RE: Global Warming- need any more proof?

RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

variation30 -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 5:22:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: awmslave quote: How's about 78* in NorCal when is should be raining so hard we're practically swimming? Global warming means average Earth atmosphere temperature near the surface. Melting permafrost or glaciers are valid pro arguments because they are the result of larger scale temperature increases, local weather is not. Personally, I think, if we can not trust official peer previewed science (some here suggest they lie for money), we are in deep trouble and the Empire is officially dead. and if the melting of permafrost or glaciers was not as expected, would it be viewed as a damning evidence against the hypothesis? of course not, it's claimed that el nino did this - or it is simply not published. as a student of psychology, I'm well acquainted with the pseudo-sciences. getting a large number of incorrect people in a room and having them agree (scientific consensus) does not make an idea a fact. the congregation of science does not seem to grasp this... but this is, of course, assuming that there is even a consensus concerning global warming. "Professor Dennis Bray of Germany and Hans von Storch polled climate scientists to rate the statement, "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?" … They received responses from 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, of whom 44 percent were either neutral or disagreed with the statement… Science magazine helpfully refused to publish the findings, by the way. (p. 157)" and "Dr. Frederick Seitz … revealed that although the IPCC report carries heft due to having been the topic of review and discussion by many scientists, "the report is not what it appears to be — it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page." (p. 300)" http://mises.org/story/3283 the article which quoted the book (I'm not going to buy it so...).

lighthearted -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 5:23:29 PM)
as far back as I can remember, sunny and warm spots in the middle of winter, or at least the California version of winter, are fairly normal. it's why we can never really pack away our summer clothes [:D] earthquake weather? well, it's not really weather...it's that really creepy feeling you get when it's warm outside, the air is very still, and the ants are all going crazy because they know a big one is coming!

samboct -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 5:54:07 PM)
"so if I were to question the validity of a study based upon computer models that factor things like the sun's energy (the most important factor in our weather and climate) as a static number (global constant) and ignore the fact that the sun is a very dynamic entity...I would be equated to a creationist? Let me throw in a few facts to confuse you then. As noted in the post I referenced, there has been some question concerning solar output which is on an 11 year cycle. Data previously correlating global temperature to this cycle only went for 2.5 cycles, so there was still a possibility that the temperature increase was due to increased solar activity- however, further monitoring has shown no correlation between the sun cycle activity (three full cycles now- hence the experiment's been run in triplicate) and the temperature increase that monitoring stations have shown. So no- you wouldn't be equated to a creationist because you're unaware of the state of the science that you criticize- you'd just be ill informed and wallowing in your ignorance. if I were to ask the question 'well...what is the ideal temperature for the planet and why is that the ideal temperature' I am equated to someone who does not believe in the double helix? That's not the question. The question is does the generation of anthropogenic CO2 affect the climate and the answer is yes. And science doesn't work on belief- science works on verifiable hypothesis and data. if I were to question the validty of...scientists who have a lot to gain from propogating this myth for grant money (a few institutes are getting caught fudging the numbers) would I be equated to a holocaust denier? The IPCC studies were meta studies- which means that they collected NO data - they merely analyzed the data already in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Anybody else is welcome to look at the data as well- however, each study used several thousand scientists. It's a lot of work. Furthermore, roughly 3/4 of the scientists which did the latest report were not involved with the earlier report. Thus, there would have to be upwards of three- four thousand scientists agreeing to be bribed and falsify conclusions. I don't know about holocaust denier- how about a believer in UFO coverups? what about a model that we are unable to recreate and test, that utilizes static numbers for dynamic entities, that ignores or simply cannot recognize many variables contributing to the study, and that repeatedly ignores contradictory data as outliers or mistakes do you find so objective or scientific? If a human jumps off a roof and lands on their head, thereby dropping dead- we're also unable to recreate the event exactly, but I'm pretty sure the theory of gravity is robust enough to apply. The idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a relatively straightforward experiment. If you turn the question around, you may be able to see what you're asking, i.e. we know that increased CO2 levels should raise the temperature of the planet- what would stop this from happening? This stuff isn't that hard or complex-there's just an awful lot of data to wade through. perhaps you make up for your lack of knowledge concerning epistemology or your lack of ability to think independently with your fervent love for pop-science. if that's what does it for you, fantastic...just don't parade it about as something it is not." You know what they say about the word ASS- U- ME? Well, you just made a big one. I have a doctorate in bioinorganic chemistry and I've taken exams on this topic back in grad school over 20 years ago. You may not be able to distinguish pop science from real science- but I make a living doing so. Sam

corysub -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 6:57:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: redwoodgirl How's about 78* in NorCal when is should be raining so hard we're practically swimming? Totaly felt like eathquake weather this morning, talk about nervous [sm=hardlimit.gif] Are you trying to make some of us jealous?? It's 26* here in New Jersey going down to a high in the mid-20's by Wednesday with a wind/chill of 14!! There are blizzards in Illinois and Ohio...and your complaining about 78* I'm ready for "global warming"....pleaseeeeeeeeeee....!!

FirmhandKY -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 7:23:15 PM)
FR: "The ICE CAPS ARE MELTING! THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING!" No, wait .... quote: Science Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979 Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago. Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close. ... The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions. Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began. ... Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. ... In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing. Ooops! [8\|] Firm

samboct -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 7:58:15 PM)
"Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close." As noted earlier- weather is measured in hours/days/weeks/months. Climate change is measured in years. Also- isolated regions don't refute the overall finding that the earth's temperature is increasing. Recall that CO2's lifetime in the atmosphere is approx. 75 years. Yes, there are non-anthropogenic contributions of CO2 that can outweigh the anthropogenic contributions. So? If the data were perfect- then I'd say it's a hoax. I suspect much of the problem over this issue of climate change comes from the difficulty of extrapolating what happens with changes in temperature. That the earth's temperature is going to rise over the next several decades looks to be extremely likely unless an unknown process kicks in. What that temperature increase does is guesswork. I certainly won't dispute that there's been a great deal of melodrama over the possible ill effects of this temperature increase. While rising or falling water levels get a lot of press, what worries me are crop failures and the increase in tropical diseases that we're likely to face. Dengue is spreading and is endemic in countries ranging from China to India and may be showing up in Mexico and Texas. Our current food supply is largely dependent on monocultures that require a relatively narrow temperature window. For anyone who remembers- was Y2K a non-event because the preventative measures were successful, or was it all a hoax? Sam

FirmhandKY -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 8:31:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close." As noted earlier- weather is measured in hours/days/weeks/months. Climate change is measured in years. Also- isolated regions don't refute the overall finding that the earth's temperature is increasing. Recall that CO2's lifetime in the atmosphere is approx. 75 years. Yes, there are non-anthropogenic contributions of CO2 that can outweigh the anthropogenic contributions. So? If the data were perfect- then I'd say it's a hoax. I suspect much of the problem over this issue of climate change comes from the difficulty of extrapolating what happens with changes in temperature. That the earth's temperature is going to rise over the next several decades looks to be extremely likely unless an unknown process kicks in. What that temperature increase does is guesswork. I certainly won't dispute that there's been a great deal of melodrama over the possible ill effects of this temperature increase. While rising or falling water levels get a lot of press, what worries me are crop failures and the increase in tropical diseases that we're likely to face. Dengue is spreading and is endemic in countries ranging from China to India and may be showing up in Mexico and Texas. Our current food supply is largely dependent on monocultures that require a relatively narrow temperature window. For anyone who remembers- was Y2K a non-event because the preventative measures were successful, or was it all a hoax? Sam As noted earlier- weather is measured in hours/days/weeks/months. Climate change is measured in years. Why is "years" the correct yardstick? Why not centuries? Millennium? Or Eons? Firm

redwoodgirl -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 8:56:00 PM)
looks like most of you are having a great debate here.[sm=argue.gif] i so very humbly apologise for misterming anything in my post. today is was amazingly warm for the season, and very still, in CA these are sometimes signs that there might be an earthquake. Bush and Gore were not on my mind at all, and im so very sorry its cold over the pond. [sm=abducted.gif]

rexrgisformidoni -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 9:16:02 PM)
If this "warming" is partly our fault as a species, then the associated diseases and crop failures that may occur might be ole ma natures way of knocking us down a peg. but I am not a scientist, and quite frankly don't care one way or the other what happens. I can't do anything about it, so I don't worry about it.

samboct -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/12/2009 9:36:09 PM)
"As noted earlier- weather is measured in hours/days/weeks/months. Climate change is measured in years. Why is "years" the correct yardstick? Why not centuries? Millennium? Or Eons?" Simple- because the x-axis of the plot of rising anthropogenic CO2 concentration is measured in years for practicality- decades work fine too. Centuries or millenia don't because there has only been a dramatic change in CO2 since the 1850s IIRC- and it's not a linear relationship- think it's continuing to increase dramatically since 1950 as well. There's nothing that says that you can't use a longer time scale- only that it's pretty boring to look at. Sam

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 12:44:07 AM)
You're tilting at windmills, Sam. I suspect that many of the GCC deniers are the same folks who sign petitions to ban Dihydrogen monoxide as an environmental pollutant more toxic than polychlorinated biphenyls, such is their grasp of science. [;)][;)][;)][;)] I would really like GCC to be NOT occuring, because I don't want my nieces and nephews to grow up on a planet that is slowly becoming incapable of sustaining our contemporary civilization. Alas, despite what I would like to believe, GCC is an inescapable fact.

corysub -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 1:33:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster You're tilting at windmills, Sam. I suspect that many of the GCC deniers are the same folks who sign petitions to ban Dihydrogen monoxide as an environmental pollutant more toxic than polychlorinated biphenyls, such is their grasp of science. [;)][;)][;)][;)] I would really like GCC to be NOT occuring, because I don't want my nieces and nephews to grow up on a planet that is slowly becoming incapable of sustaining our contemporary civilization. Alas, despite what I would like to believe, GCC is an inescapable fact. I think there would be universal agreement that climate change is an inescapable fact. The issue, however, is are we going to destroy our economy, waste more trillions of dollars that we don't have to obsess with the insignificant impact that humans have on climate change...or spend the money to for example, build nuclear plants which are the cleanest, efficient and, contrary to hollywood scare movies, safe. Volcanic eruptions have a dramatic and immediate impact on global temperatures and probably are THE major risk to human survival on the planet. The following quote is a fragment from the link below.. Ash column generated by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines Luzon volcanic arc, on June 12, 1991. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo occurred three days later on June 15, 1991, and was one of the largest eruptions of this century. The climactic Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere this century, although smaller than the estimated disturbances from the eruptions of Tambora in 1815 and Krakatau in 1883. Sulfate aerosol formed in the stratosphere from sulfur dioxide in the Pinatubo cloud increased the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space. Consequently, the Earth's surface cooled in the three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees ( Fahrenheit scale) at the height of the effect. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.html Mt. St Helen and the Yellowstone caldera in particular pose a bigger potential threat to the environment than hair spray.....at least that's my opinion, and I don't use hair spray....not much left to spray....

ArticMaestro -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 1:55:54 AM)
Climate change is indeed real, the climate has never been static. It is always in the process of changing. There is no temperature the planet is supposed to be. Up in Alaska we are having the coldest year in a very long time, setting all sorts of records. The Farmers Almanac predicted it, and says we are entering a cooling phase for the next decade or so. But that is not relevant to long term Climate change. A cold or warm decade doesnt mean anything more than a cool day in spring or a hot day in fall. My big question about the GCC industry (movement? whatever it is it has deniers who must be chastised) and its scientists is Kyoto. If this stuff is real it matters not a whit where the Co2 comes from. Yet despite the terible urgency cited by the worlds scientists, large areas of the globe were exempted. How the scientists could approve of a plan that would just move industry to China, and increase the amount of lead mercury ect along with the Co2, is kind of beyond me? How could they support such a nonsense plan if they thoght it really was a dire emergency? Never gotten a real answer to that question..... I am not a bioinorganic Scientist, which everyone knows is just fancy word for climatologist. We all know that having training in one scientific field, makes you an expert on other sceintific fields. But I can see another explanation for the rise in Climate we are seeing. This is radical, but there will be real research into it before long. A lot is being learned about past volcanic eruptions. The idea that Volcanos put out so much Co2 that they are causing Warming has been completely discredited. They don't, at least none in the past few million years. Volcanos cause "nuclear winters" cooling the planet. The big ones blot out the sky for decades. A cynic might think that scientists want to start measuring in the 1850s beacuse that is when the effects of the Karakatoa volcano eruption in the 1790s began wearing off. It was called the year with out a summer. Early Americans record it snowing in July, and the crop failures was one of the main causes of the French Revolution. We know why grapes quit growing in the Middle ages in England. Again Karakato, in the 1200s it blew massivley. Natives in Oregon tell legends about the massive Tsunami from it. Chinese and Europeon monks recorded the sun not shining for almost a decade. A lot of this stuff is just being learned. The glaciers have been shrinking for over 10,000 years punctuated by cold snaps that cause them to occasionally surge. Volcanos are begining to appear to account for that. Asteroids may also be involved, such as the recent papers on hte end of the Clovis culture in North America. It may have been an air burst meteorite, which also can put so much crap intot he sky it blots out the sun. Mt St Helens produced a recordable drop in the amount of sunlight and a small temp drop for a decade. And in the scale of things Mt St Helens was small. It may very well be that we are in the midst of a 10,000 year warming trend, occasionally cooled by Volcanos and Meteorites. We do know it was warmer 2000 years ago than now. As the glaciers have receded in the past 50 years (I live in Alaska, most are indeed receeding fast), ruins of villages have popped out all over the world. The sea level seems to have risen quite a bit since the Bronze age also. Or maybe thats all crazy talk....

Evility -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 2:46:22 AM)
Supposed to be in the teens this week in Georgia. GEORGIA. I know it's winter but still, this is Georgia. So much for your global warming.

Crush -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 5:50:05 AM)
We just need to get a lot of butterflies to fly..the "butterfly effect"...Chaos Theory Is there any effect from manmade sources on climate? Sure. Is the effect significant? No, not as long as those damn butterflies are out there causing typhoons.

Dnomyar -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 5:57:31 AM)
Im sitting here at work looking out the window at the falling white stuff. Al Gore is a lousy weather forcaster.

servantforuse -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 6:00:09 AM)
The normal amount of snow in Milwaukee is 51". In 2007 we had 110". So far in 2008 we got 45" in the month of December alone. It is now 8 above 0. Our high tomorrow will be -2..It might warm a little by Saturday. I also think it's a money grab. Al Gore made fortune from selling 'carbon credits'. What a bunch of bull....

samboct -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 6:19:54 AM)
HK- you may be right. Can't argue with UFO people or Scientologists- it's a belief, not based on science. To the folks that think nuclear power is a solution- please read this thread- http://www.collarchat.com/m_1831230/mpage_3/key_/tm.htm#2329984 I wrote some comments on post #47 to debunk some of the nuclear industries claims. "My big question about the GCC industry (movement? whatever it is it has deniers who must be chastised) and its scientists is Kyoto. If this stuff is real it matters not a whit where the Co2 comes from. Yet despite the terible urgency cited by the worlds scientists, large areas of the globe were exempted. How the scientists could approve of a plan that would just move industry to China, and increase the amount of lead mercury ect along with the Co2, is kind of beyond me? How could they support such a nonsense plan if they thoght it really was a dire emergency? Never gotten a real answer to that question..... " AFAIK Kyoto was a voluntary agreement amongst heavily industrialized/wealthy nations to curb carbon dioxide levels by relatively modest amounts starting in 2008. (different date?) In contrast to the economic disaster forecast by the Bush administration, none of the signatories seem to have had major economic setbacks, although the largest CO2 emitter at the time (us) does seem to have suffered economic disaster from different causes. Seems to me that most of the bellyaching about not signing the Kyoto protocol was due to economics- not science, and the economics of this administration, like most other areas, have proven to be wrong. Nor did Kyoto have anything to do with moving our manufacturing capacity to China- we didn't sign the agreement. Our wonderful financial system said we don't need manufacturing to make money- we can make money without having a factory in this country- and that drove manufacturers to locate in China. This is called "hiding the body"- i.e. manufacturing has been able to make more money than financial services throughout the centuries- so let's get rid of it so nobody catches on to our Ponzi scheme. Please try to apportion blame where it is due. I am not a bioinorganic Scientist, which everyone knows is just fancy word for climatologist. We all know that having training in one scientific field, makes you an expert on other sceintific fields. The gold standard in scientific publication is "peer reviewed research". Thesis committees in graduate school often have reviewers outside the student's field to give additional perspective. I have served as a reviewer for fuel cell grants as an example, and that too, is not considered bioinorganic chemistry. As you note- I am not an "expert" in the field of climate change- but I've attended meetings and gone to talks by people who are- and been part of the Q + A sessions afterwards. The science going on here isn't that difficult- it's just a lot of data collection and statistics that make it challenging. Difficult science to me are things like fluid dynamics, metamaterials optical properties, magnetic materials storage (look at the physics behind a single cell on a disk and how it actually gets written to- I'm lost in 5 minutes.), theoretical quantum calculations, pulse sequences for NMR or MRI (and I did a lot of NMR spectroscopy when I was actually in a lab.)- stuff like that. I could probably keep going for a long time- but I suspect you get the gist of it. Sam

FirmhandKY -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 6:23:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct "As noted earlier- weather is measured in hours/days/weeks/months. Climate change is measured in years. Why is "years" the correct yardstick? Why not centuries? Millennium? Or Eons?" Simple- because the x-axis of the plot of rising anthropogenic CO2 concentration is measured in years for practicality- decades work fine too. Centuries or millenia don't because there has only been a dramatic change in CO2 since the 1850s IIRC- and it's not a linear relationship- think it's continuing to increase dramatically since 1950 as well. There's nothing that says that you can't use a longer time scale- only that it's pretty boring to look at. Well, it almost seems like "you" are picking the cause first, and then using the best scale to best backup the argument for that "cause". Is there evidence that carbon is causing the rise in temps, or is the rise in temps causing the rise in carbon levels? Firm

Termyn8or -> RE: Global Warming- need any more proof? (1/13/2009 7:23:37 AM)
Actually KY there is evidence of both, and it becomes the proverbial chicken or egg dilemma. I deal with such dilemmae quite often in the electronics field and the only solution is to isolate the effects one way or another. Unfortunately this is not possible when it comes to this field. Another problem is that some people treat science like a democracy, it is not. Just because more scientists believe one theory rather than another, it does not make it correct. T

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875