn't funded by anybody with a lobbying group or was it brought to us by the same people who insist that it still hasn't been proved that smoking causes lung cancer?

I made an effort only to take the graphs from sites that support the consensus view of global warming.

The second graph came from the Climate and Global Dynamics website

Website: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/
The graph I used: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/research/past/images/1000_yr_temp.png

I found similar graphs at this website: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/ and http://www.climate.org/ The goal of these website is to take global warming data and turn it into easy to understand graphs to further the consensus view of global warming.

1000 year: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

2000 year:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Half a million years:

Here is another site that mirrors the graph I put in my thread.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/images/historical02.gif

and another from Northwestern University

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif

Seriously, you seem to think I made up these sources or pulled them off from Right Wing Website, I didn’t. You can find them all with a simple Google Image search.


2. Is any information missing that would make those graphs intellectually dishonest on their own? ie, were there any geo-thermal anomalies of those time periods that would explain previous fluxuations of temperature? Do they account for outlying highs/lows? Do they include outlying results globally?

As for the first part of you question, I did not use charts that I believe were intellectually dishonest. As for the rest of your question, I have to say I do not know about geo-thermal anomalies or the rest. If you have different graphs, please post them and a link to the website you got them from. However I think you meant to mean "inaccurate"and not "intellectually dishonest." A geo-thermal anomaly would not cause intellectual dishonesty, unless the researcher intentionally ignored it.


3 a. The first graph shows a .4 raise in temperature kelvin for the average global temperature over the previous peak temperature, is that correct? What are the implications of a .4 global temperature increase over the pervious peak in temperature?

It is in degrees centigrade. As far as the implications, I don’t know.


3 b. What caused the increase in temperature?

I don’t know.


4. What testing processes were used while collecting the data for those graphs?

Since the graphs came from websites that supported the consensus view of global warming, I did not dig into the methodology. You can feel free to do so. Also if you have alternate data please post it.


5. Were the testing procedures used for sampling the data used in those graphs uniform? ie, was the data collected in the same way for each involved portion in the test using the same equipment and same sampling method? If not, why not?

I do not know.


6. Is there a sampling variation involved that may skew the results?

Not to my knowledge.


7. When the data was collected for those graphs did they use all the data present? If not, why not? .

The data seems about five years old with makes since when you consider the lag between field research and publication.


8. What purpose were those graphs originally intended for? IE, what was the goal outline for the study they were created for? .

It seems to me that they were intended to support the view that global warming is real, dangerous, and that human activity is driving the increase in temperature.


I could go on and on…

Seriously dude, this will not work on me. The tactic you are using is to try to undercut the validity of my sources without providing any evidence that they are flawed. If you have radically different charts then please post them.


but I seriously doubt you are willing or able to put in the time necessary to answer even a few of the questions I've asked with any degree of intellectual integrity.

Well I already have. As far as my intellectual integrity is concerned, I do not knowingly use false sources.


I'm not insulting you here, but with all due respect you can't possibly think that small collection of charts pulled from god knows where using unknown data sampling techniques from unknown sources even remotely comes close to honestly questioning the validity of something that is widely regarded as a fact in the scientific community.

Once again, do you have charts that run counter to the ones I posted? As far as I know, they are accurate charts of global temperature.


No insult meant, but... I'd have to say you'd have to do alot better to come up with a real challenge for it than a few uneducated guesses using flimsy and most probably highly misunderstood sources.

While you have attacked my sources, intellectual integrity, and ability to read a chart, you have not done anything to demonstrate that my sources or my readings of those sources was flawed.

.

WarPhalange
28th May 07, 01:42 AM
So If I what to talk about how a movie sucks I should take it up with the director/writer? Last time I checked this is a discussion board.

You can discuss anything subjective anywhere. This is an objective matter. You can't attempt to discuss it and somehow come out right and make the world a cooler place.


Now remember kids, like Poop Loops always says “never question authority.”

Uh huh.


Does this mean that you have to believe everything I say about history because you have not done my level of work?

If I present a historical claim with trivial facts from one Google search and you present a different claim or have a different view, I'll believe you over myself. You've probably done more than my trivial research and have a better understanding of the time periods involved and their context.

Olorin
28th May 07, 02:48 AM
You can't attempt to discuss it and somehow come out right and make the world a cooler place.

I did not state that the world is getting cooler; in fact, I stated in the first paragraph of my thread that I believe that the world is getting warmer.


I present a historical claim with trivial facts from one Google search and you present a different claim or have a different view, I'll believe you over myself. You've probably done more than my trivial research and have a better understanding of the time periods involved and their context.

Essentially this is what I have accused you off, albeit in a flippant manner. You are stating that one cannot, and in fact should not, argue with an expert in a field unless you are also an expert. In do not hold to that belief.

In addition, I do not believe that charts that represent the global temperature at multiple intervals constitute “trivial facts.”

As far as my thread being “trivial research” well I have to agree. However, I find it interesting that so far no one has been able to debunk, disprove, or counter my trivial research using charts/graphs of global temperature at similar time intervals. Or by using my charts and reinterprating my conclusions.

That is not to say that I am correct, I am simply skeptical of the more extreme claims about global warming.

.

emboesso
28th May 07, 06:38 AM
In 1991 Mt. Pinatubo in The Philippines erupted. At the time scientists told us it had spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere than EVERY fossil fuel burning machine EVER created by man COMBINED since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

That point sort of fell by the side. Since the event was a natural one, the type that has been going on on the planet for billions of years, there were no political axes to grind and no bad guys to point the finger at.

The result was a global ....cooling?

The planet survived. And so did Man, who embarassingly still clings to the self-important delusion that he can somehow destroy the planet with SUVs when a historical catastrophe like Mt. Pinatubo right in front of his eyes could not.


http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa030901a.htm


In addition to the ash, Mount Pinatubo ejected between 15 and 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide gas. Sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere mixes with water and oxygen in the atmosphere to become sulfuric acid, which in turn triggers ozone depletion. Over 90% of the material released from the volcano was ejected during the nine hour eruption of June 15.

The eruption plume of Mount Pinatubo's various gasses and ash reached high into the atmosphere within two hours of the eruption, attaining an altitude of 34 km (21 miles) high and over 400 km (250 miles) wide. This eruption was the largest disturbance of the stratosphere since the eruption of Krakatau in 1883 (but ten times larger than Mount St. Helens in 1980). The aerosol cloud spread around the earth in two weeks and covered the planet within a year. During 1992 and 1993, the Ozone hole over Antarctica reached an unprecedented size.

The cloud over the earth reduced global temperatures. In 1992 and 1993, the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was reduced 0.5 to 0.6°C and the entire planet was cooled 0.4 to 0.5°C. The maximum reduction in global temperature occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73°C. The eruption is believed to have influenced such events as 1993 floods along the Mississippi river and the drought in the Sahel region of Africa. The United States experienced its third coldest and third wettest summer in 77 years during 1992.

Overall, the cooling effects of Mount Pinatubo's eruption were greater than those of the El Nino that was taking place at the time or of the greenhouse gas warming of the planet. Remarkable sunrises and sunsets were visible around the globe in the years following the eruption.

WarPhalange
28th May 07, 11:17 AM
Essentially this is what I have accused you off, albeit in a flippant manner. You are stating that one cannot, and in fact should not, argue with an expert in a field unless you are also an expert. In do not hold to that belief.

But you are not arguing with an expert. You are discussing it behind their backs saying they are wrong. If you brought this up to an expert, s/he would likely just point out your flaws and be done with it, regardless of your own education on the subject. But any layman can come and present any claim s/he wants to this forum and nobody can really refute it, since we don't know much about it either.


In addition, I do not believe that charts that represent the global temperature at multiple intervals constitute “trivial facts.”

It does because you are taking the data out of context. There could be a lot more going on in those time periods and you're not showing it. Essentially I could show you a chart of African American criminals vs. other races and tell you that African Americans are just more violent, completely ignoring any other factors.


As far as my thread being “trivial research” well I have to agree. However, I find it interesting that so far no one has been able to debunk, disprove, or counter my trivial research using charts/graphs of global temperature at similar time intervals. Or by using my charts and reinterprating my conclusions.

Because nobody cares enough. I'm not an enviromentologist. I want to be a physicist. If you had posted something pertaining to physics, I would research it myself. This I don't care enough about. More importantly, if I did see charts and graphs, I wouldn't be able to put them in context, either. So it's a moot point.


That is not to say that I am correct, I am simply skeptical of the more extreme claims about global warming.

Good for you. Proving it to us won't do you any good, though. Even if you get 10,000 people on your side, it still won't change what the real facts are, whatever they may be.

Neildo
28th May 07, 11:56 AM
In 1991 Mt. Pinatubo in The Philippines erupted. At the time scientists told us it had spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere than EVERY fossil fuel burning machine EVER created by man COMBINED since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

My uncle lives just a few Kilometers from Mt. Pinatubo. He said on the morning of the eruption, he went outside and it looked like there was a blizzard (he's been to Saskatchewan in the winter, he knows what a blizzard looks like) overnight. He had to shovel two foot deep, pure white ash off the driveway to get to work.

WarPhalange
28th May 07, 12:34 PM
So... what happened to all that ash? Did it melt?

...?

Neildo
28th May 07, 12:39 PM
Y'know, I never asked. I assume it got cleaned up somehow. It's just ash, right? It probably disintegrated eventually.

Stick
28th May 07, 10:38 PM
I'll award Olorin the Ippon.

I think there's something missing here, but that 450,000 BC really does show a real pattern. Perhaps someone could shoot an e-mail to the sites that posted this graph and request some sort of an explanation that clear up this layman's reading.

Olorin
28th May 07, 10:44 PM
I'll award Olorin the Ippon.

I think there's something missing here, but that 450,000 BC really does show a real pattern. Perhaps someone could shoot an e-mail to the sites that posted this graph and request some sort of an explanation that clear up this layman's reading.

Here is another one from Northwestern University

It is really similar to the other one I posted.

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/co2-400k-years.gif

Zendetta
29th May 07, 01:40 PM
I am simply skeptical of the more extreme claims about global warming.

And well you should be.

But if you are also similiarly sceptical of the claims and agendas of energy industry wonks and the political and social forces that serve them, then you havn't made that very clear.

And if you arn't thinking about why these vested interests might cloud the issue, then joking about Waterworld and endangered snails is pretty cheesy.

danno
29th May 07, 09:44 PM
Wow all the Australians responded, weird…

i would have responded too if i wasn't so busy before and missed the start of this thread. the climate in aus is kicking our arses right now. we're having real problems, whether it is from our own actions or not.

Commodore Pipes
30th May 07, 01:45 PM
(responding to a question about the implications of a .4 degree Kelvin increase)
It is in degrees centigrade.

As far as the implications, I don’t know.

While you have attacked my sources, intellectual integrity, and ability to read a chart, you have not done anything to demonstrate that my sources or my readings of those sources was flawed.

.

A single degree Celsius = a single degree Kelvin, doesn't it? By that I mean the actual individual unit measures an equivalent amount of change in heat energy, not the actual amount of heat energy present. So a .4 increase in Celsius (centigrade) would = a .4 increase in Kelvin.

This doesn't actually attack your ability to read a chart, nor does it specifically support Poop Loops criticism of your base knowledge and the veracity or accuracy of your conclusions in the face of such base knowledge or lack thereof, but I thought I would act bitchy and pick some nits because, hey, this is a discussion board, right?

Also, if you live Norman, you can afford to ignore weather data, since you're town is protected by some wierd Amerindian voodoo. Not that you are ignoring weather data, but apparently the issue's more critical to antipodeans.

Olorin
31st May 07, 01:43 AM
Also, if you live Norman, you can afford to ignore weather data, since you're town is protected by some weird Amerindian voodoo. Not that you are ignoring weather data, but apparently the issue's more critical to antipodeans.

I live up in Stillwater, but lived in the OKC area for most of my life. Its funny, where I live probably has the wildest and most dangerous weather in the world.

Back in May of 1999, I actually saw this fucking monster. Fastest recorded ground wind speeds on record, +300 miles an hour at the center.

cJH4rylVATU

Commodore Pipes
31st May 07, 08:34 AM
Oh, yeah, OKC gets murdered every year it seems along the same highway, but my friend's from Norman say that tornados seem to skirt the town limits and actually never touch down there. Weird, isn't it?

Olorin
31st May 07, 06:42 PM
Oh, yeah, OKC gets murdered every year it seems along the same highway, but my friend's from Norman say that tornados seem to skirt the town limits and actually never touch down there. Weird, isn't it?

The National Weather Service is located in Norman, I bet they developed a secret anti-tornado shield...

Stick
31st May 07, 07:10 PM
Stillwater doesn't really get hit that hard either.

I think the last time a tornado directly affected my family was like 1996 or something, tornado through a 2x4 through the second floor of grandma's house.

Sun Wukong
2nd June 07, 12:10 AM
Seriously dude, this will not work on me. The tactic you are using is to try to undercut the validity of my sources without providing any evidence that they are flawed. If you have radically different charts then please post them.



.

You, in fact, are way off the mark. I'm not attacking the graphs or source material. I'm questioning the process by which you made your decision. By your own admission you didn't really understand those graphs or what the implications of the graphs are. All you said was you got them from a website that was promoting the belief in global warming (as if it were a matter of faith).

Slindsay
2nd June 07, 12:32 PM
I got to say that I was chatting to a girl last night who was just waitting to defend her PhD on Global Warming and Plant Life and she said that if she had to bet on the cause for the change then she would put her money on it being he product of man's increased industrialisation. And cows. Bastards, always spoillig it for the rest of us.

Her other point was that just because the earth may naturally cycle (May, it's not set in stone, or at least the pattern isn't) That doesn't mean it's a good idea to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere anyway.

Sun Wukong
3rd June 07, 07:52 PM
By the way, the "little ice age" was only 1.4 degree's cooler... and people around the world were freezing to death and dying from starvation due to frozen crops... yet you somehow find the .4 degree increase in temperature since the warm period 1000 years ago insignificant? Based on what? Heresay and nothing more?

Jesus dude, your argument is really intellectually dishonest. I'm not calling you dishonest, i think you really believe it... I think your logic is terribly unsound though and is based completely on epithetical rhertoric rather than any degree of technical understanding.

By the way, "ippon" ? Damn, Oz, not by a long shot.

Olorin
3rd June 07, 11:12 PM
I got to say that I was chatting to a girl last night who was just waiting to defend her PhD on Global Warming and Plant Life and she said…

Are you sure that it was a PhD? That is a doctorate in philosophy.


That doesn't mean it's a good idea to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere anyway.

I totally agree.


By the way, the "little ice age" was only 1.4 degree's cooler... and people around the world were freezing to death and dying from starvation due to frozen crops...

Around the world? Really?

Europe saw a steady increase in population since the time of the plague. The only European civilization that the Little Ice Age hit hard was the Vikings in Iceland and Greenland. Please provide some evidence to back up your statement that people “around the world” were “freezing to death and dying from starvation due to frozen crops” during and as a result of the Little Ice Age.


yet you somehow find the .4 degree increase in temperature since the warm period 1000 years ago insignificant? Based on what? Heresay and nothing more?

Based on the fact that the climate seems to undergo a predictable pattern of heating a cooling over the last half million years.


Jesus dude, your argument is really intellectually dishonest. I'm not calling you dishonest...

If I am making an intellectually dishonest argument then I am dishonest, and intentionally so.


I think your logic is terribly unsound though and is based completely on epithetical rhetoric rather than any degree of technical understanding.

Well, lets see. The charts show the average global temperature and CO2 level vertically on the left and a timeline horizontally at the bottom. Ya…that’s way too complicated for us layman to understand.

Also I have to ask, what professional expertise do you have that allows you to understand this scientific debate better than I do?

Sun Wukong
3rd June 07, 11:37 PM
[quote=Wikipedia]
The severe winters affected human life in ways large and small. The population of Iceland fell by half, but this was perhaps also due to flourosis caused by the eruption of the volcano Laki in 1783. The Viking Colonies in Greenland, however, clearly died out (in the 1400s) because they could no longer grow enough food there. In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages.


"In many years, snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it does today." Many springs and summers were outstandingly cold and wet, although there was great variability between years and groups of years.


Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of death and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315-1317), although this may have been before the LIA proper). Viticulture entirely disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused massive flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent losses of large tracts of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.


The extent of mountain Glaciers had been mapped by the late 1800s. In both the north and the south temperate zones of our planet, snowlines (the boundaries separating zones of net accumulation from those of net ablation) were about 100 m lower than they were in 1975.



In Glacier National Park, the last episode of glacier advance came in the late 18th and early 19th century. In Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, large temperature excursions during the Little Ice Age (~1400-1900 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (~800-1300 AD) possibly related to changes in the strength of North Atlantic thermohaline circulation.


In Ethiopia and Mauritania, permanent snow was reported on mountain peaks at levels where it does not occur today.


Timbuktu, an important city on the trans-Saharan caravan route, was flooded at least 13 times by the Niger River; there are no records of similar flooding before or since.



In China, warm weather crops, such as oranges, were abandoned in Jiangxi Province, where they had been grown for centuries. In North America, the early European settlers also reported exceptionally severe winters. For example, in 1607 -08) ice persisted on Lake Superior until June.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Stradivari)
Antonio Statovari, the famous violin maker, produced his instruments during the LIA. It has been proposed that the colder climate caused the wood used in his violins to be denser than in warmer periods, contributing to the superb tone of Stradivari's instruments.


The Little Ice Age (Basic Books, 2000), by anthropology professor Brian Fagan of the University of California at Santa Barbara, tells of the plight of European peasants during the 1300 to 1850 chill: famines, hypothermia, bread riots, and the rise of despotic leaders brutalizing an increasingly dispirited peasantry. In the late 17th century, writes Fagan, agriculture had dropped off so dramatically that “Alpine villagers lived on bread made from ground nutshells mixed with barley and oat flour.” Finland lost perhaps a third of its population to starvation and disease.


Life was particularly difficult for those who lived under the constant threat of advancing glaciers in the French Alps. One, the Des Bois glacier on the slopes of Mont Blanc, was said to have moved forward “over a musket shot each day, even in the month of August.”



When the Des Bois threatened to dam up the Arve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arve) river in 1644, residents of the town of Chamonix begged the bishop of Geneva to petition God for help. In early June, the bishop, with 300 villagers gathered around him, blessed the threatening glacier and another near the village of Argentiere.



For a while, salvation seemed at hand. The glaciers retreated for about 20 years, until 1663. But they had left the land so barren that new crops would not grow. [quote]





Also, a little link about the affects of the Little Ice age in China: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20051027/ice.htm

Sun Wukong
3rd June 07, 11:44 PM
If I am making an intellectually dishonest argument then I am dishonest, and intentionally so.



No, people make intellectually dishonest arguments all the time, by way of ignorance. If you intentionally choose to get offended by the assertion, I'm sorry. What I'm attempting is rational discourse, but I couldn't come up with a better description for how I feel about your argument.




Well, lets see. The charts show the average global temperature and CO2 level vertically on the left and a timeline horizontally at the bottom. Ya…that’s way too complicated for us layman to understand.


If that was the only point you were trying to make, I wouldn't have said much. But... you did everything from attempt to belittle the belief by making comparisons to a bad Costner movie to blaming the whole thing on an interntional conspiracy in the scientific community...



Also I have to ask, what professional expertise do you have that allows you to understand this scientific debate better than I do?

Professional? Absolutely none. One amatuer to another though, I think your argument is poorly formed.

Olorin
4th June 07, 12:28 AM
quote=Wikipedia

After busting my balls about where my charts came from, the methodology, anomalous temperature reading, geo-thermal anomalies, outlying highs/lows, outlying results globally, testing processes, data sampling, sampling variation, are you seriously going to use Wikipedia as your source?

Is it fair for me to ask the same questions? What sources were used? What archives? Were their pertinent sources that the authors ignored? Are the sources representative? And on and one…

That being said, I can accept every fact you presented and still say that the global population has increased in the last 1000 years despite a warming, cooling, and warming period.


No, people make intellectually dishonest arguments all the time, by way of ignorance.

No that would be an incorrect argument.

Dishonest means: not honest, untrustworthy, and/or deceitful.

It requires intent.


But...you did everything from attempt to belittle the belief by making comparisons to a bad Costner movie to blaming the whole thing on an international conspiracy in the scientific community...

Seriously are you just pissed about the Waterworld picture?

As far as the academic community, With the possible exception of DAYoung, I understand academics better than anyone here.


I think your argument is poorly formed.

I thought this was your argument?


Just another example of little things like FACTS being used to fuel the liberal Pro math and science agenda. It's a good thing most republicans don't believe in science, or they'd have a harder time coming to terms with being incredibly behind the learning curve. It's funny how facts are the new determinant of political allegiance.

Stick
4th June 07, 01:14 AM
The Little Ice Age really wasn't that big a deal.

Sun Wukong
4th June 07, 01:35 AM
The Little Ice Age really wasn't that big a deal.

No, it wasn't huge unless you were dirt poor, a farmer, sick, and lived in a northern temperate zone. People adapted to it and survived well enough, but the cold weather had undeniably far reaching affects on global life even though it was an average 1.4 degrees below current day temperatures.

Of course, tropical and extremely warm places undoubtedly saw few negative side effects. If that's what happens with 1 degree drop in temperature then it's safe to assume a .4 degree raise in temperature isn't automatically a negligable change as Olorin presented it to be.

Yes, the population has steadily increased. Yes, people are about as hard to wipe out as cock roaches. We might even be able to survive a long term extinction of an enormous amount of the other animal life on the planet quite easily if it were to happen in the future. When it comes to taking chances with the world we live on, I'm afraid of capitulation of society into global apathy about the future of the world wide biosphere. <---- Which I think is what the alarmism is all about.

True, there are easier things to deal with that have more immediate affects on the world we live in. For instance, for ever $1 we spend on HIV/AIDS research and treatment, we get a $40 benefit in the long term (iirc).

For every dollar we spend on we spend on CO2 emission research and environmental protection measures we only get like a 20 cent benefit. Eventually, this shit may very well spell the downfall of man, unlike AIDS; which seems like something people should be worried about.

DAYoung
4th June 07, 02:32 AM
With the possible exception of DAYoung, I understand academics better than anyone here.

'Possible exception'?

Steve
4th June 07, 02:44 AM
With the possible exception of DAYoung, I understand academics better than anyone here.

'Possible exception'?

I know that those that can't do, teach.


With the possible exception of DAYoung

Now it makes sense.

Olorin
4th June 07, 02:48 AM
'Possible exception'?

Don't make me judo you...


Now it makes sense.

...Judo chops all around!

.

DAYoung
4th June 07, 03:09 AM
Don't make me judo you...

I've been well-and-truly judofied for over a year now.

Join the queue.

Slindsay
4th June 07, 10:46 AM
Are you sure that it was a PhD? That is a doctorate in philosophy.


Maybe it's different over where you are but in the UK well all become Doctors of philosophy, something to do with our Doctorate requiring a degree of original work or some such.

WarPhalange
4th June 07, 11:00 AM
Olorin, a PhD is a doctorate degree. You can get it in any subject...

All it requires is original work in addition to passing some exams and graduate courses.

What's this about "I KNOW MORE ABOUT ACADEMIA THAN YOU!!"???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phd

Stick
4th June 07, 11:21 AM
'Possible exception'?

Uh oh, now you went and pissed him off.

Stick
4th June 07, 11:26 AM
No, it wasn't huge unless you were dirt poor, a farmer, sick, and lived in a northern temperate zone. People adapted to it and survived well enough, but the cold weather had undeniably far reaching affects on global life even though it was an average 1.4 degrees below current day temperatures.


News flash, the plight of the dirt poor sick farmers living in the northern temperate zone wasn't really all that much better for the thousands of years leading up to the little ice age. One cold in fact argue that the ever steady march of technology and society meant life in the little ice age for underpriviliged, unhealthy agriculture workers on this side of the equator was a damn sight better than it was in the first millenium AD.

Sun Wukong
4th June 07, 02:57 PM
No it wasn't, but to be fair, you're mixing up the issues here. It was fucking awful, but it had more to do with constant warfare, a near total lack of concern for their lives on the part of the government, and a near total lack of anything resembling medicine.

Jesus, I'm just talking about the fucking weather.

Stick
4th June 07, 07:15 PM
Oh, ok then we're agreement, it's just the weather.

Wallsie
14th June 07, 09:47 AM
Not sure if this is old'd, but something interesting I saw that might spark some conversation:

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html

Toby Christensen
14th June 07, 01:44 PM
Let's see:

Underground house
Extremely well built boat

Looks like I'm set.:eatbaby:

danno
15th July 07, 12:25 PM
recently on ABC in aus they played the doco "the great global warming swindle". afterwards they had a debate, the results of which can be seen here:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/

i definately recommend watching it.

Dark Helmet
15th July 07, 03:05 PM
Did that Prof. David Karoly just say that the rate of warming would be higher in the day time but ti's not,it's hgiher at night?Did he forget that the earth revolves.

WarPhalange
15th July 07, 03:46 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_cri ticism

danno
16th July 07, 05:01 AM
Did that Prof. David Karoly just say that the rate of warming would be higher in the day time but ti's not,it's hgiher at night?Did he forget that the earth revolves.

you might have noticed that it's usually warmer in the day time than at night. i dunno, maybe on the planet you're from it's different.

bob
16th July 07, 05:16 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception_and_cri ticism

From the producer:

'There was a fluff there, the original NASA data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find,'

Pure gold.

Goldenmane
20th July 07, 01:43 AM
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html

Just a New Scientist article focusing on data regarding solar activity and global temperature trends over the last 40 years. According to the findings presented, if solar activity were the dictator of global temperatures, we'd have been getting colder by now.

Thought I'd add it to the mix.

Anna Kovacs
21st July 07, 11:24 AM
You'll all be dead by the time global warming becomes a real serious issue so I wouldnt frett about it to much.

WarPhalange
21st July 07, 11:26 AM
Not really. Some estimates say we could see big changes in a few decades.

More importantly, though, do we want to fuck our kids and grand kids in the ass?

Anna Kovacs
21st July 07, 11:42 AM
are we talking big changes as in the climate changing a few degrees or big changes as in a post-apocolyptic kevin costner movie?

WarPhalange
21st July 07, 12:04 PM
The climate changing a few degrees can lead to a horrible Dennis Quaid movie.

The Ice Age wasn't much colder than it is now, but look at what happened.

Goldenmane
21st July 07, 12:35 PM
Leave Kevin Costner out of this... he's just ....

.... a wanker.

Though the climate changing a few degrees (depending on which scale we use) could in theory be far far worse than anything Kevvy-Co has ever done (and, yes, I am including Postman.)

Zendetta
8th August 07, 06:12 PM
So why? Why the alarmism? Well that’s easy. The Global Warming = apocalypse, gives scientists three things. First, it gets them national attention. Next, it gets them money in the form of grants. Finally, it gets them influence with politicians and other powerful elites. In short, it gets them respect, money, and influence. And that is why they will never allow any academic debate on this topic.

I have little doubt that academics, even in a field subject to peer review, can and will suppress dissent.

But the real deal is this: that academic suppression is alleged and unproven.

The "industry" of academic global warming alarmism, assuming it exists, is miniscule to the point of insignifigance when compared to the "Denial" PR arm of the Oil Companies and allied groups.

What is documented and real is that the Petrol Industry and Allies are paying rather large sums to get certain less-than-ethical scientists to write articles questioning the climate change 'consensus'. Then, borrowing a page from the tobacco lobby they point to the quack articles and say "Look! scientists don't all agree! Jury still out! etc etc"

Now, assuming that this unproven allegation of academic suppression is, well, true, it is (again) small potatoes compared to:
1) the vested interests of the Petrol Industry to distort the truth
2) the resources said interests would use to promote 'their' version of the facts regarding climate

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

This is probably a good time to remind everyone that:


Politics is a matter of faith not of evidence. We judge all information by our own notions. We view things that we agree with as “good” evidence and discount that which does not fit our theories.

Tetsu_Anaguma
9th August 07, 09:52 PM
First, it gets them national attention. Next, it gets them money in the form of grants. Finally, it gets them influence with politicians and other powerful elites. In short, it gets them respect, money, and influence.

This same argument can be applied to those who deny Climate change.

McIntyre and McKitrick for example. These guys just came out of the blue (EBSCO and Proquest have nothing from them,) claiming to have disproven the "hockey stick graph" next thing you know, they're being featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and being called in to brief Senator Inhofe on climate science.

but all we're really doing at this point is exchanging Ad Hominem arguments

WarPhalange
9th August 07, 10:56 PM
Yeah, you dumbass.

Olorin
9th August 07, 11:39 PM
This same argument can be applied to those who deny Climate change.

Not really. Those that deny climate change do not get respect or influence. In addition I have not and do not deny that the world is getting warmer. But if you look at the 500,000 year graph it appears clear that we are in a natural cycle of heating and cooling that has gone on for some time independent of human interaction.


The "industry" of academic global warming alarmism, assuming it exists, is miniscule to the point of insignifigance when compared to the "Denial" PR arm of the Oil Companies and allied groups.

I would have to disagree with this. For the most part anyone who disagrees with the consensus school is ridiculed and laughed at. The proponents of alarmism clearly have the upper hand in the debate not the PR arm of the Oil Companies. Also I have not made the kind of arguments that the Oil/Energy companies make. I came up with this theory on my own.

Also my Quote can cut both ways...

.

WarPhalange
10th August 07, 01:12 AM
Not really. Those that deny climate change do not get respect or influence. In addition I have not and do not deny that the world is getting warmer. But if you look at the 500,000 year graph it appears clear that we are in a natural cycle of heating and cooling that has gone on for some time independent of human interaction.
No, they gain a shitload of money, though.

Grant money =\= personal money. It's used to fund research projects, not a Ferarri.

More importantly, the truth will come out sooner or later. You can't cover up something indefinately. The truth has always come out in science and the idiots have been ridiculed accordingly. If they knew this was wrong or a hoax, they why would they publish it? They know that any fame they gain now will backfire. Very likely in their own lifetime.


I would have to disagree with this. For the most part anyone who disagrees with the consensus school is ridiculed and laughed at. The proponents of alarmism clearly have the upper hand in the debate not the PR arm of the Oil Companies. Also I have not made the kind of arguments that the Oil/Energy companies make. I came up with this theory on my own.

Also my Quote can cut both ways...

.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k (Do not embed this, plx)

Start at 3:19. It's about Creationism vs. Evolution, but it seems to me you really don't get these 2 points.

Oh fuck it, you probably wouldn't understand HOW DO CLICK LINK anyway, so here's the important sentence:

"...that every other idea in science has to fight its way through the criticism and analysis of the scientific process..."

The "proponents of alarmism" all agree that shit is going down. If someone wants to disprove their theory and evidence, then they need to get off their ass and not just scream "b-b-b-but I don't think so!"

Now to your "theory". You saw a few graphs. Never even touched any raw data, much less read about how the data was collected and any errors involved. It's like "Loose Change", but even those guys used raw data. It would be like you making Loose Change by compiling all the other flash movies on 9/11 conspiracies.

Tetsu_Anaguma
10th August 07, 01:20 AM
Not really. Those that deny climate change do not get respect or influence.
Are you referring to just the academic community here? When these scientists who disagree with the consensus are featured in documentaries and news articles they get respect in the eyes of the general public, and you can't say that someone briefing policy makers doesn't have influence.



In addition I have not and do not deny that the world is getting warmer. But if you look at the 500,000 year graph it appears clear that we are in a natural cycle of heating and cooling that has gone on for some time independent of human interaction.

True, no one's denying cyclical temperature changes in the past, but we don't have the same atmospheric make-up as we did then.
6439
In the past we've been dealing with a reatively set amount of Carbon in the system, with the balance shifting between the atmosphere and the sinks near the surface of the earth (soil, oceans, biomass, etc.) but recently we've added more carbon to the system by bringing up what was trapped in coal, petroleum, and natural gas. And while the graph above demonstrates that CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't the trigger for temperature change, it doesn't really say that it didn't have an effect on the temperature.

Olorin
10th August 07, 01:41 AM
Are you referring to just the academic community here? When these scientists who disagree with the consensus are featured in documentaries and news articles they get respect in the eyes of the general public, and you can't say that someone briefing policy makers doesn't have influence.

Maybe they gain some respect in the eyes of the public, or those who disagree with the theory, but not amongst their peers. However, I think that greater influence can be had by going along with the theory. In addition, those who disagree probably ruin their academic career. It seems that the safe move is to go along, get along, and don’t cause waves.


True, no one's denying cyclical temperature changes in the past, but we don't have the same atmospheric make-up as we did then.

Would you agree that we are in warming cycle? And if so, could that not be a more plausible explanation to global warming than human activity.


And while the graph above demonstrates that CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't the trigger for temperature change, it doesn't really say that it didn't have an effect on the temperature.

I cannot prove that it did not have an effect. Can’t really prove a negative.


are we talking big changes as in the climate changing a few degrees or big changes as in a post-apocolyptic kevin costner movie?

Any change in the climate, even a few degrees, could lead to many more Kevin Cosner movies.

.

danno
10th August 07, 02:15 AM
there's a consensus among scientists that the earth is warming, and that it's caused by an increase in CO2, which is a greenhouse gas. we also know that the extra CO2 is coming from us.

most of our oil was made during the jurassic period, when there was a huge amount of carbon in the atmosphere. it was also about 20 degrees warmer, not just due to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but it played a big part, being a greenhouse gas. we can take all that carbon that was stored and put it back into the atmosphere if we like, which is going to raise the temp.

to claim that we are not causing global warming you'd have to:

A: prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and/or;

B: prove that we are not adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

not quite as difficult as proving that the moon is actually a flat disk made of cheese, but it's up there.

Tetsu_Anaguma
10th August 07, 02:21 AM
Maybe they gain some respect in the eyes of the public, or those who disagree with the theory, but not amongst their peers. However, I think that greater influence can be had by going along with the theory. In addition, those who disagree probably ruin their academic career. It seems that the safe move is to go along, get along, and don’t cause waves.

Perhaps, but then we have scientists like John Christy, who was featured promenently in the "Great Global Warming Swindle." Christy has been disputing the man-made climate change argument for well over a decade, yet he is still at employed at the University of Alabama, is still publishing research, has recieved several awards over the years, and was a Lead author of the IPCC report in 2001 and a contributing author in 2007.



Would you agree that we are in warming cycle? And if so, could that not be a more plausible explanation to global warming than human activity.

Yes it does appear that there is currently natural warming, but your second question implies that it must be one or the other, when we could be seeing a natural warming trend magnified to dangerous levels by human activity.




I cannot prove that it did not have an effect. Can’t really prove a negative.

It's pretty well established from controlled experiments that CO2 traps heat, now the debate is whether this is a significant amount of heat.


Any change in the climate, even a few degrees, could lead to many more Kevin Cosner movies.
And is that not reason enough to take action?

Cullion
10th August 07, 06:01 AM
1) Heating effects in the earth's atmosphere do not correlate exactly with the CO2 record, they are several centuries out of phase.

2) Human CO2 output is hugely dwarfed by that from natural sources, which are known to be cyclic in the nature of their output.

3) To my knowledge, no scientist working in this field disagrees with the basic statement 'global temperature has fluctuated further, and at a greater rate, than it is presently doing, over geological timescales, including in periods where humans didn't even know how to light wood fires'.

Somebody please explain to me exactly why they think current weather patterns are likely to be primarily caused by human industrial activity ?

danno
10th August 07, 08:48 AM
1) Heating effects in the earth's atmosphere do not correlate exactly with the CO2 record, they are several centuries out of phase.

of course not! who says it correlates exactly to the CO2 record? the atmosphere is a little more complicated than the amount of CO2 in it.

would you like a little more STRAW to go with your STRAW MAN, sir?

you're probably talking about the old "but temp lags 800 years behind CO2 levels" bullshit. or what exactly are you talking about?


2) Human CO2 output is hugely dwarfed by that from natural sources

this is meaningless when we are talking about whether or not our contribution will change the climate to our detriment, but what sources do you mean specifically?


which are known to be cyclic in the nature of their output.

of course!


3) To my knowledge, no scientist working in this field disagrees with the basic statement 'global temperature has fluctuated further, and at a greater rate, than it is presently doing, over geological timescales, including in periods where humans didn't even know how to light wood fires'.

in the jurassic period the global average temp was about 20 degrees warmer. there were also massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, much of which became the oil we have today. if we like, we can put all that carbon back into the atmosphere. it might not make the temp rise 20 degrees (as i said before, global temp is more complicated than just carbon), but it will definately make things a LOT warmer.

the temp on earth has always fluctuated, but this time it is due to US. so what are we gunna do about it?


Somebody please explain to me exactly why they think current weather patterns are likely to be primarily caused by human industrial activity ?

carbon is a greenhouse gas. the more you put into the atmosphere, the greater influence it has on the greenhouse effect.

why are humans blamed for the rising CO2?

the millions and millions of barrels of oil burned a day perhaps? the tons and tons of coal? everything else that we burn?

just thought i'd quickly look up carbon released in one day, from one country:


The U.S. is releasing roughly 2 billion pounds of carbon into the atmosphere each day

from gasoline alone.

also found this interesting:


One thing that's been in the news lately is the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It currently stores about 570 million barrels of oil in underground salt caverns along the Gulf of Mexico. Given that the U.S. imports about half of its oil, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve holds about a 60 day supply of oil if all imports were suddenly cut off.

does this mean 570 million barrels will only last 60 days?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm

i haven't bothered to check up on the sites figures, feel free to do so. i'm just a bit strapped for time at the moment.

Zendetta
10th August 07, 03:28 PM
I would have to disagree with this. For the most part anyone who disagrees with the consensus school is ridiculed and laughed at.

OK. I've demonstrated, and it is documented, that petrol companies are paying handsomely (thats personal, ferrari-buying money) to any 'scientist' who is willing to hawk their ideological wares.

You have alleged a pattern of "ridiculing and laughing" at climate change heretics. I don't doubt it - thats academia - but I doubt you can prove it beyond isolated anecdotes.

Unproven allegations of "ridicule and laughing-at" to insure consensus in a peer-reviewed field versus documented payment to support and protect a highly profitable industry.


The proponents of alarmism clearly have the upper hand in the debate not the PR arm of the Oil Companies.

aka "Reality has a well known liberal bias".

Admittedly, both sides have an agenda, and a vested interest. climate change scientists have the upper hand over energy industry wonks because they are coming from a stronger position. See above.


Also my Quote can cut both ways...

LOL. I'll bear that in mind. With all due respect, I think the sharper edge is facing you at the moment.

Shawarma
10th August 07, 03:34 PM
How the great holy fuck did global warming become this conservative vs librul argument?

Zendetta
10th August 07, 03:41 PM
Culture War. Its an American thing.

WarPhalange
10th August 07, 04:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Wikipedia has its sources. Go read them. Specifically,


Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plus-minus_sign) 0.18 °C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius) (1.33 ± 0.32 °F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit)) during the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change) the observed increase in anthropogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic) greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-grida7) which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect). Natural phenomena such as solar variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) combined with volcanoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano) have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-0)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-1) These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change), including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8). The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists) is the only scientific society that officially rejects these conclusions.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-2)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-3) A few individual scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_asse ssment_of_global_warming) disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-4)

Shawarma
10th August 07, 04:44 PM
All I know is, this sure was an intensely fucked-up summer as far as my local weather's concerned. May's been the hottest and driest month ever recorded and June the coldest and wettest. Can't tell if Man is to blame, but SOMETHING appears to be out of order.

WarPhalange
10th August 07, 04:59 PM
Poland had a tornado. For those of you who don't know, Poland is next to Germany and borders the Baltic sea. Not exactly a place for tornados...

DAYoung
10th August 07, 04:59 PM
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n5/DAYoung_2006/dannostorm.jpg

Shawarma
10th August 07, 05:24 PM
UltraLOL!

danno
10th August 07, 07:03 PM
oh my god...

that is some funny shit.

Mr. Jones
10th August 07, 07:15 PM
Back in 1999 Costco was selling Y2K survival kits. I shit you not.

danno
10th August 07, 07:45 PM
Back in 1999 Costco was selling Y2K survival kits. I shit you not.

and all it contained was a couple of party hats and fire crackers.

danno
10th August 07, 09:05 PM
back on topic, if you're debating with a climate change sceptic, i wouldn't say stuff like "but it was so hot this summer", it's really not convincing or scientific. you end up with this response: "so it's the hottest it's been in a hundred years this month? wouldn't that mean it's a hundred year natural cycle?"

it's like them going outside and saying "golly it's kinda cold today - guess that global warming stuff is a buncha baloney!"

there is a shitload of evidence you can draw from, why bother with the anecdotal stuff?

Leodom
10th August 07, 09:08 PM
you're probably talking about the old "but temp lags 800 years behind CO2 levels" bullshit.


I think it's the fact that increased CO2 levels typically lag temperature increases. I haven't heard a good explanation for this fact yet.

From just an intuitive perspective, it would make sense for CO2 levels to increase with increased global temperatures. With increasing temperatures there are larger areas which can sustain plant and animal life which will result in increased Carbon in the atmosphere.

It would appear to me that increased CO2 levels are an indicator of increased temperatures, not a cause.

danno
10th August 07, 09:28 PM
I think it's the fact that increased CO2 levels typically lag temperature increases. I haven't heard a good explanation for this fact yet.

ok, here's what happens: if you look at the times in history where the temp has gone up for whatever number of reasons, about 800 years later the ocean releases heaps of CO2, which causes the global temp to rise even more. and the temp goes up because CO2 A GREENHOUSE GAS.

this is often construed as:


It would appear to me that increased CO2 levels are an indicator of increased temperatures, not a cause.

so what could happen is we heat up the earth a bit with our emmissions, then the ocean releases even more which heats us up more again. can't remember if this is happening already or if it is going to happen in the future.


From just an intuitive perspective, it would make sense for CO2 levels to increase with increased global temperatures. With increasing temperatures there are larger areas which can sustain plant and animal life which will result in increased Carbon in the atmosphere.

the amount of plant matter doesn't exactly follow the temp in a straight line, it's more complicated than that.

also, plants use up carbon and spit out oxygen. more plants = less carbon in atmosphere over long periods of time.

danno
10th August 07, 09:33 PM
ah, here's a nice explanation:


What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

so what we have is, instead of some natural phenomenon starting off the warming, it's us. and in a much shorter period.

WarPhalange
10th August 07, 09:52 PM
With increasing temperatures there are larger areas which can sustain plant and animal life which will result in increased Carbon in the atmosphere.

Is that what the Bible says?

Zendetta
10th August 07, 09:59 PM
THe Bible says that the End of the World is a good thing.

You have to recognize this if you want to understand how some conservative Christians approach environmentalism.

Cullion
11th August 07, 01:17 PM
of course not! who says it correlates exactly to the CO2 record? the atmosphere is a little more complicated than the amount of CO2 in it.

would you like a little more STRAW to go with your STRAW MAN, sir?

The pro-manmade warming lobby does.



you're probably talking about the old "but temp lags 800 years behind CO2 levels" bullshit. or what exactly are you talking about?

Yes. Except it's not bullshit.



this is meaningless when we are talking about whether or not our contribution will change the climate to our detriment, but what sources do you mean specifically?

Volcanic activity, oceanic flora to name a couple.



in the jurassic period the global average temp was about 20 degrees warmer. there were also massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, much of which became the oil we have today. if we like, we can put all that carbon back into the atmosphere. it might not make the temp rise 20 degrees (as i said before, global temp is more complicated than just carbon), but it will definately make things a LOT warmer.

The Jurassic period was far longer a go than 500,000 years. 500,000 years is a spec in geological time. But even in that period, we see fluctuations which make the one we're currently seeing seem almost like a statistically insignificant blip.

You are getting very emotional without having presented any convincing counter-evidence.


the temp on earth has always fluctuated, but this time it is due to US. so what are we gunna do about it?

First, the people who believe this and wish to introduce new taxes and laws intended to fundamentally change our economies and daily lives, are going to proove it really is due to 'US'. And this hasn't been proven yet.



carbon is a greenhouse gas. the more you put into the atmosphere, the greater influence it has on the greenhouse effect.

You have a very, very simplistic view of how such complex emergent systems work.

First of all, the whole planet's temperature isn't rising. In Antartica and other regions of the southern hemisphere, average temperatures are dropping.

Secondly, CO2 isn't the only gas affecting atmospheric average temperature. More broadly, atmospheric composition isn't the only thing which affects average atmospheric temperature.

Thirdly, CO2 level is a variable interdependent on many others related in complex ways. Introducing a small increase over the natural level by human industrial activity could interfere with the natural carbon cycle to make it increase total CO2 output, or it could interfere with growth/decline cycles of oceanic flora to cause a net _decrease_ in atmospheric CO2.

You just don't know. And neither do the almost religiously zealous scientists who insist that the vanishingly small slice of this CO2 which is produced by humans is about to destroy our civilisation _even though we know full well that much bigger swings have been a normal occurence in relatively recent geological time before there was any human industry_.




the millions and millions of barrels of oil burned a day perhaps? the tons and tons of coal? everything else that we burn?

just thought i'd quickly look up carbon released in one day, from one country:
.

'tons and tons' ? 'millions and millions'?

It's a small fraction of global CO2 output. Less than 5%. It's political rheotoric, not scientific dialogue.

I could just as easily say 'billions and billions of atoms' when describing a miniscule dose of alcohol from a vaccine shot with no chance of making you drunk to try and blame an auto-accident on it when the actual cause was that the break-lines had been cut.

Oh, BTW, several scientists had to threaten the IPCC with legal action to get their names removed from the report because they had been falsely misrepresented as agreeing with several of the conclusions and the summary of the report when they in fact did not. So yes, dishonesty and misrepresentation does indeed occurr in these august bodies.

Cullion
11th August 07, 01:33 PM
Yup, oil companies fund one side of the debate.

National and International governmental bodies looking for a reason to impose new taxes fund the other. Stop going 'ohhh! see, seee, capitalizm, evil.. EVIL I say'.

Leodom
11th August 07, 03:14 PM
All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

This sounds like just as much speculation as I am guilty of. "It could have..."

What's to say that whatever caused the first 800 years of warming didn't continue for the remaining years?

As for the increased temperate zones increasing plant life and therefore Carbon in the atmosphere, I am aware that plants consume CO2 and emit O2, however, as those plants decompose, burn, get eaten, etc... the result is more Carbon in the atmosphere. The increased plant life allows for an increase in animal life as well. If you know of any scientific research that shows that an increase in plant and animal life does NOT cause an increase in CO2 emissions, I would be interested in reading it.

If you are convinced that Global Warming is caused by man, here's your chance to win $100,000.00:

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/

WarPhalange
11th August 07, 05:11 PM
LAWL

"We know the rules are vague. Deal with it."

btw, a $15 entry fee and no guarantee of a winner. You know what Jesus would call that? A fucking scam.

But the best part? This guy writes almost exclusively for Faux N00bz and shuns things like stem cell research. You know what I, someone very close to the abilities of Jesus calls that? A fucking idiot.

In addition, he:

Thinks second-hand smoke is fine.

Asbestos in the WTC would have stopped them from collapsing, or at least let them stand longer. Only 64 floors were protected with it before it was banned.

Cullion
11th August 07, 07:14 PM
btw, a $15 entry fee and no guarantee of a winner. You know what Jesus would call that? A fucking scam.

It probably costs the same in terms of preparation to shoot for the Randi prize. No guaranteed winners there either.

Argument by ad hominem.

Shawarma
11th August 07, 07:23 PM
No, Loops has a point and you know it. It costs 15 dollars to just sign up for this. Randi has no entry fee. It's most likely a scam, and a pretty good one, too, since global warming is, at this point, not something that can be "proven" as such.

Cullion
11th August 07, 07:27 PM
It would be demonstrable to the degree that the vast economic burden the pro-manmade warming lobby are requesting we impose was worth the risk of the theory being wrong. It's just that they have so far failed to do this.

The manmade-warming lobby are asking us to pay an entry fee of trillions with no guaranteed prize.

WarPhalange
11th August 07, 07:39 PM
It probably costs the same in terms of preparation to shoot for the Randi prize. No guaranteed winners there either.

The difference being Randi and you get to set up the rules together before anything goes down and it's all written up in stone before you proceed.

They blatantly state that the rules are vague.

Cullion
11th August 07, 07:47 PM
The difference being Randi and you get to set up the rules together before anything goes down and it's all written up in stone before you proceed.

They blatantly state that the rules are vague.

Yes.

You don't get it do you?

WarPhalange
11th August 07, 07:49 PM
Women?

DAYoung
11th August 07, 07:51 PM
The manmade-warming lobby are asking us to pay an entry fee of trillions with no guaranteed prize.

It's insurance.

And anyway, they'd just spend it on big lunches and exorbitant salaries.

Why not throw a few bucks toward planetary insurance? It's good for business.

Cullion
11th August 07, 07:56 PM
It's insurance.

The premium is too expensive and the likelihood of the event occurring isn't calculated properly.

It's like me asking you to take out nuclear-strike insurance at $1000 per month.

Cullion
11th August 07, 07:59 PM
Women?

Perhaps that too.

The 'scam' is a darkly and wittily accurate parody of exactly what the man-made warming movement are asking us to do.

DAYoung
11th August 07, 08:01 PM
The premium is too expensive and the likelihood of the event occurring isn't calculated properly.

It's like me asking you to take out nuclear-strike insurance at $1000 per month.

No. The stakes are higher.

And I can't afford it. Global business and government can.

Cullion
11th August 07, 08:09 PM
No. The stakes are higher.

Higher than a nuclear strike on your home city? no.

Why don't you want to pay the $1000?

This is why: for any given likelihood, there is an appropriate amount of cover and an appropriate premium for that cover. The theory that human industrial activity is producing the climate activity we observe needs to be demonstrated much better than it currently is before I'm willing to pay.


And I can't afford it. Global business and government can.

You ought to study economics more.

DAYoung
11th August 07, 08:12 PM
Higher than a nuclear strike on your home city? no.

Why don't you want to pay the $1000?

This is why: for any given likelihood, there is an appropriate amount of cover and an appropriate premium for that cover. The theory that human industrial activity is producing the climate activity we observe needs to be demonstrated much better than it currently is before I'm willing to pay.

No. It's simply that I don't have that much money. I really don't.


You ought to study economics more.

Why?

DAYoung
11th August 07, 08:12 PM
Higher than a nuclear strike on your home city? no.

Yes. A strike on Melbourne is very bad, but not as bad as a fucked planet.

Cullion
11th August 07, 08:17 PM
Yes. A strike on Melbourne is very bad, but not as bad as a fucked planet.

What do you mean by a 'fucked planet' ?

Besides, we'll expand the nuclear war scenario to cover the whole world. Total Global Thermonuclear War.

_Now_ will you spend the $1000?

Cullion
11th August 07, 08:17 PM
No. It's simply that I don't have that much money. I really don't.

Ok, $200?

DAYoung
11th August 07, 08:22 PM
What do you mean by a 'fucked planet' ?

Besides, we'll expand the nuclear war scenario to cover the whole world. Total Global Thermonuclear War.

_Now_ will you spend the $1000?

Possibly. I just need you to publish asome peer-reviewed journal articles giving evidence.

Then I'm all for it (assuming it's $200 - I'd pay that to avoid Total Global Thermonuclear War).

Cullion
11th August 07, 08:30 PM
No problem: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/14/174213.shtml

Cullion
11th August 07, 08:31 PM
It's $200 a month you understand. It's going to take me a while to finish the missile shield.

DAYoung
11th August 07, 08:32 PM
No problem: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/14/174213.shtml

Er. How is that peer-reviewed?

DAYoung
11th August 07, 08:33 PM
It's $200 a month you understand. It's going to take me a while to finish the missile shield.

No worries. PM me when you have the specs and the evidence.

I'll even throw in an autographed photo of Paris Hilton for you.

Cullion
11th August 07, 08:39 PM
Er. How is that peer-reviewed?

It quotes peer reviewed and primary sources.

The IPCC had to be threatened with legal action to stop it using the names of scientists who'd disagreed with several of their statements and conclusions on their reports to give a false impression regarding who actually agreed with what they are saying.

Here, here's one of your homegrown scientists explaining the bullshit:-

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html

DAYoung
11th August 07, 08:44 PM
The Courier Mail.

Cullion, you're a funny bloke. Anyway, where's that evidence that Melbourne will be hit by a nuclear strike?

Cullion
11th August 07, 08:47 PM
It's written by a Professor of Climatology.

DAYoung
11th August 07, 09:01 PM
It's written by a Professor of Climatology.

Yes, it is. I noticed that, too.

Cullion
11th August 07, 09:04 PM
The Courier Mail.

Cullion, you're a funny bloke. Anyway, where's that evidence that Melbourne will be hit by a nuclear strike?

I'll produce it when you define 'fucked planet' a bit more clearly.

WarPhalange
11th August 07, 09:09 PM
The 'scam' is a darkly and wittily accurate parody of exactly what the man-made warming movement are asking us to do.

Esplane. This isn't some sort of new age hippy bullshit with vague terms.

So tell me exactly what is so confusing for you.

Sun Wukong
11th August 07, 09:16 PM
Argument by ad hominem.
Are you fucking shitting me?

I think we should shift the focus of argument here and sit down to explain why "Proving the existance of Global Climate Change", in the standard sense of experimentation that is referred to by Petro-industry quacks, is fundamentally impossible since we don't have a spare planet with a test population of 6 billion humans burning enormous sums of fossil fuels just sitting around in legitimate scientists' labs that we can destroy a few times to support the belief.

Holy fuck, the tobacco companies ARE still denying the fact that cigarettes cause cancer. Their researcher's are performing experiments that can't show causation of cancer in any case. They work round the clock and produce tons of documents in order to prove "nothing." This is the exact same fucking camp.

People are dropping left and right and they still don't accept it. The people that deny the man made nature of climate change will firmly believe it even into the apocalypse and jesus's loving arms.

Scene: Post Apocalypse, the afterlife.

Conservatives: Wow Jesus, you really showed them the power of your wrath.

Jesus: Yeah... about that... you know you guys did that yourselves right?

Conservatives: Praise Jesus for bringing us home through the power of prayer!

Jesus: Oh wow, this is awkward... it wasn't so much prayer as you just kinda fucked up a bunch.

Conservatives: Praise Jesus, for we are all sinners, and be thankful for his mercy in accepting us into heaven!

Jesus: Yeah... about that...

(Jesus cell phone rings)

Jesus: Oops, gotta take this one. Hey Stan. Yeah, they're here. Dude... yeah, dude... Uh-huh... I understand dude... uh-huh... like I said, I'm Jesus, I understand, but I'm not covering for you again dude. Come pick these guys up or I swear to Dad I'm going Horseman-of-the-Apocalypse on their ass again.

(Jesus hangs up, smiles at crowd)

Jesus: Ok folks, I've gotta run for a bit... but... just follow the horned guy in the red cape with the spiked leather loin cloth and he'll get you guys all settled in...

End Scene

DAYoung
11th August 07, 09:17 PM
I'll produce it when you define 'fucked planet' a bit more clearly.

Very fucked planet? Is that better?

danno
11th August 07, 09:32 PM
The pro-manmade warming lobby does.

i've never said what i think we should do about global warming. you assume that i want to do anything about it. all i'm debating is the science. you probably think that all the scientists who have found that the current global warming is man made have a political agenda.


Yes. Except it's not bullshit.

yes it is.


Volcanic activity, oceanic flora to name a couple.

we know that these are not causing the warming we see right now.


The Jurassic period was far longer a go than 500,000 years. 500,000 years is a spec in geological time. But even in that period, we see fluctuations which make the one we're currently seeing seem almost like a statistically insignificant blip.

you do know that it's going to get hotter? also these fluctuations happened over a much longer period of time.


You are getting very emotional without having presented any convincing counter-evidence.

you're essentially trying to tell me that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and that anyways we do not produce enough to have any deletarious effect. excuse me if i'm a little "expressive".


First, the people who believe this and wish to introduce new taxes and laws intended to fundamentally change our economies and daily lives, are going to proove it really is due to 'US'.

WRONG.

i simply look at what the most qualified people have to say, what the majority of respected scientists have to say. i haven't myself yet decided if we should do anything at all.


And this hasn't been proven yet.

it's proven as much as the link between smoking and cancer is proven.


You have a very, very simplistic view of how such complex emergent systems work.

remember, you are disagreeing with the vast weight of the science on this, not just a layman on the internet.


First of all, the whole planet's temperature isn't rising. In Antartica and other regions of the southern hemisphere, average temperatures are dropping.

"our goal was to determine temperature, rather than snow accumulation history, and we used the available Antarctic weather station data (much more complete for temperature than for accumulation) rather than model results. We found that the stable isotope composition of the ice cores mimics the observed temperature pattern — warming between the 1960 and 1980s, cooling since then. Using the stable isotope records to extrapolate farther into the past, we find that Antarctica has warmed, on average, in the last century, along with the rest of the globe."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/antarctica-snowfall/


Secondly, CO2 isn't the only gas affecting atmospheric average temperature. More broadly, atmospheric composition isn't the only thing which affects average atmospheric temperature.

do you really think i'm that stupid?


Thirdly, CO2 level is a variable interdependent on many others related in complex ways. Introducing a small increase over the natural level by human industrial activity could interfere with the natural carbon cycle to make it increase total CO2 output, or it could interfere with growth/decline cycles of oceanic flora to cause a net _decrease_ in atmospheric CO2.

you're saying that increasing CO2 will decrease CO2. show me the data.


almost religiously zealous scientists who insist that the vanishingly small slice of this CO2 which is produced by humans is about to destroy our civilisation

i have never heard a scientist say that we are going to destroy our civilisation, and you'll never hear me saying that. i'm not trying to force you to live in a grass hut and survive on insects you catch.


_even though we know full well that much bigger swings have been a normal occurence in relatively recent geological time before there was any human industry_.

that's totally irrelevant.


'tons and tons' ? 'millions and millions'?

It's a small fraction of global CO2 output. Less than 5%. It's political rheotoric, not scientific dialogue.

5%!!!! i didn't even know it was that much! that's HUGE! wtf man.


I could just as easily say 'billions and billions of atoms' when describing a miniscule dose of alcohol from a vaccine shot with no chance of making you drunk to try and blame an auto-accident on it when the actual cause was that the break-lines had been cut.

you seem to think that universally, small amounts of anything are insignificant because they are small. we could throw around analogies all day, like this - the slightest chemical imbalance in the brain and you have something like bipolar disorder.


Oh, BTW, several scientists had to threaten the IPCC with legal action to get their names removed from the report because they had been falsely misrepresented as agreeing with several of the conclusions and the summary of the report when they in fact did not. So yes, dishonesty and misrepresentation does indeed occurr in these august bodies.

oh i see. i guess i was wrong after all.

danno
11th August 07, 09:54 PM
response from a scientist to the great global warming swindle:


When it was shown in the UK in March, The Great Global Warming Swindle created meltdown in audience response lines at stations Channel 4 and More 4. Newspapers and the UK's Office of Communications were swamped with complaints. So let's look at some of the claims and the counter-claims.

The film states the global average temperature today is not as high as it was during other times in history, such as the medieval period, and therefore the recent warming trend is a natural phenomenon. This claim was supported by a diagram published in 1990, but the diagram has been superseded by numerous studies over 17 years. Just last year, the United States National Academies stated any warming in medieval Europe was local, and worldwide medieval temperatures were not as high as we've experienced in the last few decades of the 20th century.

The film states that global average temperature decreased between 1940 and 1980, and so could not have been influenced by increasing greenhouse gases, which act as a blanket warming the Earth. The latest scientific view on global temperature between 1940 and 1976 is a slight decline in the overall global average, less than that stated in the film, with an increase in temperature in the southern hemisphere, and a decrease in the northern hemisphere due to aerosols released by the combustion of coal. These aerosols scatter radiation before it hits the surface of the Earth. This major climate effect wasn't mentioned in the film.

The program claims that climate models say the troposphere-the lowest level of the atmosphere between the surface and about 15 kilometres-should warm faster than the surface, but the surface is warming faster. Conclusion: human effects are non-existent. Bob Ward, formerly of the Royal Society, the UK's National Academy of Science, says this in just untrue. He says the temperature data matches the models. In 2006, the US Climate Change Science Programme published a review of the scientific evidence on temperature trends in the lower atmosphere and concluded there is no conflict between observed changes and the results of climate models. It stated that any discrepancies can be explained by non-climatic influences.

The film claims that volcanoes produce far more carbon dioxide than human activities, so anthropogenic greenhouse gases cannot be having a significant effect on global average temperature. Bob Ward points out that the program doesn't cite a source for this claim. Published work on volcanoes can be found on this program's website. Conservative estimates of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions are less than 2% of the annual emission from the human use of fossil fuels.

The program claims oceans expel dissolved carbon dioxide when they warm and therefore human activity can be discounted. The researcher interviewed, Professor of Oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Carl Wunsch, has said his clip was selected and placed in a way which misrepresents his views. In a letter to The Independent newspaper on15th March he claims he is seen 'saying something diametrically opposite to the point I was making, which is that global warming is both real and threatening'.

And what of the claim global temperature changes can be explained by the effects of solar activity? There is doubt over the source of the graph shown. And there is ongoing debate about the influence of sunspots on the Earth's surface temperature. Precise measurements of the full effects of sun spots have been possible though satellite measurements since the 1970s, and Peter Foukal, writing in the journal Nature on 14th of September 2006, states the variations in solar irradiance as measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.

So, in summary, there are claims that old superseded data is used and highlighted, that the latest and most up-to-date data and scientific opinion is ignored, that incorrect conclusions are drawn, that statements are made without attribution, and that at least one researcher's views have been edited and placed in a way misrepresenting the point he was trying to make. These are just a few of the charges that can be found against the film. And this is the basis for a supposed swindle of massive proportions.

Confused? Who should we believe? Channel 4 in Britain has made public apologies for filmmaker Martin Durkin's work in the past. With controversial material, such as in the swindle program, we need to go to primary sources; the people who've actually published the work. But for the casual viewer or listener at home it's not that easy. So if you're going to rely on analysis from the numerous websites available, steer away from blogs, and make sure any analysis refers to the original data, rather than making unsubstantiated claims.

The Great Global Warming Swindle can be seen on ABC Television on Thursday July 12th at 8.30pm. At 9.30, Lateline presenter Tony Jones will speak to Martin Durkin and there'll be a panel discussion with scientists
and others.


References:

Foukal, P., Frohlich, C., Spruit, H. And Wigley, T.M.L. 2006. Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate. Nature, volume 443, p.161-166.

Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science, volume 299, p.1728-1731.

Morner, N.-A. and Etiope, G. 2002. Carbon degassing from the lithosphere. Global and Planetary Change, volume 33, issues 1-2, p.185-203.

Marland, G., Boden, T.A. and Andres, R.J. 2006. Global, regional, and national CO2 emissions. In: Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1966036.htm

bob
11th August 07, 11:09 PM
Yeah, but everyone knows the ABC is full of commies.

Tetsu_Anaguma
12th August 07, 01:47 AM
The pro-manmade warming lobby does.


Really? Can you name the particular idiot who said that? We don't need his help.




Yes. Except [the 800 year lag in CO2 is] not bullshit.

yeah, and that demonstrates that CO2 was not the initial cause of the temperatur change, but it doesn't say it didn't have an effect on temp.




Volcanic activity, oceanic flora to name a couple.

Volcanic activity has a cooling effect if anything. A good sized volcanic eruption will produce around 130 million tons of CO2 but in 2005 Fossil fuels released about 7.6 billion tons of Carbon (note that CO2 weighs roughly 3 times what carbon weighs.) Then if you consider that ash, sulfur compounds, and other aerosols that block out sunlight volcanic activity should (and does) produce a drop in temperature.




The Jurassic period was far longer a go than 500,000 years. 500,000 years is a spec in geological time. But even in that period, we see fluctuations which make the one we're currently seeing seem almost like a statistically insignificant blip.

yeah, but we shouldn't be seeing anything that drastic at this point in the cycle.



First of all, the whole planet's temperature isn't rising. In Antartica and other regions of the southern hemisphere, average temperatures are dropping.

yeah, since 1980 we've been seeing a decrease in solar activity. And there's less land mass and industrial activity in the Southern hemisphere. If the area producing less CO2 is following the natural factors more closely, it really supports my argument more than it does yours.


Secondly, CO2 isn't the only gas affecting atmospheric average temperature. More broadly, atmospheric composition isn't the only thing which affects average atmospheric temperature.

Right, some gasses heat, some cool, some can do both depending on the situation. If we're talking about tipping a scale or overloading a system, then a small increase can be a significant one.


Thirdly, CO2 level is a variable interdependent on many others related in complex ways. Introducing a small increase over the natural level by human industrial activity could interfere with the natural carbon cycle to make it increase total CO2 output, or it could interfere with growth/decline cycles of oceanic flora to cause a net _decrease_ in atmospheric CO2.

yeah, but since we're seeing CO2 levels that are about 25% higher than any point in the last 500,000 years the latter seems unlikely.



Oh, BTW, several scientists had to threaten the IPCC with legal action to get their names removed from the report because they had been falsely misrepresented as agreeing with several of the conclusions and the summary of the report when they in fact did not. So yes, dishonesty and misrepresentation does indeed occurr in these august bodies.

Just how many is several? Their objections weren't convered up, the various disputes the authors had with the report is available on the IPCC's website.

Cullion
12th August 07, 03:26 AM
Esplane. This isn't some sort of new age hippy bullshit with vague terms.

The terms are vague.


So tell me exactly what is so confusing for you.

Go back through my posts in this thread and answer the points raised.

Cullion
12th August 07, 03:27 AM
Very fucked planet? Is that better?

No, and you know it. You're asking me to believe in a disaster scenario where you can't even describe what the disaster is

Cullion
12th August 07, 03:46 AM
yeah, and that demonstrates that CO2 was not the initial cause of the temperatur change, but it doesn't say it didn't have an effect on temp.

If it wasn't the initial cause, what was? And what is the cause of the current warming given that we should be expecting any effect from human industrialisation to take centuries more to kick in?



Volcanic activity has a cooling effect if anything. A good sized volcanic eruption will produce around 130 million tons of CO2 but in 2005 Fossil fuels released about 7.6 billion tons of Carbon (note that CO2 weighs roughly 3 times what carbon weighs.) Then if you consider that ash, sulfur compounds, and other aerosols that block out sunlight volcanic activity should (and does) produce a drop in temperature.




yeah, but we shouldn't be seeing anything that drastic at this point in the cycle.

We've got no reason to think it's caused by the last 200 years of CO2 emission either.



yeah, since 1980 we've been seeing a decrease in solar activity. And there's less land mass and industrial activity in the Southern hemisphere. If the area producing less CO2 is following the natural factors more closely, it really supports my argument more than it does yours.

Are you suggesting that CO2 concentration stays localised over decades and that the southern hemisphere therefore has lower CO2 concentrations? I find that extremely hard to believe. Evidence please.



Right, some gasses heat, some cool, some can do both depending on the situation. If we're talking about tipping a scale or overloading a system, then a small increase can be a significant one.

A small increase can destabilise such a system in either direction


Their objections weren't convered up, the various disputes the authors had with the report is available on the IPCC's website.

They had to threaten legal action to get that.

Dade_Murphy
12th August 07, 03:51 AM
Here's my contribution to global warming!!!

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb266/profsxavier/navyflamer.jpg

DAYoung
12th August 07, 04:10 AM
No, and you know it. You're asking me to believe in a disaster scenario where you can't even describe what the disaster is

Zombies. It's zombies, right?

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:25 AM
Don't make me come over there.

DAYoung
12th August 07, 05:29 AM
Don't make me come over there.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

THINK OF A POLLUTIONZ FROM UR PLANES!!!

Tetsu_Anaguma
12th August 07, 06:05 AM
If it wasn't the initial cause, what was? And what is the cause of the current warming given that we should be expecting any effect from human industrialisation to take centuries more to kick in?

Solar activity would be a likely culprit, but who said it would take centuries for CO2 in the atmosphere to have an effect? CO2 levels increase after temperature increases, so CO2 couldn't be the initial trigger.



We've got no reason to think it's caused by the last 200 years of CO2 emission either. At present that's the best explanation.




Are you suggesting that CO2 concentration stays localised over decades and that the southern hemisphere therefore has lower CO2 concentrations? I find that extremely hard to believe. Evidence please.
It's probably safe to assume that there's more fossil fuel being consumed in the northern hemisphere (kind of silly to suggest otherwise isn't it?) so it doesn't seem that unreasonable that concentrations will be higher near the origin, as for transfer across the equator, that's a bit more complicated, lemme get back to you on that one.

Cullion
12th August 07, 09:09 AM
Solar activity would be a likely culprit, but who said it would take centuries for CO2 in the atmosphere to have an effect? CO2 levels increase after temperature increases, so CO2 couldn't be the initial trigger.

Quite, we ought to find out what that trigger was and stop assuming that CO2 increases from human industrial activity is the culprit behind rises in temperature or odd weather phenomena.



At present that's the best explanation.

It doesn't match with the volumes released, or the previously observed phase difference between Co2 concentration and global average temperature.



It's probably safe to assume that there's more fossil fuel being consumed in the northern hemisphere (kind of silly to suggest otherwise isn't it?) so it doesn't seem that unreasonable that concentrations will be higher near the origin, as for transfer across the equator, that's a bit more complicated, lemme get back to you on that one.

Are you suggesting that lower CO2 levels have actually been measured in the southern hemisphere?

Remember that we're not describing a situation where antartica is getting warmer slower than the northern hemisphere, but one where it's actually been measured as cooling slightly.

The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is the misapplication of the basic thermal absorption properties of CO2 to a massively complex emergent system which doesn't even fit observed history in several respects.

Sorry, I'm still not convinced we need carbon taxes imposed on our economies.

WarPhalange
12th August 07, 11:46 AM
Remember that we're not describing a situation where antartica is getting warmer slower than the northern hemisphere, but one where it's actually been measured as cooling slightly.

First of all, a more proper term is "Climate Change" than "Global Warming".

Second, there is a little thing called an "average". It happens when you add up a bunch of numbers and divide by how many numbers there are.

You see, Antarctica could be cooling slightly. But other places are getting hotter. Lo and behold, the average goes up.

Cullion
12th August 07, 12:12 PM
First of all, a more proper term is "Climate Change" than "Global Warming".

Global warming is in common use, including in the scientific community, and is good for the purpose of this discussion.



Second, there is a little thing called an "average". It happens when you add up a bunch of numbers and divide by how many numbers there are.

You see, Antarctica could be cooling slightly. But other places are getting hotter. Lo and behold, the average goes up.

You still haven't supported anthropogenic warming. Get into the meat and potatoes of demonstrating this hypothesis plz.

Zendetta
12th August 07, 03:07 PM
Global warming is in common use, including in the scientific community, and is good for the purpose of this discussion.

Its in common use amongst people trying to set up a strawman argument. "Climate change" is the term to use unless you are trying to narrow the discussion to suit your own rhetorical purposes.

Not that I'm accusing you of such skullduggery.

Cullion
12th August 07, 03:12 PM
Its in common use amongst people trying to set up a strawman argument. "Climate change" is the term to use unless you are trying to narrow the discussion to suit your own rhetorical purposes.

Not that I'm accusing you of such skullduggery.

Sorry, you're wrong. The phrases 'warming', 'anthropogenic warming' and 'global warming' are all used in peer reviewed papers and press releases by bodies and individuals that support the hypothesis.

Plz get back to the science and demonstrate the hypothesis.

Cullion
12th August 07, 03:13 PM
Part of your problem is that you aren't even sure exactly what the terrible thing you're expecting to happen actually is.

WarPhalange
12th August 07, 04:38 PM
Part of your problem is that you aren't even sure exactly what the terrible thing you're expecting to happen actually is.

Right, so before the first nuke was tested, trying to stop nuclear war was not important since we didn't know what would happen.

When you are about to get fucked by your pimp, do you just shut your eyes and say to yourself "I don't know what will happen in a few seconds, therefore I don't care."?

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:06 PM
Right, so before the first nuke was tested, trying to stop nuclear war was not important since we didn't know what would happen.

When you are about to get fucked by your pimp, do you just shut your eyes and say to yourself "I don't know what will happen in a few seconds, therefore I don't care."?

We had a good idea about the destructive power of an atomic explosion, which we confirmed with experiment. That's how science advances, we make a testable hypothesis, a model which fits with current observations which makes testable predictions. I do not believe that the current anthropogenic warming hypothesis explains what we already observe in the geological record, and therefore shouldn't be trusted to make predictions about what will happen in the future.

The way to convince me of it's scientific robustness is to show me how well it fits with what we've already observed, exclude other explanations and then make projections about the future describing what bad things will happen if human CO2 emissions are not severly curtailed (and specify by how much).

Ideally these projections will be accompanied by figures and locations so that the theory can be tested for accuracy 5 years from now, 10 years from now etc..

The proponents of the 'curb carbon emission drastically, now' political action haven't yet satisfied any of my doubts in this area.

As I understand it, you have studied physical sciences at a college (possibly post-graduate level, I dunn). If you'd like to try and convince me by pointing out things I've been unaware of, or logical flaws in what I've said, I'm all ears.

danno
12th August 07, 05:07 PM
cullion, you're saying that CO2 could possibly COOL the planet. can you explain how that might happen please?

DAYoung
12th August 07, 05:08 PM
I'm still waiting for evidence that Melbourne's going to be hit by nuclear missiles. And I mean greater Melbourne, too, including the Mornington Peninsula.

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:08 PM
Otherwise I'll be claiming that you guys are the ones about to get fucked by pimps by giving in to knee-jerk hysteria and consenting to have a substantial tax burden placed on the economies which support you.

danno
12th August 07, 05:10 PM
We had a good idea about the destructive power of an atomic explosion, which we confirmed with experiment. That's how science advances, we make a testable hypothesis, a model which fits with current observations which makes testable predictions. I do not believe that the current anthropogenic warming hypothesis explains what we already observe in the geological record, and therefore shouldn't be trusted to make predictions about what will happen in the future.

The way to convince me of it's scientific robustness is to show me how well it fits with what we've already observed, exclude other explanations and then make projections about the future describing what bad things will happen if human CO2 emissions are not severly curtailed (and specify by how much).

Ideally these projections will be accompanied by figures and locations so that the theory can be tested for accuracy 5 years from now, 10 years from now etc..

The proponents of the 'curb carbon emission drastically, now' political action haven't yet satisfied any of my doubts in this area.

As I understand it, you have studied physical sciences at a college (possibly post-graduate level, I dunn). If you'd like to try and convince me by pointing out things I've been unaware of, or logical flaws in what I've said, I'm all ears.

our very best people who investigate with exactly the mindset you describe are telling us that the planet is warming due to our own activities.

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:15 PM
cullion, you're saying that CO2 could possibly COOL the planet. can you explain how that might happen please?

One way would be if the relatively small amount of human emission interfered with the ecosystems of much more significant players in the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, such as oceanic flora and microbes.

The amount of carbon in the atmosphere and that which is locked in living tissue is a delicate and complex balance. If we disturbed it in a way which meant an increase in the carbon-locking microbes and plants in our seas, we could see net CO2 in the atmosphere reduce.

Measuring the thermal properties of CO2 and then saying 'pumping more into the atmosphere is bound to make the planet hotter' is just a gross oversimplification that may well not be true in the case of the level of industrial activity we're talking about.

WarPhalange
12th August 07, 05:16 PM
We had a good idea about the destructive power of an atomic explosion,

No. We didn't. Some scientists thought the entire Earth would explode, others thought nothing would happen. The theories of various scientists working on the bomb were across the board. Which is why we had a test in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_test#Test_predictions

We can't test global warming because we don't have a spare planet to fuck up.

So you can either say "well... nothing might happen" or say "god damn we could all die!"

Is it something you really want to risk? Just so you can buy a fucking TV and a matress?

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:17 PM
our very best people who investigate with exactly the mindset you describe are telling us that the planet is warming due to our own activities.

They do not all agree and some of them have either political or financial reason to be biased. I refer you back to the article in the australian newspaper written by a Professor of Climatology I linked to earlier, to give but one example.

WarPhalange
12th August 07, 05:20 PM
They do not all agree

And Fred Hoyle disagreed with the Big Bang theory until he died in 2001. That doesn't mean that the theory is suddenly invalid.

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:21 PM
We can't test global warming because we don't have a spare planet to fuck up.

We don't need a spare planet to fuck up. We have records from various geological sources and any model can simply be run 5 years ahead and then tested for accuracy. So far no proposal has stood all those tests. They either fail to explain the past record or have failed to match with actual measurements taken a few years in the future. You're concern is not well founded enough to start drastically re-engineering the world's economies yet.



Is it something you really want to risk? Just so you can buy a fucking TV and a matress?

You're not thinking scientifically. And don't get self-righteous here. You have a TV and a mattress. As does everybody else posting in this thread. Don't get me started on the life-style hypocracy of the rich self-important pricks who jet around the world lecturing us all on how we should start paying a new tax to reduce carbon emissions. Lets keep it to the science.

danno
12th August 07, 05:22 PM
Otherwise I'll be claiming that you guys are the ones about to get fucked by pimps by giving in to knee-jerk hysteria and consenting to have a substantial tax burden placed on the economies which support you.

that debate isn't even getting off the ground because the public is still fumbling around with half arsed "scientific" debates about things that the real scientists have already figured out.

we know what is happening, now we need to accept responsibility for it and decide what to do - which could be NOTHING. because that IS an option. why do we assume that if we are causing it, we should stop what we are doing? we might decide that any environmental damage is worth it because we'll be more comfortable in the long run with more wealth, environment be damned.

at the very most, we'll just be making a compromise. we'll still be interfering with the climate a shitload, but we'll take some easily affordable action to try and avoid extremes.

but we're not even talking about it because it's either

a: THERE IS NO PROBLEM AND WE MUST DO NOTHING, or;

b: WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS WE ABANDON CIVILISATION ENTIRELY

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:23 PM
And Fred Hoyle disagreed with the Big Bang theory until he died in 2001. That doesn't mean that the theory is suddenly invalid.

Sure, but you wouldn't try and convince him of it's truth by simply repeating to him how many other people agreed with it, would you? That's not science.

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:24 PM
that debate isn't even getting off the ground because the public is still fumbling around with half arsed "scientific" debates about things that the real scientists have already figured out.

No, they haven't.



we know what is happening

No, we don't

WarPhalange
12th August 07, 05:26 PM
My point is some people will cling to their ideas no matter how much proof you give them. This guy was an atheist and the universe having a beginning really shook his none-belief.

Cigarette companies lurv the money. So does big oil.

The scientists around the world who have no connections to big companies or politics (i.e. most of them) agree that global warming exists. They have no reason to cry wolf. Look at the deniers, though. They always do.

danno
12th August 07, 05:29 PM
One way would be if the relatively small amount of human emission interfered with the ecosystems of much more significant players in the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere, such as oceanic flora and microbes.

The amount of carbon in the atmosphere and that which is locked in living tissue is a delicate and complex balance. If we disturbed it in a way which meant an increase in the carbon-locking microbes and plants in our seas, we could see net CO2 in the atmosphere reduce.

Measuring the thermal properties of CO2 and then saying 'pumping more into the atmosphere is bound to make the planet hotter' is just a gross oversimplification that may well not be true in the case of the level of industrial activity we're talking about.

i've never heard from any credible source that things might cool because of that... but here you have admitted that things are very complicated and delicately balanced. even if things were to cool (which i really doubt from what you describe) wouldn't THAT be as big a problem as warming?

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:29 PM
The scientists around the world who have no connections to big companies or politics (i.e. most of them) agree that global warming exists. They have no reason to cry wolf. Look at the deniers, though. They always do.

Nope. Many of them are being funded by bodies which would like to collect carbon taxes. You're working on the false premise that funding only distorts intentions when it comes from a private rather than a governmental source. And you're doing so without attempting to actually dispute their scientific findings.

You're doing rheotorical ad hominem attacks rather than science here.

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:32 PM
i've never heard from any credible source that things might cool because of that... but here you have admitted that things are very complicated and delicately balanced. even if things were to cool (which i really doubt from what you describe) wouldn't THAT be as big a problem as warming?

Funnilly enough the environmental movement actually spent the end of the 60s and some of the 70s claiming that we would experience dramatic and dangerous global cooling. They had lots of respectable scientists agreeing with them too. They often used phrases like 'all scientists agree except those in the pay of the industrial concerns'. They were wrong.

The environmental movement has a history of putting forth alarming and convincing anti-capitalist propaganda disguised as concern for the children and nature.

I will make up my mind based on the scientific case. The current case put forth is full of holes.

WarPhalange
12th August 07, 05:36 PM
We don't need a spare planet to fuck up. We have records from various geological sources and any model can simply be run 5 years ahead and then tested for accuracy. So far no proposal has stood all those tests. They either fail to explain the past record or have failed to match with actual measurements taken a few years in the future. You're concern is not well founded enough to start drastically re-engineering the world's economies yet.


Sources.

As far as I can tell "shit will get hotter" is a good enough model, seeing as how it works and all.



You're not thinking scientifically. And don't get self-righteous here. You have a TV and a mattress.

My living room TV is an 8 year old 21" Panasonic and my mattress is a piece of shit. I would gladly give up both if it would in any way help with global warming.


As does everybody else posting in this thread. Don't get me started on the life-style hypocracy of the rich self-important pricks who jet around the world lecturing us all on how we should start paying a new tax to reduce carbon emissions. Lets keep it to the science.

It works the same way as charity foundations advertising on TV.

danno
12th August 07, 05:40 PM
They had lots of respectable scientists agreeing with them too.

prove to me that the vast majority of climate experts of the day agreed.

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:44 PM
prove to me that the vast majority of climate experts of the day agreed.

For a while they seemed to. The National Science Board supported it:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1974_and_1972_National_Science_Boar d

But it turned out that lots of other climatologists didn't actually agree.

Kinda like now.

Read the article by that australian professor of climatology yet?

danno
12th August 07, 05:44 PM
My living room TV is an 8 year old 21" Panasonic and my mattress is a piece of shit. I would gladly give up both if it would in any way help with global warming.

most people will not give up anything. i think this is the main reason we are in denial - if we are responsible, that means ethically we should do something about it and sacrifice life style. people don't want to do that so they deny.

but as i said before, that's assuming we SHOULD do anything about it, whereas we could possibly decide not to.

danno
12th August 07, 05:46 PM
For a while they seemed to. The National Science Board supported it:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1974_and_1972_National_Science_Boar d

But it turned out that lots of other climatologists didn't actually agree.

Kinda like now.

this isn't comparable at all to the situation we have today.


Read the article by that australian professor of climatology yet?

missed the link... i'll have a look.

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:49 PM
Sources.

As far as I can tell "shit will get hotter" is a good enough model, seeing as how it works and all.

Except.. it doesn't prove a human origin, predict how hot, for how long, or describe the bad effects.



My living room TV is an 8 year old 21" Panasonic and my mattress is a piece of shit. I would gladly give up both if it would in any way help with global warming.

No you wouldn't.

danno
12th August 07, 05:50 PM
They do not all agree and some of them have either political or financial reason to be biased.

i'm pretty convinced that this is what is happening, but you have it back to front.

Cullion
12th August 07, 05:54 PM
i'm pretty convinced that this is what is happening, but you have it back to front.

The problem is that you're worrying about who's funding each scientist instead of examining the science itself.

National and international governmental bodies would like to raise extra tax revenue in a way that is not unpopular with the voters. Fossil fuel producers want to keep selling their wares. Neither side has a moral high-ground of pure objectivity and love for furry animals here.

danno
12th August 07, 06:09 PM
The problem is that you're worrying about who's funding each scientist instead of examining the science itself.

i'm more concerned with the science itself actually. you seem to be making all the claims about who is funding who.

that article was nothing i haven't heard before. the bloke was an environmental scientist. i have a friend with a PhD in it too.

danno
12th August 07, 06:11 PM
also, our prime minister is a big climate change sceptic. the article talks as if we're doomed and we've already made our minds up on what action to take. it couldn't be further from the truth.

danno
12th August 07, 06:28 PM
Funnilly enough the environmental movement actually spent the end of the 60s and some of the 70s claiming that we would experience dramatic and dangerous global cooling. They had lots of respectable scientists agreeing with them too. They often used phrases like 'all scientists agree except those in the pay of the industrial concerns'. They were wrong.

The environmental movement has a history of putting forth alarming and convincing anti-capitalist propaganda disguised as concern for the children and nature.

I will make up my mind based on the scientific case. The current case put forth is full of holes.

hey, you didn't answer my question. if it is going to either cool or warm, wouldn't the cooling also be something to worry about?

and if your reply is that we don't know or that it will do nothing, what is the point in going on about how it is all so delicately balanced as you describe? if we can do so much to the planet and nothing happens, i thought it would seem that things are rather robust and it's difficult to make any changes even in the slightest.

WarPhalange
12th August 07, 10:35 PM
No you wouldn't.

Uh huh. Next you'll tell me I like strawberry ice cream over vanilla. Becuase you know me so well.

In conclusion: you're a dumbass. I don't watch TV as it is and I like sleeping on the floor. Get fucked.

Cullion
13th August 07, 04:39 AM
Uh huh. Next you'll tell me I like strawberry ice cream over vanilla. Becuase you know me so well.

In conclusion: you're a dumbass. I don't watch TV as it is and I like sleeping on the floor. Get fucked.

I know you're a relatively normal member of a modern industrial society who does actually own a TV and a mattress. I bet you'll get nicer ones (or some other consumer items that you could hypothetically live without) when your income increases. I'll make a bet with you.

Cullion
13th August 07, 04:41 AM
hey, you didn't answer my question. if it is going to either cool or warm, wouldn't the cooling also be something to worry about?

and if your reply is that we don't know or that it will do nothing, what is the point in going on about how it is all so delicately balanced as you describe? if we can do so much to the planet and nothing happens, i thought it would seem that things are rather robust and it's difficult to make any changes even in the slightest.

The point I'm making is that you can't assume man-made CO2 emissions will lead to some particular climate scenario from the thermal properties of CO2 when there are so many other factors at work.

DAYoung
13th August 07, 04:55 AM
I don't own a television.

Do I win something?

Cullion
13th August 07, 05:03 AM
I don't own a television.

Do I win something?

I'll put 'DAYoung gets all the porn he needs from the internet' in my sig if you want.

DAYoung
13th August 07, 05:12 AM
I'll put 'DAYoung gets all the porn he needs from the internet' in my sig if you want.

Damn you.

IT'S FOR RESEARCH.

danno
13th August 07, 07:05 AM
The point I'm making is that you can't assume man-made CO2 emissions will lead to some particular climate scenario from the thermal properties of CO2 when there are so many other factors at work.

it's not an assumption. to the best of my knowledge, the most highly regarded research we have done (i think the people you are listening to are sort of fringe, maverick scientists, at least in their opinion on warming) quite unequivocally shows us that at the end of the day, we are producing massive amounts of a certain greenhouse gas which is warming the planet. i realise that this is a very oversimplified way of putting it, but that's the gist of the story. after that there are many things that are debateable with regards to what actions we should take and how severe the climate change will be.

but i don't appreciate being included in conspiricy theories about communist hippy vampire scientists.

back to my question again which i think you're still avoiding - you admit the climate system is delicate and complex, and you realise that small changes can have big effects. you say things could cool or warm, we don't know.

this contradicts what you were saying earlier about our activities having a negligible effect on climte. so is it delicate or robust?

if we are changing our climate, whatever the direction, isn't this a problem that we need to think a little more about, especially concerning our course of action? if any at all of course.

Cullion
13th August 07, 07:37 AM
it's not an assumption. to the best of my knowledge, the most highly regarded research we have done (i think the people you are listening to are sort of fringe, maverick scientists, at least in their opinion on warming)

No, they are just scientists who disagree. Tenured professors, including peopel who were asked by the IPCC to take part in their panels and who in some cases had to initiate legal action to have their names taken off the report.



quite unequivocally shows us that at the end of the day, we are producing massive amounts of a certain greenhouse gas

Massive relative to what ?



which is warming the planet.

No, that has not been unequivocally demonstrated.



but i don't appreciate being included in conspiricy theories about communist hippy vampire scientists.

I only bring up the economic interest of scientists working for public bodies when people do ad-hominem attacks on scientists being funded by the private sector. The real point is to examine the science itself. I don't think it fair to refute a study simply on the basis of who funded it.



back to my question again which i think you're still avoiding - you admit the climate system is delicate and complex, and you realise that small changes can have big effects. you say things could cool or warm, we don't know.

this contradicts what you were saying earlier about our activities having a negligible effect on climte. so is it delicate or robust?

No, what I am pointing out is that we do not have a model which accurately explains observation, so it would therefore be foolhardy to take drastic measures based on the assertion that we are facing disaster.



if we are changing our climate, whatever the direction, isn't this a problem that we need to think a little more about, especially concerning our course of action? if any at all of course.

Sure. But we need to know what the direction is, if any, how far it will go and what the effects are going to be before we decide to do. We don't have any of those things at present so calling for a tax is premature.

danno
13th August 07, 08:51 AM
i'm moving house at the moment so i apologise for being lazy in this debate, but see what you think of these responses to your questions:

"there is no consensus":


Objection: Climate is complicated and there are lots of competing theories and unsolved mysteries. Until this is all worked out, one can't claim there is consensus on global warming theory. Until there is, we should not take any action.

This is similar to the "global warming is a hoax" article, but at least here we can narrow down just what the consensus is about.

Answer: Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

(Addendum: One could legitimately argue that such policy statements by necessity hide possibly legitimate internal debate while trying to present unity of position. Science is ultimately determined in peer reviewed journals. Fortunately, there is a bit of research that looked specifically at this very question -- the subject of another guide entry.)

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

danno
13th August 07, 08:53 AM
"They predicted global cooling in the 1970s"


Objection: The alarmists were predicting the onset of an ice age in the '70s. Now it's too much warming! Why should we believe them this time?

Answer: It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.

Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.

In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Quite simply, there is no comparison.

If you want some additional detail, Real Climate has discussed this, and William Connelly has made a hobby of gathering everything that was written about global cooling at the time.

danno
13th August 07, 08:57 AM
check out this list for other questions you have:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

after tonight i won't be able to access the internet again for a few days so i might take a little while to respond to anything here, unless i can check again in the morning.

danno
13th August 07, 09:01 AM
I only bring up the economic interest of scientists working for public bodies when people do ad-hominem attacks on scientists being funded by the private sector. The real point is to examine the science itself. I don't think it fair to refute a study simply on the basis of who funded it.

actually that's probably fair enough... as long as you don't bother doing the same thing any more. i realise that you were probably just retaliating with your own ad hominem attack to make a point, but you must understand that this looked like pretty severe hypocrisy to me at first.

Cullion
13th August 07, 09:22 AM
I won't do it again. I will simply give counter arguments on the science, and where I cite a source with scientific credentials who has a record of studying the problem (such as a professor of climatology), I think it's only fair that flaws in the science of what they say be the subject of objections.

Arhetton
21st August 07, 10:22 AM
http://www.utilitarianism.com/jesus-christ.jpg

Most of the CO2 going 'into the atmosphere' is absorbed by the oceans, which are massive carbon sinks.

The more important question is not what effect the CO2 is having on the atmosphere, but what effect it is having on the ocean. The ocean is central to the biosphere and ecological balance of the planet. It is unknown how much CO2 it can absorb. There could be a potential PH shift because of the increased CO2 levels, indicators of this would be phenomena such as increased coral bleaching.

Also, only one person has so far jokingly pointed out the truth (or two if you count the fart picture).

Methane gas has a far more potent effect on the atmosphere than CO2. Most of the methane due to human insdustry is produced by the keeping of animal livestock. Someone mentioned cows much much earlier in the thread. They are correct. Livestock produce 13.5% of the greenhouse gases on the planet. And it is mostly methane.

Deforestation is also a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation releases methane gas and carbon gas.

The united nations food & agriculture organisation has released several reports on this.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/011/j9421e.pdf

Page 4 & 5 are a good summary.

There are also natural deposits of methane trapped in swamps covered by glaciers in tundra areas.

http://energybulletin.net/3647.html


On a seperate note...


Yes, it is quite likely that there is some sort of commercial incentive in defending or preaching about climate change as all parties have vested interests. Humans do have an impact on the environment.

When CFC's were used as aerosols and discovered to be harmful to the Ozone layer, they were removed internationally from use. It is by chance that the chemicals used were chlorine based and not bromine based. Bromine based aerosols would have permanently and completely destroyed the Ozone layer if released in the same quantity as the CFC's. It is pure chance that the CFC's were chosen (humanity got a lucky break).

This was pointed out by Paul Crutzen, a nobel prize winning chemist (1995 "for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone").

You can take a look at his publications here:

http://www.mpch-mainz.mpg.de/~air/crutzen/public/

He has published many books on atmospeheric and climate change.

Personally, I see no negatives in encouraging or speeding up the move to a solar, clean nuclear or fusion based energy systems.

Cheap solar power could provide a way for developing nations to 'leapfrog' past emission technology. Developing nations produce alot of carbon emissions.

Also there would be benefits in not being dependant on the middle east for energy supply.

AAAhmed46
23rd August 07, 04:54 AM
haha fartin will end the world!!!

WarPhalange
23rd August 07, 11:08 AM
And who farts the most? Fat people. You can plainly see that the rate of which fat people are increasing in the world coincides with the rate at which climate change is happening. They need to be hunted down and killed like the murderous dogs they are.

I get dibs on any watches.

Sun Wukong
23rd August 07, 03:06 PM
And who farts the most? Fat people. You can plainly see that the rate of which fat people are increasing in the world coincides with the rate at which climate change is happening. They need to be hunted down and killed like the murderous dogs they are.

I get dibs on any watches.

Stop, you aren't thinking here man. The watches will be rendered totally useless by greasy toxic fat guy sweat after the mob chase. Trust me, once that stuff get's on something it's tainted with their evil forever. Better to burn all the personal effects and just claim it's an offering of slain Joten to the mighty thunder-god Thor.

At least you'll score some brownie points in Valhalla, assuming you can die like a man on the field of battle.

Kiko
23rd August 07, 03:20 PM
Belching moose add to global warming (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070822/sc_afp/sciencenorwayclimate;_ylt=A0WTcVuv6c1GklYA0gas0NUE )

OSLO (AFP) - A grown moose belches out methane gas equivalent to 2,100 kilograms (4,630 pounds) of carbon dioxide a year, contributing to global warming, Norwegian researchers said Wednesday.
That is more than twice the amount of CO2 emitted on a round-trip flight across the Atlantic Ocean from Oslo to the Chilean capital Santiago, according to Scandinavian Airlines.
"An adult moose emits about 100 kilograms of methane gas a year. But methane gas is much stronger than carbon dioxide, so to get the equivalent you have to multiply by 21," professor Odd Harstad at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences told AFP.
With an estimated 140,000 moose roaming Norway's forests, that is a total of of 294,000,000 kilograms of CO2 per year.
But Harstad said that was no reason to begin killing off the entire moose population.
"Moose have very important functions in nature. They are ruminants that eat the grass. If we don't have ruminants, we have too much grass and that changes the landscape and has consequences for the flora and fauna," he said.
Harstad said the figure of 100 kilograms of methane gas was a rough estimate based on earlier calculations for beef cows in Norway.
As is the case with cows and other ruminants, methane is produced from the microbes in the moose's stomach which help break down the roughage they eat.
Because methane gas is stronger than carbon dioxide, it is considered even more harmful to the environment. Both methane and carbon dioxide are so-called greenhouses gases, one of the main causes of global warming.
http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/madmoose.jpg

WarPhalange
23rd August 07, 04:12 PM
Stop, you aren't thinking here man. The watches will be rendered totally useless by greasy toxic fat guy sweat after the mob chase. Trust me, once that stuff get's on something it's tainted with their evil forever. Better to burn all the personal effects and just claim it's an offering of slain Joten to the mighty thunder-god Thor.

At least you'll score some brownie points in Valhalla, assuming you can die like a man on the field of battle.

Exactly. I won't, so give me the fucking watches!!!!

Cullion
24th August 07, 09:26 AM
Personally, I see no negatives in encouraging or speeding up the move to a solar, clean nuclear or fusion based energy systems.

Cheap solar power could provide a way for developing nations to 'leapfrog' past emission technology. Developing nations produce alot of carbon emissions.

Also there would be benefits in not being dependant on the middle east for energy supply.

Fusion energy is probably our best option. I agree that not being dependent on the middle east (or any particular geographic region) for our energy supplies is a good thing.

Arhetton
24th August 07, 08:22 PM
Yes but fusion is still a few years away.

Solar technology is on the verge of a few breakthroughs, such as plastic solar cells and using nanotechnology to build more efficient cells.

Plastic Solar cells are being developed in a few places like USCB. These can be literally sprayed onto a surface like paint with electrodes then attached. If these produce a reasonable amount of electricity, it could revolutionize the energy system in the next 5 - 10 years before the first fusion plant is properly achieved (cheap remote electricity). The main problem at the moment with current solar power is that its still fairly expensive and there are not enough rare earth metals to produce a global supply of them.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19044/page1/

http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/18259/

I believe that fusion is also the best (long term) option. It is difficult to collect solar energy over water mass (without covering the ocean), and it would lose efficiency if it had to be transported hundreds or thousands of kilometres, so it seems to be a good solution only for on the spot generated low power. It is still neccessary to have high energy production for industry and manufacturing, I see fusion power as taking this role and replacing coal burning.

I particularly think that the remote power issue is the strength of solar for the developing world, it eliminates the need for transmission lines and an extensive energy network. Its practically the 'open source' solution of power for remote communities.

Imagine if the U.S had spent its war budget on research into these areas!

Cullion
25th August 07, 10:53 AM
Solar power and other renewables have a lot to offer, but my understanding is that they cannot realistically meet our consumption needs over the next 30 years.

I do actually have concerns regarding fossil fuel usage, but they centre around human health rather than the anthropogenic warming hypothesis.

WarPhalange
25th August 07, 01:14 PM
You have to understand that we have miles and miles of deserts that nobody is using. We could put the solar panels there.

Also, if everybody had solar panels on their roof instead of tiles, that would already significantly lower the load on other sources.

Same goes with wind power.

Riddeck
25th August 07, 01:26 PM
You have to understand that we have miles and miles of deserts that nobody is using. We could put the solar panels there.

Also, if everybody had solar panels on their roof instead of tiles, that would already significantly lower the load on other sources.

Same goes with wind power.

Well stated.

I live in Detroit, and an adorable old man named Stanford Ovshinsky holds the design patent for the shingle solar panel. He lives outside, in Troy...well that is where his business is.

Anyways, a house with shingles of solar panels, and like you said, desert, we could have free energy, at an incredibly low price.

We have the technology to be more efficient as a whole, but you cannot make money that way.

Cullion
26th August 07, 05:21 AM
We have the technology to be more efficient as a whole, but you cannot make money that way.

There is always money to be made by being more efficient. You do realise that the big oil companies are amongst the biggest investors in solar power, right?

Riddeck
26th August 07, 12:05 PM
There is always money to be made by being more efficient. You do realise that the big oil companies are amongst the biggest investors in solar power, right?

Proof? All I know is that Texaco bought the battery patent from GM *Who bought it from Ovshinsky* so the electric car could not built. (*Edit* Not built, but manufactured and mass produced for consumer use)

I am sure Big Oil really supports solar power.

Cullion
26th August 07, 12:51 PM
The eletric car can be mass produced. Pure electric cars still have some practical issues to overcome.

Big oil companies know perfectly well that the oil will run out one day. They don't plan on just shrugging and going out of business when that happens.

I worked in the oil industry for a couple of years. Here are some examples of Big Oil investing in renewables:-

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=shellsolar

http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=4260

http://www.chevron.com/technology/new_energy_technologies/renewable_energy.asp

AFAIK about the only oil major that hasn't done much with this sort of technology is Exxon.

The fact that these people are motivated by profit means that they'll invest in renewables where they see a profit.

Cullion
26th August 07, 12:52 PM
Between 2002 and 2006, Chevron spent approximately $2 billion on alternative and renewable energy technologies in such diverse areas as geothermal, hydrogen, biofuels, advanced batteries, wind, solar and energy efficiency.

Have they suddenly metamorphosised into caring hippies who don't think money is important any more ?

Of course not. They just think there's money in this stuff now.

Riddeck
26th August 07, 12:55 PM
When they create solar panels that the Average Joe can have lining his roofing, providing power that his home needs to function *Hot water, cooking, heating/cooling, will this me a measured and charged type of energy? How will profit result from this?

I imagine they would have solar fields, but why *besides maintaining the hardware* would there be a need for money to be made off of it?

*Edit* Have you ever seen "Who killed the Electric Car?" I was younger when the electric car existed, and had no knowledge of it, but I have seen this movie and it is quite interesting.

Just want to know your thoughts on that, if any.

Cullion
26th August 07, 01:05 PM
When they create solar panels that the Average Joe can have lining his roofing, providing power that his home needs to function *Hot water, cooking, heating/cooling, will this me a measured and charged type of energy? How will profit result from this?

I imagine they would have solar fields, but why *besides maintaining the hardware* would there be a need for money to be made off of it?

If you have a panel on your own roof you will pay for it's maintenance and replacement. You will pay for the manufacture and delivery of the panel. Most people will also pay for the installation and maintenace. Lots of people live in climates where there isn't enough solar energy hitting their roof to provide for all their lighting, heating, cooking and running their entertainment gadgets.


If the energy is coming from a desert over the distribution grid, it will almost certainly be metered. Whilst it won't 'run out' like oil, there is a finite amount of solar energy available to turn into electricity at any given moment, I think most people are going to agree that the bigger the share of it you use, the more you pay. It is also almost certain that solar energy will only be one source feeding power into the distrubution grid.

You will pay for the construction and maintenance of that infrastructure and your share of the solar (and other) energy in one of two ways:-

1) You will pay a government body to build it maintain it via taxation or via the metering itself.

2) You will pay a company to have their staff maintain it. Nobody will make the investment required to start that company without a profit margin.

In the US the latter option is more likely.

Cullion
26th August 07, 01:06 PM
*Edit* Have you ever seen "Who killed the Electric Car?" I was younger when the electric car existed, and had no knowledge of it, but I have seen this movie and it is quite interesting.

Just want to know your thoughts on that, if any.

Electric cars still exist. They have problems with range. Hybrid cars are becoming more common in the UK.

Riddeck
26th August 07, 01:09 PM
Electric cars still exist. They have problems with range. Hybrid cars are becoming more common in the UK.


300+ In the EC1 created by GM in 97, taken back by 98 and destroyed. Designed in Detroit, with a 120 miles ish prototype that with the help of Stanford Ovshinsky (His NiMh ? Battery design, that Texaco now owns the patent for) became a 300 plus.

How many people you know drive over 300 miles a day, everyday?

nihilist
26th August 07, 01:21 PM
Any change in the climate, even a few degrees, could lead to many more Kevin Cosner movies.

.MY GOD NOOOOOOOO!

Cullion
26th August 07, 01:25 PM
Charging those batteries would massively increase electrical energy consumption.
Coal and fossil fuels are major inputs to the power grid in the US and many other countries.

What was the motive for GM to invest money developing it only to kill it ?

nihilist
26th August 07, 01:37 PM
Very fucked planet? Is that better?

The planet will be just fine.

It will remain long after it has ridded itself of us.

Arhetton
29th August 07, 08:31 AM
What was the motive for GM to invest money developing it only to kill it ?

Theres a whole movie made about it

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

nihilist
29th August 07, 12:43 PM
Diesel loud.

Hulk not like loud.

nihilist
29th August 07, 12:58 PM
That's like a half years income.

Riddeck
29th August 07, 02:26 PM
Charging those batteries would massively increase electrical energy consumption.
Coal and fossil fuels are major inputs to the power grid in the US and many other countries.

What was the motive for GM to invest money developing it only to kill it ?

That of course is a problem we face even now, which is strange that we do not see more wind fields and solar fields *Someone mentioned the desert*.

GM invested money, thinking they could make money, but big oil put pressure on the whole operation, thus shutting it down.

GM bought the battery patent, and then Texaco bought it from GM. Clearly not to make vehicles with, though. Simply to keep it under wraps.

Most people are not even aware of the Electric Car. (While it was fugly, it certainly functioned above and beyond the average citizen's vehicle need)

Neildo
29th August 07, 02:50 PM
hay guyz! I posted this in another thread but it's more relevant here.

neato thingy
http://kww.autobloggreen.com/tag/SteamOLene/

nihilist
30th August 07, 12:26 AM
he plans on selling the technology to whatever automaker can SHELVE IT.

Olorin
30th August 07, 02:25 AM
http://www.bullshido.net/gallery/data/500/Nos.gif

.

Cullion
3rd September 07, 01:31 PM
That of course is a problem we face even now, which is strange that we do not see more wind fields and solar fields *Someone mentioned the desert*.

GM invested money, thinking they could make money, but big oil put pressure on the whole operation, thus shutting it down.

GM bought the battery patent, and then Texaco bought it from GM. Clearly not to make vehicles with, though. Simply to keep it under wraps.

You've either already forgotten, or are willingly ignoring the part where I showed you the billions being invested in renewables by Oil companies.



Most people are not even aware of the Electric Car. (While it was fugly, it certainly functioned above and beyond the average citizen's vehicle need)

US patents do not apply world wide.

danno
12th September 07, 10:48 PM
the CO2 produced from charging electric cars is much, much less than the emissions produced from burning petrol.

also:

llPFOD3x9vk

Lu Tze
13th September 07, 12:34 AM
/considers the loltastic effect that a large scale deployment of solar panels would have on the enviroment.

nihilist
13th September 07, 01:19 AM
Electric cars are going to send the planet into a catastrophic ice age.

WarPhalange
13th September 07, 01:30 AM
But this time we'll have electric cars.

nihilist
13th September 07, 01:38 AM
That's a plus.

Cullion
13th September 07, 06:18 AM
the CO2 produced from charging electric cars is much, much less than the emissions produced from burning petrol.

It depends how the electricity you're using to charge them is being produced.

Our local power is produced by stuffing old tractor tires with firecrackers, throwing diesel oil over them and setting them alight in an enormous open barbecue pit with a giant kettle perched atop.

Kein Haar
13th September 07, 09:06 AM
Srsly?

Lu Tze
13th September 07, 09:20 AM
Pikey campsites are powerstations?

You live and learn...

Cullion
13th September 07, 09:52 AM
Srsly?

yah srlsly.

nihilist
15th September 07, 12:19 AM
0RVp8Q6H9e0

bob
15th September 07, 01:07 AM
"It's slowly shrinking.."


And I thought he was talking about the glacier.

nihilist
15th September 07, 01:11 AM
pm3F9piwnTU
(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22I+was+in+the+pool%22&btnG=Google+Search#)

ironlurker
15th September 07, 04:04 PM
Arctic Sea Route Ice Shrinks to New Low

By JAMEY KEATEN,
AP
Posted: 2007-09-15 14:17:56
Filed Under: Science News (http://news.aol.com/science)
PARIS (Sept. 15) - Arctic ice coverage has receded this week to record lows, the European Space Agency said, raising the prospect of greater maritime traffic through a long-sought waterway known as the Northwest Passage.

Photo Gallery: Impact of Arctic Ice Melting


http://www.aolcdn.com/aolnews_photos/0e/04/20070915123509990006
A waterway long blocked by ice, the Arctic's Northwest Passage, is now open. A satellite image above from the European Space Agency shows an open route in orange and a partially open one in blue.

Until now, the passage has been expected to remain closed even during reduced ice cover by multiyear ice pack - sea ice that remains through one or more summers, ESA said.

Satellite images this week showed Arctic ice cover fell to the lowest level since scientists started collecting such information in 1978, according to a statement on Paris-based ESA's Web site Saturday.

Many experts believe that global warming is to blame for melting the passage. The waters are exposing unexplored resources, and vessels could trim thousands of miles from Europe to Asia compared with the current routes through the Panama Canal.

Ice has retreated to about 1 million square miles, Leif Toudal Pedersen, of the Danish National Space Center, said in the statement. ESA said the previous low was 1.5 million square miles, back in 2005.

Ice levels in the Arctic ebb and flow with the seasons, allowing for intermittent traffic between Europe and Asia across northern Canada - a route explorers and traders have long dreamt could open fully.

Environmentalists fear increased maritime traffic and efforts to tap natural resources in the area could one day lead to oil spills and harm regional wildlife.

Pedersen said the extreme retreat this year suggested the passage could fully open sooner than expected - but ESA did not say when that might be. Efforts to contact ESA officials in Paris and Noordwik, the Netherlands, were unsuccessful.

With ice levels shrinking, some countries - including the United States and Canada - have jockeyed for claims over the passage, also a potentially oil-region region under the North Pole from the Atlantic to the Pacific through the Arctic archipelago.

Claes Ragner, a researcher with Norway's Fridtjof Nansen Institute, which works with environmental and political issues over the Arctic, said the opening has symbolic meaning for sea transport.

"Routes between Scandinavia and Japan could be almost halved and a stable and reliable route would mean a lot to certain regions," he said by telephone.

But even if the passage is opening up and polar ice continues to melt, it will take years for such routes to be practicable, according to Ragner.

"It won't be ice-free all year around and it won't be a stable route all year," he said. "The greatest wish for sea transportation is streamlined and stable routes."

"Shorter transport routes means less pollution if you can ship products from A to B on the shortest route, but the fact that the polar ice is melting away is not good for the world in that that we're losing the Arctic and the animal life there," Ragner added.

Arctic sea ice naturally extends its surface coverage each winter in the Northern Hemisphere, and recedes each summer, ESA said, but the overall loss has increased since satellite records were begun in 1978.

The opening this week was not the most direct waterway, ESA said. That would be through northern Canada along the coast of Siberia, which remains partially blocked.

Associated Press Writer Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm, Sweden, contributed to this report.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/arctic-sea-route-ice-shrinks-to-new-low/20070915121909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

So, all of those explorers who died looking for the NW passage are finally justified as ahead of their time. :guitar:

Sun Wukong
15th September 07, 04:54 PM
Yes, and smoking can save your life. Really.

ironlurker
15th September 07, 05:02 PM
Yes, and smoking can save your life. Really.

whatever, guess you don't realize they won't be able to conceal the truth about the Hollow Earth any longer.

http://www.2012.com.au/Hollow_Earth.jpg

Sun Wukong
15th September 07, 08:23 PM
I concede on the strength of clever exploitation of graphics made by crazy people who think the earth is hollow.

WarPhalange
15th September 07, 09:43 PM
whatever, guess you don't realize they won't be able to conceal the truth about the Hollow Earth any longer.

http://www.2012.com.au/Hollow_Earth.jpg

Pfft, that's an obvious Photoshop.

Cullion
30th September 07, 04:27 PM
NASA data on global warming adjusted to blow hole in several anthropogenic warming arguments.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200708/CUL20070816b.html

nihilist
30th September 07, 04:40 PM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/28/will-media-report-flaw-manmade-ozone-hole-consensus

Cullion
30th September 07, 04:52 PM
Of course they're not interested in shaking this apple-cart. It's an opportunity to levy new taxes.

Lu Tze
1st October 07, 05:05 AM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/28/will-media-report-flaw-manmade-ozone-hole-consensusWhat an incredibly impartial article, I'm tempted to read this man's other blogs as he is clearly as even handed and unbiased (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard) as possible.

Cullion
1st October 07, 05:09 AM
It's the factual content which matters. We've already discussed on this thread how little traction there is in attacking each other's sources' motives rather than the truth or falsehood of what they actually say.

Lu Tze
1st October 07, 05:19 AM
What factual content would that be? The scientists don't draw any conclusions that support his position, they at best say "We have to think about this some more".

Besides, I'm not attacking his position, I don't actually give a shit about climate change right now. I just don't trust any source with a political agenda, especially a U.S. one, because they are all so laughably biased. Speaking as an outside observer, it'd be pretty fucking pathetic if it weren't so frightening.

Cullion
1st October 07, 05:27 AM
What factual content would that be? The scientists don't draw any conclusions that support his position, they at best say "We have to think about this some more".

He's pointing out that mainstream press only tend to report stories which support the anthropogenic hypothesis, and gives an example of news which undermines that argument.


I don't actually give a shit about climate change right now. I just don't trust any source with a political agenda, especially a U.S. one, because they are all so laughably biased. Speaking as an outside observer, it'd be pretty fucking pathetic if it weren't so frightening.

Of course they are biased because they are human. It's the same with the arguments supporting anthropogenic warming.

All we have left are observed data, from which to draw conclusions.

Lu Tze
1st October 07, 05:45 AM
He's pointing out that mainstream press only tend to report stories which support the anthropogenic hypothesis, and gives an example of news which undermines that argument.The right have as much, if not more, media coverage as the left in the U.S.


Of course they are biased because they are human. It's the same with the arguments supporting anthropogenic warming.So what? My point is that it's ascended to absurd levels in U.S. politics.


All we have left are observed data, from which to draw conclusions.Which observed data did he publish? It's my perogative not to trust the interpretations of a man with a blatent political agenda, especially as he is not even qualified to interpret the data in the first place and didn't actually make available the data on which he based his findings.

I trust scientists to interpret this data accurately, and they said "meh", which he somehow translated as "ZOMG LIEBERAL CONSPIRACY BUY MORE CARS!".

Cullion
1st October 07, 05:48 AM
The right have as much, if not more, media coverage as the left in the U.S.

Not at the national level from the established, 'trusted' outlets.



Which observed data did he publish? It's my perogative not to trust the interpretations of a man with a blatent political agenda, especially as he is not even qualified to interpret the data in the first place and didn't actually make available the data on which he based his findings.

Sure, then listen to the Australian Professor of climatology I cited earlier in this thread.



I trust scientists to interpret this data accurately, and they said "meh"

Some did, some didn't. You're treating the scientific community as if it's in total agreement about this, and it's not.


which he somehow translated as "ZOMG LIEBERAL CONSPIRACY BUY MORE CARS!".

Er no, he didn't say that.

Lu Tze
1st October 07, 06:10 AM
Some did, some didn't. You're treating the scientific community as if it's in total agreement about this, and it's not.What are you talking about? Every quote from a scientist in that article was couched in terms like "if", "could" and "maybe". They have drawn no conclusions yet whatsoever, none of them, so it's dishonest for him to draw any conclusions either.
Er no, he didn't say that.Okay maybe I overreacted a little, but his intended audience is clear, just read the comments.

bob
2nd October 07, 05:41 AM
1934 and all that (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/)


Another week, another ado over nothing.
Last Saturday, Steve McIntyre wrote an email to NASA GISS pointing out that for some North American stations in the GISTEMP (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) analysis, there was an odd jump in going from 1999 to 2000. On Monday, the people who work on the temperature analysis (not me), looked into it and found that this coincided with the switch between two sources of US temperature data. There had been a faulty assumption that these two sources matched, but that turned out not to be the case. There were in fact a number of small offsets (of both sign) between the same stations in the two different data sets. The obvious fix was to make an adjustment based on a period of overlap so that these offsets disappear.
This was duly done by Tuesday, an email thanking McIntyre was sent and the data analysis (which had been due in any case for the processing of the July numbers) was updated accordingly along with an acknowledgment to McIntyre and update of the methodology.

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_mid.gif (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif)There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant. Indeed in the 2001 paper (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Hansen_etal.html) describing the GISTEMP methodology (which was prior to this particularly error being introduced), it says:

The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.
More importantly for climate purposes, the longer term US averages have not changed rank. 2002-2006 (at 0.66 ºC) is still warmer than 1930-1934 (0.63 ºC - the largest value in the early part of the century) (though both are below 1998-2002 at 0.79 ºC). (The previous version - up to 2005 - can be seen here (http://web.archive.org/web/20060110100426/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt)).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A2.gif (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A2_lrg.gif)In the global mean (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/new_Fig.A2.txt), 2005 remains the warmest (as in the NCDC analysis). CRU has 1998 as the warmest year but there are differences in methodology, particularly concerning the Arctic (extrapolated in GISTEMP, not included in CRU) which is a big part of recent global warmth. No recent IPCC statements or conclusions are affected in the slightest.

Sum total of this change? A couple of hundredths of degrees in the US rankings and no change in anything that could be considered climatically important (specifically long term trends).

However, there is clearly a latent and deeply felt wish in some sectors (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php) for the whole problem of global warming to be reduced to a statistical quirk or a mistake. This led to some truly death-defying leaping (http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/08/truth-shall-set-you-free.html) to conclusions when this issue hit the blogosphere. One of the worst examples (but there are others) was the 'Opinionator' (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/hottest-year-data-meltdown/) at the New York Times (oh dear). He managed to confuse the global means with the continental US numbers, he made up a story about McIntyre having 'always puzzled about some gaps' (what?) , declared the the error had 'played havoc' with the numbers, and quoted another blogger saying that the 'astounding' numbers had been 'silently released'. None of these statements are true. Among other incorrect stories going around are that the mistake was due to a Y2K bug or that this had something to do with photographing weather stations. Again, simply false.

But hey, maybe the Arctic (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/arctic-sea-ice-watch/) will get the memo.

http://www.realclimate.org/

Cullion
2nd October 07, 05:58 AM
He's picking a definition of 'long term' to fit the hypothesis. The trend he describes of picking 4-year windows within a couple of hundred years to calculate averages is statistically insignificant over geological timescales.

bob
2nd October 07, 06:07 AM
Try reading and digesting the whole article, including the graphs.

Your conspiracy of silence didn't exist. The correction was 2 hundredths of a degree in the United States only. It doesn't change the global picture.

Cullion
2nd October 07, 06:30 AM
Try reading and digesting the whole article, including the graphs.

I did.


Your conspiracy of silence didn't exist. The correction was 2 hundredths of a degree in the United States only. It doesn't change the global picture.

The global picture is that no statistically significant deviation from trend has occurred when examined over a timescale of 100,000 years. Multiple anthropogenic warming advocates have used the 'year X hottest on record' and none of them have retracted that when the data was re-examined. They are simply moving the scales on which comparisons occur whilst confining them to a geologically insignificant slice of time.

bob
2nd October 07, 06:41 AM
I did.



The global picture is that no statistically significant deviation from trend has occurred when examined over a timescale of 100,000 years. Multiple anthropogenic warming advocates have used the 'year X hottest on record' and none of them have retracted that when the data was re-examined. They are simply moving the scales on which comparisons occur whilst confining them to a geologically insignificant slice of time.

I'm not going to argue the whole issue with you. You've clearly made up your mind on it and I know I can't win. You'll just keep going one post further.

FWIW I agree that a healthy dose of scepticism on the issue is warranted.

However, just sticking to the assertion that you've made that this change in data 'blows holes in anthropogenic global warming'. It doesn't. It's a minor change in data in the continental United States that does not alter the trends, either locally or globally.

2005 was the hottest year on record. Unless you believe somehow that climate change is a localised phenomenom.

Cullion
2nd October 07, 07:29 AM
However, just sticking to the assertion that you've made that this change in data 'blows holes in anthropogenic global warming'. It doesn't. It's a minor change in data in the continental United States that does not alter the trends, either locally or globally.

The trends are tiny and there is insufficient evidence to attribute it to human industry.



2005 was the hottest year on record. Unless you believe somehow that climate change is a localised phenomenom.

Since when ? The Carboniferous, The Cretacious? The Neolithic era? the 'hottest year since x' stats are all statistically insignificant over geological timescales. The point of the article is that when stats turn up which contradict figures anthropogenic warming advocates have used themselves, they don't mention it, and when somebody points it out, they say 'oh well what really matters are slices of 4 year average, or just this slice of 200 years here'. It's a nonsensical shell game of sliding points of comparison.

bob
2nd October 07, 07:40 AM
The trends are tiny and there is insufficient evidence to attribute it to human industry.



Since when ? The Carboniferous, The Cretacious? The Neolithic era? the 'hottest year since x' stats are all statistically insignificant over geological timescales. The point of the article is that when stats turn up which contradict figures anthropogenic warming advocates have used themselves, they don't mention it, and when somebody points it out, they say 'oh well what really matters are slices of 4 year average, or just this slice of 200 years here'. It's a nonsensical shell game of sliding points of comparison.

I'm trying to decide whether you genuinely fail at understanding or whether you're just too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

You picked the playing field originally Cullion. It was your assertion that a minor change in the data in the US in the past century was a monumental sign from Allah. It changes nothing about the assertion in question (that there is a steady upward trend in global temperatures in the past century, that the past decade is the hottest on record and that 2005, or 1998 depending on how you measure it is the hottest year on record).

If you want to shift the discussion to tens of thousands of years, be my guest. Given your intransigence on this one minor point I'm afraid I'll excuse myself from the room at this point.

Cullion
2nd October 07, 07:46 AM
I'm trying to decide whether you genuinely fail at understanding or whether you're just too stubborn to admit you're wrong.

You picked the playing field originally Cullion. It was your assertion that a minor change in the data in the US in the past century was a monumental sign from Allah.

No I didn't. Have you read the whole thread?



It changes nothing about the assertion in question (that there is a steady upward trend in global temperatures in the past century, that the past decade is the hottest on record and that 2005, or 1998 depending on how you measure it is the hottest year on record).

No, 1998 is not the hottest on record. 1934 was hotter. Have you read the whole thread and the linked articles?



If you want to shift the discussion to tens of thousands of years, be my guest. Given your intransigence on this one minor point I'm afraid I'll excuse myself from the room at this point.

That's the point at which I entered the discussion. If you're not going to make sure your au fait with points already discussed, then don't claim I'm 'shifting the discussion' pages later.

Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis that has not yet made any verifiable predictions, discounts millions of years of climate history and can't be used to justify new taxes.

nihilist
2nd October 07, 12:24 PM
It only seems hotter because you're all headed for hell.

bob
2nd October 07, 03:40 PM
No I didn't. Have you read the whole thread?

For the third time, I was referring to your specific assertion regarding this particular set of data. The rest of the thread is not relevant and if it contains as much deliberate obfuscation as the last two pages, what would be the point?




No, 1998 is not the hottest on record. 1934 was hotter. Have you read the whole thread and the linked articles?

1934 = hottest year on record in US
1998/2005 = hottest year on record globally

Which do you think is more important?





That's the point at which I entered the discussion. If you're not going to make sure your au fait with points already discussed, then don't claim I'm 'shifting the discussion' pages later.

Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis that has not yet made any verifiable predictions, discounts millions of years of climate history and can't be used to justify new taxes.


Again, I'm not going to argue with any of this. You necroed this thread with a hyperbolic statement based on a bogus assertion that you either didn't understand or didn't look closely enough at. That's all I've been saying.

Cullion
2nd October 07, 03:49 PM
For the third time, I was referring to your specific assertion regarding this particular set of data. The rest of the thread is not relevant and if it contains as much deliberate obfuscation as the last two pages, what would be the point?

You'd learn something.




1934 = hottest year on record in US
1998/2005 = hottest year on record globally

Which do you think is more important?



I think facts are important. The point of the post was to illustrate how inconvenient facts get left out of the anthropogenic argument. Neither 1934, 1998 nor 2005 were the hottest years in the last 5000 years. Why do you think the last couple of centuries are so statistically significant? You do realise that coincides with us emerging from a mini-iceage, right ?



Again, I'm not going to argue with any of this. You necroed this thread with a hyperbolic statement based on a bogus assertion that you either didn't understand or didn't look closely enough at. That's all I've been saying.

Please, just read the rest of the thread before coming to a conclusion.