RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Thadius -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 7:10:09 PM)

I had a few other decent links to studies, but lost em with the computer reformat earlier this summer.

I would love to read any other studies, anybody out there has.




Sanity -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 7:20:29 PM)


Yes, it was. What's sad is that there are those who claim that you and I are not qualified to interpret it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Although this was a decent read.

Thanks, that's a good one.

K.





dcnovice -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 8:10:36 PM)

A response to the Robinson article.




dcnovice -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 8:13:10 PM)

And another.




dcnovice -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 8:28:31 PM)

Some background on the Robinsons and OISM.




Thadius -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 8:47:43 PM)

Interesting choice of responses. The 2 "direct" responses only respond to the op-ed piece printed in 1997 or 98. The link I shared contains data from 2006 and 2007... including supporting data from the NCDC at NOAA, and from GISS at NASA... obviously 2 sources that shouldn't be trusted. [8|] I am not saying that their hypothesis is correct, I am just asking for other peer reviewed papers with supporting citations. I know I am just a layman but, I think I can handle trying to make sense of the papers.

Thank you for the little bit of "history" on the organization though.

I wish you well,
Thadius




Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 8:51:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Some background on the Robinsons and OISM.

All very interesting, and admittedly troubling, but... forget Robinson, are the data sets in the PDF accurate?

K.




Sanity -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 8:58:38 PM)


A hit piece on the hit piece.




dcnovice -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:06:19 PM)

quote:

The 2 "direct" responses only respond to the op-ed piece printed in 1997 or 98. The link I shared contains data from 2006 and 2007...


My bad. Apparently the same title was used twice, and the responses I found referred to earlier piece.

The later piece, interestingly, was published not in a climatological or earth science journal, but in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the organ of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, whose Wiki entry is quite interesting.




dcnovice -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:08:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

Some background on the Robinsons and OISM.

All very interesting, and admittedly troubling, but... forget Robinson, are the data sets in the PDF accurate?

K.



I don't have the expertise to rule on that, alas.




kdsub -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:30:48 PM)

For the dangers of greenhouse gases read my link...and for particle emissions read Kirata's link...both are from the EPA.

I think there is more then enough proof of the health hazards of all emissions that it would be responsible and reasonable to reduce these emissions across the board. The fact that this may help with Global warning would be an added benefit.

We do not need man made greenhouse gases to survive so removing them from our environment would not be harmful. If it turns out there was no danger of global warning then our health still would benefit. If there is a danger of global warming then it may spare us some hardships down the line.

Butch




DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:36:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Show me how carbon is a health menace.

(snip)

If anyone truly believes that global warming isn't a threat I urge them to move to a sea shore within 1 meter of sea level and stay put no matter what happens. If you're right you get to live at the sea shore. If you're wrong the rest of us don't have to deal with you any more.


Ever tried putting some ice in a styrofoam cup then filling it to the rim with water? Even with the ice being above the rim, when it melts it doesn't run over the sides of the cup....

I am not going to get into the scientific debate on whether man is or isn't responsible for global warming; there simply isn't enough data to make that determination. Although this was a decent read.

Don't you research who is making claims before you believe them?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

A paper written by a biochemist, his son with no advanced degree at all and a couple of astrophysicists that never under went peer review is not a useful source.





Kirata -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:42:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

whose Wiki entry is quite interesting.

In one of the clinical settings in which I have worked, there was a paranoid schizophrenic who one day began to regal us with his great knowledge by going on about mixing diesel fuel and water. Hoo boy. We thought we'd heard them all, but this was a new one. We put it in our notes for the unit psychiatrist.

DieselNet - Addition of water to the diesel process decreases combustion temperatures and lowers NOx emissions. The most common methods of introducing water are direct injection into the cylinder, a process commercialized in certain marine and stationary diesel engines, and water-in-fuel emulsions. Emulsified fuels, due to increased mixing in the diesel diffusion flame, can be also effective in simultaneous reduction of PM and NOx emissions.

So unh, not to spoil anybody's fun, but there's really only one question here.

ARE THE FUCKING DATA SETS IN THE PDF ACCURATE OR NOT?

If not, we attach the article to the treatment notes and forget it. Otherwise....

K.








ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:52:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Show me how carbon is a health menace.

(snip)

If anyone truly believes that global warming isn't a threat I urge them to move to a sea shore within 1 meter of sea level and stay put no matter what happens. If you're right you get to live at the sea shore. If you're wrong the rest of us don't have to deal with you any more.


Ever tried putting some ice in a styrofoam cup then filling it to the rim with water? Even with the ice being above the rim, when it melts it doesn't run over the sides of the cup....





Hi, Thadius,

The problem with that, though, is that most of the water locked up in ice caps is on land, not floating in the sea. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps hold a volume of almost 8 million cubic miles of water.  Those ice caps are almost entirely on land, so if they melt, all that water is going to be added to the Earth's oceans. That's a lot of water, and that would be where the rise in the sea levels would come from.




DomKen -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:54:49 PM)

It appears that the journal where an earlier version of this article was printed found the data to not be right:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=141

More about the coauthor
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=3

Note that the review articles interpretation of data was contested by the original authors and caused the resignation of most of the editorial staff of the journal. IOW the paper is a lie and shouldn't have gotten through peer review.




Thadius -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 9:58:11 PM)

The data sets are drawn from the sources listed at the bottom of the paper. I named 2 of them earlier (NASA and NOAA), so I would have to answer your question with, as far as I can tell the data seems to be accurate. As you know there are so many ways to present statistics and numbers, that short of doing the research and calculations ourselves there is no absolutes to any of it.

Like I said it was an interesting read. I did notice though, that some folks seem to think it is easier to attack the writers than it is to attack the data they present as facts...




Sanity -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 10:05:51 PM)


This seems to back up the Sargasso Sea graph:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/274/5292/1503




Thadius -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 10:06:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Show me how carbon is a health menace.

(snip)

If anyone truly believes that global warming isn't a threat I urge them to move to a sea shore within 1 meter of sea level and stay put no matter what happens. If you're right you get to live at the sea shore. If you're wrong the rest of us don't have to deal with you any more.


Ever tried putting some ice in a styrofoam cup then filling it to the rim with water? Even with the ice being above the rim, when it melts it doesn't run over the sides of the cup....





Hi, Thaddius,

The problem with that, though, is that most of the water locked up in ice caps is on land, not floating in the sea. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps hold a volume of almost 8 million cubic miles of water.  Those ice caps are almost entirely on land, so if they melt, all that water is going to be added to the Earth's oceans. That's a lot of water, and that would be where the rise in the sea levels would come from.


Hiya Panda,

That is also assuming that the entire ice cap is going to melt, and or that none of it is going to evaporate (which in turn would produce a cooling effect and thus possibly reverse some of the "warming"). As I have stated before, I am not sold on the whole warming or cooling arguments. I personally believe that they are cyclical, I further believe that the cycles cause changes that create the next. Such as the rise in atmospheric CO2 creates increases in the amount of plantlife, which will eventually balance itself out as the excess C02 is converted. I know that is a really simplistic way to look at things, but I am just a simple man.

I wish you well,
Thadius

P.S. I am always interesting in reading data and studies from both sides of the issue, as it is the only way I can form an educated opinion of my own.




Thadius -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 10:27:11 PM)

Are these sources more reliable then?

University of Alaska Fairbanks

or

Princeton

I am fine with you attacking the authors (even though you didn't actually debunk the paper I cited), so I figured I would provide some more papers, with data.... perhaps we can try to discuss data and facts and not who has skeletons in their closets....




FatDomDaddy -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/10/2009 10:39:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

1998 to 2008 was the hottest decade on record.


Record of how long???

Hotter than 1756 BC? 201 BC? 872AD? 1312? 1667? 1906?

How long have there records been kept?? How long have they had ACCURATE records???





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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875